Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
A balanced review from a M:I fan ...
8 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was lucky to be able to watch this 4 days before its official release in Czech Republic as a pre-premiere (didn't know such a thing existed) and it was the first time I've felt real excitement to go watch a film at the cinema in ages thanks to the recent genius combination of Fallout and Top Gun 2.

I know what they were trying to do with this film. Bringing Kittridge back and a convoluted train finale all harked back to the 1st movie that sparked it all off. Explaining that convoluted storyline along the way harks back to the criticisms made about that same first film.

The sky jump stunt was an attempt to beat the stunts from Tom Cruise in previous installments that have now become a beloved trademark of the franchise.

But this film unfortunately overall is most reminiscent of the second installment which was Tom Cruise centric and lacked any real impossible mission requiring teamwork, real stakes and ingenious problem solving.

In fact, it could have even been intentional that this film reminds the viewer of Mission Impossible 2. The photos in the film of past Ethan Hunt when searching for present Ethan Hunt show him with his longer hair as he looked in that second film.

Ultimately, I expected the story to be way better than what we get in this instalment.

There are 2 guys that keep appearing at each scene trying to catch Ethan which seems a very cheap simple story.

And the very simple plot is explained in long scenes to make it seem way more complicated that it actually is (people complained there should be more explanation in the first film, but at least the plot in the first film actually required brain power), and I have to say that some of the acting is quite poor at times, not helped by some rather cheesy lines in the script, including the lines and accents in the opening Russian submarine sequence.

There is also not that much action. 3 main action sequences for a close to 3 hour movie, which are the desert shoot out at the beginning, the Venice car chase, and the train crash at the end.

I thought the alleyway fight scene, which some have praised, was really quite subpar and not very enthralling.

The best action scene is the Venice car chase because it is genuinely funny (yes, because it is excellently laugh out loud funny, but not in any way tense); I never had the feeling that I was on the edge of my seat.

The motorcycle sky jump scene was a major disappointment after the hype because if you didn't know Cruise actually did do that stunt, they used so much CGI that people would just assume it was computer generated. It actually reminded me of Pierce Brosnan's riding the tsunami in Die Another Day (sorry Tom! The stunt is still awesome!).

The same for the train at the end. I know they actually made that train, and probably actually threw it off a bridge, but it doesn't look real. Though it is a long action finale and very fun to watch, for me the lack of realism takes away any tension. You are enjoying it for its visual value, but again not feeling any 'wow' factor or tension.

At the end of Fallout, for example, you really felt Ethan Hunt was battered, bruised, worn out and still fighting to save humanity. There is none of that.

The most tragic thing about this movie is that, unlike in the best of the previous films, we're back to the team being irrelevant in this one. Benji and Luther don't actually do very much.

And poor Ilsa. Fallout ended with Ethan's ex-wife essentially giving him permission to move on and be with Ilsa.

The relationship between Ilsa and Hunt had been built up over two excellent movies - Rogue Nation and Fallout - and in this film she says almost nothing, looks grumpy and sad all the time, and dies in an anticlimactic fight that is literally spelt out to the audience as a way to replace her with newcomer Grace.

Grace, played by Hayley Atwell, is good. A likeable character and a capable actress, but I don't get the story unless Rebecca Ferguson said she wants out the franchise.

The film is all about chasing "the key." No twists. No high stakes. There is virtually no grittiness in this outing. It feels very light.

Ultimately I was hoping to enjoy a quality film in the franchise. A movie like Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Fallout, Top Gun 2 or American Made that you can show to anyone and say these are recent really high quality films starring this guy called Tom Cruise.

This is not one of those films.

It is more like The Mummy. It is better than Mission Impossible 2 but not better than any of the others in the franchise.
459 out of 595 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre (I) (2015)
9/10
Daniel Craig's first real Bond adventure! - but is it his last?
28 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Sean Connery was the original cinematic Bond of the 60s - suave, dangerous, charming, sexy, sexist and sarcastic, Roger Moore brought us the tongue-in-cheek laugh-out-loud Bond, and George Lazenby tied those two together with an epic cheeky yet emotional and sad portrayal of Bond. In the 80s, Timothy Dalton's serious and more ruthless Bond was the most literary accurate, and then came Pierce Brosnan in the 90s with a version of Bond that managed to incorporate aspects of all of these.

But in 2002, they ruined Bond. Die Another Day was a soul- destroyingly ridiculous affair with bad CGI instead of stunts, an invisible car that took Bond purely into fantasy, and an inexplicable script in which everyone was suddenly hurtling pitiful sarcastic remarks at each other for no apparent reason.

I felt the way other adults feel when they cry hopelessly because their favourite football team just lost the championship - devastated.

So I decided to finally read the books and concluded that they had gone so far on a tangent that what they needed to do to save Bond from this mess was to remake all the films, but this time in the correct order and faithful to the books.

Then to my utter surprise, they acquired the rights to the first book, Casino Royale, and decided to do a reboot. Wow. My enthusiasm returned!

Casino Royale turned out to be one of the best spy thrillers ever made.

It incorporated everything that makes a 007 film and respectfully turned it on its head. The gadget is a mobile; the big enemy base is a big plane; Bond is not interested in the women or the vodka martini. The second half of the film is the book. He falls in love and loses the girl through betrayal, shaping Bond into the 007 we know - a killing machine with a fragile heart.

When Casino Royale finishes, James Bond is ready for his first adventure as the new 007 - or so we think.

Because it turns out in Quantum of Solace that the new Bond first needs more self-discovery to become the Bond we know and love. The excellent political backstory of this film is sadly lost in this short, unnecessary Bond outing, with atrocious editing and virtually none of the elements that actually make a Bond film. How could they mess it up twice in the space of three films? Next came Skyfall.

Excellent marketing strategies made this next film the highest- grossing in Bond history, but was it really that amazing?

In Skyfall, M has developed into a mother figure and Bond has been the 007 super-spy for so long that he is feeling weathered. But when did that happen!?

We are once again left with another character development story setting up Bond. Only this time, our new Bond needs to become more of the old Bond again!

Don't get me wrong. Skyfall director, Sam Mendes, presented us with one of the most beautiful James Bond films ever made with gorgeous colours, set pieces, elegant action sequences, and a wonderful script with a wonderful villain played by Javier Bardem. But the motif throughout the film is that we need the new Bond without moving so far away from what made 007 so good in the past. The film finishes with our modern-day Bond reintroduced into the traditional Bond set up.

I came to Spectre with only one hope. Having not read any of the script leaks or controversy surrounding production (until after seeing the film), I just wanted a real Bond adventure!

And I am glad to say - Spectre delivers just that!

Spectre is the first film in which Craig carries on the torch of the previous Bonds once again. Just like Pierce, his Bond now incorporates the danger and charm of Sean, laugh-out-loud humour and light relief of Roger, care and compassion of George, seriousness of Timothy, but also remaining the likable modern-day maladjusted killing machine that we have come to know as Craig's Bond.

The film itself has all the traditional Bond elements. The gun barrel intro, the secret base, the gadgets, the car, the henchman, the girl he must protect (and not let die!), and for the longstanding Bond fans out there, the film takes us to wonderful moments in Bond history.

The plot in Spectre is no better than Silva's ridiculously convoluted plan in Skyfall to shoot M in public, but this is excusable to a certain extent in the Bond world because Bond villains are always completely insane.

Spectre is a wonderful James Bond film. They did something new and incredible with Casino Royale, but they couldn't sustain it, so instead they gave us old Bond in a new world.

My only criticism is that Christoph Waltz is totally underused! There is no momentous speech as with Silva in Skyfall. All of Christoph Waltz's scenes are rushed, lacking and thin.

Hopefully, this will not matter though because Waltz could return ... or could he?

They may have shot themselves in the foot again in this film by ending it the way they did. The film creates closure. A happy end for Craig's Bond. But what now?

I came away loving this new Bond film! But with no feeling of conviction that they know now what they are doing with Bond today.

Is Craig done? Is his first real Bond adventure his last?

As a James Bond adventure harking back to pre-Casino Royale, this is one of the best in the series, and let's hope Daniel Craig decides to give us a few more!

For we know that 'Bond Will Return'. But in what way is no longer certain.
11 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
New in Town (2009)
10/10
a heartwarming film with a beautiful moral message
15 March 2015
In a world where profit goes before ethics, and CGI goes before story, it is nice to watch a comedy drama that is not superficial.

This film is all about community, love and compassion, and making a positive difference in this world that impacts and benefits the people around you.

Renée Zellweger, Harry Connick Jr. and J.K. Simmons are a pleasure to watch as always, and the lesser known actors such as Siobhan Fallon are excellent too.

If you want to watch a heartwarming film with a beautiful moral message about human values and what really matters in this world, this film will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and remind you what life is all about. For those who prefer blowing things up, watch something else.

I haven't seen a decent comedy drama with such inspiring human values since Sweet Home Alabama. (and guess what, I just checked and screenplay writer C. Jay Cox was behind them both!) LOL Is there really only one screenwriter out there who can write romantic comedy with compassion and community at its core? In my opinion, the world would be a much better place if these values were the focus of Hollywood.

This is a wonderful film which deserves much more than the rating it has.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Leftovers (2014–2017)
9/10
this is top British style drama straight from the USA
23 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I am from England and I just so happen to be visiting some friends in the USA where this show has just come out and is presently on episode 4.

I have just watched all four episodes and came to IMDb to see what people have to say about it. I am really surprised that the reviews are so negative by so many people!

This show will do really well in Britain (that's England, Scotland and Wales - the UK includes Northern Ireland too) because British drama is often gritty, solemn, and very very dark. And so is this show.

No one in 'The Leftovers' is happy. Everyone is mourning the loss of their loved ones in the aftermath of a a global event in which 2% of the world's population inexplicably disappeared. They are also dealing with the pain caused by the subsequent suffering of people around them, and its consequences.

This show has top notch acting by all concerned and is driven by the development of the characters, and the unfolding of events that now follow the rapture.

Nothing is explained in the beginning and the viewer is supposed to attempt to piece together what is going to unfold as the season goes on and the events slowly start to make sense to us.

It seems to me that here in the US, many people do not like thinking when watching the television. That might sound harsh, but it is truly beyond me how a show like this can get so many poor reviews when a show like 'Teen Wolf' (which I also saw for the first time a few days ago) is praised to the hilt.

The episode of 'Teen Wolf' I watched cut between 4 separate scenes like a Latin American soap opera that consisted of a guy pointing a gun at two Mexicans who were trying to get him to say some words out loud, and a lacrosse game with an angry werewolf and some very shocking acting.

'The Leftovers', on the other hand, is fantastic captivating storytelling; rather than a show whose purpose is to dumb down a nation, it requires people to use their brains and think about the darker side of the reality we actually live in today.

As a side note, the British actor Christopher Eccleston loves this kind of material. Check out the original British version of 'Cracker' or 'The Second Coming' (in which he plays the return of the son of God) to see what I mean. British cinema is no different. Christopher Eccleston stars in both 'Shallow Grave' and 'Jude' - two excellent dark and depressing films that show the depths of human suffering that the values of society perpetuate.

In episode 3 of 'The Leftovers', his character the priest attempts to save his church with an idea that seems to come from supernatural inspiration. The underlying question in the episode is whether or not he is on a path of good or evil in the way he chooses to do so.

'The Leftovers' is intelligent and it is thought-provoking. The writing is excellent, and the quality of this show, to my mind, is indisputable.

Nevertheless, I don't think that the content of this show is for everyone. Episode 3 in particular was so sinister that it was tough viewing. And not everyone wants to deliberately delve into a world of misery once a week. Just don't watch something like 'Teen Wolf' instead!
408 out of 574 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyfall (2012)
7/10
how many times can you re-invent Bond and get away with it?
14 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
READ THIS AFTER YOU HAVE WATCHED THE FILM TO COMPARE OPINIONS

As a huge James Bond fan, this is what I think ...

In a nutshell.

The first two halves/acts are great (and are definitely James Bond) The intro has a very exciting spy feel, Bonds resurrection and the bad guy being such a good actor (and hitting on Bond - loved that) all work excellently.

My first small criticism is what was the point of the Bond girl. He shags her and then she dies. He could have at least saved her life.

Then everything is fine and tense again. In the cell like Hannibal Lector. Liked that too.

Bad guy escapes and there is more tense action - all good all good.

Second small criticism is the tube train crash. Over the top - that's fine, but why is there no one in the train. I hate that! It's like The A-Team. No one dies :p Then there is a tense shoot out in the court (which is also good) I like the poetry. I liked the themes of old and new running through it ... all so good.

BUT WAIT ...

now I'm starting to get confused.

UP TO THIS POINT WE HAVE A FANTASTIC BOND FILM !!!! ...

But then a couple of things happened:

First - we find out that the master plan of the bad guy was to infiltrate MI6 so that he could locate M and set up a scenario so that he could walk into a court and shoot her. Hmm. That was his masterplan? Bond has broken into M's house twice now. Why didn't the bad guy just break into her house and kill her? OK. Maybe he wanted to punish MI6 and kill M publicly, but still, his masterplan was a bit rubbish. And in the end he just goes to the countryside to kill her in the middle of nowhere anyway.

Second - the third act ... = the big question mark. Do I like it or not? It's not Bond. You are right! Bond takes Sean Connery's car and drives M back home to Scotland for some MacGyver action. Random old Scottish bloke still hanging around and big shoot out. It was OK, but just OK. Not much spy stuff, not very Bond at all, and I just didn't feel the sadness when M died. I was a little surprised ..

(as a side note, I also know the history of M's relationship to Bond. In The World is Not Enough. She trusts him. In Die Another Day she doesn't give a crap about him. Then Casino Royale and the re-boot. She doesn't trust him. Quantum of Solace .. doesn't mind if he gets killed but starting to trust him. In Skyfall they are best mates!)

This would have worked better with a James Bond adventure between Quantum and Skyfall to establish this relationship. And that's the problem I had. I want a proper Bond adventure! We all want a proper Bond adventure! Stop reinventing yourself in every film!!

Let me explain ..... the final scene. Now I did like the idea of killing M, introducing Q and gadgets, bringing back Moneypenny and finishing the film with modern Bond in the situation of the original old Bond. I thought that was a really nice idea and it worked well.

BUT although I like it, I think that the Daniel Craig Bond's have been a bit lost ...

Casino Royale - FANTASTIC (one of the best action films ever along with Dark Knight). At the end, we have our new James Bond ready for Bond adventures.

Quantum of Solace - oh no wait. This is part two of Casino Royale. Bond is not Bond yet. First he needs to find his zen and then he is Bond. Forgive this odd Casino Royale add-on. At the end - Bond is ready. Yeh!

Skyfall - Bond is Bond look! Yipeee. Oh no wait. He was Bond for the intro ... but now he has apparently been Bond too long and he's done in. When did that happen? It seems he needs to learn some more and go through some more ... and now at the end of this film he is ready to be Bond.

Basically, I liked Skyfall a lot but what was missing was some normal Bond adventures between Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace story arch and this one. If they could have squeezed at least one James Bond adventure in between then Skyfall would have made more sense and worked better for me.

I don't need to see Bond becoming Bond in every film! He was already Bond before Daniel Craig came along! So now I am ready for Daniel Craig to be Bond.

In Skyfall Bond was all knackered and out of shape and lost his will to be a spy which was all good, but he hasn't done anything yet! We are just supposed to assume that in between Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace and Skyfall he has been doing lots of Bond stuff so that M and he have had time to develop a very close relationship.

Again, all good ideas but we wanted to see some of that first! Anyway, the ending is good and I hope now that they just give us some straight forward Bond adventures with clever story lines instead of trying to develop the new Bond every time.

That's what I think :-)
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bruce Wayne Rises
8 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
There has been disappointment for me this summer. The Avengers was early on and a very very enjoyable film, but Prometheus with a high rating on IMDb was a flawed let down, and the new Spiderman was pointless. I had hoped for more this summer and I hope Bourne Legacy is half decent.

I wasn't going to watch The Dark Knight Rises. I wasn't impressed with the trailer and the previous film, The Dark Knight, was so much to live up to.

I still have a friend who hasn't seen The Dark Knight. I keep telling him to watch it, and he asks 'Is it really that good?', and I keep replying 'Yes! It is amazing!' But then I saw on IMDb that The Dark Knight Rises has (at time of writing) a rating of 8.9 so I thought. 'I must be wrong. This film must be amazing too!' Like Prometheus, I think some people went to the movie so hyped from the idea of the film that they over-rated it.

This film is a nice end to the Nolan trilogy. Nothing more.

It is not about Batman. Batman is physically done in after his encounter with the Joker and Batman isn't much of a Batman any more. That explains the lack of Batman acrobatics, but it doesn't explain the lack of interesting action sequences in this film. Even the opening plane sequence didn't do much for me.

This film is all about Bruce Wayne, not Batman. It should be called 'Bruce Wayne Rises'. The most interesting aspect of this film for me was that it was more about the characters that were already established in the previous two movies, and what happens to them in the end.

Anne Hathaway does a very good job as a believable Catwoman. Bane on the other hand is menacing but characterless. By the end of the film everything interesting about Bane has been taken away.

It was nice to see how they brought in the stories from the previous two films in order to tie up the trilogy, but unfortunately the story had nothing spectacular about it. It was just a good yarn.

I didn't get bored and it was enjoyable to watch (like Prometheus), but also like Prometheus, after I watched the film, I saw some unforgivable plot holes. One being when Bane takes Bruce to a prison far away, and then Bruce comes back, despite the main plot point being that Gotham is blockaded so that no one can get in or out.

What is the point of the blood sequence at the beginning in the plane too? It served no purpose that I could see. Was it just to make us cringe a bit? If it wasn't for the high rating on IMDb, I wouldn't have watched this film until it came out on DVD, and that would have been the better choice. It doesn't need to be seen on the big screen.

The ending was the most interesting. There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not the ending was a dream sequence or not. Is it just wishful thinking from Alfred and Commissioner Gordon or not? In my opinion, the ending is supposed to be open to interpretation. It is not supposed to be clear.

A lot of people seem to have missed the point of the final moment in the film when Robin is introduced too. This is not the beginning of Robin because Robin already is Robin. This is about who will take over from Batman because Batman can be anyone. As the floor rises, the film title appears - The Dark Knight Rises.

It seems the ending has not only created discussion but also some confusion. I am all for films that make you think, but all in all I think I would probably have preferred if the dream sequence wasn't used to create a potential 'happy end' and the film hadn't been left open for a sequel. Though these are minor points.

The major problem with this film is that it is not 'amazing'. It is just 'good', and we expected more from the man who brought us Memento, Inception and The Dark Knight.

I give The Dark Knight 9.5 out of 10

I give The Dark Knight Rises 7.5 out of 10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
an interesting film and worth watching
14 March 2012
I just decided to watch this film despite so many bad reviews because I liked the idea of a modern telling of Red Riding Hood.

The first thing I noticed as the film started was some very nice cinematography. Then some pretty bad acting. Followed by some impressive wooden houses in a village that looks really nice even though it is also obviously a set.

The female director also directed Twilight and comparisons have been made. Yes, it does have that Twilight 'teenagery' feel to it but not as much as Twilight because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to stomach this film, never-mind enjoy it (which I did).

This film reminded me more of something Joss Whedon might do. I really love Buffy, Angel and Joss Whedon stuff in general, but you have to admit that the budget was not the highest and the acting was not always amazing.

The pace of this film is good though. It never gets boring and I don't agree that it was trying to do too many things at once. Why is it that if a film has more than one storyline or is not completely linear, American audiences complain? Are you really that thick? Sorry brothers from another mother, but the first Mission Impossible was brilliant BECAUSE it was complicated and it was criticised for its strength. Mission Impossible 2 was rubbish, and yet it was a box office smash.

I don't get you guys some times.

If producer Leonardo DiCaprio had picked some better actors to be in this film, I would have given it an 8 out of 10.

As it is, I can't say it is bad enough for a 6 so it scrapes a 7.

Really it should be 6 and three quarters of something daft like that because the low budget doesn't excuse that 'plastic' feeling when it comes to sets and acting ability.

There are enough people out there in the world who want to make it in the acting world that all the handsome actors out there can't be as bad as Shiloh Fernandez who plays Peter, the twilight-style love interest for Red Riding Hood aka Valerie (sorry mate. got nothing against you personally but maybe acting isn't your thing? But then again, acting wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger's thing either and it got him a place as Governor of California. Your name is cool if that helps).

Max Irons as Henry, Valerie's mother and father, and all of Valerie's friends in the village don't do a very good job either.

Amanda Seyfried does pretty okay as Valerie, Gary Oldman does well with the role he has, but I found Julie Christie as the Grandmother to be the most engrossing. She was really good to watch.

The important thing is that I did get past the bad acting (we managed to survive Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter) and did start to get sucked into the story ...

Who is the wolf? What is going on here? The ending was also obvious enough that my mum would have worked it out in the first half an hour, but clever enough that I thought 'of course' but never got it.

There is a review here from 12 March 2011 by M Smith that I read and agree with. This is not a modern bedtime fairy tale telling of Red Riding Hood. This is a really interesting modern telling of a traditional folktale.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A wonderful study of human-nature and human-kind
6 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen some wonderful foreign films, but I watched the film Nirgendwo in Afrika recently, and it is truly one of the very best films I have seen in a long time.

Nowhere in Africa (the English title) is a German film about a Jewish family who flee from the Nazi regime at the very last moment before it is too late to a remote farm in Kenya. The film is in English, Swahili and German, and the acting from all concerned is truly outstanding and very touching. The cinematography is also amazing, and the music score is so fantastic that I absolutely have to buy it.

The film avoids over-sentimentality, and instead tells this true tale based on Stefanie Zweig's autobiographical novel with heart-felt realism.

The German family leave their country and their relatives to save their lives. The wife is unsure of the 'negroes' in Africa and expects them to learn German if they want to speak to her, but learns that difference in culture and skin colour is important and special. The young daughter grows up loving the country and forgetting what Germany was like; she embraces the African people most out of the three, especially the family cook. The husband ends up volunteering to join the British army to fight against the Germans. The English school that the girl goes to separates the Jews from the other pupils so that they can pray in assembly. The family end up speaking three languages, and ultimately need to decide at the close of the war whether or not they wish to go back and help build up the new Germany.

There is so much more to this film; I only want to show on a basic level all its layers and complexities. It is a wonderful study of human-nature and human-kind.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Amores Perros (2000)
8/10
Very good, not amazing and a bit long, but clever, and the acting is superb.
6 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The film Amores Perros has been translated into English as Love's a Bitch, though I might prefer a possible better alternative such as the more literal play on words, 'Loves Dogs', 'Loves the dogs' (as in 'the pits'), or possibly 'Loves Dog' (British slang meaning bad or disgusting).

The structure of the film is not a new concept. In cinematic terms it is a portmanteau film in that it consists of several different stories that are all tied together by one event and one theme. The event here is a car accident which we witness at the start of the film, and the theme present throughout the film is that of love.

The three stories tell of a youth's love for his brother's wife, a woman's love of herself (although I think anyone would be sympathetic of her situation), and a man's love for his daughter. Though there are many more examples of love within each story.

What is original, however, is the way in which the theme of love also revolves around dogs, and the love of dogs and hate of dogs ties the story together as much as the characters' love and hate for each other.

The filmography is also very impressive. The chase scene which causes the accident is fast and tense, on numerous occasions the tension becomes quite nerve-racking, and the second story in the film is actually quite scary rather like a horror film.

This film is very good, not amazing, but it is clever, and the acting is superb. It has also been criticised for being too long. This, of course, is such a subjective comment because a long film is only long if it feels long to the viewer - and in some cases, as with me and Nirgendwo in Afrika, you don't want a long film to end.

Unfortunately, with this film, I did look at the time, and it could have done with being slightly shorter. However, it did allow director Alejandro González Iñárritu to later direct the excellent American funded film 21 Grams, and Amores Perros is still a film well worth watching; a film which gives an insight into life and class in Mexico City today.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This is a nice film, an interesting film, but not an amazing film.
6 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard a lot of positive things said about the film Diarios de Motocicleta long before I finally got round to watching it.

The Motorcycle Diaries (in English) is a biographical film, telling the true story of the young Ernesto "Che" Guevara and his friend Alberto Granado as they travelled across South America in the 1950s.

I must shamefully admit that I didn't know who el Che was before watching this film, which probably makes me pretty ignorant, but I wanted to watch it partly because of that reason - I knew it was about the life of a famous Marxist revolutionary, and wanted to learn more about him.

This film was also actually shot at the original locations through which the two travellers travelled in Argentina, Chile and Peru, which also attracted me to the film because I love travelling, and have always wanted to go to South America, especially Argentina and Peru.

It turned out that the film does not really go into Guevara's revolutionary exploits at all; instead it shows, in a very real way, how he learnt, through the things that he saw on his journey, that the indigenous people were suffering beyond his imagination in so many different ways. The film finishes with Guevara staying behind when his friend, Granado, returns to medical school, but all we are told is that he has to stay because he knows he has to do something to help.

I like this approach more because the film is very realistic and very honest. It does not have a complicated plot or any real political agenda. Instead, it is just the simple but well-told story of two young men who travel around South America on a temperamental motorbike they call La Poderosa (The Mighty One), and the things that they see and do on the way.

It stars Gael García Bernal, who is the excellent Mexican-born actor who also stars in the two great films La Mala Educacion and Amores Perros, which I've also recently watched. But I have to say that all the actors in this film are amazing, and Rodrigo De la Serna deserves just as much credit for his performance as Granado.

To conclude this is a nice film, an interesting film, but not an amazing film. It did lead me to want to find out more about this important historical figure, and the film also gives some interesting information about his friend Granado in some end captions, as well as in a short interview with him included on the DVD (he's still alive).

But the film itself does not really show much of the South American landscape, or develop in a way that gives the viewer much information about anything. In fact, it leaves the viewer needing to find out more to consolidate the story s/he has just seen.

I certainly intend to read the books Notas de Viaje by Ernesto Guevara and Con el Che por America Latina by Alberto Granado now that I have seen the film, but I must admit that, in this particular case, you would get a lot more from the film by first reading the books and then looking up some facts about Che Guevara before putting the DVD into the player.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Unique, emotional and truly thought-provoking - this is a brave film
6 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
V for Vendetta is a political thriller funded by Britain and Germany about a terrorist super hero - not your typical Hollywood blockbuster! It is based on the graphic novel of the same name and was written by The Matrix writers, The Wachowski Brothers.

The film opens with Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up the Houses of Parliament on the 5th of November, 1605. This date, now known as Guy Fawkes Night, Bonfire Night or Fireworks Night, is celebrated every year in the United Kingdom when we have huge public bonfires on which a dummy or guy is set alight.

Everybody in the UK knows the story of Guy Fawkes, but few people question why he would have wanted to do such a thing - this film does.

It tells the story of a political idealist code-named V who has chosen freedom over oppression, seeking the complete reformation of the one-party fascist police state that is now England.

Clearly a reference to Nazi-Germany, but also a reference to the post-9/11 world that we live in today, this film shows us a dystopian England which came about as a consequence of a war started by the USA , which left the US destitute, almost doing the same to its Coalition of the Willing, ie. England.

But as the war is brought to London, Sutler, the extremely religious Undersecretary for Defence of the Conservative party (played by John Hurt), launches a secret project in the name of national security - the holocaustal mass experimentation on society's degenerates, namely homosexuals, ethnic minorities and religious minorities, in order to develop a virus that can be used as a weapon against alien threats.

But instead, the virus is secretly used on Britain and Ireland, and when the public fear there is no more hope, Sutler comes forward with a vaccination. With the public now looking up to him to sort out the country, Sutler appoints himself the newly created position of high chancellor and the malign authoritarian state is formed under the new dictatorship named Norsefire.

Already it can be seen that this film raises some serious and very relevant points; for example, whether or not a perceived outside threat justifies a diminution in civil liberties. In the UK today, the government is creating some quite oppressive laws, such as being able to detain suspected terrorists almost indefinitely without proof of guilt, in the name of making the country safer.

I am not saying that this film portrays a realistic future; V for Vendetta clearly takes place in a fictional world with a comic book reality, but it is because this story's action packed story is so cleverly weaved into such a serious plot line that this Hollywood film is so brave.

Stephen Fry's character, for example, is murdered because he owns a Koran, and the character V, played by Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in The Matrix) is in fact the hero and the terrorist of the story! Believing that "violence can be used for good", his vengeful and violent approach to justice taints his political idealism and leaves you disagreeing with and, at times, truly disliking the story's hero.

V even tortures Natalie Portman's character, Evey, and uses the murder of her family to teach her not to fear death and be prepared to die for the coming revolution.

The acting in this film is superb from all concerned, the action is big budget and yet the story is very intelligent. V for Vendetta is unique, emotional and truly thought-provoking.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Interesting, clever, well-written, well-acted and really quite compelling - but not very scary.
6 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Have you ever wondered what happened to Penny Lane after the film Almost Famous? Almost Famous, with its great, funny, emotional and entertaining script, was the only film I had ever seen starring Kate until I watched The Skeleton Key, in which she stars as an ex-Rock-and-Roll party girl, who decides to work as a live-in carer.

She accepts a post helping a lady (Gena Rowlands) look after her husband (John Hurt) who has had a stroke in the attic of their very large house.

I had been meaning to watch The Skeleton Key for quite a while; it is written by the guy who wrote the American version of The Ring - the only scary film that really really freaked me out when I first watched it.

The story centres around the mystery surrounding the attic containing lots of scary artifacts, and the spooky reasons why the man has had a stroke up there.

It also concerns itself with the history of black slavery and Hoodoo - the real practice of harmful black and helpful white magic - in New Orleans.

The film does have some of the usual horror film clichés - no light in the room; turning around when someone is behind you - but with a difference.

Unlike most scary films, Kate Hudson's character is realistic, and she has a strong believable personality. She goes into the dark attic because she is not scared and wants to have a look; she asks people straight away what is on her mind because she wants to understand what is happening; she takes the initiative and, where as in the usual scary films the pretty girl does exactly what no-one would ever do in real life, she does exactly what a lot of people would feasibly do in the same situation - how refreshing! Just as refreshing is to watch a film in the horror genre that has real substance, and quality acting from all concerned (John Hurt and Gena Rowlands are particularly impressive).

The twist at the end of this film is as clever as The Sixth Sense, or The Others. And the film is as spooky as The Ring.

Nevertheless, The Skeleton Key is not that scary. It was advertised as a 'scary movie' (I hate that term; it sounds so bad some how), but personally, I found it to be interesting, clever, well-written, well-acted and really quite compelling - but not very scary.

To conclude, although it wasn't the film that I expected it to be, I wasn't disappointed - I was pleasantly surprised. This film was as great as I had hoped, but it is also an intellectual film, and refreshingly different!
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Open Water (2003)
10/10
Stranded in shark infested waters - what would you do?
9 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to really feel what it must be like to be in the open ocean with only a remote chance of ever being rescued and the distinct likelihood that you will not long be eaten alive, then watch this film.

The film is extremely well made. It is never unnecessarily graphic or gory, it sticks to realism like glue, and never falls into the trap of becoming 'Hollywood'. It is a fascinating look at human behaviour in extreme and terrifying circumstances, and it is very disturbing yet compelling at the same time.

This film is not full of action or horror. It is instead a film of suspense and tension. It is thought provoking; you become consumed in the circumstances that the actors find themselves in, and question your own behaviour - how would you react it such a situation? This a very human and touching account of two people who love each other trying to comfort, console and support each other through a situation of absolute desperation as they become cold, hungry and tired. I think I would react differently. Desperation would hit me quickly and I would panic much sooner, but that is the crux of the film - how would you react?

The performances by Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis as the couple Susan and David stranded alone are completely convincing. The dialogue between them is very real. There behaviour is likewise hauntingly convincing.

The film is beautiful in many ways. The camera work brings you right into Susan and Davis's world. The shots of the sharks swimming around them are harrowing, and all the scenery and wild life throughout the film is beautiful and wondrous.

Considering that virtually all of the story takes place in the ocean and consists of just two characters alone, the film never becomes boring or slow, and the only reason you will want it to end is because waiting to see what happens is so hard to watch.

I would like to finish by commenting on the ending. (I will try not to give too much away but you may want to read this last bit after watching the film).

The ending could have been shot in variety of ways. I am not sure how many people would, or even could, be as brave as Susan in the film, which makes me wonder how 'real' her final action is (in comparison to the rest of the film), but I find the ending very powerful nevertheless.

One final comment: People who have complained about the extent to which this film can be based on real events should be quiet. Simply the fact that people have been left behind in the ocean in the past, and that people have found themselves in the exact same situation as the couple in this film is real and frightening enough.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed