supergnome9 Reviews

Van Helsing (2004)

Was I playing a computer game or watching a film?

[14 August 2004]

I went to see Van Helsing with high hopes, having not seen a good film for quite some time. However, this wasn't to be the one that would break that trend.

For many special effects driven sequences of the film I felt like I was watching a computer game, especially with the Mr Hyde character. This would have been fine if I was watching an animation feature film, but was not believable as real life action.

The acting was fine, as was the plot, but any plus points were completely undone at the end. I won't say what happens, only that it has to be the worst and most pathetic end to any film I've ever seen.

Superman (1978)

A bad film with terrible effects

[14 August 2004]

If you have never seen Superman then it's probably best not to bother. With the current standard of special effects those in Superman are laughable, especially an earthquake crack confined to a few square metres. It's not surprising that George Lucas decided to create brand new effects equipment to make Star Wars Episode IV. If he'd used the same techniques as this film A New Hope would never have been as big as it is. As far as historical importance goes, you might want to see this film purely because it's one of the first superhero films. However, not only are the effects bad, but so is the plot (and the acting isn't up to much either).

Superman? I don't think so!

Adaptation. (2002)

Cage at his best in a great film.

[26 June 2003]

Adaptation is the only film so far this year that has been worth the ticket price. the acting is of a high standard, the plot actually holds together (unlike so many films these days), and the characters and narrative have more than one dimension.

This is a really good film and an excellent follow-up to the directors' last film, BJM. If you want to watch something that'll keep your attention without needing a truck-load of special effects, then this is it!

Identity (2003)

A bad premise which undermines the whole film.

[3/10 · 25 June 2003]

Spoiler Alert I went to see Identity without too many expectations - always the best way and it means you're less likely to be disappointed. I love a lot of Cusack's work, but this film is not one of his best. His acting is good, but the whole premise of the film was a) obvious, and b) unworkable in reality. Which personality was 'running' the man with the disorder when Cusack's 'Ed' wasn't? Why didn't this personality appear at the Diner when Ed was in control of the man? How did the final woman's personality write in a diary when all the man with the disorder did is daydream her life? Why didn't any of the personalities say 'hey, wait a minute, who the hell else has been writing in my diary?'? When a multiple personality isn't evident in the person with a disorder it is not anywhere else, but is suppressed and hidden. When a personality is in control it's not like daydreaming, its actions are the actions of the person with the disorder. Etc, etc. Why didn't the writers not include a picture of the man with the disorder at the beginning and then make the film appear to be present day, but in fact be a flashback to when the original murders took place? Okay, this would have been your traditional murder mystery, but at least it would have worked!

Donnie Darko (2001)

Excellent until the end.

[25 June 2003]

Contains Spoiler! Donnie Darko as a film builds curiosity well through an excellent narrative, that is, until the end.

Like so many Hollywood films of the past few years, Darko falls apart at the final hurdle. The jet engine goes back in time - fine. However, it would have to be Donnie that does back if the past is going to be changed. He would need to return so that the conscious choice could be made to stay in bed rather than going out to the garden. If only the jet engine goes back then he would still be out of bed and wouldn't die.

This could have been solved easily by the writer - Donnie creates a worm-hole and goes back in time and the jet engine is dragged back after him before the worm-hole closes.

If it weren't for an unworkable end this would be a great film.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A sequel that shouldn't have been made.

[25 June 2003]

I went to see Matrix Reloaded filled with enthusiasm after thinking the original film was fantastic. I came out of the cinema deflated and asking the question 'did the W Brothers bother to watch the first film before making this one?'

No green tint on the matrix parts of the film, art direction which was way below the standard of the first film, and a Neo that has suddenly got less power than before (had he had the same power he wouldn't have had to fight all those agent Smiths, but could have simply sent them all flying back through the air with a wave of his hand.)

And what about the plot holes. Ok, so there's not as many in this as there is in The Phantom Menace, but that film broke all records. There's still a lot, like the Oracle's message somehow being solid beyond the Matrix.

Basically it feels like all thought of plot cohesion and continuity with the previous film went out of the window. What a shame.

Circus (2000)

An under-rated Brit-flick.

[7/10 · 25 June 2003]

Circus is an enjoyable film worth watching if only for Eddie Izzard's character. That's one thing this film has - character. It also has a good plot, though the acting is a little dodgy in places.

Possibly the reason it is rated so low by those in the US that do the TV guide starring system is because they don't put much emphasis on character and substance, and may not have been able to follow the plot.

If you want explosions and mindless action with no real plot go watch a Hollywood blockbuster. If you want a little gem that keeps you interested then give this film a try.