blinkchester Reviews

Wild (I) (2014)

Prepare For a Journey

[7/10 · 28 March 2015]

Here we have a movie that exemplifies exactly what makes a journey. We have the actual journey, 93 days and 1100 miles. We have the means which is hiking along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). We also can look at the emotional path taken, coming to terms with traumatic events and heading towards self-discovery.

The cinema experience in itself is a journey. We travel to the pictures while opening our minds as we are taken into a distorted reality. Escaping our own world and allowing the auteur to take control of our minds. In Wild we can share that journey with Reese Witherspoon. Based on the memoirs of Cheryl Strayed about her hike along the PCT, Wild was adapted for the big screen by Nick Horny of High Fidelity and Fever Pitch fame.

Reese Witherspoon fully deserved her Oscar nomination for leading this movie. Likable yet ambiguous as Strayed, Witherspoon is able to capture the demons from Strayed's past, yet have the audience empathise with her circumstances. She effectively transitions from the green under prepared hiker to the tough worldly achievement. A character who feels that all the beauty has gone out of the world, falls to her knees in a touching scene when she achieves self-discovery. It is fair to say, that sometimes to move forward, you have to break yourself right down.

Is it a voyage of self-loathing? Punishment? Adventure? Possibly a test of endurance? A testament to the reality portrayed here is that lines are blurred. Life is a journey, you meet many interesting characters along the way, but in the end you must realise that you are responsible for your own actions.

You will not lose interest in this film as you grow with the character. This is not an advertisement for hiking, the hike could be represented in many ways. Give this one a chance, the journey is worth it.

The Voices (2014)

Reigning Cats & Dogs

[8/10 · 20 March 2015]

Dark Comedy, Horror, Satirical, ironic and twisted… These are just some of the words which can be used to describe Marjane Satrapi's genre bender. After appearing on a list of the best unmade screenplays in 2009, The Voices see's the light of day in 2015.

Ryan Reynolds plays Jerry, a schizophrenic loser, a boy trapped inside a man's body, struggling to fit in within a town of averages. An average job in a bathtub factory in a town in which very little ever happens leads to very surreal events. Reynolds is turning out to be one of Hollywood's forgotten stars, turning in a fantastic performance. Deranged yet sympathetic. He is supported by Gemma Arterton, superbly playing the 'office fit' Fiona. Arterton deftly switches between the confident curvaceous leaders of the account ladies, to the vulnerable Brit a long way from home. Even better is Anna Kendrick, as the less noticeable account girl, Lisa. Lisa is everything Fiona is not, she is safe, trusting and passive.

This may not be the type of film you would expect to find two of Hollywood's leading ladies in, but nothing about The Voices is straightforward. The plot unfolds through Jerry's deranged viewpoint, blurring the lines between imagination and reality. In Jerry's reality his animals talk to him, cleverly representing the struggle within his personality. Without looking to spoil any surprises, Jerry may be responsible for many evil acts, but this struggle shows him less evil but more sympathetic. Jerry continues to spiral out of control and it is only when we get a glimpse of reality, we see the tortured soul, living above an abandoned bowling alley, away from any human contact and still suffering from aggressive contact from his past.

I have heard The Voices described as funny. This is not necessarily misleading advertising. There may not be too many laugh out loud jokes, but the situational comedy is fantastic. The closing credits expertly round off a surreal exaggeration of laughter, but also a touching exploration of mental health.

It is no surprise that Reynold's campaigned to lead this film. It will leave you feeling a little uneasy and very unsure. If you're thinking of watching this one, ask your dog first… Or maybe your cat

WWE Royal Rumble (2005 TV Special)

Not brilliant, but definitely worth a viewing

[7/10 · 30 April 2005]

The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.

I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.

We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.

Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.

Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.

The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.

Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.

I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection.

Platoon (1986)

Perfection... or as close to it as we're ever likely to see

[28 April 2004]

Its hard to know where to start with such a breathtaking film. Oliver Stone's Platoon is quite simply the best Vietnam war film ever made in my opinion. Everything about it is as close to perfection as we are likely to see. Charlie Sheen plays the lead, and Willem Defoe and Tom Berenger play the two sergeants that form a key part of the plot.

Chris Taylor (Sheen) is torn between the sergeants. Barnes (Berenger) is the battle hardened, brutal murderer, who uses the war as an excuse to tender to his sadistic pleasures. Elias (Defoe) is the other side of the spectrum. We get the sense that he has wrestled with his inner demons, but he has successfully come through to the other side. He has compassion for his fellow man, and he uses drugs as a form of escapism from this brutal war. The two symbolise the struggle that Taylor must face if he is to survive out in Vietnam.

Oliver Stone perfectly captures war. The shooting is frantic and impossible to follow. It perfectly disorientates us, just as the soldiers were. We have no idea who is being shot at, and neither do they. We follow the war at ground level, and see the brutalities first hand. Having served in Vietnam, the film is loosely based on Stone's time out there, and Taylor loosely based on himself.

Full Metal Jacket showcases how inhumane the war was, Apocalypse Now turns it into a story about life in general, and hopelessness, but Platoon has everything. Trying hard to avoid the old cliché, but if you only watch one war film, make sure it is this one. Nothing else can come close.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Hits new lows

[30 January 2004]

I've seen many bad films over the years. I've also seen a few which have been made solely for financial success, without any creative ambition. Charlie's Angels is possibly the worst film i've ever seen.

It never actually seems to kick in. All we have is a montage of clips that don't seem to be in any particular order, all with countless short cutting techniques. McG seems to have forgotten that he is no longr making a pop video, and he has churned out a pop video of over 1 and a half hours. Was it to give the film a modern look? The only thing is succeeds in doing is making it appear over stylised and very self concious of the fact that it was going nowhere

A film with over 18 writers and 30 separate drafts of the script does not sound good from the start. Then there was the fact no ending was agreed upon when shooting started. What on earth were Columbia thinking? I can't understand why they hired McG, who has made such a disasterous start to his movie career, that he is being hailed as the worst director of all time. He simplified the already simple premise of the television series. He made every angel the same, and they were reduced to just being a smiling bunch of assets. It is ridiculous that Diaz, Barrymore and Liu agreed, and Barrymore even owned the rights. At the height of their careers, why did they choose to make such a shallow and degrading film towards women.

Bosworth is reduced to being the angels pimp. We may expect to have a few laughs from Bill Murray, well to be honest, we don't. I have rarely seem a film without one single redeeming feature to remember in hindsight. I can't think of one positive to take from Charlie's Angels. A bunch of big egos, and ridiculous ideas combined have made a shambles. It would have been easy to make a happy and cheery movie from the subject matter, true it would not have been groundbreaking, but it is nearly impossible to make such a catastrophy from such a likable premise. Every teenage boys wet dream must surely have become their nightmare. Let's not even start on the sequel

Final rating 0 out of 5

The Ring (2002)

The film sure nearly killed me

[26 January 2004]

I watched the Japanese original a few months before i heard that Hollywood was making their own version of this film. The original, although not a unique idea, is a very interesting one if handled right. It was a very watchable horror, nothing special, but well worth a view.

The remake however it a shambles. It takes a few good ideas from the film it is remaking, and also borrows from many other Hollywood horrors. The two films show the difference between the cinema from continent to continent. Japanese cinema is far more artistic and its audience view the films in a far different way. I can not imagine many traditional Japanese audiences enjoying Gore Verbinski's film.

It has a few redeeming points. The special effects, as you would expect go some way to making the Hollywood version watchable, but as for the plot, it makes little sense, and we are simply not interested enough to unravel the bits that need us to.

The usual horror conventions of the jump effect loud music are implmenented as the only way to scare us in this horror. The only thing this film will succeed in doing is making people want to watch the original and bringing it to Western audiences.

Score this film 4 out of 10

Shallow Hal (2001)

skirting with decency and taste

[26 January 2004]

I have to admit at first watch i enjoyed this film. It may be a 'leave your brain at the door' type, but at first glance you'll find yourself chuckling at some points. The engine of this film is the same joke, which is basically repeated many different ways. This is pretty typical of the Farelly brothers, as we can see with their recent film, Stuck On You.

The film claims sensitivity and understanding as its selling points. The narrative does not really lead us to feel compassion for fat people at all though. Our central character, brilliant played by Jack Black, is shallow as it gets, and although we can see this, and see him for the fool that he is, we also do not suddenly want to date someone who is 350 pounds. The in jokes about pets, namely dogs, are suggestive about women, or large women, for the wrong reasons. The fact that the girl who lives over the hall is still as beautiful when Jack is hypnotised is also pretty important.

Forget the sensitivity loss though, if you can watch this film and ignore the points they are making, it can make for good light entertainment. As with all Farelly brothers movies, don't take anything to heart, and just sit back and watch.

I would give this film 6/10 for enjoyment, but lets not delve too deeply with a light film

My Little Eye (2002)

Goes where no film has

[22 January 2004]

Inventive, original, twisted and imaginative are words that you could use to describe My Little Eye. So are words such as poor, dismal and what a clever idea, badly executed.

The concept of a reality show is a good one. The idea of webcams being used for a lot of the footage is also a clever one. Why take such an original premise and turn it into a ridiculous blood and guts slasher horror with no substance? Jeepers Creepers starts off brilliant and goes awful, and Wild Things has so many twists and turns it forgets where it began. My Little Eye draws you in, chews you up and spits you out with such force you'll wish you never wasted 2 hours of your life.

I like the idea of watching the film from different angles/web cams but as of yet i haven't tried the interactive mode. It may be good as an all round example of what film can do, but it certainly is not an example of how to execute a good premise

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

comic genius

[5 December 2003]

This madcap adventure race/road story is a refreshing emalgamation of some of the best comic talent from the time. Boating a brilliant cast of people throughout major and minor roles, this film has you in stitches from start to finish.

When the dying thief kicks the bucket, literally and physically, it sparks off a group of people racing around the countryside in order to find the money he told them he had left behind. Cue lots of others joining in along the way, and plenty of humourous obstacles in their way.

Most definitely one for everyone

Love Actually (2003)

Enjoyable, Funny, Sensitive and...... not quite the finished article

[16 November 2003]

I hardly know where to begin in reviewing this film. It is possibly one of my favourite romantic comedies, and i have seen a lot of them; it is one of the perils of having a movie loving girlfriend.

A movie that has so many main characters who are central to the narrative usually finds it difficult to immerse the audience within it. Black Hawk Down was a prize example. Ridley Scott produced a great visualisation of the attrocities of war, yet because he had over 30 characters to associate with, we lost interest in them. Love Actually managed to keep us interested in all the little tales that go on. Some of the scenes, or should i say sketches, touch on the borderline of decency, but sometimes decency can be sacrificed for cheap humour, if done cleverly. Key characters that i enjoyed watching were the aging rock star, who reminded me of people such as Ozzy Osbourne and Johny Rotten, and Hugh Grant's Prime Minister, who was such a likable character, that we can not help but want him to fall in love with Martine McCutcheon.

Keira Knightley is wasted in such a small two dimensional role, but it does add something for the young lad, as once again she looks stunning. Liam Neeson plays a funny father teaching his son about love and sex. The film does boast a very good cast, although a lot of them are left scrounging over small roles, or playing cameo roles, which fortunately do not detract from the tone of the film.

Possibly if the film had centred on less characters, and concentrated more on the endearing ones, then i would be telling everyone to go and see it. The way it is.... well its still worth a watch, and i have to admit i loved it

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

A nice sign off for a very good trilogy

[15 November 2003]

The original record breaking Matrix a few years back set my pulse racing. We had an action film, with a great backstory. We also had many hidden depths to the plot and narrative structure, and we had two directors who were happy to let you unravel their ideas all by yourself.

The films are open to polysemic interpretations, and that is what makes the Matrix trilogy and philosophy so beautiful. The Matrix Reloaded improved on the original in many ways, and this film improves on them both.

We take a step up in many new camera techniques, and we have a few technological advances from the first film. The bullet time technique had revoloutionised cinema, and the way films are made. It also was ridiculed from film to film, with even Dreamworks' Shrek getting in on the act.

If you thought the first two films were complex, then this film will confuse you like nothing before. We may not have the psycho analysing architect to contend with, but we have a plot that seems to move in ways that we do not expect, yet think it should. Questions we thought would be answered, are left for us to amuse ourselves with.

If you like closure and boundaries, then this film might not be the one for you. If you like action, gloriously choreographed fight sequences and the confusion of the what ifs, then you will love this film. Loose ends are not tied, and is peace closure. Is it really peace at all? Were you really watching this film and are you really reading this review...

To sum it up. This film is so far my favourite of the year. The acting may be slightly wooden, and the love between Neo and Trinity does not really makes us feel very passionate. The dialogue in places appears over written and very Capraesque, but who cares? The Matrix is clever, and inspiring. I love it

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Gripping emotional drama

[15 November 2003]

Who was it that said that Kubrick was only interested in technology and computers, and that he could not handle human emotions properly in his work. Full Metal Jacket is split into two distinct segments.

The first half concentrates on the barracks. Told through the eyes of Modine, we centre on the torment of private `pile`. It is a very compelling and harrowing tale of the misery and bullying. We then go to Vietnam with our central character played by Matthew Modine. It shows war as chaotic, and brutal. It also perfectly sums up the pointlessness of the whole affair.

This film is simply a masterpiece. Everything it handles, it does with panache and style. This is a film you must watch. 5 out of 5

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

too natural and humane for a vampire film

[15 November 2003]

A straight remake of F.W.Murnau's original chilling terror story, or is it? Herzog wanted to remake this classic tale, as a tribute to Murnau and to German Expressionism. To cut to the chase, it does not work.

Kinski plays a very lonely Vampire. He is very humane in the film, and we are led to feel sympathy for a character, who is suposed to terrify us. Herzog loves to show nature in all its splendour, and implied in this film, is that Vampires are merely part of nature and natural humane beings. We are also led to think that the Vampire, is a form of a disease, and it can be passed on through the bite, as it is at the end of the film. Yet a natural being, is confined by supernatural means?

It is a clever idea, and a very ambitious one, but it does not appeal at all to me. Herzog does not pull it off, and we are left with a very dull and boring sympathetic horror

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

Slick, stylish, suprising

[9 November 2003]

I must say that i did really like this film, its very enjoyable. It does have no substance behind it, but i guess everyone is entitled to some no thrills enjoyment now and then.

The actual heist is very well done. It is by no means a classic, but like the whole film. Its clever and very smooth. Pretty much like the main cast members. Clooney and Pitt are perfect in their roles. They have the same spirit and charisma of the whole film.

If you like pure mindless entertainment and the gung-ho American attitude, then watch this film, you'll love it. After thinking more about it, i am ashamed at just how much i did

Solaris (1972)

Impossible to Describe

[9 November 2003]

How can you sum up and make sense of something which is not actually meant to make any sense or meaning? This adaptation of the novel `Solaris` is a typical Tarkovsky adaptation. He writes us in a whole family for our main character. He liked to centre on father/son relationships, and a failed one in this case.

As the novels main theme seemed to be a transformation from science to religeon (and that is a simple explanation of it) the film just pursues that idea. The father/son clinch at the end is symbolic of God. The whole notion of the planet Solaris is symbolic of God. Mankind cannot comprehend it, and we have limitations to our thoughts, which is why the story degenerated into something which makes no sense to us. How can we explain the unexplained? When we see something new, we compare it to something we already know, in order to get meaning from it. When we are unable to do that, as we cannot comprehend or fully understand God, we are lost. As is the story.

Tarkovsky seems more interested in trying to paint a picture, rather than fully using the medium of film. It is a pretty film to watch, and asks very complex questions, but some might find it a bit tedious and slow moving. The ending is particularly clever, but differs from the book and the later adaptation. You are however left wondering what that was all about, and why? I think that last word perfectly sums up this film

Nosferatu (1922)

It took Murnau to Hollywood and German Expressionism to new levels

[9 November 2003]

German Expressionism was a very interesting movement which produced some great films. This happens to be my favourite of them all, which i have studied at great length. Nosferatu, the unofficial Count Dracula, was F.W. Murnau's masterpiece which cemented his name in history.

The widow of Bram Stoker found out about this unoffficial work, and was very angry with the production team. She won a court ruling which was to have every copy of this film destroyed. It is quite ironic that no matter how hard that they tried to kill Nosferatu, he still survived. A negative was found in London and restored. Even more ironic is the fact that the work she hated and tried to destroy, is the best adaption of her late husband's work, and it also made their family name.

The underlying theme of this film is the relationship between Hutter's wife and Nosferatu the Vampyre. The film employs very clever geographical cuts, to show us the passion building between them, which cleverly culminates in their `love` scene at the end. As with the common story, she gives herself to Nosferatu, which is what kills him.

Hutter's failed masculinity is key to the plot. When he cuts the flowers and Ellen seems distressed; this is symbolic of that fact that they haven't consumated their relationship. Hutter is a very enthusiastic character, and very easily led, yet he is ultimately a failure. Just a pawn in the tragic love story between Nosferatu and Ellen.

I could talk about this film for ever. many people may find it hard going, and a tad ridiculous. The special effects are obviously outdated, and non movie fanatics may be put off because of the fact is it black and white, and also a silent film. However, subtitled or silence do not make a bad film.

This film is near to perfection as you can get with the techniques available to Murnau. If it wasn't for his untimely death, he might have gone on to very big things in Hollywood. Herzog made a remake of this Murnau classic, in colour and with sound. The names changed slightly, but the film was dreadful. It was typical Herzog, yet still managed to fail dismally.

If you only watch one film by Murnau, watch this one

The Shining (1980)

A different adaptation

[5 November 2003]

Fans of this movie will of course know that it came from Stephen King's novel of the same name. That is about the only similarity it shares with the novel though. Where as King's novel delved into a man who became something else, and went insane, Kubrick's film initially deals with an already insane character. If anyone was going to become a mad ax murderer, it was Kubrick's character.

The film barely touches on the psychological studies evident in the book. It hardly mentions or deals with the shining, which was a gift that both Danny and Jack had. Jacks punishment came about because of his rejection of the gift. The film overlooks all of that. The film also replaces the metaphors within the book. Where as King used the boiler to show Jack's pent up rage, Kubrick decided to use the maze. The maze was symbolic of the maze of Jack's mind. Lost deep within himself the maze became a dangerous space, and gradually darkens throughout. It is also symbolic that Jack dies within the maze in the film. As they take away the shining from the novel, they simply use the cook as a sacrificial lamb, rather than a surrogate father figure for Danny and a superb foil to Jack

The film asks the questions, are the ghosts real or simply psychological manifestations of Jack's deluded mind? Just because the film does not adhere to the book, does not make it a bad adaptation. I loved this film, and the study of an already mad man takes nothing away from the film. We no longer have the study of American society and the hotel as a microcosm of America, we just have pure suspense, and a high level of entertainment.

Kubrick simplified the plot to go for the entertainment, and he superbly uses music and cutting to provide high suspense. He even makes the wife and child two dimensional characters, to concentrate on the lunatic that Nicholson plays brilliantly.

The shining is a superb film. Not highly scary, but it does succeed in making you jump in all the right places. Watch it if you dare

Tokyo Story (1953)

A Classic

[5 November 2003]

It was only last week that i saw this film for the first time, and i instantly loved it. It perfectly sums up the feelings from post war Japan, and the loss of values the community had to deal with. Our sympathies are instantly placed with the older generation, who are symbolic of the traditional values, while we see the younger generation as selfish, and too busy to spend time with their parents. We have a backward view of change and progress not necessarilly being so

Ozu shot the film from a waist height viewpoint, which to the traditional Japanese viewer respresents the view of someone below eye level sitting on a mat. This was the pose of the onlooker, and this constantly reminds us that the film is under the gaze, and we should take note. Like traditional Japanese cinema the camera does not move. Panning is replaced by clever cutting, and the mis-en-scene is very artistic. Using the foreground and background very cleverly to show film as an art in its purest form.

Rashomon (1950)

An Instant Favourite

[5 November 2003]

Kurosawa has many times been the inspiration for other directors, and after watching this film it is easy to see why. Rashomon is a very clever idea which questions the whole notion of truth at ground level. We have the same story told through the mask of 4 different characters, and this makes gripping watching. It asks the questions, who is telling the truth? To make things even more confusing, how do we know that anyone is actually telling the truth. Everyone puts their own slant on the story

The film has spawned many others following the same theme. Most famous is probably The Usual Subjects, which does not attempt to hide the fact that Rashomon gave it all its ideas. Rashomon is one of the reasons that directors such as Lucas and Spielberg love Kurosawa's work. It redefines cinema as an art once again