Change Your Image
tonio1
Reviews
BH90210 (2019)
Excellent
Hugely enjoyable and an original approach. It had elements of the Karate Kid continuation in its observations how society has changed in recent decades, not always for the better. I was bemused that apparently some viewers were confused what the show was about. Very simple. It's the original actors playing heightened versions of themselves trying to get a 90210 continuation off the ground. A clever "meta" concept which really worked. The cast were excellent. Huge shame it was cancelled. Contrary to Fox' position, there's huge mileage for a further series.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Chalk and cheese film
I imagine some would like this. Particularly Tarantino fans. But wasn't for me. On top of that, it had a stand out appalling depiction of the late, great Bruce Lee. Much was written in the media about it at the time as bad taste, inaccurate as to Bruce' character and racist. He depicts Bruce as cocky and a big mouth, saying he could beat another legend, the late boxer, Muhammad Ali in a fight. And then proceeds to lose in a fight to Brad Pitt's character.
The scene greatly upset Bruce' daughter, with the audience laughing at her late father in a screening she attended. Tarantino insensitively responded to the backlash by maintaining it was an accurate portrayal. However, had he done a minimum of research, he'd know his portrayal was false and inaccurate. Bruce used to get challenged a lot, and avoided confrontation. He well recognised a Chinese boxer couldn't take on someone like Muhammad Ali- the latter would likely be able to "kill him." Bad taste. Like the film generally.
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Neither a good film nor a good Star Wars film
Ironically, the original Star Wars was a landmark in cinema. The first "blockbuster" of its then era in 1977, which changed cinema forever. SWTROS suffers from the same rehash malaise and lack of originality as the other two sequels. Nothing new here. Same old same old. Excessive use of pseudo spectacle, explosions and rapid scenes. Scenes which are so short and overstuffed that you don't get chance to react or feel anything, before the film jumps to the next thing. Much should have been cut out and the important parts extended. The other flaw is you don't care about the characters because they're so thinly sketched. The original film leads had great camaraderie with an unforgettable villain in Darth Vader. Here, I only liked Poe. Finn was ok but thinly written. Rey was too serious and unlikeable in each film. Characters were introduced and wasted, as we'd seen in the other two films. YMMV. There wasn't the mix of lightness of touch and balance that the original films had. Balance between key events, character, humour, seriousness. Here it was like Star Wars on steroids. People died and came back to life. It was like a cheat episode of Doctor Who with its "everybody lives" cop out.
There's much that could be criticised in the plotting of these sequels. Given it was effectively a greatest hits copy of the original films, they would have been better, over three films, directly portraying the return of the Empire/First/Last Order under the Emperor and his eventual defeat again and entirely restructuring how they used and disposed of the original characters, Luke in particular. Rather than what they did. These films will likely drift into obscurity, as with the prequels. But for different reasons. They're unlikely to have the longevity of the original trilogy, which had such an impact on cinema and audiences.
Stan & Ollie (2018)
Surprisingly effective and poignant
I had reservations based on the trailer. Which, AFAIK, fabricates a major disagreement and resentment between the pair about Ollie appearing solo in Zenobia (1939), when Stan was out of contract with Roach. The film makers did that to give the film a narrative arc. Most "based on/inspired by real events" films make things up. They call it dramatic licence. I dislike it because invariably it's not necessary. History is usually dramatic enough on its own terms. Similarly here, the film didn't need this device and no doubt Stan and Ollie would be mortified at this aspect. There is so much in their real lives and careers to make a biopic on. For example, the highs with Roach, the lows of the Fox films. Then the downs and ups of the 1950s British tour this film focuses on. Or simply just the latter but without the fictional argument element.
I nonetheless fully enjoyed the film. The leads are all well captured. And it's very poignant. Stan's wife is unmissable. The film is well worth seeing and hopefully it'll generate increased interest in Laurel and Hardy's films, which remain utterly timeless. The world will never see their like again.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
The Original Trilogy Recycled AGAIN!
3/5 as a film, 2/5 as an original SW film. Forgettable except some character moments. Who was the "mysterious" (Emperor knockoff) Smoke? Who cares. What was the point having him in? None but to wrong foot the audience into thinking he would matter. A plot device. Similarly the "mystery" over Super Rey's parentage dissolved into an "anyone can be special" didacticism. I don't really care which (force) orientation Ren plumbs for in the finale. Either way it won't be a surprise. And he doesn't instlil any fear. No Darth Vader. Two films in, what has the point been of making his entire character, what in the OT was one small part of Vaders- his conflict from ROTJ? I'd rather he were just plain evil. Maz thingy, Phasma and the Leia temporary replacement, all forgettable. What was the point bypassing Leia for half the film? A plot device to delay the reveal of her escape plan. Too much painting by SW numbers. And that casino planet stuff was straight out of the PT. The Bond films all have certain key elements, which even when repeated, rarely feels quite so blatant. I did though laugh at the jokes, albeit it came close to parody. But then this wasn't something you could take seriously. Another missed opportunity.
There Was a Crooked Man (1960)
Privilege to see this long unseen film
Seeing a film which has been unseen in decades and to all intents and purposes "lost" is a real privilege. Although you're viewing something by today's standards and eyes. It almost needs two scores: with those factors included and discounted. I'd heard about this film 10 years ago. It was shown in Darwen, where it was filmed. The print being owned by a private collector. It was frustrating it wasn't given a DVD release. Periodically I checked online for any word on the film and that remained the case until 2017. When my search result revealed it was being released. Fantastic news! I don't know what the obstacle was. Whether it was rights issues or the owner didn't want to sell or even if the release was his print. But that's history now. Overall I'd give this an 8. The plot meanders a bit in the middle and watching it with any logical scrutiny is perhaps not the best idea (it's a 1960 Norman Wisdom comedy!) But it is very enjoyable and Norman gives an excellent performance. Many people stress in this film he tried to move away from his famous "gump" character. He does and it makes a welcome change. And shows he had greater range. That said he's not so hugely different to not appeal to those who like the Gump. The ending is quite something. I'm slightly sad that over the past decades, this film hasn't been known or seen widely, as with his other films. Although this is the future- today we see less and less repeats of the greats on the main national broadcasters. Such as Laurel and Hardy. Overall, thoroughly recommend.
24: Legacy (2016)
Like decaff coffee with skimmed milk
....using less coffee grounds. That's my analogy. If you watch this as a standalone series, and have never seen 24 before, you might find it OK. Because it is perfectly OK. Just like a weak decaff coffee with skimmed milk. But if you compare it to the original full bodied article, the original 10 (ish) seasons, it pales badly. I only saw 24 a few years ago. The only series I've ever binge watched. It was exciting, thrilling, compulsive viewing with excellent cliff hangers. And that was with 24 episodes per season. This series (up to part 5) offers nothing new. It's not a reboot despite giving that impression. It's just another series minus any of the previous characters. And that's another huge problem. Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer was 24. A memorable character for his intensity and unique approach to interrogating criminals. His replacement is fine but given nothing to work with in the script. Instantly forgettable. Scowls his way through it in a very one dimensional way. And lastly, the plot itself is nothing 24 hasn't done before, many times, and much better. So if you've seen the original, lower your expectations. If you've not, there's a good chance you won't carry on watching. My hope, albeit an unlikely long shot, is they do what they did with Jason Bourne after the similar misstep of the similarly named Bourne Legacy. ie bring the original back, though hopefully in a better film than Jason Bourne!
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Enjoyable
The negative critical reaction is way OTT. I suspect a good example of the phenomenon where critics and online posters have their pre-viewing opinions influenced by others. Similar to people being more likely to up-vote a web posting which already has positive votes. It's how riots start-the influence of the crowd. And also people, psychologically, prefer to go with the majority view. The film certainly has flaws, but not which justify the critical response.
So, going into it with very low expectations, I enjoyed it. It's a good Batman film and portrayal of Batman. The main fight is exactly what you'd hope it is. Not too long either. My main criticism is it is indeed overly serious throughout, even Alfred! It needed a bit more lightness to balance it out. Superman is too glum. This version of Superman, as with Man of Steel, is a valid attempt to do something new. But it's not what I want from the character. Similarly, the film, particularly at the outset is too stylised, adopting the Watchmen film style. Not sure about Luthor either! But overall, it's perfectly enjoyable.
Who Dares Wins (1982)
Excellent
Despite being made over 20 years ago, it remains a tense drama/action film which hasn't dated at all. It was inspired by the infamous Iranian embassy siege, where the SAS were filmed on the news breaking in and very effectively ended the siege and dispatched the terrorists. It's a very well made film. It stars the late, much missed Lewis Collins as the SAS captain who goes undercover by forming a relationship with the terrorist cell leader. A topical issue today given the police have recently been criticised for similar tactics. The film did receive some media criticism for being perceived to be right wing by supposedly depicting peace protesters as terrorists. But this was a blatant misstatement of the plot: the terrorists are hiding themselves within that movement and Edward Woodward's police commander makes the point that the vast majority of peace protesters are just that. Collins gives an excellent, hard and understated performance. Due to in real life being adept at various sporting activities and even applying to join the TA wing of the SAS, he readily convinces with the action. But he's also very convincing in the film's quieter moments too. If the film was made today, it'd be stuffed with OTT action and explosions. Instead this film builds the tension slowly to a standout set piece finale which is incredibly well done: the SAS rescue of his wife and the assault on the mansion. I believe the real SAS were involved in structuring these scenes and in acting them out. It shows.
The Big Noise (1944)
Very Enjoyable
I can only echo the other reviews below. I'm another who relied on the received wisdom that this was a terrible film. I regret that I didn't watch this years ago. Obviously it doesn't compare to the Roach films and some writing isn't true to them but it was perfectly enjoyable. Stan and Ollie are the focus of the film and they weren't written as fools unlike some of these later films (as I recall). I did however notice there's a weariness in Stan's eyes which may possibly have been his unhappiness behind the scenes with 20th Century Fox but who knows. There's a funny scene with their "dinner" and a lovely final scene. Well worth watching in my view. As any Laurel and Hardy fan knows the world will never see their like again....
Cuban Fury (2014)
Misfire
Avoid. On the plus side the film used some genuine, well known salsa professionals, Susanna Montero and Yanet Fuentes. That, together with the genuine music, was good. Rashida Jones was great. But there were several elements which distractingly didn't sit right. First, unlike Strictly Come Dancing, there is no frilly shirt element in recreational salsa dancing (though there can be with professionals as with other dance). Nor fake tan! And the camp character was largely not funny and apparently there to provide the British comedy eccentric character. The core of the plot is Frost's character gave up salsa at 15 after being bullied at school for dancing. Not very believable. Even teenagers know Salsa is a great way to meet the opposite sex. And no easy way to put this but Frost is just too large to carry off the moves. He described the character as "a lump" on Graham Norton and he was trying to make a point that this shouldn't be a barrier but this was a problem. It's not that you have to be slim to dance, rhythm is unconnected to size. He clearly did have rhythm but he struggled to move with the ease and flexibility required. So his dance scenes are heavily edited and shot at angles to compensate for his lack of fluidity. And they had him wearing cycling gear and scruffy shorts to salsa. Wrong. They would have been better casting someone who could move with greater elegance and style. But worst of all, 9/10 of the jokes were plain unfunny. The film, which was pretty predictable, never really convinced, including Frost's re-finding himself. A real misfire.