Change Your Image
lordjord96
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Gravity (2013)
It's safe to say that Gravity is as Heartbreaking as it is Breathtaking...
Few films have given me a neutral vibe from trailers. The trailer for The Dark Knight Rises made me want to watch but not expect much from it, same with Life of Pi and now Gravity. After seeing the reviews for this film rocket upwards (excuse the pun), I knew I had to go see it. The trailers certainly got my interest to a point, but I wanted to see why so much fuss was being made about somebody floating through space. I'm very, very glad that I did see it in the cinema.
To summarise the plot; Sandra Bullock and George Clooney have to install a new part on the Hubble Space telescope. During the mission, however, the Russians destroy a satellite causing a chain reaction of debris which sees Bullock and Clooney separated from their shuttle. That's really all you need to know, as most of the subtle plot advances come from cinematography and lines of dialogue which would lead to major spoilers.
So, how does Bullock fares a desperate to survive astronaut bound to only one other person, with an ever depleting O2 reserve? Rather brilliantly, actually. Her performance really is the centrepiece of this film (Clooney has a relatively minor role, as you will see for yourself). When her O2 starts to run out as she panics, her breathing become raspy and difficult, her words sound desperate and difficult. Every movement is fluid, and every leap convinces us that this is a determined woman. Clooney plays a minor role, almost just a way of making sure that Bullock doesn't die and also acts as a kind of Comic Relief. Regardless, the first act plays out brilliantly between the two of them, and I was awed by the contrast between their deep conversations and the incredible surroundings they were floating in.
The cinematography is possibly the strongest I've ever seen in a film. I remember being blown away by the opening, as a huge roar during the Title is cuts to silence and an view of the earth rotating. This piece, followed by a 17 MINUTE continuous shot alone make the film worth watching. Seeing Clooney use a jet-pack to whip around space in 360 degrees was disorienting in a wonderful way; I actually felt like I was hovering around space with them. The camera work is fluid, but often fixes itself on the motions of an actor, such that we feel one with them as they go about moving from place to place. In one great shot, we slowly zoom on Bullock's face whilst she spins uncontrollably, getting closer and closer on each in-breath. It's shots like the one where she curls up like a space foetus (2001, anybody?), against the capsule door she just entered through, which reminds us of how amazing the 'land' of space is. How could anybody survive such a harsh place? Seeing it in 3d made all the difference, as seeing debris rush past and towards us was honestly terrifying, and made me fear for her life even more. The styling is ambitious, and the camera work more so. It's a beautiful film to look at.
I have to give it to Cuaron for this masterpiece. Many will complain that his story is thin and wears out by the time we realise it's about her 'living because her daughter died', but I think people like that are missing some clues as to the true meaning he hides in small pieces of dialogue and directing.
*SPOiLERS AHEAD*
Think about this; When Clooney 'saves' her as she attempts suicide, does she actually wake up? Is the rest of the film her in the afterlife, attempting to gain retribution for not standing up to her fear and saving her daughter? When she crawls to the shoreline and stands upon the sands, we are given an image of Evolution; This character, a human with the will to survive, stands stronger than ever, almost perfect, as thought she had ascended to a new level of life. Heaven, perhaps?
*SPOiLERS END*
Regardless of plot depth, this is an amazing piece of cinema. With technical mastery achieved by Cuaron, and a great performance by Bullock, this is the kind of film you HAVE to see. I think this will go down in history as that film which blew people away, for some reasons we can't just put our finger on and yet are still there. A glorious piece, 9.6/10.
Pacific Rim (2013)
Pacific Rim: Who needs maturity nowadays?
7 months ago, when I first heard about 'Pacific Rim' I had my doubts. First of all I thought that the Robot VS Monster battles wouldn't work out, and then I thought that this wasn't the kind of film Guillermo Del Toro should be directing. Alas, last night all my doubts were washed away!
Pacific rim is a triumph of sci-fi monster/action films. The film starts with a prologue to explain how and why the planet has changed, to tell us just why we need to defend ourselves. Admittedly, the truth was horrifying; giant monsters (called 'Kaiju) had bridged our dimension to theirs, and they were coming to get us. In the first sequence we get a sense of the scale of this as the Kaiju topple buildings and obliterate our standard military forces. Then, however, we get to see our own scaled-up war machine; The Jaeger robots. We are given an incredible sequence in which we see the pilots of the US's Gypsy Danger Jaeger being assembled in preparation for battle. The pilots' minds combined in control over the mighty machine. This was so much epic at once, I almost cried.
Del Toro's triumph isn't just scale, however. Despite all of our successes against the invasion, we ARE NOT invincible. This is, honestly, rather scary. The Kaiju start beating us badly (as we see when one of our supposedly triumphant Jaegers is almost torn to pieces), and ALL of our defences start to fail. The walls we build crumble within an hour of being attacked, and our Jaegers have to be brought out of retirement, only to be battered again and again. This made me feel scared, I wondered how we would deal with this threat today, and whether or not WE could adapt before they did.
But scary monsters aside, this film delivered action in ways I have never seen before. It's amazing to see colossal robots fighting colossal monsters like that in 'Pacific Rim'. The fights aren't speedy, having to carry the weight of it's participants, and we are continuously placed in the middle of them so that we can see just how much damage is being done; to the fighters AND our pilots. There was not a single second where I wasn't absolutely amazed by the strength of the CGI, and how it all felt so astonishingly real. When the Jaeger was hurt, you could see it was hurt, same for the Kaiju. And yet, surprises are thrown at us throughout as our strengths become weaknesses and vice-versa. Del Toro did a great job of turning the emotional pilot-bonds into a will to fight and survive. The emotions at the base known as the 'Shatterdome' are taking into battle, crippling some fights but strengthening others.
The cinematography was also exceptional. When the waters of the pacific ocean filled the screen, when waves pushed Jaegers and Kaijus back and forth, when buildings fell and cars exploded, I could have actually been in the film. I didn't see it in 3d of IMAX (if it isn't filmed in IMAX or d, I won't waste my money seeing it in those formats), but that didn't detract from my complete immersion into the battle sequences. As we see lights illuminate the waters and Kaijus causing almost tsunami- scale waves to burst forth, I was utterly entranced by the power of this film's CGI; it was the best I have ever seen.
I can't really comment on acting, because most of the acting, in my opinion, was done by the Jaegers and Kaijus in the battles. Idris Elba certainly had an authority about him, and Charlie Hunman was clearly scarred by the loss of his brother in a Jaeger-crippling battle, but that didn't matter too much to me because, after all, I was there for the action.
I would have liked a few less emotional scenes, admittedly, as they did seem to be out of place at times (Why there have to be a fight between Raleigh and Chuck over a girl I don't know), and the comedic battles between two scientists with two different solutions did detract from the action slightly due to their placement during the middle of some battles. Their humour also fell flat on the audience at times, leading to some pointless cutaways that should have been cutaway from the final edit of the film.
'Pacific Rim' was so much better than I expected it to be. In the beginning I thought it looked a bit, well, naff. I didn't like the sequencing too much, but I have a feeling that was intentional, to make us feel that the scale of the problem wasn't that impressive, until later on when it becomes clear that it is. I honestly believe that what Del Toro has done is created one of the best Sci-fi films in this decade, n#and I know for sure that the Kaiju are my favourite movie monsters of all time. If you go into this expecting anything other than close-up, over the top, reference-filled, anime and Godzilla homage-d action, then think again. This film made me feel like a 6 year old playing with my monster and robot toys on the carpet, and I really like that feeling; 8.9/10.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
I really don't know...
I just don't know what to say. This isn't a bad thing, though. In many ways being unable to come to an affirmative conclusion is what the filmmaker wants; polarisation of views. My view is split because, quite simply, I don't know if this film is a joke or not.
My standard review structure has to be broken for this because, well, nothing I can say can really summarise my opinions. The film seems to have a mixture of comedy and serious horror undertones. The opening would suggest a key sub-plot, but then the title hits the screen in 70's B-horror movie style (big, bold and red). The film progresses in this same style; giving you creepy pretences for the rest of the plot, then adding 'dorky' cliché's. The main characters are all parodies of classic horror films; a 'hot' girl and her 'jock BF'. The nerd who becomes 'Mr Nice Guy', and the unlikely hero who saves the strong-headed female lead. This assortment is then used as an explanation for the plot... (***SPOILERS***) ...as the 'ancient ones' required said characteristics in youth to be appeased. So, they take some funny cliché stuff and infuse it with some deep, intriguing horror plot. Interesting, isn't it? Why then, do I have such confused feelings? Well, because this happens THROUGHOUT the film. Hell (excuse the pun), even the monster's existence in horror films is explained as a kind of 'game show' to appease the previously mentioned ancient ones. The characters act like the classic horror film ones do (think Ash and Mia in The Evil Dead), and yet they appear very traumatised and pivotal to the progression of the plot.
The cinematography also combines the strange atmosphere of most horror films with the setting of any classic 'it all goes wrong' horror.
This film is a spoof of the very genre it falls under. Sure, the film is different, and sure, that's good, but is it entirely justified? I just wish it could have been more decisive in it's final plot choice; either be serious, or be a joke. This film did both, even at the very end. I admire the cleverness of the director because it had me going through every second, and yet I wasn't entirely satisfied. I can understand the bad reviews, and the 'OMFGGROFLBBQ BEST HORROR EVAR' reviews. But personally, it isn't either. I give it a ?/10
Lincoln (2012)
Boring, tedious and pointless. Skip Day-Lewis and focus on Tommy Lee.
Wow. Saw this film today, Cinema was empty. This, I expected. Being n the UK it was unlikely that this film would explode due to its 'Murican plot. When I say plot, however, I actually mean this;
"More democrats need to vote yes!", "Nearly at the vote!", "Freedom for black slaves!", "Nearly at the vote!", "Nearly at the vote!", "Nearly at the vote!", "Tommy Lee says something epic!", "Nearly at the vote!", "More democrats need to vote!", "Nearly at the vote!", "Freedom for blacks slaves!", "Tommy Lee says something epic!", "Nearly at the vote!", "More democrats need to vote!", "At the vote!"...
"The war is over, dead bodies, sadness.", "Lincoln's dead but we won't show you the assassination!"
That's it. That is the ENTIRE FILM. I have never, EVER, wanted to actually leave the cinema before. If it hadn't been so expensive and I hadn't respected Mr. Spielberg so much then I would have. I don't see why this film has so many Academy Award nominations. Sure, Day-Lewis was very, very good, but you may as well have not even included him!. Lincoln had ZERO character development; you get the same old story- telling old man until the last ten minutes, when he just becomes an old man. Tommy Lee, on the other hand, had TONNES of development. Being conflicted about whether or not he should be who he is expected to, pursuing a dream and watching it nearly fail before his very eyes, and critically being in a relationship with a black women which would have previously been shunned. The relief on his face as she reads the amendment is unforgettably intense. Day Lewis' performance was, however, forgettable and sometime quite pretentious IMO.
The cinematography was undoubtedly good. Nothing really special. It compliments the superb set and costume design brilliantly (the sets and costumes deserve a plethora of awards, definitely), but that isn't enough to save this film.
Steven Spielberg, you just keep getting weaker. It started with WOTW, and then War Horse, and now Lincoln, your demise. I hope you do take Robopocalypse up again, as sci-fi and action are your best genres.
So, overall; A boring film which I couldn't care less about. I wanted to leave, and only enjoyed the bits where Tommy Lee played out some truly hilarious and marvellously powerful lines. HE should have been the focus, not Lincoln. Tommy's character, with his 30 years of torment previously, were far more interesting than Lincoln's (the 30 years is only hinted at, not shown.) In a similar way to Prometheus, this film had its priorities totally wrong. Prometheus, however, didn't have me bored to tears. I give this film 2 ratings; 5/10 for the actual film, and 8.5/10 for Tommy Lee Jones' acting and the Set+Costume design. Overall, 6/10
Life of Pi (2012)
A film that you will never let go of...
Wow. Simply, Wow. 'Life of Pi' is on of those films which will always stay at the front of your mind. Every scene is so beautifully done, every theme so well interwoven. This film is exactly what I was looking for and more.
The cast (albeit small) performed brilliantly. About a third of the film has more than 3 characters involved in it, while the rest is really just 2 (if you count the tiger as a character). The acting in those solitary scenes out at sea are done brilliantly. You really feel an emotional attachment to both Pi and Richard Parker (the tiger's rather humorous name). Every struggle between them makes you feel scared, every pain makes you feel for them. I have never left the cinema missing every character as much as I did with Life of Pi (OK, maybe spirited away was just as heart-tugging).
The plot is very well strung together. Ang Lee has tied in the themes of the book absolutely superbly. What annoys me about some films is that if they do have a meaning they try to hide it, but Life of Pi really doesn't. The meaning is related clearly to discovering God, and how we are really more animal-like than we think (it turns out the story with animals is more human than the story with humans). What also amazes me is how Ang Lee managed to put in sequences which served no purpose to the plot, just there to be purely beautiful, and get away with it! Many films annoy me when they include visually-superb sequences because they detract from the feeling of the film too much, but not this one. The fact that the entire film just looks SO GOOD means that these scenes ,made just to look good, really work. I saw this film in 3D and, despite my hatred of 3D (no film has really justified the price increase), Life of Pi actually looked great in 3D. Every scene had noticeable 3D in it. Whether this was just going further into the screen or, in many cases surprisingly, popping out of the screen, it really did work.
So, #Life of Pi', is it the best film of 2012? No, but then again if it was then there must be something wrong with the world. I say that because this films' meaning is just so brilliant, so emotionally spectacular, that it just cannot be considered to be a film like any other. I actually feel bad about ranking it out of 10, but obviously I have to keep track of it somehow. Really, I would rank it as 'Pure Emotional Brilliance/10', but I'm afraid my IMDb vow prevents me from doing that. 'Life of Pi' offers a superb character ensemble, visuals which , dare I say rival those in 'Prometheus', and a plot so emotional, so perfect that it truly deserves it's 9.5/10 rating.
P.S; I miss Richard Parker
Watchmen (2009)
Who watches the Watchmen? I DO!
Watchmen is one of those films where you need to find a day where you have NOTHING planned, and then sit down and watch it. This film requires a heck of a lot of concentration. Being 2 hours and 40 minutes long means it isn't the longest film out there by any standards, but the pacing is a tad slow for most people (including myself) and so getting through it may be a bit of a pain unless you have nothing else to do.
I shall start with what I always start with; Director and actors. The actors in this film are, of course, top notch. Jackie Earle Haley as 'Rauschach' worked beautifully. His dark and mysterious tone suits the character perfectly. Dr. Manhattan was also brilliantly played by Billy Crudup as a very cold and unmovable genius was superb. The ensemble is good all round. The best part of the ensemble is, of course, Zack Snyder. Having loved the beautiful cinematography, well-paced and gripping story of '300', I expected great things from this film, and he delivered in most circumstances.
The cinematography in this film is exceptional. The intro is stunning, and merits as possibly on of the best of all time, and the general atmosphere of cold-war America, tainted by violence and the fear of nuclear war, feels eerily possible. Just brilliant. Every blaze of yellow looks great, every shining blue person is a great addition to the overall feel of the film.
The plot is great, apart from one small thing; the pace. It just seems that the action culminates far too late, which makes the ending a bit iffy. Yes, it works and looks great, but the execution just leaves you thinking "WAAAAAAAA... oh, that it?". Not very good considering the outstanding nature of 300.
Therefore, I cannot put this film up there with my favourites. It looks superb, and has some brilliant acting not to mention the label of a brilliant director on it. It is all brought down a bit though by the poor pacing. I simply could not watch this film twice, in a year even. 8.3/10, a noble effort at such a grand concept.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The ultimate Open-Ended film...
I watched this film for the first time on Blu-Ray. I saw in superb High definition the endless bounds of Kubrick's visionary Genius. I could hear the silence, feel the breathing of the characters. But above all, I had room to think.
'2001: A Space Odyssey' is so brilliant that I will find a good review hard to write. Firstly, I will talk about acting; if there is much to talk about. All actors were superb, despite there being almost no real dialogue. Not a single piece of story-line seemed to stem from dialogue, and this is what I love; the fact that dialogue is there for the simple purpose of happening, to keep the scenes real. The first scene where human speech does occur is one of the best I've seen. When William Sylvester went from happily discussing the mission, to just saying 'I am afraid I am not at liberty to discuss that.' in a plain and unmoved tone was simply superb.Then you have the frustration between Dave and HAL- 9000. HAL is easily my favourite film-villain of all time; his coldness is so beautifully presented by his voice-actor,Douglas Rain, and yet it is easy to feel sorry for him when he dies singing.
Then there are the visuals, and oh my are they great. The so-called 'Stargate' sequence is simply incredible, and literally had me holding on to my seat. Then there is the open and very obviously vacuous nature of space which is emphasised by the presence of silence. The clean feel to the space-station is satisfying, and the red, slightly off centre glare of HAL-9000's 'eye' is a truly scary sight. The planets look great and so does pretty much everything. Being on Blu-ray obviously makes all the difference.
My favourite part is, however, the Monolith. What strikes me about them is how, unlike most 'aliens' in sci-fi films, they don't scream to be explored. In 'Prometheus' the engineers call humans back, supposedly to just decide to destroy us, their creation. In 'Contact', they beg to be discovered by us and share all their benevolent secrets. The Monoliths just, well, exist. They send a signal, yes, but why? Who knows. They cause Dave to evolve to an even higher level of existence, but that is it. Other than this, they just exist, floating around, evolving and watching living things. The fact that they seem to reflect no light really places emphasis on the fact that they are clearly present, but hard to really see. I guess they may be Kubrick's vision of God; watchful being(s) that we cannot really define. And that is why I love this film so much; the ending is SO open to interpretation. I believe the Monolith's were the focus, and that their story is the focus of Kubrik's vision. Other's may say that the evolution to becoming a 'Star Child' is the focus, but who knows? Only Arthur C. Clarke it would seem.
Overall then, '2001: A Space Odyssey' is a superb film, with expectantly beautiful Kubrick visuals combined with true-to-life acting an the best villain of all time: a very concerned computer. Another true classic from Kubrick; 9/10
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Nostalgic humour...
Do you like references? Are you a fan of martial arts films from the 70's? Do you like blood and gore? If yes to all these, then you have probably seen this film. If no, then this isn't really a film for you.
Quentin Tarantino has a tendency to make non-linear films, and he does them very well. 'Kill Bill: Volume 1' is no different to most of his films. It features heavy amounts of gore and a very, very interesting story. I don't know what it is about the story in this film which makes it different though. Maybe it's because, unlike his other films, the non-linear aspect is very straight forward and links beautifully to the character's own development.
Talking about character, my god this film has beautiful characters. Uma Thurman is actually rather striking. Although the film starts with her more innocent side it quickly morphs into her violent, no mercy side. Such dynamic emotion is very well done and written. Also, the cold- hearted nature of Bill is creepy yet you feel empathy for him when he communicates with the assassins.
Cinematics now; the 1970's martial arts style taken on actually adds beautiful comedy to the otherwise very serious mix. For instance, whenever The Bride sees one of her assailants the screen goes red, klaxons go off and it cuts to a flashback. Moments like that just make me wanna go "F*** YEAH!". The use of "swooshy" and "punchy" fighting sound effects sound so cheesy yet so satisfying. My favourite sequence: the end massacre, when O Ren and The Bride fight in a snow covered Japanese garden.
The shortcomings are the same as the things which make it brilliant. At times it just feels like the gore is overdone plus the comedy sometimes ruins the pacing of action sequences. Although easy to overlook, these can ruin the experience for some.
So, 8/10 overall. Good-looking, good fun and good god with a bit of a ruined experience at times. Good show!
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
9.9/10, EPIC In all ways.
EPIC, and that really isn't an understatement. This film just absolutely blew me away. Superb cast (half of which were from Inception), outstanding cinematic quality ( I LOVED the aerial shots) and a thrilling, action-packed story line.
I needn't say much about the acting. Tom Hardy really delivered a role made of badassery as 'Bane'. Christian Bale played Batman better than ever, and Michael Caine, well, he brought a tear to my eye.
Cinematics? Wow. Aerial shots were INCREEEEDIBLE. Love the cityscape. And the action sequences were filled with shock and awe. I though the truck scene from 'The Dark Knight' was good, wait until you see this! Seeing most of Gotham getting blown to pieces was utterly insane! A lot of it I would also give to the soundtrack. Hans Zimmer stuns again with EPIC music. At times, it is actually the silence which adds to the awe, not the music. Those silent scenes really hit you.
The storyline is also incredible. A bit slow to start with but it really picks up. At the start expect a LOT of long dialogue scenes, but trust me, the action from the middle to end really does make up for those more boring and quiet scenes. Jonathon and Christopher Nolan did a great Job on making a new kind of Batman, one which we haven't seen before. He is more determined than ever and this plays out great in this film. Although weak, you can see how he wants to save Gotham so desperately.
So, overall this film is AMAZING. I went into thinking "Well, surely it won't beat The Dark Knight as that had Heath Ledger?" but my thoughts were thrown away after leaving the cinema. As good as 'The Dark Knight'? Yeah, I think so. 9.9/10 (Shares the TOP with 'The Dark Knight') a movie which I have NO complaints about. Bravo Mr Nolan, Bravo.
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
9.4/10, an inspiring film.
Why is this film rated 6.4 on IMDb? The answer is simply beyond me. How can a film which packs superb acting, an inspiring storyline and hilarious comedy be rated so low?
I rank this film 9.4/10 in my personal rating system. I found that, first off, the acting was simply incredible. Jon Heder (Napoleon) is just, wow. Never have I seen somebody pull off the solitary nerd so effectively. It isn't stereotypical cringe worthy acting, it's inspiring. The way his lines were written really make you feel for him and this is helped by Jon's superb acting. Then there's Pedro; I have never had sympathy for a character as much as Pedro. HE is a truly inspiring character and I applaud the acting.
Next up is direction. The reason I like this direction is the same reason why I love 'Fargo', nothing seems staged, it all feels like a documentary on Napoleon's life, something Jared Hess should be very proud of. I think also it's the setting which does it. It's just, well, Idaho. Nothing really to it, is there? And that's what I love. The setting is just normal, the characters are a little less than normal and the story is well below normal. I love it.
Do I have any worthwhile complaints? No, I don't. So, a film which is a combination of great acting, great direction and a great story; 'Napoleon Dynamite' thoroughly deserves my rating of 9/10. If you don't like it then 'Gosh, y' frickin IDIOT!'
Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
Breathtaking effects, acting at the closest drama to the book I've ever seen.
Well, firstly, I have to say that Kristen Stewart really has come a long way since the monotone acting we saw in Twilight. Although she did still seem to have problems with speaking with an open mouth we can now clearly see plenty of emotions from her. The other actors were either just as good or better. Charlize Theron showed some outstanding acting, just really WOW. Her ability to portray emotion was simply the best I've seen for a long time in actresses. The dwarfs were very funny and it was nice seeing Bob Hoskins and Ian McShane in the film. Also, Chris Hemsworth was an amazing edition to an already spectacular cast. Great seeing him as Thor but also incredible seeing him in such a different role.
The effects were also superb. The battle scenes left me in awe and the queens palace was also a stunning place where the magic effects were (excuse the pun) spellbinding. The setting was also superb. The atmosphere also kept the paranoid yet disturbing feel of the book.
The shortcomings are, however, in Kristen Stewarts occasionally bland acting. She still needs more confidence in her roles especially when they are this emotionally demanding, although she did do an OK job in the emotion scenes.
So overall, A great cast, stunning effects and a gripping plot-line which stays close to the dark nature of the book. The only problems were in Kristen Stewart's acting. 8/10.
Prometheus (2012)
Brilliant film which confused itself.
Well, Ridley Scott has struck as with another glorious looking film. The actors, aside from the Scottish guy with the Mohawk, were all brilliant. The CGI was stunning and the idea for creation was highly interesting.
There is one large problem that has been annoying me since I went to see it. From trailers I could tell it would have plenty of links with Alien. I liked this and believed the film would develop into a direct prequel. The reality was quite different. Image Prometheus and Alien on two ends of a spectrum. The plot line of this film zig-zagged between the two story ideas. It was an independent film which wanted to be a prequel. The ideas were trying to work with each-other simultaneously which simply didn't work. It SHOULD have spent the first half developing and wrapping up the "engineer" idea before ending with a direct link to Alien; not splitting between the two at the end. Either that or it should have dealt EXCLUSIVELY with the "engineer" idea.
So, although it is clear that Ridley was a bit TOO clingy to Alien, where the idea wasn't linked it was truly superb. The links to Alien just opened up plot-holes and pointless sub-plots which took away from the film overall.
So a visually stunning film executed brilliantly but with a very confused story line behind it. If it was completely independent to Alien it would be 9/10, but it isn't, it's 8/10.
The Shining (1980)
A REAL HORROR FILM, better than all I have seen...
OK, what will I start with? Maybe the beautiful steadi-cam shots? Or the psychologically stirring pursuit scenes? Or maybe the chilling music?
With 'The Shining' it is hard to put a finger on what makes the film so utterly disturbing and brilliant. I'm a teenage and I have never seen a scary horror film until this. Unlike modern horror films which use 'shock and gore' to promote fear this film uses and underlying sense of dread. Every shot tells you something is wrong and yet you never know what that 'wrong' is. The scenes where Wendy screams really get to you. They just make you feel afraid with her, not like "I will never sleep again" afraid but more of a trembly or shivery kind of afraid. The music adds to this. despite being like a 70's ELO track gone wry it really puts you on edge without ever telling you something is about to happen, a trait which all other horror films seem to have. Then there are the stunning camera shots. Steadi-cam was a brilliant invention and adds a kind of flow to the sense of fear. It lulls you into a sense of false security and then carefully delivers you into the hands of horror. Overall each shot builds the suspense.
That is why I love this film. It SCARED me and didn't make me jump. I felt like I was amid the characters and yet I didn't leave the film fearing for my own life at night. It just made me realise how tangled and fragile the human psyche is. A superb film, 9/10!