Knights of Badassdom is not a good movie at all. In fact, it's trash. It had a decent idea as a foundation to build on (Live Action Role Playing) and should have been able to come out with something a lot better than it did. Instead, it came up with nothing. The basic story is about group of friends who take part in a LARP in the woods of US and who unwittingly unleash a demon. Said demon then bumps into LARP players (mainly in the dark) kills them and steals their souls. Group of friends then decide they have to stop said demon. Now that premise should be a basis for some great visual and verbal gags, right? Wrong. The humour was stale and the visuals were almost non-existent. There wasn't a single moment in this movie where I grinned, let alone laughed. It offered nothing in the way of humour whatsoever. Don't let people fool you into thinking only "geeks" or LARPers would get this movie. There's nothing in there that would fly over the head of a "regular" guy and which would be looked upon as an in-joke and there's simply nothing fresh or original on offer here. The acting is OK but then there really wasn't much for the actors to work with. Special effects? Again, nothing to note really. Script? Boring and unfunny - I can't recall a single line that stood out amongst the crowd. And I can't even say that Knights of Badassdom would make a decent popcorn movie. Sure, PMs tend to be empty and shallow but at least they come with at least one redeeming feature like humour or action. KoB gives nothing in that respect. So my advice is to give this one a miss. Go LARP for real. Even if you hate it, you'll have more fun than you would watching this movie.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Prometheus
(I) (2012)
You've Received an Invitation
2 June 2012
On release, Prometheus seems to create mixed emotions. My belief is that if you go expecting to see an all-out Alien movie, there's a chance that you'll leave disappointed. But if you look a little deeper, there's a masterpiece here. A very, very clever movie. What we have is a movie that may baffle in the present (and make no mistake, it's always going to leave unanswered questions) but given time, it's going to become much more accessible and open up to a fuller audience. But first, it needs to be slowly digested and understood.
For comparison, I'm drawn to The Matrix. Long, before it's reputation was destroyed by the sequels (and please Ridley, don't do that to Prometheus), the Matrix was just a great sci-fi movie. Within weeks though, people started to discover that it was much more - the Wachowskis had placed a message in there. It held something deeper. Now, that movie is a legend: discussed extensively on philosophy forums, dissected by students and in no small part, because of that philosophy, we see it as a classic. I see Prometheus in the same vein. Look past the Alien franchise and you'll see something much, much deeper. Not necessarily more satisfying but definitely something to chew over. And definitely something that makes it a great.
In my quick review, I don't want to concentrate too much on the sci-fi story, the acting or the cinematography. What I want to concentrate on is what I would call the "soul" of the movie. In my opinion, it's raison d'etre. What we have is a message concerning the very depths of each individual's existence. You can't be given that message directly - only pointed towards it. You have to grab it for yourself.
Yes, after the general sci-fi story we've got the layer of the Prometheus myth. But below that is the true essence of the movie - Gnosticism. Each character plays a part in that Gnostic structuring. Their actions and characters are based on it. We've got disciples seeking gnosis, demi-gods, atheists, popes, dogmatic followers and even the Church pops up in the guise of the Company. Scott was very smart. The legend of Prometheus was used by Gnostic religions in early Christian history, so it fits nicely with what he's presented. It's layered beautifully. True, sometimes layering the simple with the complex results in what looks like a plot hole and on it's release there are many complaining that those holes are there, but look properly and you'll see that the vast majority of those holes aren't there - if it doesn't make sense on the superficial level, it's probably explained at the next. Confusing? Only if you don't look properly and that's not a fault that can be laid at the door of the movie but rather a viewer who needs to open his eyes and study a bit harder.
If you only see "Alien" you haven't even scratched the surface. If you see the Prometheus legend, you've gone a bit deeper but you aren't there yet. The real depth of the movie is that Prometheus is presenting you with the opportunity to study Gnosticism. The study of yourself. Some will say that Prometheus is too conceited, that it's messy or that by hiding that message, it's become bloated. They're missing the whole point.
Prometheus is much more than a movie. It's a message. In one of the main character's words "It's an invitation". It's totally up to you if you want to receive that message, let alone act on it and accept the invitation.
For comparison, I'm drawn to The Matrix. Long, before it's reputation was destroyed by the sequels (and please Ridley, don't do that to Prometheus), the Matrix was just a great sci-fi movie. Within weeks though, people started to discover that it was much more - the Wachowskis had placed a message in there. It held something deeper. Now, that movie is a legend: discussed extensively on philosophy forums, dissected by students and in no small part, because of that philosophy, we see it as a classic. I see Prometheus in the same vein. Look past the Alien franchise and you'll see something much, much deeper. Not necessarily more satisfying but definitely something to chew over. And definitely something that makes it a great.
In my quick review, I don't want to concentrate too much on the sci-fi story, the acting or the cinematography. What I want to concentrate on is what I would call the "soul" of the movie. In my opinion, it's raison d'etre. What we have is a message concerning the very depths of each individual's existence. You can't be given that message directly - only pointed towards it. You have to grab it for yourself.
Yes, after the general sci-fi story we've got the layer of the Prometheus myth. But below that is the true essence of the movie - Gnosticism. Each character plays a part in that Gnostic structuring. Their actions and characters are based on it. We've got disciples seeking gnosis, demi-gods, atheists, popes, dogmatic followers and even the Church pops up in the guise of the Company. Scott was very smart. The legend of Prometheus was used by Gnostic religions in early Christian history, so it fits nicely with what he's presented. It's layered beautifully. True, sometimes layering the simple with the complex results in what looks like a plot hole and on it's release there are many complaining that those holes are there, but look properly and you'll see that the vast majority of those holes aren't there - if it doesn't make sense on the superficial level, it's probably explained at the next. Confusing? Only if you don't look properly and that's not a fault that can be laid at the door of the movie but rather a viewer who needs to open his eyes and study a bit harder.
If you only see "Alien" you haven't even scratched the surface. If you see the Prometheus legend, you've gone a bit deeper but you aren't there yet. The real depth of the movie is that Prometheus is presenting you with the opportunity to study Gnosticism. The study of yourself. Some will say that Prometheus is too conceited, that it's messy or that by hiding that message, it's become bloated. They're missing the whole point.
Prometheus is much more than a movie. It's a message. In one of the main character's words "It's an invitation". It's totally up to you if you want to receive that message, let alone act on it and accept the invitation.
Frozen
(I) (2010)
Frozen takes way too many liberties.
15 September 2010
I think we have to face facts here guys - this movie is bad. Honestly, it's not often I'm tempted to walk out of a movie but this one definitely made my feet itch.
The story of three people trapped in a ski-lift at a deserted resort, Frozen asks us too many times to accept illogical actions and illogical situations. Now, I'm not going to go into every one. Not only do I not want to write any spoilers but I think that the majority will be glaringly obvious to any viewer - although it's up to you if you want to watch the movie to find them, but to be honest, you can easily find something better to do with your time than watch Frozen.
Yes, I understand that now and again we have to suspend disbelief when viewing a movie, but Frozen keeps asking us to do so time and time again. Once or twice is acceptable. Dozens of times just makes it a bad movie. It also makes it frustrating and insulting to the viewer's intelligence. This was meant to be a serious movie, but I spent most of my time dryly laughing at it's foolishness.
Don't be conned by those who say that it's original and therefore worthwhile. Being original isn't worth anything if you're just sitting there hoping that the end credits will roll soon.
The story of three people trapped in a ski-lift at a deserted resort, Frozen asks us too many times to accept illogical actions and illogical situations. Now, I'm not going to go into every one. Not only do I not want to write any spoilers but I think that the majority will be glaringly obvious to any viewer - although it's up to you if you want to watch the movie to find them, but to be honest, you can easily find something better to do with your time than watch Frozen.
Yes, I understand that now and again we have to suspend disbelief when viewing a movie, but Frozen keeps asking us to do so time and time again. Once or twice is acceptable. Dozens of times just makes it a bad movie. It also makes it frustrating and insulting to the viewer's intelligence. This was meant to be a serious movie, but I spent most of my time dryly laughing at it's foolishness.
Don't be conned by those who say that it's original and therefore worthwhile. Being original isn't worth anything if you're just sitting there hoping that the end credits will roll soon.
Requiem for a Dream
(2000)
Over-hyped and Over-rated
10 August 2009
The story of four people and drug addiction and how it destroys their lives.
The above is basically the whole of Requiem for a Dream summed up in one sentence. You don't need any more, because there isn't any more to the movie.
Even though RFAD has received massive acclaim, I just can't understand why people rave about it. My personal belief is that RFAD goes down much better in the US and that the scores it gets here on IMDb are a reflection of the fact that most of the people who frequent this website are Americans. To a degree, I feel that the marks it has received are due to the US attitude to hard drugs and addiction.
As a European, I didn't find anything brutal or shocking about RFAD. The earlier "Trainspotting" was THE movie about drug addiction and it portrayed a much more realistic attitude to addiction. It's a case of "Seen it all before only better". Realism was a big problem. Really, for heroin junkies, the guys and girls in this movie didn't have a hair out of place. Clean finger nails, tidy hair, clean clothes, dammit, they looked better than most of the people I know! Some of the decisions they made were really "out there" (even for junkies) and the plot left a lot to be desired (what little there was of it). There were also many instances where the plot veered off into the realms of being illogical - things happened to characters that just wouldn't have happened in real life - no matter how whacked out on drugs they were. One could counter that the movie's strength was that it was a bleak portrayal using extremes as a way of gaining impact but bleakness doesn't make it a classic and extremes still have to be put into a context where they don't overwhelm logic.
And my other beef? RFAD seems to be a hybrid of Trainspotting and Snatch/Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (again, people rave about the camera-work and music in RFAD, but again, it's something we've already seen done far better in European film long before).
Take away the originality of the camera-work and score, take away the originality of the "Addiction Story" and you're not really left with anything else but a mediocre movie.
I've read elsewhere people defending RFAD, saying that the book clarifies this or the book clarifies that and that criticising the movie whilst being unaware of the book's contents means that any negative view is unjustified. But come on people!! I went to see a movie. I didn't want to read the book. The movie really should tell me everything I want to know and if I have to read the book to have a better understanding, that means that the movie has failed.
Believe me, I tried to like RFAD. I looked at the IMDb score and thought, "It's got to be great". Then, when I discovered that it really wasn't that good, I thought maybe the problem was with me. But on analysis - no. No punch. No realism. No meat. No originality.
Finally, I'd just like to add, that I didn't relate to any of the characters - they were all annoying idiots. The only one who could elicit any sympathy at all was Wayan's character, Tyrone (although again, his final predicament didn't follow logic). I always find it very hard to like any movie where all the characters grind on my nerves. I'm not talking about just disliking characters - that could be the point of the plot and negative emotions could be the director's intentions, but in this case, they were just plain aggravating and I'd be pretty sure that was never the intended result. Personally, I couldn't have cared less what happened to them and to tell the absolute truth, I actually hoped from an early stage that something bad would happen to at least one of them and that kind of tramples over everything that the movie probably tried to be.
Sorry. For all the raving RFAD is just an average movie.
The above is basically the whole of Requiem for a Dream summed up in one sentence. You don't need any more, because there isn't any more to the movie.
Even though RFAD has received massive acclaim, I just can't understand why people rave about it. My personal belief is that RFAD goes down much better in the US and that the scores it gets here on IMDb are a reflection of the fact that most of the people who frequent this website are Americans. To a degree, I feel that the marks it has received are due to the US attitude to hard drugs and addiction.
As a European, I didn't find anything brutal or shocking about RFAD. The earlier "Trainspotting" was THE movie about drug addiction and it portrayed a much more realistic attitude to addiction. It's a case of "Seen it all before only better". Realism was a big problem. Really, for heroin junkies, the guys and girls in this movie didn't have a hair out of place. Clean finger nails, tidy hair, clean clothes, dammit, they looked better than most of the people I know! Some of the decisions they made were really "out there" (even for junkies) and the plot left a lot to be desired (what little there was of it). There were also many instances where the plot veered off into the realms of being illogical - things happened to characters that just wouldn't have happened in real life - no matter how whacked out on drugs they were. One could counter that the movie's strength was that it was a bleak portrayal using extremes as a way of gaining impact but bleakness doesn't make it a classic and extremes still have to be put into a context where they don't overwhelm logic.
And my other beef? RFAD seems to be a hybrid of Trainspotting and Snatch/Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (again, people rave about the camera-work and music in RFAD, but again, it's something we've already seen done far better in European film long before).
Take away the originality of the camera-work and score, take away the originality of the "Addiction Story" and you're not really left with anything else but a mediocre movie.
I've read elsewhere people defending RFAD, saying that the book clarifies this or the book clarifies that and that criticising the movie whilst being unaware of the book's contents means that any negative view is unjustified. But come on people!! I went to see a movie. I didn't want to read the book. The movie really should tell me everything I want to know and if I have to read the book to have a better understanding, that means that the movie has failed.
Believe me, I tried to like RFAD. I looked at the IMDb score and thought, "It's got to be great". Then, when I discovered that it really wasn't that good, I thought maybe the problem was with me. But on analysis - no. No punch. No realism. No meat. No originality.
Finally, I'd just like to add, that I didn't relate to any of the characters - they were all annoying idiots. The only one who could elicit any sympathy at all was Wayan's character, Tyrone (although again, his final predicament didn't follow logic). I always find it very hard to like any movie where all the characters grind on my nerves. I'm not talking about just disliking characters - that could be the point of the plot and negative emotions could be the director's intentions, but in this case, they were just plain aggravating and I'd be pretty sure that was never the intended result. Personally, I couldn't have cared less what happened to them and to tell the absolute truth, I actually hoped from an early stage that something bad would happen to at least one of them and that kind of tramples over everything that the movie probably tried to be.
Sorry. For all the raving RFAD is just an average movie.
Let the Right One In
(2008)
A Classic
4 August 2009
Touching, moving, enchanting, atmospheric, haunting and dare I say it, beautiful. Can this really be a vampire movie?
Let The Right One In is the story of a young Swedish boy named Oskar and his new, mysterious friend Eli, who just happens to be "The Vampire Next Door". To begin with the movie concentrates on Oskar's loneliness and frustration and then moves onto the relationship between the two main characters and their desperate attempts at surviving in a bleak world.
I started to write a plot synopsis about Let The Right One In but quickly realised that I don't really have the literary capabilities to aptly describe it. A quick review couldn't even begin to do this movie justice - there is a sense of depth that can only be appreciated by viewing this masterpiece. Yes. Masterpiece. I've always been set against the cliché (as I see it) of calling cinema "Art", but this definitely is art in it's purest sense. In my book, art not only has to be aesthetically pleasing but it has to make a lasting impact on one's emotions and I believe that this movie certainly fills that criteria.
I'm a fan of neither "foriegn" movies with subtitles nor the vampire genre but quite simply, Let The Right One In isn't your average vampire movie, and it's so engrossing that (if you're like me) you forget that it's subtitled and just go with the flow.
As many have said in other reviews - don't wait for Hollywood to corrupt this as they inevitably will. Don't settle for second best. Go for perfection and purity and watch this movie in it's glorious original form.
Let The Right One In is the story of a young Swedish boy named Oskar and his new, mysterious friend Eli, who just happens to be "The Vampire Next Door". To begin with the movie concentrates on Oskar's loneliness and frustration and then moves onto the relationship between the two main characters and their desperate attempts at surviving in a bleak world.
I started to write a plot synopsis about Let The Right One In but quickly realised that I don't really have the literary capabilities to aptly describe it. A quick review couldn't even begin to do this movie justice - there is a sense of depth that can only be appreciated by viewing this masterpiece. Yes. Masterpiece. I've always been set against the cliché (as I see it) of calling cinema "Art", but this definitely is art in it's purest sense. In my book, art not only has to be aesthetically pleasing but it has to make a lasting impact on one's emotions and I believe that this movie certainly fills that criteria.
I'm a fan of neither "foriegn" movies with subtitles nor the vampire genre but quite simply, Let The Right One In isn't your average vampire movie, and it's so engrossing that (if you're like me) you forget that it's subtitled and just go with the flow.
As many have said in other reviews - don't wait for Hollywood to corrupt this as they inevitably will. Don't settle for second best. Go for perfection and purity and watch this movie in it's glorious original form.
Cloverfield
(2008)
Dross... complete dross.
17 July 2009
Where to start? Although Cloverfield has a high rating here on IMDb, I honestly believe it to be one of the worst movies I have recently viewed. No. Check that. It's one of the worst movies I have EVER viewed.
I really cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can rate this movie highly - it has NO redeeming qualities. To begin with, the first 20 or so minutes are just pure tedium. My guess is that they were put there to "flesh out" the characters, but apart from being mind-numbingly boring, all they succeed in doing is to irritate. By the time the monster appeared, I really couldn't have cared less about the people in this movie. Sure, there are always those people who go down into the cellar when you just know there's a monster there. There has to be - without the characters doing dumb things there would be no movie. But the characters in this movie? I would have shoved them down the cellar steps myself. They're so dumb, so annoying, so damn pointless. In fact, if I were a monster in Manhattan, I would have specifically targeted these guys and squashed them or eaten them myself. Just to save the rest of the human race from having to share oxygen with them.
And then the guts of the movie - the "monster section". There was nothing. No story to speak of, no monster to speak of (we see very little of it), no great finale, no real gore, no logic, nothing but a bunch of people running around, screaming on a jerky video camera. Sure, leave me something for my imagination but at the same time, at least give me SOMETHING to work with. Cloverfield is just empty. I feel like I got the husk of a movie, something with no substance - a chocolate wrapper without ever tasting the chocolate.
There are those who will say that this movie has "depth". There are those who will say it is "realistic". There are those who will say that it stands out as "unique". Yeah? On which planet? Here on Planet Earth, all I saw was an incredibly dull and poorly made rehash of a Godzilla movie. I am utterly amazed that this dross pulls in more than a 7 rating. Not only that, but reading through some of the positive reviews here, I can't help wondering whether I actually went and viewed the same movie. Perhaps I just dreamt that I saw an incredibly bad movie called "Cloverfield"? Perhaps I haven't seen the real "Cloverfield" that others seem to be raving about. That's really the only explanation I can come up with when looking at the discrepancies between my opinion of this trash and some of the views of the people who rave that it's a decent movie. Or maybe a lot of people see an America scarred by 911 and believe that a disaster movie where New York gets trashed is some sort of Holy Grail that can only be venerated? I honestly can't see any other reason for giving Cloverfield a second glance.
Believe me: don't be fooled. Cloverfield is NOT a good movie. It's terrible. I could go on and on about what makes it bad, but analysing every scene would take ages and this movie really doesn't deserve any more of my time than I've already given it.
I really cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can rate this movie highly - it has NO redeeming qualities. To begin with, the first 20 or so minutes are just pure tedium. My guess is that they were put there to "flesh out" the characters, but apart from being mind-numbingly boring, all they succeed in doing is to irritate. By the time the monster appeared, I really couldn't have cared less about the people in this movie. Sure, there are always those people who go down into the cellar when you just know there's a monster there. There has to be - without the characters doing dumb things there would be no movie. But the characters in this movie? I would have shoved them down the cellar steps myself. They're so dumb, so annoying, so damn pointless. In fact, if I were a monster in Manhattan, I would have specifically targeted these guys and squashed them or eaten them myself. Just to save the rest of the human race from having to share oxygen with them.
And then the guts of the movie - the "monster section". There was nothing. No story to speak of, no monster to speak of (we see very little of it), no great finale, no real gore, no logic, nothing but a bunch of people running around, screaming on a jerky video camera. Sure, leave me something for my imagination but at the same time, at least give me SOMETHING to work with. Cloverfield is just empty. I feel like I got the husk of a movie, something with no substance - a chocolate wrapper without ever tasting the chocolate.
There are those who will say that this movie has "depth". There are those who will say it is "realistic". There are those who will say that it stands out as "unique". Yeah? On which planet? Here on Planet Earth, all I saw was an incredibly dull and poorly made rehash of a Godzilla movie. I am utterly amazed that this dross pulls in more than a 7 rating. Not only that, but reading through some of the positive reviews here, I can't help wondering whether I actually went and viewed the same movie. Perhaps I just dreamt that I saw an incredibly bad movie called "Cloverfield"? Perhaps I haven't seen the real "Cloverfield" that others seem to be raving about. That's really the only explanation I can come up with when looking at the discrepancies between my opinion of this trash and some of the views of the people who rave that it's a decent movie. Or maybe a lot of people see an America scarred by 911 and believe that a disaster movie where New York gets trashed is some sort of Holy Grail that can only be venerated? I honestly can't see any other reason for giving Cloverfield a second glance.
Believe me: don't be fooled. Cloverfield is NOT a good movie. It's terrible. I could go on and on about what makes it bad, but analysing every scene would take ages and this movie really doesn't deserve any more of my time than I've already given it.
Scum
(1979)
UK Film-making at it's best.
20 June 2009
The story of life in a Young Offenders' Institute in the UK (a Borstal), "Scum" portrays the bleak existence of both prisoners and guards, trapped in a system that is corrupt and which dehumanises both groups.
The main plot centres around one boy (Ray Winstone as Carlin) from when he first arrives at the Borstal and focuses on his rise to power as "Daddy". It also starkly exposes the collusion between guards and prisoners to the detriment of those who just seem to want to "serve their time". One can only say after viewing "Scum" that there are no innocents in this movie - only those with lesser degrees of guilt. Be warned: there is no happy ending. The movie tries to be as realistic as it is allowed to in it's medium and unfortunately, real life doesn't always end with the hero riding off into the sunset. In "Scum"'s case there isn't really even a hero to take that ride.
I wouldn't say that watching "Scum" is an enjoyable experience but to me it epitomises what good film-making is about - making an impact on the emotions of the viewer. And "Scum" certainly delivers in that respect. The one thing I am thankful of is that I was too young to see this movie when it first came out - to have discovered that this was what was in store for me if I messed up in society would have probably have created a nervous wreck. The viewer is also appeased slightly by the knowledge that things have now changed, Borstals do not now exist and that young offenders are now "rehabilitated" rather than just brutally punished, treated as human beings and not put into these sort of institutions now. That said, the thought that these events as depicted in "Scum" could quite easily have occurred as depicted only 30 years ago on our very doorsteps is a very unsettling one.
All in all, a very, very powerful movie and thoroughly recommended.
Incidentally, a couple of comments here wrongly state that this movie depicts life in Thatcher's Britain. Scum was written prior to 1979, whilst the UK was under a Labour government. The Borstal system itself was set up by the Gladstone Committee way back in 1895 (Gladstone himself being a Liberal). "Scum" is not an indictment of any political party. It is an indictment of the whole British attitude towards crime and punishment in the 70s and prior to that period.
The main plot centres around one boy (Ray Winstone as Carlin) from when he first arrives at the Borstal and focuses on his rise to power as "Daddy". It also starkly exposes the collusion between guards and prisoners to the detriment of those who just seem to want to "serve their time". One can only say after viewing "Scum" that there are no innocents in this movie - only those with lesser degrees of guilt. Be warned: there is no happy ending. The movie tries to be as realistic as it is allowed to in it's medium and unfortunately, real life doesn't always end with the hero riding off into the sunset. In "Scum"'s case there isn't really even a hero to take that ride.
I wouldn't say that watching "Scum" is an enjoyable experience but to me it epitomises what good film-making is about - making an impact on the emotions of the viewer. And "Scum" certainly delivers in that respect. The one thing I am thankful of is that I was too young to see this movie when it first came out - to have discovered that this was what was in store for me if I messed up in society would have probably have created a nervous wreck. The viewer is also appeased slightly by the knowledge that things have now changed, Borstals do not now exist and that young offenders are now "rehabilitated" rather than just brutally punished, treated as human beings and not put into these sort of institutions now. That said, the thought that these events as depicted in "Scum" could quite easily have occurred as depicted only 30 years ago on our very doorsteps is a very unsettling one.
All in all, a very, very powerful movie and thoroughly recommended.
Incidentally, a couple of comments here wrongly state that this movie depicts life in Thatcher's Britain. Scum was written prior to 1979, whilst the UK was under a Labour government. The Borstal system itself was set up by the Gladstone Committee way back in 1895 (Gladstone himself being a Liberal). "Scum" is not an indictment of any political party. It is an indictment of the whole British attitude towards crime and punishment in the 70s and prior to that period.
Mission to Mars
(2000)
Should Have Gone to Venus.
10 May 2008
Wow this is a bad movie. As a fan of B Movies, it's rare that I criticise a movie just for being bad but Mission to Mars is bad in the sort of way that reminds you of someone running their fingernails down a blackboard or a small child grinding their teeth. It's not the sort of bad that can later be turned into cult status or can be explained away as "quirky". It's just annoyingly bad. This looks like it had a lot of money thrown at it. In fact, I know it had a lot of money thrown at it. It's therefore got no excuse to be the steaming pile that it is.
So let's give it some marks out of 10.
Storyline: 1/10. And it only get's the 1 because there are still some slight traces of the other (far better) movies Mission to Mars steals from.
Music: 1/10. This was meant to be a sci-fi movie. Being overwhelmed by the sort of music that's normally played in chocolate ads on TV is not what I was looking for.
Script. 0/10. In fact 0 is to high. Minus 5 is far more deserving, but heck, I've got to stick to my own rules.
Acting. 2/10. Yeah, I know 2 seems high when compared to the rest of the scores above. But the actors did at least turn up. They did stand in front of the cameras until the movie was made. That's why they get the 2. For their actual performances, they get a big, fat zero. More wood than Noah's ark.
Product Placement. 9/10. Only drops a point because they didn't have any of the big fast food joints like BK, McD or KFC advertised. Apart from that, most other major corporations managed to get their products featured pretty well.
Special Effects. 2/10. Seen better. Seen worse. Can't say that for a sci-fi movie they were that good though. I expect sci-fi special effects to be outstanding simply because the genre demands it. These weren't.
Wardrobe/Makeup. 10/10. Best use of eye-liner I've ever seen on a guy. I don't think that they actually meant to do it but as every other score (apart from product placement) is so low, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately as IMDb only lets the reviewer judge out of 10 and you can't really give a movie kudos for selling fizzy drinks or candy or for making one of it's lead actors look like a wannabe transvestite, I'll just summarise and give this turkey a one. And that's only because I've never yet marked anything a zero.
So let's give it some marks out of 10.
Storyline: 1/10. And it only get's the 1 because there are still some slight traces of the other (far better) movies Mission to Mars steals from.
Music: 1/10. This was meant to be a sci-fi movie. Being overwhelmed by the sort of music that's normally played in chocolate ads on TV is not what I was looking for.
Script. 0/10. In fact 0 is to high. Minus 5 is far more deserving, but heck, I've got to stick to my own rules.
Acting. 2/10. Yeah, I know 2 seems high when compared to the rest of the scores above. But the actors did at least turn up. They did stand in front of the cameras until the movie was made. That's why they get the 2. For their actual performances, they get a big, fat zero. More wood than Noah's ark.
Product Placement. 9/10. Only drops a point because they didn't have any of the big fast food joints like BK, McD or KFC advertised. Apart from that, most other major corporations managed to get their products featured pretty well.
Special Effects. 2/10. Seen better. Seen worse. Can't say that for a sci-fi movie they were that good though. I expect sci-fi special effects to be outstanding simply because the genre demands it. These weren't.
Wardrobe/Makeup. 10/10. Best use of eye-liner I've ever seen on a guy. I don't think that they actually meant to do it but as every other score (apart from product placement) is so low, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately as IMDb only lets the reviewer judge out of 10 and you can't really give a movie kudos for selling fizzy drinks or candy or for making one of it's lead actors look like a wannabe transvestite, I'll just summarise and give this turkey a one. And that's only because I've never yet marked anything a zero.
Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter
(2001)
Hollywood It Ain't.
27 March 2008
Make no mistake - this is a REAL B movie. And it shows. The crew were working with a tiny budget and things like props, special effects, wardrobe etc, are all just incidentals that were tagged on if they had time or any money left to afford them. It looks like they didn't have any money left though!!! But that's the beauty of this movie. It's rawness is a major part of it's appeal. If JCVH had been made by a major company, it just wouldn't be right. It thrives on it's crudity. No major company would touch this movie though - they wouldn't have the balls to approach it's subject matter or the bravery to take a risk with it. So JCVH works perfectly as it stands.
I'm not going to go into the details of the movie; suffice to say that any movie with a religious godhead as a character is going to be controversial and may even be seen as blasphemous. But if you're going to watch it thinking it's a condemnation of Christianity, you'll be disappointed - if anything it reaffirms the core message that everyone should be cool to one another. And how can anyone disagree with that?
JCVH is not so much a laugh out loud movie. There weren't many instances where I was doubled up with laughter but I found myself sitting through the whole movie with a smile on my face. It's beauty is it's cleverness. At first glance, many of the jokes seem superficial, but when contemplated, you realise how much effort went into them and how original they are. Days later you may find yourself referring back to something in the movie and thinking to yourself "Wow!!! That is really clever!!!" It may sound strange, but JCVH is a movie that I found funnier in the days after I watched it. They say that revenge is a dish served cold. Likewise, that also seems to be the case with the humour in JCVH.
Many people won't get this movie. Nowadays, we expect everything to be sparkling and polished. That creates a veneer that often blinds us to the true substance - a terrible movie will often draw acclaim whereas that which doesn't meet this expectation and yearning for the artificial is consigned to the trash can. JCVH uses no trickery, no mirage or veneer - it relies on it's intelligence and rawness. And to tell the truth: it does it very, very well.
I'm not going to go into the details of the movie; suffice to say that any movie with a religious godhead as a character is going to be controversial and may even be seen as blasphemous. But if you're going to watch it thinking it's a condemnation of Christianity, you'll be disappointed - if anything it reaffirms the core message that everyone should be cool to one another. And how can anyone disagree with that?
JCVH is not so much a laugh out loud movie. There weren't many instances where I was doubled up with laughter but I found myself sitting through the whole movie with a smile on my face. It's beauty is it's cleverness. At first glance, many of the jokes seem superficial, but when contemplated, you realise how much effort went into them and how original they are. Days later you may find yourself referring back to something in the movie and thinking to yourself "Wow!!! That is really clever!!!" It may sound strange, but JCVH is a movie that I found funnier in the days after I watched it. They say that revenge is a dish served cold. Likewise, that also seems to be the case with the humour in JCVH.
Many people won't get this movie. Nowadays, we expect everything to be sparkling and polished. That creates a veneer that often blinds us to the true substance - a terrible movie will often draw acclaim whereas that which doesn't meet this expectation and yearning for the artificial is consigned to the trash can. JCVH uses no trickery, no mirage or veneer - it relies on it's intelligence and rawness. And to tell the truth: it does it very, very well.
The Mist
(2007)
Ever Been Cheated?
26 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting great things from the Mist. As a young boy, the short Stephen King novel was one of those stories that I read time and time again. Even back then, I can remember thinking "This would be great on the screen!!!". OK, admittedly, I knew it would lose some of it's worth when transferred out of the pages and into the box office, but as an already formed idea, it was hard to see how anyone could mess it up. But they did. And oh my, how they messed it up.
From a pretty promising start, The Mist soon descends to the typical book/movie crossover - i.e: Trash. I keep asking myself, how did the director manage to screw this up so badly?
The characters are poorly formed and although the acting is OK, there are times when one feels so infuriated by the character development, it spoils the whole movie. Honestly, I couldn't care less what happened to anyone in the store. And did we really need so much focus on Christian fundamentalism? It's such an over-riding factor in this movie, it almost blurs the rest of the plot. When I watch a movie like The Mist, I want to be frightened, I want to be thrilled, I don't want to be sitting in my seat fighting back the urge to vomit at some pathetically veiled stab at religion. If religion or fundamentalism is a problem for the director, I have a message for him - GO MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT IT. DO NOT USE IT TO SPOIL A GREAT IDEA. YOU WERE GIVEN A GIFT. A SURE THING. YOU DROPPED THE BALL.
Elsewhere, the CGI was OK. Other people may rave about it in this review forum but I really can't say that it was anything that held my attention for too long. Most of the story was true to the original, although again, there were times when the poor character development made you wonder how people got themselves into certain predicaments - for example, people being led out to their certain death with hardly any coaxing.
But then we come to the biggest negative in this movie. The ending. Even if this had been a great movie (which it wasn't), the ending would have destroyed any positivity that came before. Some people may see it as clever, I just see it as a massive cop-out. Not only that, but not even a particularly smart one. Maybe there was a message in there somewhere as some have stated - but the message to me read "Ever Been Cheated? You have now".
All in all, I give The Mist a massive thumbs down. It could have been something great. Really it could have. But instead, it's a mess. I couldn't even recommend it as a popcorn movie - it isn't even mindless entertainment. Just a great idea that became overwhelmed by somebody's misguided urge to try and look smart.
From a pretty promising start, The Mist soon descends to the typical book/movie crossover - i.e: Trash. I keep asking myself, how did the director manage to screw this up so badly?
The characters are poorly formed and although the acting is OK, there are times when one feels so infuriated by the character development, it spoils the whole movie. Honestly, I couldn't care less what happened to anyone in the store. And did we really need so much focus on Christian fundamentalism? It's such an over-riding factor in this movie, it almost blurs the rest of the plot. When I watch a movie like The Mist, I want to be frightened, I want to be thrilled, I don't want to be sitting in my seat fighting back the urge to vomit at some pathetically veiled stab at religion. If religion or fundamentalism is a problem for the director, I have a message for him - GO MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT IT. DO NOT USE IT TO SPOIL A GREAT IDEA. YOU WERE GIVEN A GIFT. A SURE THING. YOU DROPPED THE BALL.
Elsewhere, the CGI was OK. Other people may rave about it in this review forum but I really can't say that it was anything that held my attention for too long. Most of the story was true to the original, although again, there were times when the poor character development made you wonder how people got themselves into certain predicaments - for example, people being led out to their certain death with hardly any coaxing.
But then we come to the biggest negative in this movie. The ending. Even if this had been a great movie (which it wasn't), the ending would have destroyed any positivity that came before. Some people may see it as clever, I just see it as a massive cop-out. Not only that, but not even a particularly smart one. Maybe there was a message in there somewhere as some have stated - but the message to me read "Ever Been Cheated? You have now".
All in all, I give The Mist a massive thumbs down. It could have been something great. Really it could have. But instead, it's a mess. I couldn't even recommend it as a popcorn movie - it isn't even mindless entertainment. Just a great idea that became overwhelmed by somebody's misguided urge to try and look smart.
300
(2006)
Not Taxing but Definitely Pleasing.
22 October 2007
OK, firstly I consider myself pretty hard to please when it comes to action movies. The normal case is that there is no intricate plot, great acting or taxing brain-work required. And then, half the time, the action is something we've all seen before and isn't really up to much. Action movies tend to be a watch and throwaway genre in my household. That said, although 300 fits the first couple of criteria, it's definitely a movie worth watching again and it's also not your typical action movie - it is "pure" action. By that I mean everything (and I do mean everything) else is secondary. Visually, this is one of the best movies you can see at the present time. Whether it stands the test of that time as technology moves on is another matter, but for what it's worth at the moment, there isn't a lot out there that can touch it. And that's what 300 basically is - it's a visual roller-coaster. It offers a feast for the eyes that outweighs all of the negatives that you can throw at it. People may complain that it's historically inaccurate, racist, badly acted or homo-erotic but one can answer those points without even going into great depth with two words - So What?!!!
But if like me, you do need a little more detail, let's address those points one by one. Historically, I'm ambiguous. The movie doesn't do a great job with factual evidence, but it also doesn't do that bad a job either. It is based on an event that occurred thousands of years ago and, although it does take liberties (which movie based on history doesn't) it's overall theme is true to the point - some of the really corny lines were actually said by the real Spartans!! With a movie such as 300, you are never going to get 100% historical accuracy as it just wouldn't sit right, but to those who say that the Spartans weren't fighting for liberty? Wrong!!! Although they weren't a particularly liberal society, they were under no illusion that Sparta would merely become a Persian satrap if Greece fell.
So is it racist? Well the first thing to recognise here is that this movie isn't about Christians versus Muslims, Europeans versus Asians or even Iranians versus Yanks for that matter. When Thermopylae took place, none of the above existed. I've seen people here saying that this movie is insulting to Iranians? How so if Iran didn't even exist back then and isn't even mentioned in the movie? There is such a huge difference between the country of Iran and the empire of Persia that the two can only be compared with a very tenuous geographical link. To say that the movie insults one country or another is akin to saying that Ben Hur is an insult to all Italians because it shows Roman oppression. Absolutely ridiculous. So some of the Persians are portrayed as demon-type figures - in most war movies, we have to pick sides and the enemy is never an Adonis. But in saying that, we've already decided that these aren't the historically accurate Spartans or Persians so does it really matter??!!!
Badly acted? Well, I'd disagree with this. The actors ARE given corny lines (some historically accurate as I've pointed out) but in general, they do carry them off OK. Having a script that doesn't meet expectations is not the same as giving a poor impression of a character.
Which brings us onto homo-erotic (ooer!!). Well, when you get a bunch of semi-naked men cavorting around your movie screen, someone is always going to level that accusation. In fact, homosexuality was almost certainly an accepted part of Spartan culture. If the director (or the comic book writer) truly wanted a "gay movie", they would only have had to appease some of the historical buffs and portray real Spartan life. They didn't do this, so really, the levels of homo-eroticism aren't really with any solid ground. That said, who cares? I'm heterosexual, but it doesn't mean to say that I can't admire an actor's biceps or 6 pack!!
But as I said at the beginning - So What? These criticisms are made by people who don't seem to get what this movie is about. There's no point arguing about the type of sword the real Spartans used, whether or not the bad guys are an insult to a modern-day nation or whether the actors should get a job in "Hamlet". 300 isn't about that. 300 is what all action movies aspire to be and it succeeds admirably. It's about tearing out your eyeballs as you look frantically at the eye-candy all over the screen. It's about making you gasp in awe at what technology can do. It's about making you wonder what feast your eyes will get to feed on next - making you impatient for it's next scene and then rewarding you with another treat. Go watch it for that alone. It's worth it.
But if like me, you do need a little more detail, let's address those points one by one. Historically, I'm ambiguous. The movie doesn't do a great job with factual evidence, but it also doesn't do that bad a job either. It is based on an event that occurred thousands of years ago and, although it does take liberties (which movie based on history doesn't) it's overall theme is true to the point - some of the really corny lines were actually said by the real Spartans!! With a movie such as 300, you are never going to get 100% historical accuracy as it just wouldn't sit right, but to those who say that the Spartans weren't fighting for liberty? Wrong!!! Although they weren't a particularly liberal society, they were under no illusion that Sparta would merely become a Persian satrap if Greece fell.
So is it racist? Well the first thing to recognise here is that this movie isn't about Christians versus Muslims, Europeans versus Asians or even Iranians versus Yanks for that matter. When Thermopylae took place, none of the above existed. I've seen people here saying that this movie is insulting to Iranians? How so if Iran didn't even exist back then and isn't even mentioned in the movie? There is such a huge difference between the country of Iran and the empire of Persia that the two can only be compared with a very tenuous geographical link. To say that the movie insults one country or another is akin to saying that Ben Hur is an insult to all Italians because it shows Roman oppression. Absolutely ridiculous. So some of the Persians are portrayed as demon-type figures - in most war movies, we have to pick sides and the enemy is never an Adonis. But in saying that, we've already decided that these aren't the historically accurate Spartans or Persians so does it really matter??!!!
Badly acted? Well, I'd disagree with this. The actors ARE given corny lines (some historically accurate as I've pointed out) but in general, they do carry them off OK. Having a script that doesn't meet expectations is not the same as giving a poor impression of a character.
Which brings us onto homo-erotic (ooer!!). Well, when you get a bunch of semi-naked men cavorting around your movie screen, someone is always going to level that accusation. In fact, homosexuality was almost certainly an accepted part of Spartan culture. If the director (or the comic book writer) truly wanted a "gay movie", they would only have had to appease some of the historical buffs and portray real Spartan life. They didn't do this, so really, the levels of homo-eroticism aren't really with any solid ground. That said, who cares? I'm heterosexual, but it doesn't mean to say that I can't admire an actor's biceps or 6 pack!!
But as I said at the beginning - So What? These criticisms are made by people who don't seem to get what this movie is about. There's no point arguing about the type of sword the real Spartans used, whether or not the bad guys are an insult to a modern-day nation or whether the actors should get a job in "Hamlet". 300 isn't about that. 300 is what all action movies aspire to be and it succeeds admirably. It's about tearing out your eyeballs as you look frantically at the eye-candy all over the screen. It's about making you gasp in awe at what technology can do. It's about making you wonder what feast your eyes will get to feed on next - making you impatient for it's next scene and then rewarding you with another treat. Go watch it for that alone. It's worth it.
Tell Your Friends