Change Your Image
hosr2
Reviews
Touching the Void (2003)
Remarkable story which touches the deepest issues in life ... and death
What a wonderful film, though that immediately requires qualification: its genre is more documentary, than film. But that adds to its appeal, especially in a year that brought such monsters as Return of the King and Cold Mountain.
The story is immensely powerful, but it's Joe Simpson's reflections on what was happening that make this something really rather special.
WARNING - SPOILER AHEAD: I think particularly here of how he did not turn to God as he faced the black void below him. I also love the moment where he lies against the rock and looks up at the stars wheeling in their course above and he thinks that he has been in that place for an eternity.
I could go on ... if you haven't seen it, do. I can't recommend this film too highly. Stunning.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Wonderfully subversive movie
Saw this for the second time last night & I really love it. It's a masterpiece - the weirdest yet most enjoyable film noire I've seen.
Those who 'explain' the plot are doing a grand job ... but in many ways the point of this movie is that subverts all plots. Just when you think it 'works', it doesn't! No reviewer quite manages to put their finger on how the plot holds, and I love that! I couldn't help but wonder at times if Lynch was taking the p*** out of Hollywood in general, and maybe Tarantino in particular. Whereas Pulp Fiction (a favourite of mine) 'works', Mulholland Drive deliberately subverts the plotline. The result is gorgeous. Oh, and talking of gorgeous ... Naomi Watts. She puts in a stunning performance.
Terrific film - a dream-like trance mixing humour and dark, dark, thoughts. What a great antidote to the 95%+ pap that comes out of Tinsel town.
Don't Say a Word (2001)
Drivel
It's sort of ok-ish for about an hour. Then it descends into silly farce.
The sort of people who complain that Lost in Translation has no plot will probably like it.
Alien (1979)
Saw it again ... and it remains brilliant
I saw this film again recently on DVD. I remember it's release - came out the same time as Clockwise & the latter filled up the cinemas whereas me and my friend were alone in the cinema for Alien (a very scary experience!). Then it began to catch on, until it became one of the great cult films of a generation.
Re-seeing it reminded me of how fabulous this film is. It's got everything, from brilliant acting to wonderful cinematography. The dramatic tension is unmatched by any film in any genre. The underlying story helps. And I remember being quite shocked in '79 - many people thought space was going to be 'nice'. The idea that a creature would exist with the all-out drive for survival at any cost wasn't featuring much in popular culture.
I don't think any sci-fi film before or since matches this (not even Scott's later Blade Runner). An outstanding film which stands the test of time.
Lost in Translation (2003)
Wonderful film that should take the Oscars
This film is quite exquisite, and one of the finest films I've seen for a long time. I couldn't help but compare it to Return of the King - but it's like comparing the Mona Lisa with a 3rd grade scrawl. Where ROTK is clumsy, clanky and overegged this is subtle, classy, sophisiticated.
In one sense, not a lot happens in the movie. In other everything that matters in life does. This is a film above love and loss, about what really matters, about chemistry between two people and the lack of it with others. And it's a very funny commentary on cross-cultural work. <Warning - one minor spoiler ahead> The finale contains a quite lovely moment with the question hanging: what did he say to her?
The cinematography is out of this world. It defies words. I came away thinking 'I haven't such genius since Apocalypse Now ... and then remembered who the Director's father is! Hats off to her - this is quite stunningly filmed.
And as for the performances: the two finest leads I've seen since Silence of the Lambs. Bill Murray is outstanding and as for Scarlett Johanssen - wow, what a find! She's an exceptional talent. They both are - really, really, extraordinary perfomances. One of the great love stories on screen.
This is an outstanding movie. I don't suppose anyone at the Academy ever reads reviews from IMDB people, and I doubt they'd care very much, especially at a review by an Englishman. But this film is in a different league to Return of the King. Maybe it's too subtle for Oscar night, but the Academy have had courage recently - the brilliant Adaptation and The Hours being great examples. Will they dare this time? They should - there hasn't been a film as beautiful crafted as this for a long time.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
When the initial gush dies down the massive flaws will become clear ...
Sorry folks, but this film is nowhere near as good as some gushing people on IMDB seem to think. I do notice more +ve comments in the US than the UK.
OK, so the visual effects are good. So what? Jackson had the technology available to do that. He needs to do much more than employ them effectively to produce a film worthy of greatness. This isn't great, indeed it's barely good.
The film is full of flaws. Important plotlines are absent, as noted by a few others here. To name but a few:
- the palantir cast by Wormtongue out of Orthanc in the book simply appears in the pool. This is absurd. It's the most valuable thing in the tower (as Gandalf tells Pippin in the book). This happens because Jackson has cut Saruman out entirely from film III. This is a terrible mistake. Having made so much of Saruman in I and II it just leaves a hole in III full of the unexplained. Jackson's error occurs because he should have put the full fall of Saruman at the end of II (as in the book).
- Eowyn's love for Aragorn is much stronger in the films than the book. The problem with this is that she simply stands idly by whilst Aragorn takes the limp character of Arwen to him. There is no development of the love between Eowyn and Faramic which in part answers the aforementioned in the book.
- Eowyn's slaying of the witch king of Angmar is one of the best moments of the book - a truly wondrous occurrence. In the film it is hacked in two halves whilst we await Aragorn's arrival by boat. Even the tossing of her golden hair is underplayed so much that it's anticlimactic for those of us who know the book well.
- Faramir's character is completely changed from the book. He now appears less nice than Boromir, which is deeply problematic and raises a major flaw in why he releases the ring from his grasp.
- Sorry everyone but much as I like Gollum he is little more than a CGI cartoon character. If you like computer games, fine. If you want a bit of realism, not.
- Am I alone in finding the slaying of the poor oliphaunt by Legolas sad? I felt sorry for the creature.
- the John Merrick style leader of the Orcs is one of the worst creature-creations I've seen
- Sam is awful. For those of you who like Sean Austin ... o dear. I think this may be a British / American thing. Some of those around me in the cinema started laughing at his toe-curlingly awful soppiness. Truly dreadful. The plausibly simple gardener of the book is now transformed into a college philosopher, and it's not a pretty spectacle.
- the moment when the hobbits appear to bounce over Frodo's bed is another soppy Jackson moment. Again, people in the cinema in London laughed at it. Even if Tolkien did intend a slight homosexual underplay to their relationships, I don't think he'd have admired Jackson heavy-handidness here.
- the scouring of the shire has gone altogether. Maybe that was right, but part of the whole point of this epic tale is that simple folk rise up against the mighty, and then have to confront that evil on their doorstep.
- the Shire is hideously twee, with not a petal out of place. Argh. If that's paradise give me the Emyn Muil any day!
- and finally, after more than 10 hours the demise of Sauron is dreadfully anti-climactic. The particularly silly portrayal of Sauron as a 1970's electrical storm-lamp is part of the problem here. Instead of personifying him, we have the demise of a 'thing' for which I felt no satisfaction at all. Dull.
- we then have to endure another 40 minutes as the movie drifts away into a confused ending, with a terrible prosthetic-Bilbo (looking like Salieri in Amadeus).
If this wins an Oscar other than for special effects it will be a scandal. But then, since when has that mattered. Afterall, if Titanic can win them it shows that the appetite for drivel is unassuaged.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
When the initial gush dies down the massive flaws will become clear ...
Sorry folks, but this film is nowhere near as good as some gushing people on IMDB seem to think. I do notice more +ve comments in the US than the UK.
OK, so the visual effects are good. So what? Jackson had the technology available to do that. He needs to do much more than employ them effectively to produce a film worthy of greatness. This isn't great, indeed it's barely good.
The film is full of flaws. Important plotlines are absent, as noted by a few others here. To name but a few:
- the palantir cast by Wormtongue out of Orthanc in the book simply appears in the pool. This is absurd. It's the most valuable thing in the tower (as Gandalf tells Pippin in the book). This happens because Jackson has cut Saruman out entirely from film III. This is a terrible mistake. Having made so much of Saruman in I and II it just leaves a hole in III full of the unexplained. Jackson's error occurs because he should have put the full fall of Saruman at the end of II (as in the book).
- Eowyn's love for Aragorn is much stronger in the films than the book. The problem with this is that she simply stands idly by whilst Aragorn takes the limp character of Arwen to him. There is no development of the love between Eowyn and Faramic which in part answers the aforementioned in the book.
- Eowyn's slaying of the witch king of Angmar is one of the best moments of the book - a truly wondrous occurrence. In the film it is hacked in two halves whilst we await Aragorn's arrival by boat. Even the tossing of her golden hair is underplayed so much that it's anticlimactic for those of us who know the book well.
- Faramir's character is completely changed from the book. He now appears less nice than Boromir, which is deeply problematic and raises a major flaw in why he releases the ring from his grasp.
- Sorry everyone but much as I like Gollum he is little more than a CGI cartoon character. If you like computer games, fine. If you want a bit of realism, not.
- Am I alone in finding the slaying of the poor oliphaunt by Legolas sad? I felt sorry for the creature.
- the John Merrick style leader of the Orcs is one of the worst creature-creations I've seen
- Sam is awful. For those of you who like Sean Austin ... o dear. I think this may be a British / American thing. Some of those around me in the cinema started laughing at his toe-curlingly awful soppiness. Truly dreadful. The plausibly simple gardener of the book is now transformed into a college philosopher, and it's not a pretty spectacle.
- the moment when the hobbits appear to bounce over Frodo's bed is another soppy Jackson moment. Again, people in the cinema in London laughed at it. Even if Tolkien did intend a slight homosexual underplay to their relationships, I don't think he'd have admired Jackson heavy-handidness here.
- the scouring of the shire has gone altogether. Maybe that was right, but part of the whole point of this epic tale is that simple folk rise up against the mighty, and then have to confront that evil on their doorstep.
- the Shire is hideously twee, with not a petal out of place. Argh. If that's paradise give me the Emyn Muil any day!
- and finally, after more than 10 hours the demise of Sauron is dreadfully anti-climactic. The particularly silly portrayal of Sauron as a 1970's electrical storm-lamp is part of the problem here. Instead of personifying him, we have the demise of a 'thing' for which I felt no satisfaction at all. Dull.
- we then have to endure another 40 minutes as the movie drifts away into a confused ending, with a terrible prosthetic-Bilbo (looking like Salieri in Amadeus).
If this wins an Oscar other than for special effects it will be a scandal. But then, since when has that mattered. Afterall, if Titanic can win them it shows that the appetite for drivel is unassuaged.