Pan-12 Reviews

V for Vendetta (2005)

Overrated by IMDb users

[6/10 · 8 June 2008]

From memory when this movie came out most reviewers gave it 6-7 out of 10. This is a more accurate reflection of the film's merit than what the average IMDb user has given it. I would put this down to a proportion of users having not seen enough 'good' movies in their time. For those who have seen enough of these movies they would know that nearly everything in this film has already been done many times before. Honestly, how many times is the 1984/big brother theme going to be rehashed? It is a great book and all but someone needs to think of a new dystopian premise. The other one that has been done to death is the plague that either kills people or turns them into monsters. The only variation of this film is that it combines the latter two premises, but really, that is just a testament to the fact that it is a 'dystopia by numbers' film. I guess it's just a trend - a money making operation.

To be fair, had I seen this when I was 12 I probably would have thought it was pretty good, but looking at it objectively there are definitely better equivalent films. My advice to those who liked this and haven't seen Bladerunner, A Clockwork Orange and to a lesser extent: Dark City, Gattaca and 12 Monkeys - is to get down to your video store quick smart and hire them out!

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Without hyperbole a million times better than every other sequel ever made - put together! (mild spoilers)

[10/10 · 19 July 2004]

I haven't made a comment in ages, but this is the type of movie that can completely revitalise one's zest for film!

I'm the type to have a tendency towards critically acclaimed lower budget films and 60's/70's classics, but there's a place for films like this. It's the type of film you HAVE to see at the movies or it loses half of it's effect.

I can't believe what a good job they did on this sequel. They have kept all the best elements of the first movie, improved upon them and then amended many of it's weaknesses. Alike the first film, the pacing and structure are excellent (that's right, the 'boring' bits are necessary). In fact I became so engrossed in it that I lost sight of the impending climax, which then hit me doubly as hard. All the points of conflict occur in the right way and at the right time.

The 'in-joke' style humour also improved in this one, I love the line: "a guy called Otto Octavius ending up with eight arms, what are the odds of that!"

Also, the bit where Peter Parker reverts back into nerdiness was risky but was executed very well.

Because they upped the ante budget-wise, the action sequences are absolutely top-notch, the fight between Doc Ock and Spidey on the train has already gone down as one of my favourite all time sequences in a movie ever.

Also, the ending hit harder, like I said, it crept up on me. Spiderman 1's ending was good but very cliched and the sequelitis was almost a cop-out. This time both of those elements were handled with more subtlety and context. I'd like to say more but I'd give away too much.

I'm not sure if I completely understand the fact that so many people like something like Lord of the Rings unequivocally and are prejudiced against this. It's kind of like the difference between Kylie Minogue and Britney Spears, they're both pop, but it's cool to like Kylie and it's cool to bag Britney. Lord of the Rings is decent but it's nowhere near as tight as this. Spiderman 2 set out to achieve a lot for a two hour movie and it was very successful in doing so, whereas Lord of the Rings set out to achieve even more, did well, but didn't manage to achieve what it set out to achieve.

There is also too much prejudice against this movie just because it is a sequel. Of course some elements are going to be the same. Spiderman 2 has taken a great formula and made it even better - it was a like a video game sequel, the same thing except better and with more money thrown at it (and we all know that video game sequels are always better).

The thing is, it's a blockbuster movie, they are trying to utilise all the best blockbuster elements and they have done so very successfully, so don't believe the negative statements and don't expect it to be some kind of arthouse masterpiece, it's a million times better anyway.

Criminal Lovers (1999)

It's gold I tell you, Gold!

[9/10 · 24 September 2002]

What's going on? How does this film only have an average of 6.3? The pacing is excellent, each nuance and revelation is revealed subtly, but it doesn't let up with it's consistent harshness.

I love these movies that demonstrate human characteristics through a harsh exaggerated situation.

The rather graphic sex scene at the end, juxtaposed with the swat team was great, as was the very last shot of the boy.

Go Ozon!

Magnolia (1999)

What do you say about a movie like this?

[8/10 · 1 March 2001]

Actually, I have alot of things to say about this movie...

I didn't want to address the frogs but since so many others consider it significant I would like to make an important point: I have had the privilege of seeing Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon which is also a movie in which you have to accept a fantastical element within the film. This is not something that is really meant to be explained objectively or even analyzed which is why I won't try to analyze it as such. But basically this movie has a little bit of everything in it and hence a supernatural miracle has been fittingly included.

It is an excellent collage of reality, conveyed brutally. I was thinking of many strange words to describe this while I was watching it. The latter, (brutal) being one of them. I also thought of "bonanza" funnily enough. It is positivity and negativity, subtly and blatantness, excessiveness and repression, emotion and coherent thought, intelligence and stupidness and how intelligent people are also stupid in their own way (and vice versa), being moral and/or immoral and the way it all gets blurred in our lives. When rights are wronged and wrongs are righted.

I went up and down over and over in this movie. I liked the first 10 minutes then I hated the next hour, then I loved the next hour and then I was disillusioned in the last hour because I kept thinking the movie was about to end even though I knew it was supposed to be 3 hours plus. But over all I really liked it: 9/10

I wonder what someone who didn't know anything about the movie before they watched it would think of it. Jesus Christ it would be nuts!! Surely you would get to the point over and over when you kept thinking it was going to suddenly end - perhaps in some harsh fashion with a horrible death and everyone elses stories being left completely up in the air.

Ultimately I don't think it is about 'stories.' Life isn't a story it is what it is. And that's what this movie is. It is life.

One last interesting point is that if you look at the voting demographics the older people were the less they liked the movie. I wonder what that means. Couldn't they take seeing all the types of things that had been common to them in their lives? One guy made a comment that said "NOT FOR 75 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION." Well, he was right. It is harsh. But if you haven't seen it and you think you can take it I'd say it would be advisable to see it. It could be a beautiful experience for you.

Sleepwalkers (1992)

Gotta love those cats - Spoiler?

[8/10 · 21 September 2000]

This is not a good movie but I still like it. The cat Clovis is gold in a jar as well as the premise of the cats themselves - intrinsically opposed to the evil Sleepwalkers. I think there is more to this movie than people realize, basically it is very harsh, but this brusqueness can sometimes be good. It's got the corny lines, the abrupt ending and a comedic element conveyed by the bumbling policemen.

Did anyone find the incestuous element a bit disturbing? Ultimately this movie is casually and randomly acrimonious, which is quite effective, I liken it to Psycho - the relationship between the mother and son, the changing of protagonists. I think the abruptness works also, this is not a movie that you want them to lengthen, it only works if it's short.

I'm still not sure whether the director lacked depth, or whether he did these things with purpose, we know Stephen King has ability, yet I haven't even read his books, only seen some of his movies.

Anyway, I liked it. If you like harsh corny movies with 80's overtones just watch it. but don't expect too much. It really is so bad its good.

The Thing (1982)

Good and bad but so memorable that I had to write about it - spoiler (kind of)

[7 August 2000]

Okay, so this is a bit of a classic, made in the same year I was born. I must say I was really liking this movie until the last ten minutes. There were way too many implications and plot glitches. So anyway, let's weigh up the pro's and cons.

Special effects: good for the time. Kurt Russell's best role. Palmer is f--kin rad. Always something happening. (seldom boring) Excellent tension build up. the token black guys are also cool. The music is very fitting. (and chilling)

On the bad side there are a number of plot problems.let's look at who is and isn't the thing over the movie: (spoiler bit) Is: palmer, windows, norris, Bennings, Blair? isn't: fuchs, nauls, garry, childs,clarke,doc,macready.

They didn't have to kill everyone, and why did they just end up with the hero and one random guy? how did clarke not become the thing too? how do we know who was the thing first out of norris and palmer? who infected them? was it blair? what's the deal with blair? or was it the corpse of that dog or Bennings? The Norwegian guys and Clarke were unfairly killed and no one really seemed to give s--t.

Ultimately I probably sound pretty stupid and have missed a number of things - I was watching this very late at night.

I also wonder about some of the metaphorical aspects of the film. Maybe the ending is more realistic, but the supernatural premise of the film is unrealistic so they may as well just have had the token "sentimental" ending. The arctic setting is barren and agoraphobic, it reminds me of movies like Batman, where it seems the city or place they live in is the whole world and it doesn't matter what is happening everywhere else.

Ultimately it's quite the interesting film and fun to speculate over too. I guess I can overlook the bad points and I'll just have to concentrate on the goods.

Psycho (1960)

Very original, very clever, very good.

[10/10 · 16 March 2000]

I just saw it in film studies class at university and i love it. Honestly, it really is a masterpiece. The direction is extremely original and credible and the adapted script is one of the most interesting, in that the main character within the movie fluctuates. I think this is a very interesting and clever idea which makes "the shower scene" more shocking. The music is also infinitely effective in creating atmosphere within the film. If you haven't seen this movie try not to find out too much about it - although I guess it's inevitable because it's a genuine classic. No matter what, you should enjoy it if you appreciate it for what it is.

The Godfather Part III (1990)

They screwed up the whole series with this installment

[2/10 · 2 March 2000]

I believe that this movie is bordering on disgraceful. Sometimes when you make a movie that is meant to be tragic, metaphorical, profound and/or moving, it only makes it worse when the movie is a failure. To be honest, while I quite like the first two movies in the series I think they're somewhat overrated. Trying to glorify the mob is an immoral and futile cause. The good thing about the first two movies is that they manage to encompass all of the sins humans are commonly affiliated with- anger, pride,greed etc, and put them in an emphatically harsh context. Namely, that of a life and death situation. Sins that are normally unimportant domestically, ironically become a major problem because of domesticity - "the family." This particular installment attempts to recreate this sentiment, but gets it all wrong. I actually laughed at the ending. It was a poor attempt at trying to move the audience and blatantly duplicates the endings of the last two movies for the sake of it(i.e. all the enemies being wiped out). The difference being, this time perhaps karma has brought about the emotional downfall of Michael, then, it is exemplified in a physical context-that of the accidental assassination of his daughter. My biggest gripe outside of the ending is quite simply the build up. It is somewhat confused and misdirected yet almost lacking in complexity. You feel nothing at all by the time we reach the climax which is then a rampant anti climax in itself. I can't believe they focused also, on an incestuous relationship as the chief romance. There is something very unnatural about the whole film. All due respect should go to the actors who give a reasonable performance despite the poor script. I think though, that it was a matter of misinterpretation of how good the script really was for actors such as Pacino and Keaton which is why they were forced to be associated with this movie. As well as this the dialogue is very ordinary. Coppola has misfired here, but of course we can't forget some of his other achievements and as such can afford to forgive.

The Ren & Stimpy Show (1991–1996)

How good is this show

[10/10 · 15 November 1999]

This has to be the best show ever. Is it still going or what. I live in Australia and I haven't seen any episodes for ages which is a real pity because it's a great show. The episode "Ren needs help" is the best 15 minutes of television I've ever seen.

Highly recommended to anyone with imagination and a good sense of humour.

Heat (1995)

Heat is an excellent film all round.

[10/10 · 31 July 1999]

I first saw heat when I was 13 and immediately established it as one of my favourite films. While you could call it slow and/or a standard action/thriller, I feel it has an extra edge which makes it great. It is partly the acting performances by Deniro, Pacino and Kilmer. But one of the best things about this film is the realism displayed in the dialogue and the character development. Even the negro character who only has a short amount of air time is well established as man who is weighed down by a crime ridden past, has reformed, but cannot rid of the tag that his crimes have left with him. The inclusion of Val Kilmer for me was always going to boost my opinion of the film. I feel this is his best performance second only perhaps to his portrayal of Doc Holliday in Tombstone. It is not so much his acting ability or aesthetic appeal that does it for him, but his raw presence and charisma. Finally, I have to give credit to the shootout scene towards the end of the film. I have designated this as my favourite scene in a movie ever despite its violence.

Great stuff.