michael-hanlon Reviews

V (2009–2011)

Unexpectedly Dire

[2/10 · 14 April 2010]

Just watched the pilot. Watchable, just, but a big disappointment. Certainly no match for the original which was (for its time) a riveting piece of sci-fi. The plot itself is OK, it is just so clunking and obvious. Big alien spacecraft hovering over our cities is a good trope, but an old one, and it would be nice to see a new take on it by now (District 9 managed it nicely). Ominous rattling crockery? Check. Big reflections in skyscrapers? Check. Troubled priest? Check. So many unbelievable things - why does no one- NO ONE! - ask the aliens where they are from or what, exactly, they want? Surely the TV guy, on being told not to ask any awkward questions in his interview with Anna, would realise he had the scoop of the century (hey everyone, the aliens are evil! Run for the hills!)? How come that just a few days after these things turn up life seems to be continuing as normal? And why is 'Universal Healthcare' a concept so strange to American ears that it could only come from another planet?

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

A terrible waste of time. Boring, unfunny and hammed-up

[1/10 · 8 April 2010]

A truly terrible, dull film. I had read the reviews and was much looking forward to seeing this, and finally got round to doing so a couple of years after its cinematic release. Big mistake. Just about nothing in this movie 'works'. Jack Black is a humourless person's idea of what a funny person is like. Leaden, crashing, obvious and dull. The script is twee, self-consciously theatrical and flat. I just didn't care about a single one of the characters, the plot, or what was going to happen to any of them. Mia Farrow, awful. Mos Def, unspeakable. Just shouting all the time. Crunched down to a 30-minute short, centred around the (admittedly quite funny) Ghostbusters remake, this might have worked. There is the germ of a clever idea here. But as a feature, no way. A colossal waste of talent, money - and my time.

Star Trek (2009)

An extraordinary film

[10/10 · 29 April 2009]

Star Trek is an impressive, extremely entertaining film that will delight trekkers, more casual fans (like this reviewer) and people new to the franchise alike. For me, the effect was the same as when I saw Star Wars as a boy more than 30 years ago. The keys are in the writing and the characterisation, some decent acting (particularly from Quinto and an extraordinarily well-preserved Nimoy) and a confident, joyous direction that shows Abrams was really having fun. And when the director is enjoying himself this much, so shall we. The story is tight, (mostly) holds together, there's a good villain and the script is believable. There are some delightful scenes and asides that really make this film, most notably (for me) the shimmering backdrops of 23rd-century Iowa (complete with gargantuan, unexplained buildings rising from the prairies), the believability of the interior of the spacecraft and nice touches like a Vulcan schoolroom. There are plenty of references and homages too that sci-fi fans will have fun with. Kirk gets (briefly) marooned on an ice-planet, shades of Empire Strikes back, and the inevitable multi-species cocktail bar near to the spaceport - both standard, and fun, sci-fi tropes. There are 'Lost'-like references too - the rather Dharma-like research station in which Scotty works, and of course the clever use of time travel as a coherent plot device rather than just a gimmick. Even the small things delight: the grubby bits of the Enterprise, the low-tech plastic industrial curtains, the Corvette and Kirk's motorbike. Good writing, good direction and good acting. Who needs special effects? But these are here, in abundance, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if this wins Oscars. A sequel? Make it so.

Children of a Lesser God (1986)

Possibly the most boring film I have ever seen

[1/10 · 18 February 2009]

Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare.

The Descent (2005)

Lovely horror film, but ...

[22 August 2006]

Hats off for an unusual, genuinely scary piece of gore. But there are some serious inconsistencies. OK, the 2-endings shenanigans means all sorts of interpretations are up for grabs, but there are more practical problems as well. If these mutant-things are supposed to be real, and not a figment of Sarah's imagination, then what do they eat? The suggestion is that they come out of their cave at night and hunt deer and things. But how? They are blind. Blind creatures like that would make terrible hunters. You can get away with sonar if you are a bat and eat insects, but an elk would just spot them a mile off then have a good laugh as the mutants ran around bumping into trees. We saw that they weren't terribly good at hunting even in their own element ... lightly-armed (and terrified) people were perfectly capable of killing them with minimal bother. As monsters they were, frankly, a bit rubbish. But a good film nonetheless.