Change Your Image
Chiefbukowski
Reviews
WolfWalkers (2020)
Not sure why highly rated...
First off, I'm not going to rate the animation style. It is so subjective that it's up to the individual whether they like it or not. It's not my cup of tea, I felt it was a bit all over the place and no consistent theme, but hey, some people will like the style or lack there of and good on them, enjoy!
However, an animated film can literally be 2 stick figures in a blank void and it will be good if there is a good story... and unfortunately this one doesn't have a good story. It's a cliched story, no twists, no fresh look at anything. There is never any sense of jeopardy and very little (nothing actually) in the way of clever humour or dialogue. I can understand if it was on the Nickelodeon channel in the under-5 year old's programming, it's simplistic and colourful. But to be getting nominated for major film awards? Very odd, not sure where that is coming from. So many other animated films more deserving.
The acting is pretty shoddy too but in an animated feature that is down to the editor and director so not blaming the actors. I'm pretty sure there were quite a number of looped/repeated lines from Sean Bean in there, it brought back memories of the Hard Rain video game glitch (Shaun!... Shaun!... Shaun!)
So, overall, a decent distraction to plonk a 4 year old down in front of. Simple, no frills toddler entertainment. No hidden meanings, no reading between the lines, no moral or environmental messages to be gleaned, no lessons learned by any character nor the audience. Sure wolves have been extinct in Ireland for over 200 years, it could have at least mentioned that.
If you are over 5 and are giving this movie a high rating, you are either related to someone in/on the movie, or you have the mental capacity of a 5 year old. In which case, well done on using a computer! Proud of you lil buddy. Please seek an education and realise what a good movie actually is.
The Sandman: The Doll's House (2022)
Best episode so far
Don't believe all the other confused reviews. This is the best episode so far, perfectly setting up a plethora of characters and actually telling a story rather than the previous cliched "quest" episodes. I was wary when I saw it was the worst rated episode but pleasantly surprised that the series has finally gotten into its stride. Actually looking forward to the next few episodes...
Early Man (2018)
A few puns but not much else
If you like Dad jokes you'll get a few chuckles but nothing else. No story at all, no character developments, all very one dimensional and Panto-ish. Sad to see Aardman studios reduced to this kind of stuff. I wouldn't even show this to young kids. Show your children early Aardman stuff (Wallace&Gromit, Chicken Run) and pretend the recent films never happened.
Kill Me Three Times (2014)
Terrible soundtrack
Script is a bit predictable but acting is fine. However, my god, the music throughout the film is horrific. It turns what could have been a watchable little indie film into an over long episode of Neighbours/Home and Away. As a watcher, you can never get invested in the story due to the horrible, strangely upbeat music that overlays every single scene. Shame.
The Young Offenders (2016)
A film not sure what it wants to be...
First off, this is a 4/10, maybe a 5/10 film at best. I'm giving it a 2 to start to normalise the rating and to offset the traditional soft reviews from Irish critics.
If you want any semblance of realism in a film look elsewhere. This is a collection of sketches strung together in the 'paint-by-numbers-road-movie' formula. There's nothing new here at all. If anything it's a little muddled.
The acting wasn't the worst but there's nobody in the film going to be threatening the Oscars anytime soon. As I said, the script was fairly formulaic and hackneyed, as if the writer just followed a 'How-to' manual and did the bare minimum to flesh out a story. Unfortunately that story is following two clowns doing unbelievable (in the proper meaning of the word) things, and this is fine if it's just a straight up cheap spoof movie, but we're asked to care about the characters near the end, supposedly excusing their behaviour because 'they had a bad upbringing'. Nope. I couldn't give a monkey's about the characters, they're overblown caricatures. One out-of-place scene of domestic violence is not enough to justify anything. Leave it out and concentrate on the comedy, thin as it is. There are some vaguely funny jokes in there but they are thoroughly diluted with the hackneyed toilet humour.
I've seen this being compared to Adam & Paul by some lazy bloggers and journalists. It's light years away from that film in tone, story, acting, cinematography, everything really.
All in all, it's not the worst film. You'll get a couple of laughs and then forget about it fairly quickly after. On the scale of Irish comedy films going from Adam & Paul or Garage (great) to The Guard or Calvary (awful rubbish) this is somewhere near the lower end of the spectrum.
In Time (2011)
Interesting idea extraordinarily badly executed
It's an interesting idea, money basically taking the place of money in society but, my god, this film really, really badly done. The script and the direction are horrible - clunky pacing, awful dialogue, continuity errors and plot holes all over the place, superfluous characters and overly dramatic nonsense. I liked Gattaca and obviously The Truman Show was great but they seem to be the exceptions in the career of director/writer Andrew Niccol. He seems to want to deliver some sort of wise message but it just comes across as if it was made by a 10 year old. As is oft repeated in this film - "You can do a lot in a day" - make sure that watching this film isn't included. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Generic Biopic about 2 hours too long
I'm getting tired of Scorsese getting lauded just cos, hey man, it's Scorsese. This film was so excruciatingly mundane. I read in the "Trivia" section that there is a 4 hour cut somewhere. Christ. It's mostly improvised and you can tell as a lot of the actors are not capable improvisers. McConaughey is fine at it, as is Hill with his comedy background but the others? Pfft. DiCaprio just ends up chewing up the scenery and Robbie, god love her, tries her best but is usually overwhelmed by DiCaprio's voracious chewing. The problem with relying on improv to cover up your lack of a script is that you need a very very good editor, which Scorsese does not anymore. I also read in the"Trivia" section that Scorsese said the editing was intentionally 'odd' to heighten scenes where the characters take drugs. Bullcrap. Maybe in a couple of instances, but the rest of the time the editing is just awful. Continuity mistakes all over the place, lazy use of still shots, and one scene where there was a dissolve transition literally in the middle of a shot. Wft? But the main problem with the editing is the instances where there wasn't any. Soooo many obviously improved scenes were made even more obvious by the inability of the editor to do their job and cut at the right time. I'm all on for long continuous shots but they have to be justified. This film was like a student film-maker wanting to leave in all the footage cos, huh huh, my mates, huh huh, they're hilarious, huh huh. You wouldn't think Schoonmaker has over 40 years of editing experience. Since Kundun her work has been steadily declining, Gangs of New York, The Departed and Hugo stand out as particularly badly edited in recent times. And this one joins the list. So, overall, this film is over long, over indulgent and over praised. Kind of like the main character, but not intentionally so.
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)
When did Tim Burton decide to abandon story telling?
It's official. For a number of years now it's been suspected that Tim Burton had lost his love for story telling and this film just confirms it. There exists no story whatsoever in this film, which is an achievement considering it is based on a best selling novel with a coherent story. For me this film was made just so Burton could live out his fantasy of recreating Ray Harryhousen's famous stop motion skeletons. Which he does badly, and to an odd ambient trance soundtrack so out of place it made the Mad Hatter disco dance in his awful Alice film look like art. The acting is awful considering the talent at his disposal, the exposition is so clunky and the dialogue so stilted I feel sorry for the actors. You can really tell Burton just didn't give a rats ass about giving any direction to them. Which would have made sense had the visuals been fantastic, but no, they were clichéd, old and tired. Tim, please, retire with whatever dignity you have left. I felt like I needed a shower after this film.
Sydney (1996)
100mins to tell 10min story
I like PT Andersons films. There Will be Blood, The Master and Punch Drunk Love especially, and I'm all on for character studies but this film was bad. No story, bad acting, bad dialogue, unrealistic characters, the whole shebang. It was his first film and it seems he lost creative control over it, but it shouldn't get a free ride just cos it's PT Anderson. It's bad. Maybe not 1star bad but I'm bringing down the average to even out the good 7, 8 and 9s from the fanboys who don't know better. Avoid. These next few lines are just to fill out the review and meet the 10 line minimum needed to get accepted as there is really nothing more to say about the film. Seriously.
Charlie Casanova (2011)
Pants
I agree with the other 1 star review. Don't judge a film on it's budget or production process, judge it on its merits as a piece of emotion inducing storytelling. The director wants you to love this or hate it, he has a immature need for you to have an emotional connection of some sort with his film, feeling that even if you hate it he has done a great job - truth is it's pants. I didn't care enough to hate it, it just made me go 'meh' and shrug my shoulders. It comes across like the director tried too hard to make something that jumps up and down and goes 'look at me, look at me, please notice me!'. He drew shock tactics from a number of well trodden paths and overused sources that seem to have distracted him from infusing his film with the most important ingredient - an engaging story.
The acting is so-so, nothing that would help this to stand out but, to be fair to the actors, they were hampered by the script or lack thereof, the main guy (can't remember his name offhand but apparently he was in Hollyoaks..) being the only one to get any sizable screen time, in which he proceeds to chew up the poorly lit scenery. As to the cinematography, well, let's just say there's hope for all those college films that are gathering dust in former film students back rooms - dust them off guys, if this can get a release there's a chance for all your short films shot on grainy minidv, lit with yer da's garden light, with the audio recorded on yer webcam mic.
You may ask why I write a review if the film meant nothing to me. Well, it's because I had the misfortune to attend a (free) screening of it with a q&a with the director afterwards. As I sat there in the audience, surrounded with cast and crew and competition winning Hollyoaks fans, listening to the director's expletive ridden pretentious ranting I felt something I hadn't in the previous 1 hour 37 minutes - emotion. And that emotion was disgust.
Or maybe I was just a little bloated from the curry I had beforehand. At least that part of my evening was enjoyable.