rugger-4 Reviews

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Parade of self-pitying Americans

[2/10 · 24 May 2010]

This movie is a good laugh if, like most people, you live outside the G8. It is basically a parade of morbidly obese Americans complaining that their swimming pool is the wrong temperature.

Funniest bit is where a man who is so fat he has a double chin on the back of his neck complains that he has to use food stamps. (That's basically free food).

Another is where morbidly obese Michael Moore manages to get up 5 steps to the GM building before, mercifully for him, being stopped by 3 over-weight cops.

In one sequence we see a 5 or 6 bedroomed house with a swimming pool that has been repossessed. Well I'm 43 years old and I have never once lived in a property with a swimming pool much less owned one so why am I being asked to feel sympathy for these people? And the other bunch who winge about their plight on a cell phone from the comfort of a gigantic 4x4. Yes they are morbidly obese too. Are these victims or bad guys? Anyone outside America surely wouldn't have a clue.

There's more & more of this stuff in the movie which is the latest in Michael Moore's hilarious series that seems to try to convince Americans that they are the victims of their own success.

It doesn't matter how corrupt you want to make out your politicians are, you're all richer than everyone else and that, after all, is what counts.

Avatar (2009)

Dreadful ordeal to watch.

[2/10 · 3 March 2010]

Can someone tell me who goes to the movies to watch domestic arguments?

Why would a film maker spend time, money, effort and special effects to put fictional characters on the screen just to argue with each other all the time about nothing?

Aren't women sick and tired of going to the movies and seeing, and paying to see, lead female characters whose only point of existence seems to be to get annoyed about something, and in this case a mere 10seconds after appearing on screen, and spend the rest of the near 3 hours moaning and crying and bitching?

It looks like the plot, characters and art direction were worked out in about 1 hour down the pub. Dreadful waste of time and money.

Oh and its racist into the bargain.

Thank goodness they didn't make any overtly gay characters or Cameron would've screwed that up too.

The Line of Beauty (2006)

Timely warning about the Tories

[9/10 · 3 June 2006]

9 years after the Conservatives were in power you might think the BBC would look back fondly at them as they did recently with their documentary 'Tory Tory Tory'. However this miniseries drenches any warmth you might have for those 80s Thatcherites like a freezing bucket of cold water.

By far the highlight is watching a succession of British luvvies line up one by one to spit venom at angelic Nick Guest in the last episode because he is gay. You can see they all had fun acting against type in those scenes but for all that it's still a timely reminder that when the chips are down, as they were at the end of the 80s when the horror of AIDS was touching virtually everyone in the LGBT community, they'll kick you when they should be helping you, e.g. Clause 28. For in this series all the Tories conspicuously tell Nick how much they love and value him at regular intervals only to disown him the minute they need a scape goat.

So in the plus column we have the keenly observed 80s setting, the sex, the melodrama. The only minuses being the inexplicable schizophrenia displayed by the Conservative characters. But I think maybe that's the point because that's how it really was.

Shrek (2001)

Bored kids will be told that they are ungrateful

[19 January 2003]

Spoilers warning. The one thing going for children's stories is that they can include the MOST grizzly and frightening characters and plots and the kids will lap it up. The more gruesome the better.

How then can an expensive fairytale film like Shrek be SO DULL? The only action scene is finished within the first 20 minutes and the remainder plods along with characters getting to know each other, falling apart and then coming together again in a film totally hamstrung by Hollywood's neurotic obsession with weddings and marriage. Sure Cinderella and Snow White END with Prince Charming sweeping the Princess off her feet but this film has the hero and heroine talking to each other about it over and over and over and over again. It never ever ends! No child could enjoy this over Disney's Snow White or Cinderella.

The writing is poor in SO many ways with plot holes and poor motivation throughout. It can't even fulfil it's own pathetic ideals. The Princess turns out to be an ogre, right? Well they don't even make her that ugly. In fact her waistline is exactly the same as that of a statistically average American woman. Get the message kids? The fact that a) this film was made and b) there is to be a Shrek 2 says it all. Hollywood is unable to do anything intelligent anymore and we should all stop watching this crud unless we want to be fed it over and over again for the rest of time. You have been warned.

Guest House Paradiso (1999)

Worthwhile experiment with film

[5 January 2003]

As someone who has thoroughly enjoyed "Bottom" on the TV I was hoping that the 2 lads would be able to maintain their style on film and benefit from the larger budget. I really don't think they wholly succeeded.

One of the early scenes with Eddie on a motorbike would've been handled with chroma-key green screen on video with a chaotic speeded up background and hilarious results. Here they virtually do the stunt for real at higher cost but with rather less effect.

In this film you can tell that instead of the economically efficient multicamera set-up they used at the BBC, one camera was used throughout with the resulting pressure on the acting talents of the 2 leads. With the best will in the world these guys are more used to a theatre style of physical comedy and their, and possibly more Ade Edmundson's, inexperience shows.

Ade Edmundson directed and for one reason or another Rik Mayall has well over 70% of the screen time. Which is not a bad thing. In addition Edmundson bravely goes nude in one scene - something never seen on the TV show. So I really think they were giving the film their best shot without concern for their own egos.

As usual the supporting characters are played as normal human beings accidentally walking into the madness but Simon Pegg, who we all now know to be no small comedy talent himself, is a little off putting in retrospect as I couldn't help but expect him to have some laughs of his own rather than play victim throughout.

One portion of the film intercuts a Richie and Eddie scene with what appears to be the rape of the main female character. This was rather disconcerting to me even when I knew full well that the bad-guy is going to come to a sticky end.

So over all there are several short-comings but for Bottom fans the film should be seen and not avoided as most reviews say.

Big Business (1988)

Strangely overlooked cerebral farce.

[22 August 2002]

That this 1988 movie contains 2 sympathetic, non-stereotypical gay characters says a lot about the movie makers. There seems to have been some real care taken over what could've ended up a cheaply made throwaway farce.

Lily Tomlin and Bette Midler are simply superb in their roles as separated twins and in my view out-do Jeremy Irons in that year's other twin movie `Dead Ringers' - and he was fantastic.

This film has been criticised for not delivering laughs where you would predict them based on the film's premise. But is that a fault? Big Business builds comedic tension early on and sustains it throughout by clever use of supporting characters and the subtle way that from their scenes with them we learn about the 4 leads.

The eternal dilemma of nature v nurture is portrayed in a fairly non-preachy way coupled with a similar approach to town v country. To do this in a farce containing 4 romances plus all the rest is a tall order for any moviemaker but this rich premise is cleverly negotiated by Jim Abrahams & the writers with only a handful of misfires.

Now I'm not one for romances but the studly Fred Ward, who was unbelievably 46 years old at the time, as the whiter than white Roone Dimmick, manages an amazing feat - his meeting and courting of Lily Tomlin in the space of a few minutes is carried off quite plausibly by this accomplished and underrated actor and is a joy to behold.

10 out of 10 and a real shame that there is no more from these 2 writers.

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

Slow and boring

[2/10 · 12 May 2002]

I understand it's quite a good idea to have successful cinematography when making a film. And black and white helps out if you can get away with it. But why is it then necessary to slow the film down so much? So we can all "enjoy" the view? Forget it. Cinemagoers do have other things they could be doing ya know.

This film has little plot, that it gets to too damn slowly and throws in pointless other elements that have no entertaining effect whatsoever. The Coens have got away with far too much here after the high of Fargo and I'm here to tell it how it is. This film stinks and I want my money back.

Pi (1998)

I've discovered another magic number.

[1/10 · 30 April 2002]

While watching this film I discovered a magic number with very great significance. It is 89. Take the duration of a film in minutes. The closer the film runs to this magic number, 89 mins, the less entertaining it is. Saturn 3 and The Avengers are just 2 examples that spring to mind. They're under an hour and a half so the poor viewer continues to watch knowing that even if it doesn't get any better it least it'll end soon.

Pi runs for 84 minutes.

Hey, I've just discovered another one. 7.5! The closer a film gets to an IMDB user rating of 7.5 the more boring it is. Perhaps there is something in this numbers business after all.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Sheer genius in every frame of film

[10/10 · 11 July 2000]

The fact is that an Oscar winning director can then make any film he damn well likes - if he wants to. And Anthony Minghella has done that, and some.

Every single member of the cast puts in an outstanding performance making everyone of their characters 3 dimensional.

Matt Damon - So aware of the subtleties which show up on screen. To produce them in a performance such as this requires more skill & co-ordination than a surgeon.

Jude Law - What a knockout!? He captures the self-confidence that only money & privilege can bring SO perfectly.

Gwyneth Paltrow - She has set new standards for the portrayal of the kaleidoscope of emotions Marge feels.

Cate Blanchett - When Meredith Logue appears the audience is forced to consider the situation from the points of view of all the characters on the screen. "Will Tom Ripley get found out?". Unfortunately this means that for the first few lines of dialogue the audience's attention is not fully on Cate. In spite of this Cate manages to capture both the innocence and longing found in the character and at the same time pull the audience back into reality. Not an easy job, but one she carries off wonderfully.

Philip Seymour Hoffman - Oh my god! Is this guy going to be bigger than Nicholson or what? He has hardly any lines and those are so abrasive that a lesser actor would not have made it believable for Freddie to get away with them, but Hoffman lights up the screen and, as Jude Law, drags a concrete and albeit rare character from the world of reality and puts him on screen for us to enjoy. Tremendous.

Jack Davenport - With all the above going on it could be overwhelming for a reasonable and rational character to enter the fray. You've seen horror films where the good guy goes to see what that noise was coming from the attic and then promptly gets bumped off? Totally unbelievable huh? Well Peter Smith-Kingsley could have come across in the same way. Davenport however manages to make it totally logical that he'd get to know and trust Ripley and thereby act as the catalyst to his final transformation into a person who acts in cold blood.

Add to this the music, photography, locations, directing and editing (you can tell from the trailers & making-ofs that there was stacks left out) this film has catapulted into my top 5 favorites of all time.

This film has come just at the right time. Popular film makers CAN still make good films.

10 out of 10.

Fight Club (1999)

Will David Fincher ever make a good movie?

[2/10 · 13 June 2000]

Why oh why do I give David Fincher a second chance? My mind always wanders when watching his films and pictures him at various moments over, say, 2 months writing his little ideas down as they come to him. This movie is clearly the culmination of about 20 of those ideas and some that were brought back from the waste paper basket. Strung together with thread bare plotting. Oh and please, David, give your set designer the day off for the next one. He/she's needed at a new theme park to do the haunted house. 2 out of 10. 1 for the lead actors who give it there best and 1 for Brad Pitt's bum cleavage that gave the movie its best too.

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

More irritating than entertaining

[10 June 2000]

Before you see this movie you know you are going to see computer generated sharks and you know you are going to see people get eaten. And thats what happens. Fine. Trouble is you can work out the entire plot as its going to unfold after 15 minutes of watching. Then you have to sit through the rest of the movie waiting for it all to happen while being irritated by the overpowering moralising that goes on in the dialogue. If you're like me, you'll be especially disappointed that the character you hate most of all ends up surviving. Only redeeming idea is the way one character meets a particularly cruel end. Once again Hollywood can't help making movies where the actors may as well have "Goodie" and "Baddie" written on their T-shirts. Strictly for 12 year old Sunday school pupils.

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Worst Star Trek movie EVER. Plot points included here.

[1/10 · 11 January 2000]

I won't speculate on how so many weak and irritating ideas ever made it into this movie. However, Paramount are in really bad shape if no-one there has the power to say STOP even when presented with this load of rubbish.

By far the biggest irritant is that the alleged "good guys" are actually some of the most hateful people ever filmed. While these people, known as Baku, have been leading drippy and unproductive lives for centuries their own children have been banished to grow old and infirm on another planet. When these now technologically advanced "Sona" return, close to death, in an attempt to benefit from their home planet's natural regenerative radiation, the Baku hoodwink Picard and his crew into thinking that they are infact the victims. This is mainly because the Baku, basking in regenerative radiation all day long, have remained relatively pretty while the Sona are now very ugly as the film takes pains to point out.

It's been thankfully a long time since I have seen a totally white cast in a film, but black people are conspicuous by there absence from the Baku.

Additionally Picard takes up with a Baku who has spent her last 300 odd years learning how to look like a pouting airhead even when tons of rubble are falling on her head, yet cannot row a boat or swim when she needs to. This even though she lived next to a lake all that time!

Goodness knows what sort of point Jonathan Frakes is trying to make with this film.

I would recommend that anyone considering watching this film does so on DVD/video with the remote control never far away from their grasp. After you've spinned through:

1. Riker and Troi behaving like the first couple in school who find out how to kiss

2. Picard and a woman with a charisma by-pass talking about nothing for minute after nauseating minute

3. Blond kids rolling around in haystacks

, there really is only about 45 mins left of F. Murray Abraham (the baddie) and spaceships.

1 out of 10 and such an utter disappointment after First Contact which was a fantastic film.

Starship Troopers (1997)

It's the movie you deserve.

[10/10 · 1 October 1999]

I love this film. It takes all the dumbness of Hollywood action pictures and sticks it right back up you.

Like guns, shooting and being mean spirited Mr Teenage USA? Well you're no better than a 4 year old killing ants in the garden.

>Talk about sex like you're God's gift to women? Well try a mixed shower and your hero getting kinky whipped in public for size.

It just comes and comes at you with a real effort made to be as stupid as possible.

"Emergency evasion!!" "Really? Thanks for the advice commander."

Verhoeven has 110% tolerance for sex and violence, and has his finger right on the button for visual style and effects. He can make a fantastic film of the most wonky plots. And, can you believe it, people still pat themselves on the back for spotting plot holes? Well done guys.

I hope he can make a few more pictures before he gets found out. 10 out of 10. Show me a better movie.

Showgirls (1995)

Better than Vegas.

[10/10 · 1 October 1999]

*Spoiler warning*

When I got to the scene where Nomi is pointlessly chucking her slot winnings up and down I was beginning to think this film was not going to make any sense.

Then Nomi throws up and feels the need to scrape her fries furiously.

I thought that Verhoeven must have been away that day.

As the film progressed I realised that the film allows you to enter a parallel universe where Las Vegas is sexually charged and menacing. A land through the "Phantom Toll Booth". There is no need to try to follow the plot as it is wafer thin and obvious.

No, you can spend your time indulging in the campy dialogue, the energy charged erotic dancing, Dave Stewart's perfectly suited music, and the fit bodies on the screen.

After seeing this film I spent $35 on a ticket to Enter the Night at the real Stardust Hotel/Casino/Resort. It was not even close to this for intensity, eroticism and a damn good time. (And Enter the Night even manages to be homophobic)

If EFX ever ends its run, the MGM Grand could do worse than put "Showgirls" on stage.

10 out of 10 for entertainment value. But Verhoeven was right to end his relationship with Joe Eszterhas after this.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

A 2.5 hour thrill ride

[30 September 1999]

If you haven't seen the film yet don't read on. On the whole I think it is a film for men and Kubrick's most intense since Clock Work Orange.

Why the male viewer? Well all the women are neatly arranged as "Wife" "Mother" "Hooker" "Junkie" "Cafe Waitress" and in the orgy scene "robot".

This is how Kubrick must have seen women.

To a Kubrick fan, the movie is packed with his style. Every few seconds I was thinking "Oh, that's the lighting from Barry Lindon" or "That's the slow dissolve from The Shining" which incidentally was not intrusive at all into the enjoyment of the film. The couple in the movie have been married for 9 years and so the scene where Nicole Kidman has been smoking pot and goes off into a badly written rant about the Navy guy did not ring true at all. The other poor scene is the one where Cruise is in the costume shop and the owner's daughter is caught with 2 men doing something or other - this scene was as bad as I have seen in any movie and Kubrick should be ashamed of it. It stinks of "better put a laugh in here somewhere". And its Xenophobic - why do movies teach us absolutely nothing about Oriental people? Vietnam perhaps.

The movie is of course a gigantic tease. There are the 2 predatory women in the 1st party scene before Cruise leaves. What were they going to do with him? The ritual orgy goes on just long enough so that we can see what's going on but don't stop to think about it for too long... and realise that if Bill Gates, Kofi Annan and The Pope really wanted to bang supermodels they wouldn't want a mask to get in the way of the fellatio. Here we are teased again. "Undress" Cruise is told, thereby mocking the Doctor's phrase, and for a moment America's #1 star is potentially about to be buggered by the World's most influential man in a mask.

But then no.

Any film maker could so easily have fallen down making this scene but the orgy is wonderful. The way that the numatic young women glide one guest each down the corridor at the same pace reminded me of a theme park ride. A lot of ideas borrowed from other movies here. (Wicker Man, Logan's Run, and I would not be surprised if Kubrick had seen Dr Who & the Robots of Death - it is very similar). A special treat for me came during the Jazz Club scene. "Hey, the layout of this NY club is very similar to Madame Jo Jo's in London" I thought and then a split second later "It IS Madame Jo Jo's!". Yes Tom Cruise sat at the table where I groped a young ladies boobs only a few months ago.

The second half of the film becomes a sort of X-files. The message at the gate was SO similar to e-mails you get when you are on the wrong side of someone you have never met.

Kubrick stitched himself up a bit with the music. Because a plot point involves music we are aware of it during the orgy. And so when it is used again to denote menace it is rather obvious.

Kubrick obviously made the film to be a dream rather than reality. The orgy is very clearly a metaphor for the Internet. In the film, masks are used to create anonymity. "What is the password?" Cruise is asked 3 times. So the film is a great success and if Kubrick had known he was dying then he has made the best work he possibly could. It tells us about film, Kubrick himself, a little about current human nature, and gives me at least, a 2.5 hour thrill.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

The worst film I've ever seen

[1/10 · 30 September 1999]

I knew something was up when we were waiting in the queue on its opening night and saw people coming out of the first show looking miserable. "It's good but its not that good" I heard a women say. That means "its the worst film I've ever seen" in England. I tried to get my friends to agree to sell our tickets for a profit, and we could've, after I heard that but oh no, we saw the picture.

"I could have eaten a roll of Kodak and sh*t a better movie" we said afterwards. Illustrates everything wrong with Hollywood in one movie.