DunkD Reviews

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Betrays what went before

[2/10 · 18 May 2007]

It is surprising that Spiderman 3 was directed by Sam Raimi, who directed the first two movies - as Spiderman 3 betrays the major flaw of sequels directed by someone else. Namely betraying what we learnt in previous movies for the sake of a lazy plot.

*** Spoilers follow - if you still care ***

In the case of this movies, these are serious betrayals. We learn that Spiderman did NOT kill the first green goblin, and we learn that the guy that killed Peter Parker's uncle in the first movie - well actually it was some other guy who turns into the Sandman in this movie (and it ain't the Gothic Niel Gaiman Sandman.) And what we get for this betrayal isn't something exciting or clever. It just feels like they made it up each day as they arrived on the set.

Then you've got the special effects. So damn lazy. "Hey - I know - let's take something that's formless and give it the form of a person and some other things". This hasn't really wowed this viewer since Terminator 2. Has the big multi-million blockbuster SFX movie really not moved on from this in the last 15 odd years? TWO formless substances (sand and mysterious black goo) that can take on lots of different forms isn't really twice as exciting. OK - it is a bit more refined in delivery, but hardly jaw dropping. Surely special effects people can come up with something a bit more exciting for the dough.

Then we get this camera work that is almost unwatchable. The action moves so fast you can't really tell what is going on - shame, since the first two flicks were fast but clear. Did they forget what worked. The chase scenes would work well in a computer game, but not a movie.

Don't get me started on the plot. Really. It shouldn't matter, but it is so boring it detracts from the fun.

For me, this movie follows in the footsteps of X-Men 3. The end of the superhero movie. Time to move on folks.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

More hype = less movie

[2/10 · 20 June 2005]

I think a lot of people have been fooled by the massive hype around Jolie and Pitt's "relationship". Judging by the chemistry between them in this movie this is a total sham. My feeling is the producers realised what a dud this was and decided in order to make the money back they would have to hype it via something external to the movie. Opportunity presented itself with Pitt and Aniston's split.

This really is a tedious, uneventful movie. At times it looked as if the pair were reading their lines from scripts on their laps. There is no passion from the acting, script or direction. Instead we get some silly Thunderbirds moment and the posturing we all know from the two leads. Angeline Jolie is Lara Croft, in tight gear, lips pumped up toting maximum ammo. Brad Pitt is the cheeky chappie, pissing in the desert. Mix that with the boring premise of hit-couple pitted against each other.

Dud is written all over the cover of this. I have no right to feel disappointed.

Rory O'Shea Was Here (2004)

Thought provoking, but spare the sympathy...

[5/10 · 9 May 2005]

Spare me the sympathy. The film does make you think about disability, but not a great deal more than Forest Gump.

A retread of the same old plot about disabled people overcoming obstacles and gaining independence. A worthy concept, but in itself patronising. These characters don't exist outside of their disabilities. They are defined by their struggle. If that were the subject matter of the film it would raise some interesting questions, but it isn't. And as a reviewer pointed out, the film isn't particularly realistic in its portrayal of life in a wheel chair. A lack of risk taking makes this a pedestrian movie that disappointed me, although I didn't have particularly high hopes - you can tell from the title what you are getting.

I could have forgiven this film much of this if it was performed by disabled actors - but there are no risks here.

White Noise (I) (2005)

More emo horror nonsense

[3/10 · 9 January 2005]

Although some people may draw connections with Japanese horror flicks such as Ring, this film is more along the lines of the recent dreadful "The Forgotten", mixing tragic circumstances with X-Files mumbo jumbo. (Remember the "scary" distorted face made out of static in the opening credits of the X-Files? Michael Keaton is trying to make contact with his dead wife but keeps getting that!) As a teenager I remember being chilled to the bone by the book "The Ghost of 29 Megacycles" - I read the blurb and was too terrified to open the book. Hopefully now less of a wuss I was nonetheless still intrigued by the concept of communicating with the dead using common household appliances.

The movie was a disappointment apart from a couple of cheap startling moments the otherwise well done creepiness was undermined by made for TV quality special effects, and a plot which decides to be a whodunnit at exactly the moment you find out who dunnit.

Anyway, what were you expecting - it's a Michael Keaton vehicle. Poor guy.

Signs (2002)

Let down, but hilarious misunderstanding!

[12 November 2002]

This movie was a similar let down to me as Unbreakable. I am just a little tired of movies where all the details in the story combine in the finale. It was fine in John Irvine's book "A Prayer for Owen Meany" (from which the construction of the plot and concept is stolen) but just seems so lazy in films today, unless some real surprise comes out of it, like in Fight Club or the Sixth Sense. Like Unbreakable, we are asked to care about character traits and history of poorly constructed and dull characters. The "surprise" ending, the "twist", is so weak as to be a disapointment.

What is more, Shyamalan continues down his "tribute" to Hitchcock with a pointless cameo appearance again, and the rather blatant shots framed by foreground objects. When is he going to find his own voice? Don't claim Shyamalan is a genius until he does something original!

However, what saved this cinema experience for me was the misunderstanding that ripped through the entire audience of the cinema I was in during the asthma attack scene where Mel Gibson tries to resuscitate his son. The combination of the dialogue and action in this scene immediately suggested itself to the South London audience that Gibson was in fact sexually molesting his son, and no one could believe this was in a movie. The whole place erupted with laughter at the double entendré of it all. I am talking about over 100 people simultaneously experiencing the same thing, and finding it more entertaining than the intention of the film maker. Certainly a more disturbing twist than Shyamalan's intention. I can't believe no one else has noticed this...

The film was terrible, but hurrah for audiences that can rethink a dull movie into something amusing...

From Hell (2001)

Disrespectful of everyone involved

[2/10 · 20 February 2002]

The film that we see shows a great deal of disrespect to the real people portrayed, the graphic novel upon which it is apparently based and its authors, to history, and to the audience. The real inspector Abberline was not a drug addict, nor a psychic. Mary Kelly WAS murdered.

These were real people to whom terrible things happened. The movie sells these peoples' suffering to us as entertainment, yet does not even show the respect of caring what really happened. I hope the Hughes Brothers et al are haunted by the ghosts of history.

As a movie, this film is also a disapointment. Depp cannot do a cockney accent to save his life, the result being distracting. There is a half heartedness to all the performances.

Basically this film offended me. If you care about truth, integrity, love and honesty, don't bother with watching this move. Check out the real From Hell - the graphic novel.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

If you thought Sophia Copolla sucked in Godfather III wait till you see her direct!

[1/10 · 26 November 2001]

Oh DEAR! This film is SUCH a vanity project. Sorry, I know some people like this film (there are always people on IMDB who enjoy any film, no matter how poor, what a sweet place this is) but I was BORED!

Where are the characters for me to care about?

How anyone can make a film about suicide that fails to touch so badly is beyond my comprehension? Sophia Copolla must count herself lucky that her father can muscle the money for such cack. Were those her friends that she put in this film? Was she paying them? Did they have fun, because they didn't exactly go through their paces?

I don't really know what to say. I can think of few movies that have had less of an impression on me. I forgot I was watching a movie it was so dull. I have to give at least one star to this movie, and that star is entirely for the original soundtrack by AIR. However, the subtly music they put together is lost in the film's clumsy sound.

Pretentious, a pretence at direction and story telling. Don't waste your time. There is a whole world of better movies out there that will enhance your life.

The Legend (1993)

Sheer Madness

[10/10 · 26 November 2001]

I finally managed to get my hands on a copy of this movie, and all I can say is WOW! Wow, because I didn't understand what the hell was going on for the whole movie, the subtitles were so badly misaligned. But mainly WOW! because it didn't matter a jot that I couldn't tell what the plot was as the film is just one amazing "fight" scene after another. This film defies belief, and description. If you like martial arts movies, check this out. If you enjoyed Crouching Tiger, check this out. If you love MAD films check this out.

There is a scene in which Jet Li fights the mother of the woman he has a crush on entirely on the HEADS of a crowd! Then HIS mother has a fight with the first woman.

From the opening scene you will see that this is a piece of genius. The plot doesn't matter. This is pure spectacle.

When you see these people move you will realise that the USA can never invade China. They just have all the tricks in the book. They wrote the tricks. I wish I had seen this when I was 9. It would have changed my life totally.

Shrek (2001)

Just another lunch box shifter

[3/10 · 2 July 2001]

I went to the cinema gorged on the hype for this movie. What I found was that I knew every joke already, and that they weren't really funny.

What really got me was the animation of people. It was so bad that I would rather watch stick men. Computer animation just doesn't hack it when you are looking at something as familiar as a human face. This is something they knew when they made Toy Story, and got round in a very clever way. Shrek could have got round it by using caricatures for ALL the human characters.

Anyway, that aside, I found the film boring, and noted that the small children in the audience at one point started shouting across the cinema to each other, suggesting to me that they were bored too.

I shouldn't have gone to see this film. If you like cinema, and are concerned with decent storylines that are engaging and intelligent, then don't go and see this film without some form of inebriation to soothe you!

It really is, like Antz, substandard to Disney, no matter how many anti-Disney wise-cracks there are in there. The story is more simple than needs be, and has no message worth 90 minutes or whatever (seemed like 30 mins to me - small blessing). Also, I wonder if Mike Myers dare set foot in Scotland after another exploitative attempt at an accent. Mike Myers, you are no Mel Gibson - no one will thank you for this. Why are you bothering.

Ooh, yes, and the "hip" soundtrack just didn't hang. What were all those bands thinking. Ah yes, royalties!

Don't listen to the hype, and don't believe the self-referential "hipness". Shrek is just another lunch-box shifter.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Would you like to know more?

[10/10 · 22 February 2001]

This is one of my favourite films, and gets better with each watching.

I have read a lot of criticism of this film and would like to discuss some of it:

1. - The actors can't act and are impossibly beautiful. This is true, and the whole thing has the look and feel of a squeaky clean soap opera. This seems to be the intention of the film. All the sets are scrupulously clean. Even the alien's planet is relatively clean and well lit. This is the only performance I have seen where Denise Richards *hasn't* made me cringe - because she is meant to be inane.

2. - The film supports fascist ideology. - I don't believe that the film supports any ideology particularly. As far as I can see it satirises it quite cleverly through the smooth and cheerful characters, Neil Patrick Harris' Goebels uniform. The characters are comfortable in their world, and even when at war on another planet they are in their own world. No one questions anything, including the fact that they don't question anything. They are all too tied up in their own pathetic lives to even glimpse at the bigger picture. This film is ABOUT propaganda more than it is propaganda itself. Just look at the snippets from TV/Internet with the slogan "Would you like to know more?" You never get to know more. The only character in the film that gets to know more is Neil Patrick Harris' character, and he answers questions with "That's classified!" The final scene of the film brings into question whether the whole film was a piece of propaganda littered with commercial breaks. The film is postmodern! Is it a film, or a film of a TV show, or recruitment propaganda, or something to show parents?

3. - The film glorifies war. - Again I think that satire has been mistaken for support of an idea. The film has every cliché from every war movie going - the hyper-brutal drill-sergeant; the assault course; someone dying tragically in training, making everyone else wonder if they are tough enough to go on. When the characters get to the war zone they find themselves out numbered and out classed by the enemy. Numbers beat brains and technology (except in the end the humans (perhaos) prevail because of brain and technology) and we are treated to plenty of starlets torn to pieces.

I like this film a lot. It is great sci-fi. The effects are excellent. The story is more complex than it appears to be at first glance (like a lot of Verohoven's movies - RoboCop, Total Recall, Showgirls even) and has lots of little asides which add to the feel of the thing (the aforementioned web-casts particularly). If you like nothing else, the scenes of millions of bugs attacking the troopers are amazing spectacles.

If you would like to know more, watch Starship Troopers, and don't forget to keep your sense of irony and satire. This is not a film to take seriously. And don't take yourself too seriously while watching it!

Almost Famous (2000)

Blandly Average

[4/10 · 12 February 2001]

Everyone I went to see this with enjoyed it a lot, but I found myself feeling that this film lacks a lot.

The acting is fine, but the script has no punch, and the story line is rather mundane considering the subject matter. More attention should have been paid to the Band Aids. Even the pivotal character Penny Lane is left without any personal history, which just left me wondering if she was anything more than a plot device and a cheap nipple shot.

The focus of the film is the fantasy fulfillment of 15 year old boys. Like such fantasies their is not much substance - the writer doesn't spend any time writing, and we hear none of his prose which is raved about so much in the script, the kid gets "deflowered" by three nymphets who "rape" him.

The script is more or less a series of one liners and punch line situation comedy episodes - the terrifying plane journey, the acid trip party etc etc.

I am sure many will compare this to Boogie Nights, as it has the same episodic pacing. But this film is really a substandard Spinal Tap.

A nice film, but average, not great.

Unbreakable (2000)

Laughable

[2/10 · 9 January 2001]

This film seriously p***ed me off. Up till the last 20 minutes I found myself liking this film despite its many flaws - there was something about the patheticness of the main characters, and the deadpan understated non-delivery of the lines that I found endearing. But then what a last 20 minutes - totally blew the film for me, and I nearly choked laughing at how poor the whole thing revealed itself to be.

There is so much wrong, but where to start? The writer probably had a good idea, but that idea probably wasn't worth the bother of scripting. I find it hard to believe that any more than one person felt it worth their while to involve themselves in this film.

So - Bruce Willis is a dull security guard, with a dull wife and a demented child. After being the sole survivor of a train crash Willis meets the odd Mr Glass who reckons Willis is a super hero. Somehow Samuel L. Jackson's character has made a lot of money out of selling old comic books - the first evidence that this film must take place in an alternative universe!

I won't spoil the twist ending for you. It spoils the movie, so I would walk out just before Bruce is in the station in his Security cape. Really. Leave then, and you may get off lightly with the feeling of watching a quirky but dull movie.

If you stay you will get more Hitchcockesqe posturing camera techniques, more music that is just plain wrong and more sulky faces from everyone on screen.

What really did it for me was M. Night Shyamalan's cameo. This guy really has a high opinion of himself that is totally laughable and pretty much sums up the whole movie.

If you remember one thing from this review it is this. WALK OUT OF THIS MOVIE!

Gorgeous (1999)

Bad Chan film, but oddly endearing.

[5/10 · 30 October 2000]

This film is a conundrum. It is pure cheese, toasted with Worcester Sauce splashed on top. Gorgeous.

Why watch this film? Four reasons.

1. The lead actress is incredibly stunning, yet does not end up as a damsel in distress, and is not irritating as women in other Chan films, who tend to get sold short.

2. The cars are all absolutely hilarious. Hong Kong is made to look like the cleanest city on earth.

3. The final fight scene is excellent. Where is this Brad Allen? He should be doing more films. He is like a tiny stand in for Jean Claude Van-Damme, but twice the fighter.

4. The homosexual gang who befriend Bu - excellent, and done well. As with the female lead this could have been exploitative and cliched, but is carried off well.

Ok, a fifth reason - the film has fight scenes, but there is no hatred in the film at all. There are no bad guys, and there is a lot of sympathy. And the film still ends up being enjoyable.

This is not your drunken Friday night kung-fu flick. It is to sit and watch on Saturday morning with the kids shows. Cute to the extreme.

Romeo Must Die (2000)

Hollywood + Hong Kong = Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[4/10 · 24 October 2000]

I'll say it right now - this film is quite mediocre. A disappointment - not particularly bad, but not good at all.

The problem with this film is entirely with direction. This is not surprising, as this film is a concept movie, or rather a vehicle for Jet Li to break into Hollywood, rather than an exercise in story telling or cinematography. And Jet Li deserves to break into Hollywood. One thing that comes out of this film is that he can act as well as most US action stars, and his physical skills are undeniably excellent.

Sadly, he has been short changed, because someone saw the Matrix and thought it was the last word in Martial Arts, and decided that real fight scenes just don't quite have what it takes for the US market.

So Jet Li ends up a puppet on a string in all the major fight scenes. He does things that one can't because of gravity. Now, this was fine in the Matrix, as the plot had an explanation for the weird stuff. But not in Romeo, and as a result it just looks dumb. They may have done a fantastic job of hiding the wires, but it is obvious they are there. Not good.

Further more, the filming of the fights is dreadful. Close-up when it should be a wide shot so you can't see who is hitting who. Wide when the characters are staring each other out. Sergio Leone worked hard to teach us all lessons about using close ups to create tension. Romeo must die has a dearth of tension. Because the fight scenes are so hard to view you NEED the contrived X-Ray shots to find out that someone has been injured!

There are a couple of good fight scenes (particularly memorable the bit where a guy gets his trousers pulled down to reveal he is wearing ladies panties! Worthy of a Jackie Chan fight!). These are all the simple ones without any gravity defying SFX.

The direction also lets down a relatively ok plot. Too much time is spent lingering on Delroy Lindo and Aaliyah with their lower lips quivering. This is an action flick. I did not come to see Aaliyah playing with her rag doll. (Actually, that WAS my favourite scene, as it was SO funny and out of place). The gaps between action are too big.

What does let the plot down is a shortage of characters, and the involvement of minor ones in the storyline, as this removes any suspense as what is going to happen.

The acting does not let the film down, which is interesting, and shows what a wasted opportunity this film is.

Overall, I hope to see more of Li, but if this film shows the way forward, I will be looking to his past movies.

Dinosaur (2000)

Sock puppets are better!

[2/10 · 23 October 2000]

The film finished, and I thought, hang on, is that it. Thankfully it was.

This film seriously lacks any story that I want to pay to see. The animation is okay, but when the dinosaurs speak they look like sock puppets. That was the most entertaining part of the film.

To make it really simple, if this was a regular animated Disney film it would never have got released. The script is just too dreadful, and the plot is dull. It looks great, but that just isn't enough.

When I went to see Toy Story 2 the entire opening sequence of Dinosaur played. It looked marvelous, and I couldn't wait to see the film. But as soon as the dialogue started the film just lost it. I think the film could have been better without any dialogue at all.

How can Disney have got it so right with Toy Stories 1 and 2, and so wrong with Dinosaur? It looked so promising in the preview. The mid-90s TV show of the same name had more subtlety and more complex plots.

Don't waste your money, unless you have a very small child to entertain. Or sew some buttons on a sock and make your own!

Shaft (2000)

Not THE man, but still a MAN!

[7/10 · 19 October 2000]

I went to see this thinking, "How dare they do this to Shaft!" I came out enthusiastic and excited as one should after watching an action movie. This really was a good film, if not a little exploitative of the past. I suppose they needed to use the title Shaft to get it noticed.

Obviously it is nothing like the original, except for a few little touches (the shot of a guy being thrown out of a window and the New York traffic scenes jump immediately to mind). The story is good enough to stand as its own.

The acting is pretty good all round, though Jackson is typically predictable (he is a big star, and that is what they do...) Particularly good is Christian Bale, as the cold racist killer. You just can't help but hate him. I hope Bale hasn't been type-cast, but he does a damn fine baddie (contrast him with Doug-Ray Scott in Mission Impossible 2!). But the real star is Jeffrey Wright, the excellent Latino dealer/gangsta. Go and see it just to hear his drawl.

This is a fine action movie, far superior to some of this years more expensive and highly hyped ones! Don't write it off. It is a different film to the 70's film, but still a good one!

Schindler's List (1993)

An upbeat holocaust movie?

[1/10 · 26 July 2000]

Only Stephen Spielberg could make a film about the holocaust where the point is that none of the major characters do NOT die. To me the message is lost because of this and the film becomes a glorification of one man surrounded by the deaths of millions. Oscar Schindler was a Nazi embroiled in the holocaust and the second world war. He managed to save his friends, yet profited from concentration camps. Ok, so he wasn't an anti-semite bent on destruction, but he only saved people he was connected to, and their families.

And the evil Nazis in this film are all slightly comical. Where is the evil? Where is the horror? Where is all the death and torture and misery.

Scrape the surface of this film and you find a gratuitous "entertainment" movie. If you want to know about the holocaust watch Shoah.

Who Am I? (1998)

Kick ass recent Chan

[8/10 · 24 May 2000]

I have been a bit disappointed by recent Jackie Chan films. This one breaks the trend, with the best fight scene I have seen, bar none. Makes the Matrix look fake (which it is). The film is also funny. Classic Chan. International cinema with the widest possible appeal.

Very Bad Things (1998)

Can I have my money back?

[1/10 · 22 November 1999]

This film is a conundrum. It really has no redeeming qualities. Peter Berg tries to emulate a Tarantinoesque gory black comedy, but ends up with a clumsy, tedious tale about five "guys" on a bachelor party who end up killing some innocent extras. Needless to say, "hilarious" farce ensues. The story and plot are of little interest, there are no memorable lines or scenes, though plenty that are designed to be. Slater tortures us with his sad Jack Nicholson whine and "menace", and basically repeats his role in "Heathers", albeit a little rustily. Cameron Diaz appears for about 10 minutes as an annoying bride to be. To be honest I cannot understand why Diaz, Favreau et al agreed to appear in this lame Christian Slater movie. I cannot believe I bothered to rent this trite and very boring movie. No one deserves to make a cent off this film.