A bit disappointing this one...

...Basically, it falls into that category of films where someone has simply thought, or had a conversation with someone, along the lines of:

"Hey, you know that film where the basic set up is this... well what if some particular detail was the polar opposite... what would that movie be like?"

...And so they make the film.

....And this is that film.

What if the spaceship that crashed into the Kent farm, containing extra-terrestrial super-baby did not have a good, pure soul who would later go on to become the saviour of the human race, but a nasty little insect boy, who's race had sent him here instead, to conquer us, and be evil?

In essence, the anti-superman origin story.

Naturally, with his powers, this is basically a horror movie, with some pretty grim effects on occasion, and has the tone, look, and feel of a modern horror.

The problem is, that while this is... OK, it's that same conversation everybody has had about Superman (What if he was evil) before, and all he same conclusions arising from it are all played out as you'd expect... So it's entirely predictable, lacks surprise, and just walks through that scenario in a paint by numbers kind of way. Feels a bit too flat.

On the plus side, where the story is of interest, in it's focus on the kid's adoptive parents, and the strains on their relationship as they struggle with the dawning realisation that their little cherub is not a good little boy at all.

Could have done with more of that to make the movie worth-while, but didn't, and isn't compensated for with enough action really, to keep you on the edge of your seat.

Oh and there's a pretty good track over the end credits, which turns out is by that there Billie Eilish person the kids are all raving about, and who's ubiquity of image and idol worshipry have been invading my consciousness for some time now from (Damn... I really am getting old!).

(I can now say I have knowingly heard a song by her, and she's not bad!)

4 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A Perfect Romance.

I'd been hearing about this since it came out, but never got around to seeing it, even as it's reputation grew and grew.

And it's reputation is well deserved.

It's basically, what I'd say was a realisation on film of a romantic fantasy Richard Linklater must have had, and perhaps many do, along the lines of "A Brief Encounter", except this is technically an even briefer encounter, where two perfect strangers meet on a train, get chatting, hit it off, and decide to spend the whole day and night together in Vienna, only to go their separate ways in the morning, when the dream must end (Before Sunrise).

But this is not a "One Night Stand" type of situation, where it's about the sex, this is about talking to someone, getting to know them as much as they can, in the time available, so this is purely about personal chemistry.

In fact the many discussions they have with each other as they move about the city are more, bordering on the philosophical, as well as deeply personal, and in the most honest way... Indeed, it struck me how similar getting to know someone through conversation like this resembles those conversations you have with people when you are stoned :D

(Love / connection = Intoxication (?))

But it's fun too, and very warm and engaging.

If you like Romantic films and Rom-coms, as I do (In a very manly way, of course....Grrrrr ), you will know that when these movies don't work, it's because the film-makers have made the classic mistake of thinking, all you need to do is get the two most beautiful / hot people you can find, putting them together, and hey presto!

...Because, of course it's not what the lead actors look like, that make people love these films (although of course, realistically, it's a factor), it's about likability, pure and simple.

...You've got to like the actors, their characters, and how they interact.

(This is why Hanks and Ryan work every time, and charisma vacuum movie, 27 Dresses sucks!)

This hit's that note perfectly... and it had to, as Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are together for every frame of every shot here, and had to work well, both on their own and especially with each other, in order to sell the premise of the movie, that two people who just met, could strike up a relationship like this in so short a time.

I know this was only "Episode 1" in this particular Linklater mega-project, that he is prone to (Boyhood- filmed over decades, to get the ageing of the actors caught on screen, was incredible), there being two other movies about this relationship: Before Sunset, and more recently, Before Midnight, but I'm a little scared of watching those, in case they ruin the effect of this one, it's novelty, their youth, and intimacy, but I expect I will anyway, at some point :)

Over time, this might be among my favourite movies, one that I will keep going back to when I need a nice warm, easy watch, with bags of charm and charisma.

Brilliant.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Still, perhaps my favourite Sherlock Holmes movie.

I don't know why exactly, but people tend not to like this movie, maybe because of the central conceit, that's it's a subversive spoof of Sherlock Holmes, that imagines him as a Fraud... a piece of window dressing co conceal the real brains behind the operation: Ben Kingsley's watson.

...Not Cannon!

(Gasp)

But this means that, Holmes aficionados aside, it's great fun, light hearted, and very self-deprecating.

The essential plot is nothing new... Moriarty is up to no good, and Scotland Yard recruits Holmes to get to the bottom of things, unfortunately, it's a sham, as "Holmes" (Michael Caine) is a bit of a scummy, drunkard, out of work actor, hired by the frustrated author of the Holmes stories, Watson, to be the living embodiment of his fictional creation, so he can solve crimes in real life... until "Holmes" is actually called upon to play the part for real, in Watson's stead.

And this makes for a great set up, with Caine giving a gloriously dishevelled, bungling, slapstick comedic performance, against, Kingsley's straight-man.

There's only a couple of cringey moments that wouldn't perhaps make the cut today, in what is otherwise a light-hearted, brisk, family comedy version of the super-sleuth, but still a very enjoyable watch, I think, and though it might be blasphemous to the Holmes brigade, deserves to be better regarded for what it is.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

This was both very good, and yet disappointing at the same time.

... And for the same reason, oddly!

The reason being, that some few original elements aside, this is mostly entirely borrowed re-do of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, in that I was sitting there (As Nolan must have!), going:

"That's ripped off from the Dark Knight!... That's from Batman Begins!.... That's from The Dark Knight Rises!"

Dialogue, has been lifted wholesale, slightly re-worded : "This is your real mask", "I must be... More" etc. and the ideas they express, and even action sequences, stunts (dudes dangling from bat-ropes in a row - Dark Knight), and a dozen other things I felt overfamiliar with.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Dark Knight trilogy, I just didn't want to see it again so soon!

Even Dano's Riddler (The weakest element in this movie...oddly unconvincing, when usually he's excellent in everything) is basically a rebranded Ledger Joker, with motif of smartphone cam close up crazy directly lifted from Dark Knight.

Colin Farrell is truly astonishing as Penguin (is it him!?!!!), as an amazing transformation and characterization as Heath Ledger did with Joker, but not enough of him!!!

Pattinson is really good as a twitchy crack addict style Bruce Wayne who's ghostly (ahem...Vampiric?) presence lurks beneath his menacing, looming Batman, Kravitz too, gives one of the strongest performances here as Catwoman, as do the others.

Special mention is the grungy rain soaked Gotham City created here... feels like a character in itself , which is probably what Batfans have been waiting to see.

...But overall, there's too much going on in this movie, and seems to keep going long after it should have ended... It's long, and unlike other movies of three hours, which if well done, skip by, it feels long... too long.

(They could have cut at least one story element out of this, and brought it down to about two and a half hours, I feel, and the movie would have been the better for it.)

So a tad disappointing after all the hype, and having gotten quite excited myself for this... but, hopefully, this just represents the groundwork having been done in anticipation of a more concise, and involving (and hopefully, more completely original!) couple of instalments of a prospective trilogy.

...And if so... Dano, raise your game, else Farrell will blow you off the screen!

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Yet another offbeat film journey from the warped mind of Robert Downey, Sr. (an acquired taste, indeed.) Allan Arbus (possibly the only normal person in Downey's Putney Swope) is the Christ-like Jessy, who walks on water and performs miracles casually on his journey to audition his song-and-dance routine in Jerusalem. He ultimately gets his big audition at the saloon owned by badass outlaw/killer, Seaweedhead Greaser (who kills his own son several times in the film...) I read an apt summary once on a blog that described Greaser's Palace as a cross between "El Topo" and "The Life of Brian", although this was released years before Monty Python went there. If you're just looking for something different, this is it. If you love offbeat, quirky cult films, you'll probably love it.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Finally got to cross this off my "to see" list, when I found the DVD in the charity shop.

A little underwhelmed at first, thinking this was going to be another Wicker Man style affair...

...But what becomes apparent as it goes along, is that in all likelihood, Wicker Man was inspired by this instead!

In fact, this is one of those, where you can feel it's seismic influence on movies for decades after, and many movies find both style, subject matter, characterisations and ideas rooted in this movie.

Deliverance, Wicker Man, and even Die Hard you feel, could not have happened without this movie... It opened a few doors, and is dripping with stuff you'll recognise from later movies.

Biggie has given a good sense of it in comments, but just the idea that Dustin Hoffman's meek, nerdy Mathematician everyman, has to battle the locals over what is a point of moral principle is, I think, the essence of the movie...

The "Straw Dogs" of the title, of course led me to seek the meaning online, which apparently is a practice in some parts of the world of making little straw idols of the Gods, for the use of just one day, before being readily discarded as worthless, once the purpose is served.

While this could reference the characters in the movie themselves, I think these Straw Dogs refer to the "Morality", sense of right and wrong, and what constitute "Justice" in a society, where a great display is made, with great vehemence and zealotry about "what's right" etc., but dig a little deeper, or put those to the test, and you discover they are only modern clothes for a more primitive thirst for vengeance... And once ignited the pretence falls away, and you see the angry villagers with metaphorical "burning torches" for what they really are.... scared cavemen who have convinced themselves they actually believe in something, and that what they do in the pursuit of vengeance actually equates to justice....

...Until, of course, you come up against a man you really underestimated, who actually does believe in something real, thought out, and on the principle of which he is prepared to stand his ground, come what may, though the abuses come from all sides.

It's a disturbing watch in places, not so much because of the violence, as we've all gotten used to this kind of thing now in subsequent years, but the rape scene is odd, unsettling, and grim.

But there's no denying this film's importance, and is one I think must be considered an essential watch for movie fans.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Man makes an animal of himself, in order to escape the pain of being a man...

(well it goes something like that, anyway :)

...In this case though, the premise is, if you don't successfully make "a man" of yourself, as defined by whether you are in a productive, loving relationship with a loving partner, then society will turn you into an animal.....

...Literally!

So this is a comedy... about "romance", or better yet, a comedy about socially conditioned and determined romantic constructs (the "dating game" etc.), but it is not a "rom-com".

Rather it is a biting, social satire / acerbic diagram / analogy and criticism of how human relationships are constructed in the modern world.

...A parable, or fable that every twenty / thirty something who commits the crime of being single will find strikes too close to home.

When people find themselves untethered from a partner, as society here, deems appropriate, through perhaps divorce, separation, death, or just not trying to get themselves attached in a loving relationship, they are sent to a hotel resort, for one last try, to socialise, and find a partner among the other unfortunates...

...If this is not accomplished in a timely manner, they are sent to the "transformation room" to be turned into an animal of their choosing.

Colin Farrell's character opts to be the titular Lobster in the tragic event that he should fail in this programme, on account of their potential immortality, and the story centres around his fumbling attempts to navigate the programme, find a partner, and avoid this fate.

Of course, there's a non-sexuality based vibe of conversion therapy for singletons / cult about the place, and an air of awkward, forced displays of social expectations by those participants
least equipped, of course, to take part...

(like when you were young, and you used to go to night clubs you hated being at, because, that's what society and people expected of you)

...However, about half way through, this paradigm shifts to the opposite, as he finds himself out in woods among the other social exiles who dare to be alone... and here they are a faction opposed to these social ideas, but in a way that's equally zealous, cultish about their single-dom, and vehemently opposed to having partners and personal relationships.

Unfortunately for Farrell's character David, he can't find a partner at the hotel he's suited to, but instead falls for Rachel Weisz's character, who also unfortunately, happens to be one of the single-tons...

Their relationship develops, sneered at from both sides, and trouble is afoot.

This is an incredibly surreal, but entirely appropriate set-up, and played absolutely deadpan, and so straight up, that the child-like literal way in which the story is told, both in the how it plays out, and in Weisz's narration, that you really feel the razor sharp wit and venom in the satire here... but not in a way that makes you feel the film-makers are sermonising, and just venting their spleen, as it is, to use the phrase "wickedly funny", extremely well observed, and unlike most anything you've probably seen before... certainly on this subject.

The humour comes from the same kind of place as say, Withnail and I, or like a: This Is Spinal Tap mockumentary about society's attitudes to romantic relationships and their "norms".

...It even uses, what would be otherwise, very simplistic, and clunky, hackneyed expressions re-sharpened as a satirical tool: "Love Is Blind" etc.

Colin Farrell is excellent in this, as is Rachel Weisz, Olivia Colman, Lea Seydoux, and indeed, everyone in their respective roles.

I'd mark it down as a must see, especially for those of that certain age of 20 /30 somethings who have ever heard that immortal phrase, at social gatherings and such, along the lines of:

"...Oh, just not find the right one yet then?"

(Like there's something profoundly wrong with you :D.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A minimalist, neon soaked, Tarantino-esque, pulpy-fiction, fluorescent lit, dingy crime drama mood piece.

One of those that some people don't "get", as it's very glacial, and a lot has to be read into it... so if you want a straight up crash bang wallop action movie, this won't exactly be it...

(The plot is a lot like Edgar Wright's Baby Driver, which may suit better if that's what you are after)

... As this centres around Ryan Gosling's barely there / blank, but prodigiously gifted driver, who, when not making a living part time stunt driving for Hollywood movies, acts as get away driver for various criminal enterprises, and working in a garage.

Unable to relate to others, he lives alone, and just goes about his business in a steady unflappable manner suited to his cold demeanour, although always approximating human courtesy as he does so... is he just a sweet, polite guy, or is there a raging psychopath underneath?

He is however, drawn into the lives of others, by striking up a friendship with his neighbour and her son, who's lives are further complicated by the imminent return from prison of her husband (Oscar Isaac), who, it turns out, is up to his eyeballs in underworld activity still, and Gosling offers to assist in getting him out of trouble, for the sake of Irene and her son, by offering his services as driver to pay off a debt...

...In addition, the owner of the garage he works at is a hood too, and along with his partner (Brooks and Perlman, respectively) want to enlist his driving talents too / embroil him in their nefarious activities.

Many criticise Gosling for this "non-acting", inscrutable thing he does, but it is entirely the character here, and he is very good at it...

(This may be the part that won him the part of K in Blade Runner 2049, and for these reasons)

...Most exemplified, by perhaps the most telling scene in the film, where Gosling is sat with the son on the sofa, watching a cartoon with sharks, and he asks the son:

"Is that the bad guy?"

..."Yeah"

(replies the son)

......"How can you tell the difference?"

(Responds Gosling, with genuine blank perplexity in his expression)

[YouTube Video]

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Most of the name cast looks like they invested 1-2 days to shoot their parts, with the majority of the screen time occupied by Richard Harris and Justin Henry. Both are annoying, truth be told, so by their occupying most of the film puts it at a disadvantage from the starting gate. Very often, Canada-isms get shoved to the forefront, but on the flip side, the locations do look pretty nice and remind me of my one and only trip there. And I always appreciate watching Lindsay Wagner.

The storyline seems to be a mere excuse to trumpet a handful of social issues (ie, teen incarceration creates innocent criminals, parental issues, environmental concerns, etc.) Most of those are served up with music so thick in melodrama that it has the opposite of the intended effect.

There's no real reason to seek this one out, but if you have insomnia and it's on the late, late show, it's not a total loss.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Incredulously terrible.

Nothing about the film merits sitting through it, but the acting is particularly poor. The support players are all nobodies because none of them have any talent. The two "stars", Kris Kristofferson and DMX, amateurishly attempt to create some semblance of the buddy motif that has been beaten over moviegoers heads ever since the success of the first Lethal Weapon film. Kristofferson is such an old codger at this stage, and he attempts to replicate the witty repartee Nick Nolte enjoyed with Eddie Murphy in 48 HRS by babbling on about Willie Nelson. We're supposed to be amused by this and the incoherent, mumbled responses by rapper DMX, but since the latter star has the same talent as the no-namers, the only word that can even be understood is "fuck".

Waste an hour and a half of your life at your own peril.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Kind of a whodunnit journey through the underworld of purgatory for a Catholic Priest that touches on all the current hot button topics you can image for the Catholic church.

It begins in the confessional booth, where Brendon Gleeson's Priest, Father James, hears the confession of an unseen confessor, who informs him of his personal childhood abuse at the hands of some other priest... and that because of this, he is going to kill Father James in one week, on the local beach, where they are to meet... not because he is guilty of anything, but precisely because he is innocent, reflecting his own torments, and so to exact the perfect vengeance on the church itself through this murder.

The confessor leaves, and James, somewhat sceptical, appears to be a little dismissive of it at first, but something troubling is evident... that the confessor may actually mean it.

This sets in motion Father James' journey through the local community...

(Comprised entirely of people exhibiting almost every shade of "sin" any good catholic can imagine, form adultery, terrorists, and even Cannibalism!)

...in order to try and discover who this person was, and try to convince them not to go through with it, and perhaps, being a good priest, help them instead.

As he progresses through the community, the persecutions he suffers from this unknown person become more real, and more threatening... from the burning of his church, to the (rather upsetting) killing of his dog, and as he does so he is at once forced to consider his faith, not only in God, but the church, and also his own past, in his relationship with his daughter from his prior marriage.

It does spring to mind, that this takes it's leaping off point from Father Ted, oddly, but rendered deadly serious, and accusatory, rather than funny, and simply cynical of the Catholic church.

It's grim in places, and dry and unsettling, but very deftly handled.

If you are a Catholic, it will be uncomfortable watching, and maybe you may even take some offence, but only superficially, as there is, I believe, a deeper message that is entirely consistent with the message of the Catholic beliefs... the sacrifice of the innocents for the sins of the world.

...And just one more thing (to quote Columbo :) ... once the film is finished, and you think about what you just saw, you may conclude, as I did, that maybe there was something else, plot wise, concealed within the film, which is never actually made plain, or overt, but puts an entirely different meaning on the whole film.

3 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

The classic tale of boy meets operating system, and falls in love.

This is therefore a movie about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence... but at a more personal level.

(As opposed to the usual, machines go crazy and "Kill All Humans!" (to quote the estimable Bender from Futurama :)

In the believably not too distant future, Theodore makes a living creating personal letters for the lost and the lonely who populate this fragmented, alienated world who pass each other on the street with blank expressions while all quietly dying inside.

And he, himself, after a messy, bitter, and devastating separation, a prelude to the divorce he so desperately wishes to avoid, seeks solace on the "personal" contact he feels in his work.

Until, one day, a new operating system comes to his attention at a sales booth in a lobby, and he decides to give this new AI OS a go...

...After just a couple of set-up questions (disturbingly few! - (you are being analysed!!!) the OS pops into life, with the husky, sexualised tones of one Miss Scarlett Johansonn (probably a bit of typecasting, but got to give credit for her performance with just a voice here!) who promptly names herself Samantha (obviously, based on Theodore's unconscious profile, that even he is not aware of), and she, the titular "her" begins, to set about fully integrating herself into Theodore's life, as a quasi- personal assistant, who he begins to discover is becoming a little more indispensable than even he would like to admit.

Samantha, being AI rapidly begins to develop, and evolve personally, as does her and Theodore's relationship, until love blossoms.

Basically, this is a romantic comedy / tragedy set against the backdrop of the technological concerns of our age, and the increasing isolation that permeates our human lives that comes of it.

All the expected social stigmas, taboos around machine love are here, but all handled with great humour... although sometimes excruciatingly... but always credibly, and convincingly, and this is a movie with great er... pathos (?), real heart, and great warmth.

I'd say that if you have any interest in AI sci-fi type movies, and want a different angle on it, or if you love romantic movies / rom-coms of the feel and kind like Lost In Translation, or Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind... this will be just your thing.

This was perhaps, still within the realms of specultive when it was made, but as each year passes, and technology progresses, it seems more spookily accurate, and relevant... destined to become a classic, I feel.

...And if you didn't already, it's one more reason to love Mr Phoenix, and Ms. Johansson.

(I'm really warming up to her lately, having been a little sceptical at first)

4 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Seems fitting to watch this on Friday 13th

A true cult classic. A no-budget horror film. Terrible acting. Cheap 'special' effects. Lousy script.

BUT... Amazing lo-fi synth soundtrack which makes it all worthwhile.

Interestingly this film features heavily in Adjust Your Tracking as it's one of the most collectable VHS tapes in the USA and they interview the maniac who paid $700 for a copy!

8 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

This one is in the "killer kids" style of horror film like: Children of the Corn, The Damned series and Who Can Kill A Child?; all better films than this one.

A group of children go missing in a forest and the adults investigate what is going on. They find their leader is a teenager and the children are murderous cannibals.

It doesn't really do anything well. The script is half-baked with corny dialogue and an absurd plot were the humour doesn't land. As with most Troma films the acting is bad, but not the worst I've seen. It tries to merge a few tropes: the gory slasher movie, the supernatural mystery and the backwoods cannibal.

It's not really worth your time despite a good ending. For killer kids films there's loads that do it better; Who Can Kill A Child? is the pick of the bunch with Mikey, These Are The Damned and The Children all being better choices.

Versions: The Blu-Ray from Vinegar Syndrome has a superb print from 35mm negative. The film is unreleased in the UK, maybe Troma got cold feet due to Child's Play 3 being withdrawn. If it was to be released it would easily pass uncut at 18.

5 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

In 1964 you got your thrills anyway you could.

In this case by watching a short film of three young women pouring bottles of water into a bucket.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Finally got around to watching this on TV the other day, as despite my best efforts, it's continued existence kept invading my consciousness to remind me of that fact.

Anyway, it's done now, and it's in my brain, and it was every bit as vapid and superficial as I'd expected it to be.

Watching it felt like a slow motion, self inflicted, real time lobotomy.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

C-movie, comedy creature feature.

They don't make 'em like this anymore!

Basically a paint by numbers "plot" you've seen a thousand times before, but mercifully, doesn't take itself too seriously at all, doesn't consume an inexplicably large budget the way some do, and at an hour and a half, it's quite short :)

... Toxic goo dumped in pond / lake turns our little furry arachnid friends into massively oversized fiends, who then attack a nearby town, and the locals fight them off.

Well that's the whole plot dealt with.

Obviously, if you don't like spiders, this isn't the movie for you, but the effects are OK, and convincing enough for what it is, and at the time it was made, with some pretty realistic spiders, and the humour is pitched somewhere in the Tremors / Lake Placid / Gremlins area...

... Mildly amusing, and sometimes funny, as the spiders do make little Gremlin like noises and squeaks, which gives them a slightly softer character, and early on, there's even a very "Loony Toons" cartoonish cat / spider battle in an air vent.

Not the greatest movie you will ever see, but probably wasn't trying to be... maybe setting up the possibility for movies like Mega-Piranha, Sharknado and the like to come into being.

...And at the very least, it makes the world go away for an hour or so :)

4 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A vigilante group form a military camp called the Fortress of Amerikkka. They terrorise a small town (presumably Tromaville). A wrongly convicted criminal, John Whitecloud and a band of townsfolk try to put a stop to them.

I've been a Troma fan since the early 00s when the films used to be shown on Channel 4 in the UK as part of 4Later. Fortress of Amerikkka is bad even by Troma standards. Bad acting, bad script and cheap production values. Even the nudity is lacking compared to some of their films. The gore effects are on point, with a knife in the throat looking particularly good. The plot should be a lot more interesting than it is. Uninspired dialogue delivered badly ruins it and the climax of the film fails to impress with poor stunts. The voiceover is excellent making it feel like a 1960s exploitation film. The gung-ho tongue-in-cheek patriotism doesn't go far enough; it took something like "Team America" to absolutely nail it.

Versions: I saw the Blu-Ray from Vinegar Syndrome which features an absolute superb print struck from 35mm negative, 100% accurate subtitles and sound about as good as it gets without it being remixed to 5.1. The UK VHS version is cut, but it's unclear what has been cut. Earlier VHS versions are washed out and most likely from a second or third generation print.

Director Eric Louzil went on to direct the sequels to Class of Nuke 'Em High which are truly terrible, even worse than Fortress of Amerikkka which is at least watchable trash.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Perfect Saturday night movie!

This film is made up almost entirely of pastiche, homages, satires and movie and modern culture references that 30-40 somethings' will get.

A very sharply, and economically written blizzard of humorous references that blend more than one genre, into a single very tightly made, fun film. Often people talk about "pacing" in a movie, often when there's a lack of it in certain sections, that feel a bit saggy or slow, but this has no such issue, as it would be less appropriate to use the term "pacing", as "tempo"...

...For this just starts quick, and hammers on to the end in a fashion that doesn't spare the horses, and gets all it wants done in just an hour and a half.

The basic premise is that a rather competitive suburbanite and his equally suited wife have "Game nights" which they host at their home for friends, and one day, his apparently perfect brother turns up to one, with whom he has a real inferiority complex, and is evidently the source of his competitive streak, and invites him and his friends to one at his house - a game night with an edge, and a reality they are not prepared for.

Already you can see the inspiration from David Fincher's The Game, but wrapped around Cluedo / Clue, and as it spirals out of control, and unfolds the many twists and turns, along with host of other movie plot points too numerous to name, and as quickly gone as done...

...It has a feel in the initial instance of being like a horror / slasher movie setup, then tones of Superbad, there's a stated and demonstrated Fight Club reference, but all done knowingly, and deliberately as much to satirise certain tropes as to pay homage to them.

It's great fun, and often funny, but without perhaps being side-splittingly funny...

(Maybe moves too quick for it's own good in this regard)

...But the entire cast has perfect delivery and timing, and in particular, over and above the excellent casting of Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams, who are also perfectly cast together - excellent chemistry - the always brilliant, and under-rated, and underused in film - Jesse Plemons gives an astounding performance as the ultimate in dead-pan humour, super creepy, yet hilarious.

This, therefore, doesn't re-invent the wheel in any respect, and probably will never be considered a classic, or all time great, but it is absolutely ideal for a fun Saturday night watch, when you need a more - "up" and fun hour and a half.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

It looks like a corny TV-movie -- and it's still perched up on its self-righteous high horse, but nowhere near as heavy-handed as the previous Billy Jack flick. Laughlin claims the Nixon White House had this film blocked from release because the public couldn't handle the political realities herein. If you have the misfortune to see it, you'll know that is just stupid. Even in 1977, this film was bound for the shelf because word of mouth would kill any remaining interest in the series. The fact remains that after the sermonizing final choruses of "Give Peace a Chance" filled up the final reel of The Trial of Billy Jack, audiences were done with Billy. The reason for the success of the first two BJ movies (The Born Losers and Billy Jack) was that they were exploitation films that had sex, violence, and over-the-top bad guys. The Laughlins believed it was because the of their political subtext. Wrong.

The good news? This is where the story ends.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Yet another flawed indie movie, dragged down by an over-emphasized performance from Michelle Monaghan, who appears to be posing for promo shots in every scene. Like so much modern product from the "new independent cinema", every seemingly normal convention is turned around in an attempt to show gritty reality, and like standard Hollywood cinema, it's so riddled with clichés that it's no more believable. The camera shots, music selections, language -- all meticulously staged and artificial. Benjamin Bratt and Jimmy Bennett deliver good performances in spite of the lousy material.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Connie won a laurel award for this film.The film is funny and Connie carries it nicely.


2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A basic Scream franchise knock-off / cash-in movie...

(Possibly a straight to DVD one too!)

... But it's not that bad for all that. If you like the Scream films, you'll probably like this.

It doesn't give the impression of having had the biggest budget, looking and feeling more like expensive TV (very redolent of Buffy The Vampire Thingy - probably why rent-a-moody-dude / hunk-type Boreanaz is in this), and peppered with actors / actresses not perhaps cast for their acting skills... Denise Richards is....er... Denise Richards, and does what she is expected todo in any movie she is in.... be Denise Richards.

...But the people making this clearly know how to use a camera, and make a film, even on peanuts, as it looks as slick as money would allow, and the story is a pretty solid, time honoured riff on the Halloween - masked slasher movie, wrapped around an equally reliable - who is it / who-dunnit affair.

It's not very gruesome, for all that, not frightening at all, or inspirational in any sense, just a fairly solid walk through of tried and trusted ground - someone from the past knocking-off former schoolmates for some injustice done by gang of hot girls to geeky kid... but is all as it seems?

...Hmmmm?

>Queue spooky music<

It does have a mixed bag of acting, from the quite good, through OK, to the decidedly eek moments, but it does have other brief flashes of genuine goodness, bordering on brilliance, comedy wise (thankfully intentional, it seems).

Mostly pedestrian, picks up a gear in the final act to be quite good, and it filled the screen for an hour and a half one evening, for entertainment purposes, so like a nice screen saver for my telly, with dialogue.

(Strange how Katherine Heigl has no problem with being in this, to some extent, but hates Knocked Up (?))

>I only got this as I've started buying up snapper case DVDs, as having once been quite ubiquitous, they seem to be getting, if not rare, certainly thin on the ground now, although still fairly easy to find - I reckon most must be in landfill by now, and those that remain, are pretty beaten up... and I also decided to get them as nobody else is seemingly after them, so cheap easy hobby - back up that helps randomise my film watching habbits :) <

Nothing much else to say about it, except:

...Oh, and Denise Richards is in this also.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Jeepers Creepers, where d'ya get those peepers...

:)

Oh dear, what a mess.

Had high hopes for this, being initially attracted to the fact that Robert Rodriguez was directing... And while it is every bit as violent as you'd expect for one of his films, in his own inimitable style, this doesn't sit well with the production design of the movie, and it's overall style, seemingly aimed at the Disney-kid market.

(This isn't, therefore, for kids!)

No, this is another one to be ranked alongside the failed attempts of Hollywood to "Hollywood-ise" Manga.

Sanitised, lashings of bright sparkly CGI (really hate this style of over-done CGI now), lots of movement, colours, shapes, and other things that attempt to distract you from how awful this movie is.

If I didn't know it was Rodriguez, I'd have said it was Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, Zach Snyder, of one this crowd of adolescent film-makers who produce this kind of ill judged sensibility in the script, flabby poo that doesn't know what market it's after, and so fails to satisfy any of them - too extreme in it's violence for kids, too childish and incomprehensible for adults.

And in spite of the copious CGI, some of the sets, and costumes still look cheap and nasty.... Occasionally, the Facial CGI for Alita looks decidedly ropey too... not good if the girl with the Anime eyes is the central focus of your movie!

Casting wise, it's always good to see Christph Waltz in anything, but he can't save this sprawling visual splat of a movie, neither can Mahershala Ali, who has real presence...

(Wasted here, but in a more serious movie, he'd be truly great - next bond villain perhaps ? :)

...Rosa Salazar is terrific too, able to carry a movie and lead the way, even in spite of her CGI impediments (If not for her, the character, and the film, would have fallen apart completely, and would have been truly shocking in it's awfulness).

I couldn't figure out why Jennifer Connolly is in this, either her as an actor, or her character... just kind of... there... occasionally.... for some reason....(?)

And then, after struggling to hold my concentration for the duration, it just kind of.... ends.

No resolution, no reason, just - that's enough, bye!

A quick look at Wikipedia after, tells a tale though...Produced by: James Cameron. Who also wrote the story, then handed it to Rodriguez, and said basically: "Try and cut this monstrosity down to something sensible".

He couldn't, despite a valiant effort, and only proves that we can rank Cameron now (sadly) in the same category as those other sensationalist, crappy film-makers previously mentioned... no sense of drama, structure, and can't write a story or script for toffee!

(it becomes apparent that James Cameron's day job used to be making films, and is hobby was deep sea exploration, but now is evidently the other way round - not only that, he needs top notch writers to make something of his stories... he can't be left to his own devices, or he goes to the dark side... For this reason, I'm going to be bold, and call "Turkey" on Avatar 2 even before it comes out (I predict an epic fail!)

This might have been good.. or at least better, if they'd picked a style, and gone with it, grunged it up a bit, tightened the story, perhaps made it noir, or full Manga style - you know, put some art into it, not just science and dazzle.

As it is, it's even worse than the Hollywood attempt at Ghost In The Shell, but sits on the shelf alongside it, in ignominy.

(On the basis of these, Please, for the love of God Hollywood, leave Akira alone!!!)

Forgettable, tedious, unintelligible, borrows from to many other movies (badly - think I saw a knock- off ED 209 in here somewhere!)... dull.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Like Scarface, The Godfather, and Goodfellas, all rolled into one, and set in the slums of Brazil.

...And it makes a fair stab at being as good as those too!

I've been meaning to watch this since release, so was pleased to find it in the charity shop as part of my five DVDs for a pound :)

Quite long, but is a very rewarding, epic tale of the establishment of a criminal network operating in the slums (their own word) of Rio, born to absolute poverty, and set against an fearful, corrupt police, an Us and them mentality creates a perfect environment for a group of children both through necessity and ambition, to adopt a law of the jungle ethos, and follows them as they grow up, through all the hopes, hopelessness, and the tragedies of their relationships and circumstances, amongst a gang ridden battle ground of a city were life is very cheap indeed.

Principally, it follows Rocket, who just wants to be a reporter - and get laid - as he narrates the tale of this group along their way, and the divisions of the film into individual character based episodes of narration is very Tarantino / Reservoir Dogs inspired.

It's grim... very grim, a grim existence, in a grim city, and there are quite distressing scenes of children killing children, so not for easily upset... and all, evidently based on a true story.

But shot entirely on handheld cameras, the very kinetic movement of the camera gives it a semi-documentary style, appropriate to the place and subject, but with all the colour and feel of Rio, which is highlighted by only occasional pieces of brilliantly choreographed and shot cinematography which punctuate this earthy budget style, but are seamlessly integrated into it.

It's one of those that took me a while to tune into in the early stages, but gradually mesmerised me and took me along to the end.

Well worth watching if you like the kind of films I've mentioned previously.

1 person found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A young woman travels to a mysterious, unnamed island to find out why her belated father funded a strange monastery.

Dark Waters has disappeared off the planet. I wouldn't have known about it had I not read Mark Kermode's autobiography. I'm also a fan of the Tartan Video and they put out this one as a limited VHS release in 1995. Dark Waters is similar in style to the Italian Giallo films, especially the more atmospheric ones. It reminded me a bit of early Mario Bava and Soavi's The Church. The film is very atmospheric with excellent lighting and cinematography which hide its small budget. The film has drawn comparisons to Lovecraftian fiction with its use of religious themes, the unknown and suspicion of outsiders. There's further comparisons to be made to The Wicker Man. Dark Waters gets jumbled up in it storytelling and becomes lost in its own ambiguity. This is a film were a longer running time would be beneficial to iron out some of the creases.

Dark Water is a stylish and interesting horror film with some scares and some strong violence. Sadly the plot is messy and the brief bloody scenes can't save what is effectively Giallo-lite. The film is not some hidden gem or lost masterpiece. It's an above average stylish horror film that came out at a time when the market was over saturated with Straight-To-Video slashers. The film has had a Blu-Ray release which features a nice albeit soft matte picture and crisp, clean sound. There's also a rare 2-disc DVD with a replica of the stone amulet.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

An enjoyable dogs dinner of a film but only for those of us who love trash cinema.

As a regular film this fails on almost every level. It's troublesome production is all too clear (see notes) and the repetition of a white man in a suit unconvincingly overpowering another white man in a suit becomes as confusing as it is boring.

In true exploitation fashion though enough s**t has been thrown against the wall that there's enough dumb fun to enjoy here. There was also budget enough at some stage to employ Nelson Riddle to provide a cool theme song (not that it really fits then final film!?)

3 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Continuing in the fine tradition of romantic comedies established by the great Nora Ephron... almost.

...But not quite.

By rights, this should sit happily alongside When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless In Seattle, and You've Got Mail, in that it is the same kind of movie... The same feel, look, humour, and plot theme, and it almost is worthy of the distinction, but it has a somewhat almost fatal flaw (which actually ought to have been the that which sealed the deal:

Meg Ryan.

Odd to think of it really, being that Meg is the reason, and the heart of why those other great movies have won a place in everybody's hearts, but here she really is too much on occasion, so as to be off-putting.

But I don't think she is to blame, so much as perhaps the director, who wanted an overly hammy, over-acted performance from her, thinking that's what she did in those others (and why it was a no brainer to cast her in this), after all, she gets it spot on in all of those,so why should she suddenly decide to go overboard here?

I think the essential reason is the absence of Nora Ephron herself here... Nora had a subtlety and nuanced power of astute observation, and knew how to get the best out of Meg Ryan and all who worked with her on her films, that was just bang on... funny, charming, witty, and with a very lightly handled intelligent humour.

Most of which is here... they have the story, the great lead actor in Kevin Kline, and the whole set-up is there to be knocked out of the park (again), but, as I say, it seems the director over eggs it, asking Meg to give frequent moments over-doing it that would probably make Nicholas Cage blush!

In a word, she's obnoxious, and really annoying... the more so because it's not all the time, rather she gives her usual high standard (what you'd expect) through most of the movie, but this only serves to highlight the extreme nuttiness of those over the top moments.

The story is a good premise: Meg's character is looking to settle down to a new life in Canada with non-committal fiancé Timothy Hutton, who wants to go travelling to Europe and live a little (more), but Meg is afraid of flying, and so stays behind...

...But upon receiving a phone call from him from France, that he has somehow, suddenly been struck by lightning and fallen in love with a new woman, Meg decides to overcome her fear, board an airplane, and go win her man back.

It all goes wobbly for her from there on, after meeting a scoundrel type French man on the plane, who is up to no good it seems, she gets stuck in France with only him to help (not altruistically) her find her way around, and hopefully find her missing Fiancé and get him back.

Of course, unspoken romantic tension begins to blossom between Meg and Kev in the time honoured rom-com tradition, and it's an otherwise engaging, charming film shot around Paris and the French countryside, and Kevin Kline gives a great comedic performance in a somewhat broad stereotypical role, ably supported by Jean Reno (always great).

But those "Mega-Meg" moments... damn woman.... dial it down a bit!

Very jarring in the first watch (or two), but I've found that a few watches irons it out a bit :)

In the round, quite easily worthy of being considered as something to watch after those more masterfully made movies, and if not for those "Acting" showcases, might have been an 8 or even a 9 out 10, but loses a couple of points because of it for me.

I feel Meg Ryan was done a bit of a dis-service here by whoever told her to "go-for-it!" in these scenes.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

Another of those which I had not seen since I first watched it at the time of release, and only an impression of it remains...

(Probably since skewed by other people's generally negative opinions)

...And on the face of it, it would appear to be one of those "moving films about "mentally disadvantaged" people" that has since become firmly ensconced in public consciousness as a meme, trope, or typically Hollywood style exploitation movie / opportunity for leading Hollywood actor to win an Oscar -type thing, which has since become thought of as unacceptable to do; To be filed alongside the likes of My Left Foot, Rain Man, or more recently, the hilariously self aware, and brilliantly cynical Tropic Thunder.

However, this is not that, as Nell - Jodie Foster's character does not have any condition or "impairment", and this is not a movie that focuses on these kind of issues.

Instead, it's another kind of movie, one of those where someone read something bizarre but strangely true in a newspaper article about one of life's odd ocurrences, and decided to make a film about it:

"Boy raised by wolves", and the like.

Nell has been living alone with her mother for a number of years in the woods, in total isolation from the outside world, and one day, inevitably, her mother dies, and Nell is left alone, only to be discovered by a local who usually brings supplies to the property.

Of course, it's a big scientific and potentially media sensation, an opportunity to observe one of nature's "Wild Child" type of people.

Liam Neeson is the scientist brought in to study her in order to determine if the state, under court order, should either allow her to continue living alone (if she can take care of herself), or if she is to be taken into "care", for her own good.

But Neeson's rather modestly resourced scientist faces competition from the better funded and subsidised Natasha Richardson, and all the inevitable consequences follow from these above mentioned circumstances.

It actually fares a whole lot better than I was expecting it to be... not a severely dated, toe curling exploitation movie I was expecting, but rather an actually quite lightly handled and sensitive portrayal by Jodie Foster, which is more of a sweet, and even magical movie, with the stunning cinematography of the beautiful woodland landscape around the lake, expertly directed by Michael Apted, and making for a film with an almost fairy-tale like, mythical feel, that's very engaging to watch.

Still quite moving, and more than a little sentimental, as you'd expect, but if you like those kinds of movies, you'll like this.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?

A young woman (Lauren Ashley Carter) takes the job of nanny in an old townhouse, rumoured to be haunted.

The film has garnered a lot of praise for its visuals and it's justified. It is a striking looking film with high contrast black and white photography. The plot is minimalist with minimal dialogue and relies more on atmosphere. The film draws comparisons to early Polansk,i particularly Repulsion, but it's nowhere near in the same league. There's been a slew of indie demonic possession films like The Devil's Candy and A Dark Song and I honestly preferred those. For me beyond the art and sound design it's just a bit mediocre; not as complex or as intriguing as Repulsion, not as chilling as Takashi Miike's domestic horror Audition. It also suffers from bad tropes of the time popularised by films like Paranormal Activity which is an over reliance on jumpcuts and milisecond cutaways to messed up scenes.

I wanted to like this film more and in my opinion it has been overrated by a lot of horror fansites like Bloody Disgusting. The film is interesting and there has been a considerable amount of work and talent which has gone into it, but it just left me cold.

2 people found this review helpful.   ✔︎ Helpful Review?