Change Your Image
jaspermcc
Reviews
Page Eight (2011)
Desperately boring
It seemed boring, trite, clichéd, you name it. Bill Nighy is a caricature of everything he's done before. I gave up after 20 minutes it was so mind-numbing. The dialogue was not witty and intelligent. It was boring.
You need 10 lines of text, IMDb, really?
Nighy's daughter's angst of pregnancy and distance from her father. My word, how trite and boring can you get? You can imagine it, but it won't be as boring as Hare's realisation.
Tension between minister and head of spy department? Boring.
Nighy's interminable almost stuttering delivery? Give me a break, Bill.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
as bad as the last stand
My mistake was going to see this optimistic that it might be decent. Unfortunately the writers and director had other plans for my evening.
Badly written, over complicated and strewn with pointless characters (Gambit, Cyclops and Emma Frost, for example). The dialogue was bad, and the fight scenes seemed to have Wolverine and Sabretooth running, or loping, at each other on a loop.
Things weren't explained, or were so badly thought out as to be preposterous e.g. the marvel(!) of the adamantium injections, and Wolverine's ability to instinctively use his now unbreakable, factory fresh, beautifully shaped claws in scenarios that would have torn his arm off only minutes previously.
The sequence up to and including the titles I quite liked, but it was a very steep downhill from there.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Stick to partying, Mr Ratner, you're not a film-maker
There are so many problems with this film, it's impossible to discuss without some spoilers, so I apologise for that. For a start, it's quite boring. I'm not sure how that's possible for an action movie running 104 minutes, but it is. The action scenes aren't terribly exciting, and quite a few of them are a step back or too similar to scenes from 1 or 2. Storm's and Wolverine's fights, for instance, seem all too familiar. Juggernaught running through walls? Wasn't that a Levi's ad? The big finale? Bit dull, really.
Mmmm, Cyclops bumped off in the first 10 minutes? I don't remember that in the Dark Phoenix saga. This 'origin' of the Phoenix is slightly daft, too, and makes the name utterly nonsensical. Nor is there any of the evil from Phoenix. Her eyes go dark and her skin grey, but there seems to be little malice in what she does. There's some debris circulating around her, sure, but the deaths of people in this is more a kind of accident than deliberate. Where's the Dark Phoenix who went out and devoured a sun? Wolverine watches Xavier reduced to a flurry of ashes, and instead of taking off after Phoenix and the brotherhood of mutants, he falls to his knees by the Prof's wheelchair, 'consoled' by a sobbing Storm. It'd be funny if it wasn't so bad. Speaking of funny, Xavier's funeral. Oh dear lord who wrote this garbage? There were quite a few pointless wasted characters - Rogue and Angel particularly.
I won't say that there weren't a couple of moments that captured some spark, but they were very few and far between, and mostly involved the utterly beautiful Famke Jannsen (I might be showing some bias, I don't know). Halle Berry was utterly wasted, again, Kelsey Grammar was a blue Frasier, really (what was with the 50's glove hands, they stood out a bit?). Everyone's dialogue was bad. The story was bad. The bit with the bridge? What was the point? Sorry about the crummy review, but this really was a crummy film.
p.s. Weren't the x-men supposed to be a well trained bunch? Rogue was looking quite chunky to me. Apologies to Miss Paquin.
Sin City (2005)
Loved the comic - hated the movie
But this was just the comic come to life - how could I love it and hate the movie? Well, it's life, Jim, and not as we know it. The ridiculous hard-boiled goes over well on paper, but as soon as someone starts to read it word for word, oh dear. Which brings me to my next point: this whole green-screen acting thing has got to go. The actors don't understand it, and can't work with it. The action wasn't all that good either. I always imagined Dwight with the athleticism of a cat. Rodriguez can't bring that to life. Nor can he and Rourke brink the enormous hulk that ought to be Marv to the screen convincingly. Just looked like an ordinary guy in a mask. Some of it looked good, some of it so-so.
I'll stick with bringing it to life in my head.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Looks great... Errr. That all there is.
My vote history for Star Wars goes 9, 10, 8, 5, 5 (for IV V VI I II) and 3 for this utter travesty of a film. It looks beautiful. Almost everything, apart from some of the Clone Troopers looks solid, and real. Pity about the dialogue and script, acting and delivery, not a single word of which was remotely believable. The plot was OK. Much better than I and II.
I can't understand how in this film (and to a slightly lesser extent the other two) the human aspect of it was made so badly. Surely people watching rough cuts, the filming, you name it, would have spotted just how awful it was going to be? Still, I guess the stills look great, and that must have been what was considered important.
I'm looking forward to the Special Editions of these, where George Lucas redoes the rickety script with something (anything!) better, and CGIs in some acting.
Melinda and Melinda (2004)
False and boring
Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.
I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.
Alfie (2004)
get a money-back guarantee first
I asked for my money back, but they refused. Don't make the same mistake.
I wanted to see Alien vs Predator, but my other half wanted to see this, so, to throw the dog a bone, I aquiesced. Sheer torture. After 10 minutes I was struggling, but kept my peace. After an hour, she suggested that, and I'm really paraphrasing here "this isn't great. Shall we leave, and not waste another hour" (there was more foul language, but like I said I was paraphrasing). I jumped at the chance. Surprisingly few other people left.
Now, this is only the second film I've ever walked out of (first one 'Eyes wide shut'. I can sit through real garbage. I even managed to sit all the way through 'the Piano' for goodness' sake. But this was excruciating. Jude Law is terrible at the whole Alfie thing. The story is painful. I guess everyone else did their best, but there wasn't much to work with.
I don't imagine AVP will be better, but at least it'll keep my attention.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Better than the first two, but still not magical
Hindered again by a wooden lead, the Harry Potter films will never catch the spark that's in the books. Cuaron definitely makes a better fist of it than Chris Columbus, and the appearance of the film is good. All the other parts are played well, even Gary Oldman manages to restrain himself for once.
The funniest thing for me was Michael Gambon as Dumbledore and his bizarre choice of accent. He sounded like Dennis Taylor (the snooker player). I couldn't help but snigger.
Overall, not a bad kid's (but not too young) film, I'd say. I didn't expect any more, and it didn't disappoint. 6.5/10 for me.
American Gun (2002)
Quite cliched, quite contrived, ultimately quite uninteresting
James Coburn has always, for me, been a powerful actor. Here he seems weak, not just because of his obvious physical discomfort, but also because he seems very uncomfortable with the material. I don't mean generally anti-weapon material, I mean weak writing and direction. Coburn seems unsure of his acting, and some of the scenes come out looking like near enough's good enough. And it isn't good enough.
The story of the gun involved seems remarkably eventful, and the tracing of it over so many owners seems preposterous (with some great Deus ex Machina jumps). The flashbacks to WWII also seem contrived. None of it seems in any way realistic.
Perhaps it wasn't as bad as I've made out, but I just didn't warm to it at all. 5 out of 10.
Troy (2004)
I liked the big wooden horsie - not the wooden film
Well, the horse was good. I liked the horse quite a lot. The designers must have spent quite a while designing that horse, with its nice abstract shape. Very pleasing in proportions, and a very effective made from scrap appearance.
The rest of the film is equally wooden, unfortunately. The acting, script (oh dear god, the script), direction, quite a lot of the fight direction, even. Awful.
I now have to pad this review for IMDb submission. The horse had nice multi-coloured panelling, and the removable sections from where the greeks emerged were cleverly disguised.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Superfluous. OK, but superfluous.
I enjoyed KBI immensely, despite the square peg in a round hole anime section and some typical Tarantino trademarks I could live without, but I had a feeling that the 'sequel' wouldn't live up to it. Like the Matrix, I was right.
From the number of 10/10s this is getting, obviously other people think I'm wrong. But this should never have been a separate film. The amount of plot and action that we're treated to here could have been squeezed into the 40 minutes easily excisable from volume 1. And then we might have been spared some of the crap QT inflicted on us in both volumes (David Carradine's monologue, for instance).
Viewing the two in one sitting might improve matters, but that might also highlight the filmmaker's indulgence.
I give it 6/10, because I liked the music and the fights, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that QT will never better Pulp Fiction.
Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness (2003)
Not as bad as everyone says
I started this game with a certain amount of trepidation after reading the awful reviews, but having loved all the others I couldn't avoid it forever. IT IS NOT THAT BAD. Sure, the controls are a bit odd, sometimes, but just to check, I revisited Tomb Raider (I), and it was odd, too. Hard to run in a straight line even in that one.
Sure there are some things I might change - odd camera angles, some of the jumps are quite hit and miss, the combat is a little annoying, why have jump and roll swapped places?, why does the stick not control the menus? - but the puzzles, backdrops, vast chambers etc. are all vintage Tomb Raider and as good as any of the others, IMO, it just takes a few hours to get used to the controls.
Overall, I find this game pretty satisfying, and am glad I ignored the reviews when I eventually bought it.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
The sum of the parts...
...will hopefully be.. Err.. Hang on. How does that go?
As a standalone film, this doesn't work for me. It's fairly entertaining, but goes nowhere. A revenge film, with huge amounts of death-dealing, but the whole tapestry is left unfinished and we've only seen a few threads. Hopefully when the second volume comes out, it will come together.
Much as I can't stand Tarantino as a person (not that I've met him, I just imagine from the interviews I've seen that he's one of the most annoying people on the planet) I think he's a pretty good craftsman in this industry. He's certainly thrown a few good scenes in here. But there are a few things that are jarring, like the anime and the black and white.
Another reviewer mentioned the sherrif's sunglasses as an example of Tarantino's depth. Every character is thought out in great detail. The way I see that is that Tarantino finds it impossible to be subtle. If it were a throwaway moment, fine, but it's right in our faces, and then for good measure the deputy is the sherrif's son. Why isn't he out looking for the Bandit?
The cast was great and the soundtrack excellent, but I'll give this a 7 until I see the whole thing.
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
2 weak 2 work
Thank goodness, I thought, Vin Diesel isn't in this one. However, Vin Diesel's performance in the last one might have distracted me from just how wooden Paul Walker is. Unluckily for him this time, his co-star, Tyrese, is on a par with him, and they both suck. The first race scene is great, I have to say, and there is a real sense of speed, but it's downhill from there, that's for sure. The dialogue is lowest common denominator prison-speak from start to finish, and the plot, well, "what plot?" might cover that.
Also, the ratio of t&a/cars was much lower in the film than the trailer.
(p.s., how can they have asked a guy with the skinniest legs imaginable to play Superman? Phew, he turned it down.)
Bruce Almighty (2003)
Trivial
Although this made me laugh in quite a few places, it was ultimately very dissappointing. I think it just comes down to how utterly utterly shallow the script was. Perhaps it was a well-hidden message that people shouldn't be so shallow, I don't know. Then again, for God himself to knock the ideals of world peace and feeding the hungry as beauty pageant contestant cliches seemed a little harsh and unnecessary.
Welcome to Collinwood (2002)
welcome to boringville
Buyoed by the trailers, I expected to be at least mildly entertained with such a strong cast. Not a chance. This was just terrible.
Sam Rockwell is the only actor here who emerges unscathed, putting in a strong performance. The usually infallible William H Macy is terrible. I can only hope he was prompted into the most apalling overacting I've seen since Sly Stallone in Judge Dredd by the obviously incompetent writer/directors.
I've seen worse, but if I were you, I wouldn't waste the time watching this on tv.
Bulletproof Monk (2003)
Remember that two word review for 'Shark Sandwich'?
Kung-fu, Chow Yun-Fat, Seann William Scott, how could you go wrong?
Answer: Get Paul Hunter to direct it, and get Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris to write it.
I've never heard of these guys before, and I pray I never do again. I cannot put into words how bad this film was. Why did I not trust the other comments? Why oh why did I not leave the cinema? Why oh why did ever scene seem as though it had been filmed over a period of months, and every second the characters reacted differently? Why oh why was the music _so_awful? How could kung-fu fighting seem so disjointed and confusing? What was up with Chow Yun-Fat's voice? If you want to sit slack-jawed and nauseous for 90 minutes, knock yourself out. Do not see this garbage.
Equilibrium (2002)
Derivative, contrived, cliched - fantastic
I'd been looking forward to this one, and for the first few minutes I was unhappily cringing at its ludicrous setup (slightly appeased by my joy at winning the 'Christian Bale will appear shirtless and sweaty within 5 minutes' bet). All was forgiven, though, as it is fantastically well done. If you've read 1984 you will recognize almost all the characters, Fahrenheit 471, the Matrix et al supply their own contributions, but this film takes all those cliches and makes them its own.
The action sequences are stupendous while the tragic love story is touching. Even the appearance of a cute puppy didn't strike me as too far-fetched. Strongly recommended.
(British viewers will be happy to see comedian Brian Conley's film career taking off, too)
Daredevil (2003)
Action OK, Dialogue comically bad (as bad as this pun)
I seem to come out of every film I see these days wondering who wrote the dialogue. The witty banter between Elektra and Matt Murdock was anything but. It was garbage. The action scenes weren't bad, and Colin Farrell was pretty good as Bullseye (although I was disappointed when he didn't appear in a blue and white spandex outfit after asking Kingpin for one). The overall tone of the film was just ruined by bad dialogue.
Signs (2002)
A laid back Independence Day
There were SIGNS that this was going to be good. Shyamalan's last few films (especially Unbreakable) were SIGNS that this would be good. Another SIGN that it would be good was the very creepy trailer. I began to notice some SIGNS that I might like to see it, like when I said to my friends, do you want to see this film? A SIGN that I was actually going to see it was when I was buying my ticket in the cinema lobby.
After it started, I began to notice some SIGNS that it wasn't that good. The first half of the movie is pretty slow. Then the aliens start to appear (first rule of filmmaking, don't show the alien!!!!), which was a SIGN that it was pretty bad. The ridiculous denoument was another SIGN of a not very well thought out film. Perhaps I'm seeing too many SIGNS, but that appears to be common with respect to this movie.
I do have to say that everyone acted well (the kids were terrific, and I don't think that often), the direction was slick (but possibly a little too laid back), but it was all let down by a very poor story. And the foundation of a good movie is a story.
The Sweetest Thing (2002)
This should sink some careers
Absolutely terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible. I can't think where to begin. I might have laughed once, but I can't be sure. Ah, Roger Kumble, if anyone lets him direct a film after this, I'd be amazed. Actually, if the entire cast and crew were shunned after this, it'd probably be for the best. And that's coming from someone who thinks Cameron Diaz is quite hot. To sum up: terrible.
Vanilla Sky (2001)
interesting but patchy
I haven't seen the original film of which this is a remake, but what the hell. Terrific opening scene of a empty Manhattan. Cruise, Diaz (and Kurt Russell) are well worth watching, but this is a film let down by a mediocre script, abysmal incidental musak (really, I though someone had left a 'phone on hold by the microphone _all_ the time), and unappealing performances by the rest of the cast.
Mystery Men (1999)
well worth the time
There seems to be divided opinion about this film, so I may as well add in my 2 cent's worth. It's pretty good. I have it on DVD, and I watch it nearly as often as I watch the Frighteners. If you didn't like the Frighteners, however, I'd a) leave this out and b) watch the Frighteners repeatedly until I did like it :).
Among the main characters, there isn't a bad performance (Claire Forlani - ding dong!), the sets are good, the plot isn't bad, and the script sets up some great interaction between all the characters ("there isn't enough beer in the world, Spleen, I'm sorry").
Now, where did I leave my address book? It's denim, with a picture of a kitten on it. Says 'Hang loose'....
The Office (2001)
some of the best modern British comedy
Mackenzie Crook was in my lift in work this morning (yes, a second series is on the way) which reminded me to make a comment on this show.
This is a beautifully crafted sit-com, in a similar vein to Alan Partridge, it's true, but it's possibly even better than Partridge. The characters are appallingly believable, funny, even loveable.
The interplay between _all_ the characters is written to perfection, from office 'rivalry' (Tim/Gareth), romance (Tim/Dawn), sycophancy (Gareth/David), and patronising (David/everyone) only bringing the most gut-wrenchingly cringeworthy scenarios imaginable.
We can only hope that the second series is so good (if Tim is the boss, who's going to be assistant (to the) manager??).
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Loses _everything_ in the translation
Well, having enjoyed the books, I was looking forward to this. As usual, I was greatly disappointed.
A terrific cast was wasted by plodding direction that instilled no wonder or excitement anywhere. The script seemed pretty faithful, sure, but maybe that was the problem. The Quidditch match stuck in my mind as being exceptionally dull. We lost all the interest and build up of the training, and the execution of the actual match was very uninvolving.
The kids who played Ron and Hermione were excellent, but Daniel Radcliff displayed no discernable acting ability beyond dropping his jaw and widening his eyes. Perhaps this is Chris Columbus's fault. I'm sure the rest of it was.