pixelmixer Reviews

Open Water (2003)

Pretty much as I expected.

[6/10 · 8 January 2005]

In essence, the movie delivered what was written on the back of the case.

Throughout the movie, I wasn't convinced that Susan and Daniel were even a couple. It's not clear whether they are married, but they are clearly supposed to be quite close considering the early scenes in the film. The dialogue they share doesn't make me feel like they have either had or are about to have a long term relationship. They bat lines to each other but they don't really convey like they are romantically linked. Unfortunately, as they have 95% screen time, this really should have been more convincing.

The soundtrack, I feel, was unnecessary. Whereas "Jaws" was assisted by an excellent and classic John Williams soundtrack, this movie didn't really need one. It was shot almost like an amateur, home video and so the lack of soundtrack would have suited what was on screen. Jaws was about numerous, impending, gory tragedy. In this film, the anxiety could have been provided by clever visuals instead.

The majority of the movie was powered by dialogue so it's a shame that the script was a let-down. Half way through, I started to imagine being in the same situation as our main characters and what action I would consider. This was rewarding, but short-lived. Our couple soon have an argument as to whose fault it all is. It's clearly Daniel's lack of great decision-making that is to blame, but it's not always apparent to Susan. She wants to swim to the nearest boats initially and he refuses, and he ignores a plane that flies overhead while she looks underwater. He blames her for her 24/7 career getting in the way of a decent, safe vacation and for having to suffice for a cheaper, more risky holiday. I found it strange that Susan was stupid enough to drink a load of sea water and as a result became ill and threw up in the water. Surely everyone knows that you can't drink sea water and this would have especially been raised if they were going on a diving vacation?

I was attracted by the original, courageous idea for a movie and was glad that it was a mere 77 minutes long. Any longer and it would have been a bit of a drag. I admit that the pace of the movie was about right for the total length and our main characters weren't floating around for an hour waiting for the next boat to appear.

Based on a true story meant that the ending had to resemble what might have happened and so is a little surprising, but it does make the viewer relate to the situation the couple were in and the measures they were forced to resort to.

Does it gives sharks bad press? Sharks always get bad press. In this movie, they're just doing what they would do naturally, whether it's a couple of humans floating on the surface or a couple of dolphins, they need to eat.

The whole film was shot digitally and it's a common view that this is a negative way (forgive the pun) to shoot a movie. This movie didn't need any more than that, it was all about having two people in the frame and not a lot more. There were a few underwater scenes of fish and coral and sharks so there was no need for outstanding cinematography. It was more important to portray a situation than to spend a fortune on expensive cameras and film.

Not a film I'd highly recommend, unless I was asked to suggest an alternative genre. This has been regarded as a cross between "The Blair Witch Project" and "Jaws" - it's nowhere near close to either flick, but that might be a hint to its originality.

I'm giving it a 6 out of 10, mainly for it's difference and for Blanchard Ryan, who played Susan. She's a honey!

EastEnders (1985– )

Utterly painful to watch

[28 December 2004]

I've never been sure if soaps are supposed to simulate real-life. If they are meant for this purpose, that's got to be the biggest waste of time in history. Why simulate real-life? We can all admit that most of our lives are repetitive and dull, so why would anyone want to watch a simulation of that, played out by people who don't even exist?

Eastenders is unconvincing to the extreme. Nobody seems to own a computer, washing machine or car. People seem to buy shares in local businesses within a matter seconds, with someone owning "half the Arches" or "half the Vic". Sam walks around with "the books", which really are books! Most business managers have computers and accountants to do that for them. Those who run stalls on the market like to leave their livelihoods with friends, simply handing over their money pouches. They're the lucky ones - a lot of the cast don't have jobs at all so how they manage to survive in east London is beyond me.

The "gangsters" are so unrealistic it's hard to watch. The scripts are terrible, mainly down to watershed restrictions, so the writers cannot include most swear-words and are forced to use words like "moron", "idiot" and "wally" which don't really work on the same scale.

Strangely enough, soaps are the shows that are watched the most in the UK, and I don't understand this. Numerous soap magazines are on the shelves, and these tell us what's going to happen in the coming weeks, so nobody really needs to watch at all.

I don't understand the concept of soaps, why anyone feels the need to watch and why there are so many.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Should have been compressed.

[25 September 2004]

The cast attracted me to this DVD. Simon Pegg and Lucy Davis in particular were the names that shone from the DVD case. When I read the other cast names, I knew this was going to be something special.

And it didn't disappoint. The cast is fabulous. The direction is great and is a clever blend of UK blandness and comedy genius. Residents of the UK will recognise so many of the cast members but those outside of the country will still appreciate their abilities.

Zombie movies in the past have been numerous and predictable and Shaun Of The Dead is still very predictable. This is a good thing - I found myself looking thirty seconds into the future and I was usually correct. Not a bad thing though - it almost immersed me into the film.

My biggest criticism is that this whole movie could have been (and maybe should have been) shortened into something like an hour special. There are a few scenes (additional to those included on the DVD extras) that I felt could have been excluded. When you see the deleted scenes you realize the reasons why they were deleted, but also pick out other scenes that probably should have been left out too.

The story was always going to be pretty basic. The characters are great and they all have their particular relevance in the film. The seamless inclusion of Sky News footage of the outside world is great and is a brilliant touch and adds more UK-ness to the whole thing. Without it, the movie would have been missing something. American disaster movies always try to insert CNN footage to intensify the effect and Sky is the obvious UK alternative.

The reasons behind the zombie infestation is never revealed and I like that. It would have made the plot far more complex. It didn't really matter while I was watching the movie why these zombies had appeared and the characters didn't really dwell on it either - it was always about survival.

It's a great Saturday night post-pub movie that requires you to turn off your brain and switch it to funny mode. It's funnier if you are British because of the music references and a few of the actors, but it's still completely universal (no pun intended). Never take it seriously.

I enjoyed it. I'm giving it a seven out of ten. It's missing more points because I found a few scenes particularly unnecessary which makes me think that it could have been shortened to an hour for a TV special rather than a feature film, but I'm glad that Simon Pegg is attempting these projects and have always enjoyed his material. Everyone involved in this movie is destined for more, so remember their names.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Not the "battle-strewn" epic expected.

[7 August 2004]

I'd seen this in the DVD store a couple of times and I'd have rented it if other titles hadn't caught my eye. Instead, I watched this via Sky's Box Office service. They'd advertised it as a "colossal, battle-strewn epic".

Half way through the movie, it was apparent that the initial battle between the Surprise and the Acheron was not a taster of things to come. In fact, after the eye candy had finished, the majority of the middle of the film dwelled upon the crew of the Surprise, their characters and their relationships with the remainder of the crew.

Although Sky's synopsis wasn't completely accurate, as a viewer you are injected into the situation the crew of the Surprise find themselves. However, I found myself hopelessly waiting for some action during the middle of the movie whilst all the characters are established. When a movie promises lots of ship-on-ship action, cannon shots flying left, right and centre and a good yarn, that's what I expect. What I got was a nice character- based plot between two battles that lasted over two hours.

I'm not blaming Sky for some false advertising of course. The battle scenes were incredible, with some excellent sound and realistic destruction. The shame is, there should have been more than two battles.

The acting was good. Russell Crowe was his usual, convincing self and carried his authority well. The film also introduced some new, fresh talent who I'm sure we'll see a lot of in the future.

Pushed, I'd give it a 5/10.

Big Fish (2003)

Different, but in a good way.

[24 July 2004]

Someone told me that this film was different. They were right too. It's hard to categorise this movie and that's something I actually despise. It's a comedy (occasionally) and a love story (also occasionally). It's a Tim Burton movie, and maybe that's enough information. That means that you don't know what to expect.

I hate categorising films. They should be recognised on their individual merits, not filed in a box so you know what to anticipate. What should happen is that someone should seat you in a cinema, or stick a DVD in your player and tell you nothing else and allow you to watch it in its entirety.

I almost tried to ignore the rear of the case and pretend there was no synopsis. The friend that told me it was different knew what he was talking about. There's an all-star cast and the "unknowns" are equally as impressive as those whom you expect to shine.

I'm not about to announce the storyline here. Again, it's one of those movies that you need to sit and watch from beginning to end - release yourself for two hours and let yourself immerse into the story. The comedy sprinkled throughout is enought to keep you entertained - add the original story and you have yourself a gem of a movie and it's the sort of film that you'll enjoy showing friends for the first time and see their reaction, even on the same scale as Fight Club or Sixth Sense, both for the same reasons. This film has no twist, but it's interesting to see someone's reactions to different areas of this film.

Tim Burton never ceases to satisfy. Listening to his commentary, he took this movie very seriously and had some great motives for making it. It was hardly highly publicised, but that increases its value in terms of watchability. I highly recommend it for an alternative - if you're considering a Hollywood blockbuster for a Saturday night, try Big Fish - you'll be pleasantly entertained.

Crocodile (2000 Video)

Laughable.

[12 July 2004]

Maybe I don't get this movie. Is it supposed to be as bad as it seems? When I watched Cabin Fever (and let's face it, Crocodile is similar with a different enemy) I thought I'd misunderstood it because there was a chance that the sheer awfulness was deliberate.

It's the usual (and annoyingly repetitive) Teenager Elimination flick (along with Cabin Fever, Wrong Turn, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jeepers Creepers, etc, etc) and, predictably, the characters are so obnoxious and shallow that you don't care who dies next. The afore- mentioned movies have a few things in common. Firstly you need a few teenagers to hate. Secondly, the enemy (which could be anything) needs to start wiping out the teenagers. Also required are some locals who know the history behind the enemy. Sound familiar? I can't understand why movie makers still write this kind of trash.

The CGI was awful. Another comment left here explained that this movie was supposed to be rubbish and the CGI was supposed to be unrealistic. What?! Why would a movie company want to spend its money on a film with unconvincing special effects on purpose? Ludicrous. This was released in 2000 and there's no excuse for bad effects these days.

The acting was substandard too. The writers have injected a love story into the mix which, quite frankly, didn't help things along. There was a little insight to the characters but after establishing that, you still didn't care who was going to die and when.

Won't be watching this one again in a hurry - if I'd read the review in the TV guide, I wouldn't have bothered at all. It's just the same old formula with a different enemy. Doesn't matter whether it's a contagious disease, piranhas, man with chainsaw, demon, alien or crocodile - stick a selection of unconvincing teenagers into the situation and you've got movie-making at its worst.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Impressive

[4 July 2004]

I'm not a fan of revenge films. Most martial arts films have revenge as their central plot and are ultimately predictable.

Kill Bill is different. Die hard fans of classic kung-fu and Samurai films might be offended by this movie because it's almost mocking the genre. That said, Tarantino pays homage to a wide range of movies whilst applying his enigmatic style.

The fight choreography is excellent and convincing - and there's lots of it! It's probably a good idea to forget every martial arts film you've ever seen and watch this film and acknowledge its individual merits. Uma Thurman does a great job of telling the story and you're always on her side.

I haven't seen Kill Bill Vol 2 yet, but after watching Vol 1, it's essential that I do watch Vol 2, not only to complete the experience, but to see where the twist takes it.

An impressive masterpiece that deserves respect. Tarantino does it again.

Thir13en Ghosts (2001)

Did nothing for me.

[26 April 2004]

As usual, I watched this on the recommendation of a friend who told me it was scary.

It turned out that it wasn't scary at all. The effects were impressive, but they weren't backed up with a strong story and convincing acting. I didn't feel for the characters, cared whether they died, more how they died, and I was hoping for something interesting to happen. Unfortunately, nothing interested DID happen so I was generally disappointed in the film.

Watching the extras, the effects were well produced. The CGI and the make-up and photographic effects are as good as most high budget movies. This is all very well, but if there's no structure to the rest of the film, it counts for almost nothing.

It's been a while since I've seen a film that's moved me on a thought-provoking level (like The Ring or The Blair Witch Project) and Thirteen Ghosts hardly touched the surface.

I'm tired of film-makers trying to affect viewers with visuals - it's time they came at us through suggestion and psychological angles - to make us fear our own fear rather than wait for a predictable monster at the end of a dark corridor.

As for a rating, 3/10, purely for visual effects.

Underworld (2003)

A good romp.

[21 February 2004]

I'm sometimes sceptical about watching movies of this nature. The Blade films didn't really do it for me. I'm not sure why - I think I just prefer the way Underworld is shot.

I really liked Kate Beckinsale in this. It's so far beyond the characters she portrays in Shooting Fish and Pearl Harbour and proves she's incredibly versatile. I think she would have made a great Lara Croft, although I'm glad she didn't because it may have wrecked her career (I have a low opinion of the Tomb Raider genre). She wears leather/PVC and motorcycle boots throughout the movie and looks fantastic.

I was surprised to see Robbie Gee in this. His role in Snatch was a comedy stance so I found it a little difficult to take him seriously because of this, but he pulled it off well. Bill Nighy was a surprising choice but he played his part convincingly. I look forward to him in The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy though.

The plot started to get a bit confusing, but after watching the entire movie, it made sense and I understood who everybody was and where they stood within the story. It's probably worth a couple of viewings, but that's it.

There's always a danger that movies of this kind are thought to be cheesy and clichéd. It's hard not to produce a movie that isn't. It's not supposed to be believable - it's supposed to be convincing for a couple of hours - then you're back to reality.

I thought Kevin Grevioux's voice was modified, but after listening to the DVD commentary it turns out that it's his ACTUAL voice. Unbelievable! He was ideal for this role!

Overall, I enjoyed it. It's a good romp, everybody's got a good screen presence and it's well shot - using the usual unsaturated gothic look. Beckinsale is set for future success, with a couple of movies out in 2004.

I give it 7/10. Could have done with a better soundtrack.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

Average. If there's another, I'll be surprised.

[14 February 2004]

I hadn't seen the first Tomb Raider movie before watching this, so I was a bit concerned that maybe this one wouldn't make sense without seeing the prequel. As it happens, this movie seems completely independent of its predecessor, although it does help to know who Lara Croft is.

The pace of the movie was good - everything moved along at an understandable speed, it wasn't confusing and you realised who everybody was. Chris Barrie was completely wasted in this - he's highly regarded as a comedic actor in the UK and this was almost a cameo role for an actor who deserves so much more. Jolie filled her part well and you always had the impression she was in control. It didn't matter whether you'd seen the previous movie or even played the video games.

I don't think the plot was strong enough though. The orb they were trying to retrieve could easily have been a person or a member of royalty. It's a very tired genre. The beginning of the movie consists of an item or person being misplaced and the rest of the movie is spent trying to retrieve said item or person. This is what a lot of computer games are made of.

This is why I don't think there will be another movie. The computer games have lost their popularity because the genre keeps repeating (it's basically the same character in different situations). Saying that, it's fashionable to produce trilogies these days, so there may well be a third instalment for the sake of it.

The effects were impressive and the stunts were spectacular. However, if they're not backed up by a convincing storyline, they're worthless.

The Lara Croft films won't be remembered as the Indiana Jones films have been. They certainly won't be classics in years to come. I think it's a shame though, but hopefully it will be a lesson to the industry not to start a franchise from computer games.

I won't be intrigued by a third movie, although it probably helps if your a pubescent fourteen year old teenager who's played the Tomb Raider games. This isn't a movie I'll be recommending, and I'd advise Angelina to consider more worthwhile and unforgettable scripts in future.

I'd give it a 5/10 if I was pushed.

Basic (2003)

Disappointing, considering the cast.

[7 February 2004]

I have to admit, I hadn't heard of this movie until I saw it on the shelf in my local rental store. I only actually chose it because a) there wasn't a lot else to choose from, and b) because Travolta and Jackson play leading roles. The write-up on the rear of the case seemed promising enough so I parted with £3.50 and genuinely looked forward to watching it.

Generally, the movie performed well until the twists and turns reared their heads. I was perfectly satisfied with the way things were going so I wasn't really expecting any twists at all, expecting a decent whodunnit. The story itself was adequate and after finishing the film, I was pretty happy with what I'd seen, plot wise.

I wasn't at all impressed with Connie Nielsen's acting ability in this. Her character was obviously required because we're nearly watching the film through her eyes, but she didn't carry the part well and was completely out-acted by Travolta and Jackson, amongst others.

The DVD extras proved that the original story was completely carved up for the benefit of John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson. The writer didn't seem to mind, but hey, he's made his money out of it. Jackson's character was always supposed to be killed but the big boys insisted that Sam Jackson cannot be killed on screen. The ending was also changed dramatically.

I did start to watch the film with Tiernan's commentary, but it was obvious that he really couldn't be bothered with it, skimming over things like CGI and SFX, and criticised a lot of photography, almost as if he was passing the buck to the director of photography or the editor.

Not one of Travolta's or Jackson's best movies. It has a great supporting cast, all of whom have been in great movies. Unfortunately, due to the major story change, shoddy acting and a less-than-enthusiastic director, it's never going to stick in anyone's memory in years to come.