Change Your Image
dominic-892-325069
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
Far better than it's rating, as part of a series
I come here from having a very battered, much read paperback of Heinlein's Starship Troopers, and having watched and (I think) understood the Paul Verhoeven film.
If you look at that film as wide angle view of the Human Vs Bugs war, giving you the background, an overview, and the situation, the technology, the sciences of the two enemies, and so on, then this is a very focused film.
If you haven't seen Starship Troopers then this is just a often gruesome, gory - and occasionally very funny - film without much context. As such, it's not terrible, but it doesn't do much to help itself. It needs the context - as a standalone film it doesn't really live up to expectations.
If you have the context, then it's a intense (and gory, gruesome, bloody) very focused part of a much bigger picture.
And this is where we get to the spoilers. So if you don't want to know, and you have seen (and got) Paul Verhoeven's film, then I'd say watch this film, and don't read on.
This is part of a plot to insert an "enemy within" into the Human High Command - and you can take that as literally as you want to - by having an isolated, small band of survivors get themselves rescued against overwhelming odds.
I think it's quite well done, it's a fair bit more gory than the first film, so if you have a delicate stomach, this probably isn't for you.
I just don't think it works as a film, by itself, in isolation. But as a small part of "Starship Troopers" - as a snapshot of a few days in an ongoing war, as part of a series, then I think it works far better than the rating (currently 3.5) suggests.
Just don't be eating your dinner when watching it... And if you suffer from arachnophobia, then you probably aren't reading this anyway...
The Avengers (1998)
Possibly too much of a tribute to the TV series for people to like as a film?
It's far too easy to view this film with rose tinted glasses that look back at the old TV series, and then feel that this film is not true to them.
Or that this was a modern - well 1998 - remake of a 1960s TV series, but brought up to date, but with no relation to the original other than the names of the characters.
It wasn't. and it wasn't meant to be.
This was Ralph Fiennes playing Patrick MacNee playing John Steed, and Uma Thurman playing Diana Rigg playing Emma Peel.
Yes, it had Eddie Izzard, and Shaun Ryder in it, and they were bad, but ignore them, they didn't either make or break the film.
My first memory of The Avengers was probably the Linda Thorson / Tara King series, back in 1968 (when I was 5years old) and I have since seen the Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg and Joanna Lumley episodes... (a bit out of the original order, but I can't help when I was born)
And the Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes version is nothing if not true to those characters, the characterisations, and the story lines from those TV series.
Those were every bit as far fetched, over the top, silly, bizarre, illogical, strange, weird and farcical as parts of this film version.
Except no-one appears to have watched this film version with the same affection as they would watch the original TV series(s).
I like it, and I think if you approach it like you would a re-run of one of the earlier TV series, and divorce yourself from reality, put yourself into the idiom of The Avengers, then I think you can enjoy this film, too. Distance yourself from nostalgia,
Since Sean Connery was also in this film - which brings the 1960s James Bond films to mind, think of this film more like the original Casino Royale (with David Niven as James Bond, and Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond) rather than the gritty modern Casino Royale with Daniel Craig.
It's not a 1998 film - it's just another episode in a weird 1960s TV series.
Deddo sushi (2012)
Japanese Zombie Sushi Martial Arts Comedy
It's hard to describe this film, other than as bizarre.
If you are a fan of the early BBC Red Dwarf and The Young Ones TV series, then the humour, acting quality and animation quality are on that sort of level, except in Japanese - but with a Martial Arts, zombie and sushi food twist.
It's not high art, it's not high quality, and I watched it with a horrified fascination about where it was going to go.
Fans of the foodie Japanese classic Tampopo will recognise the egg yolk scene, and fans of The Way of the Dragon might see a tribute to Bruce Lee's showing off with Nunchaku - except in this film they are made from zombie sushi that the heroine has neutralised by removing the nervous system.
Yes, it really is that strange.
I have the benefit of speaking and understanding a very little Japanese, so about 5% to 10% of the dialogue made sense, without the subtitles.
Well, as much as any of the dialogue made sense. It's a very strange film, but I did watch it in horrified fascination that anyone could make such a film let alone persuade actors / actresses to take part in it, It's of a quality with the Red Dwarf episode Back To Reality, in terms of animation, FX, acting and storyline - but with Japanese dialogue, and with zombies, flying (and talking) sushi and a vagrant that transmutes into a human tuna.
If that's not enough to whet your appetite, then you probably have far too much common sense, and no sense of the utterly ridiculous. You have to have an appreciation of those qualities in order to appreciate this film!
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Lovers of The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien will still have to wait for a proper film of the book.
There be spoilers ahead, if you've read the book by JRR Tolkien, and loved it.
But to be brutally honest the real spoiler is Peter Jackson, who seems to have decided that the main plot is:
Get the Bilbo and the Dwarfs from where the eagles left them at the end of film one, and get them to The Lonely Mountain, via Beorn's House, Mirkwood and it's spiders, the elven king's halls, the river, and Lake Town, and have them being chased by Orcs as much as possible, and we need to have Legolas and some elf woman in there, and don't bother too much about anything in the book, think of it as something we can base a computer game on...
If you haven't read the book, or just plain don't care about the book, it's probably a great film.
(Apart from the animation of the thrush, which appears to have been done by someone who has never seen a thrush, or seen a thrush using a stone as an anvil to break open snail shells. Put in the film as an afterthought, quick do some bird hopping around, base it on a bird trying madly to escape from a cage, something like that, frankly who cares? It's significant in the book, but that doesn't matter here and now in this film...)
Lovers of The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien will still have to wait for a proper film of the book.
This film is "The Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug" - part 2 of an action adventure game in three parts by Peter Jackson, based on the characters in some book that he might have read 40 years ago, and either didn't care about or has no empathy for.
It's well done for what it is, but it's not really anything much like part of the The Hobbit that people know and love.
And Mr Jackson, you should be ashamed of that.