I wholeheartedly agree that the reviews saying this is a good movie are as fake as the Kardashians, but I don't think you need to go through much detecting to spot them. They're all pretty much the same, and have given this snore-fest between an 8 and 10 when it deserves a 2 at the most. Now yes, we all have different tastes, but within those tastes is a thing that is known as universally good or bad. This is one of those films that can be considered 100% universally bad, and I mean that even its creators know it is bad and so had to resort to either placing fake reviews or hiring a firm out to place them. I was going to post the link to one such firm but I don't think IMDb will allow me to and might reject my review because of it, but they are easy enough to Google and after a couple of clicks, you'll find them. At one such place you can get 200 reviews for $50, so we can now put to rest where the creators of this film went to. In closing, I have to agree with other posters. Don't fall for the fakes. Just watch the trailer and keep in mind that in the trailer the makers of this picked the best scenes - you can just imagine the crud that was left for the film itself.
Reviews
44 Reviews
Twin Peaks
(2017)
Not buying it
13 June 2017
There is a difference between marketing and flat out fake reviews, and the level to which the fake good reviews have been piled on this junk of a TV program is absurd. While there may be a few people that actually believe the nonsense and are hoping beyond hope that this series winds up delivering, good luck by the way, there are quite a few which should have a marquee denoting how fake they are.
I gave this third season of Twin Peaks no more than an episode and ten minutes and can't imagine or personally know anyone who has the time to have given it more. I'm not sure if some individuals just have nothing better to do, but there is no television program in the world good enough to devote more than one or two episodes before it starts delivering back. The Leftovers may be an exception but in truth one can't even compare the two. Even with the worst episodes of The Leftovers, not that there were many, and within the beginning setup period it was leaps and bounds better than anything I saw in this drivel of a show. Better Call Saul is another slow series that comes to mind which is leagues better than this.
Do yourselves a favor and look at the join dates and the number of reviews and ratings of people regaling this monstrosity (I borrowed that word from a couple of other reviews and it fits quite nicely) before you decide to waste your valuable time and watch merely on the merits of these reviews. If you have watched already, no doubt you are, or will be, one of the next low rating reviewers.
I gave this third season of Twin Peaks no more than an episode and ten minutes and can't imagine or personally know anyone who has the time to have given it more. I'm not sure if some individuals just have nothing better to do, but there is no television program in the world good enough to devote more than one or two episodes before it starts delivering back. The Leftovers may be an exception but in truth one can't even compare the two. Even with the worst episodes of The Leftovers, not that there were many, and within the beginning setup period it was leaps and bounds better than anything I saw in this drivel of a show. Better Call Saul is another slow series that comes to mind which is leagues better than this.
Do yourselves a favor and look at the join dates and the number of reviews and ratings of people regaling this monstrosity (I borrowed that word from a couple of other reviews and it fits quite nicely) before you decide to waste your valuable time and watch merely on the merits of these reviews. If you have watched already, no doubt you are, or will be, one of the next low rating reviewers.
Star Trek: Enterprise
(2001–2005)
Boring, predictable universe.
27 October 2003
Enterprise could have been a good series. Unfortunately it is so much an amalgam of "let's appeal to the widest demographic possible" that it fails miserably to conjure any sense of wonder of experiencing things for the first time.
What we have is a universe where threatening to punch a woman in front of senior staff results in a command. He has a little dog in his quarters, so can't be all bad, eh? It is a crew where a female vulcan officer in a catsuit exists only to appeal to the 7 of 9 audience. She is not alone is cliche-land, however - there is also the repressed English dude, the officer with a southern drawl and the token black guy.
Now if they had some decent background to operate in, perhaps the results would not have been so dire. However, all we have are Vulcans who are not only Xenophobic, not only frequently prone to emotion but are also bald-faced liars.
What else do we have? Well - we have an unconvincing looking Enterprise that would not look out of place next to ships made several hundred years later. We also have unintentionally funny looking phaser pistols that made me wonder when they were going to encounter Ming the Mercillous.
What about the enemies, I hear you cry. Well - you are in luck. "Enterprise" not only has the most hideously cheesy theme song of any series that I can name, it also has the Taliban. Oops - sorry, The Suliban who are about as scary as the Ferengi at the start of the TNG.
"Enterprise" does not have the silly lycra uniforms of TNG, nor any nauseatingly annoying youngsters or bridge-bound psychiatrists. Unfortunately, unlike a few of the TNG outings it does'nt have any decent episodes either. Everything seems utterly predictable and boring. On the few occasions they try to do something different, the script writers just don't get it. The idea of "Trip" getting pregnant through touching a female hottie's hand is downright pathetic.
In summary, this is most definately a franchise too far and today is a good day to get cancelled.
Dan
What we have is a universe where threatening to punch a woman in front of senior staff results in a command. He has a little dog in his quarters, so can't be all bad, eh? It is a crew where a female vulcan officer in a catsuit exists only to appeal to the 7 of 9 audience. She is not alone is cliche-land, however - there is also the repressed English dude, the officer with a southern drawl and the token black guy.
Now if they had some decent background to operate in, perhaps the results would not have been so dire. However, all we have are Vulcans who are not only Xenophobic, not only frequently prone to emotion but are also bald-faced liars.
What else do we have? Well - we have an unconvincing looking Enterprise that would not look out of place next to ships made several hundred years later. We also have unintentionally funny looking phaser pistols that made me wonder when they were going to encounter Ming the Mercillous.
What about the enemies, I hear you cry. Well - you are in luck. "Enterprise" not only has the most hideously cheesy theme song of any series that I can name, it also has the Taliban. Oops - sorry, The Suliban who are about as scary as the Ferengi at the start of the TNG.
"Enterprise" does not have the silly lycra uniforms of TNG, nor any nauseatingly annoying youngsters or bridge-bound psychiatrists. Unfortunately, unlike a few of the TNG outings it does'nt have any decent episodes either. Everything seems utterly predictable and boring. On the few occasions they try to do something different, the script writers just don't get it. The idea of "Trip" getting pregnant through touching a female hottie's hand is downright pathetic.
In summary, this is most definately a franchise too far and today is a good day to get cancelled.
Dan
Dagon
(2001)
Excellent premise, poor execution
21 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Dagon is a good example of the perfect setting and a fantastic idea marred and eventually destroyed by a plot with far too many holes within it as well as an ending which makes no sense at all in terms of the character's abrupt change in motivation.
I will go into what ultimately ruined the film for me. Please note: Here be spoilers!
1) If no-one ever leaves the island, how come Paul's mother did?
2) Being raped by Dagon is "worse than death" - why? What happens afterwards?
3) If Dagon goes to all the trouble of taking time out of his busy schedule to seduce a town and its inhabitants with the intention of getting his fishy end away and produce "Children of Dagon" why are Paul and his high priestess so important as their father is not Dagon?
4) Why the interest in face masks - It's not as if they are used for any sort of purpose except to excuse one frankly boring scene?
5) Why does the very poorly realised Dagon kill Barbara after impregnating her?
6) The biggest why of all - Why does Paul go from self-immolation to complete acceptance of his fate within twenty seconds?
This film could have been good. In fact, it could have been a classic. What it is, is distinctly average. Here's hoping a remake will be done!
I will go into what ultimately ruined the film for me. Please note: Here be spoilers!
1) If no-one ever leaves the island, how come Paul's mother did?
2) Being raped by Dagon is "worse than death" - why? What happens afterwards?
3) If Dagon goes to all the trouble of taking time out of his busy schedule to seduce a town and its inhabitants with the intention of getting his fishy end away and produce "Children of Dagon" why are Paul and his high priestess so important as their father is not Dagon?
4) Why the interest in face masks - It's not as if they are used for any sort of purpose except to excuse one frankly boring scene?
5) Why does the very poorly realised Dagon kill Barbara after impregnating her?
6) The biggest why of all - Why does Paul go from self-immolation to complete acceptance of his fate within twenty seconds?
This film could have been good. In fact, it could have been a classic. What it is, is distinctly average. Here's hoping a remake will be done!
Liberty Stands Still
(2002)
Suprisingly good film
4 April 2003
Projects like this will never do well in the US, because a lot of people there will hear a message that they don't want to hear and will be upset by.
Well boo-hoo. Last year was a "good one" apparently for the US re murders and a bad one for the UK.
Gun related homicides:
UK: 97
US: just below 16,000
This film may not manage to get its message over as well as Bowling for Columbine but it - and Wes Snipes - deserves the credit for at least trying!
Well boo-hoo. Last year was a "good one" apparently for the US re murders and a bad one for the UK.
Gun related homicides:
UK: 97
US: just below 16,000
This film may not manage to get its message over as well as Bowling for Columbine but it - and Wes Snipes - deserves the credit for at least trying!
Almost spot-on
20 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I've been waiting twenty years for this film to be made, ever since I first read LOTR when I was 12.
I've been a frequent visior to fan websites this last two years or so and knew before sitting down in the theatre what had been changed.
Generally, I thought the film was very good. It certainly could not have been made before as a live action film - the techniques necessary have only recently been available.
The casting has turned out to have been fairly astute, with special mention going to Ian McKellen, Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen. The scenery was terrific with Barad-dur, Minas Tirith and Isengad fabulously realised obviously paying homage to existing artwork painted quite a few years ago. Only Moria was a bit of a disappointment, being a little too bland and not giving the impression of what it was - not just a mine but the largest Dwarven city in Middle-earth. The world of the ring (i.e. when you put it on!) is fabulously depicted and clearly shows how the corrupting effect of the ring could be cumulative.
Now onto the section of the review which deals with my impressions of the changes made within the film, both positive and negative - SPOILERS BELOW!
The Bad
--------
1) Liv Tyler during the flight to the ford and the river scene. I can understand the requirement to appeal to a wider section of the audience, and have nothing against her replacing Glorfindel (much) - but on the whole this was a big mistake. Frodo's nightmare journey to the ford and his subsequent defiance to the Nazgul is simptomatic of the hidden strengths of his character. Additionally, not having Elrond conjure the river and Gandalf embelish the waves is also irritating. 2) Galadriel at Egladil. In the book when Frodo offers her the one ring, she does not light up like an extra from a cheap science fiction series and need a quick nap afterwards, her attitude is very self-mocking and she dismisses it quite easily with a laugh. She has already made her mind up on the subject long before. There is also NO mention of Nenya at all - WHY???
3) While the Balrog was well animated - fautlessly in fact, it's too big! Gandalf subsequently wins by throwing his enemy off the mountain - will this be changed also?
The Good
--------
1) Aragorn - In the film, Aragorn questions himself a lot.
He is deathly afraid that he has inherited his ancestor's (Isildur) weakness for the ring and will fail the fellowship because of it. This also makes sense as to why he has not made himself known to Denethor before. 2) Boromir - In the film he explains the reasons that drive him to push himself so hard, his Father's approaching dotage and his fear that Minas Tirith will fall soon.
I have a few other minor niggles, such as why this new Uruk-hai character feels the need to run in slow-motion and roar every five seconds but as a whole I am glad this film was made and look ahead with enthusiasm for the remaining two installments. Lastly, in the UK the film was given a PG rating with advice that the film "may be unsuitable for children under 8" - this is very irresposible on the part of new line. There are clearly scenes in this film that will give nightmares to children under 12.
Ah well - now waiting for the DVD to come out :)
Happy Christmas all
Dan
I've been a frequent visior to fan websites this last two years or so and knew before sitting down in the theatre what had been changed.
Generally, I thought the film was very good. It certainly could not have been made before as a live action film - the techniques necessary have only recently been available.
The casting has turned out to have been fairly astute, with special mention going to Ian McKellen, Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen. The scenery was terrific with Barad-dur, Minas Tirith and Isengad fabulously realised obviously paying homage to existing artwork painted quite a few years ago. Only Moria was a bit of a disappointment, being a little too bland and not giving the impression of what it was - not just a mine but the largest Dwarven city in Middle-earth. The world of the ring (i.e. when you put it on!) is fabulously depicted and clearly shows how the corrupting effect of the ring could be cumulative.
Now onto the section of the review which deals with my impressions of the changes made within the film, both positive and negative - SPOILERS BELOW!
The Bad
--------
1) Liv Tyler during the flight to the ford and the river scene. I can understand the requirement to appeal to a wider section of the audience, and have nothing against her replacing Glorfindel (much) - but on the whole this was a big mistake. Frodo's nightmare journey to the ford and his subsequent defiance to the Nazgul is simptomatic of the hidden strengths of his character. Additionally, not having Elrond conjure the river and Gandalf embelish the waves is also irritating. 2) Galadriel at Egladil. In the book when Frodo offers her the one ring, she does not light up like an extra from a cheap science fiction series and need a quick nap afterwards, her attitude is very self-mocking and she dismisses it quite easily with a laugh. She has already made her mind up on the subject long before. There is also NO mention of Nenya at all - WHY???
3) While the Balrog was well animated - fautlessly in fact, it's too big! Gandalf subsequently wins by throwing his enemy off the mountain - will this be changed also?
The Good
--------
1) Aragorn - In the film, Aragorn questions himself a lot.
He is deathly afraid that he has inherited his ancestor's (Isildur) weakness for the ring and will fail the fellowship because of it. This also makes sense as to why he has not made himself known to Denethor before. 2) Boromir - In the film he explains the reasons that drive him to push himself so hard, his Father's approaching dotage and his fear that Minas Tirith will fall soon.
I have a few other minor niggles, such as why this new Uruk-hai character feels the need to run in slow-motion and roar every five seconds but as a whole I am glad this film was made and look ahead with enthusiasm for the remaining two installments. Lastly, in the UK the film was given a PG rating with advice that the film "may be unsuitable for children under 8" - this is very irresposible on the part of new line. There are clearly scenes in this film that will give nightmares to children under 12.
Ah well - now waiting for the DVD to come out :)
Happy Christmas all
Dan
Robin and Marian
(1976)
Touching, melancholy, sad and uplifting.
29 August 2001
If you liked "Robin Hood - Prince of Gimps" then for god's sake do not watch this film - you will not appreciate it. Please leave it for those of us that do.
The story is fantastic, the fights realistic and the interplay between characters wonderful. Connery and Hepburn work very well, with Connery conveying his love openly and directly and Hepburn in fleeting touches, looks and even exasperation.
The other main relationship, Connery and Shaw works so very well, with mutual respect and even affection. Shaw's character, educated, intelligent, sardonic, honourable and likeable - even considering he's on the wrong side.
Lastly the ending. Truly moving, not a happy ending on the surface, however given Robin's condition and age - far preferable to the inevitable alternative, with Marion equally unwilling to live without him.
True love, beyond lust, idealism and compromise.
Bitter/Sweet and fantastic
The story is fantastic, the fights realistic and the interplay between characters wonderful. Connery and Hepburn work very well, with Connery conveying his love openly and directly and Hepburn in fleeting touches, looks and even exasperation.
The other main relationship, Connery and Shaw works so very well, with mutual respect and even affection. Shaw's character, educated, intelligent, sardonic, honourable and likeable - even considering he's on the wrong side.
Lastly the ending. Truly moving, not a happy ending on the surface, however given Robin's condition and age - far preferable to the inevitable alternative, with Marion equally unwilling to live without him.
True love, beyond lust, idealism and compromise.
Bitter/Sweet and fantastic
Jurassic Park III
(2001)
Not as awful as the second half of II
26 July 2001
This film succeeds at being what it intends to be, an exciting, well-filmed yarn without the usual sort of filler that was present in the first two.
Don't get me wrong - Sam Neil's American accent is still irritating, the plot is rather silly and many of the dinosaurs portrayed are completely and deliberately wrong. (more on this later)
The good bits? - There's only one kid in this, and he is less annoying then either of the two from the first film. There is a greater attempt to portray the Dinosaurs as the stars, which is how it should be - If you want to watch Sam act, watch something like "a death in Brunswick" or "The Piano".
The set pieces were done very well, particularly the carnosaur-carnosaur fight and the way in which the Velociraptors were not simply shown as cartoon villains worthy of moustaches, but rather behaving like intelligent predators.
On to the aforementioned deliberate mistakes with the dinosaurs:
1) The Spinosaurus Egypticus - Roughly the size of a T-rex, NOT noticably bigger, the sail indicated a cold-blooded animal, as such the idea that it could despatch a similarly sized and protected hot-blooded animal (theT-rex) when the T-rex had more advanced teeth (serrated, larger sockets in the jawline for more muscle power/bite) and would be able to move and react a lot quicker is a tad laughable.
2) A full-grown Velociraptor stood a decidedly less-impressive three feet high weighing at most 15kgs. Rather different than portrayed in the entire trilogy. What they did get right is the large brain/body-size ratio making the Dromaeosaurid family (to which it belongs) up to three times smarter than the smartest T-rex. What they should have done from the outset is show Deinonychus, the Velociraptor's bigger cousin standing over five feet tall and weighing 80 kilos. This dinosaur was so advanced that some paleontologists believe it may have had primitive feathers. The biggest dinosaur in this species was the Utahraptor (no prizes for guessing where it came from) at around Twelve feet high and weighing close to a ton.
3) Pteradons (the flying creatures represented) weighed about 35 pounds, could not have even lifted the kid in the picture, were far more lightly built and a full grown man could easily have crushed the neck of one. Incidentally, all Pterodactyloids were reptiles, not dinosaurs!
Food for thought - Glad that the series has generated so much interest in the subject!
Don't get me wrong - Sam Neil's American accent is still irritating, the plot is rather silly and many of the dinosaurs portrayed are completely and deliberately wrong. (more on this later)
The good bits? - There's only one kid in this, and he is less annoying then either of the two from the first film. There is a greater attempt to portray the Dinosaurs as the stars, which is how it should be - If you want to watch Sam act, watch something like "a death in Brunswick" or "The Piano".
The set pieces were done very well, particularly the carnosaur-carnosaur fight and the way in which the Velociraptors were not simply shown as cartoon villains worthy of moustaches, but rather behaving like intelligent predators.
On to the aforementioned deliberate mistakes with the dinosaurs:
1) The Spinosaurus Egypticus - Roughly the size of a T-rex, NOT noticably bigger, the sail indicated a cold-blooded animal, as such the idea that it could despatch a similarly sized and protected hot-blooded animal (theT-rex) when the T-rex had more advanced teeth (serrated, larger sockets in the jawline for more muscle power/bite) and would be able to move and react a lot quicker is a tad laughable.
2) A full-grown Velociraptor stood a decidedly less-impressive three feet high weighing at most 15kgs. Rather different than portrayed in the entire trilogy. What they did get right is the large brain/body-size ratio making the Dromaeosaurid family (to which it belongs) up to three times smarter than the smartest T-rex. What they should have done from the outset is show Deinonychus, the Velociraptor's bigger cousin standing over five feet tall and weighing 80 kilos. This dinosaur was so advanced that some paleontologists believe it may have had primitive feathers. The biggest dinosaur in this species was the Utahraptor (no prizes for guessing where it came from) at around Twelve feet high and weighing close to a ton.
3) Pteradons (the flying creatures represented) weighed about 35 pounds, could not have even lifted the kid in the picture, were far more lightly built and a full grown man could easily have crushed the neck of one. Incidentally, all Pterodactyloids were reptiles, not dinosaurs!
Food for thought - Glad that the series has generated so much interest in the subject!
Braveheart
(1995)
Enjoyable romp but oh, the inaccuracies!
18 July 2001
This is a well-constructed film with many fine performances - I truly enjoyed it the first time I saw it. In fact I enjoyed it so much, I was curious to find how much of it was true - unfortunately very little.
There are too many inaccuracies to list here, but I will limit myself to a few main ones:
1) Robert the Bruce was no traitor. Portaying him as such is quite simply wrong and disrespectful to his accomplishments - particularly in Bannockburn (a far more tactical affair than represented in the film. ) - his father, who did not betray Wallace either and was not a leper - and his memory as a whole. Confusion with John Balliol perhaps? Or deliberate "artistic licence"
2) The Irish fought against the scots - not just during this period but also for the next two centuries - and the crazy Irishman character in the film is the only truly annoying one in the entire length of the picture.
3) Edward the second (Longshank's son) was 13 years old during the time portrayed in the film and his bethrothed was 5.
4) Mel is about 11" too short - Wallace was exceptionally tall and usually wore metal armour.
5) His followers were not a bunch of wild men from the hills - the majority would have been kitted out very similar to the English irregulars.
6) Wallace's first kill was not in retribution, in 1291 the son of Shelby, an English knight with control of Dundee Castle - approached Wallace in the marketplace and demanded his dirk. Wallace stabbed him through the heart although he was much larger and his opponent had no weapon drawn.
7) Wallace continued attacking anything (or anyone) English - Soldier, commoner or merchant. In Lanark he fell in love with Marion, who was 18 years of age. This did not stop him from attacking the English in Lanark, a battle during which he and his men fled back to Marion's house and continued to fight there before escaping. Unsuprisingly, Marion was put to death as an accomplice. Wallace returned to Lanark during the night where no guard had been kept (foolishly), killed the Sherrif in his bed, killed his son and then burnt everyone else in the house to death, including women and children. By the time he finished in the town, 240 people were killed, armed or unarmed - only the priests were spared. (Wallace almost ended up in the priesthood)
8) The battle of Stirling. During the filming, Mel was asked by a local why they did'nt film on the original site. Mel responded saying that he felt that the bridge would get in the way. Ay - said the local, That's what the English found....
9) Who in reality betrayed Wallace? Sir John de Mentieth, one of his friends.
This film could have been so much more, without losing ticket sales - never mind.....
There are too many inaccuracies to list here, but I will limit myself to a few main ones:
1) Robert the Bruce was no traitor. Portaying him as such is quite simply wrong and disrespectful to his accomplishments - particularly in Bannockburn (a far more tactical affair than represented in the film. ) - his father, who did not betray Wallace either and was not a leper - and his memory as a whole. Confusion with John Balliol perhaps? Or deliberate "artistic licence"
2) The Irish fought against the scots - not just during this period but also for the next two centuries - and the crazy Irishman character in the film is the only truly annoying one in the entire length of the picture.
3) Edward the second (Longshank's son) was 13 years old during the time portrayed in the film and his bethrothed was 5.
4) Mel is about 11" too short - Wallace was exceptionally tall and usually wore metal armour.
5) His followers were not a bunch of wild men from the hills - the majority would have been kitted out very similar to the English irregulars.
6) Wallace's first kill was not in retribution, in 1291 the son of Shelby, an English knight with control of Dundee Castle - approached Wallace in the marketplace and demanded his dirk. Wallace stabbed him through the heart although he was much larger and his opponent had no weapon drawn.
7) Wallace continued attacking anything (or anyone) English - Soldier, commoner or merchant. In Lanark he fell in love with Marion, who was 18 years of age. This did not stop him from attacking the English in Lanark, a battle during which he and his men fled back to Marion's house and continued to fight there before escaping. Unsuprisingly, Marion was put to death as an accomplice. Wallace returned to Lanark during the night where no guard had been kept (foolishly), killed the Sherrif in his bed, killed his son and then burnt everyone else in the house to death, including women and children. By the time he finished in the town, 240 people were killed, armed or unarmed - only the priests were spared. (Wallace almost ended up in the priesthood)
8) The battle of Stirling. During the filming, Mel was asked by a local why they did'nt film on the original site. Mel responded saying that he felt that the bridge would get in the way. Ay - said the local, That's what the English found....
9) Who in reality betrayed Wallace? Sir John de Mentieth, one of his friends.
This film could have been so much more, without losing ticket sales - never mind.....
Warriors
(1999)
Painful, wrenching, stark and excellent
5 July 2001
Warriors is an excellent film concerning what we in the west would call the early stages of the ethnic cleansing....hold on, this sounds far too nice a term to describe what went on, let's be more accurate - Genocide - in the former Yugoslavia.
Specifically it deals with a British detachment of observers whose sole function seems to be to convince the British people that "things were being taken care of."
In reality, the Serb army and particularly the Serb paramilitaries were stepping up their campaign of murder - regardless of gender or age - which was to continue for another few years. The British government knew about it, the American government knew about it as did others but nobody wished to become involved in something that quite definately would not be a quick or easy campaign, especially considering that the people being massacred had no oil reserves.
And so the soldiers assigned to this pointless duty had no mandate to help those being murdered, and were left in a position of seeing the aftermath of men, women and children dead in the street or burnt to death in their homes, or simply gone. In some cases they knew who had done these things but could do nothing about it. After a while, they rotated home and - big suprise - could'nt forget the things they had seen.
One wonders if NATO had had the collective balls to attack the Serbian military at the time, how many lives would have been spared?
It's a start that Milosovic is in custody, but the others need to be caught and tried, Miladic and Karadzic for a start, but the many, many hundreds that participated in this horrific deliberate revolting genocide.
It really sickens me to know that there will be those that escape retribution completely, as well as there are many Serbians who vehemently refuse to believe what happened.
Specifically it deals with a British detachment of observers whose sole function seems to be to convince the British people that "things were being taken care of."
In reality, the Serb army and particularly the Serb paramilitaries were stepping up their campaign of murder - regardless of gender or age - which was to continue for another few years. The British government knew about it, the American government knew about it as did others but nobody wished to become involved in something that quite definately would not be a quick or easy campaign, especially considering that the people being massacred had no oil reserves.
And so the soldiers assigned to this pointless duty had no mandate to help those being murdered, and were left in a position of seeing the aftermath of men, women and children dead in the street or burnt to death in their homes, or simply gone. In some cases they knew who had done these things but could do nothing about it. After a while, they rotated home and - big suprise - could'nt forget the things they had seen.
One wonders if NATO had had the collective balls to attack the Serbian military at the time, how many lives would have been spared?
It's a start that Milosovic is in custody, but the others need to be caught and tried, Miladic and Karadzic for a start, but the many, many hundreds that participated in this horrific deliberate revolting genocide.
It really sickens me to know that there will be those that escape retribution completely, as well as there are many Serbians who vehemently refuse to believe what happened.
Alien: Resurrection
(1997)
Aliens2:The revenge - well, no - sorry....
18 April 2001
Aliens2 this ain't - and that seems to be the reason for the overwhelming amount of bile that has been heaped upon this film, mostly by American reviewers. You see, this does'nt try to play by the numbers - don't get me wrong, this is not war and peace, but it's not studio kowtowing either. Resurrection manages to take the unintentionally amusing and laughably patchy Alien3 and come up with a plausible way to bring back Ripley from the dead.
Now all those expecting Ripley to bond with a cutesy little girl, strap together two guns or get down with her bad self inside a power suit will no doubt feel let down by the new "alienated" Ripley that manages to be far more menacing and infinitely more interesting than the old one.
All those expecting the Marines to kick Alien butt will also be disappointed - in this film they actually manage to do the more believable thing and vacate as soon as possible rather than provide the Aliens with HostsRus. This Ellen Ripley is unsure who she likes less, the humans or the Aliens - she's unsure of what she is or whether living is worth doing. Ironically enough, it's left to a "Artificial person" to sway her.
The scene where she discovers the earlier failed experiments is possibly the best in the entire film, let down only by Pearlman's subsequent one-liner. How many of us doubt that if the science was available, that some government or organisation would do this? I don't.
The supporting cast works well, whether it's Wincott's sudden death, Hillard sobbing before being the last to go underwater or Wren's complete immorality.
The whole idea of the Queen inheriting from Ripley as much as Ripley inherits from her is very intriguing and original. The newborn, whilst not geiger-esqe enough for me, somehow portrays a sense of innocence whether looking for guidance from Ripley or biting Christian's face in half. I found its end disturbing and unconciously put my hand over my mouth. I don't know whether this was well done, needlessly graphic or just plain revolting. Perhaps a mixture of the three.
The ending left me a little cold, but as a whole there was the sort of attempt to get inside the Alien (as opposed to the reverse) that the series really needs.
Alien remains - by far - the best installment of the series with characterisations that seem very real, claustrophobia and hidden deaths that work better than any amount of snot-splattering explosive effects and a COMPLETE lack of corny one-liners or machoistic attitudes. What it will never be, is the favourite for those that prefer large firearms, big explosions, flashy CGI and largely two-dimensional characters.
Resurrection had some good things going for it - not least Jeunet as director - but it's a pity that Dan O'Bannon (Who wrote Alien) did not have more of a direct input.
Now all those expecting Ripley to bond with a cutesy little girl, strap together two guns or get down with her bad self inside a power suit will no doubt feel let down by the new "alienated" Ripley that manages to be far more menacing and infinitely more interesting than the old one.
All those expecting the Marines to kick Alien butt will also be disappointed - in this film they actually manage to do the more believable thing and vacate as soon as possible rather than provide the Aliens with HostsRus. This Ellen Ripley is unsure who she likes less, the humans or the Aliens - she's unsure of what she is or whether living is worth doing. Ironically enough, it's left to a "Artificial person" to sway her.
The scene where she discovers the earlier failed experiments is possibly the best in the entire film, let down only by Pearlman's subsequent one-liner. How many of us doubt that if the science was available, that some government or organisation would do this? I don't.
The supporting cast works well, whether it's Wincott's sudden death, Hillard sobbing before being the last to go underwater or Wren's complete immorality.
The whole idea of the Queen inheriting from Ripley as much as Ripley inherits from her is very intriguing and original. The newborn, whilst not geiger-esqe enough for me, somehow portrays a sense of innocence whether looking for guidance from Ripley or biting Christian's face in half. I found its end disturbing and unconciously put my hand over my mouth. I don't know whether this was well done, needlessly graphic or just plain revolting. Perhaps a mixture of the three.
The ending left me a little cold, but as a whole there was the sort of attempt to get inside the Alien (as opposed to the reverse) that the series really needs.
Alien remains - by far - the best installment of the series with characterisations that seem very real, claustrophobia and hidden deaths that work better than any amount of snot-splattering explosive effects and a COMPLETE lack of corny one-liners or machoistic attitudes. What it will never be, is the favourite for those that prefer large firearms, big explosions, flashy CGI and largely two-dimensional characters.
Resurrection had some good things going for it - not least Jeunet as director - but it's a pity that Dan O'Bannon (Who wrote Alien) did not have more of a direct input.
Cape Fear
(1991)
Promising yet ultimately overblown remake of a superior original
18 April 2001
This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.
DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.
Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.
Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as "Weeds". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.
Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.
The worst? The "Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The "He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.
I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it.
DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.
Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.
Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as "Weeds". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.
Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.
The worst? The "Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The "He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.
I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it.
Manhunter
(1986)
*MUCH* better than SOTL (Aka Hollywood Psycho)
2 February 2001
I saw Manhunter about eight years ago and was very impressed. I saw SOTL five years ago and was unintentionally amused.
Manhunter has a far more believable Lector, intelligent, insightful, charming and lethal. Someone who embodies all that I've seen in interviews with the more cerebral of real-life serial killers. This is someone who quite patently could pass for normal in society and who in all probability got caught either completely by chance (as in this case) or because of a subconcious desire to do so.
SOTL has a 160lb ham with cartoon-style wide eyes, horrific overacting, incredibly pretentious complete with a dungeon-style setting in a badly lighted cell just in case the audience forgets how nasty he is. They even put a hockey mask on him and strap him to a stretcher - Friday the 13th anyone?
In Manhunter we learn something about Dolarhyde, his outlook, his fears, his mannerisms and even the things he sees that never happen.
In SOTL we get to see someone who would be completely at home on an episode of Jerry Springer.
In Manhunter we meet Peterson, driven and haunted. In SOTL we meet Starling who seems lost and unbalanced.
Now let's move on to some of the criticisms about the departures of Manhunter from Red Dragon. Some I miss, but some I prefer, for example:
1) Dolarhyde in the book was someone who was tortured by the voice of the Dragon in the William Blake painting. (although it's obviously himself) He tries to mend his ways and even breaks into the museum housing the original painting and EATS it in an attempt to stop the voices. I miss that in the film.
2) Dolarhyde in the book is someone who was actually severely bullied at the orphanage where he was brought up because of the hairlip he was born with, something that was to lead to him becoming psychotic. This is, at least covered a little in the film by the occasional reflex of covering his mouth and trying to hide the hairlip and his use of "ummm-hmmmm" instead of risking a mispronounciation of "yes"
3) Dolarhyde was forced by the Dragon to lift heavier and heavier weights with the result that he was immensely strong. In the film instead of limiting themselves to an actor with a pronounced psysique they go for someone who is relatively very tall, almost looming in presence. Tom does this well so I don't mind this.
4) In the book, there is an ending involving a beach by daylight and a fishing rod. In the film, they actually manage to improve on this with the final, powerful image of Dolarhyde on the floor, "wings" spread having finally become the Red Dragon.
Superb and chilling.
Manhunter has a far more believable Lector, intelligent, insightful, charming and lethal. Someone who embodies all that I've seen in interviews with the more cerebral of real-life serial killers. This is someone who quite patently could pass for normal in society and who in all probability got caught either completely by chance (as in this case) or because of a subconcious desire to do so.
SOTL has a 160lb ham with cartoon-style wide eyes, horrific overacting, incredibly pretentious complete with a dungeon-style setting in a badly lighted cell just in case the audience forgets how nasty he is. They even put a hockey mask on him and strap him to a stretcher - Friday the 13th anyone?
In Manhunter we learn something about Dolarhyde, his outlook, his fears, his mannerisms and even the things he sees that never happen.
In SOTL we get to see someone who would be completely at home on an episode of Jerry Springer.
In Manhunter we meet Peterson, driven and haunted. In SOTL we meet Starling who seems lost and unbalanced.
Now let's move on to some of the criticisms about the departures of Manhunter from Red Dragon. Some I miss, but some I prefer, for example:
1) Dolarhyde in the book was someone who was tortured by the voice of the Dragon in the William Blake painting. (although it's obviously himself) He tries to mend his ways and even breaks into the museum housing the original painting and EATS it in an attempt to stop the voices. I miss that in the film.
2) Dolarhyde in the book is someone who was actually severely bullied at the orphanage where he was brought up because of the hairlip he was born with, something that was to lead to him becoming psychotic. This is, at least covered a little in the film by the occasional reflex of covering his mouth and trying to hide the hairlip and his use of "ummm-hmmmm" instead of risking a mispronounciation of "yes"
3) Dolarhyde was forced by the Dragon to lift heavier and heavier weights with the result that he was immensely strong. In the film instead of limiting themselves to an actor with a pronounced psysique they go for someone who is relatively very tall, almost looming in presence. Tom does this well so I don't mind this.
4) In the book, there is an ending involving a beach by daylight and a fishing rod. In the film, they actually manage to improve on this with the final, powerful image of Dolarhyde on the floor, "wings" spread having finally become the Red Dragon.
Superb and chilling.
The Omega Man
(1971)
Hokey, standardly-70's depressive sci-fi
9 January 2001
Charlton Heston is not a good actor. We know this, we've seen the roles he plays, the incredible limitation of his acting range - this is one ham that does not taste any better with age.
The Omega Man is a (then) fashionably downbeat view of the future, complete with slang that has aged just as well as the cheston himself. It could be somewhat believable that a plague could happen - it is somehow realistic that the only person apparently left is a pompous, arrogant, self-righteous self-obsessed windbag. However, it is unlikely that that the rest of the surviving population would be turned into photosensitive Bauhaus groupies.
What follows is a film-by-numbers morality play that wavers between the unintentionally funny and the downright predictable.
It would have been immensely more apt to have Richard Matheson's book in a crucifixion pose by the end and save charlton an hour in make-up.
The Omega Man is a (then) fashionably downbeat view of the future, complete with slang that has aged just as well as the cheston himself. It could be somewhat believable that a plague could happen - it is somehow realistic that the only person apparently left is a pompous, arrogant, self-righteous self-obsessed windbag. However, it is unlikely that that the rest of the surviving population would be turned into photosensitive Bauhaus groupies.
What follows is a film-by-numbers morality play that wavers between the unintentionally funny and the downright predictable.
It would have been immensely more apt to have Richard Matheson's book in a crucifixion pose by the end and save charlton an hour in make-up.
Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story
(1993)
Dragon: The story as told by his wife then changed even more
24 November 2000
Jason Scott Lee is very good in the part, his mannerisms and way of walking and speaking are spot on.
With such a good choice as star, it is irritating but very predictable that the film is full of rubbish. This detracts from it completely and gives us a hollow, plastic view of Bruce and an opportunity squandered.
Things that annoy me the most:
1) Bruce did not leave Hong Kong because he beat up a relation of the governor - how silly. He left because he was running as part of a street gang and was growing uncontrollable. His family sent him to America because they'd tried everything else - a true mark of desperation.
2) Restaurant fight - Sorry, the odds of every Chinese guy knowing kung fu are not very good, yet this movie seems to feel "they" all do.
3) Punched in the back - Never happened. Bruce pushed himself constantly, especially with weights - even Bolo Yeung said that Bruce taught him about weights, not the other way around.
Bruce almost paralysed himself by attempting a deadlift without warming up - bye bye spinal erector muscles.
4) Fight on scene of Big Boss - Why is it that with all the media and fan attention on Bruce in the last 30 odd years, such events miraculously happen that no-one knew of before?
5) Bruce was in hospital before after chewing cannibis - a habit quite popular in Hong Kong where it's medicinal purposes have been known for hundreds of years. He almost died from an allergic reaction then. It's fairly certain this combined with a months-long punishing self-imposed schedule around the time of "enter the dragon" is what killed him.
It would be interesting to really hear from Linda what he was like, what he thought ect - but I doubt we ever will.
With such a good choice as star, it is irritating but very predictable that the film is full of rubbish. This detracts from it completely and gives us a hollow, plastic view of Bruce and an opportunity squandered.
Things that annoy me the most:
1) Bruce did not leave Hong Kong because he beat up a relation of the governor - how silly. He left because he was running as part of a street gang and was growing uncontrollable. His family sent him to America because they'd tried everything else - a true mark of desperation.
2) Restaurant fight - Sorry, the odds of every Chinese guy knowing kung fu are not very good, yet this movie seems to feel "they" all do.
3) Punched in the back - Never happened. Bruce pushed himself constantly, especially with weights - even Bolo Yeung said that Bruce taught him about weights, not the other way around.
Bruce almost paralysed himself by attempting a deadlift without warming up - bye bye spinal erector muscles.
4) Fight on scene of Big Boss - Why is it that with all the media and fan attention on Bruce in the last 30 odd years, such events miraculously happen that no-one knew of before?
5) Bruce was in hospital before after chewing cannibis - a habit quite popular in Hong Kong where it's medicinal purposes have been known for hundreds of years. He almost died from an allergic reaction then. It's fairly certain this combined with a months-long punishing self-imposed schedule around the time of "enter the dragon" is what killed him.
It would be interesting to really hear from Linda what he was like, what he thought ect - but I doubt we ever will.
Instinct
(1999)
Vapid
18 October 2000
This is an attempt to marry "Gorillas in the mist" with "one flew over the cukoos nest" - It is vastly inferior to both, cliche ridden and with a very silly ending indeed.
Hopkins is servicible in this role while Goodings shows yet again that "boys'n the hood" is the only film he's made where he is bearable to watch.
Avoid...
Hopkins is servicible in this role while Goodings shows yet again that "boys'n the hood" is the only film he's made where he is bearable to watch.
Avoid...
Predator 2
(1990)
Main attraction: NO ARNIE!!!
20 March 2000
Thank god for the lack of laughable lines in this movie (original: I ain't got time to bleed!! Knock, knock...Stick around....bluurrrghhh!) And far less macho posturing as well, making this film one of the very few movie sequals that manages to be better than the original.
Danny Glover is very well cast in the role (albiet he seems to have laryngitus) and is supported well by Bill Paxton if not by Maria Alonso (Who still cannot act) Although we have a few hollywood sterotypes (the yardies, generic SA drug gang) everything fits in well here.
The Predator of this movie is younger and brasher than the one in the first, eager to get trophies he feels are worthy of his alcove and quite happy to kill anyone else carrying a weapon in his presence.
The chase scene and ending to this film were both very satisfying:
(After following the predator out of the destroyed bathroom in the old folk's apartment: Harrigan: "It's OK! I'm a Cop!!!" Old lady: "I don't think he gives a s**t")
The expanded Predator armoury was welcome as was a glimpse into a Starship/trophy room and a better idea of the honour code they follow.
Basically, If you say Awesome!!/Kick A*s a lot, salivate over unfeasably large firearms and like watching guys with *ahem - "Enhanced" muscularity you will prefer the original.
Danny Glover is very well cast in the role (albiet he seems to have laryngitus) and is supported well by Bill Paxton if not by Maria Alonso (Who still cannot act) Although we have a few hollywood sterotypes (the yardies, generic SA drug gang) everything fits in well here.
The Predator of this movie is younger and brasher than the one in the first, eager to get trophies he feels are worthy of his alcove and quite happy to kill anyone else carrying a weapon in his presence.
The chase scene and ending to this film were both very satisfying:
(After following the predator out of the destroyed bathroom in the old folk's apartment: Harrigan: "It's OK! I'm a Cop!!!" Old lady: "I don't think he gives a s**t")
The expanded Predator armoury was welcome as was a glimpse into a Starship/trophy room and a better idea of the honour code they follow.
Basically, If you say Awesome!!/Kick A*s a lot, salivate over unfeasably large firearms and like watching guys with *ahem - "Enhanced" muscularity you will prefer the original.
Fist of Fury
(1972)
Bruce Lee ACTS!!
20 March 2000
This is the one film of Bruce's where I have actually seen him act (Outside of fighting scenes) with any credibility at all.
This film clearly demonstrates the anti-japanese feeling that Hong-Kong and mainland Chinese still posess. This is partly based upon WWII and partly on the thousand years or so of history before then, when China tried to invade Japan, Japan invaded China ect etc.
In fact, the way the Japanese are portrayed in this film is a very stereotypical Chinese one, long, thin pencil moustaches, usually large round glasses, oiled hair and well, evil.
This film goes over the top with this kind of view, and it's a pity as it tends to lessen the impact they were trying to make with the now infamous sign.
The end scene was excellent. It's truly disturbing how close this was to what happened to Brandon.
Shots to the head: Bruce acts - Better storyline than most of the genre - martial arts scenes ok from Bruce
Shots to the foot: Anti-Japanese characterisations go too far - martial art choreography of Bruce's opponents bad - "Kick" scene patently ridiculous.
This film clearly demonstrates the anti-japanese feeling that Hong-Kong and mainland Chinese still posess. This is partly based upon WWII and partly on the thousand years or so of history before then, when China tried to invade Japan, Japan invaded China ect etc.
In fact, the way the Japanese are portrayed in this film is a very stereotypical Chinese one, long, thin pencil moustaches, usually large round glasses, oiled hair and well, evil.
This film goes over the top with this kind of view, and it's a pity as it tends to lessen the impact they were trying to make with the now infamous sign.
The end scene was excellent. It's truly disturbing how close this was to what happened to Brandon.
Shots to the head: Bruce acts - Better storyline than most of the genre - martial arts scenes ok from Bruce
Shots to the foot: Anti-Japanese characterisations go too far - martial art choreography of Bruce's opponents bad - "Kick" scene patently ridiculous.
Robin Hood: Prince of Gimps
17 March 2000
Warning: Spoilers
You know, this film actually managed to be a lot funnier than "Men in Tights", in fact it succeeds on this level to such an extent that it is hard to imagine this was not what the director was aiming for.
Forget the horrific accents from Wyatt Hood and Willie the kid, forget the amusing stunt butt, forget the geographical inaccuracies.
Let's have a look at the more non-intentionally amusing parts of the film that genuinely make me laugh uncontrollably.
Spoilers! (As if you haven't seen it already...)
1) When Robin (wearing stock beard #15) and pal escape from the Turkish prison, they do so by lifting a patterned metal manhole cover that would not be out of place in NY (No doubt with "the pj's" inscribed on it)
2) The Ewok village in Endor (Sorry - Sherwood) forest. Perhaps Reynolds got a good deal from Lucas? In an unrealistic film at best, this is a little bit too much. It does give Kev a chance to fufil his tarzan fantasies however :)
3) The oh-so-hammy script that Alan Rickman was given (he seems to have had some fun with it, though!) Pointing at servant wench "You - my room - ten o'clock" Pointing at another "You - 10:30" *Pause* "Bring a friend"
4) The awful action sequences no doubt covering the filmcrew with splinters. An attempt should have been made to try and make this exciting?
5) The BowCam (tm) - Very funny, almost as funny as the KnifeCam from Naturally pretentious Killers.
6) The witch - pastiche ahoy, replete with borrowed "MacBeth" costume and wig.
Both Kev and Christian were completely awful in this film. The only people to salvage some dignity from this steaming pile are Morgan Freeman, Brian Blessed and Nick Bramble.
Forget the horrific accents from Wyatt Hood and Willie the kid, forget the amusing stunt butt, forget the geographical inaccuracies.
Let's have a look at the more non-intentionally amusing parts of the film that genuinely make me laugh uncontrollably.
Spoilers! (As if you haven't seen it already...)
1) When Robin (wearing stock beard #15) and pal escape from the Turkish prison, they do so by lifting a patterned metal manhole cover that would not be out of place in NY (No doubt with "the pj's" inscribed on it)
2) The Ewok village in Endor (Sorry - Sherwood) forest. Perhaps Reynolds got a good deal from Lucas? In an unrealistic film at best, this is a little bit too much. It does give Kev a chance to fufil his tarzan fantasies however :)
3) The oh-so-hammy script that Alan Rickman was given (he seems to have had some fun with it, though!) Pointing at servant wench "You - my room - ten o'clock" Pointing at another "You - 10:30" *Pause* "Bring a friend"
4) The awful action sequences no doubt covering the filmcrew with splinters. An attempt should have been made to try and make this exciting?
5) The BowCam (tm) - Very funny, almost as funny as the KnifeCam from Naturally pretentious Killers.
6) The witch - pastiche ahoy, replete with borrowed "MacBeth" costume and wig.
Both Kev and Christian were completely awful in this film. The only people to salvage some dignity from this steaming pile are Morgan Freeman, Brian Blessed and Nick Bramble.
2010
(1984)
Kubrick was not god, 2001 was not the best film ever made
17 March 2000
That should get some smug, ponytail wearing film grads upset - a worthy goal at the best of times.
2001 was a good film on many levels, great in a few and ramblingly lacking in others. It's greatest legacy is that it demonstrated that bug-eyed monsters and blasters are not the limit of sci-fi on celluloid and that there is indeed another road to go down.
2010 (the film...) is a more mainstream effort certainly, in places predictable but it is a whole log better than the devotees of the great god Kubrick would have you believe.
In 2010, a lot of things are changed from the book (This I do not like, and would prefer studios to leave-as-is ) and the movie is not as good as it could have been.
However, it's still a good film with a decent (if modified) script and some very, very good acting mostly from Helen Mirren, Oleg Rudnik and Saveli Kramarov.
Perhaps it tries to supply too many of the answers to the questions raised by the first, but it is good enough (and should?) stand on its own merits.
2001 was a good film on many levels, great in a few and ramblingly lacking in others. It's greatest legacy is that it demonstrated that bug-eyed monsters and blasters are not the limit of sci-fi on celluloid and that there is indeed another road to go down.
2010 (the film...) is a more mainstream effort certainly, in places predictable but it is a whole log better than the devotees of the great god Kubrick would have you believe.
In 2010, a lot of things are changed from the book (This I do not like, and would prefer studios to leave-as-is ) and the movie is not as good as it could have been.
However, it's still a good film with a decent (if modified) script and some very, very good acting mostly from Helen Mirren, Oleg Rudnik and Saveli Kramarov.
Perhaps it tries to supply too many of the answers to the questions raised by the first, but it is good enough (and should?) stand on its own merits.
Dances with Wolves
(1990)
Superb cinematography, did what needed doing.
16 March 2000
...And what was that, you ask?
Quite simple - remind as many people as possible that millions of Native american men, women and children were slaughtered by murderers that stole their land.
First-hand accounts are still widely available, senate approved plans of Genocide are similarly available, yet the American public as a whole prefer their history to be served up a la John Ford or refer to it in a silly, tart phrase such as "Manifest destiny".
It is, after all, a lot easier to believe what you want to, rather than what is (and which is usually less attractive)
I digress.
This film has a lot of very good things going for it, The cinematography, the script (mostly), the way the story flows and explains in a believable way what is happening to Lt John Dunbar, it also shows the increasing trepidation on the part of tribes just beginning to come into proximity with the expanding towns and forts. (The way in which the elder presents Dunbar with a Conquistador helmet as his belief that they will remain unaffected is very poignant)
It's not a perfect film, but this was Costner's first attempt at directing, and was a whole load better than the laughable "Robin Hood".
Costner's not the first actor to want to make such a statement in film and wake people up, Brando tried for twenty years, but the studios did'nt think it would make money.
I hope this film will make some people find out more on the subject. Some of what they will find is harrowing, but the truth, already there, needs to be spread to a populace that basically does'nt care.
Still.
Quite simple - remind as many people as possible that millions of Native american men, women and children were slaughtered by murderers that stole their land.
First-hand accounts are still widely available, senate approved plans of Genocide are similarly available, yet the American public as a whole prefer their history to be served up a la John Ford or refer to it in a silly, tart phrase such as "Manifest destiny".
It is, after all, a lot easier to believe what you want to, rather than what is (and which is usually less attractive)
I digress.
This film has a lot of very good things going for it, The cinematography, the script (mostly), the way the story flows and explains in a believable way what is happening to Lt John Dunbar, it also shows the increasing trepidation on the part of tribes just beginning to come into proximity with the expanding towns and forts. (The way in which the elder presents Dunbar with a Conquistador helmet as his belief that they will remain unaffected is very poignant)
It's not a perfect film, but this was Costner's first attempt at directing, and was a whole load better than the laughable "Robin Hood".
Costner's not the first actor to want to make such a statement in film and wake people up, Brando tried for twenty years, but the studios did'nt think it would make money.
I hope this film will make some people find out more on the subject. Some of what they will find is harrowing, but the truth, already there, needs to be spread to a populace that basically does'nt care.
Still.
Get Carter
(1971)
Dirty, Nasty and Riveting
9 March 2000
A gritty film concerning a professional killer who discovers that his brother has died in his home town of newcastle in "Suspicious" circumstances and the action he takes to get to the bottom of it. The violence is realistically depicted "I KNOW you did'nt" *Schlik "I KNOW you did'nt" *Schlik and the emotionless front of the professional killer gives rise to real feelings on both ends of the scale. The ending, if predictably 70's downbeat is very good indeed.
It worries me that a hollywood remake is in post-production starring Sylvester Stallone???!!!?!!?!?!
"Oi! Behave yourself!"
It worries me that a hollywood remake is in post-production starring Sylvester Stallone???!!!?!!?!?!
"Oi! Behave yourself!"
Soldier
(I) (1998)
An action Sci-Fi movie with something more than one liners to say
1 March 2000
I don't remember this film getting a cinema release over here. I only saw it when it came onto cable. The film deals with the dehumanisation of children into killing machines. Specifically one person, the way he gets replaced and dumped (literally) into an off-world community where he finds himself unable to cope with coming to terms with who he really is and what he feels.
Seems to me that a lot of people expected this to be Rambo in space, and would have been happy if it was.
I'm certainly happy it was'nt - Kurt does a fine job of portraying an emotional cripple. The scene where he's sitting outside the compound shows this, albeit the decision for two slow-mo replays detracts from the moment.
This is not a classic SF movie in the way that Bladerunner, Alien, Silent running, Logan's run or THX1138 were, however it is unfortunately the nearest I've seen to it in a long time.
He changes in the movie to a believable degree, he does'nt crack Arnie one liners, he does'nt become Snake Plissken and there is no definative happy ending.
That's why this film did'nt do well. It did'nt follow formula, and among a 18-25 year old target American audience, that's unforgivable as it was was'nt what they expected to see.
Fear and discipline.
Always.
Seems to me that a lot of people expected this to be Rambo in space, and would have been happy if it was.
I'm certainly happy it was'nt - Kurt does a fine job of portraying an emotional cripple. The scene where he's sitting outside the compound shows this, albeit the decision for two slow-mo replays detracts from the moment.
This is not a classic SF movie in the way that Bladerunner, Alien, Silent running, Logan's run or THX1138 were, however it is unfortunately the nearest I've seen to it in a long time.
He changes in the movie to a believable degree, he does'nt crack Arnie one liners, he does'nt become Snake Plissken and there is no definative happy ending.
That's why this film did'nt do well. It did'nt follow formula, and among a 18-25 year old target American audience, that's unforgivable as it was was'nt what they expected to see.
Fear and discipline.
Always.
Hell in the Pacific
(1968)
Flawed, but good
1 March 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Both Mifune and Marvin are great in this film, going through initial trained impulses, through each gaining the upper hand to working togeather in order to escape the Island.
The ending is suprisingly good. Because it is unexpected, sudden and loud it obviously took many by suprise
SPOILER!!! SPOILER!!!............ ..............
.... ....... The ending is magnificent, it's a shame that the industry has come full circle once more to making predictable, feel-good finishes to most films. Mifune/Marvin come upon a ruined barracks with newspaper whipping in the wind. This is when they learn of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
Mifune is stunned, incredulous that people could do such a thing. Marvin, unable to justify or explain it, becomes defensive and angry (Art imitating life, try asking most Americans to justify it, especially given that the Japanese approached the Americans a week before the first bomb was dropped to ask for terms of surrender.)
And the hate continues.
The ending is suprisingly good. Because it is unexpected, sudden and loud it obviously took many by suprise
SPOILER!!! SPOILER!!!............ ..............
.... ....... The ending is magnificent, it's a shame that the industry has come full circle once more to making predictable, feel-good finishes to most films. Mifune/Marvin come upon a ruined barracks with newspaper whipping in the wind. This is when they learn of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
Mifune is stunned, incredulous that people could do such a thing. Marvin, unable to justify or explain it, becomes defensive and angry (Art imitating life, try asking most Americans to justify it, especially given that the Japanese approached the Americans a week before the first bomb was dropped to ask for terms of surrender.)
And the hate continues.
Se7en
(1995)
Derivative, disgusting and downbeat
29 February 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Seven is the sort of film that takes several formulaic concepts, dresses them up with something trendy (title screens beginning and end, making me wonder if the guy from Homicide got paid), uses stock characterisations, piles on the repulsiveness on the excuse of realism, and then watches the money come in. What we have here is the age-old veteran approaching retirement teamed with a young, aggressive rookie. The parts played somewhat predictably by Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt. The killer in this movie plans to murder six people (seven dead in total) according to the seven deadly sins, hence the title. The ways in which this is accomplished in five of these seems to be calculated to be incredibly disgusting, repulsive and downright offensive. The scriptwriters here certainly are no fan of Hitchcock, but rather King. The result of which was to basically make me feel slightly ill and disinterested in the film as a whole. Now if they had bothered to put as much effort into the characterisation of messrs Freeman and Pitt, this would have been a far better movie. As it stands, you care very little for either of them as they just do not seem like real people at all. (I get to put a second reference to Homicide:LOTS as a reference point as to how it should be done) Cinematographally speaking, the majority of the film seems intent on portraying the city as a "Bladerunner by day", muting most things in dull, washed out colours together with lots and lots of Rain. Gritty? Yes. Depressing? Yes. Boring? Eventually. Two good things about this film. 1) The titles are pretty groovy, like, man. 2) Kevin Spacey finally gets a shot at making big movies, not before time. But that is it.
Tell Your Friends