tenten76 Reviews

Seaspiracy (2021)

8/10 for the message more than the movie

[8/10 · 3 April 2021]

I went into this well aware of most of what's in it, but I will admit that I was impressed at some of the research and the effective way issues and industry ties are exposed.

I thought I was already a very aware consumer, but it was news to me to see the scale of how bad every part of the global fishing industry is, and quite depressing to see the absolute sham of sustainability and blue-washing (lies) at every level. Dolphin-safe and eco-certification labels are a marketing scam, with no credibility whatsoever. The slavery aspect was no surprise but the numbers involved, and astonishing prevalence of murder, are hair-raising.

The narrative follows a logical path, and I appreciate that they also connected the dots to other environmental issues directly impacted and reliant upon the state of the seas.

If you've read this far, I want to repeat that this an illuminating and important investigation, and definitely worth watching. And now I feel I also need to mention some problems I had.

The production of the whole thing is a little amateurish and naive. It feels harsh to criticise such a well-intentioned and important film which has obviously had a lot of hard work put into it, but I have to say I was ready to turn off by the 10-15 minute mark. I was finding it too slow, and the narration/presentation is too naive and credulous for me. Although many viewers will need to be taken through step-by-step from scratch (knowing nothing), that's not me and it felt a bit like a reading a child's picture-book. There are ways to educate without dumbing down. I particularly don't like it when a presenter plays dumb, pretending to realise quite obvious things or (for me) quite well-known issues and situations (like the Japanese dolphin slaughter, or disgusting shark fin trade) and be shocked and upset when he clearly knows everything about it already. Reluctant to just turn off, I realised that Netflix lets me watch at 1.5x speed and that improved things significantly. It's still completely watchable, and I became less annoyed at some of the documentary editing clichés because they just fly by. I don't think there's an actual shot of him emotively sobbing on camera, but it comes close a couple of times. It's also unusual in 2021 to see any sort of documentary without any high-quality super-smooth drone shots (especially since they did quite a bit of globetrotting). Not vital, but there's all the other B-roll and editing tricks which seem to be obligatory. The graphics are perfectly fine though.

There's also an annoying naivety where they've tried to get access to these nefarious companies. It is painfully obvious that this film is not made or produced to the level of a BBC (high quality) investigation piece, and they don't have the credibility, power, chutzpah or guile to get any real responses, whether that's admissions or evasions. I did not need to waste time seeing the least senior PR at Mitsubishi batting them away like a fly, nor was I surprised that most companies just ignored them.

That's not to say that other interviews and interviewees are not worthwhile; they do have some excellent insight from important people on the opposite side of this sordid business, including many who are working to monitor and expose not just the scandalous practices of the known bad-guy producers, but also the hypocrisy and lies of the charities, agencies and so-called eco-friendly and sustainable producers who pretend to be the good guys. This for me is one of the most commendable things about the film.

The final section is quite interesting because although it is (briefly) hard to watch, a short interview does present a real ethical challenge for viewers.

I highly recommend this film because I think it's important that people learn what's happening, at what scale, and you will definitely have an emotional response when you understand all of what's going on. I can think of ways I would tighten-up and trim maybe 20 minutes without losing anything, and a few things I could add or expand upon, but don't let my criticism stop you. Everyone should watch this.

Hunted (2012)

How much do you like Melissa George?

[6/10 · 19 October 2012]

In the pre-publicity for Hunted, a big deal is made of how Melissa George did her own stunts and got battered and bruised for her craft. She needn't have bothered, since the action and fight scenes are notable only for the appalling editing. Usually the only reason for this is when actors can't learn or won't be allowed to perform multi-movement sequences so every little punch, slap and shove has to be filmed separately and cut together. Melissa's previous film career includes many great horror / thriller performances (Triangle in particular) so it's not her fault. Somebody also needs to take the blame for her being a deadly & efficient spy/ex-soldier some of the time and making stupid tactical choices the rest of the time. The only fight shots shown in their entirety are when she eventually snaps necks, which is odd as most TV and films look away to avoid unfortunate playground recreations the next day. Maybe she's doing it wrong and it's perfectly safe. I won't know until I try.

The acting is a mixed bag, albeit in one-dimension. Adults get three basic choices: ominous looks, sad staring or constipated anger, and the dialogue is all terribly serious all of the time. Anybody cracking a smile is obviously a loose-cannon. A couple of child roles are just Macguffins, with dialogue and direction even less realistic than the adults. Melissa's interaction with the kid (this is not a spoiler) includes a cute-connection to her own childhood, because no film or TV show gets greenlit without this Spielberg-esque 'emotional moment' bull; thankfully it's not quite a nursery-rhyme or "you're a poopy-head" shared phrase, but I worry for the safety of my TV set if this turns out to be in important thing later in the series.

The spies and bad guys are all so far up themselves they're inside-out. Nobody interrupts or talks over each-other, all sentences and exchanges are perfectly formed and delivered (it sounds planned and pre-written rather than natural) always dripping with exposition; plus regular flashbacks and recap shots to make sure that even pets can follow the story. I think the central plot is otherwise fairly good, even if these high-tech spies are being outwitted by a conspiracy that Private Eye would be able to expose in an afternoon. I'm getting sick of the table-top computer at HQ. It might look fancy the first time when you open & fling files around the table, but it's a lot less practical than everybody being able to see everything on a wall-mounted screen.

Hunted takes place on a planet similar to our own, but a lot cleaner and emptier. Locations are perfectly dressed and lit to BBC guidelines (neutral in the daytime, shadowy at night even indoors), and no signs of actual daily practical use or personal taste. Apparently when you're 'abroad' everything is in a gold/sepia tone but North Africa still looks cold. And it doesn't rain as much in the other Scotland. Apologies for being a bit facetious; I'm not against visual cues and themes, but it's all a bit sterile and perfunctory - there's zero style and no flair. If you think about the best horror films and thrillers, there is so much you can do with the language of lights & camera & editing to add tension or pace, to direct or misdirect attention, to build excitement or suspense. There is literally none of that here. It comes as no surprise to see that all four directors listed so far are very much from the competent but creatively-comatose school of BBC serial drama; I do not see Hunted getting picked up (unless to licence a remake) by Sky Atlantic, HBO, FX or any of the other channels turning out actual exciting, creative and visionary shows.

Frank 'X-Files and X-Files spin-offs' Spotniz is the big-name writer/creator attached to the show, which may be why I'm enjoying the plot, and Melissa George always gives 100%, but with everything else I've mentioned stacked against it I don't know if I'll be able to make it to the end. The sooner she goes back to making movies the better.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

How can a film about danger and explosives be so boring?

[6/10 · 21 March 2010]

Synopsis: Some soldiers like soldiering, some don't. Bombs are dangerous. What a revelation.

Hurt Locker is too contrived to be a documentary, but not exciting enough to be a drama. I didn't care about the characters at the beginning, and I didn't care about them at the end. Most frustrating of all, I didn't care (and wasn't surprised) if and when any of the bombs went off. There are plot/narrative problems in virtually every scene. For a film with otherwise decent acting and production values, this is appalling.

Given the gushing praise by the critics, perhaps I should expand on some of the problems I have, so here goes. Sgt James: When he acts recklessly, irresponsibly and possibly illegally, there are no consequences either from his team, other soldiers or his superiors (eg. throwing down a smoke-screen so his team can't see him, even though anyone nearby holding a detonator still can.. kidnapping an Iraqi to drive him off-base into the night, armed & alone, breaking into / trespassing into Beckham's home, all apparently for nothing.. leading his team, again alone, into what could have been a back-alley ambush leading to an international incident..). However, when Sgt James does something logical - like discarding bulky armour which would have offered no protection against a huge bomb, allowing him to work faster and more comfortably to disarm it - his colleagues go nuts. If this is truly against the rules (in real life), then why again are there no consequences. A punch in the mouth for threatening his and possibly others' lives is not 'a consequence'. Also, perhaps I am wrong on this point, but if I was working to defuse a bomb and my teammates were bickering over the radio and would not shut up, I think it is entirely reasonable to turn that radio off or to shoot one of them.

Why do the soldiers speak almost no Arabic? I can understand the need for translators at times, but I live under the assumption that soldiers in foreign countries are trained to communicate with the locals to a basic degree, and - hopefully - to behave towards them with a little more respect, if they expect any sort of cooperation. The behaviour of all military personnel in Hurt Locker only reinforces the worst stereotypes of the US forces.

Would a lone shepherd, in poor cover, really try to take a few shots at an unknown number of armed soldiers? Would those same soldiers have trouble working out that several accurate and deadly gunshots might be coming from the three or four men obviously taking cover in the only structure in a 360 degree radius? Antics at the base: I imagine a lot of soldier-types probably do wrestle or fight or hold stomach-punching competitions, but this does not endear me to their characters. Quite the opposite; it confirms negative stereotypes, and I hope that anyone not able to function at 100% the next day because they allowed a colleague to beat them up (along with that colleague) would be subject to some sort of punishment. Is that how soldiers really bond? Do they sniff each other's asses and chase cars too? Am I supposed to care about these morons? A thought about casting: When you have unknown actors working hard to put in good performances, try not to a) tease us with Guy Pearce & Ralph Fiennes - two of the finest actors in the world - only to get rid of them both within a matter of seconds, or b) disrupt the end of the film with an appearance by somebody as recognisable as Evangeline Lilly, but give her nothing to do which essentially means that her only character trait is 'hey, it's Evangeline Lilly from Lost'. It's not fair to these actors, or to the other actors, or to the realism of the film.

Finally, although I like the look of The Hurt Locker (locations/sets/photography) it strikes me that there are no evocative views, no contemplative shots, no really authentic 'foreign' scenes. Again, HL doesn't work as a documentary, so why not get some free emotion out of the cinematography? The soundtrack (if there was one) does nothing. And the sound effects are not real-enough; gunshots and explosions in real-life are temporarily deafening, producing disorientation and ringing-in-the-ears (and drama). All they produce in Hurt Locker is ennui.

Them (2006)

Not what I was promised.

[7/10 · 3 February 2008]

I remember the trailers teasing whether the trespassers/terrors were real/supernatural or otherwise, and I will admit I was expecting/hoping for more of a modern terror/horror film than the almost understated thriller we are left with. That's not to criticise the film itself, which I rather enjoyed. At a bare 70 minutes, I cannot remember another 'feature film' which is so lean on the cut - no sub-plots, and an opening scene that adds nothing. But the pace of what is left works very well, and never feels too long or too short. The acting is extremely good, with leads that portray very believable & sympathetic characters, and behave more rationally under stress than most thriller/horror protagonists. Anyway, watching Olivia Bonamy do absolutely anything is no chore.. This film is based on real events, which makes the ending all the more poignant. If I had to criticise, it would only be that the film isn't 'bigger' in ambition as they clearly had the talent, but I guess the true story already defines the limitations of the film. A very well-made and engaging thriller, but it doesn't have the luxury of imagination or scope that great (fictional) thrillers rely upon.

Renaissance (2006)

Beautiful, but not perfect.

[7/10 · 3 February 2008]

Every second of the film is gorgeous. And that's why it earns a 7, because the plot is not especially devious, and thinking back over the last 90 minutes I never really felt any excitement or investment in the characters. If anything, the luxurious graphics and framing have made certain scenes (the car chase, for instance) more pedestrian than they ought to be - not that they don't look lovely and have some very original design and occasionally novel camera angles - but they are missing the kinetic movement and close-up shots that are part of the language for any normal action/thriller. The first hour plods along, and the dialogue feels very edited and a bit stagey - people wait for each other to finish and don't always react in a natural cadence, which would be a problem of recording each individual's dialogue separately. On rare occasions the emotions in the voices don't quite match those on screen; something that should really have been avoided. The futuristic architecture is very attractive (lots of glass walls/ceilings/screens, lovely smoke/mirage/special effects) and nice-looking cars, but again - it's more an exercise in graphic design, having no real impact on the story. I'd argue that the whole point of using drawn animation (instead of actors/CGI) is to really push the limits of imagination and design; to do that which is too difficult/impractical in other mediums. Although the animation in Renaissance is certainly stunning and incredibly well-accomplished, I never felt like I was seeing something that hasn't been done before.

Immortel, another French CGI film, also suffers from an imbalance of beauty over story & pace. To be fair, some marvellous and engaging French movies also have a languid pace, and lingering shots of the look in someone's eyes or the rain on Paris cobbles can evoke great emotion - but animators need to understand that while animation brings unique strengths, it also has weaknesses when compared to real-life technique. Perhaps it would break from the 'noir' rules that the film wants to stick to, but I think the film-makers also missed a glaring opportunity to explore their future society a bit more - the social strata, the fascistic grip of the corporations etc.

I have no problem recommending Renaissance to anybody who enjoys stylistic design and/or animation ('Manga' fans in particular), but I wouldn't make my other film-loving friends sit through it. Take away the sumptuous visuals and it's a barely average film.

White Noise 2: The Light (2007)

As in real life, when white noise is on screen; just turn the TV off.

[6/10 · 30 January 2008]

Spoiler warning(?): I don't give away any real plot twists, but I do talk about stuff that happens through the movie, so it's going to bunch your panties please don't read any further..

Patrick Lussier was a competent Editor on films such as the Scream franchise, Mimic, Halloween H20 and Red Eye. With him as Director, I'm sorry to say I found White Noise 2 hugely disappointing. In particular, despite having lost his wife & son in hideous and unexplained circumstances, Nathan Fillion shows about as much grief as somebody who may have had to throw some food away because it went bad before he got around to eating it. I'm reluctant to criticise Fillion because I am a huge fan of his work, but he has to take some of the blame. The guy could at least have chopped an onion or something before a scene, seriously. It's not that he's emotionally in shock. It's just pitiful storytelling. He watches family videos with all the affection of a distant cousin. Time passes in very strange ways; the bereaved father strikes up a new relationship within about 48 hours (to be fair, it is with Katee 'Oh my God, you're Starbuck' Sackhoff, but still..), and it seems as though only a few hours have passed before he's practically forgotten that he had a family. It's difficult to tell though - the directing/editing is incompetent in trying to convey any sense of time or scale. In one sequence, Katee turns up at his door with wine, to convince him to go out - then we get a shot of him laying in bed in turmoil (as if he turned her down - I think there's a 'scary bit' too) - and then they're outside drinking the wine - WTF!? Ghosts appear throughout & all over the place; extras who obviously spent time in make-up but don't appear to have anything to do with the script. They're mostly used as lazy 'jump scares' to stop viewers falling asleep. There's a 'white noise' thing that jumps around on displays & TV screens but again, has nothing to do with anything. As for the leap of logic that leads Nathan to his '3 day rule' - I haven't seen anything that weak since I tried to make tea without tea bags, and ran out of milk. It's got all the credibility of that game you play at school where you add up the letters in your names to see who is in love with who. Honestly, look up 'non sequitur' and see if "White Noise 2" is cited. If you kept getting ambushed by angry ghosts and having TVs turn themselves on around you, you'd be freaking out - but not in this movie. The ending is rubbish too, although it could have been a good idea if it were spliced onto a much better film. Sexist pig that I am, I'd be prepared to forgive and forget if we got to see Katee wearing something a bit more sexy (or preferably, not wearing it), but we don't get anywhere near, and although she is super-cute she gets surprisingly little time on screen. It's almost a cameo. At least Craig Fairbrass returns looking like a Batman villain (another gaping plot-hole for you there, folks). I do like the idea of making kids at a school recital singing things like Rush - Spirit of Radio instead of awful hymns or show-tunes, but it's the only glimmer of a good idea in the whole screenplay (and we only get to hear a line or two anyway). White Noise 2 is a terrible waste of time and effort.

Severance (2006)

Less than the sum of its parts

[6/10 · 1 September 2006]

I would say the average score for Severance is too high, and there are a LOT of suspicious looking comments about this movie. I would guess that cast, friends & family are all 'playing their part' because many comments are just too positive and too considered, with none of the enthusiasm or 'amateurishness' you get from real fans.

Severance is not a terrible movie. It has a few laughs, and some funny characters, but it's mostly missed opportunities. Certainly not a patch on Sean of the Dead or, er, all the other British horror comedies. (actually, there was League of Gentlemen - also a crashing disappointment). To be fair, this director's first (and last) film Creep was also flawed. It's relevant, because Severance shows he still hasn't got the hang of 'scary'. The forest didn't seem scary, the hostel didn't seem scary, I didn't feel any real tension when they're all walking around on ground full of bear-traps, and it made no difference when the enemies were revealed. Sure, there were a few nice jokes, but not enough to be a comedy. The ending was pretty lame as well. I just don't get it - how does a film this lacklustre get made? Why didn't anyone catch the weaknesses in the plot & script? Is it arrogance on the part of the film makers (who clearly don't know as much as they think they do)? It's a shame, because it could have been good. And I don't think it ultimately helps things by getting friends to write glowing reviews.

Bad News Bears (2005)

It's not School of Rock, but it has its moments

[7/10 · 4 August 2005]

My impressions on leaving the cinema: The script has a light touch. Despite being a film about stereotypically misfit kids and a washed-up single father, you never get any serious Hallmark moments, thank God.

What a strange and joyously un-PC film! It's actually refreshing to hear adults/kids insulting each other, and not necessarily apologising for bad behaviour. Even a cancer joke - wow! Sure, some characters learn to believe in themselves or whatever, but there's no great epiphany / family reunions, and the kids are still misfits at the end. Refreshing.

What happened to the editing? Not to spoil anything, but there was at least one minor storyline that was mentioned throughout the film but never seemed to happen!? Over all: a nice film. Only a few laugh-out-loud moments, but you'll smile all the way through.

Unleashed (2005)

I would watch this again right now if I could.

[10/10 · 3 August 2005]

Did you like Oldboy? The Bourne films? Fight Club? Leon? If your answers include "No", you have no place discussing films on the internet. Go back to the Hallmark channel immediately and never return.

If your answers include "I haven't seen it", rectify the situation forthwith. IMDb will be here when you are ready to return.

If your answers are "Yes, Yes, Yes and good golly Yes again!", prepare yourself for another film that reaches the cinematic standard of these stylish masterpieces.

Unleashed (as I saw it) starts with gangster Bob and the boys collecting their protection money, with Jet Li (Danny the Dog) trailed around on his leash as a threat, much as you might with a Dobermann or Pit Bull terrier. Those who don't pay get seven shades of ..something beaten out of their bloody, broken corpses. This is not the purity of Wu Shu Kung Fu, oh no, this is martial arts crossed with no-holds-barred pub fighting: heads smashed, limbs snapped, furniture broken, noses broken, and a great deal of hair removal by fingers alone. Pay up, or pay now and then pay up.

Stuff happens (I'm not going to ruin it), and Danny finds himself alone and taken under the wing of blind piano tuner Morgan Freeman (playing 'Morgan Freeman' on full wisdom & shmaltz settings). By and by, Danny (who's been raised - and badly treated - like a dog) begins to be rehabilitated and discovers the small joys life can bring. ACTION FANS: this is not a bad thing. Jet Li somehow manages to stay the right side of 'cute', Morgan Freeman manages to express waryness as well as a warm welcome, and thanks to superb sound and directing we get one of the most tense moments I've ever seen in any film. I was literally holding my breath, totally tensed up, and thinking "God no! Don't do that!!!". Beware if this Director ever decides to do Horror - it could be so scary he'll have the audience carried out on stretchers & oxygen.

Anyway, Danny's past catches up with him. It always does, usually about two-thirds of the way through a film. And then we're back to some more serious violence, followed by a brief pause before even more serious violence, a 'boss battle' which reminded me of the albino twins in Kiss of the Dragon, and the inevitable confrontation at the end. There's some back-story flashbacks & revelations thrown in too, but not so much as to be annoying. Then the film is over, you walk out of the cinema, and text the mate who couldn't join you to tell him he missed an INCREDIBLE film, ha ha, and I'll see it again if you want to go.

Special mention for Jet Li - a tour de force, not just in the action scenes but also for his portrayal of a man who has basically been brutalised from a very young age, and is even scared of himself.

Special mention for Bob Hoskins - who I've not really rated before, but here he manages to flesh out a very convincing, reprehensible character. Great dialogue gives him a verbal dexterity we don't usually see in our cardboard-cutout villains, as well as a definite emotional connection to Danny (twisted though it is). We're clearly supposed to see him as one of those dog owners who treats his dog very badly, but still cares for it in his own sick way.

Special mention for the director & editor - for fabulous fight scenes, with LONG CUTS so we can actually see Jet Li's skill and Yuen Wo Ping's choreography. Also for maintaining pace and interest through the middle where most filmmakers would die on their butts. Also for creating AMAZING tension (because YES, in real life if you try to rehabilitate/domesticate a wild animal there's always the threat that it could flip out and kill you without meaning to). Also for perhaps the only film I've ever seen with A) car crashes that don't end in ridiculous explosions and B) characters that survive car crashes AND show signs of injuries! Where is this crazy wave of realism going to end!? We'll have characters remembering to eat, sleep and go to the toilet next..

I can only think of two minor criticisms: 1) The middle of the film takes place over a few (or several) months - but you don't get much of a sense of time passing. Like it says in Team America, maybe we needed a montage ("montage, yeah!"). 2) There's quite a big plot point that goes completely unresolved. I can't explain too much, but essentially I believe a significant 'payback' scene is missing from the final third. The main story doesn't need it, but I would like to have seen what happened.

Unleashed / Danny the Dog - whatever it's called, go see it. It's fab.

Stealth (2005)

Good dumb fun.

[8/10 · 26 July 2005]

A little 2001, a little Top Gun, a little Black Hawk Down, a little Dark Star, and - dagnabbit - more than a little Team America in this mix.

There's not much you need to know. Go in expecting to see a comedy, because that's what it appears to be a lot of the time. The flight stuff is fairly kinetic, the explosions are suitably big, and the out-of-control A.I. is suitably loopy. Romance doesn't really get in the way of the plot, and there's enough stuff to keep a big grin on your face for the full two hours.

A paycheck for everyone involved, and an entertaining (if mindless) diversion for you. I will say this - as dumb as it gets, it never gets too boring, which is quite a compliment. As for calling this Rob Cohen film 'Stealth' - how ironic.

The Skeleton Key (2005)

A solid 6/10 - pushing a 7 because the ending is good.

[6/10 · 19 July 2005]

Good performances all round. Good locations. Quite a lot of restraint on the writer's/director's part, building the chills in a more classic 70's way than out-and-out ghosts and scares. In fact, a few more scares after the half-way mark would have been welcome; if the ghosts were used any less, they wouldn't be in the film! The reason I've only rated a 6/10, is because it's so predictable. If you've seen any thriller set in the Deep South, you've seen this one. The background story is textbook 'New Orleans' voodoo vengeance, the characters' motives are obvious from the second they appear on screen, and the solid but pedestrian cinematography means that the locations are massively underused. If you've got a decrepit colonial mansion with antique furniture, surrounded by swamps and trees draped in that Lianna/lichen stuff, you've got to be pretty boring NOT to make it all seem brooding & scary - which is unfortunately what they've done.

Kate Hudson is really switched-on, and not your average dumb heroine. There's even one (small) moment where I think I saw a conscious attempt to subvert the conventions and have her do something quite intelligent while in a perilous situation. It's not a big thing, but I noticed. John Hurt is surprisingly effective, really 'working' his eyes and body, considering he's had a stroke (in the film). Gena Rowlands and Peter Saarsgard are fine, but their performances are hampered by the 'all too obvious' script and direction. Joy Bryant is gorgeous but her character is nothing more than a device to give Kate slightly more personality and a convenient person who can explain about hoodoo/voodoo.

Before I shut up, it's important to say something about the ending (without giving anything away). I'm not talking about the 'third act' - that's a bit OTT, as often happens in horror/thrillers - I mean the final scene.. Although the film as a whole is predictable and doesn't quite live up to its potential, the final scenes wrap up the story nicely and will put a grin on your face.

If you've not seen a lot of horror/thriller films, you'd probably give Skeleton Key a 7 or 8 out of 10 - it's coherent, not too long, and fairly enjoyable (like I say, Kate Hudson & Gena Rowlands are really good). But I have seen a lot to compare it to, so 6/10 it is. Which is still worth watching on a dull afternoon, or on a rental.

The Descent (2005)

It may be new, but it's one of the finest horror films ever.

[10/10 · 14 July 2005]

A fast, jolting setup.. character introductions & conversations that felt quite natural.. fantastically well-done caving.. nasty monsters and nasty things happening.. and a brilliant ending.

You need anything else? How about six good unknown actresses who feel like individual characters without any one being over the top. How about some devilishly good scares underground, with camera pans and lighting reveals that DON'T just turn out to be a cat or a loud noise. How about great gore without noticeable CGI. How about feral monsters that are just plain scary (not indestructible or supernatural, but like a very scary wild animal). How about really effective tension generated through the danger and claustrophobia of caving, before we even get to the nastiness.

Sure, we know who's going to be left at the end of the film from about 90 seconds into the film (because of the characters), but it's not a problem - and the ending still delivers in spades. There's only one moment where I had to laugh at something that was 'over-the-top'. Script-wise I don't recall a single line out place, and not one "come and get me, MF" or "We're gonna need a bigger boat" sort of cliché.

Although its no-nonsense British charm means that it does stand apart from classics like "TCM" or "The Thing", it IS up to the same quality, and is undoubtedly one of the finest horror films ever. Bravo.

Constantine (2005)

Better than Spawn, I guess.

[7/10 · 13 July 2005]

I never found myself feeling involved by the film (it never seemed like a problem to stop to answer the phone / make a sandwich etc.). It's pretty, with some nice effects, but not amazing. More a collection of scenes & images, with a threadbare plot linking one to another.

The visuals are (almost) arresting - a post-apocalyptic (almost Terminator 2) vision of Hell with 'Lord of the Rings' style demons. Exorcist/Zombie style possessions. One shot of demons in the night straight out of 'Pitch Black'. Lucifer played not as a fallen angel, as a fat, odious looking evangelist. Gabriel as a tall, strong, somewhat androgenous figure (but still with nice hair and funky laced-flares white jeans). Balthazar(?) as a Jude Law-ish yuppie. Transitions / visions / premonitions are all very slick, but ultimately lightweight. The bug demon screams CGI, as does the floor dragging at the end. It's all a bit too 'perfectly rendered' and might have had more weight - literally and figuratively - if the effects were more a mix of CGI, make-up, modelcraft and puppeteering. Rachel Weisz seems to be stuck with some bad lines, an under-developed character, and avoids a blatant opportunity to take her clothes off. But this is Hollywood, where sex is evil but violence is cool. Keanu is Keanu, which I don't have a problem with, but doesn't bring much in the way of characterisation.

Although a comics fan (including Vertigo) I never read Hellraiser, and cannot comment on the translation - but I won't be holding my breath for a sequel. And maybe it was my DVD, but the dialogue seemed very muffled and quiet - I even watched sections with the subtitles on. 'End of Days', 'Devil's Advocate' and 'Dogma' are all better films than Constantine.

Man on Fire (2004)

Cool, gritty, vengeful. But doesn't linger.

[8/10 · 22 June 2005]

A typically classy performance from Denzel, who seems to be open to harsher scenes and less sympathetic roles as he gets older (like Training Day). Radha Mitchell is almost excellent - a little bit too cool most of the time, but her grief is well done. I'm not sure how old Dakota Fanning is playing here (8? 12?) but she's as precocious as ever, and a few of her lines/reactions are way too studied to seem real. Thankfully she never gets too annoying, but she's on that borderline all the way through. Imagine if you had to sit through a film with her & Hayley Joel Osment in it! (although if they died suddenly, tragically and violently, I'd go). She's worse in Hide & Seek, and we'll have to wait and see for War of the Worlds.

Anyway, Man on Fire - nice to see a film set somewhere different (Mexico - and not the tequila-sodden, cactus-strewn desert bit).. The tone is fairly cold (Tony Scott's films have a similar 'real light' sharpness to his brother Ridley's - not too many bright colours). And I particularly liked the refreshing way the authorities 'dealt' with Denzel on the rampage (not saying any more than that). Very good killings - gritty and inventive, yet not really glorified. A few more would have satisfied my bloodlust. And although he doesn't have much to do in this, it's always a pleasure to see Christopher Walken on screen. Good ending too. Not much of a soundtrack at all (that I noticed - apart from stealing the opening notes of one of my all-time favourite classical pieces 'Clair de Lune'), but it's not that sort of film. If anything, Man On Fire could have done with a sub-plot; it would have been more involving. But generally a good film, and slick without feeling formulaic.

Final thoughts: a few details mentioned went unresolved (or unexplored) not plot holes, just omissions..? And why couldn't Denzel be called something other than 'Creasy'? It kept sounding like 'greasy' to me, and I had to keep reminding myself it was his name and not a statement.

8/10 for me, with points off for never really getting exciting, and because Dakota Fanning came off as over-rehearsed and precocious.

The Crow: Salvation (2000)

Nothing special

[6/10 · 20 June 2005]

From the muddy/choppy editing and pedestrian approach to the action, you can tell this was a budget sequel. A good director knows how to make $5mil look like $50mil, but that didn't happen here. The flashbacks were annoying (jump-cut, jump-cut, over-saturate), and some of the 'healing power' moments just showed that CGI isn't automatically better than latex, corn syrup and reverse-filming. That said, the fake arm looked totally plastic anyway. The killer blow would have to be the lacklustre acting. Mabius seemed to be over-acting a lot (where was the sadness, the hurt, the bitterness, the despair, the darkness etc. etc.?), the rent-a-cops were just that, William Atherton is forever stuck in his sneery reporter role from Die Hard, and as for Fred Ward & Kirsten Dunst - FOR SHAME! The two of you are far better actors than this. My only explanation could be that they were trying hard not to outshine anyone else (and had to lower their standards a long way to do it).

Since this was a group effort, I should mention that I thought the plot was okay, but the dialogue was nothing special. None of the bad guys seemed to have much character, and Fred Ward's interest/knowledge of taxidermy and the occult came straight out of nowhere (and was neither explained nor developed). Although all the main characters saw Mabius fry in the chair, everybody in the film took it in their stride that the guy was back from the dead. And if we're talking about acting skills - Mabius and Ward gave two of the shabbiest, most fake-looking electrocutions I have ever seen. It looked more like they had a ferret down their pants.

With the flaws coming from all sides, I can only conclude that the Director is most to blame for not having the vision or experience to pull this lot through. We would have been far better off with a broody revenge thriller, and just a couple of big-budget Gothic/violent set-pieces. Finally, a handful of pole-dancers do not add eroticism or glamour (or titillation). Was it ever even explained what Lauren(?) was doing in that club in the first place!? The soundtrack was alright though.

Batman Begins (2005)

A darker, stormier knight.

[10/10 · 5 June 2005]

Christopher Nolan (and cast) have pulled off what I hadn't dared to dream - a Batman every bit as good as Burton/Keaton's vision - and eradicated the camp, feverish memories of Clooney, Kilmer and (cough..) O'Donnell.

The story is as good an origin story as you'll find - covering all the major (true-to-the-comic) events, and not wasting ages on them. We see Wayne's all-important training period (previously ignored), and his connection to the Tibetan shadow-ninja clan led by Ra's Al Ghul. We see Bruce come up with ideas for his symbol, his costume, his gadgets, his car, his cave - IT ALL FITS SO PERFECTLY.

That's not all - Liam Neeson is perfect (as ever, when Lucas isn't writing his lines), Batman's first mad nemesis (the Scarecrow) is genuinely frightening; with some outstandingly scary 'fear' effects.. Gary Oldman looks just like a young Commissioner Gordon (and doesn't dominate), Morgan Freeman and Rutger Hauer give solid heavyweight support to the boardroom machinations at Wayne Enterprizes. I love Michael Gough(?) but Michael Caine is great as Alfred. It's only Katie Holmes who didn't ring true for me - not because of her performance, but simply because she looks all of 15 years old (sorry Katie). I am always blown away by Christian Bale, and this is no exception.

The fights are great, the Bat-gadgets all there, the car is amazing, the plot is thorough and exciting, Gotham looks great, Batman really is frightening & menacing (and lethal!).. And the scenes with the bats themselves FINALLY get across the idea of how scary they can be.

There is some humour, but it's fairly dry. The soundtrack, like all the best original soundtracks, is excellent - you hardly know it's there, but the emotions of the scene are enhanced and boosted. For the most part this is a serious Batman film, with plenty for long-time fans. This NEW Batman is one I'd like to see again. Bravo Mr Nolan, bravo.

A Hole in My Heart (2004)

A professional's attempt at amateur film-making

[6/10 · 2 June 2005]

I've seen (and loved) Together and Lilya.. - this film is different, and will not appeal to the vast majority of people.

I'm not sure about the themes; that these characters ultimately need each other? The dialogue, although perhaps improvised, is at least free from cliché. The editing is a little annoying, but not really distracting. It's mainly the soundtrack that grates, with its casual use of white noise and drone. The film is essentially a day in the cramped flat filming Rickard's amateur (gonzo) porno movies, while he tries to connect with his introverted goth son / the son has a tentative yearning for the girl / the girl discovers that these people who can be so hurtful are still better than 'normal boring ugly' people / and the actor who is slightly insecure and has a confusing & frustrating habit of falling asleep, but has quite a close relationship with his friend the director. There's more to it (particularly with Rickard, the father/porno director), and the ending is characteristically upbeat (relationships resolving/issues in the open), coming off a real emotional low-point.

The film itself occasionally jumps forward & back in time, and there are a few dream sequences. The surgical cuts (literally and editorially) are scattered through the film, along with blurry out-of-context 'organic' shots, and a parallel version of what's happening in the porno film, as performed by Barbie and Action Man. I'm just not 'deep' enough to understand (or care) what all these bits mean.

Yes, the film is pretty graphic - not so much in the sex, but there is nudity on all counts (although not in a sensational way), there are intimate surgical shots, and one quick scene following a food fight which may make you feel ill (and will burn itself on your memory, whether you want it to or not).

Although I can't be bothered trying to understand or analyse the use of the surgery bits and other possible motifs, the film is mostly pretty straightforward and - if you stick with it - a fairly 'okay' plot/resolution develops by the end of the film. It just takes a while for the characters to reveal enough of themselves, because they all start out as fairly unlikeable.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Better than I could have dared to dream.

[10/10 · 31 May 2005]

The film starts with Brad & Angie in couples therapy, a bit like the therapist bits in the Thomas Crown affair, with an unseen questioner. Vey funny responses, and then we're straight into the story of how they met, followed by the two of them in suburban hell - exchanging wary disagreements about dinner and the decor, while presenting 'the perfect couple' to their neighbours. At the same time, they're both sneaking around performing 'hits' and trying to be back in time for dinner, in a house that James Bond would be proud of.

Inevitably they realise who they both are, it turns into naked animosity, and we get a great build up to a surprisingly rough, no-holds barred gunfight (and hand-to-hand). It's not spoiling it for anyone to reveal that they suddenly realise they do love each other, and then spend the rest of the film bickering over the lies they've told each other through the years, during a pretty cool car chase, and extended gunfights. Back with the therapist for the final shot, which is guaranteed to leave you laughing.

Brad and Angelina are both fine actors in their own right, with some superb films behind them. The humour - from start to finish - is both visually broad and verbally sharp. Brilliant support from Vince Vaughn, who gets to steal a scene or two. The action is top-notch, with a higher body-count than most action films, hard-hitting fight scenes, and some nice high-tech espionage too. Special mention must go to the script, which could have been so OBVIOUS and tired - but instead was sharp, very witty, fresh, not dragged down by exposition, and consistently brilliant. When I did notice the soundtrack, it too was just right - original music, and a few cool/jazzy tunes (again, a la the Thomas Crown remake).

The audience agreed - all 2,000 of us laughed at every joke, and "oooh'ed" at every punch landed. There's just something very funny about a domestic in the middle of a firefight (when the filmmakers get it right), and the verbal sparring which comes from being a fairly repressed married couple.

A superb film on all counts, and way above what I expected.

The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse (2005)

Definitely not a local film for local people.

[6/10 · 30 May 2005]

I had high hopes for this film, reduced to moderate when I saw a trailer. Now that I've seen the movie, I'm sad to say it's not quite what I wanted. I'm a fan of the TV series, and had hoped for more of their trademark excruciating, cringeworthy, quite dark humour (mixed with laugh-out-loud moments). Although it begins well, featuring lots of the characters (Edward & Tubbs, Papa Lazarou, Herr Lipp, Hilary Briss, Jeff, Barbara, Mickey, Pauline, the Reverend, Chinnery) it soon settles down into Briss, Jeff and Herr Lipp as the main characters. I take the League's point that they didn't want to feature characters who were already 'stars' in the series, but by the same token, the three they chose have all been 'sanitised' from their Royston Vasey caricatures. Briss seems less like Jack the Ripper than he should, Jeff never really flips over into frustrated madman, and Herr Lipp is now actually very sympathetic. I didn't really care for the 17th Century storyline (although I have no problem with David Warner, ever). What made the series so good was that you got distilled vignettes of each character, mixing (Short Cuts - style) into the next one. Putting them all into a longer plot (and having to give the characters extra dimensions to do so) just weakened the hideousness of it all. You may think that the series' style wouldn't stretch to 90 minutes - but actually, if you remember the series they each had a story arc (usually building up to something diabolical with Edward & Tubbs). The notion that a flawed character could step into the real-life shoes of his creator and learn more about his family/how to treat his wife etc. was all a bit too 'Mr.Mom' for me. Way too twee, especially for what is otherwise one of the darkest, verbally-savage comedy series I have ever seen. Although there were quick nods to The Shining, Scanners and other films, I think they could have really pushed the Wicker Man aspects which are the backbone of the Royston Vasey experience.

Ultimately, I came away disappointed - but a friend of mine (who has never seen the series) thought it was really good, so I guess it depends which camp you fall in. I always think it's a shame when creators turn their back on their strongest creations just because they are bored with them. They forget; there's a good reason why those were your strongest creations in the first place AND the fans may not be as bored as you are.. If the League really are bored of the series; do something else. Let's not flog the characters to death in weakened film versions - you're not Star Trek.

Shallow Ground (2004)

A bloody mess

[6/10 · 30 May 2005]

Great idea for an opening - a naked teenage boy, covered in blood from head to foot, walks out of the forest holding a big butcher knife - and into the Sheriff's station which is packing up, making ready to leave.

Bad idea - a Sheriff with a heavy Irish brogue, corny dialogue, some truly 'WTF?!' editing, having all the 'good guys' in the film at least 5 minutes behind the audience (in a 'come on, it's obvious!' way), and a final shot that will have people leaving the cinema asking their friends "What on earth was that about?!" The director / DP knows how to do fish-eye shots, slo-mo, reverse-filming, all those bog-standard music-video things (and the lighting was fine) - even the SFX were fine - but the film really falls down on plot, script and editing. The plot, what it is, is revealed too slowly. I'm all for suspense, but not when you waste 45 minutes and leave only the last 45 or so to shoe-horn all the development in. Characters (and red-herrings) are suddenly forgotten / nobody reacts in a normal way / there's no real clue to events (and people) that are revealed later.. And - given the plot, which I'm trying not to reveal - there's way too little explanation of events which we're told are happening elsewhere (and would make what's going on more coherent).

As I say, the final shot - clearly designed to be a 'sting in the tail' (maybe even a hint at a sequel, or events continuing) will instead leave you walking out of the theatre trying to work out why?! / what?! / and, is there any way I can get my money back? (no).

Cursed (2005)

Endearing.

[6/10 · 26 April 2005]

A cute film, which plays like an extended episode of Buffy TVS. Mostly hammy acting & dodgy lines, but quite a few (deliberately) funny moments.

Werewolf fans: it's not as good as Teen Wolf (COME ON!), or Wolf, or Company of Wolves (fx-wise anyway), or Dog Soldiers, or Ginger Snaps, or Romasanta (see it!), or Underworld, or American Werewolf (London or Paris)..

..but if you're looking to kill time, it's entertaining enough. Decent-ish transformations, classic teen-werewolf movie things (the jocks bullying the nerd / waking up naked in the flowerbed etc.). Some clichés are embraced, others are nicely side-stepped.

Ever see a werewolf give someone the finger!? It makes a change to see a fun movie which just sets out to be a fun movie, nothing more.

The Interpreter (2005)

Not good.

[6/10 · 20 April 2005]

The trivia says Nicole signed up for the film without seeing a script. You can tell. My question would be: Is this really the Sean Penn who was in Mystic River and 21 Grams? Is he in some sort of money trouble? This film is POOR. Catherine Keener (so sharp in Death To Smoochy) sleepwalks through a painfully thin part. As for Nicole.. Well, she looks lovely in it. The accent veers between Capetown and Moscow. Check out the continuity with her hair blowing around (or not) in the final scene! The film itself? - Convoluted. I knew exactly how it would end about 5 minutes in, and yet as the credits rolled I still couldn't quite figure out who was working for who (and why) in the first 90 mins. There are so many attempts to keep allegiances and motives secret, it actually gets quite tedious. My eyes rolled as soon as we saw Sean Penn. Who could have guessed that the Hero/Agent in a thriller might be just dealing with personal issues and drinking in a bar!? Or that he'd later reveal his emotional trauma, only when the script needed him to make an emotional connection!? Pshawww. The scene on the bus is well done but hardly original, and the 'amazing access' to the UN building just showed (to me) how boring the UN building is. Could have been a much more exciting set. Quite a lot of the dialogue is laughable (actual conversations sound like individual monologues, and are too-carefully (or pompously) constructed). As for the central theme, can you say MUGABE? Talk about hammering your point home, good lord.

So: a thriller completely by the numbers, overly convoluted plot, set-pieces straight from "The Big Book Of Movie Set Pieces", obvious red-herrings and audience misdirection, trite dialogue, dull sets, and.. it that a tribal choir humming away in the background? That must mean this is AN EMOTIONAL MOMENT. What a waste of an (on paper) good cast, and (on paper) a promising plot. Not to mention my money.

Man of the House (I) (2005)

Simple-minded (and surprisingly violent) comedy

[6/10 · 5 April 2005]

Tommy Lee Jones is great at deadpan comedy. This ain't it.

What we get is various gags involving TLJ looking after hot young women (quelle surprise: fashion / women's products / underwear / trying to sneak out etc.). They help him through a date (cue 'facial/massage' visual gag, and his stilted chat-up), get closer to his daughter (who's hardly a rebel), and ultimately help him get one over on the bad guy.

Apparently, all the actresses went to Cheer Station (cheerleading camp) and trained to be astonishingly talented acrobats/gymnasts. You wouldn't know. There's nothing more than a couple of quick dance routines in the whole film, that I could pull off with ease.

Characters who you would imagine play a bigger part (like they do in the advertising) disappear for long periods (one in particular only appears in the opening scene!) The title montage is an unusual (but not quite successful) attempt at 'Mission Impossible' style moving windows - showing the same scene from different viewpoints; that's going to need a dramatic edit (or whole new titles) for the DVD.

In general, and certainly in the first 45 mins, you get the uncomfortable idea that there's something very seedy going on, with these very young (very undressed) girls being ogled by much older men. It's fine when it's teenagers ogling each other (or just viewers ogling the screen), but to have all those old guys on screen too just feels wrong and dirty. TLJ's partners are barely used, and their 'sort-of' frat-house sub-plot never develops into anything. R Lee Ermey, also underused, barely features at all. Speaking of underused, a big thing is made of the access & cooperation they had from Texas University. Apart from one quick football clip (and some locations I didn't recognise, never having been to Texas) it could have been filmed in Delhi.

Surely there's an hour of missing footage somewhere, with more character development, more jokes, and more story? I expect it's been excised for the DVD, and to keep this turkey around the 90 min mark (actually 97 mins - in the 98th minute you'll be running from the cinema wondering where your money went).

Pretty girls, including one Angelina Jolie 'a-like', and one Britanny Murphy 'a-like' - but the film is very poor indeed.

Legion of Fire: Killer Ants! (1998 TV Movie)

Dire TV movie, rescued by it's own unintended hilariousness.

[3/10 · 10 January 2005]

Was the director secretly doing an homage to the killer ant films of the fifties, by making his own special effects (and acting, plotting, directing) as laughable as they were half a decade ago? I think not.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a film (like this) where the sense of danger was so - ordinary. People talk about low budget film-making, but this is low-aspirations film-making: action set-pieces where the characters might well be being fed lines off-screen, as they pause their way through danger.. The sadness as friends & close relatives are killed by ants, met with the same sort of reaction (and brevity) caused by intestinal gas.. The flame-thrower they couldn't afford to post-produce,and is now just a man waving a burning stick.. The one skeleton dummy - albeit in different wigs - who stands in for all the deaths.. The all-too-obvious cut between the hero & heroine fleeing in a canoe, to both of them suddenly wearing broad-beamed hats (anyone?), as the stunt-people paddle down the gentle stream that stands in for rapids.. The rockface that is 20 feet high looking up, but 100 feet high looking down.. The dynamite that would barely blow your nose, let alone a grassy, bedded-in dam.. And the ants - sometimes ant-sized, sometimes as big as your hand, depending on how close the camera was when they added them in post.

It's a mess, but a vaguely entertaining one - as an example of how not to do it. Will I ever find the answer to my questions "How do these people continue to find employment?" and "How can I get in touch with the financial backers?".

Foolproof (2003)

A hidden gem

[7/10 · 10 January 2005]

Slick, witty, snappy, tight, and fun. Bright, endearing leads. David Suchet is really good as someone who really isn't very nice. The heists (and camera/editing), while not exactly Mission Impossible, are innovative and exciting, and although you always know what's going to happen it's a fun ride getting there.

Foolproof doesn't have the same star-quality you might find in some bigger releases, but the film looks crisp and colourful with good (eg. believable, unobtrusive) special effects, and there are plenty of films - and big-name directors - who could learn a thing or two about getting sparky performances, and a pacy, neat little caper.