Reviews

Edward Scissorhands is one of those I'll never see what all the fuss is about.

Frankly, you can't hide a tired plot with a bizarre style. Burton has an eye for imagery here but is not so successful in creating a satisfying story. The film manages to introduce a fairly interesting character, Edward (Johnny Depp), a young man invented by a crazy scientist who dies before he can give Ed real hands. The set up is wasted on a very by-the-numbers plot and opportunity was greatly missed in creating something truly profound. Instead, the film relies on a ridiculous but at the same time, blindingly obvious love story involving the teenage girl Kim (Winona Ryder) and her a-hole boyfriend who shuns him. Edward manages to find kind of a living for himself when he his brought into this strange suburban neighbourhood, giving the residents bushes, hair and dogs a trim with his scissor hands. However, one must wonder why he never accepts the number of offers of medical help, and its never explained. The ostracising continues until the very contrived ending in which someone dies, a complete and utter cop-out but amazingly, nobody seems to mind too much. Its also way out of tone with the rest of the film. Then Elfman's score oohs and ahhs to remind us that what we're watching is mysterious and haunting when in fact, it's just weird. It all amounts to general annoyance, despite it being visually stunning.

This is one I can really only recommend to Tim Burton fans, which is rather redundant considering that they've probably seen it already.

'The White Ribbon', or 'Das Weisse Band' for you Germanians, is the latest product from the mind of Michael Haneke; who is up to his eye balls with festival awards and academy nominations. For those uneducated, he's one of the most acclaimed non-English language filmmakers working today. He won the Palm D'or last year and was nominated for the Best Cinematography and Best Foreign Film in the Oscars.

There is little argument to suggest 'The White Ribbon' didn't deserve the former of those nominations. Shot in stunning black and white for that pure cinematic look, it proves that you don't need colour to show off the great German countryside. If nothing else this is surely worth a rent just to look at. I don't necessarily have an issue with the latter nom (seeing as I haven't seen all of the films in that category) but I really can't recommend this for the average movie-goer, if there is such a thing.

Set in the few months before the First World War, 'The White Ribbon' tells the story of the residents of a very small village coping with a number of "accidents": one injured doctor, one dead woman and one dead horse.

There is the underlying mystery as to who perpetrates all of these shenanigans but what takes the main stage is the family drama in response. In the first 40 minutes there are a number of very sensitive and sometimes moving scenes, one of which has a young teen attempting to explain death to her younger brother. The raw style in which it is delivered makes it un-sentimental; it's just a shame that it in end it never amounts to much. I've always admired Haneke's 'epic theatre' style but this time, unlike the thriller 'Hidden', I don't believe the story was conclusive or emotionally satisfying.

What mars the first part is that I really struggled keeping up with all of the characters and who's children were who's. It seems kind of like trying to remember the names of everybody in your class but in a significantly shorter time. Ironically, it's a good thing the film is so damn long, otherwise I think I would have had to watch it again to understand what was going on. But the plot never seems to get active enough to excuse that sort of running time. I was unsure of what the priority was, seeing as the accidents keep coming but never seeming to be the main centre of interest until the final act. I wasn't bored, but I imagine a lot of people not used to this sort of thing will be.

I know some will instantly label this as pretentious. It's got all the hallmarks of pretentious film making, for example, with its attempted "White/innoncence" symbolism going on, I admit this much. But seeing as the acting, cinematography and editing are all so fine, I seriously think only slight tweaking with pacing and plot would make this film a great one.

So should you see it? I'm sure Haneke fans have all seen it by now, so they're out. All I can possibly say is that I, a foreign film fan, was underwhelmed. Make of that what you will. For those interested, I suggest renting it first.

It's been 3 months since I saw 'Irreversible' for the first time. I know, a bit late, but it's honestly taken me that long to put what I've seen into perspective in order to write an adequate review for it. All I knew, immediately after watching it, was that it was an experience.

I was screened just the opening sequence; which began with the closing credits scrolling backwards and then strobing Noe and Bellucci's names, white against black, synced with Thomas Bangalter's pounding music (of Daft Punk fame). The camera then swings through a window into a small room with two scantily clad men philosophising and reminiscing about days passed. The camera is never still, to the extent of causing nausea to some, and swings again to cover the entrance to a club called "Rectum" with an ambulance and Frenchmen screaming profanities. What is this??

In any case, I was intrigued. Any film which experiments with form in such a way must be worth watching, so I tracked it down.

Beforehand, I was "warned" about certain content in it that could possibly be disturbing. I braced myself but it didn't prevent particular scenes being deeply harrowing. The rawness in which it was done left an impact on me, I had to have time to take in what I had just seen.

The film follows Marcus and his mission to avenge his violated girlfriend (Bellucci) but told in reverse chronological order. This way, the climax of the film, as it were, comes pretty early on. It's such a surprise that you can't help but be affected in some way by it. The violence is far from gratuitous or manipulative, it's raw and it's realistic. In fact, this accurately describes all of the content, plot devices and acting; the issue most people have is with the narrative style. I however, believe it is due to this that the film has such an effect on people; causing huge discomfort and confusion. You feel almost as Marcus does, utterly out of control with rage. I'll personally give you £500 if you can watch this without having some sort of emotional reaction to it.

It's not for everyone, that much is clear. I believe 'Irreversible' is one of the few 18 rated films which truly deserves that rating. This is light years apart from a teen horror flick that will give you a good thrill and some gore perhaps. This will truly disturb you, in the best way possible.

Gaspar Noe has balls. He forces you to face up to some of the most horrendous things that you could possibly experience, showing it to you straight with no way of escape. You must not (and probably won't) stop watching. This is truly bold film making and that deserves immense credit.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief tells the story of Percy, the supposed son of Poseidon and his quest to save his mother from the underworld and prevent a war of the Gods. That's about as much info I managed to grab about this film, having never read the book. The film didn't help me much however, so much happens in the first 40 minutes at such speed, that I struggled to follow what was going on. There is too much time getting through plot twists and not enough time developing the characters. We've barely met Percy and suddenly he's being attacked by his demon sub teacher. What made it worse was the fact that all the battle scenes at night were incomprehensible, a fantastic way to make me turn off, thank you very much.

To it's credit, the special effects are adequate, if not impressive and despite the many plot- holes and ridiculous set-pieces, it carried me through to the end. I think it will manage to entertain kids well enough if not adults. There just isn't enough emotional resonance there to recommend for anyone older than 13 or 14. This is something that Harry Potter does much better (face it, the comparison is inevitable), a series with a truly universal appeal.

Every scene in Percy Jackson could have been either edgier, funnier or just more dramatic. It gets a massive MEH out of ten from me.

SKIP IT unless you've got kids, then you may as well rent it.

Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging, an attempt to cash in on the quirky British teen book of the same name...no wait...that was called 'Angus, Thongs and Full-frontal Snogging', my mistake. I know, that name is just so darn raunchy.

Anyhow, I saw nothing in the film which warrants a theatrical release. You'll find nothing here that you wouldn't find on any other teen girl series on CBBC. You have the awkward 14 year-old girl Georgia and her quest to find the hottest guy evarrr in time for her birthday party, helped by her bratty friends. Dramatic stuff right?

I wouldn't say there's anything necessarily wrong with this, I just don't see why it needed to be released in theatres. By the end, I'm like "so what?"

Even on it's own level, everyone but pre-teen girls are going to be annoyed by the film and it's stereotypical view of British adolescent life. Basically, the characters have their priorities all wrong and don't learn a satisfactory lesson. This could be potentially harmful to it's audience, much worse than any violence or bad language, in my opinion. That leads me to my other main problem with the film: it doesn't know which tone it's going for. Georgia describes the love interest as a "sex God", a tad inappropriate considering that the furthest anyone gets is a good snog. If you had a film tackling issues of teen sexuality, that would be a film I would like to see. This is your average teeny girl nonsense which will be forgotten soon enough.

I don't recommend this to anyone but the target audience. If you are part of it, don't make your parents watch it.

The Hurt Locker is not so much a war film, but an action film, that uses the war to support it's main goal: to thrill you with tense action sequences. It does attempt to convey some message about the war in Iraq but I'm still at odds to figure out what it actually is. I doubt the average movie goer will be any more enlightened to the experiences of soldier's there, so I believe it is only partially successful as a war film. That being said, it is an excellent ride and at no point does it become dull.

Bigelow, a veteran action director, has not let us down here. The set pieces in which our protagonist attempts to disarm the many roadside explosives in Iraq are super suspenseful, leading us in multiple directions and not always letting the bomb go off. This is backed up by entertaining, perhaps not realistic, performances from Renner and Mckie. It also features a very pleasing cameo from Ralph Fiennes, who's always worth watching.

My main problem with the film is it's set pieces carry the plot more than the arc of the central character does. James disarms one bomb, goes back to base, disarms another bomb, goes back to base again and so on and so forth. Don't get me wrong, those scenes are genuinely exciting but as the film starts to roll up, I think to myself "so what?". I don't believe James goes through any sort of change from his experiences. I enjoyed the ride but was left with a rather empty feeling by the end.

So it's only an action movie? Yes, but a thoroughly competent one. I think those who expect a profound war film will be disappointed.

'Mean Streets', the earliest Scorsese film people have heard of, is the result of an on-form film maker, telling a personal story.

One thing to immediately note about 'Mean Streets' is the performance of our two leads, Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro, both looking young and are full of energy. They deliver the goods, big time. They are both so watchable and make up at least half of the movie's appeal. In fact, 'Mean Streets' is an inherently watchable movie overall, helped by some fine dialogue and Scorsese's trademark energetic and involving camera-work. The main draw is the antics of the characters and their relationships rather than a high-stakes narrative. Dramatic things happen but don't relate intrinsically to the central plot: that of De Niro's character Johnny Boy, his debts to clubs, bars and old pals along with his long-suffering buddy Charlie (Keitel).

In comparison to other Scorsese films (which is inevitably going to happen if this is not your first Scorsese), it is very low on scale and as mentioned before, low on stakes. This is no gangster epic or psychological portrait but simply a 2 hour window into the streets of New York. It is certainly worth watching.

You've seen this movie before I promise you.

You have a high school drummer and predictably his Dad doesn't believe in him or his ambition. This kid's unorthodox style doesn't sit well with the college, is torn between his friends or his music and all sorts of stuff like that. Nothing worthy of note happens until the climax and oh boy is it a climax!

The final sequence is really really great 5 star entertainment. They should have just made the whole movie about this!

First you have each of the colleges perform a montage of music which is all very well but the real show stopper is the final drum line showdown which is just incredible. If you need to demo your home cinema that's a scene worth a look.

So yeah. Just skip to that part. Or if your not into that at all you can skip the movie altogether, you can always watch the final scene on Youtube.

There I went with my usual young person's ignorance, going into this film thinking it was going to be terribly outdated. But no! I was completely charmed and laughed out loud plenty of times.

Cary Grant is brilliant as the museum owner who meets Katherine Hepburn who falls in love with him and leads him on crazy tangents so that he is always near her. It's fast paced and the way the chaos escalates is beautiful. Grant's gradual exasperation is hilarious.

In real life, Hepburn's character would probably drive me crazy but I loved her in the movie. Completely nutty but lovable indeed.

AND IT HAS A FRIENDLY LEOPARD IN IT! How could you go wrong?

See it.

What do you want? A fairly interesting action thriller with over the top shootouts? Hard Boiled is your movie.

Chow Yun Fat plays Tequila, a double pistol wielding cop in a quest to take down a gang in Hong Kong. Woo directs the action scenes with real energy and realism and the story ain't so bad either. No doubt there are about 6 trillion plot holes but to be frank, who cares? Suspend your disbelief way above your head, grab a beer, sit back and enjoy some no-nonsense killing.

The film is totally honest and ridiculously fun. Well worth watching for John Woo fans or action film fans altogether.

Well entertaining cop thriller from Martin Scorsese with one of the best casts of all time. Although way way below par for Scorsese, 'The Departed' is worth a look if only to see Jack Nicholson in action once more (he's flawless, as per usual).

Matt Damon is the rat working for Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio is the rat working for the cops and to top it all off, they're both bedding the same woman. So far, so good. My only sever gripe with the movie comes from the music. I don't mind directors choosing their own soundtrack for their films but with a thriller like this it really needs an orchestral score. A real good suspenseful soundtrack would improve it at no end. I found myself wondering whether some scenes were meant to be thrilling or comedic. Perhaps we needed something more conventional?

Hmm. Make your own mind up. See it.

$$$$$$

People tend to hate this film for its premise rather than it's film-making qualities. If it was called something else however, it would not have made half as much money. The film itself is poor, a definite thumbs down. No drama, no suspense, no thrills. For a monster film it kind of falls flat on it's face.

It's real crime is that it's called Godzilla. The creature itself has so many differences to the original that it's not right to call it that (Gojira was over 400 feet tall and would tower over the world trade centre). So it's not the actual creature, let alone a remake (it has nothing to do with the plot of the original film either). Just plain fail from Emmerich and co. So the only possible reason for calling it Godzilla must have been to cash in on the name. Thanks but no thanks.

A short review.

This film needs to be looked at again, not as a period epic but as some good, honest entertainment. A "swashbuckler" in the true sense of the word, 'The Man In The Iron Mask' is worth a look.

If you can believe the premise that the King Louis has a secret twin you're half way to enjoying this film. Obviously the all-star cast is a huge plus. Irons, Depardieu and Malkovich are awesome as usual and Di Caprio is decent. Do not expect a believable story because you will be disappointed.

It works best as a fairy tale and is fairly enjoyable if you watch it with that frame of mind.

Fight Club is frantic and difficult to watch at the best of times. I understand the message, we live in a consumer driven society and Jack and Tyler set up the "Fight Club" in rejection to it. Interesting, but the film's execution is messy and in the end I was less enthralled but more glad that it was over.

The film uses excessive violence because it can. It adds little meaning to what's being presented here....and I'm still unsure of what Fincher is trying to present in the first place. In any case the violence does not progress the story, it is unbearable as it is presented as almost having healing qualities.

I was indifferent to the character of Jack, as he has no appealing qualities. I was unsure of whether to find the idea of his refuge in cancer and tuberculosis groups interesting or sickening. The audience are expected to accept this, along with the other strange actions of Jack and Tyler. To be fair, they were good performances, though I have severe gripes with the characters.

It is safe to say I did not 'get' Fight Club. I do not 'get' how one would consider this a masterpiece of modern cinema. I admit that my enjoyment did suffer to the fact that the twist was ruined for me before I saw it. Still considering this I was underwhelmed. I can't really say skip it as it has a huge fan base and I wonder whether I do not know what I am talking about. You may enjoy it. I did not.

Where Zombie was going with this one. Halloween (the remake) is a film which doesn't really know how to deal with itself and ends up being a tad boring.

I watched the original and the remake for the first time this month and I have to say, although not overwhelmed by the original, it is scarier and much more enjoyable. I think the fact that we are pretty much revealed everything all the way through (in the remake) takes away the impact. Nothing is left to the imagination, neither the back story or the violence. Nearly half of the film had passed, I was still watching "back story" and I was beginning to wonder whether the original plot involving Laurie was in it. Is the long sequence in the institute really necessary? It was rather depressing to say the least and took away the mystery of the character. Now I know everything there is to know about Michael, I really don't care anymore! Despite all that, it turns out that Laurie is indeed in the film, made slightly more sexual, less masculine but also incredibly annoying (the scene with the bagel.....what was that about?). The story from then on is just drab, packed full of cliché and whatnot. I find it difficult to recommend to horror fans as it really isn't very scary, neither do you feel sympathy or shock or any other emotion for that matter.

Good things? I suppose the violence in the first part was graphic enough and slightly disturbing but in the whole scheme of things, the characters had so little development I didn't care for long.

3/10

I respect how much time and effort it would have taken to create this film. The special effects are spectacular and the locations are wonderful, you can tell it took a lot of work.

Shame it sucks as a piece of film-making on so many levels.

The plot is clichéd and unconvincing. Every few minutes there was another moment where I had to tut with bemusement. Many scenes are completely unnecessary, such as the house scene, which in the end he finds the glasses in the kitchen. I think we could have done without that 5 minutes of hideousness thank you very much. 5 minutes we could have been seeing a longer car chase. If you look, the "chase" goes by in an instant and nothing actually happens. The cars skid a few times and then its over. There are numerous instances of set-pieces which lack punch. The desert scene, one of them. The word is lacklustre.

Bay obviously thinks a still shot is murder and audiences are going to fall asleep if there's isn't a dolly being used for every clip. The constant movement of the camera grates on me. But maybe that's just because I analyse it closely. Stick with the special effects Michael and get someone who know how to make films.

Oh yeah and whats-her-name who's with Shia. What the Hell is the point of her? (Other than eye-candy) I have come to the conclusion that this is the ultimate popcorn film. By which I mean something to just watch and not have to think about it. This is because it just doesn't work as anything else.

On the whole, it's OK entertainment but a horrible film.

This is a decent, if not spectacular Bond film which is subject to some incredible stunts and action sequences but falls short in the plot department. A big problem is that it doesn't build the story gradually to a thrilling climax. It basically follows the structure of a bit of chat followed by an action sequence and then some dialogue again. This can be a tad laborious at times , clearly a film designed so that one can demonstrate their home cinema. Rather than Bond saving the world as is the tradition, this is a revenge story. It succeeds to an extent but doesn't quite satisfy as a Bond film. One can't help but think it is just a filler between Casino Royale and the more traditional type of Bond.

All of this being said, the film is quite entertaining hence the high score. The action sequences are well choreographed although the hand-held "Bourne style" camera-work is tough to follow at times. The Bond girls are cool and do actually have a personality, particularly Gemma Arterton's character. Daniel Craig is a fine actor, his physical presence speaks louder than his words. Also worth nothing, in more emotional scenes he is subtle where he could over do-it; this makes the empathy with him stronger.

I could go on further but I just wanted to give reader's a short overview. I give this film 6.5 out of 10. Rounding up to 7 because I'm a Bond fan. Not bad.