Spud1000 Reviews

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

The Terminator featuring cartoon violence...

[20 August 2003]

It's only natural for a franchise to progress in stile as it goes on. You had the original Terminator, which was a sort of sci-fi horror. Then there was Terminator 2, a thought-provoking actioner. And now we have Terminator 3, a teen-orientated, cartoon violence, no-brain popcorn muncher. It seems we have a Terminator for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer generation. Think 'Robocop: the Series' and you might get some idea.

Fans of the first two films, like myself, will be mortified. So stay well away. However, ignoring the film's heritage, it still isn't even that good on its own. As a special effects heavy action film, it scores a generous below average. As anything else, it's a non-event. It has bad acting, a bad script, bad direction, even bad editing. It is, to sum up, cack.

The only vaguely impressive performance is by Danes. Stahl is distinctly mediocre and Schwarzenegger doesn't appear to be even trying. And someone should have pointed out to Loken that the reason Schwarzenegger and Patrick were so intimidating in the previous films was because they deadpanned while they were busy killing people. She needed to show less emotion and definitely quit the pouting.

OK, it has its moments. The chase scene and the fight in the toilets are impressive, but will have you laughing out loud rather than on the edge of your seat. The action is more reminiscent of Tom and Jerry than anything else. As such, you can't take then ending seriously, not matter how hard it tries.

Oh yeah, and they use the 'f' word twice in a 12a-rated film. Ooh, how rebellious.

Hulk (2003)

Hulk smash!

[22 July 2003]

It'd be very easy to dismiss this film as yet another in the current slew of Marvel cash-ins, which was already starting to get tedious with the release of Daredevil. But this film, thankfully, has something more to offer. Ang Lee has made that extra effort to go beyond having a film based on a comic book to blurring the line between the two. And a damn fine job he did too. It wasn't perfect, as the use of panels within the film got a bit annoying after a while, but no-one can deny it was inventive. You actually feel that you are in the comic book rather than a film and all of a sudden, suspending your disbelief becomes that much easier. All the comic book cliches and the fact that you have a big green CGI character somehow seem natural and you start enjoying yourself that much more. The cartoon violence deserves a special mention. Thankfully, the filmmakers didn't succum to overplaying it. As an example. in one part, they could have had the Hulk taking on an entire armoured devision at once but instead, they just have him tearing apart four tanks. The brutal simplicity of it had me jumping out of my seat. Top stuff. There's an attempt to inject a little bit of depth and it isn't completely wasted, thanks mainly to Jennifer Connelly's sterling performance. Although it has to be said the whole father sub-plot just gets annoying after a while. To sum up, this is a hugely enjoyable film, despite the fact that the ending doesn't maintain the momentum generated earlier. However, it is aimed squarely at the comic book crowd and most people outside this probably need not apply. Everyone else will probably leave with a smile on their faces.

xXx (2002)

Enjoyable action film, but by no means a classic.

[6/10 · 20 October 2002]

One fact that will be very apparent to anyone who watches this film is that this is another attempt to put a fresh face to the James Bond genre, in this case by using the extreme sports craze as a starting point. The references range from the subtle to the (more often) blatant. For instance, the opening scene features a spy in a tux wandering into a Rammstein concert and getting spotted easily and shot.

All the Bond cliches are there in vast quantities. This film has gadgets, the supervillan with the mansion in the hills complete with underground laboratory, a car with rocket launchers behind the headlights, walls that spin around to reveal an arsenal, the spymaster talking through a video phone, the list goes on.

This all begs the question what new this film has to offer, as everything else has been done so many times before. The only real thing it has is Vin Diesel, which is a hell of an asset when it comes to it. Sure, he's not going to win any Oscars but this isn't what this film is about. This guy has a very fresh brand of style, which anyone who has seen the Fast and the Furious will be familiar with. In that respect, he is perfectly cast. Even if he looks nothing like his stunt double...

And that's about it besides a lot of explosions and some over-the-top stunts. Enjoyable film yes, but I don't think that Bond is facing any real competition here.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Big on action and top marks for Jolie

[10 July 2001]

OK, let's get one thing straight: this film has no plot, non-believable characters (including the standard issue well acted but cliched bad guy) and requires no intelligence to watch but to be frank, this is an action film through and through and it's not as if this film particularly cares or is pretending otherwise.

This film will not disappoint fans of the computer game. It is cool, action-packed and captures its style very well indeed. The special effects are bang up to today's usual standard and the whole thing has tremendous atmosphere, just like the game before it.

Angelina Jolie deserves special credit for this film. She performs Lara exceptionally well. She's sexy, strong, kicks butt and has the sort of upper-class English accent that fits the part perfectly. She manages to recreate the actions as seen on the computer game brilliantly, from the continuous pistol firing while walking at the same time right down to the stopping square on at a ledge then having a look around movement that players of the computer game will be so used to. On a more subtle level, she adds a dark, mysterious aspect to the character, giving the impression that she is ever so slightly unhinged. This harks to a Bruce Wayne-esque facet of her persona, which makes the whole thing more interesting. They could not have made a better choice for the role. OK, so the emotional scenes aren't brilliant but you cannot possibly take a flick like this seriously.

One big criticism I could level at this film is to do with the ending. The fist half of the film has some absolutely blistering action scenes and tons of originality but it all looses momentum at the distinctly average and entirely predictable climax. That left me feeling more than a little let down. Also, some of the sub-plots regarding Lara are really flimsy, as if they are there just for the sake of having some non-action in the film.

If no-brainer gunfest films aren't your thing then you don't need me to tell you to avoid this like the plague. If they are, then I would rate this above average. If you're a fan of the computer game or Angelina Jolie, it's a must-see.

Evolution (2001)

Good SFX, reasonable acting, rubbish screenplay.

[5/10 · 28 June 2001]

I wasn't expecting too much when I went to see this film and I wasn't surprised. The special effects were up to the standard expected of movies nowadays, the gags were cheap and it had its fair share of cliches. Pretty run of the mill really.

Some credit had to be given to the actors. Julianne Moore and Seann William Scott had me in stitches. David Duchovny, whom I've never really seen in a comedy role, was OK. He was very adept at applying himself to the more childish aspects of his role, for instance when he was arguing with his ex about her stealing his shirts, but was completely unconvincing as a scientist or a romantic.

The single biggest thing that let this film down was the script. I laughed out loud about twice. Most of the time I was waiting for the next interesting or funny thing to happen. I spent a lot of time waiting I can tell you. Quite frankly, the jokes were thin on the ground and the majority of them expected you to laugh at words like 'loogie' or the fact that one of characters is black so therefore has more rhythm than his white friends by default.

This film doesn't cut the mustard as a comedy - there are much funnier films out there. Neither could it be called a science fiction - it has a sort of self-parodying B-movie plotline. The only appeal it has is to those who are easily impressed by adolescent humour, because that's one thing it does have.

The market for this film I can see as being largely confined to those of about 15 and under because I would have loved this sort of thing when I was that age. For the average adult moviegoer however, this film will pass the time at best, irritate you at the worst. Don't expect anything too brilliant from this film, or for it to go down in movie history or anything.

Fight Club (1999)

Intelligent. Imaginative. Disturbing. Unavoidable.

[25 June 2001]

Whoever you are this film will cause a reaction.

Mine was most definitely a good one. It was well acted, well scripted and well made. It was also very cleverly put together and David Fincher uses some very innovative techniques. At the core of the film however is some very astute and intelligent stuff and is loaded with food for thought.

The basic premise is that the central character (Norton's) starts out living life in misery despite following all the rules set out by society and advertising culture. It is only after he starts going about things the 'wrong' way that he finds solace. This isn't an easy message for a lot of people but it echos the falseness of modern society and is hard to argue against.

There are many people who have slammed the film because it apparently advocates violence and anarchy. The point they are missing is that it only starts that way before slowly demonstrating it slipping out of control. The unpleasantness starts to show through. The hypocrisy becomes evident. (Tyler tries to 'free' people but in the process recruits and effectively brainwashes an army of 'spacemonkeys.') All this goes on until the narrator - and the viewer - are forced to act intelligently and draw a line somewhere and realize that generation X needs to start acting like adults.

Bottom line is that you aren't supposed to like what you see. Violence is repulsive and this film demonstrates that very well. There are far too many films where scores of people fall with bloodless machine gun wounds and people are portrayed as heros for inflicting it. This film shows it warts and all. If it encourages you to do violent things, you need help.

There is no denying that anyone who approaches this film intelligently will have something to think about here. Whether you agree or disagree with the philosophies is one thing, but most of the negative reviews I have seen are from people who either can't stand to see people actually getting hurt on film and have a central character start out squeaky-clean and end up scarred and twisted at the less than happily-ever-after ending, or miss the point entirely that that only by knowing what it is to have nothing, physically and morally, can you appreciate what it is to have something.

Guest House Paradiso (1999)

Toilet homour at its finest. Love it or hate it.

[6 December 1999]

This film is everything you'd expect from Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson. Gratuitous violence, knob gags and sick humour done in their own trademark anarchic style and played to the extreme.

I loved this film, as did most of my friends. I found it difficult to see how they could improve on what had already been done in the TV series Bottom, which this film is based on. However, this film had me in stitches even before it had got going. When it did get going, I was practically screaming with laughter, along with most of the audience.

OK, so it did get a little patchy in places but the sheer volume of gags more than made up for that. Also, the ending is a tad strange but at least it's the last thing you would expect.

To be perfectly honest, this film is for a fairly select audience. It rather uncompromisingly sticks to the same sort of humour for the entire length of the film, without dropping into mainstream comedy for a second. The jokes aren't exactly intelligent but they are very funny if you have the right mentality.

Basically, if cartoon violence, farts, dead cats and rivers of vomit don't appeal to you then avoid this film at all costs. If like me however, you are a fan of things like the TV series then this film is unmissable. You may never see nipple rings the same way again...

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Great stuff. This is what Bond is all about.

[30 November 1999]

I went into this film expecting a lot and I wasn't disappointed. This movie has everything you would want from a Bond film; action, style, sexy girls and groanworthy innuendo with the tongue planted firmly in the cheek. However, it also shows that the franchise is still in a state of constant evolution, experimenting with different things so you really don't know what is going to happen next.

Some of the action scenes almost had me jumping out of my seat. You would have thought there would be a limit to the amount you could do with a motorboat and some pyrotechnics but this film proves otherwise. OK, the boundaries of reality are breached frequently and in some cases blatantly but who honestly cares?

And the good points just keep coming. The direction just has style written from head to toe. Brosnan is excellent, as are Carlyle and Coltraine. Goldie makes a very cool appearance as the henchman Bullion (Although he could have got dressed up for the part...) but above all of these is of course the brilliant Judi Dench who makes her best appearance yet as M.

So, if this film is so good, why do I still prefer Goldeneye? Well, it did have a few minor flaws. I personally thought John Cleese was a bad choice for Q's replacement. Not because he is a bad actor but strangely his sheer amount of screen presence overshadowed the rest of the cast (Except Dench of course) and really didn't fit the bumbling character he was playing. Also, I thought the girls were a tad weak and unconvincing in this film, at least compared to the previous four Bond films. (Still an improvement on the Roger Moore days though.)

The best Bond ever? Not quite. It is still a very worthy addition to the series though. I would recommend this to any action-loving cinemagoer.

Fight Club (1999)

Uncompromising, gripping, intelligent stuff. Amazing.

[30 November 1999]

To be honest, I've never seen anything like this film. OK, this isn't the most violent, amusing, mentally challenging or disturbing film I have ever seen but the sheer blend of all these qualities is what makes this film probably my favourite this year.

The film starts fairly simply, following the life of an insomniac office jockey trying to find a route to happiness but before too long you find it delving into deeper things. Much, much deeper things. And just when you thought it couldn't get any deeper or more intimidating, it does.

And that's the beauty of it. The narration and the performances take place in such a relaxed, laid back style you don't realise just how serious some things really are until half a second later than you should. Then it hits you twice as hard as it would do otherwise, leaving 'wow' the only word on your mind. And you can completely forget about trying to predict the plot of this film. It twists more times than I care to count but in the end it all makes perfect sence.

In my opinion, this is David Fincher's finest film yet, even eclipsing Seven. This is the sort of film where you can forget about technical things and get completely immersed. You also have to think whilst you watch it and I like that a lot. Not only that, but you will be left thinking about it for weeks afterwards. The acting performances by the main characters is superb all round and that includes Meatloaf. There is more style than you could shake a stick at.

Bad points? To be honest, I enjoyed the film so much that I can't think of any off the top of my head. It did get a bit surreal and freaky in places but then again those are the two words of the day when it comes down to it.

Be warned however, this film won't appeal to everybody. It does take a rather uncompromising scoop into the human psyche and deals in a lot of primal urges and quite expectedly, it gets violent in places. This won't appeal to everyone but it certainly struck a chord with me. It makes a change to the usual stuff Hollywood normally churns out at least.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Innovative arthouse classic AND blockbuster? Almost.

[2 November 1999]

OK, I'll make one thing clear. I enjoyed this film. However, I wasn't particularly scared or freaked out like I was lead to believe I would. Still, advertisers make a damn good living from making a film seem ten times better than it really is.

Maybe it was the fact that when I saw it, I was sharing the experience with several hundred other popcorn-swilling punters in a huge state-of-the-art cinema where you go out expecting to have entertainment handed to you on a plate. Most of the people there weren't phased at all. I say most however; three of my friends were completely messed up by it. Maybe I missed something.

I can't help thinking how much more I would have enjoyed it if I had watched it in one of the subterranean screens of the arthouse just down the road. The audience would have been smaller, more subdued and more importantly wouldn't leave their mobile phones turned on. There, after all, is where the film deserved to be because it has bucketloads of artistic merit as opposed to mass appeal. The extensive use of method acting and improvisation really shines in places and if viewed under the right atmosphere, is exceptionally effective.

This film doesn't however have the makings of a true classic. Any box office figures that point to the contrary can be put down to media hype. When you look at it, bits of the film don't gel and the audience doesn't really get a chance to truly connect with most of the characters.

On the other hand what I like most about this film is that it shows that gritty realism with the absence of glamorous actors, makeup, special effects and post production can work extremely well. I just hope and pray that more filmmakers pick up on this in the future because the contrary has been getting out of hand in recent years.

Waking Ned Devine (1998)

Very watchable, very heartwarming

[13 April 1999]

This film sums up for me what I find refreshing about the recent spate of non-Hollywood films that have been appearing in recent years. The central characters in the film aren't dashing young rogues with perfect bodies who end the film as model citizens. They are, to cut a long story short, normal people. This film also captures quite well, if a bit too idyllically, the sence of community that comes with rural life.

There is all the plot elements you'd expect here; the young would-be lovers, the married couple, the dislikable characters, etc. but first and foremost, this film is a comedy. And quite a funny one too in places.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't really deliver the tension you would expect in a movie involving 7-figure sums of money. Normally screen writers have plot lines rebounding all over the place in order to build up an emotional response from the audience but not in this case. This does make it more down to earth and realistic but you do come away feeling as if you have just watched a television show rather than a film for cinema.

Apart from that, I would still recommend it to anyone who enjoys laidback feelgood films. Finally, I have to say the epilogue scene is brilliant. Despite the fact I was watching it on a really pokey screen in an Airbus A320 I still found it very moving and heartwarming. Left me all gooey inside.

Plunkett & Macleane (1999)

Highly entertaining stuff

[7/10 · 13 April 1999]

When I sat down in the cinema to see this I was expecting to see a sort of stylish tongue-in-cheek action film, which had been implied by the trailers. However, it very quickly became apparent that this film was trying to be more.

Normally, I don't approve of films that try to entertain in as many ways possible. For instance, this film tries to mix action with comedy, romance, lightheartedness and gritty seriousness all at once. Most of the time this sort of approach doesn't work in films (just look at Batman Forever) but I was was pleasantly surprised to see that in this case, they pulled it off.

The end result is a highly entertaining film that should appeal to most mature cinemagoers. (However, the weak of stomach should really be warned of one or two scenes.) Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller pull of a brilliant double act and Ken Stott does a excellent villain. This mixed in with superb costumes and a few decent action scenes makes for a very enjoyable watch.

However, the big let-down here for me is that in having 'The Gentleman Highwayman' there was a real opportunity for some good dialogue but the script was definitely lacking in punchiness and there were few belly laughs. Okay, so the lines weren't terrible but to me it does highlight a problem with recent British films; ignoring a few notable exceptions the screenplays being written today are still relatively mediocre when compared to some of Hollywood's efforts.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Brilliant but slightly flawed war film

[18 January 1999]

There's a lot said about this film and most of it is completely justified. Steven Speilberg has made a new milestone in the portrayal of the horrors of war. The opening combat scene is probably the most graphic and moving battle scene ever with the final climactic skirmish taking second place. The film also contains some excellent character work which works so well in war films.

However there were a few things for me that stopped this film short of being the best war film. Firstly was the blatant Americaness of the film; there was little or no reference to the Canadian and British troops that took part in the invasion. Also being British I find all the stars-and-stripes patriotism very cliched and tiresome.

The biggest let-down I think was in private Ryan himself. Unlike the majority of the people in the film he seemed to be completely devoid of believable character. I found it disappointing to wait most of the film to see him and find that he had been plucked almost straight from the filmmaker's A-Z of likeable 20-year-olds.

Still, the film was excellent. Hanks and Sizemore pulled off their parts brilliantly and the film had me and all my friends genuinely moved. I think that Schinder's List is still Speilberg's best so far though.

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Breaking the sequence..?

[9 January 1999]

Amongst my friends there is a commonly held view that the only Star Trek films worth watching are the even numbered ones. That means that if this latest offering (the ninth) followed the trend, it would be bad.

After seeing it I really don't know what to think. It certainly isn't as good as Fist Contact but is a lot better than the likes of Generations. It has a lot more of a lighthearted feel to it, a bit like The Journey Home, which makes it a very enjoyable watch. However this coupled with the fact that there is a lot less at stake this time round (lives only become an issue towards the end) means that you are hardly ever on the edge of your seat.

All in all, this film had more of the feel of a big budget feature length episode of The Next Generation than a movie but I don't regret paying money to see it.

Bravo Two Zero (1999 TV Movie)

Sharpe with M-16's

[8 January 1999]

When I first heard that the BBC were making a film of Bravo Two Zero starring Sean Bean I got very excited and I am pleased to say I wasn't disappointed. The whole thing positively oozes authenticity with a great attention to detail. The combat sequences had me jumping out of my seat and yet they aren't overplayed.

Sean Bean is excellent. I mean he is superb. Admittedly, his performance lends a lot to Sharpe but it doesn't suffer for it. If there was an Oscar for being hard then he should get it.

I think the only real problem with the film was that of pacing. Not that there was much they could have done about it being based on a true story but it seemed to wind down a bit too gradually. That won't stop me buying it on video however.

To sum up: I'm going to have to read the book now.

Ronin (1998)

Action films how they should be made

[30 November 1998]

I left the cinema genuinely impressed. For the first time in a long time Hollywood has made an action film where the money was spent on decent actors and down to Earth stunts and special effects. This was a thinking man's action film.

This isn't to say the film is perfect. The plot seems to go around in circles for the second half of the film and as a lot of the people die at some point in the film you can't help feeling that there were plenty of missed opportunities for some decent character work.

The action sequences were brilliant though. I mean almost spot on. The realms of realism were very rarely breached and it was packed with bone fide stunts as opposed to the CGI substitutes that we have become too used to. Collectively, the car chases are probably the best I have ever seen, knocking even the likes of Bullit and the Blues Brothers for six.

Also deserving mention is Robert De Niro's performance. He has seemed a bit flat in his last few films but he is back here doing what he does best. Combine him with Jean Reno (again, doing what he does best) and you have a truly magical performance.

If you can, see this film. The car chases alone will justfiy it.

Blade (1998)

Not to be taken too seriously

[30 November 1998]

OK, as far as special effect action films go this has to be the prime example. Being based on a comic strip it has over the top action sequences, impossible to rationalise premises and a complete lack of seriousness but hey, it's a fun film.

Wesley Snipes delivers a class performance as the hero in designer body armour and Stephan Dorff is great as the chilling vampire equivalent of a juvenile delinquent Decon Frost. (Who, it might be added, must be the first vamp to hit upon the idea of sun block)

I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys leave-your-brain-in-the-lobby action flicks. Very entertaining with its tongue planted firmly in the cheek.

The Avengers (1998)

An insult to the original

[30 November 1998]

I went to see this film with an open mind. After all, it did have a few good actors to its name. By the time I left, I understood why this film had not been shown to the press before general release. The lines were corny, the plot was as well thought out and structured as a sneeze and the humour was pitiful. Quite simply, this was the worst film I had the misfortune to see all year. OK, so it must have some good points. The actors they picked were good but none of them made any effort. (quite sensibly) Uma Thurman's costumes were nice but quite honestly, didn't suit her role as an action heroine. In fact, the only two parts I was impressed with was the inspired bit with the teddy bears and Eddie Izzard's Mini Cooper. I think that's it. Don't see this film basically, no matter how impressive any of the trailers or stills look.