Change Your Image
moosic
Reviews
Hard Core Logo (1996)
Just wonderful, intelligent film making
To try and comment on this film without mentioning Spinal Tap would be hard considering not only all the comments that have gone before but also the synopsis provided on this site. And the fact that not even real Rockumentary's can be reviewed without mentioning it hints at the brilliance of that film. Hard Core Logo, is not, however, Spinal Tap......and it's none the worse for it.
Hard Core Logo is an intelligent drama (with the occasional comic moment) about the intense love between two friends and their mutually destructive force on each other when their paths once again entwine together years after the dissolution of their band.
The copy I watched was pretty pore so I can't really comment on the cinematography but I can imagine, from the fuzzy version I did see, that its strikingly beautiful in it's own slightly decrepit way. The plot line is almost non-existent leaving the main focus on the four members of the band, mainly founding members Joe Dick and Billy Talent.
So without good actors this film would sink. As it is the director has pulled fantastic, three dimensional, heart rending performances from both Hugh Dillon and Callum Keith-Rennie. Hugh Dillon's Joe Dick is a self destructive black hole that pulls in those around him. His love for Billy can never be doubted but he can't stand to think he's been left behind and will do almost anything to bring Billy back into his life. Dillon's energy and screen presence is quite extraordinary.
Billy on the other hand is trying to get out, not just for money reasons but because he sees it as a way of salvaging his life from his group of self destructing band mates. Keith-Rennie's performance is all in the close ups of his face or his performance in the background of a scene while watching those around him. Billy talks crap but his face never lies.
well, at least that was my take on this film...and that really is where Hard Core Logo comes into it's own. With so much of what the characters actually mean not being said (they chose, instead, to spout the generally expected views of a rock band) it really does depend on the viewer what film they watch. Bruce McDonald is a director that knows the beauty of well acted silence. They don't need to say anything for us to know exactly what these characters are feeling. Truly spectacular.
But I'm rambling, seriously, watch it, don't watch it, but if you don;t you're genuinely missing out!!
War Crimes (2005)
Dear oh dear!!!!
Having been handed a copy of this film from a friend who got it from a different friend I sat down to watch this as I had nothing else to do. Well, doing nothing would have been better. If this is the future of the British film industry I fear for it.
The camera work was patchy, if you're going to use more than one type of camera then at least make them look like they could possibly be the same camera. The completely different picture quality between different shots in the same scene was horrifying. And note, by darkening a daylight shot doesn't mean it looks like night time.
The subtitles (and I normally wouldn't have an entire paragraph devoted to these but this time it's really necessary) were spelt incorrectly and changed fonts half way through. Now, changing font, that's one thing, but incorrectly spelt. Surely a spell check isn't that much to invest in after the money has been spent on everything else in that film.
The plot, well, what plot. I'd like to talk about the plot but the lack of it makes that difficult. The premise of student protesters being stuck in a war zone could be used very effectively however it appears that plot has been forgotten for some, rather dodgy, fight scenes. Some of the explosions were actually quite well done but the CGI bullets were laughable.
I'm not even going to mention the acting, the previous reviews have mentioned that they weren't all that great and they liked the film so you can probably guess what I felt about it.
I will give it one plus, the script was very funny. I'm not sure that was on purpose but some of the lines had me laughing. "There's a safe way over there" in particular was very amusing because the actor delivered it as if giving directions to the local supermarket. Slightly less exposition would also be advisable next time.
Digital cameras mean anyone can go out and make a film but that doesn't mean that the film is going to be good, or even vaguely watchable. I did make my way through the entire film but that was more to see if it could possibly get any worse, something that appeared to happen every few seconds. Watching this film was as hard as running up a hill, one that takes as long as it took the female students to run up in this film.
Please, don't make any more films. I beg you, put your money to better uses.
'Salem's Lot (2004)
Very enjoyable
Let me first state that I've never read the Stephen King novel and I've never seen the 1979 film. I went into this because although adaptations of Stehpen King's novels only appear to have a 50/50 chance of working as films, if that, I still have a tendency to watch them. That and the fact that when Rob Lowe's good, he's very good, which admittedly is not all the time.
So, going into this completely fresh I enjoyed it very much. I watched it over two nights after taping it from the Sci-Fi channel usually starting at around 1:00am. Bizarly I actually felt tense watching it. Maybe it was the fact that I was in the right mood, and lets face it, if you're not in the right mood for these types of films they're terrible. Maybe it's because a very little kitten is not the best support from the 'scaries'. Maybe it's just because, not very convincing effects aside, it was actually good.
I liked all the supporting characters although felt that they didn't really add much to it and some needed a bit more explanation. I did feel there was something slightly weird about Mark, and then after looking him up on IMDb.com realised it was because the actor was FAR too old for the role, but he did a good job. A few of the actors were over the top, but most worked very nicely. Rob Lowe was good, although something about the voice over didn't work in my opinion.
But this was an enjoyable 4 hours. Forget you're comparisons with the book, which I realise is probably impossible. But if you've got a few evenings spare, and I wouldn't advise this for all in one sitting, give it a go.
Smallville (2001)
Getting better and better
I've been watching Smallville from the beginning. I've always enjoyed it, the good looking cast had something to do with it in the beginning, but even without that it is a really good show. Both my parents watch it, proving that it isn't just for the teenage/20's age group. Although I think the entire cast is great, Kristin Kreuk's Lana Lang being the weakest and Michael Rosenbaum's Lex being one of the best, I think special praise should be given to Tom Welling for his portrayal of Clark. I recently watched the first episode again and was amazed at how much he's improved. I know it was his first ever acting job and quite frankly, it shows. There is a woodenness to his acting that is not there later on. I think that it shows his worth as an actor to see how much he has improved. There are subtleties in his performance now that were not there to start with. I am looking forward to seeing the show continue for a long time to come.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
Actually enjoyed it
I know that I'm in a minority here but I actually enjoyed this movie. I knew going into it that I wasn't going into a masterpiece but when going to a film made out of a Stephen King novel it's advisable to have that mind set. There are a few exceptions to the rule, Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, Misery, and (although I found it rather boring) The Shining, but generally Stephen King movies are terrible. This one, although the people who made it should have done better, is still better than the majority of them.
If you take the director and writer Lawrence Kasdan and compare it to his other work it just doesn't reach the levels but I felt that there were several moments he handled very well. Of course he's on more familiar turf but the scenes between the four friends were very good, although they did appear to be part of a different movie to the rest of it. *SPOILER, BIG ASS SPOILER* Once Jason Lee and Timothy Olyphant were dead the film did degenerate into a bit of a mess, but it was still a fun mess. *END SPOILER* There were great birds eye shots of the snow covered forest. The acting was ok, some of the cast were better than others. Lee and Olyphant were good in the more comical roles, Damian Lewis once again showed his pitch perfect American accent (he's English) and did very well in a role that could have ended up looking completely comical if not handled right. And Morgan Freeman was over acting but that didn't matter as I couldn't take my eyes off of his huge eye brows, so the acting wasn't noticed all that much.
OK, most of the plot is improbable but it's a sci-fi thriller, of course it's improbable. If you don't go in wanting to see a work of art you wont be disappointed. It's a fun film that while not one of the great King adaptations, is definitely one of the better.
The Four Feathers (2002)
Really not as bad as people are saying
Ok, the first thing I should probably say is that not only am I a Heath Ledger fan but also a Kris Marshal fan. Now if this means you think I can't write a reliable review feel free to skip this. OK, now that we've got that little bit of information out of the was lets get on with the review.
I saw this film the other day after waiting weeks to see it. I was VERY excited. I know that lots of people have been saying that this is not a good movie. I don't agree. Sure, it's never going to be one of the best films ever but it's completely enjoyable.
I thought that all of the cast were good except for Wes Bentley and Kate Hudson. I'm not meaning to go for the only two American's in the cast (Heath Ledger is Australian), I just personally thought that Kate Hudson was far too weak to be the love of two men's lives. Wes Bentley was OK, completely acceptable but the supporting cast was so good that it made his performance worse in comparison. I think the fact that they were obviously struggeling with the accent didn't help. Heath Ledger was not as good in this film as in some others. I personally think he was possibly best in '10 Things I Hate About You' but that's because I think he might still need a bit of work on the deeply serious rolls he keeps taking. Sure, he's got the jaw-line for tormented but there's nothing in his eyes, you can't see the feelings, and there are a lot of close ups in this film.
My enjoyment of this film may have been partially fueled by my enjoyment of seeing Kris Marshal as something other than Nick in 'My Family' it may have also had something to do with the fact that Heath Ledger is very sexy. But, although this film is definately trying too hard to be an epic (the cinematography is of the standard), it is still and engaging, if too long, film.
I know that conclusion sizzeled into nothing but it got the message across. Don't let other people but you off seeing it. I know people who have enjoyed it and there are obviously people who didn't. I think it's just going to be one of those movies that you either like or dislike. I liked it and I don't like epics. Just give it a try.
Quills (2000)
It's all in the face
I found this film funny, moving and horrible all at the same time. There were times when I couldn't watch but then there were other times when I was riveted. As good as everybody was in the film there was one actor that shone far above the others. Joaquin Phoenix. What other actors need scripts and minutes to do he can do in a second with simply his eyes. All you have to do is look at his face and his eyes will tell you exactly what the character is thinking. I have seen several of his films and his performance is always brilliant. Winslet and Rush are also on good form but this is Phoenix's film. It does drag and could do with being about 25 minutes shorter but if you're looking for something different from most films this is definately one to check out.
Brassed Off (1996)
Almost perfect
I have seen Brassed Off many times, I do in fact own it, and every time I watch it it never fails to move me. There are certain moments that stick out to me as either breath taking or harrowing.
1) That famous 'Concierto d'Aranguez' scene. The first time I saw this scene it took my breath away, literally. When used well music can move you in a way words can't. The juxtaposing of this piece of music against the union's meeting is one of them. I haven't been this moved by a piece of music with actions since then apart from the Roxan sequence in Moulin Rouge.
2) The scene where Phil loses it when playing Mr Chuckles I actually can't sit through. I have to fast forward because the emotion the Stephen Tompkinson manages to portray is so strong it's painful to watch.
Through all of this though I think my favorite scene, the aforementioned 1) excluded, is when they compete in all 14 tournaments and get completely rat arsed. The sight of these brilliant musicians trying to continue playing when they can't see straight, stop laughing, or keep their instruments in one piece is one of the most honest, amusing and humble moments in a film in recent years. there is no flashy camera work, no deeper meaning, just something that says exactly who these people are. Ordinary human beings, not super-heros, and just trying to live life whilst having fun in difficult circumstances. And you really can't play wind instruments drunk, I've tried.
The film is not perfect. It is a bit preachy, especially the end. And McGregor's accent, although he plays the part beautifully, does slip at time, especially in his longer speeches. But the humanity of the film and it's charm out way all of it's faults.