Cinema - Comments / Reviews by Magic Marmalade

Cinema - Comments / Reviews by Magic Marmalade

« Member Page

Page 6 of 26 : Previous : Next :

Member	Item		Review/Comment
Magic Marmalade 12th Jan 2024		Cinema Killing Zoe (1993) (1993)	Agreed, not a fun-fest, mainly, I think due to two reasons... Anglade's character being a nasty, damaged Psycho (which would be ok, if not for the other reason), and Stoltz, say times looks disinterested in the whole thing, like he thought: "Tarantino + arty European bank job movie... Great!", then got on set, saw what it was, and felt like a fish out of water..."well, I'm committed now, and this is still a payday". (In fairness, that could just be the character he was playing, as much as anything, but it doesn't offset, or contrast well with Anglade). Still, for all it's faults, and still in great need of a recut and restructure though it is, it has fared a little better in by mind since watching it, so I might keep this one for a little while, and watch it again sometime, this time, going in with no preconceptions... See what that does for it :)
Magic Marmalade 11th Jan 2024		Cinema Killing Zoe (1993) (1993)	Rated 6/10 The strength of a good story is in the telling... ...And this is a potentially great story, told badly. I remember this being a movie with a lot of buzz around it at the time of release, Mainly, due the "involvement" of Quentin Tarantino - of which much is made on the DVD cover and poster, but is in reality only a production credit, being written and directed instead, by Roger Avary. That buzz being a mixed bag of good to bad reviews. I never got around to seeing it then, as it was also one of those "mayfly" movies, that appear to be everywhere for a short spell, before evidently disappearing entirely from public consciousness - in short, I forgot it existed. But now I can see why the reviews are mixed, and why this isn't thought more of, as well as the movie within it, which could have been every bit the equal of a Tarantino "proper" movie, had one key decision been made differently: Specifically, if this had been restructured in the narrative, cut and edited differently so as the actual bank robbery was the centre of the story, and the two key relationships given in pre-amble were told in flashback from key moments in the robbery, rather than in linear fashion as it is, this would have been an altogether different animal. As it is, Stoltz (Zed) arrives in France (this has a very contemporary European movie look and feel - as opposed to a Hollywood, or Tarantino one) to meet with Anglade (Eric), in order to embark on this bank robbery with him, but while waiting for Eric, he hooks up with Delpy (Zoe), call girl / student in his hotel room, and a relationship develops, before Eric bursts in and boots her out (before it turns out she is present at the bank they rob). All of this, and the next two thirds of the film of Zed and Eric doing the town in Paris, is very languid on it's own, even draggy, and boring, and even the beginning of the robbery is somewhat underwhelming, due to a lack of pace you might have expected from this movie... ...But really, that's the real story here, The relationship between Stoltz and Anglade, versus the relationship between him and Delpy, which puts Stoltz in a bind. If we had come in cold straight into the robbery, then at key points, flashed back, or told those other snippets of story as reveals, the nature of his relationship with each would have unfolded the nature of these, as well as unfolding to the audience the nature of the circumstances, changing our perception of the scenario as we go towards the climax. This, so rendered, would possibly have been a 9 or a 10 rating for me, but getting to the bank job in linear narrative fashion takes an eternity, and I found I didn't have much interest / energy for the last twenty minutes. So it's another one, that I wonder, if some talented individual out there were to take this existing material, and "re-cut" it, or reorder and restructure the narrative through this means (maybe making it available to view somewhere - ahem :) - everyone would see what a great film was actually here all along, and even the critics may reappraise it to a much higher degree. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 8th Jan 2024		Cinema The Notebook (2004) (2004)	Rated 7/10 One of those I'd been hearing a lot about, and usually such movies don't disappoint... (As with the "Before" movies) ...But this one lacked the magic for me. That said, it's the last ten to fifteen minutes that kicks it up a few notches in terms of wrenching the tears from my head; Those last few minutes between James Garner and Gena Rowlands a straight up square kick in the guts. Of course, romance = tragedy (otherwise, it's a fairy-tale, or misplaced optimism :), and it's easy to see where this is going from the off, but the majority of the narrative being centred around Gosling and McAdams in what is little more than a pretty standard Hallmark romance tale of hoity-toity (haven't heard that expression in a while, I bet !?!! :) well-to -do girl meets boy from wrong side of the tracks whom family do not approve didn't exactly blow my bolts to be honest, and it doesn't really prepare you for just how affecting those last minutes are. Straight up tragedy I'd say, more than romantic , movie, of the kind to settle in with and enjoy. Difficult not to forewarn of spoilers here, but anyone who has dementia in the family needs to have a heads up on this, as it might just knock you sideways a bit, in a way you were not expecting from a romantic movie. Gosling's good, McAdams is excellent, Garner and Rowlands are better still. Pretty good movie overall, just not sure it is all that reputation would have you believe though, with regards to the common standard of romantic / rom - com movies. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 5th Jan 2024		Cinema Mulholland Drive (Mulholland Dr.) (2001) (2001)	Rated 8/10 *Unfortunately, nobody can be told* what Mulholland Drive is... You have to see it for yourself. ...Oh, sorry, that's the Matrix, isn't it?!! (That said, that line in The Matrix always bugged me - clever marketing though it was - as you decidedly can tell someone what it is, if you sit down for five minutes and explain to poor Neo, rather than making him jump straight in... not to mention the fact that Morpheus then proceeds to spend fifteen minutes or so of the movie doing just that.. after Neo has committed. Bastard!) ((But I digress! :)) Actually, that is certainly applicable tot his movie, as the reputation it has is a mix of: It's the greatest movie ever made, or conversely: It's the worst movie ever made... A streaming pile of incoherent sh..... The truth is, it's both, and deliberately so, I divined, from watching it the other day for the first time, and that is what may make this a work of genius. To explain: Although, exactly what this film is about, and the meaning of it may be open to many an interpretation, and perhaps no definitive point can be arrived at (I have my own thoughts, for later :), how it does it... goes about telling this story, whatever it is, is a little clearer on reflection. For, from the opening, this is reeking with Twin Peaks look and feel, like it was made for TV in the early nineties (I had to check the date of the movie to remind myself of the real date because of this)... only worse. Shonky, jittery soft-ish focus, amateurish camera work with a forced, contrived script, with forced, contrived dialogue, played by the most wooden, artificial performances from a collection of the most wooden, artificial actors Lynch could find. It feels like a cross between low budget 70s porn acting and staging, and early nineties television pilots with ridiculous melodramatic plotting and absurd coincidental events. You think, from the off: man, "this is the most shit movie I have ever seen!" (And what a shame it's Lynch too!) I can see this movie losing 90% of it's audience in the first ten minutes, because of this.. who could just take no more, and would in reality, or metaphorically, stand up, and walk out of the theatre (Or change channels). But this is a mistake!** As this is purposely done, and in a key scene, where Watts "character" as a young, freshly arrived starlet in Hollywood seeking fame and stardom, auditions for a role in a soap, you get the most real, and naturalistic acting from her you could get. "Aha!... I get it now, this is about perception in media versus reality to some extent" (thinks I) People are more real in fictions than in their "real lives", seems what this story says. And from here, the camera, imperceptibly, and by degrees, straightens up, the production gradually acquiring cinema quality, as does the acting, and the script, and you, the audience member, doesn't consciously perceive it happening. You see the earlier style was a deliberate choice, that says something about.... something. I spite of the Noir-ish ("neo", or otherwise) style and themes (mystery, hallucinatory, oblique symbol heavy, metaphorical affair) I think this actually transcends this, and should rather be regarded as a kind of art installation, or a work of art of some description. I would personally hazard a guess that this is a kind of subconscious, poetic eulogy of sorts to the kind of tragic figure that an Amalgam of Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana would represent to David Lynch, set against obscure, dark, and sinister, background forces that controls her fate. This hall of mirrors, has at least a couple of characters who may well be the same person, (maybe more!), but is captivating, and quite brilliant if you can persevere through the opening half, so then you later see the brilliance of what you thought, at the beginning, was shit. Not sure I'd hurry back to watch it again immediately - for fun - but once it's rattled about at the back of my brain a while, I think I'd like to revisit it... Meantime, I'll file it away as an impenetrable piece of possible genius right next to 2001: A Space Odyssey, where it belongs :) ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 3rd Jan 2024		Cinema Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) (2005)	Rated 6/10 Ketchup with chocolate... (?) Things that don't go well together, although you like them on their own, or each with something else. That's basically what this movie is: Several things that don't sit well together made to do so in an attempt (admirably, perhaps) to create something new... except this misses the mark, and these weird juxtapositions make this movie feel rather... odd. It wants, it seems, to be a "Neo-Noir" in style, look and tone, but frequently uses, by means especially of the narrative framing actual Film-Noir references (It's a bit like Sunset Boulevard in this sense) and this is undermined entirely by comedy element, which undercuts the tone, specifically by opting for the more zany, fizzy whipcrack / wisecrack humour, which rattles along like a attempt at an Aaron Sorkin style script dialogue - it moves fast and is difficult to keep up with, rather producing a mumbling effervescent quality that is almost trance inducing - not good if you also have one of the most convoluted (and preposterous) murder mystery plots out there... (The plot feels like a pastiche / satire of / homage to one of the more credulity stretching episodes of Columbo) ...So it's also trying to tap into the L.A. Confidential / Chinatown mood, but that humour doesn't go well, as I said, and when coupled with the black humour slapstick action elements, makes you think: "What the hell is this movie?" (When they occur - I thought, from the title and poster, this was going to be more in the style of a Lethal Weapon / Bad Boys type of action flick - which it ain't - being a much more pedestrian monotone paced, "talky" movie). It seems also, through the self deprecating, self referential, self undermining script, to be aiming at a higher state of meta-wit, while at the same time apologising for itself as it does so, before finally embracing entirely the elements it is seeking to mock.... It doesn't have the courage of it's convictions. Pick a lane dude! I was almost two thirds of the way through, wondering when it would get to the second act, and realising that there really was none, and this tone continues throughout, coming from nowhere in particular, going nowhere, and taking it's long meandering time getting there. Although the last twenty minutes does pick up the pace slightly, I was already mostly bored by then, and had tuned out, which, given the ludicrous complexity of the absurd plot, made this make no real sense whatsoever. Improbable, and highly unlikely coincidences to allow the finale to happen, even though the narration explicitly mock such Hollywood practices through the first half, and while I understand that may have been Shane Black's intention when writing this, it's not clear if he's doing so with a nod and a wink, perhaps even a wry smile to audience, or if he's just given up on the meta nature of the movie. It does have a couple of points of note though - firstly, Michelle Monaghan is excellent in her role, Val Kilmer gives a fairly understated stoic (Although the character is barely there) performance, and it seems this is where you see an early prototype of the witty, wisecracking Tony Stark character Downey Jr. would go on to patent in Iron Man. But on thing is clear: Shane Black is almost unparalleled as a scriptwriter, but an accomplished director / film-maker, he isn't. (Better to have handed this off to someone else, who could have knocked it into shape) 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 2nd Jan 2024		Cinema L.A. Confidential (1997) (1997)	Sorry to stir the pot.... but to me, this is also a Christmas movie :)
Magic Marmalade 1st Jan 2024		Cinema Edtv (Ed TV) (1999) (1999)	Rated 7/10 More than meets the eye? I have only just gotten around to watching this, after all these years, and I know exactly the reason why: It's that thing which often occurs in movie world, where a "pair" of movies are released at, or around the same time, concerning the same subject matter, and to the naked eye (according to judgements made about the trailers before having watched them) appear to be essentially the same movie, with two studios evidently racing to get their take on it out first... Armageddon and Deep Impact, or indeed, this, and of course: The Truman Show. (there can be only one! :) As such, that latter pretty much blew this clean out of the water, as a movie about a man who's life becomes the object of national, or global attention through the, then emerging format of dreaded "Reality Television" phenomenon, and how it was poised to fundamentally alter the cultural landscape at that time, as well as distorting the very concept of "reality"... ...Some pretty heavy stuff, and tremendously fertile ground for film-makers to explore in anticipation of those burgeoning events, and perhaps with a ready audience, eager to explore through movies like EdTV and The Truman Show, the possible implications, as well as their own anxieties about what was to come. But I'm disappointed with myself that I didn't give this due attention at the time, as it does have very much it's own story, and concepts to play with, as well as having a lot of key distinctions in the story it tells, and how it tells it: Truman is the subject from birth, and doesn't know he's a participant, Ed is already a grown man, and is entirely conscious of what is happening, having volunteered to be the star of his own show, for one... which show a different facet of the phenomena and tells a different story: How does fame alter "reality", both the reality he experiences as opposed to previously, and how does it, in turn, alter him, and affect those around him? It deals more directly with the issue of the rights of that individual when he pushes back, and has other sub-textual themes equally important (and today, much more prominent than when this was released!): The intelligent and enterprising female TV exec, who creates the show, is marginalised and pushed aside once it becomes successful by the Male TV big boss who assumes the credit. But aside form these weighty concepts, this is very entertaining, and gets more so as it goes... Rob Reiner is great as the overbearing insufferable TV exec, but in particular: Martin Landau as the wheelchair bound step-father has some of the most killer - funny lines in the movie, and he delivers them with razor sharp perfection: "I need a pee... (scoots off to the toilet in mobility scooter) ....wish me luck" :) Solid 7 rating, pushing toward and 8. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 31st Dec 2023		Cinema In Time (2011) (2011)	Rated 7/10 A solid slice of genuine sci-fi. There is a difference (to me, at least), between "sci-fi", as generally understood, and proper sci-fi... ...The difference lies in the the basic story idea. It's not enough just to have some twinkly flashing lights, a fair piece of action, and some: "kerpow!", "Blam!", or other whizz-bang visual wizardry; You've got to have a good idea, that says something about something that could not otherwise have been said but for the fictional science element, or that the use of which, says it more directly, explicitly, and succinctly than could otherwise have been done. (For this reason, in it's original form, sci-fi was termed as: "speculative fiction") This is happily one of the latter. The truly great concept here is nothing less than: Time is money... literally. This is a world where everyone from birth has a clock installed in their arms, which counts down to zero, and then the clock, and indeed, your life, expires. ...You can trade time, purchase with time, and spend time in exchange with others. From this simple, elegant concept (perhaps not a startling new idea, but certainly excellently conceived and executed here) all the implications of this are played out and explored on the substance of the story, and drama: There are the rich - the very rich - who have time to burn, and then there are the poor, who scrape by on minutes, often living by bouncing from hour to hour, day by day, with barely enough to survive on, and from this, there is a social divide, of time-rich districts, where the millionaires live, and the slums, where the time-poor eek out a living. And so the social commentary, philosophy all naturally flows through he story from this. As one, day, a time rich man, who feels he has lived too long, makes his way to the wrong side of the tracks, and donates, or "gifts" a huge block of time to Justin Timberlake's character, before "timing himself out"... This leaves our Justin in a huge quandary, as he is at once made a target for envy and theft by any means by his contemporaries on the slum in which he lives, but also the rich, from the other district, who want that time back in order to preserve the social order "norms", and the excellent Cillian Murphy's "Time Keeper" (cop) is sent to hunt him down. Justin decides to use the time to escape into the rich district, live a little, and maybe upset the clock a little. Here he meets the big bad millionaire, who basically has all, or most of the time in the world, he falls in with the guy's daughter, and after essentially kidnapping her in order to make his escape, they turn into a time based Bonnie and Clyde / Robin Hood style duo. A very powerful concept executed with great clarity, who's implications are well explored. I think this movie has kind of drifted from general consciousness over time (sorry time puns are essentially unavoidable here! :) and as I recall, was only really slightly regarded at the time... it generally blended in with a plethora of similar such movies around when this was... (A lot of which, like this, could probably do with some re-appraisal, as many are good on their own right too!) ...Possibly adding to this lack of being taken seriously was the presence of Timberlake and even Seyfried: She the supernaturally beautiful starlet of Mean Girls fame. and he, the ubiquitous boy-band superstar of the time, it may have seemed that this was just a concocted star vehicle movie, rather than the good movie it actually is. (Both are actually pretty good in this, and deserve more credit) Worth your time. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 27th Dec 2023		Cinema Pumpkinhead (1988) (1988)	Rated 7/10 This might just be brilliant. This is actually a really impressive slice of American folk-horror, which exceeded all expectations I had, having pretty much brushed it aside at time of release, and filed it away in my brain as another cheap, shoddy, ultra-low budget schlock horror... ...But this has a few points of great distinction, which, although it does seem to be low budget, by any standard, elevate this above it's peers: Firstly, the acting is pretty darn good, given that you usually get Andy and Annie Amateur in this kind of thing, who are so wooden you could carve a totem pole out of their performances, but everyone here seems quite naturalistic, and very good. Secondly, the premise is a great idea, tapping into - as alluded to earlier - that very particular brand of "Folk Horror" that suits the American cultural identity with regards horror: That is, unlike the "old world" European superstitions, which have an age old continuity and provenance of sorts, as we've grown alongside them from time immemorial - there's this thing in American cultural superstions that seems to tap into the idea of something ancient, and pre-dating the arrival of those people who would become Americans, and they have inadvertently "woken up". Here, the father of a child killed in an accident, is driven by grief to invoke some creature who is the spirit of vengeance to exact revenge on the hapless perpetrators... ...But here, it also becomes a great morality tale, as he sees blindness caused by his grief has made him act in error, and so tries to stop the creature he has unleashed - the creature being a living manifestation of his implacable, blind desire for revenge caused by his pain. No good will come of it! Quite slow through the first half, but picks up and moves briskly to it's compelling (and poignant) conclusion. And it's this quality of the story that raises this way above the average low budget horror movie. And finally, the creature, naturally enough, being a Stan Winston project, is breathtakingly good - whether it's animatronic, a dude in a suit, miniatures, or a combination of all three, the naturalistic and organic movement is stunning - especially for a movie of this time. Should not be just a "cult" classic, but a benchmark in movies in general, not just horror - of what can be achieved with scant resources. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 26th Dec 2023		Cinema Toys (1992) (1992)	Rated 6/10 Levinson's folly. This is a weird, and deeply strange movie, and only half in a good way. I had only vague recollection of it from it's time of release, except my friends and I's (<Is that grammatically correct?), nonplussed, frowny expressions of bemusement, which I think was shared by the whole of the western world... For on the face of it, the cover, the idea, and the presence of Robin Williams in this kind of movie makes you think it's going to be a Willy Wonka style, magical, cautionary tale for kids, regarding the corruption of innocence by the big meanie serious minded military types looking to convert the childlike toy factory inherited by Williams and "sister" into a a more "war toy" oriented concern... (The father looks younger than Williams - his brother, the militarista General, and brother of said father, is Improbably played by Michael Gambon) ...And this topic has, I would assert, hit the mark with it's target audience with the excellent: Small Soldiers, but here, everything seems off, to some degree, to produce a surreal, unsettling hallucinatory "bad cheese" experience of a movie, that isn't for kids at all, and is too perplexing for anyone else. So what's up with this movie? Firstly, the prime asset here is, of course, or should have been Williams himself, in this kind of premise, you would have expected him to chew this thing up for dinner, and yet, he is strangely muted, lacking energy and his usual pizazz, leaving the way clear for Gambon to consume the scenery in it's entirety, in a role way too odd, and dark for the setting. The thing you can't escape is the wild contradiction, of, on the one hand, the extraordinarily imaginative, and brilliantly conceived set designs, costumes, and general setups, but rendered in a really cheap, almost 90's tv standard of photography, which feels, when it comes through the screen, like it's in a studio, and artlessly shot, and captured. (Everyone involved in this must have been pulsing with excitement at the premise, script, and the involvement of Williams, and only heightened when they walked on the sets, and saw the eye popping scenery, only to be crushed at what came out the other end.) Then we have a typical weird, spooky, eccentric soundtrack from Tori Amos (the natural choice a film like this?) which is a good thing in her own back yard, but when in the context of this movie seems bizarre in the extreme, and an early-ish Hans Zimmer score that sounds like a hangover from eighties pop synth-ery, and already dated... only occassionaly blossoming into something good. The first half of the movie is slow and, again, I use the word: hallucinatory, in the style of a fever dream or acid trip, and then the finale just degenerates into an attempt at a standard action flick, which only serves to undermine that first half, and it's aims. There are more than a couple of things that would certainly give kids nightmares, especially the toy tanks with robot heads with helmets, and giant, green glowing eyes that move terrifyingly through the darkness (Felt quite perturbed myself! :( And so, having watched it again after all these years, I see now what this movie was, or attempting to be: Not a kids film, in any traditional sense, but aiming more for the rarefied sensibility of a Tim Burton movie, with his off kilter movie making sense, or maybe even a Terry Gilliam movie. In todays currency, you might say that directors like Wes Anderson are what it would be aspiring to achieve... ...The problem is, Barry Levinson, great director and film-maker though he is, just isn't born with that kind of ability, or sensibility, and so, that narrowest of targets, of what you'd be aiming for in a movie like this, which a fraction out either way would make such an odd, and off movie, is only to be ventured on by those rare directors, such as those aforementioned maestros with their specific way of looking at things who know what that target is, as well as how to hit the mark. Barry has bitten off more than he can chew, and wandered onto territory he doesn't understand, and it shows. Better, I think, having conceived of such a promising idea, to have handed it off to one of those other directors, who's name I previously mentioned. Burton or Gilliam would have made this something to behold! (Oddly, the name: Stanley Kubrick comes to mind here too, for me, and had he been asked to make this, it might even have left 2001: A Space Odyssey, in the dust!) But, for all that, I am, in some sense, pleased this exists, as it stands as a testament of a once adventurous, risk taking movie industry, that could, in order to open the door to the possibility of something new and exciting, who's influence may be felt for decades, be experimental, and accept the possibility of what this movie may come to represent: An indulgence, a folly, and a glorious monument to the idea of the spectacular failure. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 20th Dec 2023		Cinema True Romance (1993) (1993)	:) Indeed, will have to make a list sometime of my favourite 90s movies! Meantime, enjoy: [YouTube Video]
Magic Marmalade 19th Dec 2023		Cinema True Romance (1993) (1993)	Rated 10/10 "You're so cool... You're so cool... You're so cool..." I think this is actually one of my favourite "Tarantino" movies now, definitely my favourite Tony Scott movie, and certainly one of the top ten nineties movies for me. I've watched it so many times since release, and it just keeps getting better every time. Of course, at least half of this would be "cancelled" according to today's standards of social acceptability, especially the sublime Walken / Hopper scene, but that's where the authenticity of the characters lies. Not sure if this is one that Tarantino has now "disowned" (not being 100% him), but I believe he is still pretty pissed about Natural Born Killers, in any case, far be it for me to advise a movie making God on movie taste, but he would be dead wrong on both counts. For his brilliant, and uniquely Tarantino style, shone through the prism of Scott and Stone's (respective) directorial, and movie making talents offers something unique, and a more magical mixture than he alone could achieve, in this case. I know he wanted the story structure for this to be different, in order to leave questions that are only later, more progressively revealed as the movie goes on, but this linear structure works just fine for me. Following Clarence and Alabama (Slater and Arquette) as they meet, and fall in love after a whirlwind "Romance" (Clarence aptly Surnamed: Worley) and marriage, which opens a mafia / drug world / gangland sized can of worms, before venturing off on on a road trip / scam / gambit, and meeting a brilliant array of characters along the way, is an absolutely exhilarating ride, and a joy to behold. And as well as the hauntingly memorable theme by Hans Zimmer, which sweetens the the whole affair, there's an excellent Chris Isaak tune on the end credits to send you away happy: Two Hearts. (This song is now burned into the most difficult to reach parts of my brain at present, having watched it again! :) A stunner... And a must see. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 17th Dec 2023		Cinema No Retreat, No Surrender (1986) (1986)	Rated 3/10 Oh dear God! I remember seeing this when very young and thinking it was the most awesome movie ever! ...Bruce Lee, JCVD, and incredible fight choreography. Sadly not. Having found it again on DVD, and smiled at the prospect of watching it again after all these years, I watched mostly from the off, open mouthed at just how awful this is. Van Damme is only in it about three minutes at the start, and the final ten minute finale, giving a truly terrible performance (other than the fighting) as the broadest, identikit cold war Russian evil terminator type adversary, the acting by absolutely everyone is cringeworthy to an unfathomable degree, things happen for no reason I can figure in the story, such as the sensei at the beginning turns out to be the kids father... eh? he moves half way up the country, then suddenly makes friend instantly, who is a break0dancer for some reason, whom also has a fat shamed nemesis for reasons that are never explained, he acquires a girlfriend / love interest out of the clear blue sky, with precisely zero introduction, the Bruce Lee spirit thing is brief and vague at best, it's choppy in the edit, dialogue is awful, script... worse, and is truly stunningly awful. There are two things, however, that did make me laugh out loud: Firstly, he brings a wrapped present to this "girlfriend" that seems more than casually handled, and turns out to have a live rabbit, as a gift inside (Seriously, I was in tears of laughter at this! ...Secondly, imagine if you will, a "training montage", where our young protagonist is stretched between a bench and another piece of park furniture, suspended between each by only his neck at one end, and his ankles at the other, and he is bending at the waist, then straightening thus... which would be impressive on it's own, except for the fact that his new chum is sat where his intimate parts are, so this rhythmic bending and straightening, and therefore lifting of said chum around his... er... pivot, is quite possibly the most hilariously suggestive spectacle a human could witness :D - I almost died of laughter at this! The fight scenes are comedically sped up too. All of which makes for perhaps the most spectacularly bad movie I have possibly ever seen. You may have to watch it just to bear witness to just how terrible it really is. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 16th Dec 2023		Cinema Universal Soldier (1992) (1992)	Rated 8/10 Still a stone cold classic! ...And from the period right before Independence Day, when Emmerich still had to earn his lunch, and so had some restraint, and made excellent movies like this, and Stargate - just the right side of bonkers, and great iconic fun. (I hate the populist, jingoistic, "Am-e-ric-eeer" (<Team America reference for you there :) pander-fest of independence day, and everything he has done since, as it seems the success of that meant he could do whatever he wanted, and spend as much as he wanted, and so did... and made all those God-awful, paint by numbers, schlock movies he is now most known for. A wild horse of a director like him, and others are at their best when a tight rein is kept on them - budgetary constraints or editorial / studio supervision... otherwise they go barmy, and run you straight of the nearest cliff). Never bothered with the sequels, as it is just franchise building crud, but this is firmly a fave, if not a guilty pleasure :) >Also of special note, is Dolph Lundgren's completely unhinged performance here, which steals the entire show! :) < ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 10th Dec 2023		Cinema Barry Lyndon (1975) (1975)	Rated 8/10 A study in nobility. Finally watched this, having found the DVD in the charity shop, having always been somewhat put off by it, based on what I could glean from impressions and reputation... (It always just seemed a rather bland prospect, of nothing in particular - Kubrick, oddly deciding to do a period piece - quite against what I would expect of him - but therein lies the fascination and intrigue!) ... And it is, of course, all those things I'd heard about it: Sumptuously shot, long (three hours - with Intermission!), and very slow moving. But it is, once you let it go along a while, a film with a point... (After all, someone like Kubrick wouldn't make a movie of this kind unless there was a reason to do so, would he?!!!) ...And the point (it seems to me), is this: This is a study of a man, with certain inherent qualities, which you might describe as "noble", or gentlemanly, but born to low social status, and is somewhat out of kilter with the plebs and peasants he finds himself dwelling among, so seeks to find his proper place in the world (as he believes it to be) - among the upper "nobility", where the forms and manners to be found there more closely approximate what he feels himself to be: A Gentleman. The thrust is, as we follow him on this journey to become "noble", is that he must do ignoble things to get there, and in seeking honour, must be increasingly dishonourable. The portrait painted here is of a man, who once he achieves his aim, he has effectively compromised himself to such an extent, that almost none of that inherent gentlemanliness, honour and true nobility, remains. The higher he climbs, the worse he gets. For as this movie shows, "nobility", as with honour, and the condition of being a gentleman, is not something a man can "achieve", acquire, purchase, or can be bestowed, or conferred on someone... It is not a title, but a condition of being, and the substance of one's character. There are many times Barry (Redmond Barry) Lyndon, displays the polar opposite characteristics almost at the same time, where he does things truly despicable, then almost immediately displays a moment of extraordinary grace, and honour... he is a walking contradiction by the end, with this inner conflict playing out in his contrary behaviour, and in his regard for himself, and others. The final scene, in this sense, seems to be an analogy for the entire movie - he presents himself to satisfy the honour of another, because of his dishonourable conduct, then does something truly gentlemanly, honourable and indeed, noble. (It may. also, be him in such despair at himself, that he is presenting himself for his own final destruction, as if this is no more than he deserves.) The question that lingers after, is has he achieved some kind of redemption. But although it is long, slow, and all the rest, it is engrossing, fascinating, and very ponderable. Pleased I've watched it at last, and very much enjoyed it. Not sure it's as truly great as everyone makes it out to be, or whether that's as much because it has that magical moniker: Kubrick, attached to it. But very very good, nonetheless. 2 people found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 9th Dec 2023		Cinema Kattorna (The Cats ) (1965) (1965)	font used for title looks suspiciously like the later logo for the the band: The Cure.
Magic Marmalade 8th Dec 2023		Cinema Pig (2021)	Rated 8/10 This is a wonderful, beautiful movie. To characterise it, it is like a beautifully shot, slow-burn, lo-fi, poetic, and non-violent (relatively speaking) / pacifist John Wick. Man in woods with truffle pig has said pig stolen, in a violent raid one night, so he sets out to get it back, with the aid of his young flashy truffle buying entrepreneur associate. Given how prolific Nicolas Cage is these days, and how a certain amount of stereotyping, and therefore self-perpetuating type-casting means he more often than not turns up in the nuttier end of the movie spectrum, and being nutty and extreme in his performances... You forget he is capable of this kind of deep, understated, subtlety in his acting, which here, is sublime. ...He really captures the essence of a man who has been alone too long in the woods, without much, if any human contact, and so has become a little glacial and non-communicative, or at the very least, non-expressive. (So the polar opposite of what you have come to expect from him - Needs to do more of this kind of role!) But the movie, and the story itself, is brilliantly told, starting, as it does, with that Wickian style of simple motivating factor, to set the man in motion, and by degrees, as he goes back into society, and we see him and the character he has become, now set in stark contrast against the world he left behind long ago, and also, the revelations that this brings, as he goes... We learn who he once was, and how and why he went wild in the first place. The story, therefore, is not about the pig, it's about him. (The pig is just the reason for him to continue to exist) And other than the obvious Wick set up, for some reason, Jack And The Beanstalk popped in to my head, as if the Giant succeeded in coming down to earth to retrieve his goose that laid the golden eggs... so a slight suggestion of this being a fable, or modern Neo-Noir (as they call this kind of mood movie these days) fairy tale. But this is a very artistically shot and made movie, that would probably, in terms of texture, and tone, sit happily alongside something like *Drive, or You Were Never Really Here*. Brilliant, and I shall certainly be watching this one again. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 5th Dec 2023		Cinema Filth (2013) (2013)	Rated 8/10 Disgusting, depraved, tragic... Brilliant. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 2nd Dec 2023		Cinema Doc Hollywood (1991) (1991)	Rated 8/10 I think the only way to review this properly is to state the basic premise: Fish out of water "big city type" doc gets stuck in smalltown USA for life re-evaluation experience... (Not new, or original, perhaps, but perfectly executed) ....And then, perhaps, offer some words, with which an informative word-cloud can be composed: Wholesome, warm, charming, fun, funny, sweet, witty, 90s, Michael J. Fox, Chesney Hawkes (You know the one! :), Woody Harrelson, Bridget Fonda, Julie Warner, The dude from M.A.S.H, The grandpa from The Lost Boys, Summer Squash, Car, Fence, Judge, Smalltown, quilt. ...Or just watch it, it's awesome :) (Having now seen: Local Hero, there are striking similarities in plot - but even that is nothing really new - just great). 2 people found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 1st Dec 2023		Cinema Top Gun: Maverick (2022) (2022)	Rated 8/10 Excellent sequel... In fact, Excellent movie in it's own right! This ranks alongside Blade Runner 2049 in the standard of what a sequel can do, and, if you are going to do it (and accept the baggage of expectation that comes with living up to an original classic movie), should be. There's a great nod to the original in the opening scenes, looking, feeling and moving like a mere continuation of that first movie - they've really captured the feel of that here, to the extent that it gives you mild chills! ...And the last twenty minutes found me grinning like an idiot with a suggestion of a tear or two in my eyes. ...But everything in between is fantastic in it's own right, and is it's own, well crafted, and engaging story, brilliantly told. This one gives you a lot of what you'd want from it, a lot you didn't realise you wanted, and sends you away happy as Larry :) ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 23rd Nov 2023		Cinema Near Dark (1987) (1987)	Rated 8/10 Getting in with the wrong crowd! A triumph of economy. Just got a super-cheapo charity shop DVD copy of this, and watched it again... ...And what struck me most is how lean this is... everything about it, from budget, to script, performances and pacing. It basically jumps straight in, with a lonely cowboy dude guy noticing a mysterious girl, "wooing" her, getting bitten by her, trying to get home, while noticing he's not feeling so great, the girl's "companions" - vampires by their proper name (never referred to as such in the movie) - decide they don't want him bitten, so catch him in order to kill him, realise they might want him bitten after all, so long as he proves himself a proper vampire, he decides he does, then he doesn't, they don't like this, and decide to kill him anyway, and so chase him down and persecute him while his family (Father and sister) are looking for him, after this initial mysterious disappearance. ...Well, that's the plot taken care of! But this wastes zero time in set up, back story, origins for each of the characters, there are no "character arcs" (They are what they is), no sets to speak of, no special effects (except the masterfully shot and presented fiery finale. There are no stakes to break the vampires' hearts. no garlic, no crucifixes or holy water, or any of that old jazz... ...This is literally, a handful of actors and crew who have driven through a sparse southern US state at night, looking for moody, deserted locations to grab a shot or film a scene... in the can, and thank you very much! (The budget appears to have mostly been spent on a smoke machine and a flood light to back light it by - tremendously effective in the otherwise empty nightscapes) The lack of back story or characterisation works perfectly for these vampire characters, as it gives them the air of the unknown, and and therefore a mystique, which makes them horrifying. Only their actual characters (Characteristics / personalities) and the occasional line from each, alluding to some origin and story is given, and what these allude to, as well as the implications of how they not only came to be individually, but how they became a group, are, though not explicitly stated, even more horrifying for it. Bill Paxton is is the real star of the show, hamming it up to the max as a deranged psycho -biker vampire (say that when you're drunk! :), and is incidentally, the only one of them who doesn't even give one clue as to where he came from, or came to be... not one line - which makes him even more terrifying even than the rest! The most disturbing character is the kid vampire - apparently may be the oldest of the lot, stuck in a child's body, and this character seems to imply things in places we just don't want to go to! PC it ain't, Twilight it ain't, and these are not swoon-able romantic figures, although they are tragic - but not in a way that elicits from the audience any sympathy for these particular devils... ...No, these are proper monsters, tragic in a pathetic, horrifying way, eliciting only disgust and fear. Just shows you, with such meagre resources, a great idea, properly utilised, a great, moody horror movie, in the Carpenter-esque style can be achieved. Bags of atmosphere, all making for an ideal late night watch. (Would make a great study piece for film students, in this regard). 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 21st Nov 2023		Cinema Unbreakable (2000)	Rated 10/10 The best superhero movie ever made. ...Bar none. This is how you do it, and this is what superheroes and their movies are supposed to do for their audience: Evoke the basic feeling of the truly wonderous, within the everyday, in such a way as to allow the viewer to feel that such things are within the bounds of the possible, and so inspire them at the deepest level. Mmmmmm... Night's genius in this regard is to realise that in order to do this, you've got to pull this kind of movie, and the characters down, out of the clouds, allow the physics of it to be close enough to reality that the audience is willing to stetch their suspension of disbelief out to meet you half way. And then, strip away the fantastical, convoluted, plots that plague more recent cinema superheroes, as well as the primary coloured spandex costumery... Show us the man... ...The man burdened with extraordinary circumstance, and how he struggles to make sense of it, and already you have the essence of the movie - the drama, the plot, and the wider story taken care of, in a way that allows the audience to sympathise, empathise, even with his exceptional abilities. Being so lean, and focused, and with the story, along with cinematography, score, performances and direction conspiring to make the everyday grandiose, epic, and significant, while at the same time being the most intimate, personal portrayal, we can believe in the dash of the extraordinary in that everyday as we really want to, until the finale, where we are given that moment of relief of the tension created in the drama in a thoroughly transcendent, euphoric release. Because it is this very feeling that you evoke in the audience is why they go to the cinema to see superhero movies, and when they work, the feeling that the film-makers tap into successfully, and when they don't, because they have gotten too far away from it, and concentrated too much on the superficial - the dazzle, the CGI, the excessive plotting and knots they tie themselves in to desperately try to sell the ever more unbelievable physics, and fantastical nature of what is shown. Stripped down to bare wood, this is the purest portrayal of a superhero you will ever see, an ordinary man who is struggling to reconcile himself to the fact he might not be so ordinary after all. And it's got all the feeling. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 18th Nov 2023		Cinema Antichrist (2009) (2009)	Rated 5/10 Sweet Jesus! I know some film-makers gather a reputation through being bold, daring and offensive, in order that we should bow our heads at how little understood they are, and therefore we must bow our heads in reverence... after all, if we don't understand it, it must be genius... right? And while Dear old Lars certainly has a flair, even a vision in film-making, it feels like he just wants to see how far he can push that unquestioning, and unqualified worship, by being as deliberately offensive as possible. (I'll never forgive him for putting an image of my sweet, lovely Bjork dangling from a rope in my head in Dancer In The Dark!) ...For this is bleak, grim, and nasty. I'm sure others will pontificate about the deeper meanings and such, but it seems only to inform us of the perils of home-therapy, in the wake of a tagedy. (You may be married to a psychiatrist, but that is what Defoe's character comes to realise at his cost, is the very thing that should disqualify him from attempting to fix his wife) Some truly nasty scenes, and images in this you just don't need in your brain. Shocking... absolutely. ...art... possibly. .....Good..... not so much. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 18th Nov 2023		Cinema Greystoke: The Legend Of Tarzan, Lord Of The Apes (1984) (1984)	Maybe not the most brilliant movie ever made, but I like it. (Still the best Tarzan movie made though, albeit that's not saying much, given the repeated failed attempts to properly nail this character on the big screen)
Magic Marmalade 18th Nov 2023		Cinema A Serious Man (2009) (2009)	- And let's not linger too long on: Burn After Reading...(yikes!) I think the problem with this one is they've struck gold in capturing that quirky, odd tone in Fargo, and tried to replicate it here without success. Difficult to do, as the quality that makes Fargo so brilliant is created through the sum of it's parts, with no individual element - script, performances, aesthetic etc. being the sole essence of it.... It's movie making alchemy, magic that you feel perhaps they wouldn't know if they'd achieved it until they saw what came out the other end, and while you're doing it it, there's no way to know if you have it or not. Very fine line between brilliance and boredom.
Magic Marmalade 16th Nov 2023		Cinema A Serious Man (2009) (2009)	Rated 6/10 Only mildly amusing, and mildly interesting from Coens, and probably one of their weakest movies. 1 person found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 16th Nov 2023		Cinema Gwoemul (The Host ) (2006) (2006)	Rated 8/10 This was great, as I remember... ...Very much like District 9 or Monsters, with respect of the quality of the production, and that it is punching well above it's weight, budget wise, and also like them (Although this is horror / creature feature) it has a great story idea to propel it and well told too! ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 12th Nov 2023		Cinema Mission: Impossible (2023)	Rated 8/10 Great movie... ...Tom Cruise knows how to entertain, and make the kind of action / intrigue movies people want to see. Although a little long, mainly because it's a mite draggy in spots, it otherwise just goes and goes like a runaway train :), from the off, until it's done. A lot was made of the "big jump" off a cliff on a motorbike that Tom did for real (ish) in the promotion for this, I actually thought there were a couple of sequences more noteworthy even than this, and should probably be regarded as just as memorable: Firstly, the Car chase through Rome in the little yellow super car is hilarious, as well as thrilling - making a usually intense and frowny - serious action sequence that you often find in movies with car chases, underscored by an inspired comedic element in the shape of this tiny little super bug of a car is just brilliant! ...And secondly, the sequence in Venice as brilliantly shot and executed, giving a real atmospheric, modern take on the kind of: "The Third Man" style, film noir espionage movie. The central plank of the story, of an all pervading rogue super AI is not a new idea, for although this has long been a fear of those speculating about the future of technological progress, it of course, is increasingly in the public consciousness as a topic of debate, as it is seemingly now on our doorstep, not in some dim and distant future, usually the in the realms of outlandish sci-fi... ...However, this rather nebulous concept of a villain would make it difficult, on it's own to sell, but sensibly, they have put a human villain in the story (brilliantly portrayed) to be the physical expression, focus, and repository of our fears about this "Entity" - here he is the Entity's acolyte, and minion, as well as the object of Cruise's ire. The moments where it does slow down a notch, are where it feels laggy, by way of contrast tot he full on pace until those points - especially in the night-club scene, which, while given very strong John Wick vibes (I kept expecting to see Keanu creaming the henchmen in the background! :) - it lingers a llittle too long I think. And also, the final scenes, and climax with the train has a repetitive quality about it, due to the same moment of jeopardy happening again and again... and again, which does slightly kill the impact of it. But overall, a proper piece of solid, dependable entertainment, perfect for a Saturday night's night in with snacks and such. With films this good in this genre now, can someone explain to me why we still need the flaccid, and stately James Bond movies? (They feel antiquated by comparison). ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 6th Nov 2023		Cinema Hanna (2011) (2011)	Rated 8/10 Will have to watch this again, but I remember being really impressed with it, and thoroughly enjoying this... It is your basic super assassin Jason Bourne style premise, except here it is a young girl, stolen from the facility that created her by her father, into the wilderness to escape the evil clutches of the programme overseers. They get found out, and must split up, leaving Hanna to fend for herself in the big bad world she is not accustomed to, and all the while being pursued by the evil sleeze we commonly associate with this kind of programme. Where this differs form the usual movie of it's type, is that Hanna gets in with a normal family out travelling, and tastes a normal life, such as we might know, and sees what she has been missing, in terms of a normal young girl's life... ...In addition to which, the story is framed as a modern Grimm's fairly tale, with her being the innocent (ish) young girl wandering in the wilderness, pursued by the big bad wolf - the excellently slimy wicked witch type portrayed by Cate Blanchett, who is determined to stop at nothing to recover Hanna, in spite of Woodsman style character dad, Eric Bana's having prepared her for such an eventuality. This framing makes for an at times dreamlike, fairy-tale atmosphere, in an otherwise fast paced, brilliantly choreographed fight fest, every bit the equal of any movie in this genre, and all excellently contrasted against the every day normal family lifestyle reference points of Hanna's new friends, whom she at once endangers through her presence, but also learns from, what it is to be a "Real Girl". And all carried along by a very memorable score by The Chemical Brothers. What more do you want in a movie? :) 2 people found this review helpful. ✔︎ Helpful Review?
Magic Marmalade 4th Nov 2023		Cinema Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3 (Guardians Of The Galaxy Volume 3) (2023) (2023)	Rated 5/10 Yeah... this ain't good...really. It feels like Transformers syndrome all over again, in that it doesn't know what audience it's pitching to: Very dark subject matter, and quite adult themes, totally undermined by the adolescent dialogue "bro!") and often painfully embarrassing... er... skits that the unfortunate cast here have to perform. The "fourth wall" here is broken, not in the traditional sense of people talking to camera, but by me, the viewer, feeling embarrassed for the actors, because of the feeling that they themselves are embarrassed at the handling of this material by new addition to the pantheon of moronic movie making "directors": Emerich / Bay / Snyder, in the shape of James Gunn. (This dude is now in charge of DC movies, beginning with a new Superman film... Oh oh.... brace for crushing disappointment, and the day hastened of the absolute demise of comic book movies!) What's weird about this, is the total lack of spark, energy, and whipcrack humour in a kinetic movie experience as in the first two instalments, instead feeling flat, lifeless, draggy, and uncomfortable. The humour, which is the essence of those two previous outings, would be misplaced anyway, given this deals centrally with animal cruelty, experimentation, and Eugenics, but is made worse by the phoned in performances of the principal actors who have clearly had enough of these roles, and are bored with them (and it shows). James Gunn doesn't know how to make a movie, putting aside whatever he knows about comic books, their characters, or what the comic-con crowd want to see... I mean he has zero timing as a director, either dramatically, or comically.... ...Each shot last waaaaaaaay longer than it should, to the extent that they feel like one of those hugs, or a handshakes that has just about tipped over what the recipient would feel comfortable with, and you begin to feel really awkward, and overly aware of the moment. (You could lose 20 minutes of this epic runtime, just by virtue of chopping the extra flab off these shots alone!) Another thing, is that the admittedly emotional climax to Rocket's story comes when there's still half hour and more of the movie to go, which seems odd, as this is the basis of the story. The guards of the giant curly space anus... station... thing, sporting the cheapest, most ridiculous costumes you can conceive of, that are essentially the crudest spray painted foam blobs that make them seem like overgrown waterbears, and this is symbolic of the entire feeling of cheapness on all costume design, sets, pitiful cartoon animals, we are supposed to care about, rather than snigger at - and even the unconvincing CGI scenes, all shot in a very weird manner, that seems to emphasise the fake-ness and studio-ness of the whole affair. The great tragedy of this is that it has a great idea at the centre, and a potentially brilliant and devastating story to tell, but handled by an artless, clueless meme of a director, who's previous successes don't prevent this, and his Suicide Squad movie exposing him to being found out, as the cinematically dad dancing movie mogul wannabe he really is. This should have been game changing for this franchise, and comic book movies in general, in adding real depth, and lasting impact, in the manner of say, Watership Down, or Bambi... ... Or if not, it could have been a joyful final outing for these characters.... ... instead, it's crass, painfully slow, dull embarrassing, and cheap feeling. >There is, however, one plus side, or positive..... (And what a truly huge positive it is too!) ... and that is the villain character, and the actor and his performance of it: Chukwudi Iwuji as The High Evolutionary, is as good a villain as I've seen anywhere, and the towering performance by Chukwudi is simply astounding, in all the best traditions of all the best villains, he steals the entire show, and make this bum cake of a movie worth watching just for him. This guy (not a movie regular, it seems, but more a stage actor), is a blooming Superstar! If I was in Hollywood studio decision making land, I'd sign this guy up for everything and anything I could get him in< Net result: This is too dark for kids, too juvenile for more mature audiences, which together make a movie too insulting to anyone with intelligence to handle, given the subject. A flat, weak, wet fart of a movie that goes on way too long to be endured in any confined space in which you watch it. ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Page 6 of 26 : Previous : Next :