Change Your Image
aayvns
Reviews
The Thing from Another World (1951)
Mass Culture Theory in action or a cinematic classic?
Watching The Thing From Another World I cannot help but be torn between two interpretations. On the one hand, it exhibits all the attributes of a generic product of the 1950s culture industry, the inbuilt reaction, the familiar plotlines, and yes even a few cracks at the Soviets thrown in for good measure. On the other hand, it also represents one of the finest examples of the invasion narrative I've seen, and in terms of entertainment value it still hold up even today, despite the shoddy special effects (although these were fairly spectacular at the time).
The dialogue is a joy to listen to, moving at a pace seldom seen in modern films, overlapping, interrupting, bombarding the audience with information. The performances of Carrington and the Army Captain are excellent, and the supporting cast give ample aid to them, especially the fabulous Mr Scott.
Overall then I would say that I definitely enjoyed this film very much, and divorce it from the climate of the early 1950s, the Soviet threat, the nuclear threat, the threat of communist infestation, and it's symbolism is less apparent to the casual observer. Nevertheless it's rigid plot which leaves little or no room for audience interpretation, and it's sledgehammer use of music and editing to engineer a response counts against it. A high quality example of 1950s cinema therefore, but difficult to view entirely objectively, and beset by significant flaws.
Cadet Kelly (2002)
Cadet Lizzie McGuire
Lots of people have slated this movie for it's numerous military inaccuracies and glaring plot holes, but I believe much of this criticism is unfounded. For a TV movie, and a Disney one at that, Cadet Kelly is well above average. Hilary Duff is solid but not spectacular, and in fact that goes for the rest of the cast as well. I had no problem with the script, which was far less cheesy than some people make out.
Overall it a fun and occasionally heartwarming story about growing up as the child of a divorce, which is well worth a second viewing.
7/10
Cadet Kelly (2002)
Cadet Lizzie McGuire
Lots of people have slated this movie for it's numerous military inaccuracies and glaring plot holes, but I believe much of this criticism is unfounded. For a TV movie, and a Disney one at that, Cadet Kelly is well above average. Hilary Duff is solid but not spectacular, and in fact that goes for the rest of the cast as well. I had no problem with the script, which was far less cheesy than some people make out.
Overall it a fun and occasionally heartwarming story about growing up as the child of a divorce, which is well worth a second viewing.
7/10
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Fast-paced, action-packed but flawed.
World War II, Vietnam, The Gulf War. The great conflicts of the second half of the 20th Century, and for many years the constant focus of Hollywood War movies good and bad. The 1993 American incursion into war-torn Somalia however, does not fit into this list - more American soldiers were killed by friendly fire during the Gulf War than during the incident which is the focus of Black Hawk Down. This was basically a massacre, in which a botched US mission led to the deaths of over 1000 Somalis. That Ridley Scott can turn this into a story of the bravery and courage of the American armed forces is incredible.
Watching this outside the US and therefore immune to the post-9/11 patriotic onslaught lends a far more objective analysis to this film. Despite the obvious American bias in the movie's point of view, I was never convinced of the Americans' cause, either in the mission focused on or the Somalia conflict itself. No doubt the book explains it better, but the film does not even try, and we are given only the briefest of mission overviews at the beginning, leaving you wondering just what they were trying to achieve.
My initial criticism aside, as a war movie this often excels, and its breakneck pace leaves you no time to stop and think. The feel of it is classic Ridley Scott - an urban wasteland, with decay and ruin apleanty. Almost immediately it becomes futile to try and keep track of all the characters, so you simply sit back and immerse yourself in the action. Though it lacks the plot of the classic War movies, Black Hawk Down does offer action on an unprecedented scale, and hardly slows down over the entire two hours.
The fact that we so quickly lose track of the characters effectively makes the 45 minute introduction sequence entirely pointless, and you can't help but feel that a quick 15 minute introduction would have served better.
Don't get me wrong, Black Hawk Down is not a bad film, but is is by no means the classic that many make it out to be. You cannot help but feel that if Ridley Scott had picked a more suitable subject for a heroic war film then this could have been very good, however when the post-9/11 effect finally lifts, and this is compared to the likes of Saving Private Ryan and Apocalypse Now, it will not stand up to them for a second.
Event Horizon (1997)
seriously disturbing stuff
I rented this movie several years ago at the age of 14, and I have to say that I was totally and utterly traumatised by it, and for several weeks afterwards I had to sleep with the lights on (true story)! Since then I have been unable to bring myself to watch it again. A warning therefore, if you're the slightest bit squeemish or easily disturbed, don't even think about watching this movie, just stay clear of it.
It is genuinely gory and terrifying all the way through, but there is one moment which is simply unbelievable, where they access the ship's video logs and see what happened to the crew. Now I'm not really a horror movie fan, but this was the most gruesome piece of footage I have ever seen in a movie, and the image stuck in my head for months afterwards. Even now I can still hear those latin words in my head when I think about it.
Fans of hardcore horror may well enjoy this film, but my advice is simply not to watch it at all. I certainly wish I never had!
American Psycho (2000)
to clear a few things up...
There seem to be two types of opinions on this movie, comments from those who understand it which are usually very positive, and comments from those who don't understand it, who give it poor reviews. Despite what some people seem to think, this is not a slasher horror movie, nor does it deal with split-realities as one person wrote. It is a satirical and humourous look at the yuppie culture of the 80's, through the eyes of a psychopath.
To explain the film, and those who have not yet seen it should look away now, Patrick Bateman is a yuppie loser who fantasises about being a serial killer, however he does not actually kill anyone. He lives out his fantasies through drawings in a book, and he actually believes he is killing people. The key evidence of this is not only the ending but when Bateman wants to kill people but is unable to do so, as in the case of the guy who has a crush on him and his secretary. When he is actually faced with the prospect of a real murder he is not capable of doing it.
Once this is understood it is far easier to appreciate this movie for the masterpiece that it is, unquestionably one of the top ten movies of all time.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
A craze swiftly becomes a phenomenon.
As the Harry Potter film swoops into the top 5 highest grossing films of all time it seems clear that Chris Columbus has achieved what both Warner Bros and himself set out to do, to make a blockbuster that could appeal, like the books, to both kids and adults across the globe.
Within 5 minutes of the film beginning it is clear that Columbus is playing it safe, however in his attempt to stay true to the book he fails to produce a film that is either magical, such as Peter Jackson has achieved with The Lord of the Rings, or produce a work which captures the spirit and emotion of Rowling's creation.
The film manages to recreate some scenes from the book almost to the letter, whilst at the same time completely missing out ones which are far more important. The tone and focus also seems wrong, and unlike the books there is far more emphasis on the Indiana Jones style machinations of Harry and Voldemort that on Harry's desperate attempts to fit into a world which he never knew existed, with the threat of a return to his previous life hanging over him.
On the acting front Daniel Radcliffe is solid if occasionally wooden as Harry, but the show is stolen by the superb performances of the other two child stars. Rupert Grint pulls off Ron Weasley entirely convincingly, as does Emma Watson as Hermione. The performances of Maggie Smith, Richard Harris and Alan Rickman are all up to their usual high standard, and Robbie Coltrane is perfect as Hagrid, almost as if he had walked off the pages of the book itself.
In conclusion the film is good, but it could have been so much more, if Columbus had either been willing to take more of a risk and really produced some magic.