Having been a fan of the MK franchise since playing the first game in the arcades in 1992, I'd taken the subsequent 'original' movies with a pinch of salt. Mainly because those making them understood the game was over the top and somewhat silly. They didn't try to make them serious or attempt to create something with aspirations beyond what the source material gave them. However, this MK reboot does try to take itself somewhat seriously and because it's a film designed to appeal to Millennials it's so 'woke' to be unintentionally funny on too many occasions. The plot bears no real resemblance to the one set out in the original games, instead introducing a new central character, with a backstory that exists just in this film. All the other characters fall from the roster of the MK game series, some more familiar to gamers than others. Sub-Zero is now the main villain, going off on an initial mission to kill the Earth Realm fighters before actual Mortal Kombat begins. Then we get the other bad guys popping up and Shang Tsung basically saying the rules don't apply, so up yours Raiden... Unfortunately, despite there being a lot of fight scenes in the film, none are choreographed very well. Throw in far too many cuts, zooms, pans, dolly shots, etc as the fights are going on, and you can't really tell what is happening. Everything else about the film is just 'meh'. The CGI, cinematography, visuals, acting, soundtrack... All just average, with nothing to really discuss. But as a martial arts action film, it is pretty terrible!
Stunning visuals.... That's the only redeeming factor of this movie. It does look amazing, with stunning cinematography and some unbelievable action sequences. Everything else though... Utter crap.
About an hour into the film I had to pause it, grab my phone, and see if perhaps my copy had some issue with the sound mix. You could barely hear what anyone was saying, and at various times I had to jump on the volume button of my remote because some scenes were incredibly loud.
Turns out my copy was fine, and the unintelligible dialogue and volume 'jumps' were a purposeful choice by the Director, and that it actually caused problems when the film was shown in the cinema!
Being unable to discern what anyone is saying ruins the film, what plot/exposition I could glean from hearing every fourth word spoken (at best) means I had no idea what was happening.
Again, it was wonderful to look at, but impossible to understand.
Another result of this, I couldn't really get an idea of how well anyone was acting. Characterisations were impossible to realise, as well as formulating any sense of motivation. Ultimately it's a film I watched all the way through, but won't watch again (unless a cut comes out with the sound mix drastically improved!), it was just two and half hours of my life I won't be getting back!
Robert De Niro, in his directorial debut also co-stars in this coming of age drama set (as the title suggests) in the Bronx, initially offering an extended frontispiece in 1960 before moving forward to 1968. Chazz Palminteri stars, and the film is based on his original story and is filmed from a screenplay he and De Niro worked on together. The story revolves around Calogero aka "C", the son of De Niro's bus driving father Lorenzo. C's apartment is just a couple of doors down from the bar where Mafia 'boss' Sonny (Palmintero) runs all of his illicit dealings in the neighbourhood. Young C is drawn into the lifestyle, against Lorenzo's wishes, and has to balance his personal life and his desire to become what both his father and Sonny want him to be. It's a by the numbers story, but it plays out incredibly well. All the actors know where their boundaries are, but go to town within them.
Add in a fantastic contemporary soundtrack and well thought out cinematography and the illusion of the late 60s is put up well on screen. The film is let down though by a lot of heavy-handed moralising. It does feel out of place having both of the male adults in C's life spending so much time spelling out the ideals he should be living by. Overall, it's a great film, but falls short of both perfection and brilliance!
A film showing the harsh realities that some children in the world are actually subjected to, usually of their own volition, that pulls no punches.... It's clear that the vast majority of 'reviews' on here are by people who've either never seen the film, or have and just put it upon themselves to declare it 'sickening' etc and jump on the 'boycott netflix' bandwagon. However, in truth, the movie is incredibly thought provoking and (of course) very disturbing.
It was made to push boundaries and teeter on the edge of acceptability.
And I guess it was also made to be offensive.. As a film, the acting is good, the narrative is decent, the direction is excellent but the quality of the cinematography varies. At no point does is the viewer allowed to 'feel', the message is blunt and blatant. But, again, it's a purposeful choice. Ultimately though it IS a film, and and such made for entertainment value and not educational purposes. I think if the subject matter was the topic of a no holds barred Netflix documentary, people wouldn't have been so disturbed by what they were watching.
As a movie, for entertainment, i'm not annoyed I took the time to watch. As a means to delve into the characters, what they're going through, their lives, choices, pain, fear and ultimate triumphs.... To understand things.... It's going to get people talking.
It's kind of weird, watching Hacksaw Ridge. The tale of Desmond Doss, the conscientious objector who stood alongside his 'brothers' on the field of battle, during the Pacific campaign of World War 2. Why is it weird?
Because the film doesn't pull punches when it comes to the depiction of extreme violence, death and loss... But shies away from profanity, drug use, copious alcohol consumption, and the chainsmoking carried out by the rank and file soldiery during the conflict. The movie seems happy to visualise the maiming of these young men, but then has to protect the viewer from said other aspects of the everyday lives they lead. It's very frustrating! As for the film, as a 'film'... It's not too bad, but as an educated man who is well versed through various media, the depiction of warfare is way off!
Craig Fairbrass sells his soul and stars in yet ANOTHER Mockney gangster film. This time he's Eddie, fresh out of a Ten year stretch and promising to keep it on the straight and narrow.
Unfortunately his younger brother Sean has got into debt with some local nasties, has pretty much driven the family boozer into the ground, and snorts any potential profits up his nose along with his live in girlfriend.
Eddie starts off well-meaning. Tries to make it all work with his brother, as well as his estranged daughter Chloe and his infant grandson. But of course it all goes pear-shaped in a hurry, and Eddie has to sort things out the only way he knows how. This is a film which is lifted by a decent bit of acting from the main cast, but is let down by a very weak script and little in the way of drama. We all know exactly where the film will end up, and it's not much fun getting there. It's worth a watch, but it's not going to make you want to watch it again in a hurry!
Tarantino's love-letter to the end of the Hollywood Golden Age is a sumptuous feast for the eyes and ears, with a fantastic ensemble cast all working together to create the illusion of 1969.
As a piece of 'film-making' this is amazing cinema. As a movie, it's pretty crap if I'm being honest.
Beyond the way it looks and sounds, the great acting across the board and the attention to detail.. The film is missing a story, and a coherent plot.
At 160 minutes, the film is at least 40 minutes too long. There are innumerate stretched scenes, extended tracking shots, pointless dialogue and flashbacks that serve no purpose.
Even the finale where QT finally throws in some violence and blood seems forced, and because the rest of the film is very tame in that respect it doesn't fit the established ideas. Overall it's a film I think everyone should watch once, but I suspect that they (and I) wouldn't be watching the film again for a very long time.
Once again we're treated to a rose-tinted view of events of the recent past, dramatised and watered-down a point where the film is trying to tell a story, but that story exists in a fantasy environment. I'm all for family-orientated movies, but it's hard to watch a film about what is in effect corporate America in the early-mid '60s, and not have an aura of casual racism, sexism, ubiquitous alcohol consumption and pretty much everyone chainsmoking. It just takes the viewer out of any 'moment' in the movie because it's just so sterile and fake. So, it's another potentially great film ruined by the curse of the 'PG-13'/'12A' rating that prevents realism from being shown.
Very entertaining movie which, as I'm an Englishman, I was able to probably laugh even louder at the obvious pseudo-political rhetoric.
As a story, it's exceptionally implausible... To the point where the 'based on a true events' cliché is only there to imply how utterly stupid the local 'Chapter' of the KKK were when director Spike Lee turns up the social satire to 11.
Plot holes abound, character choices make no sense, and the narrative climax is very forced. We're then offered up several minutes of recent news footage which is there to show President Trump as a Right Wing, evil dictator who is incapable of admonishing the actions of modern Far-Right, God-bothering, White supremacists. Overall it's an easy enough film to kick back and watch. But it's trying to hard to emulate styles and ideas other films/directors have done a lot better.
It's hard to review this movie.... On one hand it's a well crafted, well directed, well scored, well acted movie with great cinematography and a fairly compelling narrative....
On the other hand it's a very well documented moment in time in which is recreated in an incredibly watered down, rose-tinted glasses kind of way, almost to the point of it being more of a 'how it should have been', rather than recreating the real-life tale it is apparently based on. Why is this....? Because the film has been made to receive the 'family-friendly' PG-13/12A rating, and this destroys the film as any kind of accurate representation of what really happened during this extended road trip through the Deep South. It's impossible to relate the power of the story, the characters and their development, the abuse and racial hatred, outright bigotry, and social injustices..
Nor is it possible to show everyone smoking, the casual sexism, any enjoyment of alcohol... And Heaven forfend any adults in film use strong profanity or derogatory racial slang!! It's meaningless to offer movie-goers something so diluted and bland.. And it's no wonder we've created a generation that IS offended at the very idea of what society was like, to the point that the vast majority of people who have (and will) see(n) this film will believe that it is an accurate representation of the time/places it is set.
Queen... One of the most iconic bands of the 70s. Fronted by a man of immense charisma, whose voice strikingly unique, and whose intense personal issues can be heard in many of the band's signature tunes.
A biopic of Queen would be impossible, the four band members all have their own story to tell, so it makes sense the filmmakers would concentrate the narrative around Freddie Mercury and take the audience on a tour through 15 years of his (and to a lesser degree the band's) life.
However, there are some fundamental issues with the movie.
First off is the filmmaker's decision for BR to be a 'family' film, in terms of the rating it was given (PG-13 in the States, 12A over here in the UK). Whilst I'm sure this will undoubtedly increase the profit-making potential of the film, it severely restricts what can (and can't) be shown.
Queen, as a band, were one of the most debauched in rock history. Their partying, drinking, drug taking, sexual exploits were all legendary. This was especially true of Mercury who, whilst not openly admitting to being gay, was well known for his sexual attraction/preference for men.
So, you get none of that, beyond what is subtly alluded to.
There's no swearing, because we all know how rock stars hated profanity!
No one smokes... Which makes the whole film particularly hard to take seriously! Second is the unbelievable amount of 'artistic licence' used in the film. Made up characters, made up events, mistakes in the chronology... The list is extensive!
Some would argue that you can't fit 15 years of history into a 135 minutes long film, and that is perfectly true. So you prioritise the events, show the audience the important things that they can take away and understand, and discuss.
There's no need to dwell on the mundanities of Freddie's interpersonal relationships, just as more time should have been given to the creation of the Band's music.
Nor is there any point in adding fictitious tensions that only serve to give the movie's finale a completely different context. From an acting point of view Rami Malek is decent enough as Freddie. But whilst his scenes as Freddie the 'person' are good... His scenes as Freddie the 'persona' (on-stage etc) are not good.
The problem is that Malek is recreating footage which is already out there, and lip-syncing to Mercury's recorded vocals. I can understand why they had to do that, as Malek can't sing like Freddie did... However, there are singers out there who can impersonate his singing voice and style. I'd have been more convinced if they'd tried to put some performances together from shows which weren't filmed at the time, and maybe ad-libbed things to make it less homogenised.
The rest of the band is actually better, in terms of the acting performances. But they all clearly know the boundaries.
The soundtrack is one of the film's weakest areas. For a film set in one of the best periods for music, the music in the film is far too 'background' outside the Queen performances.
One thing that is brilliant though is the use of CGI and how it blends so seamlessly. Extended tracking shots, crowd scenes etc.. You know it can't be real, but it is excellently done. So, I've given the film a 5. It IS entertaining, and what you'd expect from a Biopic that has 2 bandmembers as producers/consultants. It either glosses over, or completely omits, the more dubious events that band went through. There is also a sense of glorifying Freddie, even though in real life he wasn't a particularly nice person... Which again, exalts the 'legend' despite the film being marketed as a way to understand Who Freddie Mercury was.
I guess we should all take in a deep breath, lean back on our chairs, and finally realise that this movie destroyed the Star Wars franchise as we knew it.
To say it's a bad movie in of itself, isn't enough. But even people coming into this 'new' Trilogy with only a passing knowledge of what came before must have left the cinema (or ejected their Blu-Ray) had to realise that everything this movie 'is' dismisses almost everything established in the prior 7 films.
To the point that I (personally) have no desire to find out what happens in the next (and final) instalment of this 3 movie 'saga'. First off, the original (and prequel) trilogy had defined gaps between them in terms of time within the narrative.
We came into each of their 2 sequels knowing the characters had developed and matured in various ways which would be explored and used to propel the narrative going forward. It's how you retain an investment, when you're waiting 3 years between the films (2 years in the case of the 'new' trilogy), that their is a character arc that extends through the timeframe and allows the audience to go through that journey too. However, TLJ (The Last Jedi) simply continues straight after TFA and so their isn't any unwritten (but inherently understood) character development at all. And it's that fundamental issue that permeates the entire movie. Then we come to insane plot devices, insane choices made by characters, and insane levels of unexplained major plot points... Plot points that either completely contradict ideas established in TFA (and to a lesser extent the earlier trilogies), or contradict ideas I/you/we as the audience have logically concluded. I could sit here and just define 20 things that pop into my head that either ruin the franchise, ruin the ideas establised in TFA, or ruin any hope that the final film will tie it all up and explain why things happened as they did. Makes you wonder if Carrie Fisher died of a broken heart after realising the number of nails her performance hammered into the coffin that the Star Wars franchise now lies within...
After the excellent introduction of both the 'new' Spider-Man and Black Panther in Captain America: Civil War, the subsequent solo movies were inevitable.
Whilst Spider-Man: Homecoming was a decent enough film, the one I was looking forward to was Black Panther.... And I was bitterly disappointed. The whole film seems like a rush job, as if it was made with a second draft of a rough script. The characterisations are bland and two-dimensional, with little or no effort put into creating empathy or depth. The dialogue is laughably bad, and the accents just make all the 'African' characters come across like those **** in war films who all speak English but with a Germanic twang.
The film does make reference to different countries having different languages, but why is the secret nation of Wakanda full of people who speak English?? The film makes a point about it being isolated etc, so it makes no sense. But back to the script... The storyline is simply stupid. Nothing makes sense, and to be honest I felt more understanding for the film's main villain and his point of view than I did for those of the Hero..
And yes, we come to the worst aspect of the film, the villain and the whole 'hidden past' narrative element of the story.
The villain is introduced at the beginning, but then just vanishes from the movie for over an hour, while we deal with the right of succession of Black Panther to the throne, and the machinations of a South African arms dealer (with only 1 arm... Geddit!!). By the time the main villain comes back, it's just a tired cliche of the forgotten member of the royal family etc, etc, etc.. Ritual combat, in which the new king is simply thrashed in about 2 minutes (despite, apparently, training his whole life to be some amazing warrior)... It's nonsensical. In fact, it's borderline patronising. Like the film-makers just said something like 'oh it's ok, it's simply another braindead Super Hero movie... Just throw in some more CGI and it'll be ok..'
But, unfortunately, someone said this was a film that breaks new ground in the genre. Black main character (completely forgetting Marvel's earlier trilogy of Blade films) and conscientous arguments about conservation, spiritualism, religious allegories....
No, no, and thrice no... We get some vacuous nods towards how humanity only exists to inevitably destroy itself, wrapped up in a heavy handed morality tale that has been told a million times better in a hundred other movies. It's not like the action scenes are good either. The big spectacle set pieces are CGI snooze-fests, and the one on one fight scenes are badly choreographed and most are filmed in near darkness. I can't recommend this movie. However, so many people will pay to see it, it doesn't actually matter. The Billion Dollar MCU will keep on rolling and, as we've seen, for every Iron Man, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Thor: Ragnarok and Ant-Man... We'll get crap like this and pretty much all the other movies in the franchise...
Above average 'action' film is let down by major plot-holes and less than engaging narrative.
However it is blessed with excellent casting choices and acting, and doesn't feel like one action set piece being linked together jut for the sake of it.
Are we tired of superhero movies yet? The box office returns would say no, but the ever-increasingly lacklustre reviews of each subsequent Marvel or DC movie releases would suggest otherwise. The problem is trying to capture the spirit of the comics, translating that onto the screen, whilst also creating an interesting storyline and investing characters.
Clearly it's not easy, but S:H comes closer to this 'perfect formula' than most. Not to say it's a fundamentally flawed movie, because it is, but it's a fun journey from beginning to end and Tom Holland as 'Spidey' is by far the best on screen version we've had. The story eschews the whole 'origin' element, and follows on from Spidey's appearance in Civil War. We're back to the idea of a character balancing his life as the dull, studious, intelligent, geeky and awkward 'Peter Parker', and his ever-increasing desire to use his prodigious abilities to help others and fight crime. The fundamental flaw mentioned earlier stems from the notion that this would actually be possible in the modern age, something that the film makes some subtle nods toward from time to time, but also something that you really can't gloss over.
Add to this the now completely overused superhero movie tropes (the main villain being directly related to a character Peter Parker is embroiled with, amongst others) and the narrative falls apart at the end. But, if you walk into the movie with that level of expectation, you WILL be surprised. The film does come together extremely well, it doesn't feel like it's about half an hour too long (even if some scenes do drag on a fair while), and the big action set pieces are great spectacles.
Throw in some fine acting (Michael Keaton nails his role, and is more menacing when he's not 'The Vulture' than when he's CGI'd up), decent soundtrack, a nice little set of cameo appearances from other Marvel characters, and you get something which is better than I thought it would be. However, the Superhero genre is now getting into severe overkill levels of releases, and because of that there is a sense of 'Christ, not another one'. For me, that notion of this (or any superhero) movie just being a small part of a larger 'extended universe' diminishes it somewhat.
Bruce Lee is one of the most written about film stars of all time. His actual filmography includes only four completed pictures, but his influence on the Industry was beyond immense.
As such the life of this myopic Chinaman has been documented from his birth in California in 1940, to his untimely death aged 33 just a few short weeks before the film that would etch him into cinema folklore, Enter The Dragon, was released. Now, I'm not the most cynical of people, but this film (Birth of the Dragon) is exploitative in the most heinous of ways. The film opens with some text explaining that Bruce fought against a "Shaolin Master" named Wong Jack Man. In actuality, the two men engaged in a very short bout, Wong wasn't a Shaolin Master, and the fight wasn't really anything but a test of comparitive styles. So, what we have is a fictitious story, inspired by a fictitious event, populated by fictitious characters, in a fictitious, seemingly parallel, timeline. Birth of the Dragon, as a work of fiction, could have been good.. But it isn't. There clearly wouldn't be enough of a narrative if the film was solely about the build up, and aftermath, of the inevitable 'big' fight. So, rather than delve into anything related to the two 'fighters'.. Their motivations, their lives, their actual ideologies.. We instead get some meaningless interactions between the two and a completely made up Caucasian character (Steve) who serves as the go-between, as well devoting a lot of run-time to his infatuation with a Chinese serving girl at the de rigeur lady gangster's restaurant. Ultimately the big fight falls into the now usual trope of the older (wiser) combatant purposely pulling punches in order for the other younger (naive) fighter to understand the Sesame Street level philosophical stance he's been attempting to preach.
The martial arts action is par for the course, decent enough choreography and long takes to show the actors have had to spend a bit of time rehearsing the scenes. What is annoying about the fight scenes is that, as usual, the 'styles' on show by each character aren't anything like what they are supposedly masters of. Lee doesn't apply much Wing Chun, and relies quite a lot on high kicks which the style doesn't really use. And Man, who is meant to be using Tai-Chi and North Shaolin kicks, instead applies more reverse holds and sweeps... So, in conclusion... Film is bad. Action is average. Storyline is completely made up. Acting is wooden.
Shane Black directs what is, in effect, a rephrasing of his earlier film 'Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang'
Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling star as two mis-matched guys with a de rigeur 'dark past' who become embroiled in a search for the daughter of the head of the Department of Justice, and her involvement in a porn film which has caused everyone else involved in it to wind up dead. Set in the hedonistic days of 1977, in an eternally Sunny Los Angeles, the film moves along at a reasonable pace, and the set pieces all work well in giving the audience enough information to understand, but not feeling the need to force huge amounts of exposition so as to spell it all out. Crowe and Gosling have undeniable chemistry, the script is tight, and the young Angourie Rice steals every scene she's in as Gosling's 13 year old daughter.
Throw in a fantastic pseudo 70's musical score, and enough disco/funk hits to create a very listenable to on its own soundtrack, and you've got an excellent adult-themed, buddy comedy movie. So, what's not so good? Well, the movie does dispense with a lot of the 'nastier' elements of the world of Los Angeles at that time. With scenes at what are effectively sex parties, there's some nudity, but no actual sex going on, nor are there any piles of cocaine being snorted! Add to that a very sterile environment (something that bugs me in pretty much any film set in the past), where every car is pristine and beautifully clean and waxed, everyone is coiffured and immaculately turned out. So, worth watching? Definitely! Just take it as what it is, a fun, profane movie with a twist here and there and a hint that there might be a sequel just before the end credits roll.
Jason Bourne is the fourth outing of Robert Ludlum's amnesiac ex-assassin and it's by far the weakest in the (now) ongoing franchise.
Matt Damon reprises his role, but is in effect playing a completely different character. Everything we've come to discover about him in the original 'trilogy' is jettisoned in favour of some completely unattached tale involving a whole new group of CIA spooks out to stop him.
It's very 'by the book' writing, and suffers immensely by not having any defined references back to the man we know.
OK the character of Nicky Parsons returns, but her role is solely to offer up this new character angle (and subsequent memories that weren't mentioned or referenced previously) regarding Bourne's father and his involvement in the original Treadstone Program that created the assassin Bourne would become.
There's oblique references to Bourne's (aka David Webb's) rationale for joining up due to his father's death and him wanting to be a patriot... But it's merely offered up as filler inbetween the two narratives that flow as the film bumbles along.
It wouldn't be so bad if the acting/direction were good, but they're not. We're in shaky-cam nirvana, not a single shot in the movie seems to be captured using a fixed camera. As for the acting, Damon's on auto-pilot, as are Tommy Lee Jones and recent Oscar winner Alicia Vikander (a bad piece of casting, as she's FAR too attractive to be an ambitious, young CIA uber-tech nerd!!), it seems to be nothing more than a guaranteed paycheque and I suspect in Damon's case... As he's also a producer... He's picking up a substantial financial reward for that too!!
Throw in some terrible CGI effects on the long distance shots (nothing in the background looks real in those cityscapes) and a woeful score.... And you're left with merely another generic action/spy/cyber thriller.
One to watch if it pops up on Netflix and you've run out of episodes of Westworld.
Key & Peele's first, and seemingly only (as a comedy double act) foray onto the big screen is exactly what I was expecting it to be.... Their skits can vary wildly in quality (and laughs), but when they do get it right it's comedy assured of future classic status. Will Keanu be considered a classic comedy in years to come? No, it won't.
What it is is a comedy skit idea that has been stretched out to just about fill 90 minutes (plus credits etc), and as such has massive gaps between the real laugh out loud moments.
The film's narrative doesn't make a huge amount of sense and while the acting is (on the whole) very good, it's very clear who the 'stars' of the movie are, and who are there to provide the background as and when the story needs to move forward.
The idea would have worked better if it was made as an hour long (including adverts) Key & Peele comedy special on the Comedy Central network.
It's something to watch, if it pops up on television in a couple of years.... But not something to track down and pay to watch!
Interesting film, but incredibly reliant on its source material (a stage play) which does lessen the 'closeness' that a live audience would have. There's good and bad in that. The good points are the core performances of the three leads, all share screen time and all commit to their characters. The narrative is strong, with discussions of religion, life, death, overcoming adversity, and accepting failures. It works well. The bad points are that the structure doesn't suit a film. As a single set stage-play I would imagine it would be far more electrifying, but over 90 minutes there are long scenes that do lag. Also there was (for me anyway) a muddled subtext. It's clear that the three characters are all meant to have their own sensibilities and we get to understand them, but the pay off at the end is somewhat anticlimactic. As such the movie fails to 'work', even if it's worth watching.
Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne return as the loved up couple who endured their version of Hell on Earth when, during the first film, a fraternity in the house next door to theirs went to war with them over the various shenanigans that happen in a frat-house. This sequel is much the same (but hey, if it ain't broken.... Don't fix it!), but this time it's a sorority who've moved into the vacant property. Lead by the gorgeous Chloe Moretz, these girls want to party as hard as the boys, but without having to 'put out' in order to get into the frat-house parties. With their own home in 'escrow' for 30 days, Rogan and Byrne (along with their two friends) must try to keep the new buyers from finding out they will be living next to a party house! Zac Efron returns, initially working with the girls to get their house in order (so they can pay the rent... Although nothing is mentioned about other financial outgoings, and none of the girls seem to do any studying!!), but eventually switches sides due to the girls kicking him out when he's outlived his usefulness.... Cue some familiar gags recycled from the first movie, as well as some decent enough new ones. It's a decent enough sequel to a better than average original, but it lacks that 'punch' the first film had. This is mainly down to avoiding the sexuality of the girls. In the original film, the overt masculinity of the frat-boys was really pushed into your face, but in the sequel the director/writers have gone to great lengths to not make the girls into physical objects. So copious drug taking, cool... Using spent tampons as a (rather disgusting) weapon against their neighbours, yes they do that..... And we have to accept that Chloe Moretz's character was a high school loser!! This isn't a film I would recommend people actively seek out, it's one to find on Netflix etc on the run up to Christmas.
In 1988 the idea of multi Academy Award winning actor Robert De Niro starring in an R-rated comedy must have seemed like a step too far outside even his comfort zone. But, ol' Bobby pulls it off and not only creates one of his most memorable characters, he also is incredibly funny! De Niro plays Jack Walsh, an ex-New York undercover narcotics officer who now works as a Bounty Hunter. His boss, Eddie Moscone (Joe Pantoliano) offers him $100,000 to bring in Jonathan "The Duke" Mardukas (Charles Grodin) an accountant for the Mob who embezzled several million and was picked up on a minor charge and subsequently bailed. Walsh agrees and quickly tracks The Duke down to L.A. Walsh hopes he can just board a plane with him and head back, but The Duke has other ideas! Things are (hilariously) complicated by the fact that both the Mob and the FBI also want The Duke, plus Moscone sending out another (rather inept) bounty hunter to get The Duke when Walsh's initial plans fail. What follows is essentially a comedic road trip with car chases, gunfights, helicopters etc, all interspersed with masses of profanity and real belly laughs. Every character (and thus actor) works hard for those laughs, and whilst not every joke 'hits', the hit/miss ratio is still incredibly high. As the cross-country escapade keeps on escalating, Walsh and The Duke develop a deep understanding and friendship, and leads to a schmaltzy ending that is definitely earnt. The film is only let down by some unnecessary over-sentimentality, but it's more of a **** than a real 'this is an aspect of the film I can't deal with'.
Terrible film.... Baron Cohen offers up nothing original and just uses the (lame) narrative to throw in as many jokes about sex, or offer up never ending amounts of extremely offensive stereotyping... If you like the idea of 2 men hiding inside an elephant's **** to evade the bad guys but, before they can get/climb out, they find themselves trying to avoid an elephant's ****..... Before getting covered in a gallon of elephant ejaculate.... Yes, it's that level of humour folks, and you'll probably be laughing all the way through the entire movie. Myself.... I don't find that amusing, nor am I offended by the other 'edgy' jokes which intersperse the film... However, I dislike cheap-shots masquerading as humour, especially when you have seen what Baron Cohen has been able to do in his earlier films.
Excellent post Cold War undersea thriller starring Gene Hackman as Captain Ramsay, the grizzled, old school Captain of the nuclear submarine USS Alabama, and Denzel Washington as his newly promoted First Officer, Lieutenant Commander Hunter. When a situation develops that forces Hunter into committing mutiny, in order to prevent a launch of nuclear missiles, it ultimately boils down to a battle of wills between the two men. Each convinced they are right, and each dedicated to their course of action. Tony Scott directs, and conjurs up a tight and well crafted on screen depiction of life on a submarine. Going from the initial mundanities of everyday life, to ramping up the tensions as the crew deal with the distinct possibility their sub might become a very large metal coffin. The acting throughout is excellent, with (pre-Lord of the Rings) Viggo Mortenson a stand out, as the weapons officer (and old friend of Hunter) who gets caught in the middle. There are some (big) problems with the film though. The first is that it does take extreme liberties its narrative. The film was criticised on release by anyone and everyone connected with the US Navy, who stated that the principle notion of the movie (a mutiny) would never happen in real life. Other criticisms were thrown around about the (late in the day) script re-writes by Quentin Tarantino. It's so obvious where his 'lines' are in the script, and when they are being spoken it's utterly out of place. The ending was also commented on, and it's no surprise this film was parodied in an episode of The Simpsons, the ending coming in for a very wry level of sarcasm due to it essentially being a cop-out. People wanting an actual epilogue that puts things into context won't be getting one. Overall though this is an exciting action-thriller. Put your thinking cap in your pocket, fire up the DVD/Blu-Ray, ramp up the bass on your sound system/TV, dim the lights..... And go along for the ride!
There are certain movies made that capture their 'moment in time', and House Party is most definitely one of them.
1990 saw the explosion of rap/hip hop, as it moved out of the shadows and into the real mainstream.
Within this were two very different stylistic approaches.
For the 'dark side', there were the 'Gangsta' rap groups and artists, labelling themselves and pimps, gunrunners and murderers, extolling the virtues of money, sex and power.... The whole essence of 'Juice'.
For the 'light side' there were the more radio-friendly acts who were (generally) younger, spitting lyrics about high school, dating, borrowing their dad's 'ride', and the more down to Earth realities that appealed across various demographics. One such 'light side' act was Kid 'N Play (Christopher 'Play' Martin, and Christopher 'Kid' Reid).
As with any act that developed into one which obtained a 'proper' record contract, they were marketed as somewhat 'unreal' characters, within a defined 'real' world. Kid was the more naive, childish and imaginative one, Play was the more direct, aggressive, but still approachable one.... Their popularity through the period of 1988/1989 convinced New Line Cinema to invest in a low budget movie in which their 'characters' are involved in the titular House Party. The story is simple enough..... Play's parents are away for the weekend, so he decides to have a party at his house. Kid, having got into an altercation at school is grounded by his 'Pops', played brilliantly by the late, great Robin Harris, and therefore has to sneak out to attend.
The DJ of the party is 'Dragon Breath' Bilal (so called because his breath reeks... A long running joke in the film) who reluctantly brings along his decks, vinyl and microphones.
The female interests of the film are the gorgeous Sharane (A.J. Johnson), who lives with her huge family in the projects... And the more demure, philosophical Sydney (Tisha Campbell), who's a rich kid that feels out of place.
Rounding off the main cast are the film's antagonists... 'light side' rap group Full Force members "Paul Anthony" George as 'Stab'.... Lucien "Bowlegged Lou" George, Jr as Pee Wee.... And Brian 'B-Fine" George as Zilla... A gang of three misfits, whose leader (Stab) has a personal hatred of Kid. All the principles join the party, Kid and Play both make a bee-line for the more attractive (and slutty) Sharane, much to the disappointment of Sydney who has a crush on Kid. Stab, Zilla and Pee Wee attempt to gate crash, but are foiled. The neighbours call the police, over the noise. And one of the party-goers gets hideously drunk and needs to be escorted home.
All the while 'Pops' is walking over... Dealing with bigoted police along the way (in his own inimitable style). Things come to head when Kid (after dropping off the drunk guy) is separated from the group, and has a run in with Stab, Pee Wee and Zilla. All four are arrested and, after 'Pops' realises he won't catch Kid at the party and decides to wait for him to come home, the 'gang' have to bail Kid out of Jail. In the end, after Kid connects with Sydney, and Play gets (amusingly) rebuffed by Sharane, Bilal drops Kid off at home and demands that Play pays for a meal at a Sizzler (or similar!!). Bilal and Play drive off, leaving Kid to climb in through his bedroom window........ Only to find his 'Pops' there waiting for him, grasping a leather belt.... 'Pops' announces that Kid shouldn't get too comfortable, because he's in a lot of trouble!!! The film is directed by Reginald D. Hudlin, and features some utterly brilliant music of the time. Performances are great, all across the book, and the pace of the film is also incredibly tight. There aren't any lulls in the 102 minute run-time. The only real negatives, in a retrospective way, are the clear avoidances of anything related to 'gangs' and 'drugs'. All the 'youths' in the film are beautiful and clean-cut, no one looks poor or unhappy!
So, from a looking back ideal, you could argue the movie is not representative of the actual times in which it was filmed.... But to do so does miss the whole point. House Party is a feel-good movie of the highest order. Brilliant soundtrack coupled with fine acting and direction.
I would heartily recommend it, and advise anyone to watch the end credits to get the names of the songs/artists on the soundtrack!
Drunken Master II (I am reviewing the original HK release, and not the awful, dubbed, edited, re-scored US release) rounded off the early 90's 'classic kung fu' boom with some considerable style. Jackie returns as Wong Fei Hung, reprising the role from the original movie (released in 1978) that made him the biggest star in Asia. Sitting in the director's chair is kung fu movie legend Lau Kar Leung. Lau is a kung fu master whose skills can be traced back to Wong Fei Hung (Lau's father was a student of Wong Fei Hung's most famous student, Lam Sai Wing) and having him take up the reins behind the camera was something of a coup for Jackie at the time the film was being made. Lau's presence can be felt in all aspects of the movie. Although it is a 'Jackie' picture, Lau (as director, choreographer, and co-star) gives the production a sense of authenticity. Jackie was interviewed at the time and was exasperated by the fact the other big Wong Fei Hung Movie(s) at the time (the Once Upon A Time In China series) used wires and other 'effects' to accentuate the action on screen. Lau, Jackie, and Jackie's stunt crew, all combine to take the kung fu fighting right back to the old school. Long takes, wide angles interspersed with close ups and, because Lau is the choreographer, the movements used by those fighting are authentic to the 'style' that Wong himself used in real life. Unfortunately though this level of authenticity was pushed out of the window when, after Lau's character is killed, Jackie effectively took over production of the movie and choreographed the final fight scenes of the film himself. As such there is a massive step-change in the way the final 'battle' is not only choreographed, but also in how it's shot and lit. Jackie fights his (real life) on/off bodyguard Ken Lo in the final reel, but it's so rapid-fire and uses dozens of short 'pieces' cut together, that there's no sense of the two fighters on-screen are actually engaged in martial combat. It's much more like an intricate dance, that level of strength and power being put into each kick, punch and block are just not there. However, despite the final 20 minutes coming over like a completely different movie in tone and direction, it's still a truly remarkable 'old school' kung fu actioner. The cast is all good, Lau's direction is just spectacular, and the film has a polish to it that you only get from the budget a Jackie picture would be given. Downsides (apart from that disappointing final reel) are too many comedy elements (a necessary(?) carry over from the tone of the original 1978 film) and a few unnecessary exposition scenes and pointless cameos.
The Godfather part II is hailed as the greatest sequel of all time..... But it isn't. It is a remarkable movie, but has some big problems... Problems which you can't simply overlook, and which manifest themselves more and more with repeated viewings. The film struggles to maintain the narrative and characters as defined in the first film. It's understandable that Michael has become embittered and has difficulty balancing the life as the 'Don', and that of a loving husband and father. But that element only exists because the movie insists on keeping Kay away from the actual truth about who Michael really is. When, towards the end of the movie, she discovers his duplicity and hard-edge, she is actually shocked..... Even though throughout the movie she clearly doesn't believe Michael's assurances about what he does for a 'living'. It's not enough to wonder where their family's wealth comes from, and it just makes no sense. The other major problem is from a Direction point of view. De Palma won an Oscar for this movie (he didn't win for The Godfather, which is a far, far better film!) but the narrative structure is pretty awful. Jumping between Vito (in 1920's New York) to Michael (in the late 50's/early 60's) isn't handled well. The popping back and forth, and the parallels in the two storylines is well crafted, but there are massive pockets in the movie where the pace just falls off. There is a need in the 'Vito' era to introduce the characters who appeared in The Godfather, just as there is a need in the 'Michael' era to tie it into contemporary 'big' events..... (in this case the build up to, and subsequent take-over, of Cuba by the Communist rebels). The bottom line is that the film falls well short of the brilliance of the original. Even so it's still a masterpiece compared to the truly awful Part III!!! You don't need to see part II, if you've seen part I.... In fact I'd recommend reading the book, it's far more compelling!
John Carpenter's modern masterpiece is an action/horror/comedy film wrapped up inside a narrative of Capitalism, greed, destruction, friendship and the struggle of the have-nots in a world of rampant consumerism and overt aspirational advertising. Oh,and there are aliens..... Never a bad thing in a big(gish) budget B-Movie, in fact in a lot of ways it's more of a B-Movie parody! It's not a perfect film by any means. Carpenter's direction can get very distracting, the soundtrack is a 'love it or hate it' mash up of electronica and thumping basslines, the acting varies wildly in quality, and the pacing lurches from slow, to fast, then back to slow. However, for all its flaws, it IS a fantastic movie. Criminally slated back in 1988, it's now a definitive 80's cult classic, watched as a rite of passage by teenagers everywhere! If you're someone who missed it as a teenager, then find a copy and settle in for some serious fun and action.
If all a film needed was a good idea, then The Adjustment Bureau (TAB) would get 10/10...... Unfortunately, a good idea is somewhat meaningless if the narrative that (eventually) explains it is unbelievably forced, and the resolution is so utterly empty that you have more questions than answers. So, TAB has a great premise, but doesn't really run with it (no pun intended, as the film devotes considerable run-time to people running), it's merely hyperbole which on one hand you can understand.... But on the other hand comes across as trying to be (far) too clever for its own good. It's not a bad film, by any means. Matt Damon is dependable as always, Emily Blunt smoulders as her ample cleavage demands all your focus, Anthony Mackie provides the 'get out of jail free' card that the ending so heavily depends upon, and British stalwart Terence Stamp steals every scene he's in. The direction is pretty much by the numbers, in terms of how the script requires things to appear on screen, but it could have been so much more adventurous in how it visualised the location hopping antics that drive the finale. Musically, the score is unmemorable. I've just finished watching the film, and can't remember any of the music that was in it! Overall...... If you've not seen it, definitely check it out. It's worth a watch, and it's entertaining enough. It just doesn't scale the heights that it could (and probably should) have reached. Which is a shame.
Limitless is a film with a brilliant premise, with Bradley Cooper as Eddie Morrow, an intelligent but burnt out writer whose life is kind of running away from him. Tied to a deadline to produce the first chapters of a new book (after receiving an advance payment he's effectively wasted), dumped by his woman Lindy (Abbie Cornish), chased up for rent by his Chinese landlady and effectively getting to his wits end. Salvation comes in the unlikely form of his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth), a low-life drug dealer who he bumps into whilst on a walk around his neighbourhood. Seemingly well to do with flash clothes and a nice apartment, he gives Eddie a clear looking pill explaining it's an experimental drug which enhances recall. Eddie, unsure but also running out of options, heads home and takes the pill on the way. He suddenly finds himself able to access every memory in his mind, literally everything that he's ever seen, heard or been exposed to. But not only that, these memories are coherent and accessible with the necessary context, effectively making him super-intelligent. With this massive increase in intellect comes a massive increase in confidence, focus and ability to learn. He gets back to his apartment building and, using his new abilities, immediately beds the landlady's daughter after briefly spotting an obscure book in her bag that he remembered from his own days in college. He also recalls the background conversations between said book's owner and uses this knowledge (and his increased confidence) to dazzle the woman. He then immediately tidies his apartment, cleans all his clothes, and knocks out the chapters of his book in a few hours. However, things get complicated when the pill wears off. Eddie goes to see Vernon, but Vernon is shot by those he had stolen the pills from. Eddie locates the pills and begins to take one a day, using them to turn his life around. In order to secure funds he borrows a substantial amount from an Eastern European loan shark, and invests in the stock exchange, becoming the darling of the financial world. He reconnects with Lindy who is shocked by the transformation and worried about the pills. And he eventually comes into contact with Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), a billionaire tycoon who has motives of his own. Will Eddie come out on top? Watch the film and find out. But is the film any good? Well, yes and no. The first 45 minutes is brilliant, setting up the story and displaying the 'power' of the pills, their effect on Eddie, and the transformation of his life. The rest of the movie is like a different film, with the introduction of De Niro's character, and the shift from sci-fi/fantasy and action, into a more dramatic and slower paced, almost 'cat and mouse' thriller. To me it suffered massively because of that, and it's clear that the film is based on a novel. I can imagine the book having a lot more depth and exposition in regard to the set up, as well as a more cogent rationale for characters' actions leading to the ending. It's no surprise that the television show bases its own narrative more around the action and sci-fi/fantasy elements of the first act of the movie. Overall the film is very good, but the complete tonal shift does mean the pace becomes almost a crawl (save for a couple of action set-pieces) after that initial 45 minutes. If it pops up on television, give it a whirl. But it's not a film I'd recommend anyone actively seek out.
DC, as a company looking to emulate Marvel and create a Billion dollar generating movie franchise have been on the back foot ever since their 'original' Superman movie (Superman Returns (2006)) tanked at the box office and was (and will always be) considered a waste of a film Following this they tried to kick start a "DC Universe" (DCU) with The Green Lantern (2011), another comic book hero who has (in my opinion) an even greater, and possibly even limitless, amount of scope for creating a film (and franchise/universe) around. But again, TGL was utterly awful and DC had to go back to square one. So, they 'rebooted' Superman again with Man Of Steel (2013), which whilst not setting the world alight with what was created, was sufficiently well received to become a not particularly stable foundation. With the Nolan 'Batman' trilogy at an end, and with Batman being an integral part of the DCU, it was natural that the next film in the franchise should feature him, with Henry Cavill's existing Superman. Sounds ok, in theory. But in practice?? O...M...G...! Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is everything everyone was hoping it wasn't. As other people have pointed out it's essentially five separate narratives existing at the same time, and none are fleshed out enough to make the viewer the least bit emotionally and intellectually invested. If you've seen the second trailer for BvS, then you've seen essentially all the major plot elements (bar one, which I won't 'spoil'), and if you've not and are going into the movie blind.... Well, set your expectations down several notches. So, what's good? The performances of the main stars are all good enough. No one really stands out, Cavill is brooding and handsome as Superman, Affleck as Batman spends most of the film looking a little perplexed, and Adams as Lois Lane mainly turns up for expositional purposes or to be the de facto 'damsel in distress'. The opening narrative is actually quite compelling, as it deals with the aftermath of Man of Steel and the public's (and Batman's/Bruce Wayne's) reaction to having this super powered individual in their midst. The interplay between the two 'heroes', in their everyday alter ego's sets up the following conflict really well. But, after that (and the introduction of Lex Luthor, played in a very over the top, twitchy, almost OCD way by Jesse Eisenberg) the film just nosedives. The action is well staged, especially during the BvS confrontation but, again, the subsequent action scenes aren't anywhere near as good, lacking coherence and (like in virtually every other superhero movie) lacking stakes. Zack Snyder's direction is all over the place. He's known (and respected) for his action sequences which, as mentioned, are all over the place themselves.... But he's less well known for his ability to structure a narrative, develop a film's pace, and wring performances out of 'Hollywood Stars'. BvS is very clear evidence of all this. Beyond certain scenes of real spectacle, everything else is just done averagely... And it's a real shame, because the introduction of Batman and Luthor (and their respective motivations etc) could have carried the entire film itself. Which brings us to what is bad. And by bad I mean things which i can't caveat with positives (like I offered a somewhat negative caveat to almost all the 'good' points!!) The bad comes from my original statement. That DC are desperate to create a franchised universe for their superheroes (and supervillains) to inhabit. Whereas Marvel made several standalone movies that introduced the main protagonists of what would become 'The Avengers', DC have instead chosen to use BvS as a launching pad in one single movie. By this I mean we get the introduction of Wonder Woman (played by the stunning Gal Gadot), who is superfluous to the plot, but is shoe-horned in because she's going to get her own movie. But we also get insane amounts of 'foreshadowing' of other known members of what will become The Justice League, to the point where I actually found myself both cringing and laughing at the same time. There's absolutely no need for it, but DC want/need to create a 'universe' in which these other characters exist, and so throw in innumerate 'nods' throughout the film. So, what's the conclusion? Is BvS a bad movie? Depends on your point of view. If you want a relatively fast-paced, actioney film with a plot that goes from A-B-C without any real surprises to make you spit out your popcorn... Then BvS will suit you to the ground. If you're looking for a film which actively encourages you into the new DCU, and have an interest in any of the actual DC characters.... Then this will (as it did me) disappoint you immensely. It's not a terrible 'film', it's just a terrible 'superhero' film.
The Manchurian Candidate is a weak 'remake' of the classic early 60's Cold War paranoia masterpiece. It in itself isn't a bad film, but it removes so many of the layers of the original it feels more like a TV movie, than a relatively big budget Hollywood produced film. Like the original the narrative is borne out of a conspiracy to place a sleeper agent in the White House, except this time it's not the Communist Chinese government at work, but a large multi-national company seeking to have someone in power who can increase their influence and profit potential. So, the stakes are massively reduced for a start, and that hurts the movie greatly. We sit and watch events unfold, but the reality is that even if the 'bad guys' succeed, it's not going to be pushing the Government towards a pro-Communist stance etc.! The acting in the film is good enough, the main leads are doing their best with a weak script. The action scenes are more interesting, as this movie goes more into detail about the 'brainwashing' than the original, and is quite harrowing. The score is by the numbers stuff, which is about all you can say about the direction too.... It's adequately done, but you can't sit there watching and wonder how much better it could have been, because there's nothing in the film that stands out. Bad points just revolve around the lazy narrative. Updating such a classic to a 'modern' setting wasn't going to be easy, and this film proves that to be the case. However, it's not a lamentable attempt, it's just lazy. It's a film to watch, if you've never seen it. Not a film to actively avoid. However, if you've never seen the original..... Then watch that, instead of this!
Donnie Yen returns as Yip Man, reprising the role for a third time. The film is a step down in quality from the original and its sequel. Although it doesn't feel like a cash in, as there's plenty of decent elements to it, the overall sense is that the story has been put together simply to facilitate a third movie. The film also suffers from not having Sammo Hung acting as the fight choreographer. Yuen Woo Ping is instead tasked with putting together the action scenes and, whilst he's competent enough, the action lacks the ferocity and directness of the first two films. Woo Ping is acclaimed for his stylisations, rather than his realism. Overall the acting is good. Yen is worth watching as always, as is Zhang Jin who plays a rival Wing Chun master who Yen battles in the finale. Amazingly, after being terrible in the first two films, Lynn Hung actually displays some real acting ability. Mainly because her character develops cancer, and she has to express a deep sense of emotive despair. The direction of the film is adequate. I was hoping for some sweeping establishing shots, like those in the Wong Fei Hung film Rise of the Legend (even if those were CGI, they looked impressive!!), but instead everything is tightly filmed, with very few extended shots at all. The fight scenes are well shot though, Woo Ping makes great use of wide angles, overhead cameras, close ups etc. But as mentioned, the choreography just isn't as good as Sammo's, which is a real shame. So, good acting (including former undisputed Heavyweight World Champion "Iron" Mike Tyson, who plays a Triad boss who Yip Man fights in a 3-minute contest), decent direction, decent enough choreography/fight scenes.... Then why only a 5 out of 10..... Simple. The film takes the piss in terms of the known timeline and what we know about Yip Man. Couple of examples (out of many!).... Bruce Lee is in the film (played by Danny Chan), who is attempting to get Man to take him as a disciple. It's well known that Lee was taken on as a lay pupil by Man, and trained part-time through his teenage years, before leaving Hong Kong in 1958 (the film is set in 1959/60). Another glaring mistake (and integral to the plot) is having Man's son (Ip Ching) as an 8 year old. It's well known that Ching was born in the 1936, and that Man had an older son (Ip Chun, born 1924) who isn't in the film at all. That discrepancy really annoyed me, as when the opening credits revealed the year, I was hoping we'd get to see Man (and both his then adult sons) getting into some action! Overall, it's a passable kung fu film. The fight scenes are decent enough, and the completely fictional storyline bowls along nicely. It's just a bit of an insult to the memory of one of Hong Kong's (and China's) folk heroes.
12 Years a Slave is a powerful, emotive, haunting and, ultimately revealing tale about a free black man, who is tricked and then kidnapped, being forced into bondage, and sold into slavery. As the title suggests, this lasts for 12 years, before he's able to get a conscientious white man to pass on a message, which brings one of his former friends and associates to come and rescue him So far, so good. The film pulls no punches in its portrayal of life for a slave on a plantation. Long hours, repetitive work, threat of beatings (and death), not much food, risk of disease etc. As well as highlighting the inherent hypocrisy of the racist, white land/business owners, who seemingly justify their attitudes through judicious twisting of the tenets of the Bible. It's a film you can't ignore, and has created debate around the world. Well written, well directed and brilliantly acted. However, it just falls a little short of being a modern masterpiece and morality tale. The main reason is that you can always sense it's based on a work of non-fiction, and is trying to be true to the author's observations and points of view. As such, the director has to rein in the narrative, and therefore struggles to fill the run-time of the movie. There's not enough actual plot to sustain 132 minutes, and so many scenes just drag on with unnecessarily long tracking shots, or dialogue that adds nothing to either the plot or the characters. Another issue I personally had was that the slaves in the film all spoke with good diction and pronunciation. It bugs me when historical films (especially one such as this which was praised for its' accuracy) don't apply proper accents/vocal inflections, during a time when we actually know how people spoke. The other issue is that the ending is a good ol', US of A, 'feel good' ending. They could have, and should have, concluded the film with a lingering, panning shot of the dozens of other slaves toiling away and who didn't manage to get 'rescued', those who were slaughtered by the thousand after the South surrendered at the end of the Civil War.....
Attack of the Clones (AotC) is the absolute nadir of the franchise. Although The Phantom Menace was bad, it was the start of a new trilogy and as such was primarily setting up characters and the universe. OK, it introduced two of the most hated aspects of the franchise (Jar Jar Binks, and the idea of 'Midichlorians'), but there was enough action and some pretty good set pieces. Throw in John Williams best piece of music since Raiders of the Lost Ark (Duel of the Fates), and there was a real buzz that the second part of the trilogy could exceed expectations, if.... IF... George Lucas took on board what the viewers liked and (more importantly) disliked about TPM. But, George Lucas didn't do that. Instead he came up with one of the most hated films of all time.
Virtually everything about the movie is awful. From the lacklustre, by the numbers, boring direction, to the slow paced, tiresome, almost nonsensical plot. The editing is atrocious, the score is bland, the overuse of CGI/Green screen, the truly inept comedic moments..... And that's not even mentioning the worst part of all.... The casting of Hayden Christensen in the pivotal/vital role of the now teenage Anakin Skywalker. The plot revolves around the fact the Jedi can no longer use the Force to see images of the future. The Dark Side has compromised their abilities, and as such the Jedi are making decisions blindly. As a consequence, despite it making no sense, they charge Anakin with the protection of Senator (formerly Queen) Amidala, and they go for a romantic vacation to Naboo. Meanwhile Obi-Wan is tasked with uncovering a conspiracy surrounding a planet removed from the Jedi archive, due to it being the home of the assassin who is trying to kill the Senator. At the same time the evil Darth Sideous/Chancellor Palpatine is maneouvering the political side of things, stirring up trouble in the senate, whilst promoting the increasingly aggressive acts of violence by a separatist group (under the control of former Jedi Count Dooku, but now Dark Jedi (and Sideous' new apprentice) Darth Tyranus). The three parallel storylines unfold, with Anakin and Padme Amidala falling in love, Obi-Wan discovering a secret clone army, and Count Dooku/Palpatine causing political ructions.
The film builds up to a climax on an industrial planet, where all Hell breaks loose and we get the obligatory big fight scenes and subdued ending. When you write down the basic plot synopsis, it doesn't sound so bad. And I suspect, on paper, George Lucas thought so too.
But, the actual finished product is simply horrific.
As mentioned, the entire plot makes no sense, there are innumerate plotholes, as well as moments where you just say 'well, why didn't he/she/they just do this instead?' as you stare blankly at the screen in disbelief at the stupidity of virtually every character in the film. Anyway, back to Hayden Christensen. He's shown he can act, in other subsequent films. but in AotC he's more wooden than the Black Forest, and appears to have no idea what he's doing.
But then again, it doesn't help that he (and everyone else) is working from one of the most terrible scripts ever written. It's almost as if George Lucas was unable (as both director/writer) to imagine his actors expressing emotion through their acting/vocal range/physical expressions etc. So, he instead chose to actually have the characters simply state their emotional point of view. In most cases it's cringeworthy, in some (Hayden Christensen, I'm talking about you!!) it's unintentionally hilarious. I'm being extremely critical, but that's because there are people out there (read some of the other 'reviews') who think that the original Trilogy is some kind of masterwork.... These people need to take a step back and either admit they were wrong, or offer up some real arguments/points about why they would give this movie anything other than a well-deserved low score!! Are there any good points?? Well, there's far less Jar Jar, and Midichlorians (whilst mentioned) are played down immensely. It's also good to see a large group of Jedi in action, at the peak of their powers... Even if they are just waving waving sticks in a choreographed manner in front **** screen.... It still has some resonance, and is as close as Star Wars ever got to really putting the Jedi (as this mythical group of warriors) on-screen.
But apart from those ****'s pretty much the crap-fest I've explained it to be. Ultimately, I suspect people on this site will have seen the movie, and if someone hasn't, they'll more than likely pull up some official review from YouTube, or look up something on Google...
So, it's just been about me expressing my opinions, in the hope someone has a look.
Simon and Robyn Callum (Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall) relocate to L.A. from Chicago, after Robyn's miscarriage sent her into a state of depression, in an attempt to make a fresh start. Whilst out buying some bits and pieces for their new house Simon is approached by Gordon 'Gordo' Moseley, an old high school acquaintance and although he's reluctant Simon (at the urging of Robyn) agrees to have him over for a meal. After no invite is forthcoming, Gordo just turns up unannounced whilst Simon is at work, bringing with him a gift of a bottle of wine. After having a meal together, Gordo leaves another gift (some fish, and fish food) along with a letter thanking them for their kindness and that he'd enjoy having them come over........ Eventually though, despite Gordo's sincere acts of friendship, Simon convinces Robyn they should cut all ties, citing his 'weirdness' (Simon suggests that Gordo's nickname at high school was 'weirdo') and Simon makes his point whilst visiting Gordo's large house, but before he's had a chance to let Gordo make the meal. Gordo, having left the house for a few minutes to receive a call, isn't happy about it. Simon assures Robyn that Gordo has taken the hint. What follows is a psychological thriller as Gordo tries to get revenge on Simon for acts of the past, especially after his genuine want to be a friend was rebuffed. The Gift is a well shot and well acted film, but it has some very distinct problems. Chief amongst these is a massive lack of plot. The film runs almost 110 minutes, and pads this out with far too many pointless scenes that neither offer insight into the characters, nor move the story along. It's a shame, because the premise of the film is very good, it's just that there isn't enough narrative to justify the run-time. What this means is that the first two acts drag on, and on, and on.... Whilst the third act, which explains Gordo's motives, and exposes Simon's 'character', as well as the de rigeur 'twist' ending.... Is seemingly over far too quickly. The other big problem is a side-effect of this. In that a lot of what happens is undeniably predictable. I have a personal hatred of any film where the story is explained through the use of 'secret' audio or video recordings.... It's such a cheap way for the director to create tension, by referencing back to events earlier in the film but with a different perspective. And, in this case, very obvious they were too! Overall, this film was disappointing. With so many reviews claiming it to be a masterpiece by debut director Joel Edgerton (who also stars as Gordo) it had high expectations from me, and perhaps that's a reason I can only offer a 6/10 score.
The Matrix was (in 1999) a complete revolution in Hollywood film-making. Combining state of the art CGI effects, proper old-school Hong Kong style fight choreography, and an intelligent, well written story... It comes together and creates an instant classic. It's one of those 'where were you when you first saw it' movies, that resonate for years afterwards in your own mind. Asking questions about human existence, free will, fate, morality, duality of self... It's a philosophical debate hiding inside a kick-ass action movie. It's one of the most 'complete' films too, with an ending that makes sense and leaves the imagination to wonder what might actually happen. Two vastly inferior 'cash-grab' sequels followed, no doubt at the insistence of a studio desperate for more, and probably used as a gun to the head to the Wachowski Brothers. It's not a perfect movie, the whole 'Jesus' paradigm is a little forced, and the much lauded 'bullet time' special effect now looks very dated! But, forget the sequels, watch the original. If you've never seen it, I guarantee it won't disappoint.
The character of Asian Hawk in Armour Of God is, in my opinion, Jackie's finest on-screen creation. That film was an excellent blend of Indiana Jones-style exploration and ancient artifacts, combined with high octane action. It was let down mainly by the stupid sidekick character (played solely for laughs by Canto-pop star Alan Tam), and the end fight, where Jackie faces off against a group of four black female martial artists. The fight being a let down because it lacked any sense of urgency, dread or peril. The sequel was even better, being filmed on a budget nearly 10 times greater than ANY film made by a Hong Kong studio up to that point. Jackie (now called Asian Condor) has to track down a cache of stolen **** gold hidden in a secret base somewhere in the North African desert. Featuring more intense fighting, more insane stuntwork, and an ending that is as inventive as it is satisfying. Let down only by its excessive run-time, and the terrible 'karaoke-style' soundtrack. And then we get to this abomination.... CZ12, or Chinese Zodiac, or Armour of God 3..... There's no point discussing the plot, it's nonsensical. Suffice to say the narrative exists solely for Jackie to get from one situation to the next, and as such there's no real sense of structure to it. I watched the film twice, over a weekend, the second viewing just to find out if the things I remembered seeing did actually happen. I'd convinced myself it really couldn't have been as bad as my memory was screaming at me! Everything about the film is terrible. One of the big problems, from my point of view, is that the character Jackie plays is effectively 26 years older than in the first movie, and Jackie was 31 when he filmed that. And it just made me feel very sad, not because Jackie can't still throw a punch, or put together a few backflips and handstands.... No, it's because everything he does in this film, he's done so much better in the past. The lack of originality is astonishing.
Throw in a huge amount of piss-poor CGI that does nothing to make for a better film, it just adds to the fact that the physicality is now second fiddle to visual effects and clever post-production techniques.
The direction is uninspired, as is the cinematography... I mean, there are some good ideas being put up in front of our eyes, but they aren't fleshed out.
And we've not even got to the worst part yet!
For some reason, probably to increase the run-time, there's a huge number of co-stars in the film. The final 'Island' sequence has about twenty people milling about pointlessly, before the big melee ensues. Just cutting back and forth between Jackie and his little group, and some bad guy and his somewhat larger group. It goes on needlessly for what seems like an eternity, before they all end up in the same place, after Jackie (and group) discover what everyone is looking for.
You could chop 30 minutes (and about 20 unnecessary characters) out of this movie, and it would still feel like they were stretching it out! It's a film so bad, it's only worth watching if you're an ardent Chan fan and haven't seen it. However, if you are (and you do) you WILL be disappointed!
If you're just a casual action movie fan, and have no predilection about the name of the main 'Star' whose name sits at the start of the opening titles.....Stay away.... YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!
Wilson Yip's 'Ip Man' isn't the masterpiece a lot of people on this site think it is. It's not bad, but definitely not 'the best martial arts film ever', and other such nonsense. Donnie Yen is good as always, balancing the dramatic with the physical. The rest of the main cast are also very good.... All except Lynn Hung, who plays Man's wife Cheung Wing Sing. Every scene she's in she's just whining and moaning about something, it's like her entire character arc is based on the notion of being the 'unlikable' one in the film... It's very grating! The Direction of the film is pretty basic, nothing really special in it at all. Production values are exactly what you'd expect for a mid-budget martial arts film made in 2008. The musical score is very 'by the numbers', a bit of a crescendo here... A bit of dramatic music there.... Sombre music when it's needed.... The only outstanding things in the film are the fight scenes. Sammo Hung worked as the action director, and choreographed some of the best Wing Chun action put on screen. Hung is well known for being a close associate of Bruce Lee (who was a student of Yip Man), and Hung does a brilliant job of putting the ferocity and speed of this very effective (but particularly vicious and brutal) kung fu style on film However, everything outside the martial conflicts is very slow paced and mundane. It's like a porn film, where you fast forward the bits where the plumber checks out the pipes, to get to the actual 'interesting' bits! The storyline is predictable, and doesn't really conform to the actual life story of Yip Man anyway. I understand that there needs to be a little artistic license.... But if you're going to make stuff up, don't just make the fight scenes exciting, add some intensity and real drama to the story and the narrative. Overall, it's a watch it in its entirety once kind of film. After that you can just go online and look up the fight scenes on YouTube!
Definitely up there in the 'worst superhero movie ever made' top 5 list. What's worse is that unlike the reboot of Spider-Man (which had a very successful original trilogy run), this reboot fails to learn any lessons taught by the two absolute **** films which were released less than 10 years prior. With a running time of only 100 minutes, to explain the origin stories of FIVE main characters, as well as then developing a scenario for the Fant4stic to fight the fifth, it's simply an absolute mess. The film uses a 'one year later' fade out/in for Christ's sake, because it's that lazy and badly written. Throw in some terrible directing, bad casting, bad acting, unremittingly patronising dialogue, less than stellar special effects and, worst of all, the most anti-climactic end 'fight' scene ever..... And you've got a Turkey that Ebeneezer Scrooge would be proud of the morning after his ghostly visitations! It really is that bad. I cannot begin to vent my frustrations at what a huge missed opportunity this could have been, if the lessons from the first two films had been taken on-board. I suspect their won't be a Fan4stic 2 coming to cinemas anytime soon!
Decent enough British prison drama that falls short of greatness. Tightly scripted, well acted and well directed, it suffers from a real lack of emotional depth. The main character, although going an emotional change in himself as the film progresses, doesn't engage the audience enough to make them care for him. He's just a really nasty bastard, and ultimately ends up in an 'adult' prison because he's aggressive and violent. The film tries to pitch the idea **** therapy session allowing him to open up and connect with fellow inmates within that group... But the film makes no effort to explain why only those particular inmates make it into this 'anger management' therapy session, when it seems everyone in the prison suffers from extreme violent tendencies! All in all, it's worth watching if you enjoy your films violent, excessively profane, and don't expect too much development through a cohesive narrative and compelling characterisation.
Ant-Man is one of the Marvel comic universe's more obscure characters.... And there's a very good reason for that. One of the biggest problems with Ant-Man, not just as a film, but as a character as a whole.... Is that his backstory, motives and development are things we've seen before. The annoying thing is that this is mainly down to the necessities of fitting the character into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Unlike Captain America, where they took the comic's origin story and brought Cap' into the modern age via the 'frozen in ice for 70 years' idea, in Ant-Man they try to dispense with the original story altogether. In this film, the 'Ant-Man' is effectively the second incarnation, the original being the 'old guy' scientist whose origin story would have been far more interesting. Instead we get a convoluted narrative that suggests a new 'Ant-Man' is needed to combat the machinations of the 'old guy' scientist's former assistant who is attempting to duplicate his miniaturisation processes. What follows is a 30 minute training montage, involving more technology whose invention is never explained (i.e. the ability to control various species of ant), and then the 'surprise' discovery the young scientist is looking to sell miniaturisation tech to the army for profit, now he's worked out how to make things smaller.... Cue Ant-Man's heroic infiltration of the bad scientist's research facility, you know, the one bearing the name of the 'old guy' scientist who was ousted from the board etc. And the finale between Ant-Man and young scientist who has shrunk himself in his own combat suit..... It's sooooooo predictable as to be patronising! However, it's not all bad. Paul Rudd displays his usual comedic sensibilities as the 'hero', and Michael Douglas is also good as the 'old guy' scientist. Their interplay is very funny. Rudd's three criminal sidekicks are also good value, except that Michael Pena's Mexican Stereotype characterisations which do grate immensely very quickly! Overall, it's a paint-by-numbers Superhero flick, but one that does benefit from a superior comic-interplay between the main characters.
