Change Your Image
squicker
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Waste of Good Story Rights
The joy of reading the Hobbit is that it's a humble and somewhat gentle tale for children. Quite why Jackson et al have decided to turn it into a 3 episode overblown epic is unknown. Well, apart the extra money of tieing people into 3 films instead of 1. However, the cracks caused by the necessary padding (the book itself is smaller than a single Lord of the Rings tome) appear almost immediately the film starts, with rambling exposition and tedious backstory (inaccurately elaborated on from Tolkien's appendices and notes) taking up some 90 minutes of the pre-journey film.
Once things get underway we are set for new lows as the 'humour', which up to now has merely been forced but dreary, becomes childish with snot jokes and toilet seat thrones making a 'comic' appearance. Yes the Hobbit is a children's book, but you'd not take a child to see the film as it has its fair share of decapitations etc, so don't make adults sit through 'jokes' only a 5 year old will laugh at. Oh, and I daren't even mention the bunny pulled sled! More Narnia than Nazgul, and far more likely to appeal to Harry Potter and Twilight fans than Tolkien devotees, this is painful indeed.
All characters are forgettable with the small exception of Bilbo and Gandalf. The 13 Dwarfs meld into one and are all forgettable and interchangeable. We then have the de rigeur trawl through battle scenes, no dount in an effort to generate that LOTR nostalgia. But where in the LOTR trilogy they were epic engagements, here they are laborious affairs with no personal engagement, no sense of peril, just an excuse for a battle on screen.
Then there is a backstory with Pale Orc Azog, a one dimensional villain with none of the motives of Sauron, the machiavellian nature of Saruman, or the deception of The Nine. Again, easy for children to understand but nothing here for an adult.
We then have a massive abuse of Deus Ex Machina, with Gandalf literally being a walking Deux Ex Machina machine (just as well as his magic amounts to a few smoke rings and some lights). Perhaps the book is like this, I cannot remember but things seem far more noticeable on film. Perhaps because we are adults now such writing sticks out like a sore thumb, or perhaps Jackson's treatment of the material and the new writing just throws it into sharp relief. Whatever, it just feels hackneyed.
Anyway, remember to set your alarm to wake you up by the time this rambling, overly-verbous and nauseous mess has finished.
Life of Pi (2012)
Nice Film But Not Perfect
By now everyone will know Life of Pi is the story of a young boy and a Bengal Tiger trapped on a small lifeboat after the sinking of their ship. Visually the film is without peer, with strong acting and well drawn characters. We are treated to some superb CGI renderings of sea and land creatures and the 3D is used to good effect. I believe Life of Pi features the best CGI rendered creatures to date and makes the likes of Avatar look like a 1980's computer game.
I saw Pi yesterday and I did very much enjoy it, but I can understand why some people might be disappointed. It really depends on the level of expectation you are going into the cinema with. I went in merely expecting a nice story and for me I got this. The story is driven nicely along and never becomes dull, despite long periods without dialogue or any particularly action. The story itself is so simple and enjoyable that it could be the film is best enjoyed at that level alone, but there is another level, a parable, and that worked for me too. But I was acutely aware that the symbolism and metaphors used in this level were laid on very thick and that subtlety is not Pi's middle name.
As an example, there is a short bit of exposition near the end and it was like being hit by a sledgehammer, talk about patronise the audience. Clearly these ham-fisted elements are designed to convey meaning to those audience members who are more at home reading picture books with big writing, but it's this side of Hollywood that detracts from films and grates on a lot of movie-goers.
Life of Pi is a very simple story and is very easy to decipher, there's no great reward for decoding this sort of film. And there is nothing wrong with that, sometimes the simplest stories are the best, but when the film attempts to elevate itself above its station via heavy use of symbolism or allegory, it can become self-important and even pretentious. I think Pi dallies with the former but does avoid the latter, nonetheless the heavy-handed application of these elements do detract from what is a very good film and it's quite clear the message could have been delivered far more elegantly.
Nonetheless, if you go into the cinema just wanting to see a good story told via the magic of cinema, you will be pleased with the Life of Pi.
Prometheus (2012)
Ghastly Muck
Billed as an original myth set in the Alien universe, the story revolves around a team of scientists - of highly dubious ability - who set off to meet and speak to our makers. Predictably, things don't go as planned and the rest is told via an appalling script and amazing - but somewhat derivative - visuals.
Rather than the film being simply set in the Alien universe, it beats us over the head with a near constant stream of Alien references which merely serve to remind us how amazing Alien is compared to this claptrap.
Prometheus is bursting at the seams with religious symbols, but these are never fully explored, resulting in a rather 'Inception'-like experience, where stupid people will be made to feel they have watched something 'deep' and the more switched on viewer will recognise this for the charade it truly is.
Giger must be laughing his head off at the creature designs in Prometheus, which are the sort of thing you see in comedy horror films. And, whilst the set designs are based upon his work in Alien, they just do not have the haunting and disturbing quality of the original design ethic.
Worst of all by far is the writing which has no focus and sees people acting in ludicrous ways which defy motivation. The dialog is comprised of lines such as, "if you go down there you will all die", or, "I love rocks!!", or perhaps, "I am only here for the moneeeey!". Truly embarrassing stuff that will have you hiding your head in your hands every five minutes. Add to this a few utterly predictable reveals, an ending only for fanboys and science that even a 4 year old knows is baseless and you have the least watchable film of the decade to date.
The only reason to watch this film is to have a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 style evening with friends, where Prometheus will provide you will ample opportunity to snigger at its many shortcomings.
127 Hours (2010)
So So But Unrewarding Film
So the film is the famous story of Aron Ralston, an American climber who goes on a canyon hike in Utah and comes acropper when his arm gets trapped by an 800lb boulder. After 6 days he realises he is going to have to take drastic action to ensure his escape.
I felt this film was a bit of a mixed bag. Certainly the story felt very unnerving and haunted me long after the film had finished, this was due to the film capturing very well the isolation of the place Aron was trapped in. I also think the film did a very good job of highlighting what an idiot Aron was for getting into that predicament and how selfish he must have been around the time. It did this without making us dislike him too much, so I think it made a good balance out of his character. But I wasn't actively rooting for him as such, 1 - because I knew what happens anyway, and 2 - because whilst I'd not wish that on anyone, it's hard to root for him as it all transpires through his own foolishness, and there's a near infinite list of people who have met an untimely demise through no fault of their own. So we might perhaps consider them more 'deserving' of our sympathies.
James Franco did a rather workmanlike job as Aron, showing he kept his head well in spite of what happened, and rallied himself for an escape on day 6 despite his weak and delusional state. But I felt disconnected from his character, in fairness this could be the direction, as Boyle is somewhat patchy IMO.
The camera-work was excellent regarding the scenery and it really did ram home how desolate that place is and how insignificant a speck of nothingness is a human being, I thought that aspect of the film was superb. The editing however, good god...It was like MTV gone mad! I realise it's incredibly hard to make an engaging 90 min film with only one character, but the constant hallucinations and flashbacks with split-screen effect, well that was such a cheap way out of it and smacked of very immature film-making. A better director could have made that film work without any of the cheap gimmicks, because the story is highly unsettling and the stuff from which edge of your seat tension could be made, in the right hands.
There is no message to the film, despite what anyone will tell you. It merely shows us that people are capable of tremendous deeds when their life is on the line - this is already well documented, and that human hubris can get you into trouble, again this is very well documented and I am sure many of us know this from our own experience.
So, whilst I enjoyed certain aspects of the film, it was somewhat unfulfilling - certainly it's no 'Alive' or 'Touching the Void' - but I think this was down to the directing and nasty editing for the MTV generation.
Inception (2010)
Fine, but Flaky
Inception is a fine film, but it cannot match up to the hype. I am not going to explain much of the film here because it will ruin a plot built on surprises. Leo Caprio plays 'Cobb', a man possessed of a desire to return to the US to see his children, but is currently barred from the USA. God knows why he can't just move his kids to live with him in an altogether nicer country, but seemingly he can't. His passport to his dream is to enter the dreams of others and steal ideas, using some unexplained technology. Think Existenz, and you'll be on the right track, however Existenz did this a lot better IMO.
Now, the cast is very good and Nolan conjures strong performances from every one of them. The cinematography is world class and where effects are used, they are striking and superb. But there's little emotional engagement with the characters, even the always brilliant DiCaprio fails to make us care for him. Add to this a flaky set of rules about the universe they inhabit, and it starts to get a little shaky. One gets the distinct feeling that Nolan changes and bends his own film architecture to suit the plot, rather than allowing the plot to flourish inside the film. He falls short of writing himself into a corner but nonetheless, this constant bending of the rules of the film prevents us from achieving total suspension of disbelief. On more than one occasion I was sat there thinking, "that's all well and good but this latest statement contradicts earlier statements about such and such.."
I can't give anything away on the above, but you'll see it for yourself, I am sure of that.
I'd like to watch the film again to clarify a few points but some rather rambling exposition early in the film puts me off a little. I am sure that'll change and this is certainly a film that'll reward repeat viewings.
I thought that Shutter Island was a far more delicate and engaging treatment of similar subject matter, with a superb and decisive denouement, whereas Inception rests on a fair few clichés.
Definitely superior to your typical Hollywood blockbuster but not the work of genius the Internet would have you believe it is.
Sleuth (2007)
Sluice
A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.
A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.
The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.
This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act.
Sleuth (1972)
Riveting
An utterly engaging film, taken from a stage play, pitting two key protagonists against each other in the resolution of a love triangle. The action takes place in the cuckolded's home and is taken from a famous stage play.
Olivier and Caine are simply masterful, Jude Law in the remake can never hope to match up to these two masters at work. The setting, dialog, plot development is superb, controlled perfectly and absolutely guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat.
The remake is such a painful experience when compared to the simple beauty of this original, with this film being a timeless rendition that shows the art of classic film making at its best.
In the Shadow of the Moon (2007)
Simply Marvelous
Superb and moving documentary of the Apollo missions. Showing the men, those special 9 men and the other key players of the programme, as they are now. The film features fascinating footage from the missions, anecdotes and background that really humanises the space race and makes us realise how big this was. Amongst our world strewn with technology and shuttle launches that don't make the news they're so also-ran, I found In the Shadow of the Moon to be an epic tale of collaboration that made me proud to be a human being.
Armstrong is sadly missed (my only reason for dropping one point) but his rationale for not doing these things is aligned with the true hero that he is. Mike Collins is an excellent raconteur and his talk is incredibly illuminating. I felt that I would like my children to meet this man in order to understand the power of dreams, what it is to be an achiever but also the strength and power that it takes to let others take the glory. The modesty of true heroism is in Collins as it is in Armstrong.
As far as we understand things today, we are the only organism in the universe to have visited another celestial body, and this documentary captures that vibe amazingly.
Eastern Promises (2007)
Why We Pay a License Fee
This is what we pay our license fee for...The BBC not only commissioned this film but worked on the screen play, and what a pearl this is.
Stephen Knight's story counterpoints two family lives and lets us watch them unfold.
Anna (Watts) is a midwife drawn into a circle of deceit and betrayal, borne of Russian gangsters. Her interface into this world is the mysterious Nikolai (Mortison).
Watts and Mortison are as splendid as ever, Watts' understated performance of her character shimmies with nuances and unspoken emotion. Mortison once more proves that less is more in the power stakes.
The plot is simple but unfolds naturally without any fanfares or Hollywood inspired histrionics. Cronenberg shows he is a true master of the art of classic film making, upping the tension with each scene and eschewing 'quick wins' in favour of texture and sublime character development.
The dialog is honed and fitting for the characters - whose machinations are all too pertinent with current affairs.
With regard to the violence. This is one of those rare films where you dread each scene; although stark reality and foreboding are the order of the day, punctuated by short stabs of extreme, but in no way gratuitous violence. The secret to this film, rather than borefests such as Hostel, is that in Eastern Promises the violence fits the film, whereas in the others the film is made to fit the violence.
This is a fantastic film, it is not just one of the best films of 2007 but one of the best films I have seen.
Casino Royale (2006)
In a word, drivel
In a word, drivel. But in more than one word...
The film takes place at the beginning of Bond's career, although this is strangely in the 00's not the 60's. Craig is a good Bond, he dispenses with the 'humour' of the previous incarnations. This is a good thing, as what masquerades for 'humour' in previous Bond films may perhaps make an 8 year old laugh, but beyond that i think having a lobotomy is a pre-requisite.
The film plays like some dreadful advert for 'poor' people to watch glimpes of a lifestyle they'll never have, thank f**k. Woohoo, $40,000,000 in one hand of poker, we're all supposed to say 'wow', at that point of course. I yawned.
And talking of adverts, the product placement is overbearing. Do you have an Aston that flips on it's roof because you turn the steering at speed? I'll take 10 please.
I didn't care about the characters one iota. In fact, it just seemed like noise whenever they actually did or said anything.
OK, I know it's a Bond film not the Diving Bell and the Butterfly. I know it's wallpaper, but sometimes, can we not be given wallpaper that rises above the woodchip? Well, of course we can. We get top quality 'spy' action\thrillers like the Bourne series. It is possible to make armchair thrillers that thrill and engage. Sadly the makers of Casino Royale have yet to go to that particular movie class.
What we have here is a vulgar and mindless romp whose sole grace, Craig, cannot catapult beyond the feeble boundaries of mediocrity.
Avoid.
Ben
The Bourne Identity (2002)
Fabulous
This is a fabulous movie, an example of what Hollywood can do - now and then - to keep us interested. There is no point me summarising the plot as it's a well known movie and the review does not need that.
This is an action thriller, of an understated variety. The character development is natural and the plot points unfold in an uncontrived fashion; this engenders a much more riveting engagement that the OTT 'XXX' approach. When action sequences occur they are filmed in a stark and 'realistic' manner and they are all the more exciting for this.
Focussing on a few key characters enables us to build a relationship with those people, a relationship that really does make us care for them and their outcomes. They are not mere stooges in a non-stop cavalcade of explosions and an ante-upping pissing contest between special FX bods.
The location shooting is superb, using the weather to great effect and really fostering a feel for those cities and their inhabitants.
I am a latecomer to this series but am very much looking forward to viewing the other two films.
Ben
Alien (1979)
Flawless
The definitive sci-fi horror. Perfect pace, that naturally unfolds with no contrivances.
The most frightening and mysterious organism in cinema, the perfect cast, with ideas and design that still have not dated to this day.
A futuristic vision that is still futuristic and will always be futuristic.
The minimalistic but perfectly executed plot, use of colour and the score creates an ever present sense of claustrophobia that lingers long after the end credits.
This is how to make the perfect science fiction film, and it's flawless elegance will never be surpassed.
Zwartboek (2006)
Riveting
It is films like this that reaffirm my faith and passion for the cinema. A film that uses WW2 as a backdrop to explore the machiavellian nature of humanity as long understood by scientists, and now purveyed by artists.
The attention to detail is phenomenal with great sets, costumes and a fine cast delivering a captivating script in native tongue to the tune of a riveting screenplay. The tension doesn't relent from the word go and doesn't even release you long after you have left the cinema.
Respect due to Paul V for eschewing typical Hollywood traps to get bums on seats and making an honest film in which you can feel his beating heart, scene by scene. Koch and Van Houten lead brilliantly but with a supporting cast easily capable of ensuring no single person is a scene stealer.
Film of the year IMO
Ben
AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem (2007)
Pants
Well done Fox; you have two of the best franchises in movie history, both with loads of kudos that have started massive acting careers and had some amazing directors at the helm, and what do you do? After making a pigs ear of AVP1 you hand direction for number 2 to what must be the two biggest boneheads in the film industry. Absolutely genius.
These two Strand brothers couldn't organise a trip to the cornershop, let alone direct a heavyweight sci-fi film. Together these total imbeciles have destroyed all future Alien or Predator variants, and certainly damaged the preceding films, for a lot of people anyway. The only way an Alien or Predator fan can protect the previous films in each series is to pretend this film has never happened. If you even imagine it as a stand alone movie it is so appallingly bad the taste it leaves in your mouth will last forever. It is so bad you cannot even watch for MST3000 style humour value. It really is a steaming dog turd of a film.
Reasons (without going into spoiler detail, although how you 'spoil' a turd such as this is open to debate: Plot inconsistency with previous Alien, Predator and AVP film(s). The Strudel sisters must never have seen another film from the series, but handed research over to some spotty 16 year old oik to do, who evidently sat back getting stoned with his dweeby mates instead of checking out core facts about the universe of both entities.
Laughable monsters. Not just bad FX but non-scary very thick monsters of both breeds (not to mention the humans who are brain dead twits of the highest order, one suspects in real life too - due to them acting so badly or even accepting such a dire script). Whereas both the alien and the predator are cunning and genuinely frightening creatures in previous movies (including AVP1 to a certain degree), the idiots depicted here are throwaway mindless cretins that bumble around the cardboard sets with no direction. Probably because the 'directors' cannot direct.
No character development. All previous films in the franchises have a smaller number of human protagonists that have characters, developed to a greater or lesser degree. Here we get weak, watery eyed pea-brains whose names you cannot even remember, least of all care about their life expectancy.
No strong plot yet loads of weak story lines. You cannot concentrate on the 'story' due to the fact it flits about from scene to scene without ever delivering a cogent thread to follow.
Poor cinematography. You ended up bored witless, staring at the exit light in the cinema for amusement rather than the screen that just flashes and jitters about like a very poor MTV music video.
No real suspense. Instead of the nail biting suspense of Predator, Alien, Aliens et al, there are moments that the directors evidently feel are 'pushing the envelope', more like pushing out a giant turd. The moments don't come across as sick, frightening or suspenseful. More like the fake shocks of an unruly teenage punk who plays his Anti-nowhere League records too loud to annoy his middle class parents. Tiresome but never shocking.
I can't be bothered to go on, but see this film at your peril. It's a huge mound of faeces the Twit Twins have unleashed here, and just remember...You cannot polish a turd.
Ben
Loch Ness (1996)
Drivel
How we laughed at this trite balderdash that was on TV today. Evidently made by some pea-brained Yank nitwit who has spent maybe 3 seconds in Scotland, regaling the entire film with stereotypes. Eating haggis, tartan blankets, stock names - Campbell, Angus...Blah blah.
Letting even the youngest child watch this is tantamount to removing all independent thought.
How on earth Ian Holm ended up in this garbage is utterly beyond me. The rest of the 'actors\actresses', director and writer, don't give you your day jobs.
Worth watching for humour value only.
Ben
Severance (2006)
Dreary
I was looking forward to this film after reading some reviews but it was ultimately disappointing, formulaic and not edgy enough.
Danny Dyer is particularly annoying and only Tim McInnerney's performance saves us from a completely turgid ensemble.
Boring characters, no real scares, the odd chuckle hear and there, sloppy screen writing. To compare this film to Dog Soldiers or Sean of the Dead is an insult to both those movies.
I think it will appeal to the common denominator but more cerebral movie goers will find this lacking.
Ben