Kalifire's Reviews

Life's Too Short (2011–2013)

1/10

Barely coherent comedy from a hugely overrated personality

24 November 2011

For month prior to this being broadcast, Gervais was busy congratulating himself about this on his marketing reel, sorry, blog. We were told this was the funniest thing he'd done, so expectations were high; this was the man who co-created The Office, after all.

As it turns out, pre-declaring his own brilliance was a misjudgment, because this isn't very good. No, worse than that, this is terrible. It's not that it's offensive (though it tries to be), and it's not that it's badly acted (though nobody is going to win any BAFTAs for this), it's just badly written.

The entire premise is that a documentary crew is filming Warwick Davis, quite inexplicably. That tenuous premise is then stretched beyond breaking point to allow a series of interactions between celebrities and Gervais, and put Davis in a sequence of set-pieces that essentially invite the audience to laugh at a dwarf in compromising situations. There's literally no more to it than that.

Life's Too Short gets the odd chuckle, but by episode three, where we plum the depths of try-hard television by engineering awkward situations for the sake of it, at the expense of any laughter whatsoever, it's clear this has become a car-crash event for the writers. Fortunately for them, they have an army of sycophants who'd rather tell each other that a wheel-bound child being called gay and being unable to get up stairs is HILARIOUS rather than use their discernment to consider that it's not remotely funny; rather just an attempt to raise eyebrows in a distinctly witless fashion.

For the discerning comedy fan who wants to believe that Gervais and Merchant are as good as we all hoped they'd be ten years ago, avoid this like the plague.

16 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Invention of Lying (2009)

1/10

About as much as you can expect from Ricky Gervais

4 October 2009

When I heard about the many cameos and the premise of this movie, I was quite excited. Then I found out it's a Gervais project and my heart sank a bit. You see, Gervais isn't actually very funny. There's an irritating smugness running through his work, combined with a common 'one joke' theme. This is very evident here; Gervais takes a joke that a sketch shows like Mr. Show or SNL would nail in three minutes, and drags it out painfully over 90 minutes.

It doesn't help that the premise isn't nailed properly - it's not that people can't lie, they just feel compelled to say what's on their mind. After about ten minutes and a couple of laughs, it becomes clear that there really isn't anything more to this and you sit awkwardly in your seat as an over-rated comic relentlessly tries to make something of this idea. We lurch clumsily from romcom clichés, to out-of-place *serious* acting (i.e. Gervais crying), to messianic type religious rants, to a desperate attempt to wrap it all up focusing on a relationship that was never believable to begin with.

This movie plain sucks. A laugh-free, awkward experience and entirely unenjoyable. Gervais may put this down to a 'British backlash' against his work but the reality is we've had so much of him that we've now been able to see that he's not actually very good. Your time will come too, America.

16 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Life and Times of Vivienne Vyle (2007– )

10/10

Angry, Dark, Probing Satire - Massively Under-appreciated and Misunderstood

16 February 2009

This is a really, really good comedy. We tend to live in a culture where if something isn't making us laugh every few seconds, it gets overlooked. Such is the case with this show. The target is the repugnant daytime chat shows that exploit misery and anguish for cheap light entertainment through armchair psychology and stereotypical prejudice. There's a very tangible anger running through this show that elevates it from satire into something very biting and raw.

Saunders and Richardson are magnificent, Richardson particularly. Theirs are intelligent performances, superbly delivered. The show is co-written by Tanya Byron, a clinical psychologist and the show itself is largely about the manipulation and exploitation of emotion and vulnerability in the name of greed and media status. Will it make you laugh hysterically for 30 minutes a time? No. Is it designed to do so? No. Is criticism of it for not doing so therefore an epic failure of understanding and appreciation of dark comedic satire? Absolutely.

10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

7/10

Knowingly Absurd, Self-Consciously Ridiculous

7 January 2009

The sole reason I watched this is because I love Paul Giamatti. It's easily the most ridiculous action film I have ever seen, but done with tongue placed as far as it can get into cheek. It's self-consciously absurd, with next to no plot, zero character development, awful dialogue and loads of guns. The performances are perfectly in sync with the rest of the movie (both Giamatti and Clive Owen play it completely straight, hitting just the right daft tone), and the whole thing achieves what it set out to do. It reminded me of the kind of movie you might watch at 11pm when you're 15 and it's way past your bedtime, then you go to school the next day, ask if anyone else saw it and it turns out all your mates did and you decide between you all that it's the best movie ever, talking endlessly about "did you see that bit when..." and saying things like "that was well bad!!" with big grins and a strong sense that you've just had a good long look through a window meant for grown ups. It's not good for anything much more than that, and nor was it ever meant to be. I quite enjoyed it!

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Religulous (2008)

4/10

Funny in places, but a poor job at persuasion

4 January 2009

Arguments against the religious and their theology are nothing new, and Maher isn't treading on any new ground here. In this self-acclaimed 'promotion of doubt', which comes across more like travelling around having a pop at people and editing it to make them look even more stupid then they already are for believing the things they do, Maher doesn't even pretend he's presenting a partisan perspective. His arguments are ill thought through, badly articulated and delivered with an aura of smugness that makes for very uncomfortable viewing, and I'm on his side! There's certainly a need for fundamentalists and more moderate religious people to be challenged on their integrity and morality for believing the things they do, but this isn't the way to do it.

Oh sure, it's funny - most often by the often horrific own-goals the interviewees make themselves, but there's no engagement here, no debate, no attempt to conversate in a real or progressive way, just atheistic point scoring that serves no purpose other than for atheists to giggle along to, and religious folks to dismiss out of hand. Nobody wins.

The case against religion has been made before, and made better.

4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Australia (2008)

6/10

Catch it at the cinema or don't bother.

2 January 2009

Warning: Spoilers

It's been a long while since I've been so torn by a movie, at moments loving it and at other times literally laughing out loud or wincing at it's weak writing and over production. For all her beauty, Kidman is one of the hammiest actresses going, I think. She is capable of some really great acting, but needs a good director or she'll act the hell out of a line and make it all whimsical and overblown. Baz Luhrmann is not the director to tame her. Jackman held his own very well, though.

Ultimately, the movie is a true cinematic epic, but at it's heart, a pretty average film. Every time you feel like you're watching something awesome, there'll be an awful line, a cheesy moment, or an engineered or obviously enhanced sunset. Cameron Crowe pushed the limits of this technique in Vanilla Sky, and did it well, but there's no restraint here; Luhrmann is out to make something that looks wondrous on the big screen, and he does it very well, it's just a shame about the rest of it.

The scene where Jackman appears sans beard and every time Kidman says "crikey" are just two examples of things that spoil this movie. That and the constant reference to the mixed race kid as "creamy"; it's such a lame insult it holds no weight at all and just made me laugh. I physically snorted at the line "looks like the little creamy's got some of that black fella magic in him after all!" and then realised it made me look as if I found the racism itself funny (awkward). Such a shame because sequences like the bombing of Darwin and the herding of the cattle were really well done.

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Xavier: Renegade Angel (2007–2009)

9/10

From the twisted minds that brought us 'Wonder Showzen'...

30 November 2007

The title of this review should say it all. The people who created this are clever writers, appealing to an intelligent viewer by delivering what those who don't quite understand it think is absurd and unfunny. The truth is, it's anything but.

This is an intentionally poorly animated, comedically fast-paced glimpse into the twisted, surreal world of Xavier, an aesthetically (not to mention morally) objectionable wanderer, with delusions of philosophical grandeur. As Xavier lands himself in situations born almost completely out of his absurd incompetence and inability to reason, he attempts to further understand himself and nearly always fails.

Comedically, this is a real gem. The attention to detail elevates this from a 'weird cartoon' to something that has very obviously had a lot of thought and care invested in it. The show has many layers, from odd almost dream-like logic to conveying some very intelligent ideas (which unlike South Park it doesn't always turn into the main focus of the show). It's a show that can move dramatically in completely unexpected directions, often from just a turn of phrase or an internal after-thought. In that way it's very similar to Wonder Showzen, but Xavier takes the surreal humour to a whole different level! I'm loathe to say "if you don't like it, you don't get it" about comedy shows because it's invariably a cop out of a proper justification, but some of the criticism this show is getting is as a result of things (deliberately dubious animation, consciously offensive stereotypes, etc.) that the creators intentionally set out to portray. There's often a very tangible commentary on social responsibility to the show's sub-text and in amongst it's absurdity lies some pretty deep stuff, apparently lost on it's critics.

In summary, I haven't been this excited about a comedy show since, well, Wonder Showzen.

86 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sunshine (2007)

3/10

Lousy plot development makes this a miss.

22 April 2007

When Sunshine started, I was genuinely excited. The premise is superb and potentially makes for a magnificent movie. Everything builds extremely well during the first two thirds, with a constant sense of foreboding and an ever present tension. The effects are outstanding.

However, when you get about two thirds of the way through, it's like the writers just gave up. The story becomes borderline absurd and the 'action' so convoluted and poorly navigated you leave feeling extremely disappointed that such a great concept was ultimately so poorly executed. The effects become so distracting the whole thing descends into self-parody.

To suggest that the plot is secondary is a nonsense. Everything has to exist within the story presented and the 'hook' of this film is that the beginning is plausible with bags of potential for a fantastic and intelligent story with awesome special effects, but by the end it's become generic sci-fi horror schlock and worthy only of a DVD rental. Shame.

13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

10/10

Hits you with the power of your inescapable responsibility

12 November 2006

Al Gore presents an extremely persuasive, entertaining and convincing lecture on the science of global warming, it's impact and our role and responsibility towards it. Like most people watching, I do not have a scientific background and don't know enough about the science to verify for myself the claims that Gore presents. Thankfully though, we live in the information age where the research I have done has only supported this movie.

To tackle some common complaints: first of all, Gore hardly mentions the 2000 election at all, and where he does it is only presented within the context of his motivation to hit the road and continue presenting this lecture. To suggest he spends anything other then a couple of minutes on this is a gross misrepresentation of the movie. Secondly, Gore does not 'claim' anything himself here; he merely presents inarguable fact to reach an inescapable conclusion. It is astonishing that there are so many would-be intelligent people who try to muddy the whole issue of global warming to satisfy a base desire to score some cheap political point. It's inappropriate, irresponsible and dangerous.

Ultimately, this movie leaves you with both a desire to make a change (and points you in the direction of how you can start) and leaves you feeling an appropriate level of guilt for your part in the collective eroding of our beautiful world that has taken place over the last fifty years. Compelling and unexpectedly entertaining also, this is one of the few must-see movies of 2006.

3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

King Kong (2005)

7/10

Patchy Re-make of an Age-old Story

18 December 2005

Warning: Spoilers

I've seen this twice now. The second time around... you notice things. I really want to give this movie more then a 'seven', but I can't. First, let's cover the good bits.

Naomi Watts is the finest actress of her generation. She is second to none and as her filmography expands, she'll only prove this further. She manages great range playing opposite a CGI creature. Jack Black also deserves a mention and manages to make you forget he can only actually pull two faces, 'confused' and 'smug'. The King Kong special effects are never anything other then remarkable. Every scene Kong is in defies belief, but believe it you will.

OK, with that out of the way, let's just burst this bubble a little bit. Jackson's King Kong is not quite the monumental epic the hype surrounding it suggests. There are some major flaws present here. Firstly, the special effects not involving Kong are, at best, passable. Very often they are cringe-inducingly poor. The scene with Driscoll and Denham escaping from those long-necked dinosaurs left me inwardly begging for Spielberg to show them how it's done - nothing in the CGI dinosaur arena has yet surpassed Jurassic Park 1, and King Kong is no exception.

Then, we have Adrian Brody who seems uncomfortable in this role and certainly doesn't bring the gravitas necessary for the love triangle - due to this, the triangle remains flat throughout, despite Watt's best efforts. Finally, and I am aware that talking about implausibility in a film involving a twenty five foot ape is somewhat redundant, there are some serious story-holes here. Most irritating of all is how on earth Driscoll manages to navigate almost an entire island and all the creatures on it in just a few short hours. Jackson only highlights this problem in his shot of Driscoll looking upwards towards where Darrow and Kong are sleeping and the immense gap between them. Also, the frequent "we came back to rescue you" moments... it happened once, fine. But again? To sustain my belief in the loyalty of a crew who are reluctant at best from the outset, Jackson needed to humanize the secondary characters a lot more then he did. The there's the unlikely event of three tiny bottles of chloroform and a big spear bringing down Kong and the impossibility of them getting him to New York on that relatively little boat.

On the whole this remains an outstanding, but flawed, achievement. It certainly elevates Peter Jackson to world leader in fantasy epics and up there with Ridley Scott and James Cameron when it comes to landmark epic events in cinematic history.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Thirteen (2003)

4/10

Life may be harsh, but this isn't reality

27 August 2003

Well, at least not for the vast majority. That doesn't devalue the importance of giving serious thought and subsequentially help to those who have such a messed up life as this, but really - though I'm not from the 'big city' originally, I can't imagine that many people would go through quite as much as this at quite the same time at this particular age. It's fly on the wall style may have helped it to escape the melodrama genre but implies reality - problem is it's just a little short of believable (something that helps in a pseudo-documentary style). In response to another reviewer, self-harm is not something that's done because children have "nothing else to do" - I really hope you were joking since that interpretation of what is a very serious psychological condition is very worrying and desperately under-developed.

In short, Thriteen does wallop an emotional impact, particularly towards the end, but it also indulges in itself to the point where it detaches from what people will be able to believe is real. Maybe that's because I have no direct experience of any of the stuff in this film, but I tend to suspect that the issues here could have been convered with a significantly more subtle approach.

30 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Alexandra's Project (2003)

Intriguing, if slightly disappointing Oz-fest

28 April 2003

Produced and, correct me if I'm wrong, filmed in South Australia, this film presents an intriguing premise. Alexandra is fed up. She's stuck in a marriage that has lost the spark that she thought it earlier had. Married to a psychologically abusive husband, she plans revenge and exacts it on his birthday via a video tape she has filmed previously. On this tape, she attempts to put him through the same psychological trauma she has suffered in her years spent with him.

The film, at it's core, is basically one long real time scene between a woman on a TV screen and her husband watching her. I was able to attend a preview screening of this and perhaps due to the controversial and disturbing claims made by Alexandra, several people walked out. Yet they missed the point.

This is not a film designed to shock or disturb. It is an exploration of sexual politics within a misogynistic marriage. It is a pro-feminist attack on the conventions of patriachal relationships. It will remind all those who need it of the equality and compromise required for a relationship to be truly healthy.

This film is, sadly, let down by Gary Sweet, the husband of Amanda. While his role doesn't require much dialogue from him, his efforts here allowed a potentially great film to become, at best, faintly interesting. All other performers relished their roles and performed admirably, but Sweet doesn't quite have it. A shame then. I'm glad I saw it but am equally glad I didn't pay for it.

One for the girls to take the guys to, if they're unhappy with the gender power situation in their partnership.

8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mulholland Drive (2001)

10/10

Doctor? Yes, I need whatever Lynch is on please...

23 March 2002

Warning: Spoilers

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** *** SPOILERS BELOW : DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM ***

I've just spent the last three hours watching Mulholland Drive. Well, I say three hours... what I really mean is two and a bit - the rest of the time I sat there trying to work out what has just happened.

I was, to this point, unfamiliar with Lynch's work. I have seen the odd episode of 'Twin Peaks' but it seemed very complicated and to be honest I couldn't be arsed sitting down and watching something that required me to think. I was also turned off by the Lynchians who praise the work of their messiah often on what seems to be the basis that "it didn't make sense". Well, if something doesn't make sense it's not good by default - it's senseless. It's only good if you can piece it together yourself.

So was I able to piece together this movie? No. I had a good go and I'm sure the answers will come in repeat viewings and as I mull it all over in the days to come, but as the credits rolled, I just thought "erm.... right..."

It's a common misconception that David Lynch works in a number of different levels. He doesn't appear to. I got the impression he works on one level that is interpreted in many different ways. It's the 'Lynch level' and you either love it or hate it. I think I love it. Time will tell.

I've read several of these interpretations now (though thankfully none before I saw the feature) and I simply don't buy the "she was dreaming" scenario. I don't believe a man who created a work as complex and deep as this would throw it away with the 'dream' routine. I think the deaths of both main characters are the key to understanding the hidden depths of what happens...

It's plain that the first couple of hours aren't real, or at least they're not real as we know real. They are both a swipe at the idelisation of Hollywood and (as commonly interpreted) either a masturbatory fantasy dreamt up by a self-delusional suicidal poor actress, or a dream. The swipe at Hollywood I can go with, but the dream? Give Lynch more credit, guys. Are you really suggesting that the 'monster', the 'cowboy', the 'blue box' etc etc are all 'dream elemenets' that you can ultimately ignore? Why? Because you can't work it out?

It's my contention that the first part of the movie is taking place after the suicide we see at the end of the movie. The old people on the plane are spirits who transport her to the afterlife. Think about it - they collect her at the point of her suicide and we see them wishing Diane (now the self-created - or maybe subconciously created 'Betty') good luck as they depart from the airport (the arrival place for new souls?) Rather then a dream, the soul of Diane, as is common with literature and studies into suicidal afterlife theories, is post-physically recreating her life as she would like to have seen it, as per standard theories on Mulholland Drive. She is angry and frustrated that the director character (in real life) got involved with her lover, and the cowboy (along with the people looking for him) are extentions of herself - acting the fantasy she wished she could have....

There's a fuller (and rather lengthy) explanation of all this on the 'Aint It Cool' forum for this film and it's well worth a read. Right now I'm off to ponder some more but I'll sure be watching it many times to come and I can tell it will be one of those that get better everytime you see it.

Great stuff from a uniquely challenging director.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Meet Joe Black (1998)

10/10

For those who appreciate beauty over technicality

18 March 2002

Meet Joe Black is a great film. It's way up there in my all time favourites. Never have I seen a film deal with death and love in such a beautiful tender way. The running time allows the film to move at a steady pace, not rushing itself for the sake of those with short concentration spans. Infact the running length is indicative of the entire film for me.

It seeks not to conform but to draw you in. It gives you space and time to watch the characters develop, to show depths and aspects (especially with Pitt) that help you appreciate what is happening. Hopkins is on form here - he leaps on Parrish with passion and takes the dialogue to a level far beyond it's worth on paper. Pitt is also convincing and Forlani is superb.

Much work has gone into this film and I believe it shows. It moves me to tears each time I watch it. It's not perfect - the pay-off towards the end as Pitt reveals himself is disappointing and could have been better executed - but this is secondary to what the film is really dealing with. The core issues of a man coming to terms with a life about to end, the wonder of whether Forlani really did grasp what was happening and more captivated me.

Please do ignore those who whine about having to sit more then two hours to watch a film. This is simply a wonderful film and well worth your time to watch. Just have a box of tissues ready.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ghost World (2001)

8/10

A poignant, moving slice of life

17 March 2002

Why is this film my favourite of 2001? This unsuspecting feature slid in as quietly as it slid out of UK cinemas yet it is a film untouchable by any other released in 2001. Forget the wonderful adaption of the original Ghost World publications... forget the supreme performances by Birch, Buscemi and the rest of the cast... forget the undeniably funky soundtrack... this film is my favourite because it dares to take a stance. It defies standardisation and conformity in favour of showing a unique and individual perception on the anxiety of life for young people.

Let's talk cast. Buscemi is as touching and real as he is the comical turn off. Birch is simply outstanding as the ultra cynical Enid - the rest of the cast give the perfect support to two of the biggest, most under-rated talents in the industry.

This film is poignant. It is moving and doesn't back down from giving it to you straight. It is open to interpretation, preferring to give you questions to ask rather then answers to questions you didn't. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. Go and watch it.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kalifire

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed