Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Awesome return for the EcoChallenge - woohoo!
16 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
As an adventure racer for over a decade, I was super-stoked to hear of the return of EcoChallenge. I can safely assume the same reaction from anyone else who has ever competed.

So, how does this series measure up to the previous editions? Pretty much spot on. It's first and foremost about story, about the human element, the struggles, the suffering, as it always has been. EC2020 pretty much nails that.

People have been whinging about the US-centric nature of the series. Well, what do you expect? This is a business, not a charity. The most expensive series Amazon has ever staged, and if there's to be another, it has to succeed in the US.

Also, it's not accurate. As noted elsewhere, most of the elite teams vying for the podium are not American, so we spend a lot of time watching these non-US teams up front. If you know AR, the Kiwis and Aussies have been on top form for a looong time, as have the Spanish, Scandinavians, South Americans etc. It's ironic really, since the US used to be huge, but definitely no longer dominate.

While I would have loved to see more middle-of-the-road teams featured (knowing a bunch of them personally), if their story isn't dramatic, it doesn't make good TV. The producers would have chosen a handful of teams to follow beforehand out of the 66, and as it so happens, most of them turned out to be tail-enders. Not too surprising, since they were newbies.

Where this show really succeeds is to capture the sport for those who've never heard of it before, who feel inspired and would want to give it a go. THAT is the most important element for the future of the sport, and makes for good TV.

As for the losers who said the race was staged: you have NO idea what you're blathering about. And comparing this to the Marathon des Sables, or Amazing Race - I just have to laugh. Again, blissful ignorance shown here in spades. Just remind me how much sleep deprivation other events bring into the mix compared to adventure racing? Please?

So, for the newcomer to AR, this show really does the business (again!) of showing the crazy of the sport, the perseverance required, the team mentality, the ADVENTURE of racing, without getting tangled up in the technical aspects which would be lost on the newcomer.

One thing's for sure, I can bet every team out there is massively grateful for the experience of participating. While they might have wanted more screentime, that was always secondary, and I doubt they are the ones doing the sofa whingey stuff.

I'm already seeing a massive uptick in people wanting to find out more about the sport, so there we go - the show worked! :D
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kitchen (1997)
9/10
yes please
13 December 2003
wow. waaaaaaaaay excellent. beautiful, understated, and extremely rewarding, esp if you haven't read the book.

unlike most films out of HK, constantly keeps one on one's toes. Never can tell which way the film is going to twist, as warps each and every cliche as they rear their heads.

well recommended and then some.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hero (2002)
WOW
12 October 2003
just finished watching it. There has to be a film out there that qualifies as the MOST beautiful of all time, highly subjective an assessment though that might be, and HERO, IMHO, qualifies for first place. Unbelievable. Every frame is worthy on its own, every frame could be hung on the wall, every frame. Wow.... Gushing? Sure, but only because it's worth it.

Story / plotline, pacing, acting, direction etc? Well, will have to give them more of a think. Not top in all those categories, but then those spots are filled by other films.

In terms of pure cinema, of spellbinding version unfolding, a hard film to match.

FWIW, there IS a director's cut out there, with an extra 20 mins or so of character development.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beautiful languid film of surprising detail
26 April 2003
Just finished watching it, late on a Saturday night. Beautiful. Saw SCENT OF GREEN PAPAYA but prefer this. Incredibly sensual, tactile, delicate shades of light, spilling over faded walls, around lush greenery, onto rough stone. Such fantastic visuals, could easily leave it playing in perpetual loop with the sound turned down, especially on the 42" LCD I don't have.

Plot? Was surprised at the level of detail, how well scenes knit together, symbols woven through a tapestry I didn't expect. One of the main reasons I prefer it to SOGP. Unexpected tensions arise, complexity swimming below surface tranquility, never quite sure where the plot is going to lead.

There isn't much in the way of conventional resolution, but that didn't matter to me. Some think the pace too slow, but heard similar complaints about IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE which I found unfounded. Doesn't have to be neat and tidy, and often there is more importance in what is not said, than what is spoken. A different mentality from many 'western' films, and certainly not the French 'nothing about nothing' that one reviewer mentioned. All in the details. And the glorious laziness of summer! I want to be there NOW.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not One Less (1999)
8/10
Entrancing view with maybe a tad too much sugar
6 October 2002
I enjoyed it, truly enjoyed it. Just watched the dvd 10 minutes ago. Have seen loads of Zhang's films, and interesting to see another of his 'small' films (similar feel to The Road Home), where characterisation and dialogue take centre stage. A simple story, but a REAL one, which touches the heart, sometimes wrenchingly, although the final resolution is a tad over the top. Excellent performances, as usual for a Zhang Yimou film, fantastic cinematography, a beautiful film. And in reply to those who seem to have found the children slightly too naive: well, if you had lived there, you might not be so naive yourself. It's one of the reasons I'm moving back - I want to give my children a real CHILDhood.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
AWESOME EPIC GOTTA SEE IT NOW!!!!! but Redux isn't an improvement
25 May 2002
Is my favourite film of all time. Seen the original version too many times to count (without going psycho myself) and is truly not the kind of film that will be made again. The scale is just amazing, aside from all the insanity that went on behind the scenes. All would be digital, and the worse for it, if attempted today. So far as the Redux version goes, it DOES add some information, but most new scenes detract from the pace and the relentlessness of the mission. One doesn't always need to know WHY, or HOW, elements come into play. We can provide that with our own imaginations. Coppola seems to be pandering more to his own ego than to the demands of the plot. Nonetheless, still a 100% must see, even if not a fan of war films - just for the insight into insanity, into the dark side that exists within us all, the dreaded unknown waiting in the precipice. And aside from the surround sound, turn off the lights. And the phone. And the mobile.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gruesome acting, gruesome plot
4 March 2002
It wuz baaaaad and then some. Weird thing was how I didn't change channels. So bad that just HAD to find out how it ended. Lowe & Miller were alright, but most of the bit parts were appalling, stuck in stilted 'pause & deliver' mode, not assisted by a script that seemed committee-driven, last-minute hackwork. Character depth struck a new lowe (sorry). All of the above must be laid at the door of the director, who can only do better.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2 versions out there
15 February 2002
Was BLOWN AWAY by the visuals - as pretty much everyone else seems to have been - but now that I want to buy it on DVD, it appears there are 2 versions: running time is either 97 min or 112 min. That is a BIG difference, and could go some way to explaining some of the negative comments above - ? You'll remember those seminal scenes for a looong time. Anyone who loves CINEMA should make a point of seeing it.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shooting Fish (1997)
Nice try, but typically convoluted plot lets it down big time
1 January 2001
Just watched it. Sad. Started out decently, but deteriorated quickly. The actors tried hard, and are likeable enough, but film fell foul of typical British film nonsense of making things too complicated, rather than having a good story. Final resolution was predictable, just a matter of details, with no regard for the intelligence of the audience. Felt like they wanted to finish it as quickly as possible - ran out of steam. Can't believe some people regard it as their best film ever. We obviously have vaaaaaaastly differing tastes.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed