Change Your Image
guyincognito1
From: Blighty (well, and Cyprus too)
Fields of film 'expertise': Cinéma du 'Look' (1980-1999); the work of Jean-Luc Godard; German Expressionist Cinema (1918-1929)
The first film of a trilogy is ALWAYS the best.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Prometheus (2012)
Decent, but convoluted
The story of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods to give to humankind, only to be eternally and horrifically punished, is a good one, even by Greek mythology's very high standard. The opening of this film was easily the best part, not only because it wasn't in any danger of being impeded by inevitably cheesy dialogue, but also because it told us straight away why the film (and indeed the ship) takes his name. So it's contrived, but we have no right to expect anything more from a sci- fi/horror film. So, we begin with a humanoid, which drinks some sort of weird looking viscous liquid, only for his body to disintegrate as a result of the liquid utterly deconstructing his DNA. We conclude, that, after the panoramic shots we have just seen, that this is earth, and this humanoid, while evidently not human, looks suspiciously as if he is within the same DNA spectrum. This, of course, is the basis for the film, and the two enthusiastic doctors, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway, within its boundaries.
The origin of man is, of course, a subject which has been the cause of much debate over the centuries, although Darwinism has taken precedence over many other lesser theories in the last couple of hundred years. What Prometheus does is challenge this, not as any direct attack on Darwin, but just to make us think. Evidently, anything is possible, although the events that unfold on the Prometheus are in the extremities of unlikeliest. However, while making the audience think can only be a good thing cinematically, there is a distinct difference between a plot that is challenging to follow, and a plot which has so many twists and turns that it leaves you more confused than when you went in. The beginning, for example, is never explained. Now, some, like me and my peers, spent ages discussing it and traded our own conclusions about its relevance. But can Scott really be so sure that everyone will try so hard to understand what he's trying to say?
This film has been hailed as a prequel to the hugely successful Alien franchise. Although denying this, Scott has managed to create something resembling the start of the whole saga. However, the addition of two more stages to the Alien's life-cycle was a little too much to take in. It is possible that the Squid-like Alien was the queen's face-hugger hinted at in Alien 3 but eventually cut out. But that still leaves the Cobra-like Aliens, residing in the black goo. What were they for? Other than to wreak a little fleeting havoc, it seems nothing, since they were never seen again.
Michael Fassbender was outstanding; as was Idris Elba, know better for his sterling work in Luther. The rest of the cast was difficult to evaluate, seeing as there is only so much true acting one can do while being ripped apart by Aliens. They were mildly entertaining though, while they were alive. Although Noomi Rapace was undeniably good, I did have a bit of a gripe with her accent, which seemed at times to be attempting Scots, but the rest of the time, a cultured British one.
Obviously the special effects, it goes without saying, were fantastic, although it did stray on the side of cockiness a little. But Scott's skill with a camera have not diminished, and Prometheus, no matter how much criticism it is subjected to, will remain an aesthetically beautiful film. My last criticism is that there was too much music. The beauty of the original Alien was that the tension was built wonderfully. In Prometheus the music strayed towards the epic, rather than the construction of pure naked terror. I liked it, but it still doesn't beat the first Alien film.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Such a shame...
I say 'such a shame' because stylistically, this film was close to flawless. It was stunningly beautiful, and I adored the majority of the shots. The use of colour contrast between the settings was wonderful, albeit quite blatant, but then again there's nothing wrong with that. The futuristic quality was good too, and I loved the way in which they portrayed the grotesqueness of the city people as opposed to the lowly and oppressed. And while I'm on the positives, I shall compliment Jennifer Lawrence on an excellent performance.
But I'm afraid that I just had too many gripes with this film for it to be as good as I had been told it was. The first one is not the fault specifically of the film, which is again, I emphasise, a shame. I must admit to not having read the book, but the premise on which the entire story is founded bothered me right through the film, and I have to say that this detracted from my enjoyment of it. Why on earth would 24 young people be made to fight to the death? Because it is 'a tradition'. But then what is the significance of this? And answer came there none. And even if there was an answer in the book, I highly doubt I would find it convincing. It is just not believable enough. And while I accept that futurism and Sci-Fi rarely make much sense, most of the masterpieces you will find in this genre are suitably convincing. The sacrificial aspect of this particular vision of the future just doesn't make any sense to me.
Secondly, the character exploration was poor, at best. Especially Peeta, who came across as nasty, selfish, and condescending the entire film. No doubt there was supposed to be some change, or some equivalent, to make Katniss fall in love with him, but it wasn't there. Why did she protect him? I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when he 'teamed up' with the others, he was trying to drag them off her scent, as it were, but if this was the case then it didn't come through. It just wasn't obvious enough. And while we're on Peeta, Josh Hutchinson was pretty bad, relying far too heavily on his puppy-eyes (the number of close-ups tells us that much).
We also felt nothing for any of the other 22 'tributes', especially Rue, with whom Katniss looked vaguely like forming a connection with, probably because she reminded her of her sister. But the connection was just not strong enough to evoke any emotion. In addition to all of this, the storyline was far too predictable.
So I do say, 'such a shame', because this was, visually, a pleasure to watch. But was never going to be a great film, purely because of the premise. And that there are other things, which could have been rectified (unlike the premise of the entire story) that weren't, put this film just the wrong side of a 7/10 for me, I'm afraid.
The Artist (2011)
A Triumph
I have fallen in love with this film. It is touching, sad, yet witty and enigmatic. It is quirky. In short, it is one of the best films I have seen. The last time I said such a thing, it was about Inception, which is in itself a truly wonderful film, but if I tell you that this film beats it into the ground, then you are halfway there to understanding how brilliant a piece of cinema this is.
From seemingly nowhere come a triumphant lead, Jean Dujardin, and a truly astonishing talent in Berenice Bejo. They play their characters with such belief, such conviction, and such sensitivity that it is simply a pleasure to watch. In fact, the whole cast produce something very special and I doubt if they will ever make such a film again.
The camera-work was exceptional, and deserving of the BAFTA it won last night. Indeed, all the BAFTAs the cast and crew won yesterday were truly deserved, and they probably should have got more besides. Even the dog should have been rewarded for some truly heroic work! In what is essentially homage to something no-one really remembers, Hazanavicius creates a world which we can see, enjoy, even take part in, and there is no cheesy symbolism or anything like that, it is all very subtle. Not so subtle that only a select few will get them, but in a way that makes you impressed that you noticed.
The black and white was illuminating, and at times was so bright it almost felt like colour. All of the awards and praise it has received has deserved. The film is also clever, and the dialogue, which you would rightly expect to be minimal, is only transcribed when absolutely necessary, which is surprisingly not often. The beauty of the film is that we know what everybody is saying, we know what they are feeling, which is also the true beauty of the silent film.
I can honestly say that there was only one thing that I did not like about the film, and I will not spoil it by telling what it might be, but I will say that stylistically, it is perfect for the moment, and merely a technique that I personally do not like. That said, overall, this film exceeded all expectation. This is a film which is both beautiful and funny. And I applaud it.
Passchendaele (2008)
Not quite there, sorry.
This is a film which tries very hard to look at the British's comrades from the Commonwealth, although there is not nearly enough light shed on the living conditions in the trenches. What films such as this tend to forget is that most of WW1 was spent in freezing mud, rather than heroic stands against German machine guns. And let's not forget that the British had machine guns too. Most of the cavalry, having failed on horseback, were re-trained as machine-gunners. But I digress.
Don't get me wrong, this film had some genuinely nice moments. But a love scene practically on the battlefield? I'm sorry Mr. Gross, that's going too far. What was even more irritating than that was the fact that said scene was in-dispersed with shots of the war raging behind. Come on, don't mix your themes please, it makes the viewer think that you don't know what you're doing. This, to some extent, is not true. The camera-work, in particular, is actually very impressive, and the battle scenes are very well executed. Caroline Dhavernas is actually pretty good, but this does not compensate for the negatives.
Namely, the fact that the story-line is so clichéd. A man sent home from the war who is perfectly fit and capable seems unlikely (at the least) from the start. But it just gets worse. A blundering and horrible mustachioed fat recruiting officer who also just happens to be British? Let's see if we can find any more blatant stereotypes? German soldiers more often than not depicted as pathetic teenagers? Of course, why not? Oh, yes, that's right, it's because it is absolute tripe. A weedy boy who is so patriotic he fights for his country anyway, like we haven't seen that one a thousand times before. Oh, and of course, an absolutely perfect Hero, who can make anybody fall in love with him, and still spout badly written rhetoric about his homeland.
And this is another gripe I have with the film. The dialogue is an integral part of any film, but, in this department, Gross has failed. It is full to the brim with clichés, and staggers around making everyone sound like they should be - well, I don't know, but it is really badly written.
So there's some really nice work on this film, but for the big screen, it's just not really up to scratch.
Romeo + Juliet (1996)
An interesting interpretation.
This is a good film. Be warned, however, that some of the dialogue has been cut. You will notice this from the very first scene (incidentally my personal favourite Shakespeare scene) but I do not think that this distracts from the plot or the quality of the great playwright himself. It has been modernised to best of anyone's ability, and it is to Lurhmann's that this still looks like a Shakespeare, and has most of the dialogue making sense in a modern setting.
This is actually one film in which Leonardo DiCaprio acts well, as helped by a great cast, including stellar performances by Harold Perrineau and John Leguizamo. All of the symbols used in he production were effective, if a little obvious, and all in all this film is slick and true to the original, down to even the minutest details. Even though little tributes to the original setting sometimes are a little 'in your face', they are nice, and further add to the sense of respect the film has for the play.
I am a great one for conventional, traditional performances of Romeo and Juliet, but I have to say that this is a very good film, and grips to the last, even though everyone knows what happens.
The AristoCats (1970)
Possibly one of the best Disney films ever.
This is a film that is incredibly underrated. At the tender age of two, I went through a fanatical phase of watching The Aristocats again and again, at least twice a day; a craze that still makes sense to me now. This is an incredibly simple storyline that works wonders with both kids and adults, and I was shocked to learn that it was only given 6.9 on this website (IMDB), rated lower than The Fox and the Hound, which is nowhere near as brilliant (despite still being good).
Although some of the elements hark back to previous Disney hits, the ideas (for the most part) remain original and very enjoyable. Phil Harris, who also lends his dulcet tones to Little John in Robin Hood, and Baloo the Bear in The Jungle Book, plays the classic low-born hero in this romantic journey of self-discovery and fighting to get back home.
It is also very funny, with the three main comedy characters (Napoleon, Lafayette and Roquefort) being excellently distributed throughout the film. In addition to this, the evil character, in this case a resentful butler, is not too scary, and has just the right balance of maliciousness and humour. The addition of swing to the ensemble makes this a film that few can rival. The originality of Cats (universally cute creatures) in Paris (a centre of romance and culture) is unrivalled. 'Everybody wants to be a cat'? After that, I certainly do!
The Lady (2011)
Not bad at all, but still unconvincing...
While it is certainly true that Aung San Suu Kyi has been, and indeed remains a great figurehead for Burma and their struggle for democracy, one wonders quite how, after watching this film, Besson managed to make it quite so long. This, in fact, is my main criticism. 'The Lady' is simply far too long, and, in addition to this, is on a downhill slope after the initial stunning 10 minutes or so of cinematography. This opening was exciting, moving, and perfect in almost every way, but from that point on, the film just deteriorated.
The use of music was excessive, and I found it intensely irritating when practically every shot of the military junta was accompanied by 'evil' music. This simply trivialised a matter which is still relevant today, and patronised the audience. Furthermore, the dialogue between the junta leaders was a bit clumsy, a bit stereotypical, and a little bit soft.
However, this was a film that had bits of brilliance. David Thewlis was masterful, and every bit of his heart and soul went into his performance. Michelle Yeoh was radiant, although she looked a little bit out of her depth every once in a while, when she let her character slip. It only happened a couple of times, but that is enough. Typically for Luc Besson, the shots were beautifully executed, and I particularly liked the splicing of footage into re-constructed events. All these things, however, did not come together well enough.
Perhaps the reason why this film doesn't hold together very well is that she has not finished yet. Aung San Suu Kyi's story is not over, and she has not yet succeeded in her aims. The film itself just did not have enough substance to work with, and in that respect, it can be of some credit to the director that he made an unrealistic project into a passable film.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
One of the best - of all time. Seriously.
If there was such a thing as a perfect movie, this is it. Of course, for practical reasons, one cannot award a film ten stars out of ten, because of the endless stream of new work demanding scrutiny. I'd like also to start by quoting another well known film, which sums up my opinion nicely. 'In many ways, the work of a critic is easy- we risk very little, and thrive on negative criticism, which is amusing to write and to read. But the harsh truth of the matter is that the average piece of junk is probably more valuable than our criticism designating it so'. This could not be closer to the truth. When it comes down to the wire, critics risk everything in dishing out praise, for fear of being ridiculed themselves.
There can be no such danger with The Shawshank Redemption. It is an eternal masterpiece, timeless and inspiring. I avoid being clichéd, when it is at all possible to do so, but The Shawshank Redemption is beautiful, masterfully acted, with just that right amount of tenderness. This is a tale of moral courage, and the everlasting fight for justice. As with other films of the genre, one can tell what will happen, of course, but when you watch this film, you will time and again be genuinely surprised, and maybe even shed a tear for the persistence and unquenchable thirst of the human spirit. One leaps for joy after watching this incredible film, at the knowledge that evil, in all senses of the word, can, and will never triumph.
Turning an eye to the technical side of things, just for a moment, I can discern not one single badly executed shot. The Shawshank Redemption is well written, and, as I have said before, brilliantly acted. Characters that could be flat are all allowed to develop and flourish, and the film is even better for it. The film grabs our attention, right from the word go, with agitated shots of Andy looking like he IS going to kill his wife. And the soundtrack. Well, there isn't much to say; except that most of the music in this film is some of the most beautiful I have ever heard.
This is a deeply satisfying, wonderful, brilliant, fantastic, soulful cinematic work. Watch it, if you haven't seen it, and if you have, you must agree that this excellent film will be an eternal classic. There are, of course, films that people will prefer, I myself am strongly attracted to Subway, a 1985 film by Luc Besson, but for pure facial and objective value, cinema does not get much better than this.
Un long dimanche de fiançailles (2004)
Jeunet pulls another classic out of the bag.
This is a film which covers many issues, from the corruption and madness of a male-dominated society and a woman humble enough not to succumb to it, to the horrors of World War I and the extremes to which humanity can be pushed. Needless to say that after such wonderful films as Delicatessen (1991) which he co-directed, and Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain (2001) which was his own project, Jean-Pierre Jeunet has created yet another film that is, in my humble view, a masterpiece.
This film does not dote too much on the experiences of the soldiers directly, rather the story is told, for the most part, in flashback, and this works to its advantage. It is important that we take a step back from the past, leave it be, and revisit it perhaps from an angle that has not been looked at before. Sure, this is an adaptation from a novel, but it was first published in 1991, which suggests that time is needed for reflection. Indeed, one of the characters within the films says 'time heals all. You'll see'.
The cast is jam-packed with stars, from the fantastic Audrey Tautou, to Dominic Pinon, to Ticky Hogaldo, Marion Cotillard, and Denis Lavant. All perform to a very high standard, with Tautou and Cornillac giving especially outstanding contributions.
Ultimately, this is touching, but not soft. The camera-work is excellent, the battle scenes are fantastic, the symbolism is good, and, most importantly, the film itself is not too predictable and soppy. The mystery intrigues us, and we want Matilde to succeed in her quest. But what does she find at the end, if anything?
Das Leben der Anderen (2006)
Profound tale of morality.
This is an absolutely fantastic film, with a very suitable soundtrack and great performances from the whole cast, which performs perfectly.
Little things, like facial expressions, reactions, etc. are so important on the big screen, and are so difficult to get right. It says a lot for the talent on set that this film was an absolute joy to watch, especially as all these 'little things' were executed to perfection. As Wiesler grows to love his subjects, it is, of course, a gradual change, and Ulrich Muehe, with the help of a tender and fantastic script, pulls his character off so convincingly.
What is very interesting about this film is the way in which it portrays West Germany. Von Donnersmarck has not directed a love-letter to the West; he portrays its faults just as he portrays those of the East, and of the Ministerium fuer Staatssicherheit (Stasi), and there are some very thought-provoking issues and ideas within the film.
Ultimately, whether the right thing is done or not, a transformation occurs within the film, one for a more fulfilling existence. I'll leave you to decide whether or not it is for the better, but I truly believe that this film is an enriching experience for all who watch it. You really get the sense that the actors cared for the themes and issues that the film raised, and this can only ever make a film better.
The film is not without tension, which is expertly tackled by fast editing and music, and not without sadness, loss, and pain. Characters are more deeply explored than you first realize, and, often, they are not so different. They are, after all, all socialists.
Not often does one come across a classic film, one with just the right amount of classiness, messages, and imagery, amongst other things, and it is a genuine pleasure when one falls into your lap. Watch this film. I promise that you will not be disappointed.
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
At last - a stand-out Superhero!
There are many superhero movies, but Captain America is one that has caught my eye, and this alone, with the vast expanse of similarly-themed films, only ameliorates the success of Joe Johnston's adaptation of a comic-book story of a young man who loves his country. This theme in itself is enough, as films such as Glory (1989), Rocky (1976), and Patton (1970) have already shown, but although the patriotism in Captain America is blatant for all to see (just look at his name!), it is ultimately justified. The original 'Captain America' was, as the film explains (in a roundabout way) merely a morale-booster, a propaganda ploy, and Johnston used this to his advantage.
By showing how this ploy was nowhere near as effective as people thought it would be this film serves also as a reminder of true American values, not just the petty bureaucratic ones of government officials. But I digress. I don't pretend that this film has any true moral values, other than those of 'goodness over evil' which is the central theme of any superhero film. What I do say, however, is that this film, for me at least, has been an enormous success, not least because of the seriousness with which it took itself. The actors... well, the principles at least, seemed to take their roles to heart, something which is very difficult to do when you are making a fantasy film.
Recent franchises such as Spiderman seem to have lost their way. 'Peter Parker', a representation of victory and triumph to geeks everywhere has lost himself in the persona of 'Spiderman', or so was the impression I got from the train-wrecks of 2 and 3, but The Captain remains true to himself throughout, and this is what I think made the movie such a captivator. Yes, bits of it looked ridiculous, but so do elements of all superhero films. It is an unavoidable inconsequence.
There is, of course, lots of action, which was beautifully sequenced, and the special effects were predictably stunning, and also fantastically well implemented. Maybe the franchise will go the same way as that of the Spiderman trilogy, but for the moment at least, this is the Superhero movie to beat. Game on.
Highlander (1986)
Good old fashioned fun!
Ladies, I would not recommend this film. Of course, there will be those of you who revel in high-octane action movies, and, if this is the case, you will find everything you're looking for here. But if you're looking for a searching and profound masterpiece, this most certainly is not it.
However, this does not mean that this is not a good film. An original idea, coupled with a highly adept and proved cast make this film an enjoyable watch, although it is, of course, very male-focused. The action scenes are just the right length, and edited to perfection. Admittedly, I found the film to be like Charles Dickens. You have to accept the way they tell the story, you have to let them do it their way. Once you put your inner critic behind you, however, this is a film which has the potential to enthrall.
Swordfights, car-chases, violence and sex are the foci of this film, and although this film has no 'inner message', neither does it make any claim to that. It is a thrill-ride of rock, fantasy, and soul.
This is a film that is proud in its failings. Take a look at Sean Connery trying and failing to deviate from his Scottish accent to a Egyptian/Spanish one (and what does that even sound like?!) and giving up a lost cause halfway through the film, to Christophe Lambert's timeless, nowhere accent in New York. but he does say he comes from 'everywhere'. The beauty of this film is that, for all its faults, it comes back stronger each time you watch it. Boy does that surprise you.
Highlander is a 'B movie', and proud of it. Put simply, this film is a relic of the 80s, best watched by every boy who has just turned 15.
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Disappointing, but not truly awful.
After reading countless scathing reviews of this title, I was interested to see for myself the highly criticised rehash of the 1980s flop, and was subsequently surprised. It is certainly true that Sam Worthington could have made a far more convincing Perseus, and that this film did not really stay true to the strangely touching qualities of Greek Mythology, but as for actors, I have certainly seen worse.
Although wooden, it certainly tried to be historically accurate, and, to a reasonable extent, succeeded. The supporting cast were also impressive, and the soundtrack, while not exceptional, was suitably 'epic'. Liam Neeson and Gemma Arterton should both be proud of excellent performances.
This was certainly not a great film, but neither was it as bad as most critics seem to think it was. Not by a long shot.
Killers (2010)
All copies of this should be tracked down and burned.
I went to see this film with one of my mates when it was released. OK, I admit, it was an impulse watch (because we were stuck in town for another 3 hours) and one which will haunt me for the rest of my life.
This film was an absolute disgrace. Words cannot express the horror with which I watched this movie. (well, I say watched, when what I actually mean is 'threw up in my popcorn'). When we regarded the title 'Killers', my friend and I felt that this was something that we could sit through. We were wrong. In fact, we didn't even watch the end, we were so upset that this kind of cheap, awful cinema was even produced.
Having finished my rant and anecdote, I will now commence to slate the film for all it deserves. For me, this film got 1, because the opening looked fairly promising, it was snappy, and puts you, as the viewer, in an expectant position. What follows is full to the brim with terrible acting, clumsy dialogue, and gaping plot-holes.
There are two main beauties of cinema. One is that, although obviously not real stories (mostly), the director (if he has any skill at all) makes the characters and setting believable/plausible. This film was useful to the film industry as an example of a complete and utter failure of this aspect of cinema.
Secondly, with so many stylistic influences, it is possible for directors to merge, successfully, different genres. This film's tone flailed wildly, and did not have any sense of direction at all. The story itself did not make any sense, and was fiendishly difficult to follow. Luketic should be ashamed, and Kutcher and Heigl should never, ever act again.
The Adventures of Tintin (2011)
Ultimately impressive effort
Now, I can understand why both critics and average Tintin fans alike might have felt a little let down by the story. Spielberg and Jackson merged two stories into one, and while others may feel that this was a negative aspect of the film, I maintain that it was the most practical (and effective) thing to do. After all, we need some knowhow as to why Tintin and Haddock meet, otherwise it is just confusing for all those people who haven't read a Tintin comic in their life.
I must admit,this is the first time I have experienced Tintin in English (having read all but one in their original French) and it was very impressive how they were translated into English, although I doubt Spielberg even glanced at a French copy, and merely used the English. There have been comments as to the non-heroics of our 'hero' as opposed to 'Snowy', who really steals the show. But in the comics, it IS always Snowy who does the real work, the amount of times he saves Tintin are uncountable! One thing I will say though, is that the motion capture coupled with the CGI made a slightly weird contrast to Spielbergs love of close-ups, and not in a good way. Otherwise, it gave the movie a real comic-book atmosphere. For me, this has been a real privilege to watch, and a joy to see one of my childhood heroes brought to life. It's a bit too like Spielberg's other films to merit a nine (no film is ever worth ten), but ultimately this is a genuinely good film.
Super 8 (2011)
Very watchable but nothing special.
I just watched this film and have recently begun writing reviews, so I just thought, hey, have a go at posting this one, and hopefully you'll find this both interesting and helpful. Basically, this film was a more violent version of ET. What made this movie stick out was its blatant cry of 'Spielberg tribute here'. The Alien is really to violent to relate to, and this film, was, essentially, an exercise in nostalgia. The bikes, the group of kids triumphing against adversity against a 70's setting was all lovely but stand-out for the wrong reasons. Having said that, Elle Fanning had some excellent scenes, and there was some true pre-pubescent feeling in the acting, which made the film very enjoyable. This is, overall, you're average decent film, a 7 out of 10, no more, no less.