| Action Force The Move (2009) (That's GI Joe you idiot! - Ed) |
[Aug. 21st, 2009|05:30 pm] |
I've got about 20 minutes to try and review this before meeting up with people here in Bath. So here goes.
It's an action film. There's not a great deal of plot. There doesn't need to be. It's based on stuff inspired by an action figure range. As I'm sure you know. It's about Sienna Miller looking quite nice as the Baroness, even if her outfit sometimes looks like it's a little bit big for her. It's about action scenes, shooting, stunts and explosions. That's all you need to know. Oh apart from there being a goody rival to the Baroness called Scarlett. She's supposed to be something of a super brain but she just looks vacant most of the time. She's kind of pretty though I suppose.
Anyway does the film fulfill its objectives in a way that Transformers 2 doesn't? I think so. It concentrates entirely on the good guys fighting the bad guys and not relatives of the good guys getting stoned, dogs humping them or robots urinating oil. Or megan fox bending over whilst not wearing much. Some of the action though is entirely CGI and looks terrible. Just a symptom of the modern era I guess. There certainly is quite a lot of action. Which there should be. At least you can always tell who is who.
It is quite laughably bad at times (most of them actually) but it doesn't seem to really matter. It's just okay and doesn't set out to be as horrible as it possibly can or overstay its welcome.
It's overblown in the extreme and quite pointless and daft. Didn't stop me quite enjoying it though.
But should you go to see it? Probably not to be honest. Unless you have a high tolerance of CGI infested silly action films. Which I have. It seems. I think there is a new standard for bad films which is Transformers 2. It's difficult for anything to be quite as bad as that hateful abomination. Or at least so I'm told. I haven't seen it because it sounded so bad. |
|
|
| On tuesday Duncan and I made some sounds that we recorded |
[Jul. 30th, 2009|12:43 pm] |
You can hear them via the following links:
[ Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] 2009.mp3>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.] You can hear them via the following links: <a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Echidna 2009.mp3>Echidna 2009</a> <a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Feral Nihilist 2009.mp3>Feral Nihilist 2009</a> <a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/She's Fantastic 2009.mp3>She's Fantastic 2009</a> <a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Stillborn Ghost 2009.mp3>The Stillborn Ghost 2009</a> <a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Imperceptable Smiles 2009.mp3>Imperceptable Smiles 2009</a> I'm sure you'll all agree that the last four are an exciting new direction for the band, showcasing all the skill we've learnt over the last 14 years of being a band. |
|
|
| Terminator Salvation |
[Jun. 9th, 2009|09:57 pm] |
Illogical. Implausible. Irritating. Injoyable (You're fired - Ed).
I had been lead to believe Christian Bale was really annoying in this. He is a bit but not that much. Worst is the cute mute child that saves the day. Hnnng. If you're prepared to ignore the decidedly silly and illogical plot and can gain satisfaction from some people fighting with robots and stuff then you can probably find a decent amount to enjoy in this. It doesn't last too long and packs that time with a good balance of action and downtime. It requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. You're probably best off pretending it doesn't really have much to do with the rest of the Terminator series of films though. |
|
|
| Drag Me To Hell (a review of the film of that name. not an instruction) |
[Jun. 9th, 2009|09:42 pm] |
Sam Raimi is back! Doing horror! Again! Etc. Evil Dead 2 is a masterpiece but I'm not entirely sure much else by Mr Raimi is. He's been fairly consistently entertaining I suppose if not mindblowing. Evil Dead 2 is about the closest to that. It's been a while since I've watched it so maybe a rewatch is in order to decide if it's mindblowing.
Anyway about this film. The trailer looked awful. It looked like such a boring standard horror film. That at least isn't true. It's definitely not a bog standard horror film. I didn't know at the time of seeing the trailer that it was directed by Sam Raimi. Discovering that is the only thing that made me go and see it. Well that and everyone raving about it.
Enough! What's it like? Well as you might know, it has a certain comedy element. If you know Evil Dead 2 you'll probably have some idea what that means. However this isn't like that, it is actually quite plentiful in its traditional horror moments, separate from the comedy-horror moments. That's where I found a slight problem with the film. One minute it's astonishingly terrifying and then the next it's really quite slapstick Evil Dead 2 like.
All of the scares are achieved from 'jump scares' rather than the creeping horror of The Grudge or The Ring. Interestingly though all the scares are genuinely scares, there's no cat jumping through the window or boyfriend creeping into the house. If it's building up suspense, it's going to throw something scary at you. Which is done brilliantly. I'm not one who scares at these sort of things easily but I was definitely feeling fear of another shock.
But then we'll have silly scenes like a talking goat or gross out slapstick involving a corpse drooling all over the heroine. Or some eye popping out scene. Which is often rather effectively funny but makes the whole film that bit inconsistent in tone leaving you feeling a little confused. I think really it should have concentrated on being the dark incredibly scary film it could have been instead of mixing it with the comedy moments. That could have made it the most utterly terrifying horror movie of all time. It's pretty close to being that anyway but it in a strange kind of way. |
|
|
| Coraline (3D) |
[May. 15th, 2009|09:33 pm] |
I've been saving this until last this evening for a grand finale. It's only now I realise that I have now made it, in effect, first. On your friends list this is going to show first. So in a way it's probably best as I'm probably a bit tuckered out after about 2 hours of solid reviewing. So this is likely to be an even more substandard review than (sub)standard.
A Neil Gaiman story brought to life by the director of Nightmare Before Christmas. That's why it basically looks the same. You probably knew that already though didn't you? Okay then, let's try something else. I thought the trailer was a little uncertain on whether it was a dark fantasy tale or just a kids story. I was in two minds as to whether to go see it. Ultimately I thought maybe the 3D thing would be interesting so that swung it. It at least looked better than Monsters Vs Aliens which was my other 3D option. As I haven't seen MVA, I can't say if it is but I do know that this was extremely good.
GOOD THINGS
Voice acting. Particularly in the lead role. Dakota Fanning puts in an incredibly convincing performance breathing an astonishing amount of life to the animation. Coraline feels completely real.
The animation. Hurrah! It's all real stop motion and no CG! (Though it may be slightly computer aided, I don't know). It's gorgeously created as well. Stop motion is one of the greatest things ever and it's exploited here to maximum effect.
The sets. Astonishing vision, craftsmanship and creativity. Beauty in almost every scene. I'm struggling for what to say here as little I say can do justice to how great it looked.
The music. Without doubt one of the best soundtracks I have EVER heard. I've listened my download of the soundtrack through twice. I think that's saying something. The last one I went this crazy for was also to a Gaiman film. Interesting.
The whole combination of it all. Creating such a delightful atmosphere of mystery, adventure, peril and the slightly disturbing.
BAD THINGS
It is just slightly too long. It's 100 minutes long and probably should have been about 80. It's not too severe but I did find numb bumb syndrome really kicking in toward the end.
That's it though.
THE INDIFFERENT
The 3D. It added nothing and wasn't really noticeable in many scenes. One of the most significant bits was just a scene of Coraline looking through a window. It had real depth and added a certain beauty to the scene. 3D can work to amazing effect though as intros showed before the main feature. It could just have been that the film was so engaging I forgot it was in 3D.
I don't like summing up paragraphs but I'll add one here. MISS THIS AT YOUR PERIL. It is a pure delight and one of the best films I've seen at the cinema pretty much ever. Certainly ahead of the crowd by a mile in its given genre. This is worthy of being a top 100 film. |
|
|
| Harry Potter And The Pensioner of Kazakhstan (Subs please check) (No.3) HD-DVD review |
[May. 15th, 2009|08:49 pm] |
I've always thought it was the best book of the series and also it's where the film series changes to being really good. I'd had the HD-DVD hanging around since before christmas but finally found just over two hours spare one night to watch it. It was well worth it as well.
The film is well directed, keeping your interest held throughout. The actors finally give some good performances and lose most of their irritation factor. The Ron actor is the least improved to my mind though, despite what a lot of people have said. He still does just a bit too much gurning. Hermione is vastly improved and becomes a thoroughly likeable character. Harry too is much more sympathetic than the previous films. You can actually find yourself truly feeling for him for a change.
The visual side of things is superb. The dementors look terrifying and hogwarts looks spellbinding (That wasn't intentional you know). There is considerable detail in pretty much every scene. It's all CG of course but it shows it can be effective when appropriate care is taken.
The darker tone of the film adds drama but without being too much for family view Also, it manages to have a finale without Harry Potter himself being in any kind of significant danger. There is no big showdown with a big evil villain or monster. I think that's probably quite an achievement, having a spectacular exciting end without peril for the main character.
As for the DVD itself, the quality was excellent. The HD really works in the his instance. It brings out the glorious detail in every scene. It breathes extra life into the film and the effect is really quite stunning. Even on 'just' a 32" screen. I dare say the transfer is the same on the Blu Ray so I'm sure the same applies. It's a worthy upgrade from DVD. Ideally you'll have a PC with Blu Ray/HD DVD combi drive and you'll be able to get the much cheaper HD DVD rather than Blu Ray. |
|
|
| Mad Max 2: Road Warrior (or is it Road Warrior: Mad Max 2?) |
[May. 15th, 2009|08:27 pm] |
I wonder. Is there any point in this? I'm sure you all know Mad Max 2 perfectly well by now. It's been around long enough. I watched my HD DVD of it the other night. So this review will cover how the film holds up these days and the quality of this release. Gosh don't I sound serious there?
The FILM (Gosh a heading!)
I was struck by how realistic people seem to act, despite the film being a slightly ridiculous post apocalyptic setting. It feels very much like the scripting was very well thought out with appropriate thought put into motivations. The lead character is delightfully self serving for the most part. He's not a good guy but he's not a bad guy, he does things which will benefit other people but only because he will profit out of in some way. Of course he sees something of a change in character toward the end but is that more motivated out of revenge than helping others? The action is all really well put together and manages to be exciting without being dizzying. It allows appropriate time for things to happen and frames them very well. It's just a great solidly made film and remains memorable because of that.
The HD-DVD
While it was untoubtedly sharper it made little difference. I noticed some of the rocks were looking clearly and better defined and some of the road textures seem more obviously detailed. It didn't make any real difference though. Mad Max 2 isn't really a very pretty film. It's pretty sparse so there isn't much benefit in the higher definition. Unless you like looking at very detailed roads and rocks. The night scenes looked really grainy though which is probably a fault with the original film but shouldn't HD remastering remove such things? Or is it impossible to get rid of such a severe grain? Of course I haven't compared to my DVD so that may make me notice more difference but I don't think so. If you've got an absotively huge screen it's probably going to show a more significant difference. |
|
|
| Wolverine |
[May. 15th, 2009|08:13 pm] |
I believe that Ebert bloke said that there was little point in having a hero who is indestructable. Well clearly he's wrong as Wolverine is ridiculously popular in the comics and films and cartoons etc. Surely the point is that it would be totally cool to be like Wolverine so we watch/read to imagine ourselves in his position. However, don't you just hate it when American films and TV shows introduce a cliched British rock star (always with a bad london accent). Wolverine doesn't do that (unlike Chuck) but it does something almost as bad. It doesn't make full use of the source material. Actually I'm not sure that's quite so bad. Anyway.
It was interesting seeing the origins of the character. Never realised he was supposed to be that old. I haven't read the comics you see. Even though practically every Marvel comic features Wolverine or Spiderman or both. But the whole story just lacked something and the film was slightly poor in execution with many of the sfx looking rather shoddy.
The end.
I was almost tempted to leave it there but you know me, why stop at 500 words if you can do 5000? Not that I've necessarily done 500 already but still you get the idea. I thi(GET ON WITH IT!! - Everyone)
Gambit should have had more of an accent, cyclops seemed thrown in there for no good reason and the script was utterly lifeless. When it wasn't jumping from horribly cliched dialogue (including a customary NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! scene) it was being just plain function. There was just no flair to it. Still I supposed you could describe it as 'comic book like'. Perhaps a 1950s comic or something. But modern ones (particularly X-men) need you to have some kind of degree in order for you to follow them. So it's not like modern comics.
But it didn't really matter. It was still quite a lot of fun and there were plenty of cool scenes of Wolverine having a good old scrap. The final fight (Copyright Capcom) was jolly good and thoroughly spectaclear (sic). So that made up for things just a enough to make it entertaining. |
|
|
| Film Review - Star Trek 2009 |
[May. 15th, 2009|07:47 pm] |
Okay let's give out a review spoiler in the opening paragraph; why is everyone so easily caught up in the hysteria and hype that can surround a film release? Star Trek has shot into the top 100 on imdb. Sigh. It's really not that good, even though it was quite fun. So let's get on with things shall we?
As you'll all know this is a reboot of the franchise so everything's a bit different. Kirk is someone who's had a sex change, Spock has an unfortunate heroin addiction and Uhura is a prostitue (Cut that out now! - Ed). Well maybe things aren't quite that different but just slightly different enough. I don't think you really need anymore info. You can find that elsewhere. Now I've wasted your time with yet another pointless paragraph I'll continue.
Problems. That's what this bit's going to be about. Modern film-making. That's the main problem. I don't like the way it's put together. Rapid editing, excessive full screen face close ups, a camera that is never still (if it isn't whooshing round following people walking it's jittering unnecessarily), too many close shots of things passing the camera, not allowing time for certain scenes to sink in (we see a lovely shot of the space station which McCoy points out but it barely lasts a second). It's all pacey stuff to attract your attention but for me it just detracts from my ability to pay attention. If I'm feeling sick and dizzy and confused, I'm not enjoying myself. Other problems I'd say were certain actors trying desperately to copy the style of the old series. Karl Urban desperately trying to be Deforest Kelly (McCoy in case you don't know) and Simon Pegg doing an impression of Scotty (and having a stupid comedy sidekick who, while not irritating, is unfunny and as I say, pointless. Though I dare say it wouldn't use such excessive punctuation). Also, I'm about the only person to say this but I never really found myself liking the new Kirk.
So with all that out of the way, can I tell you of some good points. It is actually rather good fun. The story's not bad if rather an excuse for a reboot of the series. Syler (I've told you before, that's NOT the actor's name) is good as Spock. The new Uhura is strangely strong on screen. I've not been able to quite put my finger on it as to why but she really makes a good impression. Um that's about it. Actually Sulu was quite good too. Checkov was different but had no particular character so I can't really comment.
So yeah, it was fine. It's enjoyable sci fi action fun with a few silly cliches and some awkwardness. Go see it and you'll probably enjoy it. It's just not something that's really worthy of being in the top 100. But then I'm probably wrong about that, everyone tells me I'm wrong about films all the time SO WHY BOTHER READING THIS? EH? WHY NOT JUST GO AND READ SISKEL AND EBERT OR SOMETHING WHO TOTALLY MISS THE POINT OF WOLVERINE AND PROBABLY LOTS OF OTHER THINGS. GO ON I DON'T CARE. I HATE YOU ALL ANYWAY.
But you know, I KNOW the emporer's naked. |
|
|
| Crank 2 - A review |
[Apr. 23rd, 2009|09:57 pm] |
First there was Crank. Now there is another one. Of it.
Basically it's pretty much everything the first one was only more of everything really. So that means more violence, more silly bits, more nudity and more sexual content. If you think you can take that you'll have an incredibly good time if you go to see it.
Best moment of the film was the answer phone gag though.
Personally I thought it was utter genius. I could have done without quite so much nudity though really. |
|
|
| Fast and Furious (2009) |
[Apr. 20th, 2009|03:08 pm] |
Vin Diesel is back in the Fast and Furious films! Hurrah, right? Well I do think he's certainly got something for action films but I never really liked The Fast and The Furious. This looked to be pretty much a retread of the first film, judging by the trailer. It was as well.
Story? Vin Diesel comes back to investigate who killed his friend. It just so happens that cop friend bloke who let him get away in the first film is also on the trail of said killer. Though he's also after the whole organisation the killer works for. And that's really where the problem is in the film. Too much story really. I liked the second and third films more than the first because the car porn factor was higher. There was far too much investigation and drama in both this and the first film, whne really they should concentrate on pretty cars racing around really fast. Sure there's plenty of cars racing around really fast but not enough of the pretty ones. Yes I really am that shallow. It's also that the bits which didn't feature cars were a bit boring. They were often quite long as well. It's just one of those films with about three or four peaks of action and far too much down time.
So really, if you've seen the first film you've seen this one. If you liked that more than the sequels then you'll be happy with this and vice versa. Or something. |
|
|
| Dragonball Evolution - a Review-a-me-ha |
[Apr. 14th, 2009|09:35 pm] |
This film is rated pretty low on imdb. The trailer looked terrible. I doubt you'll find a favourable review from any film critic. I couldn't resist.
It was obvious from the start it wouldn't have much to do with the terrible (but strangely popular) Dragonball Z series. Well it is meant to be pre-DBZ to be fair. However it didn't really look like it would have an awful lot to do with that either. Obviously being as I'm not a fan of the series, this is no problem for me. It did still look pretty terrible in its own right though. In a fun kind of way. So why is it that I actually seemed to rather enjoy it?
If you're a DB/DBZ/DBGT fan you'll probably want to know what they've changed. The answer is pretty much everything. Goku appears to be much older in this than in the original Dragonball and he doesn't have a tail. Bulma doesn't have funny coloured hair. Well apart from a streak of colour. Also it starts out as American high school bully vs nerd situation. Where Goku is the nerd, except he's been told by his grandfather not to fight even though he could flatten them. Which is a bit different to the average nerd thing but quite a lot like the spiderman style of things. They've greatly condensed the story as well. It's only 84 minutes long when the book series went on forever (or seemed to). So they have to quickly find all the Dragonballs, have a big battle and save the day all in about an hour. Which doesn't take a lot of doing.
A lot of the acting is quite poor, especially from the actress playing Bulma but yet strangely I seemed to quite like the guy playing Goku. The legend that is Chow Yun Fat plays master Roshi in a quite zany wacky style which would probably work in Hong Kong but doesn't seem to quite work here. You can't help but like Chow Yun Fat, regardless. He really should go back to Hong Kong, take John Woo with him and make a good movie again though. James Marsters plays Picolo in quite sinister fashion but barely gets any screen time to develop himself as a decent bad guy. Park Joon plays Yamcha. He plays the part in quite terrible fashion. But then he's Korean acting in American so he can be forgiven.
So yeah, having pointed out that the cast are all terrible and the film is a mess, what did I actually like about it? Well despite it being obviously a cynical hollywood cash in, it was still quite fun. It had a great sense of adventure and would be thoroughly good watch as a fun film in its own right, if you're after a harmless teen adventure flick. The action is exciting and reasonably convincing (for what it is). It looks pretty nice too. It's paced well enough to avoid being boring whilst giving you time to settle in to the story. It's just a throwaway bit of fun. Anyone complaining it's not true to source should go away and er do something else. Probably. The source material was a bit rubbish as well. Well DBZ is.
Gosh this review of a slightly poor film is quite long. Just be glad the word count isn't( ..... ) |
|
|
| Race to Witch Mountain |
[Apr. 13th, 2009|08:40 pm] |
I can't remember much about the Witch Mountain films of the past but they have somehow stuck with me. I think it's just something to do with a flying saucer that sticks in my mind. Here's a funny thing though, I could have sworn Robert Vaughan was in the originals but apparently not. He IS in the 90s remake which I wouldn't have seen, though. Which is totally spooky. Actually looking at clips on youtube there doesn't seem to be much I recognise in the originals. Hmmm.. Return is looking more familiar. It must be that I saw back in the days when Angie's videos still existed in the town centre. They had a tabletop space invaders type game there and I use to rent a Technocops cartoon from them a lot. There's a Tae Kwon Do place there now. I seem to recall there was an underground video rental shop as well. Can't remember that one. Den's video or something. Ahh them were t' days.
Sorry what? Oh yes. What about this new film then? Well quite contrary to the fuzzy warm friendly atmosphere of the old films this one is a high octane action fest. Starring The Rock as an ex con taxi driver. There's lots of car chases, fights, explosions, flying saucers and mean looking government agents. You see this time it's all about government paranoia about aliens. They want to discect the lovely innocent little alien children. Probably use their technology against trrsts or something. It barely lets up for a moment. Which may be what makes it feel so disconnected.
I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first as to why I didn't seem to be drawn in by the film. It took until at least half way through for me to really start caring even slightly what was going on. Maybe it was just because I had other things on my mind, I don't know. But there really didn't seem much to latch onto. The Rock's character had no real defining traits. He seemed quite ordinary. Well as ordinary as a super muscular guy well over 6 feet ever gets. We certainly never got a chance to properly know him but then there wasn't much to know. We just cut to a scene of him bouncing about in his taxi every now and then between the stunts.
The thing is, it seems to do everything its doing with decent professionalism. It all looks right and all that but just isn't exciting. I think it was just too fast paced. Which is something I don't complain about usually. I don't think they really used The Rock as well as they should have. He can be a super charming guy with loads of charisma but he had nothing to work with here. You only have to watch Walking Tall or Welcome to the Jungle (or the Rundown if you prefer) to see how great a lead actor he makes. Maybe even look at how he was the super face in wrestling. Sorry I shouldn't use wrestling nerd terms. Face means a popular 'good guy' wrestler. The Rock was one of the biggest of all time I reckon.
There's also involvement with a scientist woman who is trying to prove UFOs are real. She's played by the woman who played the original Silk Spectre in Watchmen. Maybe it's seeing her old in that which confused my mind, as obviously she's a lot younger here. But still kind of old looking. She seemed somewhat neurotic in this for some reason. Certainly very scatty anyway. Which was really a bit unsettling for the audience.
For children who might fantasise about being in a flying saucer (such as myself) there's some great flying saucer flying scenes near the end. Obviously they couldn't do a huge amount of it as that wasn't the point of the film but what they did was very good.
Oh I haven't mentioned the children. The girl was very good indeed, very likeable. The boy overplayed the stern robotic nature.
And this review doesn't have a summing up bit leaving you feeling as strangely unresolved as the film did to me. |
|
|
| Maid to Order (1987) |
[Apr. 13th, 2009|08:24 pm] |
It's basically a bit of cinderella in reverse. Riches to rags. With a bit of riches again at the end. Spoilt rich girl keeps getting into trouble and her father gets sick of it. He wishes he didn't have a daughter and the wish gets granted. Rich girl gets a job as a maid and learns to be nice and humble. Then she gets her life back.
It's all pretty predictable stuff and as you might gather from the wish being granted thing, it's quite fanciful. It features regular appearances from the girl's up to date fairy godmother (played effectively by Beverley D'Angelo), is all up to date and clever and all that. Oh and quite quirky too. Which is quite typical of this sort of thing. The lead role is played by Ally Sheedy who looks strangely older than she is whilst looking quite young and old and stuff all at the same time. Or something. She plays the sweet girl far better than the spoilt girl and does become jolly cute and charming when she does act nice. The supporting cast is also generally very good, playing really quite ludicrous over the top roles without going ridiculous.
It's a simple cute feel good movie which doesn't last too long, is quite 80s and does a good job of entertaining.
SO WHY DIDN'T I JUST SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Here have another cover image:
 |
|
|
| Inspired by the books Chibi J has been reading |
[Apr. 12th, 2009|09:00 am] |
I decided it might be a good idea to write a thing about cats that is similar. Now this isn't a review of someone else's book or anything, it's just a little thing to help you get on with your cat better. Here we go then.
The Cat Obeyer by Derek Williams
The first and only rule of living with cats is:
Do as you're told.
Just accept your life of servitude and get on with it.
The END.
There. I'm sure that will help everyone out there understand their cat a little bit better now. |
|
|
| The Damned United |
[Apr. 1st, 2009|10:54 am] |
I don't take much interest in football. I'd like to say I don't take any interest in football but that's not strictly true. I do occasionally find interest in the performance of Doncaster Rovers, mainly in how they've gone from nothing to quite good. Not that they are doing all that well at the minute. I think. Like I say, I don't care that much. I couldn't tell you what any of the scores were this season. But I did listen to Arsenal Vs Doncaster a few years ago. Where Doncaster nearly beat Arsenal (lost on penalty shootout after extra time). That's not really got anything to do with why I went to see this film. The film just looked good and interesting. It kind of was as well.
In case you don't know, it's the story of Brian Clough's rise to fame and his 44 day run as manager of Leeds United. And his bitter rivalry with the Leeds manager Don Revie. That's it.
It is supposedly a fiction based on fact. And that's something that annoys me about docu-drama films. Knowing how much you're supposed to take as fact and what is just silly made up nonsense. Thankfully some parts of the film are based on events that have actual tv footage, such as the Clough/Revie interview (Warning: this links to ITV). Looking at that after the film makes me question why Martin Sheen plays Brian Clough in such a manic way. Clough in the film seems completely scatty and crazy but in clips (often recreated in the film) he's much more calm and relaxed. Sure he does make a few funny faces and such in the clips but not to the extent Martin Sheen does. It's clear that he's desperately trying to recreate Brian Clough but ultimately he appears to be more of a manic version of his David Frost interpretation. His accent sounds all wrong to me. But anyway regardless of that, he does a fairly good job of getting the idea of the man over, I guess. The flashy, arrogant, rash but ultimately good hearted guy who really cares about what he does.
The film is obviously very much on Clough's side and does portray him as something of a hero, despite all his shortcomings. It raises the question of whether the things he did wrong were brought about by a misinterpretation of events due to an inflated ego or not. Such as the rivalry with Don Revie. Did Revie really blank him on purpose when their teams first met or was it just that he didn't notice him? In the film, it's said that it was this event that really made everything happen. Clough became obsessed with beating Don Revie.
Regardless of whether or not you're interested in football you should really find a gripping drama about obsession and determination here. It's entertaining and pretty well put together. All the supporting cast does a great job, particularly the excellent Timothy Spall (though Jim Broadbent just feels like Zidler from Moulin Rouge, due to being the chairman of Derby). If only Martin Sheen hadn't tried quite so hard. |
|
|
| The Hard Way (The Only Way) AKA The Colombian Connection (1989) |
[Mar. 30th, 2009|10:04 pm] |
I do so much love that cover. Pure Fromage.
When the director of this film shouted 'ACTION' I don't know if people knew exactly how much he meant just that. He clearly understands that you don't need those boring things you sometimes get in movies like characters or plot. You just need action. Forget love scenese or any kind of emotion. Just blow stuff up. And shoot lots. It's much like the whole missing reel gag in Planet Terror (which has way too much plot compared to this). However, I suppose it would help if the actors are at least vaguely capable of making it believable.
This is the plot according to the blurb:
( Long ridiclous blurb )
Which is remarkably more involved than I could gather from watching the film. From what I could gather from watching it, three near invincible commando guys were trying to get a helicopter from a bad guy's base. Probably.
All three lead actors are quite terrible. Their use of guns laughable at best. Holding them at arms length and waving them about like a toddler might with a toy. However it seems to work pretty well for them as that usually results in around 30 kills. Sometimes the bad guys continue to fall over even though the firing has stopped. I presume that's because our heroes are so awesome that they planned some clever ricochets from trees in the distance. Probably. Still the bad guys pose minimal threat along the way. Even when the heroes are out in the open not one of the 30-50 adversaries can get a good shot on them.
Miles O'Keeffe leads the trio and manages to look quite handsome, adopting some cool action hero poses on occasion. The others do little of interest. The black guy (who dies first) gets a leg gnawed off by pirahnas and the fat olderbloke gets heroically killed in the enemy camp. Things get particularly silly in the enemy camp as we see soldiers running around in all directions. All their running about merely serves to swap positions of the soliders on each side of the camp. There's lookouts who resolutely stare in one direction and a tank and APC which continually swap places.
Oh gosh I haven't mentioned the body count yet. It's high. Very high. Very very high. It must be around the 300 mark. I'm going to try and have a quick look to see. Cripes. I've just watched 30 seconds and it's already at least 30. So many it's hard to keep track.
It can be a little bit wearing with the constant sound of gunfire for the 90(ish) minutes and the seeming invincibility of the heroes ensures there's absolutely no tension. You can tell the moments where some is definitely going to die; it's when it's dramatically appropriate to do so. But I still found it great fun. Sure it's gash and tripe, full of plot holes and ridiculous inconsistencies but it doesn't matter. It's totally silly fun, even if the film doesn't quite realise it.
Oh and much like that Mark Dacascos film DNA, there's some atrocious helicopter crashes/explosions. The most nonsensical of these can be found in this video at around the 1m mark.
|
|
|
| D.N.A. Starring Mark Dacascos (1997) |
[Mar. 23rd, 2009|08:13 pm] |
Obviously if you've been following my updates you'll know I have a love of watching films that aren't very good. It isn't so much that they aren't very good that attracts me, it's the occasional good, inspiring idea that is in amongst the rubbish. Also these films generally have an atmosphere not found in the mainstream. They don't necessarily play it safe to please a wide audience. Sometimes that's something they're trying to do and failing but most of the time it's more of someone having a great idea and not really knowing how to implement it properly. The whole b-movie world is full of silly ideas that would never get shown to a major audience. Sometimes they're just enjoyable because it's funny watching a bad film. This one, according to imdb, is seemingly one of the worst I've watched in recent times. However, I disagree with its harsh 2.7/10 rating.
That isn't to say this alien/predator rip off is actually a good film, it's just not so bad as people there suggest. What's it about? Well to be honest I was rather distractedly watching it whilst messing about on the laptop and the internet, so I'm not entirely sure. It's something to do with Dr Mark Dacascos going (back?) into the jungle to track down this rare creature. That creature being the predalien of course. For science. He of course has the aid of a glamorous assistant and er some other people. Oh and there seems to be some bad guy trying to capture it for his own evil ends or something. So Dr Mark has to fight him as well as the prelien. It doesn't really matter anyway. It's nonsense. It's just an excuse for him to run around the jungle being shot at and chase by a bloke in a rubber suit.
It is done in quite a pacey way and it certainly doesn't overstay its welcome. It frequently amuses with its silly ness. Some of the special effects are so bad they're incredibly funny. I'll come back to that later. Dr Mark looks quite asleep for most of it but there's just a certain sense of fun in there. And a terrible hacking scene. Computer hacking that is. Almost as bad as one I did with ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) marasmusine whilst in sixth form at school. I couldn't help but enjoy it despite all these faults. It was probably because of this faults actually but who cares as long as you're entertained?
So why would it have a rating of 2.7/10 when I've seen much worse? I can only assume that it's due to people's expectations. Having Mark Dacascos in it really shouldn't bump up expectations that much but even so, people might have been expecting something of passable professionalism at least. As it is, it's a bit of a silly sloppy amateurish mess so therefore they mark it much lower than if they were already expecting something made for a budget of £5. It would imply it has been seen by a more mainstream audience than usual. Any fan of low budget pap would enjoy it tremendously. Which I presume is hardly any of you that actually read this. Oh well. I had fun anyway.
Now just before I finish for today, I wish to mention those special effects. However my wish has not been granted so I'll have to leave you with a youtube video of the most spectacularly amazing helicopter crash ever. As featured in this film.
|
|
|
| Remote Control (1987) |
[Mar. 19th, 2009|10:16 pm] |
I borrow these images from Amazon quite often but they're usually ones I've uploaded. If you edit out the sl500 bit in the url you remove the white border. Good, eh?
It sounded a bit odd and strange and I kind of liked the cover so I gave it a watch. Also there was suggestion of it showing how 50s sci fi had an influence on 80s fashion. At least according to a comment on imdb. The film doesn't explicitly set out to do so but I guess you can see the link. The 80s did seem very much about future. Whereas these days it's very much about the here and now. Which is boring and rubbish. Which is a bit like this film.
Well that's a bit unfair actually. It seems the film is trying to say a couple of things but it never really gets its point past the drab direction and characterless acting. That isn't to say the acting isn't the bad style I usually encounter but just somehow lifeless. What it's about is a video of a 50s sci fi film which makes people kill other people. Some video rental store guy discovers this and sets out to try and stop it. That's it really. The film seems to have this guy and some woman who look a bit 50s but also 80s who are connected with the video butnever really makes it clear how. All we really know is the woman is quite pretty, has great hair and rental store guy fancies her. Oh and she likes an old foreign film called Stolen Kisses. The other guy is a fairly handsome chap who manages a sneer not dissimilar from Gary/Jake Busey.
The main suggestion of the film seems to be that the VCR is an entity of evil that could cause people to go and kill. Presumably inspired by the notion of video nasties. Some reviewer has written something about the way the video always changes to what's happening in the room as people watch it reflecting society's love of watching itself but I wasn't really paying enough attention or looking deep enough to spot that. Also I feel that last sentance was too long. Kind of reminds me of Ring really. Except it's more of if you watch it, rather than you dying in 7 days, it's more likely you'll kill someone within a couple of minutes. Or be killed by someone else who happens to watch it with you.
It turns out in the end that the video was created by aliens as an attempt to take over the earth. Which is really quite a silly idea. (OR IS IT? - The Disclosure Project)
With better actors involved and a better director, maybe it could have got its point over a little better but you're not going to do it by disengaging the viewer. They had their chance by having Jennifer Tilly in it but they foolishly kill her off after 10 minutes. Its point was clearly silly anyway. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
