TheManInOil Reviews

The Neon Demon (2016)

One of the worst films I've seen

[2/10 · 2 November 2017]

This is two hours of striking images, with pretensions of being a story. The only reason the rating is as high as it is is that there seems to be some kind of consensus that Nicolas Winding Refn is some kind of genius. He knows how to make the image on screen look good. That's all. He's no story-teller, and this movie exposes the fact more than any other. There's no substance here. The story and dialogue are on par with Showgirls, but with less going on and long stretches of nothing happening but we're supposed to just look at meaningless compositions the whole time. It's like a two-hour music video with almost no music.

Even the praise I've seen offers nothing more than that it has some nice imagery or that it's 'different'. Not enough to make a movie work. Avoid, or you'll regret it.

Werewolf: The Beast Among Us (2012 Video)

Wut

[3/10 · 15 October 2017]

Never mind how bad this movie is. I spent most of it trying to figure out where and when it's supposed to be set. The time is easier - seems to be late 1800s, with anachronistic elements. But as to where? No idea. The accents and place names, etc. seem to be completely all over the place. Given the diversity one might think it was the US but it's clearly meant to be someplace European (even though the wealthy locals speak with distinct American accents). Baffling movie.

Mercy (I) (2014)

Sad to see

[3/10 · 16 September 2017]

There are some really talented actors in this movie. It's a shame to see them waste their time (although there's no sign of any effort) on this. It's not that it had no potential. Based on a Stephen King story, it shares a lot of basic elements with The Shining. Gifted boy with imaginary friend from a family that are sensitive to other-worldly/paranormal things in peril. Senility replaces alcoholism as the boogey-man in the subtext, but there are a lot of thematic and plot similarities.

The trouble is that this movie was so poorly done. The writing wasn't great, the direction/editing is awful. Quite often it seems more like people doing a blocking rehearsal than an actual take. It's impossible to feel involved in what's going on. Some of the dialogue is so bad that it's easy to understand why everyone seems non-committal - there is no way to deliver those lines well.

The kid playing the lead makes an honest effort, and this film shouldn't be held against him, but it's a black mark on the filmography of everyone else involved.

Bottom of the World (2017)

Bad attempt at Lynch tropes by someone who doesn't understand Lynch

[4/10 · 29 April 2017]

This is a movie that offers an assortment of David Lynch trademarks, in service of a story that's all surface and has none of the pervasive worldview - the perspective - of a David Lynch film. It reads as homage, I guess, but aside from the flattery of imitation it has nothing to offer.

Elements of Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart are pretty obvious. There's even a lamp with a red shade.

I guess if, like the filmmakers, you enjoy Lynch and have no idea why, you might like this. But if you like substance with your knockoff style, move along.

Nuremberg (2000)

A for intentions, D for execution

[4/10 · 7 October 2003]

The Nuremberg trials of nazi war criminals are certainly a subject worthy of dramatization. The issues involved are global in significance and consequence. The action may be limited, but the opportunity for drama exists in spades.

So how come this movie is so dull and uninspired? How come the most interesting thing they could think of to have the protagonist do is cheat on his wife? How come, in a trial full of larger-than-life characters on the side of justice, this movie presents only Hermann Göring with any color or style? I mean, if Goring is your most compelling character, you're in trouble (even if he's played by the brilliant Brian Cox - this is a film with no shortage of talent involved - Christopher Plummer can certainly hold his own with Cox onscreen, but was given little to do here).

I think this could have been an excellent small film if they'd focused on the relationship of the Jewish psychologist assigned to suicide watch for the prisoners, and his interaction with the war criminals. By making Baldwin the centre of attention, they turned the story into a lumbering beast with nothing of interest to add to that small scenario.

Ultimately, this movie is worth a watch, if only to remind us of what happened not so long ago. However, I can't escape the feeling that it was made solely as a platform from which to show some footage of death camp victims - which, as gut-wrenching and deeply saddening as it is, is a poor reason to make a film. They bore us for a couple of hours, then hit us with something horrifying and shocking, and the effect of that footage is supposed to compensate us for the lack of drama in the rest of the story. It does not.

In future, when filmmakers tackle the holocaust and war crimes trials, I hope they treat the subject with the respect it deserves and make damn sure their movie is interesting enough to warrant our attention for reasons beyond a guilty sense of obligation.

4/10

Losing Isaiah (1995)

Excellent notion spoiled by a wishy-washy ending.

[6/10 · 5 August 2002]

Here is a film that had the makings to be great. Performances are excellent all around, and the premise is very involving and potentially controversial. I thought they handled Berry's character well, showing us (in fairness) both the possibility for recovery of an addict, and the possibility, ever-present, of relapse into that lifestyle. The characters were believable and motivated, and the situation inherently dramatic.

The trouble is that they obviously couldn't decide how to end the story without committing to a point of view which would alienate some of the audience. Instead, they end the story without resolving it, in a most frustrating and cowardly way.

It's a shame to make such a good film, and then turn it bad.

Island of Fire (1990)

Don't be fooled!

[2/10 · 5 June 2002]

Not only does this movie not star Jackie Chan, who appears as a secondary character; and not only is it sorely lacking in the sort of kung-fu action scenes you may expect - this movie contains more ripoff scenes than any other film you're likely to see.

Several scenes are lifted directly from other prison films, most notably Cool Hand Luke. There are also segments and ideas taken from Papillon, The Great Escape, La Femme Nikita, and others. This movie should only be watched if you think it would be funny to see Sammo Hung play Cool Hand Luke.

The Untouchables (1987)

Am I The Only One Who Notices These Things?

[4/10 · 11 February 2002]

I don't want to spend a lot of time on a full review of this movie, but there is one aspect of the film that I think bears inspection: Like a lot of movies today, the hero takes the moral highground by refusing to act in an unprincipled manner - only to throw away all his integrity at the end of the film. Apparently, behaving in an unprincipled and viscious manner is not only 'the Chicago way', but also the only way to elicit applause from an audience. As far as I'm concerned, the moral about-face of Eliott Ness in this picture destroys any value the film may have had otherwise.

Gosford Park (2001)

Predictable and tedious

[3/10 · 23 January 2002]

I went to see Gosford Park knowing absolutely nothing about it. All I knew was that it had good reviews. I didn't even know it was a whodunnit. Nevertheless, this movie was so formulaic that even before anyone was killed, I had solved the mystery. In fact, I knew who would die, how, why, and at whose hand. Given the fact that the first hour or so of the film is a very boring introduction to a bunch of uninteresting characters, and the rest devoted to 'revealing' the killer, I can't imagine spending more tedious time watching a film. No wait; I can. I've seen Unbreakable.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

One of the ten worst movies ever

[2/10 · 23 January 2002]

I can only imagine that those who like this film find appeal in the violence. It certainly isn't in the direction or story-telling. It's an incredibly badly-written and episodic piece, full of irrelevant scenes without which it would only be an hour long. What is relevant makes no use of the medium. Characters are not introduced through telling actions, but by introducing themselves in some kind of criminal job-interview. Tarantino's 'genius' seems to be a habit of having the lowest sort of people engaged in violent pursuits converse as casually as ladies at tea. It's a trick he uses and re-uses in all his films. Maybe Reservoir Dogs was meant to have deconstructionist elements a la From Dusk Till Dawn, but I think it's just what it appears to be: a really bad film.

William Bell

Anna and the King (1999)

Another case of Hollywood falling short of potential.

[5/10 · 22 June 2000]

This movie should have been good. The actors involved (particularly Jodie Foster) were top-notch, but the story was ruined by exaggerating the importance of Anna. Ultimately, she was just a teacher, yet we see her rescue the king and handle diplomatic situations in a manner that could never have happened. In the end, her ability to trick the rebel army with fireworks implies a European superiority of intelligence that is woeful, as though asians are all simple-minded and gullible, not to mention cowardly. Once again, Hollywood sacrifices realism and good taste just to make sure that their principle actor is the centre of the action at all times. That having been said, there is much to admire in the film. Just another case of a movie that was almost great.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

John Woo's style overbears MI tradition.

[6/10 · 22 June 2000]

Mission Impossible II is an action movie for lovers of John Woo. It has all the elements of a Woo film: mirrored protagonist-antagonist, girl caught in the middle, even doves during action. It also has an abundance of Woo-style action. His famous slow-mos and superlative gunfire is all here. It's a great ride for those who are looking strictly for action. On the other hand, it has almost nothing to do with it's title. The only Mission Impossible tradition which has been maintained is the disguises the hero (and villain) wears. There is no ingenious sting, no avoidance and subterfuge - just in-your-face confrontation.

I'm not saying it was a bad film. For action fans, it's probably the best Woo film yet. Just don't go expecting it to bear any kind of connection to the TV show or even to the first Cruise MI.