StevePaget Reviews

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005)

Poor arguments, poorly made.

[4/10 · 4 June 2008]

This is a documentary about Walmart: the big US supermarket corporation which also owns Asda in the UK. You can tell by the title that the film-makers have a problem with the way Walmart operates, and this film examines some of their business practices and aims to show that there is something rotten going on.

We all know how this sort of film works. There's a new breed of feature-length "issue" documentary, typified by Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 and Sicko and Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me. They use a combination of humour, narration and interview footage to convince us about their cause. Even if we don't agree with their conclusions, or we doubt that they're telling us all the facts, we can still find them entertaining.

Unfortunately, this movie fails on both counts. It's not particularly entertaining, nor does it do a good job of persuading. At least, it failed to persuade me that Walmart was any more evil than any large company. The main criticisms that the movie made seemed to be that Walmart is so popular that smaller businesses are driven out of town, and that they do not give their employees many perks, such as health-care. Neither argument really wins for me, and they are presented in an overly mawkish and sentimental way. Members of the public are wheeled on to give their own sob story, usually about how their health has suffered/they have lost money/their cat was killed because of the evil organisation under scrutiny. Michael Moore is often guilty of the same offence, to be fair. Then, sprinkled among the pathos, there is usually some light relief. But Walmart: The High Cost Of Low Price fails to deliver the laughs, leaving us with a movie in which a succession of people moan about nothing in particular.

I expect that this film will be enjoyed by people with an axe to grind over big business, but it's easy to preach to the choir. To the innocent bystander, it's a waste of time.

Superhero Movie (2008)

Lame, unnecessary spoof runs out of steam

[3/10 · 22 April 2008]

When I was very young a film called Airplane came out, and I loved it. I was ten years old, and even though I had never seen most of the disaster movies that it spoofed, I couldn't get enough of the film's rapid-fire visual gags. The spoof genre of movies has been around pretty much since then, from the sequel Airplane 2 to TV detective spoof The Naked Gun, right up to modern equivalents such as the Scary Movie series, Epic Movie and the pretty universally despised Meet The Spartans.

But it was the writers Jim Abrahams and David Zucker who started it with Airplane, and now they have come to reclaim the spoof title with Superhero Movie. As the name suggests, the new target of ridicule is the superhero movie genre, exemplified by Spiderman and X-Men. The bulk of the plot is taken from Spiderman, featuring a young outcast who is bitten by a genetically enhanced dragonfly and who takes on some of the characteristics of the insect. Scenes from the original are lifted wholesale, such as the scene where the hero first discovers that he can climb walls, and the part where his uncle (played by Airplane veteran, Leslie Nielsen) is shot by an escaping burglar. Grafted onto this stolen plot are a number of jokes and ludicrous situations which, on the whole, are not very amusing.

This it is an example of the laziest type of movie making. For example, as Dragonfly climbs up the wall, a cat walks past him to highlight the fact that the camera has simply been turned on its side to give the illusion of sticking to the surface. I seem to remember Kenny Everett doing that joke over 25 years ago. One scene attempts to wring over a minute's worth of laughs out of an old lady breaking wind. And whereas the Airplane movies had jokes almost every second, Superhero Movie runs out of steam very quickly and the jokes, feeble as they are, are very thinly spread. The film only lasts an hour and ten minutes, and it seems likely that this is because they simply couldn't think of anything else to say.

It seems that these spoofs have not moved on since I was ten. If anything, they have gone backwards. Maybe that would mean that they are suitable for 8 year olds, but the rating on Superhero Movie specifies that it is only suitable for teenagers. It stands to reason that they would have to be very stupid teenagers.

Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny (2006)

It's just one note. Anyone could have written that.

[6/10 · 12 February 2007]

Cards on the table: I'm a bit of a Tenacious D fan. I have the album and I loved the series of TV shorts. If you don't know who they are, Tenacious D (or just "the D") is the rock band which comprises Jack Black and his buddy Kyle Gass. In the TV show, as in this movie, they are not playing themselves but two characters with the same names. The screen versions of JB and KG are wannabe rock musicians whose sense of self-worth vastly outweighs their actual talent. This film tells the story of their meeting and the formation of the band, as well as their quest for the fabled "pick of destiny", a magical plectrum which grants the possessor the abilities of a rock legend.

Many will be familiar with Jack Black from his role in The School Of Rock, and there are similarities here. School of Rock was almost a watered-down version of Tenacious D, with the language toned down for a younger audience. In Pick Of Destiny, both Black and Gass "let the F-bombs fly" and the result is mostly successful. The characters are amusing and the movie is stylishly presented, but I found myself wanting more.

Tenacious D are most amusing when they're actually performing. For too long in this movie, they are simply a couple of fat blokes in an apartment, arguing. I would have preferred more songs and less banter. I would even have been happy for them to reprise some of the songs from the album, but as it stands the movie takes too long to get going and the real funny moments are too far apart. There are cameos by Tim Robbins and Ben Stiller, but these rely too much on silly wigs to add much to the proceedings.

I found myself wondering whether the concept of Tenacious D was enough to support a whole movie, but consider this: if Bill and Ted had enough mileage for two successful films, The D should have been able to fill one.

Superman Returns (2006)

Superman re-runs

[7/10 · 29 November 2006]

They did it with Batman last year. They did it with James Bond last week. These days, it seems Hollywood is gong back to basics with its top franchises, showing us new sides to our old heroes. This summer it was Superman's turn, as X-Men director Bryan Singer flew the coop to bring us this new tale of the Man Of Steel.

Superman appeared in a string of big-budget (for the time) movies in the late 70's and 80's, played by Christopher Reeve. After a couple of popular outings, the series went downhill with the largely comical Superman III (starring Richard Pryor) and the laughable Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (which featured our hero throwing all the world's nuclear weapons into the Sun).

For Superman Returns, the makers have wisely decided to ignore the last two episodes and take up the plot after the second, most interesting movie. In that story, Superman abandons his powers to marry Lois, revealing his identity for the first time. After that episode concluded, we are told, Superman left Earth to try to find the remains of his home planet, Krypton. As the title would suggest, Superman Returns begins just as Superman returns from his trip. In the five years while he has been gone, the world has moved on without him. Lois has a new partner and a child, while Lex Luthor is out of prison and plotting again.

In many ways, this is just like the movies of the Reeve era. Unlike what Christopher Nolan did with Batman, Singer has been very careful to remain true to the previous films. John Williams's music makes a welcome return, with variations on the original themes. Brandon Routh is uncannily similar to Christopher Reeve, especially when playing Clark Kent. And structurally, everything is exactly as it was before. Lex Luthor surrounds himself with muscle-bound henchmen and a dumb female. Even his evil plot involves the selling of real estate, just like the first movie.

The film is more brutal in places. Superman does receive an ass-kicking unlike anything we saw before. And the CGI obviously gives far better results than the old bloke-on-a-wire-in-front-of-a-green-screen technique that impressed us all 20 years ago. But this is essentially the same film we have seen before: there are earthquakes and explosions, heavy things topple towards groups of screaming people, Superman swoops in at the last minute and saves them. There is a LOT of swooping in at the last minute in this film. At one point I thought it was going to get very interesting, as Superman seemed to be trying to save everyone from dying all over the world. I would have liked to have seen that pursued further. After all, even Superman cannot be everywhere at the same time. Think how many people must have been dying in accidents on the other side of the world while Superman wasted time flying around romantically with Lois over a moonlit city. By the way, he does this AGAIN in this film, with similar musical accompaniment to before.

Also, I have never really warmed to Superman as a hero. He is too powerful. With Spiderman, he has well-defined powers. He is strong. He walks on walls. He shoots webs. Oh, and he has senses danger with his "spider sense". The X-Men have their own, limited specialities. Superman, on the other hand, does everything. He flies, he's super-strong, super-fast, bulletproof, he has super-breath, he can go into space, he can make time run backwards, he can see through walls, he has super-hearing, he shoots frickin' laser beams from his eyes... the list goes on. Unless he's hit with kryptonite, everything is easy for Superman. He isn't vulnerable. That's no way to make a good drama.

All in all, this will probably kick-start the franchise for some more films which may turn out to be very good. But I wanted more from Superman Returns than just Superman Re-runs.

The Quick and the Undead (2006)

Nott Entertainment

[2/10 · 1 November 2006]

The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.

So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.

I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.

The Wild (2006)

Madagascar without the jokes. Now THAT's unappealing.

[5/10 · 22 July 2006]

For some reason, the various Hollywood studios occasionally display almost telepathic communication. Simultaneously, seemingly independently, they release two films which are very similar. We saw it with Dante's Peak and Volcano in 1997 (Two films in which a volcano erupts in a populated area of America), Deep Impact and Armageddon in 1998 (Two films where a giant meteor is going to destroy all life on Earth) and this year saw two studios revisiting the "capsizing cruise liner" genre with the Poseidon remake and the made-for-TV The Poseidon Adventure. Why do they do this? Surely it cannot be a coincidence. And films take years to produce, so it's not like one company can see an advert for a film and rush out their own version. Maybe it's because Hollywood is not a very secretive place. Ideas and scripts are touted round all the studios before they are bought, so it's not surprising that sometimes a company will set off down similar paths.

So, after last year's Madagascar was a reasonable hit for Dreamworks, arch-rivals Disney have "independently" come up with this, The Wild. A coincidence? Let's review the evidence.

Madagascar features a group of animals who are residents of a New York zoo. And so does The Wild.

In Madagascar, the group's leader is a lion, and it also includes a giraffe. And it's the same in The Wild.

In Madagascar, the group break out of the zoo to set off on a cargo ship for a remote jungle location. And it's the same in The Wild.

In Madagascar, the Lion comes to terms with the contrast between his pampered existence in captivity and life in the wild. And it's the same in The Wild.

And even the humorous sidekicks are similar. In Madagascar, the group are aided by a team of military penguins, who operate with hilarious efficiency and speak in short, sharp sentences. In The Wild, they're chameleons.

So if you have seen Madagascar, you've basically already seen the Wild, right? Not exactly. Because if you ignore those suspicious connections, The Wild is actually a different kind of film, with clear signs of its heritage. Madagascar is more about the comedy, while The Wild follows the classic Disney themes of family values and adventure against adversity. If Masdagascar is Shrek, The Wild is Finding Nemo.

Except that is too much of a compliment. The Wild is still a second-rate animated movie, clearly from the Disney half of the Disney-Pixar partnership. Kiefer Sutherland plays Samson the lion straight down the line. His motivation is just to save his son from volcanic fiery death, so he saves the jokes and pratfalls for his entourage, most notably the scene-stealing koala played by Eddie Izzard. In fact, Sutherland might as well be reprising his role from 24, where he was invariably trying to save his annoying daughter. Only this time he's a lion, of course.

The film dallies too much with tired old psychobabble father-son nonsense, much in the same way that spoiled Chicken Little earlier this year. The quality of the animation is another step forward in the ability of artists to render animals, and it takes a more natural approach to Madagascar that is really very impressive indeed.

But Madagascar stole the march, leaving The Wild look a little bit preachy and rather old-school.

Corpse Bride (2005)

A slightly stiff movie

[5/10 · 19 November 2005]

Tim Burton's previous big animation offering, The Nightmare before Christmas, was a pleasant enough offering. I never really fell for it as much as some of his devotees did, but I enjoyed its gloomy charm and the songs were fun. I was expecting more of the same sort of thing with Corspe Bride, and it seems that I wasn't far off.

The story is about a young man, the son of a wealthy fishmonger, who is due to marry the daughter of an aristocratic, but poor, family. The wedding rehearsals are a disaster and, one thing leading to another as they often do in films, the poor chap ends up being married to a corpse. I know, it doesn't seem to make sense, but it does at the time, trust me. So, instead of spending his honeymoon relaxing with his new bride, planning their future together (and, presumably, trying to remove the smell of fish from the rental tuxedo), he is instead dragged into the netherworld. With hilarious consequences.

Except there aren't really any hilarious consequences at all. To be honest, it felt a little (if you pardon the pun) lifeless. Johnny Depp is fine, not to mention barely recognisable, as the English-accented groom, Victor. Helena Bohnam-Carter (who assures us she had to audition for her husband, Tim Burton. Yeah right) is perfectly acceptable as the zombie newlywed. But, weird premise aside, the film is a bit predictable. There are some nice songs (though not up to Nightmare Before Christmas standards) and some decent jokes involving body parts and decomposition, but the story pretty much follows the path you might expect from a standard "I married a dead chick" movie.

Wait for video.

Madagascar (2005)

Dreamworks reputation diminishing...

[5/10 · 29 July 2005]

What a lot of publicity this film received. For what seems like months, my daughter and I have been bombarded with Madagascar TV promotions, food promotions, toy adverts and all the usual hoopla associated with a major kids animated movie release. In a way it's similar to the periodic population explosion which is responsible for the lemming suicide myth. Every now and then, the lemming population becomes so large that they migrate en masse, causing some to die as they flock over a cliff. In this case, the media have waiting too long since Dreamworks last animated epic, the disappointing Shark Tale, so with another 2 years to wait for the next Shrek sequel, they have whipped themselves up into a frenzy over Madagascar. But does it deserve the attention?

In a word, no. Like Shark Tale, Madagascar doesn't really cut it as a winner. A lack of decent jokes is the main reason why the film fails to grab the attention in the way it should. There are some funny moments involving a trio of cunning penguins who have their own escape plan, as well as some good toilet humour, but the laughs are few and far between. After a while the film develops a vegetarian motif, as Alex the Lion (Ben Stiller) starts to return to his wild instincts and craves zebra meat. This is fairly uncomfortable viewing (though this may be for my own personal reasons), as is the heavy-handed patriotism which seems to inflict many films that centre around New York. David Schwimmer's neurotic giraffe is left to provide most of the comic relief, while Jada Pinkett Smith's hippopotamus might as well not be there. There was something odd about the animation which I couldn't quite place, too. It seemed to be too jerky, with characters hopping about so quickly that it was hard to watch.

Madagascar might have the big names and the big studio behind it, but my young daughter wasn't hooked and nor was I.

White Noise (I) (2005)

Can you hear me? It-----s--uu--c--k----ss-----ssss

[5/10 · 12 January 2005]

Recently, Hollywood has been plundering the delights of Asian cinema for movie ideas worthy of translation, usually into flashy, less interesting imitations of the originals. At the same time, a mini trend has developed in Asia for horror films which centre around technology, the Ring series and Phone leaping immediately to mind.

So maybe it's time the US developed their own brand of techno-ghost story, before the Koreans have a chance to do it first? White Noise appears to be their first effort. It concerns EVP, or Elecronic Voice Phenomenon. The idea is that sound recording equipment left unconnected to any signal input (or a radio tuned between stations) may pick up the voices of the dead, hidden in among the hissing sounds. I say "idea", because like all efforts to communicate with the dead, it's all hogwash. It doesn't work.

Sure, there are loads of people who say it does work (including this film's star, Michael Keaton, but when did actors show a glimmer of intelligence?), but unfortunately they are experiencing the audio equivalent of pareidolia. That's the human instinct to see patterns in random shapes (like the ink blots in the Rorscach test, or the man in the moon). The voices people say they hear in EVP are probably either stray signals from distant radio stations, or just the result of random fuzz and wishful thinking. But hey, Hollywood's go to make movies and who ever said they have to be realistic? The fact that some loons will take this fiction as evidence of life after death isn't the filmmaker's problem is it?

So, bearing in mind that the whole idea is crap, is it possible to put that to one side and enjoy the movie? I'm afraid not. White Noise is dull. Michael Keaton plays a recent widower who is drawn to the exercise to contact his wife, but he is drawn into a strange plot involving dozens of missing people. I suppose if you have never heard of it before, the idea of EVP itself is interesting for a few minutes, but I was wondering how they were going to make a whole movie out of it. After all, even if it was real, the voices seem to be limited to a word or two and it's only a one-way conversation. Sure enough, before long White Noise departs from its source material and we have images appearing on television sets, premonitions, evil spirits, the whole shebang. In order to try and inject some excitement into the proceedings we are occasionally treated to a jump (a scary face on the TV or a loud noise), but there is no more sophistication than a fairground ghost train. I did jump, of course. But then ghost trains make me scream like a little girl, so I'm a bad example.

The movie struggles to give some explanation as to what is happening, but it never really becomes clear, nor do we care. I was keen for it all to finish, even though I knew that I would have to sit through a ludicrous ending. The most depressing thing is that White Noise may invigorate the whole preposterous EVP industry, and some genuinely grieving and vulnerable people might get fleeced by leeches bearing tape recorders. I hope you're happy, Keaton.

Blade: Trinity (2004)

Someone stick a stake through this series' heart

[5/10 · 14 December 2004]

Blade and the first sequel, Blade 2, are quite well respected movies. Fans say that they are well crafted vampire movies which do interesting things with the genre and at the same time supply an always-welcome dose of kickass. Those same fans have been less than kind about Blade: Trinity. But I'm not a fan, and I have not seen the first two films. Could a fresh approach be what it takes see Blade: Trinity in a new light?

Well, I'm not impressed. I can see glimmers of what a good idea the Blade story is. Coming from an obscure Marvel comic, it features a hybrid vampire/human who is out to kill modern day vampires wherever they may be. The reason for this is not made clear in this third film, though it may well be in the original. What is clear as this movie starts is that Blade has an organisation backing him up, as well as an arsenal of cool gadgets which are souped-up versions of the traditional vampire-hunting paraphernalia (silver-plated sword, silver-bullet machine gun etc). But not even that is enough to save him when the vampires plot to bring back the granddaddy of them all: Dracula!

All this is clearly warming up to be the barney to end all barneys, as Dracula (or Drake as he has named himself) won't just line up and be staked like the rest of the creatures of the night. There's going to be a lot of punching and kicking before this film is over. And boy, is there a lot of fighting. In fact, that's about all that does happen. Fight after fight after fight, stopping only for a little bit of story here and there.

Blade is wanted by the FBI. Fight! Blade discovers a group of familiars (humans who are helping the vampire cause). Fight!

It all gets a bit tiresome, especially when Blade teams up with a couple of other hunters (which, presumably, is where the "Trinity" in the title comes from), one of whom is an attractive lady and the other is an annoying, smug git who won't stop wise-cracking. I am sure that the previous movies must have had more depth than this, or they would not have the sort of following they have acquired. Mind you, what do I know? A lot of people enjoyed The Punisher. Damn fools, the lot of them.

Eight Legged Freaks (2002)

Not nearly as good as it should have been.

[4/10 · 13 December 2004]

1990's Arachnophobia was a great little film. It was scary, with lots of good creepy shocks, but it was aimed firmly at a family audience, with lots of humour and some good acting. Eight Legged Freaks tries to bring the killer spider genre into the new century by adding oodles of CGI. It's how 50's B movies would have looked if they had had the budget and the technology.

The idea is very simple. There's an accident involving the sort of dangerous bio-waste which is always being carted around in rickety trucks in cheap horror movies. Via a rather convoluted path, the mutation-causing goo ends up affecting hundreds of spiders which are being reared in a nearby exotic spider farm (doesn't every small town have one?). The movie takes great pains to introduce us to the characteristic of the different spider species through the clever narrative device of an annoyingly clever child who knows a lot about spiders. Jumping spiders, trapdoor spiders, "orb-weavers", they're all explained in depth so that we will recognise them later in the movie and go "ooh, that's that one which makes trap doors". What do they think we are, stupid?

Actually, the film-makers must think that we are very stupid, because they somehow think it is necessary to keep mentioning the fact that the mines beneath the town are FULL OF METHANE, and the characters must be very careful because METHANE is dangerous and the mines are FULL OF METHANE. I'd be amazed if anyone who ever saw this film was surprised by the ending. (Clue: it involves methane)

The problem with Eight Legged Freaks is that it is bound to appeal to almost no one. As a horror movie it is too silly. As a comedy it is not sufficiently funny. As a family movie it is too frightening. The spiders kill loads of people (which is cool), but they make little squeaky noises like the Mogwai from Gremlins (which is stupid). Worse is the use of cartoon-style violence, totally out of place in a film trying to appeal to anyone over ten years old. On more than one occasion a spider jumps and splats into a wall before slowly sliding down. Really poor.

Though it may lack the big beasties, Arachnophobia still beats Eight Legged Freaks by a long way and remains king of the spider films.

Pitch Black (2000)

Last one out turn off the lights

[5/10 · 20 November 2004]

I watched this because I wanted to watch The Chronicles Of Riddick and I thought it best to understand some back story. I wish I hadn't bothered.

The odd thing is, a lot of people really like this movie. They think it's a low-key, suspense-filled sci-fi classic, in the mold of Alien. They're idiots, mind you. This is just dull.

The idea is that a ship crash lands on a strange planet, killing most of the crew. Among the survivors is Riddick, a murderer being transported back to justice. The planet in question has a strange arrangement of suns, such that there is perpetual daylight. The place is a constant desert. The survivors discover a ruined settlement where the previous inhabitants were all eaten. It seems there are aliens that live in the dark beneath the surface of the planet. And that's when the eclipse comes...

What follows is a story where the small band of scared humans tries to harness what little light they can while trying to repair a small spaceship to get them off the planet. And what about Riddick? Is he friend or foe? Well, I'll tell you what he's not: a very good actor. Vin Diesel grunts and rasps his way through this film with little or no effort at all. Sometimes he does a sort of evil chuckle which is really quite rubbish. And, for a film called Pitch Black, there is really quite a lot of light about, despite the supposed eclipse. While frantic extras are trying to huddle around a small flame from a Jack Daniels bottle, there's loads of light illuminating the hills behind them. Where's all that coming from?

Unscary CGI aliens, identikit cannon-fodder humans, poor one-liners. This is the sort of action movie I thought we had left behind. All of which makes the prospect of the Chronicles of Riddick even less tempting.

5 out of 10

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Pointless sequel of a sci-fi classic

[28 September 2004]

I love Terminator 2, possibly even more than the original. I admire the way it skillfully creates the idea of the unstoppable machine (the liquid-metal T-1000) mindlessly and tirelessly on the trail of our heroes. The action scenes are world class and the effects, revolutionary in their day, are still pretty impressive. There are some pretty big faults, demonstrated by the poor attempts at humour and personified in the role of John Connor (Edward Furlong), but as a piece of movie making it is a good benchmark. Much of T2 involves the characters trying to avert a war against intelligent machines, which is due to start in 1997. I'm sure I won't be giving away too much when I say that they succeed in preventing the war. The end.

So, why a third installment? Well, the rules of Hollywood accountancy dictate that, since T2 made so much money and since Arnie didn't object, even averted wars can get started up again.

In T3 we meet up with John Connor again, now in his 20's and living "off the grid". It seems he didn't trust that the machine threat was completely gone, so he is drifting around, using assumed names and doing his best not to appear in any databases. So when the inevitable happens and a new terminator is sent to kill him (along with a now-obligatory "friendly" terminator to protect him) its first mission is to track down and kill all the people who <strong>will</strong> help him in the future. His future lieutenants, as it were. In doing this, the new Terminator stumbles on John's trail and the chase begins.

This is not a James Cameron film (the other two were, and so was the 3D short which you can only see at Universal Studios) but he did contribute to the script. I wonder how much input he really had though, because it definitely lacks the Cameron sheen you expect from his own projects. It's just not as tight.

The new terminator is a female robot, with some of the abilities of the previous liquid killer but the new twist is that this one can form itself into a variety of high-powered weapons. Whereas Robert Patrick's T-1000 was limited to shaping himself into knives and sharp spikes in order to kill the Connors, the new T-X can whip out a souped-up plasma rifle which could blast a rhino in half. So, all the powers of the last one, plus some extra makes for a much more interesting character, right?

Not really. The T-X is not as engaging as the T-1000. Robert Patrick's character had oodles more menace than pretty girl Kristanna Loken. I remember being shocked the first time I saw bullets splat big holes in his liquid body, then watched the holes mysteriously close. The same thing happens again here, but it's a case of "yeah, we had that 13 years ago. What's new?"

Well, there's the certificate for starters. T2 was a 15, this is a 12. There's more humour too, unfortunately. Too often the movie tries to get laughs from Arnie's grim cyborg saying lines you wouldn't expect from a killing-machine. Like "talk to the hand". Har-bloody-har. Again, we had that 13 years ago and it was cack even then.

There is a nice destructive car chase and the action is well paced, but in the end it all seems rather pointless. Our only hope is that Arnie becomes so embroiled in politics that he can't find the time for another one.

I'll give it 5 out of 10.

Timeline (2003)

Terrible, predictable, ham-fisted time-travel movie.

[2/10 · 21 July 2004]

(Spoiler Warning. Some of the events in the movie, such as they are, will be revealed.)

Now here's a movie with serious problems. It is based on a novel by Michael Crichton, which is sometimes a good omen (Jurassic Park, Coma, Westworld) and sometimes not (Sphere, uh... Timeline). I do have the book, but I have not got around to reading it yet. After seeing this I may never get around to it.

There are two type of time-travel movies. Movies which feature time travel, and movies which are ABOUT time travel. This is a movie about time-travel and little more. The story is very, very simple: A group of archaeologists are working on the remains of a French village, which was the site of a great battle between the French and the British in the 1300s. Suddenly they discover some artifacts in a sealed chamber which seemed to belong to the leader of their dig crew, who has recently gone away from the site on business. How did the items get there? And why did he leave a note in ink which carbon-dates to 600 years ago?

Fairly obviously, the crew members all go off in search of their friend and discover he has travelled back in time to the date of the battle. They follow and get embroiled in the cut-and-thrust of medieval war. Etc etc etc. It's not exactly gripping, and if it wasn't for the time-travel element I doubt anyone would be sold on the idea of watching a French/English siege movie.

So this film depends for its life on the fact that people find time-travel intriguing. That's not a problem in itself (as Back To The Future is wholly about the mysteries and problems caused by dickering about in the time stream) but it has to be done well. This is not done well.

The problem with movies like this is that they have to create a premise that explains why travelling back in time is possible. But it can't be too easy, otherwise where's the drama? In order to inject tension, there have to be reasons why the travellers cannot just come back at will. Back To The Future was excellent. The car ran on nuclear fuel. None of that in 1955. Brilliant.

Here, they spend so much time propping up the shaky premise that the story was forgotten. It's just not a very interesting plot. They can go back in time, but to get back they need these little medallion things. And those run out after 6 hours. Oh, and they have to be standing in the open with no obstructions for 40 feet all around (so no pressing the little button in a building, or near trees. Or.. well anywhere really except for one spot in all of France, it seems).

Oh, and they can't come back yet anyway, because someone has blown up the machine with a grenade. So they'll have to wait until the VERY LAST MINUTE of their 6 hours before it's fixed.

This plot is being held together with sticky tape, for crying out loud.

It is also very predictable. Early on in the movie a woman discovers a beautiful wall mosaic which has been smashed. "Who would do a thing like that?" she asks. "YOU WILL!" screams the entire audience. Not content with that, they do it again later. "I wonder whose tomb this is? It's a knight with an ear missing". "IT'S YOURS!!!", we all shout. For the rest of the movie we're all willing him to get his bloody ear cut off so we can get it over with. Time-travel movies often employ this sort of "set it up/pay it off" method of storytelling. But this is ham-fisted and obvious in a way that BTTF never was.

The acting isn't terrible. Billy Connolly does his best as the old archaeologist guy, and the other leads are pretty and harmless. I do wonder why they cast Anna Friel as the French Lady Claire. She wouldn't be my first choice. Her accent is terrible, but luckily she limits herself to sub-GCSE French speaking ("Allez! Vite!") and conveniently her character is fluent in English too.

The movie ends, the princess (sorry, Lady) is saved and the evil corporation who invented the time machine is presumably finished. And so am I.

I'm just wondering. The novel of Jurassic Park was considerably different from the film. I wonder if Timeline might be redeemed in print? I might have to give it a go.

The Punisher (2004)

A poor example of a comic book movie

[3/10 · 12 July 2004]

The opening titles are reminiscent of Kill Bill Volume 1. They are animated in a style not unlike the anime sequence from that movie, and the music is a similar sort of mariachi trumpet piece. Of course the Punisher story is basically about revenge, with Frank Castle out to avenge the deaths of his family. Could this be coincidence that they choose to mimic the other great revenge movie of recent years? Maybe Tarantino's stylistic violence might be what the Punisher needs to bring it slap bang up to date. Unfortunately, the similarity ends as soon as it begins.

After a bit of back story, we are "treated" to the death of Castle's family. This is nasty and very difficult to watch (especially for a new parent like myself). But it's the sort of deal you expect in a film like this. In order to understand Castle's motivation for the killing to come, you need to see and feel his pain. It makes for a savage introduction to the characters, but you sit through it in anticipation of the reward to come. The action. That's where things fall apart.

There is very little of the comic-book style action I expected. Maybe that's my fault. The filmmakers obviously decided to make this a much darker, grittier movie than the other spandex heroes recently seen in our cinemas. The main character lives in a grotty apartment with some weird neighbors (more of whom later), and spends most of his time brooding and recovering from various wounds he picks up in his dealings with the henchmen of the main villain (John Travolta's crooked banker Howard Saint). What action there is is fairly brutal, with mostly knives and blunt instruments being used with bloody results. Castle slowly makes his way through Saint's defences, sowing seeds of division as he goes, using his intelligence more than his guns. In fact, the character only properly emerges as The Punisher a whole 105 minutes into the movie. That leaves just 10 minutes of gunplay before Saint is sent to his grave in one of the cheesiest methods ever committed to film. Seriously, if you used to cringe at Arnie's one-liners, wait until you see this. I swore at the screen.

I said it may be my fault. I wanted a comic book action romp and they wanted to remake Death Wish. But if that's the case, why did they feel the need to give us the "goofy" neighbors who inhabit Frank's apartment block? We have a nerdy, nervy, Shaggy-from-Scooby-Doo lookalike; a funny fat guy (called Bumpo. Bumpo??!) who cooks for everyone and sings operas, and an attractive blonde who would NEVER be living in such a ropey place with such a bunch of losers as these. These characters provide comic relief, though when I say "comic" I really mean "desperately unfunny" and when I say "relief" I mean "make you want to jab your eyes out with a fork". They sit very uncomfortably in the piece as a whole, and it makes you wonder what the director Jonathan Hensleigh was thinking.

In fact I know what he was thinking. Sequels. This is just a pilot for what they obviously plan to be a series of Punisher movies. All that pain and suffering (on the part of the audience) is just to set up the character so we can enjoy his next movies. If they're anything like this one, I wont be in the audience.

3 out of ten.

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

Not a nice review of what is not a nice film.

[17 November 2003]

I love Babe. It makes me cry like a blithering idiot. I love the music, the scenery, the story, the acting (James Cromwell is lovely). Everything exudes warmth and makes you feel great to be a vegetarian. Then this piece of work came along. Where Babe had wide eyes and an innocent smile, this has a sneer. Babe was fluffy and warm; this is cold, hard and covered in razor-sharp spikes. Babe was heart-rendingly sad and ultimately life-affirming; this is pure depressing evil from the first shot to the last. Parents, do NOT let your kids see this. It will mess them up for life.

eXistenZ (1999)

A one trick pony

[3 October 2001]

You don't need to make reference to the "M" word to find fault in this film. You don't even have to chastise it for not using state-of-the-art effects.

You can, however, berate this movie for being completely hollow. Once you know it's about a computer game which mimics reality, you can be pretty sure it's going to feature some sort of "hey, is this real or part of the game?" shenanigans. But who could have predicted that's ALL the film would offer?

I glanced at my watch just the the main characters were starting to play the game. "Finally," I thought, "we're just getting started!". The film was 2/3 of the way through. All I had to look forward to was 30 minutes of "Hey, is this real or part of the game?"

tHanK gOd mY oWn eXistenZ iZ mOre enTerTaininG

Liar Liar (1997)

Dire Dire

[2/10 · 10 March 2001]

I hate this film with a passion. Not only does it feature the child-with-the-stupidest-haircut-EVER, it serves as nothing more than a showcase for Carrey's tedious gurning. It's remarkably predictable, which would be excusable if you could be sure that what was coming would make you laugh. As it is, watching the film is like waiting for the dentist. You know that, sooner or later, Jim is going to start yelling and pulling another "hilarious" face.

Take my advice. Ask for the anaesthetic.

Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)

Honest, Artful and Heartwarming

[9/10 · 31 May 2000]

It doesn't seem very popular, this film. Why could that be? I see a beautifully made film, brimming with iconic imagery, recurring themes and foreshadowing. Joe Banks is a character with whom I think we can all identify, and his adventure is one we wish we had the guts to attempt.

Maybe it's just too different from other Hanks/Ryan movies. Maybe there weren't enough gags or orgasm scenes.

I think you should see it once, just to see if it's your kind of movie. If it is, you'll carry it with you for a long time.

Saving Grace (2000)

Typically British bit of fun

[8/10 · 30 May 2000]

I think people going to see this movie are going to enjoy it for different reasons.

For me it was the marvellous scene-setting that drew me in. A picturesque village (Cornwall surely, not Whitby?) and some excellent characters made it a very easy film to watch. Clunes is great, as is Bill Bailey. I've always been a fan of Ken Campbell too, so it was good to see him even if he was slightly subdued.

Personally, I can do without scenes in which funny old women have their first encounter with dope, but some will probably laugh their socks off.

Cube (1997)

A neat concept is not enough!

[4/10 · 30 May 2000]

Yeah, this is a clever idea for a film, and I applaud the makers' ingenuity regarding the set.

But the dialogue is appalling! Each of the characters is a one-trick pony, from the wild-eyed "I modeled him on Sisko" egomaniac cop to the predictably-intelligent "Hoffman may sue" mentally handicapped bloke.

Sure, it would get an A at film school, but I'd rather see a film with real actors, not volunteers from Burger King.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Not very thrilled

[6/10 · 26 March 2000]

I thought it was a bit too long, and not enthralling enough to keep me entertained. I found it predictable in places and aimless in others. Jude Law's performance was, I thought, a bit over the top, and Ms Paltrow had little to do. Under-rated? Never.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

A Star Wars film that's dull?

[5/10 · 1 August 1999]

I'm not going to go off on a rant about Jar Jar. OK, he's an annoying character, but Lucas seems fairly comfortable with that fact.

No, the thing that surprised me was just how bored I was with the film. Beyond a few fight scenes featuring Qui Gon Jinn and Kenobi fighting federation robots, I can't really recall anything to set the pulse racing.

Oh, I forgot. The Pod Race. Somehow I have this image of George Lucas popping over to his Lucasarts Games division and asking "What's a really popular genre of computer games we haven't yet tried?". I tend to view that sequence as the worlds most expensive video game commercial.

This, coupled with the lack of a decent enemy (what does Darth Maul DO?), makes for a very unsatisfying movie. In fact, halfway through I actually caught myself looking at my watch. I haven't done that in a film for a long time.