anne-25 Reviews

Henry VIII (2003 TV Movie)

Not for historians

[30 March 2004]

What makes this drama fail is that it is impossible to take seriously as 16th Century England. It has absolutely no feeling of authenticity - the sets are bright and tatty, the costumes (especially what some of the wives were wearing) looked like fairy-tale outfits, and all the way through it has this Hollywood-style cinematic music playing.

The writing is utterly atrocious. The drama simply follows from one wife to the next. It never really delves into any other aspect of Henry's life apart from his relationships with his wives, each of whom is portrayed into a flat, plain stereotype. The drama places undue emphasis on an uprising by Robert Aske, and Sean Bean's ending is so blatantly copied off his fate as Boromir in 'Lord of the Rings' it's embarrassing. Except for the lead, the acting itself is not bad, but the characters sound too modern (very soap-like) and Ray Winstone is beyond belief as Henry VIII.

Ultimately, 'Henry VIII' is not about history in either its style or substance, but is more of a soap-style drama on a par with 'Footballer's Wives'.

Escape from L.A. (1996)

Snake is back...so what went wrong? SPOILERS

[6 November 2003]

Whenever anyone makes a decent Sci-Fi thriller, why do they have to go and spoil it by bringing out a mediocre sequel that ruins the franchise. Like the Matrix, admittedly a good film, why did the Wachowski brothers then make two pretentious, pointless and rather crap sequels just to create a franchise with its own "universe." Why did Christopher Lambert make FOUR Highlander movies when the guiding principle was: "there can be only one." So what on earth possessed Carpenter/Russell to ruin one of their finest collaborations by making "Escape from L.A" For a start, why have another US action film set in L.A? it's such a cliche! couldn't they have have picked a more unusual location in the US or (gasp!) the rest of the world? Hell, why not just make up a city/fortress/dictatorship for Snake to go into, it is the post-apocalyptic future after all! But what really bothers me is not the title, I can live with that. I can even grudgingly put up with the fact that the entire movie is just a lets-change-the-names-and-faces remake of the original. No, what really upsets me are the stupid, stupid, really REALLY STUPID STUNTS AND SFX!!! The earthquake at the beginning? when does a building crack in half so...unbelievably? why not just use a model if the cgi is that bad? and the surfing!!! I mean that was just so awful! why have that in at all? it had no relevance to the plot and looked...well I'll leave you to make your own mind up about that but personally I give kudos to any director who has the gall to shamelessly whore off such bad special effect sequences to a cinema audience and expect to be taken seriously! But to be fair, a film is only as good as its story and I have to admit the story does play its part in dragging the film down. The year is 2013 (that lucky number) and Los Angeles has been separated from the mainland by a huge earthquake (see above for details) hence it has become a dumping ground for America's social undesirables: the elderly, tax-dodgers, welfare recipients, students, immigrants, and of course BADDIES! and no baddie is as bad as Cuervo Jones (I leave that statement open to interpretation) who's antics in teletubbie land brainwash the President's daughter, Utopia (second only to 'Exotica' for stupidest female prenom) and causes her to perfidiously steal a black box containing a "terrible secret". Loving father that he is, the President orders his men to kill his daughter and retrieve the black box. They fail miserably, so it is left to Snake Plissken, recently caught (if Snake is so cool why can't he do anything without getting caught?) to do the dirty deed. Yet before he is given a chance for Deja Vu to set in, he is informed that he has already been poisoned. So, unless he accomplishes his mission and kills Che Guevera, Ooops! I mean Cuervo Jones, he'll die in nine hours. Anyway, the rest I leave for you to find out, or not find out as the case may be. Watch out for that surf scene though! 5/10

The Guyver (1991)

Some directors are more equal than others...

[10/10 · 24 July 2003]

...and Steve Wang and Screaming Mad George are just not. What can I say? this movie could have been a really cool little monster flick IF ONLY a certain pair of special effects personell had stuck to what they were good at and not been allowed into the director's chair.

On a positive note, there are SOME decent things in this film - the guyver and some of the zoanoids look amazing and its good to see Mark Hamill doing something again, but the good just doesn't outweigh the bad. For a start the script - I don't know who Jon Purdy is but he's crap - is just TERRIBLE. The relationship between Sean and Mizky is ambiguous, stilted, and generally unsatisfying while the presence of Sean's aikido instructor at Mizky's home is not explained very well (that particular scene is maybe the most poorly written in the film.)

***SPOILER***

The plot itself is thin: Sean gets guyver - guyver is killed - guyver regenerates and kills villain, basically it covers the highlights from the first Guyver book (albeit names/ settings changed)with a flimsy love story stretched across its surface. The acting by and large is poor and overdone - Jack Armstrong as 'Sean' does okay but isn't great, Jimmy Walker's character should have been cut from the script, Balcus was too silly at times, Lisker was the best of the bad guys but over-acted when in human form, and Mizky? well I can safely say that she is one of the biggest reasons as to why this film sucks. Vivian Wu is a really horrible actress, yes I know the dialogue was poo(r) but every time she shouted (not spoke) a line I thought how much better almost any another actress could have said it - 'Liz Hurley' for example!!

This film should not have been called "GUYVER" or "MUTRONICS," it should have been called HOW TO F*** UP A DECENT ACTOR'S CAREER, the decent actor being the 'star' Mark Hamill. I think that Hamill was screwed by Wang and Mad George - they fronted him as the star of the film (which he wasn't) and used his name to promote it by showing on the poster that he was the guyver when he only had a secondary part. They followed by killing him off in a hideous and pointless way. Of course the pair of 'directors' did this to show us just how SICK and EVIL Chronos are, and how GOOD Wang and George are at showing SICK and EVIL things. The point is...don't buy this film, rent it at a pinch, but don't buy.

Troilus & Cressida (1981 TV Movie)

Badly cast, badly directed

[3/10 · 13 June 2003]

I rented this TV movie version of 'Troilus and Cressida' out of my library last thursday, and simply could not believe my eyes. Where should I begin? no effort was made to make the play look remotely like it was about the Trojan war, all the actors were wearing Elizabethan dress. Moreover, most of the actors were too old and horribly miscast - Aeneas (with his white beard) looked older than Nestor, Troilus was at least 30, Hector looked like a Spanish pirate, Ajax was badly played anyway and Thersites was a transvestite.

Likewise the action is poor, the duel between Ajax and Hector is short and amateurish, the camera angle focuses more on Nestor's face, so we can only see what is going on in the background which is frustrating in itself. Nor is the 'battle' at the end given it's due respect. We do not see Troilus and Diomedes fight, nor anyone else for that matter, Paris and Menelaus just seem to mud wrestle in front of Thersites. Even Patroclus death was omitted. All this was a major disappointment considering I waded through a very dull 2 and a half hours of BBC costume drama to get to that point.

Nonetheless, it wasn't all bad. I thought the Incredible Orlando as Thersites and John Shrapnel as Hector were well played, even if they didn't look quite right. I'd say the same about Kenneth Haigh as Achilles, since he didn't have the striking countenance and was a bit dry at times. SPOILER: The climax at the end - the death of Hector - was perhaps the best part of the film, Achilles' dialogue here is excellent and sums up the attitude of a cold, seasoned murderer. However, the gruesomeness of the scene (when Achilles stamps on what was Hector's head)sets it apart anyway.

Charles Gray as Pandarus was delightful as a sleazy old pervert and I thought the actress playing Cressida did an OK job. The war-mongering Troilus, however, was annoying and I think that the play would have been better perhaps if he had been murdered by Achilles instead of a peacenik like Hector.

Conclusion? OK, but could have been better if it had had a younger cast and costumes that at least attempted to look Ancient Grecian, not to mention the lack of action. 5/10

Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna (1986)

Not as good as it could have been

[6/10 · 19 January 2003]

It's a shame, because although this film is entertaining (in an American soap-opera sort of way), the fact that it's so loosely based on the story of Anastasia and the book by Peter Kurth, means it doesn't really live up to it's potential.

The real characters of the Romanovs, the uprisal of the Bolsheviks, imprisonment and execution, royal conspiracies, and in general, an accurate portrait of Anna Anderson's life, all take secondary place to beautiful setting, pretty costumes, an attractive cast (most of the acting is quite good) and an unfortunate 80's tinge (too many perms).

The film goes off on a tangent, eventually delving into the realms of fantasy and sickly Mills&Boon-style romance. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun film to watch, but had it been more intelligent, more ACCURATE and more sinister & mysterious, it would have been so much more captivating and entertaining. I gave it 6/10.

Henry V (1979 TV Movie)

Shame, and eternal shame, nothing but shame...

[18 October 2002]

Another BBC take on Shakespeare's histories, this production is of somewhat dubious quality. Completely unabridged, the play can be difficult to follow for those who have not read it, also, the poor camera angles and lacklustre performances from the cast fail to emphasise on certain points. David Gwillim, whom certainly looks more like Henry V than Olivier or Branagh, has a mixed performance in the lead role. His Henry, while amusing and likeable at times, tends to whimper his speeches, most notably when he meekly whispers his way through the St. Crispins day speech before leading his men against three or four pitiful French whom, we are to believe, are actually Sixty-thousand strong. In fact I lie, Henry does not even lead his men, we only see him trudging towards us after the "battle" has taken place. The characters than have the audacity to boast that ten-thousand French have been slain, when we have yet to see one dead body (discounting the solitary dead "boy")

The scenery is poor as well, instead of filming on location, the play is filmed on a horribly unrealistic set, the walls of Harfleur are evidently made from cardboard or some such substance, and the scenic field of Agincourt is in fact a wall. Cinematography does not change, almost all of the play is filmed in bright cutesy colours and Agincourt seems a remarkably pleasant "telly-tubby" place (all we need is the. We just cannot believe for a moment that what we are watching is real. The lack of music as well must be stated, since it strips the play of drama and tension.

This play could have been so good, the cast is capable, but the direction is so poor. If music, on-location sets, and better cinematography (i.e mud, fire, blood at Harfleur and Agincourt) had been used, then for very little extra money, the play could have been brilliant.

Henry V (1989)

Better than Braveheart

[10/10 · 9 October 2002]

A truly unique adaption, Branagh excellently edits the dull elements from the play and leaves us with a truly astounding version of Shakespeare's most Nationalistic play.

Ironically, not a great deal happens in the film: Henry invades France, Henry conquers Harfleur, Henry wins a glorious victory at Agincourt. There is a good deal of background to the story, as it is a direct sequel to Henry IV ii, and Branagh tackles this problem by including scenes from Henry IV with Falstaff and others.

One has to commend Branagh's own performance as Henry, who as a character is just so much more interesting than Mel Gibson's one dimensional William Wallace in Braveheart. The speeches at Harfleur and Agincourt are more rousing than in any other film I have ever seen, and to compare George W. Bush to Henry V is just an insult to the English nation, as there is nothing at all heroic about draft-dodging George. Overall, the best adaption of Shakespeare's histories. 10/10

Raise the Red Lantern (1991)

A Splendid Accomplishment

[11 August 2002]

This has to be one of the best films I have ever seen. The story-line is fantastic, charting the domestic tensions existing between the wives and servants of a Chinese aristocrat. Superb acting, beautiful costumes & setting and wonderful artistic direction. The film in general is full of inner meanings and connotations, with deep, insightful characters. This is even better than Zhang Yimou's other critically acclaimed masterpiece 'Ju Dou'.

MediEvil (1998 Video Game)

THE Medieval fantasy game of the decade.

[31 July 2002]

When the evil sorceror Zarok returns after a hundred years in exile to conquer the peaceful land of Gallowmere, he resurrects his ancient armies to aid him, and, unwittingly, brings back his old nemesis, Sir Daniel Fortesque, who defeated him a century before. Once back in action, Fortesque must fight his way through undead hordes of Knights, zombies, Dragons, demons and a power-mad wizard to save the world in this stunning yet humourous RPG style adventure.

Spider-Man (2002)

Enjoyable, if flawed, super-hero flick

[10/10 · 5 July 2002]

*Spoiler I have to admit that I had my reservations about Spider-Man when I went to see it for the first time, in fact, it was really only my sister's recommendations of the film that managed to get me into the cinema. As a long-term, if occasionally disinterested, Spidey fan I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the film, starting with the excellent opening sequence. I must also give praise to Danny Elfman's musical score, which really heightened the emotional tension and un-natural atmosphere of the film, just as it did in Batman. As Peter Parker, Tobey Maguire was as good, I think, as anyone they could have gotten for the role and I can't think of anyone who could have portrayed Peter better. Yet as Spider-Man, I was a little dismayed about his comic delivery, although to be fair the comic material in the script was rather poor. As for the rest of the cast, I thoroughly enjoyed Kirsten Dunst's performance as Mary-Jane, although I didn't like it how the script-writers turned her character into some helpless damsel in distress who needs to be saved all the time. James Franco portrayed Harry Osborn excellently, really making the audience feel for an average, under-achieving teen who has been lumbered with a genius father who feels ashamed of him. Willem Dafoe WAS the Green Goblin, I thought he was perfect as the schizophrenic Norman Osborn, although I didn't like the Green Goblin costume, finding it too reminiscent of "Power-Rangers" for my tastes, I would have preffered the Green Goblin to resemble more closely the comic-book character, perhaps if the human enhancers Oscorp were developing had been organic instead of some robotic-armour. That aside, the only snivelling little complaints are as follows:

1.) How come Mary Jane has to slog her guts out as a waitress when she has a millionairre boyfriend?

2.) On that note, why does Peter have to risk severe injury wrestling to save enough money to buy a car? why doesn't he just ask his super-rich best friend Harry if he can loan him some money to buy a car?

3.) Isn't it a tad strange how Peter Parker and Norman Osborn both have their little "accidents" at exactly the same time? That said, Spider-Man does seem to establish himself before the Green Goblin.

Anyway, who cares what I think?, the film is still the best super-hero film to date and well worth the admission fee.

Fortunately enough I don't have to worry about that since I own the film on DVD having bought a rather dodgy copy from the far east from an even dodgier store-owner, and let me tell you! the English subtitles are sooooo Cool/Bad!(e.g With Gay Power comes Gay responsibility) and Mary-Jane now wants an "axe" instead of "act". Anyway, I should stop babbling, 8/10.

Elizabeth (1998)

Entertaining, but highly inaccurate

[2 July 2002]

If you are looking to watch an interesting, fairly watchable movie, than give this film a try because it can be entertaining in some areas.

However, if you are a serious history buff, or are wanting to learn more about Queen Elizabeth I, than stay away from this. Not only are the setting and story-line almost fictional, but the character portrayals are 100% abominable.

I hated the way Elizabeth was portrayed in this film. Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth is weak-willed, insecure, pathetic, hopelessly in love and with no idea how to rule. This portrayal is nothing like the real Elizabeth, who is revered as being one of the greatest of English rulers, in spite of being a woman.

Most of all, the film fails to deal with the REAL problems faced by Elizabeth both before and after her succession and the way in which she solved them. The real Elizabeth was far more admirable than the one shown in this film, and her story in reality is far more interesting. If you want to see a good television adaptation of Elizabeth's life, watch 'Elizabeth R', it's far superior to this film.

Dune (2000)

An interesting interpretation of the novel

[1 July 2002]

As with all novels, many fans of 'Dune' came up with their own interpretations of the over-all message of the book and how the characters should be portrayed. So, whenever an adaptation has appeared such as the 1984 movie and this television series, it has a tendency to be slammed by many of its viewers basically for not being true to their impression of the novel.

In my opinion, 'Frank Herbert's Dune' is simply an alternative incarnation of the novel, showing how some people have understood it. Yes, the sets are sometimes so atrociously fake it's embarrassing, the costumes look like something out of a pantomime, the script can be a bit silly and the cast aren't the best that have ever been assembled. Yet, this is an adventure story that is still captivating, intriguing, and fun to watch.

As for the removal and addition of certain scenes, I can only say that 'Dune' is such an extensive and intricate novel, that the removal of sections is inevitable, and of course, can't be to everyone's taste. And, because not everyone has read the book, sometimes it IS necessary to add new scenes.

The only thing I can say that really bothered me and deeply opposed my interpretation of the novel was the expansion of Princess Irulan in the film. I felt that Irulan's role should be as a spectator rather than a key player, someone who merely witnesses and records the events that take place, and so I very much disliked the way in which Irulan was injected with a new, passionate personality and thrown into the story-line.

All in all, this mini-series is worth watching if you are a fan of Sci-Fi or 'Dune'.

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

Not bad, it just isn't Lord of the Rings

[10/10 · 22 March 2002]

*Spoiler* First of all, I have to admit that when I first saw this film I was appalled. Ralph Bakshi not only went against the late Tolkien's wishes by a making an animated feature, he also went right off of the book. Take the fellowship: Aragorn is dressed in a light green tunic that looks like a skirt and is a seriously ugly beggar (even Gollum is more handsome). John Hurt does his best as Aragorn but is hopelessly miscast. Boromir has been horribly transformed by Bakshi, gone is the sullen, dark-haired charactor of the book only to be replaced by a gruff, ruddy Viking who complains a lot. Legolas is cock-eyed with buck-teeth and a mullet. Saruman looks like Father Christmas. And for some stupid reason, Bakshi has chosen to make Gimli the Dwarf the tallest person in the fellowship! Finally, poor old Sam has been given the homosexual treatment. That said, the film isn't too bad; Gandalf, Gollum, the ringwraiths, Orcs and the battle at the end are quite pleasing aesthetically, but the biggest criticism that can be laid against this feature is that it never once convinces you that you are watching the Lord of the Rings. Too many changes have been made to characters, landscapes and name-pronunciation to make it mimic Tolkien's masterpiece effectively. Watch it if you will, but don't expect the book.

Street Fighter Alpha (1999 Video)

More intelligent than it's predecessor

[10/10 · 21 October 2001]

Overall, I think that this film is much better than the previous Street Fighter anime. Despite the fact that the fight scenes are not as entertaining, I think this does a much better job in terms of character development, storyline and musical score. The story seems to have more in common with Street Fighter 1 than 2, even though it is set between the two games. It has characters from the original, like Birdie and Adon, as well as references to the Muay Thai Emperor, Sagat (who I think is the best villain in a fighting game ever). The relationship between Ryu and Ken seems a lot more convincing in this film as opposed to the Street Fighter 2 animation, where all the character seem a little stiff. Also, it was a much better idea to make Akuma the lead villain instead of Bison, who is annoying and not intimidating at all. Also, the dubbing in this film is extremely good. The only complaint I have about this film is that some of the dialogue involving Shun seems to be poorly written. Still, I give it a 10.