j_a_newton Reviews

Jurassic World (2015)

Megacraptor Rex

[1/10 · 30 October 2015]

Two decades after the original Jurassic Park, the company behind it is overcome with greed and decides to capitalise on the dinos once again, but since everyone has seen Whatevertheirnameis-sauruses by now, they need to create new monsters to keep the "Wow" factor up.

So it decides to produce the movie Jurassic World, in which, two decades after the original Jurassic Park, the company behind it is overcome with greed and decides to capitalise on the dinos once again, but since everyone has seen Whatevertheirnameis-sauruses by now, they need to create new monsters to keep the "Wow" factor up.

It's either an irony of fate or a sly jab at the ever-fossilising motion picture industry that the storyline of the film and the narrative of its conception are so strikingly similar. And I'm afraid I'm not inclined to thinking it was intentional.

As ridiculous as the premise of the film is – fill Dino Island with people, let a number of scary ones loose, and then indulge in blood and screams and make sure the obligatory two lead kids get away in the end, where on Earth have we seen that before? – as poorly written the script is. Apparently, the first draft only took three weeks to throw together. I'm surprised it didn't happen in three hours. Loose ends are dangling all over the place like severed sinews from consumed tourists, the archetypal characters are nothing but a poor joke of the ones in the original trilogy (geeky and untidy computer nerd, lone hero scientist who understands that life doesn't follow spreadsheets, greedy business execs who want to make money from the monsters, and lo and behold, the Nasty Military Man who wants to weaponise them, et cetera ad nauseam), and when characters actually have to TELL each other to "RUUUUUUUN!" instead of standing still, waiting to become a quick snack, palm goes firmly on face, at least for this reviewer.

You're-a-sick World indeed. Could someone please apply a suitably large nuclear bomb onto Isla Nublar, so that we won't have to endure a Jurassic 5.

Metal Brothers (2012)

Epically bad

[1/10 · 3 January 2014]

Warning: Contains spoilers

I thought "Speed 2" was the lowest abyss to which filmmaking (used in the most liberal sense of the word) could descend.

I was wrong.

Wasting too many minutes writing this review, after having been robbed of an hour and a half of my life to endure this ordeal - which was nothing but extended torture in spite of the option to fast-forward past some of the abundant dull moments - serves only the one purpose of warning everybody else to steer clear from this meltdown as you would avoid the plague. If it comes anywhere near you, run for your life.

Writing "Warning: Contains spoilers" at the top of this review was a no-brainer. There is simply nothing to spoil. No plot, no jokes, no acting, no character development, no twists, nothing. I mean, literally nothing.

It starts at cringingly awful and goes downhill from there.

(Oh by the way, did I write something about "no brain"? Now there's a Freudian slip.)

Calling it amateurish is an insult to amateurs worldwide. Words simply are not sufficient to describe the full horror of this disaster. It's when you're subject to films like this you realise how poor our language is, how devoid of suitable invectives, to describe it.

You stop cringing at the attempted jokes about a few seconds in, and instead feel absolutely embarrassed, not by the behaviour of the characters, but for the sake of the people involved in cooking up this mess.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the film moves into an eye-rollingly abhorrent attempt of spoofing a music video, only to be followed by yet more nothing. And then all of a sudden the end credits roll, leaving you thinking that perhaps this was not meant as a serious movie attempt after all, but simply a showcase for Steadicam, the use of which is employed ad nauseam and well beyond to the point that we all want to throw up from seasickness, providing we haven't emptied our intestines in such manner already.

In preschool, we thought that dressing up in silly costumes (involving pink wigs) and adding stupid accents was hysterical. Seeing a movie actually trying to produce comedy for adults in that very way makes you seriously want to use some of the metal boys' chains and shackle those responsible for this epic failure to any point that can be calculated to be as far from any movie-making equipment as humanely possible. The planet Uranus, for instance.

Subjecting the general public to such films should be classed as acts of crimes against humanity under the Geneva convention.

Trapped: Buried Alive (2002 TV Movie)

Oh deary me

[2/10 · 17 June 2007]

**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet.

And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.

Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes.

In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.

And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.

I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.

It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.

Mimic (1997)

Pass the DDT can

[1/10 · 17 December 2006]

**** WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW **** ...because it's really, really impossible to write about such a horrible excuse for a film without including spoilers. The plot was so predictable I had basically worked the main details out after ten minutes - no kidding! - and it basically got downhill from there.

Giant mutant insects killing people in New York's subway. "Aliens" in Urban Legend land? You're getting hot. Shambolic, puerile C-movie horror flick? On the mark.

While "Speed 2" is generally agreed to be the worst movie made in modern times, "Mimic" comes in a solid second. I fail to see how the premise and its carrying out can be perceived as "intelligent" - rather, I consider it an insult to anyone's intelligence. (Giant roaches with lungs mimicking humans, eating every human being in sight? Get real. Did anyone say Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?)

Add to that some lousy writing and some really half-baked CGI, and top up with a stack of stereotypes, and voilà - a reel that could probably be used to smash cockroaches with, but not much else.

If you believe in white alligators crawling out of your toilet, and trust every word in the Weekly World News, then you'll probably find this mess "intelligent" and "thought-provoking". If you can find time to watch it between Elvis-spotting and pilgrimages to Roswell, that is. For the rest of us, it is such a painstaking embarrassment that it simply defies description.

Good thing the film plays out in the sewers - that's certainly where it belongs.

FINAL GRADE: Please, someone, invent a pesticide that exterminates films like this.

The Aviator (2004)

Hits you in the gut

[10/10 · 4 September 2006]

This film takes the most well-known weirdo in pre-Michael Jackson American history and exposes him as the great hero he actually was. Without turning it into a sickening flag-waving idol portrait... but by making you FEEL it in the gut instead. What a cinematic accomplishment.

Leonardo DiCaprio finally escapes the 'hunk yard', and comes out as the fine actor he actually is. Which surprised me the most, until my wife reminded me of "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" True, he is talented far beyond the typecasting he sunk into on top of Titanic's stern, and we can only hope that this will be his springboard into some serious character stuff.

Everybody else has rightly praised Cate Blanchett, and all I can do is agree... and Alec Baldwin... and Alan Alda... but most of all, this is Scorsese at his very best.

FINAL GRADE: Stop wasting time reading this review, go out and buy the DVD instead.

Screamers (1995)

Ugh... sigh... yuck

[1/10 · 4 September 2006]

----SPOILERS INCLUDED---- not that it matters for such a horrible film, though...

Carnivorous robots in outer space that self-mutate and multiply underground before annihilating everyone on a forgotten planet in the future... does it sound like the recipe for a REAL turkey? Well, surprise, surprise: it is.

It's hard to even begin shredding this unwitting parody of a horror sci-fi. Maybe they should let some of those "screamers" do the job instead: let them loose on the original reels. Good riddance. And take the script too, as you go; if you can find one, that is.

Don't worry about the writers and producers; this film was probably the result of some alien self-mutating process deep down some forgotten Hollywood vault anyway. Oh, help us if these films start self-multiplying as well.

OK, Peter Weller is decent, that's one star. The rest? Hrm. A clue: don't waste money renting this film to find out.

If you're easily thrilled/scared by little lumps of unused screenplay crumpled up and dragged by string under a sand surface, then this is for you.

If not, you'll agree that the title "Screamers" probably was inspired by the envisioning of hordes of horrified moviegoers stampeding out of theatres, panicking at the thought of having spent any money on this crap. Now there's a sight that would probably have made a better horror movie, but that's beside the point.

Thank IMDb that there is a site like this to warn other people about wasting parts of their precious lives on this garbage.

FINAL GRADE: Epically bad.

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

I am in a state of shock

[10/10 · 18 February 2006]

My... oh my... there are no words to describe this. Words just seem redundant... even irrelevant. EVERYTHING else seems irrelevant right now by the way.

It's in the middle of the night and I have just watched the only other film that has ever left me in a state of TOTAL SHOCK, the first one being Schindler's List.

In fact, that was - in a sense - a less shocking film due to the simple fact that we already know so much about the Holocaust. The whole point of Hotel Rwanda is that here is a genocide of similar proportions... that has passed us by. We have seen the Holocaust survivors share their stories, but we have not yet understood the full magnitude of the Rwandan massacres.

In short: nothing can prepare you for this.

I simply do not know what to say or think. I CANNOT even think after seeing this. It is just... unreal. Nothing anyone says or does can ever make this film justice. This is right up there with Schindler's List as one of the two most important films ever to be seen.

The film treats the subject with all the respect of craftsmanship required. As with Schindler's List, it avoids the pitfall of over-saturating the viewer with blood and gore, and chooses the far more emotionally powerful way of conveying the terror by focusing on individuals, relations. But even though the story of Paul Rusesabagina has many resemblances with that of Oskar Schindler, Hotel Rwanda consciously steers clear of the obvious pitfall of becoming a copy of Schindler's List, and treats those similarities in a rather passing way.

It is a film that whacks you in the middle of your soul.

The scene in the beginning, when Paul Rusesabagina drives through the night during the first blackout, manages to create such an eerie sense of looming terror using only the slightest of visuals, that it in itself should become a case study for all aspiring film makers. I could feel the terror in my MOUTH.

And... where were the Oscars?? I agree that the 2005 Best Actor in a Leading Role, Jamie Foxx, did an outstanding job in Ray. But I am not joking: nominee Don Cheadle's portrayal of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda kicks the you-know-what of EVERYONE nominated that year, put together. Don Cheadle's is a performance Jamie Foxx couldn't even DREAM about. Don Cheadle could blow a few Jamie Foxxs out of his nose.

Accent: SPOT on. I was SHOCKED (here's that word again) to realise Don Cheadle is an American: I had not heard of him before, and was totally convinced the lead role was played by an African actor since he sounds exactly like my Central African friends - until I read the info here on IMDb!! And he is such a... NORMAL person, giving full credibility to the story of someone forced into doing unusual deeds. SHAME on the Academy for snubbing this unbelievable work; it must have been because they knew who Ray Charles was but not what - or WHERE - Rwanda is.

The same goes for the rest of the film - even down to the accent of the Sabena people. I happen to live in Belgium... and I can assure you that I could have listened to the actors playing Sabena officials with my eyes closed and thought they were Belgian straight away!! Academy, go find the dialect coach of this film, INVENT a category for him/her, and give him/her a shiny Oscar for it retroactively!! And for the rest of you: Do not make the same mistake we all made in 1994. Go see this movie. Tell the story. Never forget. And make sure it never happens again.

Must-see? That's only the first name. This film has left me FLATTENED. I am out of breath. And lost for words.

Luther (2003)

Like watching Elvis on TV

[7/10 · 24 January 2005]

The film Luther is absolutely first-class as far as acting and actors is concerned; sets, props, costumes and the like are accurate down to the seams: everything is there ready for a BIG take-off. But then, enter the scriptwriters, director and cinematographer, who fail to ignite the fuse - or rather, spray sedatives over it all.

It's like watching that famous Elvis TV appearance from the 50s, where everything from his chest down was kept off camera: all the thrills are kept down. Instead, the film is satisfied with surfing the surface of what could had become a gut-felt, passionate drama: the paradox of being a spiritual drama that never stirs the soul.

Instead of the filmmakers aiming a full frontal attack on our glands, guts, nerves and hearts, we end up with a pretty bloodless CD-ROM dictionary kind of experience. Yes, the characters talk and move in their historical setting, but we don't go out and weep for them afterwards. Yes, we understand Luther's motifs, but we never *taste* the drives, the passion, the wrath the anger, the struggle. Yes, we *learn* the whole story in a nutshell, but we never *feel* it.

Frigid scriptwriting is one of the problems. Static directing is another, not to mention the pretty uninterested cinematography, which is best compared to a Volvo: safe, posh, shiny - and dull.

Imagine what James Cameron could have done with this, for instance (compare early quasi-documentary Titanic movies with the Cameron Titanic and you see what I mean).

Add to that a score that keeps every attempt to infuse some sort of dynamical span of conflict-to-climax firmly planed down to one even continuum of like-minded action, and you feel a certain frustration about what this film could have been. Now, it's a rosebud that dies before it blossoms, not because of any lack of inherent potential, but due to simple malnourishment.

However, mitres off for the w-o-n-d-e-r-f-u-l little side role played by Sir Peter Ustinov, bless his soul. Someone else here wrote that he absolutely stole the movie, and I cannot but agree. The scene where he receives the German Bible is worth going out and buying the DVD alone!

FINAL GRADE: good ingredients, poor cooking.

The Thin Blue Line (1995–1996)

Blackadder meets Basil Fawlty

[13 September 2004]

Have Blackadder merge with Basil Fawlty and put him in charge of a Dad's Army type of line-up at a police station - and you get The Thin Blue Line. I laugh me 'ead off at the wit of the writing and at the performances of the cast, especially of Rowan Atkinson, a genius of our time, and the rest firmly put in their best role types. But at the end of the day, I can't help thinking that a little more honing of direction and script would have been nice, so as to keep the obvious influences a little less... obvious.

For all of his merits, Rowan Atkinson sometimes *does* seem to try to emulate John Cleese/Basil Fawlty in his venom-spitting eloquence just a little too much. And the sitcom stereotype characters are all there, handed down directly from classical comedy: to continue the Fawlty Towers parallel, think Goody/Manuel, Habib/Polly, Dawkins/Sybil (albeit a depressed and oppressed one, rather than being the oppressor), or Grim/Terry the chef - and Cleese & c:o were hardly inventing those stereotypes, either: those of you who know your Molière, for example, will be able to continue the analogy even further. But you could certainly get worse off than that for half an hour of sheer fun at the telly. I wouldn't miss an episode for much else, and for all the obvious influences, they're certainly some of the best available ingredients to mash down the mixer. Ten out of ten for keeping me soundly laughing straight through it all.

Sliding Doors (1998)

I have but one thing to say

[22 June 2004]

Gwyneth Paltrow!

Her Modern London accent is simply excellent - right on the spot! That *alone* is such an acheivement, it stands out in contemporary film!

But the whole performance, mixing the oppressed, betrayed and humiliated version of herself with the parallel flourishing, newly-in-love variant, is first class, period.

Just look at her radiance when she's with John Hannah's character, oozing with the infatuation of someone who's slowly returning to life without ever having thought it was possible; just look at her troubled expressions of self-denial as she's delivering lunch baskets, literally choking back suspicions that she's lying to herself and being lied to by her boyfriend. Her face tells it all. You'd get the whole story just by *seeing* her act. Man, she's one of the great of our time.

The Apostle (1997)

Casting Oscars!

[8 May 2004]

This movie is another powerful exhibit in the case for why there *should* be an Oscar category for Best Casting.

Apart from Mr. Duvall's identifying acting, so rightly hailed elsewhere on this forum, what truly makes this film stand out as so genuine, so founded, so real, is the casting.

Take the radio guy, right down to his supermarket-style glasses. Take the Rev. Blackwell, fighting to hold back his bursting enthusiasm for Jesus so as not to have another heart attack. Take the talkative lady who almost clashes with the fat woman with twins - haven't we seen them both in our churches? Take the Church Board representatives at the beginning of the film, I feel like I know a few like them! Take the elderly gentleman with the trumpet, struggling to play but doing it from his heart, I've seen it. And in the midst of it, enter mega-star Billy Bob Thornton - blending into the mix just like one of the rest. Bottom line is, there is simply not one character that doesn't come across as believable simply by *being* there, even before you see them act.

Academy, awake, let there be a Casting Category now.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

The Ultimate Passion Film

[10/10 · 13 April 2004]

Never again will it be possible to depict the Passion of Jesus in a movie. (Or on stage, btw.) This is the *ultimate* one.

Everything is excellent, from the cinematography to the props (no plastic armour on the Roman soldiers here!), from the grit of it all to the way the message is conveyed in pictures and symbols. Such as placing the Sermon on the Mount - which was about love and tolerance - on the Mount of Calvary. Nothing I have ever thought of before as a student of theology, but certainly interesting and innovative.

None of the criticism against the film holds water. Anti-Semitic? Blah, in that case, Zefferelli's mighty Jesus film is just as Anti-Semitic - it depicts the religious establishment of the days in just the same way. And what about the fact that it is the *Romans* who are the sadists, whereas the Jewish people shows a great deal of ambivalence? And what about all the Jewish followers of Jesus? Or Jesus Himself?

Violent? Blah. The flogging is *nothing* compared to, say, the splatter and gore of "The Silence of the Lambs" or "Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc". Hey, Roman crucifixions were no picnic! Moreover, the torture of Jesus is punctuated with flashbacks of Jesus' message of love and tolerance, underlining the message even further.

The only thing I have against it was that it requires a basic understanding of certain Biblical stories: the scene about Maria Magdalena becomes incomprehensible if you don't know what it was all about.

But that's all. Go see it today. At a movie theatre, for the cinematic experience. And take some time to think about what the Man was all about.

Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)

The movie s(t)inks

[1/10 · 13 April 2004]

Not only is this "film" a serious waste of time. The very reels are a serious waste of space. Anyone interested in studying film making at its absolute worst or just in for a laugh at a real goof could probably be entertained by it, but for the rest of is, this is as embarrassing as it is breathtaking - NOT the way its makers intended. Hand-cranked bow thrusters? Capable of turning a huge cruiser? Phew. What a lot of nonsense. The "goofs" sector for this film should have a heyday. I am only taking time to write about this to warn others from seeing it and waste their precious time doing so. Is it possible to give this piece of rubbish a *negative* rating?