11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Video Hell!
20 June 2018
SPOILER: I really enjoyed Escape Plan. It was fun and although a little silly it was well put together well directed. Now I was surprised to see Stallone doing back to back sequels in Escape Plan 2 + 3, but if 2 is anything to go by then Stallone has slipped horribly into Straight-to-Video Hell! Which is quite apt as that's what Hades means (it was the Greek name for the underworld).

So why is it so bad? - Well, firstly we start the film with characters (and actors) we've never seen before: A team on some kind of rescue mission from terrorists. Wait, what?! We don't see Stallone until 10 mins into the film. It's his team. He's the boss of a security firm in Atlanta now. But he's not the main character. Oh.

The main character is Chinese actor Xiaoming Huang. No, I've never heard of him before either. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt this actor is a big star in China. His martial arts are really good, and he has a certain presence about him. But his character here is so underwritten that you never engage with him as a character. So instead of being invested in him, you become a mere spectator of what happens to him. I'm sure Chinese money & market has a major part in his casting, but this isn't how to do it. Also featured is Cheng Tang, who (I'm sorry), is almost unintelligible in around half his scenes. But I think it's partly the director's fault. We frequently can't see him speaking as the camera is doing something strange. So you get a difficult to understand accent from a disembodied voice.

So, Huang finds himself inside a new mega high-tech prison, where to achieve privileges you have to to win fights in a gladiatorial fight - for no apparent reason. Oh. This is such an old B-Movie cliché that I can't believe they went there, but I suppose they wanted to make use of Huang's martial arts and this is how they do it. It's a bit desperate though. Meanwhile, on the outside Stallone recruits Bautista to help find Huang and another team member who's gone missing. At this point you think this might pick up, but you'd be wrong.

The problem is that none of this is joined up well. You frequently are barely comprehending what is supposed to be going on. There's no real focus to the film as we cut back and forth between outside and inside the prison - which nobody knows the location of. Dialogue is frequently missed or mumbled, especially by 50 Cent, who is so bad I think they could have employed a cardboard cut-out with a robot voice and it would have been a) more intelligible and b) a better performance. Seriously, why do people keep employing him? Bautista is underused, and is just a man mountain who terms up and does things. There's no character. He's just a thing that does stuff.

Stallone, obviously is trying to spin-off successful films in which he was the action hero. Now older, he can't do that stuff anymore, however, when he does a little bit of action you can't help but be impressed. Here there's a good action scene in which he and Bautista waste numerous assassins, but I really don't know what that scene was about. It just seemed to be stuffed in there for a bit of action. Another scene is a bit silly really, where he faces a man at least 30 years younger than him in fisticuffs. Dude! You're in your 70's! Stop it! It's getting embarrassing now.

The special effects in the film are grossly overdone but so low grade that you wonder how they managed to use 90's technology and make them look 80's, and the prison never feels like anything but a rather bad film set. The whole film looks rather B-Movie cheap.

Although the script doesn't work for all the reasons I've given above, I reserve special mention for the director, Stephen C Miller, who seems to think that erratic and inappropriate camera movements is what directing means. This film could have been watchable if Miller was not at the helm. He's dire! It's like an 8-year-old was given a camera kit and tracks. This isn't style, it's mess. Nothing about his direction works. Nothing. No thing. In all seriousness, Miller has killed what might have been just a bad film and made it a very bad film indeed. Producers! Stop employing him! He has no idea what he's doing! Nothing he does works!

Please, Stallone, you are better than this. You can write really good characters and you are actually a good actor. Do some thrillers. Act your age, dude. As for Escape Plan 3: Devil's Station, at least it won't have Miller directing. John Herzfeld at least knows how to use a camera.
143 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nothing to Any Men - A Confused and Empty Gangster Film...
13 June 2014
A.K.A. The Deadly Game. Now and then you find a film with a great cast and wonder why you've never heard of it before. Here we have Gabriel Byrne, Julian Sands, Toby Stephens and Rufus Sewell in a London gangster thriller.

Oh no, not another one!

But wait, this is a well produced, well shot film with a pretty good (if somewhat generic) score. And this is only 81 minutes long, so even if it's bad it'll be mercifully short, right?

Wrong.

I'd been watching 21 minutes when I checked the time, because I thought I must be half way through by now. Groan. So what's wrong with it? Well, the script. The story is completely unintelligible. Which means you feel like you've missed something all the way through, namely, the story. See, the main problem is that we don't know any of the characters in the film, so we don't care about them. Any of them. And there's no clearly definable hero or villain, so you don't know who to root for. And I like grey characters who aren't really good or bad, but you need a general focus or main character in a film, and this film just doesn't have one.

So you keep watching these characters you don't care about in a story you can't really figure out, especially as they keep referring to things you don't see but that appear to be germane to the plot, and pretty soon you are just willing it to all end. Drop a plane on them! Nuke the whole city! Just let it end!

And then it does, and you are left completely nonplussed, empty, devoid of any reaction other than relief that it's over. That's not the way thrillers are supposed to make you feel. You're supposed to be thrilled! You're supposed to have gone through some kind of cathartic emotional journey, with added visceral excitement. You're not supposed to be relieved the mental cruelty of a badly laid out jigsaw puzzle is finally in your cultural out-box. Phew!

I need to watch a great thriller. I might have to go back to my DVD collection.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thumbs Up for White House Down!
13 June 2014
White House Down - I finally managed to get to see this on the big screen yesterday. So we had Olympus Has Fallen, and now, somewhat delayed, we have the Channing Tatum version. I don't know why this was delayed, but Olympus has certainly stolen some of its thunder. It's basically the same story - the White House is taken over by terrorists. But whereas Olympus was North Koreans, this is a mixture of white supremacists and disaffected patriots (think, The Rock), oh, and mercenaries.

The trick with Channing Tatum is not to let him try acting too much. He's pretty, he can do action, and he can do functional dialogue, but his screen presence is minimal. So you partner him up with Jamie Foxx, who can act, as the President of the United States. So, Channing goes for a job interview for the Secret Service, but he doesn't stand a chance. His track record isn't a great one and it needs to be. His daughter, played by Joey King, has come along as she's some kind of White House anorak who knows the ins and outs of the whole building. After being turned down for the service Channing decides they should tag along with the tour for his daughter's sake. Then the terrorists turn up... blah, blah, blah, boom!

The action is quite believable for the most part, as Channing does not play an invulnerable Superman action hero, but an ex-Marine who can handle himself okay. There are some ropey CGI effects in here, mostly to do with helicopters. The dialogue is pretty functional, in that it's never dull, but never sparkles either. What I liked about White House Down is its self deprecating sense of itself. It knows it's "Die Hard in the White House". And it has fun with it all the way down the line. It's popcorn, it's fun, it's got action, it's got a great baddie (James Woods). What more do you want? It doesn't take itself as seriously as Olympus, and that's no bad thing. The real surprise for me was Joey King, who plays Emily, Channing Tatum's daughter. She does have screen presence, is a good little actress, and I think is one to watch for the future. Overall, Thumbs Up for White House Down!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Competent and stylishly directed.
15 April 2013
This is a competent and stylishly directed short film. The cinematography is excellent and the performances are very good, with natural sounding dialogue. Locations are good and it seldom feels like a student film. The lighting, very often neglected in short films, is very well handled also. The sound design too is very good - something all too often neglected in short films.

I saw this film in competition against my own film, and for me, it was the best film in its category. The plot won't set your brain alight, but it is never less than engaging to watch. I look forward to seeing the writer/director Graham Neale's next film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taken 2 (2012)
Taken The Mickey
7 October 2012
Taken 2 is as expected cut to pieces to get a 12A rating. Do not bother to see this film in the cinema. A film company allowing a sequel to an adult action film (which was rated 18) to be savaged in order to get children to see it is just a lesson in corporate greed. In doing so they have now lost this patron from here on. I will no longer go to see a 12A - I don't care what it is!

Taken 2 is so cut that you have no idea how Liam Neeson manages to overcome about half his opponents. For example I honestly had no idea that pressing someone's face back so that their head is against a wall will actually kill them! Wow! That's some Ninja crap, surely... No, it's just badly cut action. It wasn't even one of the schizophrenic epileptic-having-a-fit so-close-to-the-action that-you-can't-see what- the-hell-is-going-on action scenes - and there are many of those.

I knew the story would be convoluted and it would stretch plausibility beyond... well okay it was always going to be vaguely plausible at best. If it wasn't marred by badly shot fight scenes and badly cut action in those fight scenes then it could be mildly enjoyable. Unfortunately, this little escapade has probably killed the franchise.

There are many things wrong with the film, Neeson struggling to use a minuscule mobile phone instead of trying to escape his ties when later it takes him no time at all to get through the ties, there's also the length of time he spends on this phone. But its main problems are the cuts and the action being shot by a dwarf with vertigo. I get dizzy enough without this idiotic misuse of a camera. You seriously could not get anything worse if you gave the camera to a six-year-old. Will someone please teach directors how to shoot action again? Please......... ?
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fievel Cheers Up
26 August 2011
Let me get this out of the way - I hate An American Tail (the original) - I think it is a gloomy, morose and overly sentimental piece of tripe. What's more, you try getting a child to watch this trek into unhappiness and gooey emotions... it's not going to happen! Fievel Goes West on the other hand is a much lighter affair, with more cheer and one or two really lovable characters the kids will want to watch and adults won't want to smear the screen with chocolate because of. It is a little two dimensional (no pun intended) and it is also a little episodic and disjointed in places, but it recovers well and bounces back for a great finale. In short, if the kids have been good then let them watch Fievel Goes West (if they've been naughty then you could always punish them by making them watch An American Tail). I have always enjoyed this film and it continues to lighten the day.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Assassins (1995)
Hashashin
26 October 2008
I was raised on Stallone films and there's no denying that he is a screen presence even when he is saying nothing. He never looks bad on screen (even in Copland he is captivating as a deeply scared and mostly silent sheriff). I was also raised on the high octane action thrillers of producer Joel Silver and direct Richard Donner. My teen years were gung ho and visceral in terms of film going.

Something drab happened in the 1990's though. Mood was mistaken for entertainment instead of mise en scene. And as a result a clutch of thrillers simply did not work. The Assassin (Point Of No Return) the remake of the French Nikita was slow and despite having Bridget Fonda and Gabrielle Byrne it lacked edge, and John Badham's use of slo-mo worked against the films action instead of for it. Then came Stallone's own tepid simmer (hardly thriller) with Sharon Stone - The Specialist. This is best remembered for two things 1) the hilarious sex scene between the He-Man Stallone and the Barbie Stone (really funny for how awful it is); 2) the ubiquitous scene-chewing James Woods who has a ball as the bad-guy, in this laughable and yet boring fiasco. Always suspect in any film is a voice over - like they forget something and had to make sense of it (Re: the ill-advised Bladerunner VO), only here it is the terrible and completely unbelievable telephone calls between Stone and Stallone that play over otherwise banal surveillance shots of Stallone stalking the Colombian mafia on Stone's behalf. The whole films might have worked better without the calls. Oh well.

And then came Assassins. Admittedly a step up from The Specialist, but not far. Julianne Moore's character comes over as a completely asynchronous character as she is not clever (which she is supposed to be), but is too old to be as ditsy as she plays it. Stallone does have more action to play with and the film's flaws are not his fault. The problem comes in the last half of the film when the pace is slowed so much it feels like it will never end. The problem is that the first half has a fair amount of action in it, whereas the last half is a tense setup. This simply does not work as we feel let down by the lack of action. A film tilted the other way might work more, but it's never going to work as a tense ending when the heartbeat in the first half was quite simply beating faster. The result, although competently directed, is an uneven film which ultimately lets you down.

I would really like Stallone to do another Specialist/Assassin film today, where he comes out of retirement for something personal (I know that's the story of Rocky Balboa/Rambo IV, but if it ain't broke...). I think he could redeem himself of these studio blips (I see big thumb prints all over these pictures), so long as he wrote and directed the film himself. Stallone is a very good actor who has been caught in a niche market (despite trying to break free of it) for three decades. He is also a good writer and director. If he took some time over this one it could be another hit for the iconic star.

Please redeem yourself Sly. I shall wait with baited breath.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Woeful Tomb... Mummy 3
5 August 2008
I thought the first Mummy film was okay, only suffering minorly from being an Indiana Jones wannabe. The Mummy Returns was much better and the fireworks really started to fly as the franchise found its feet. Then, inexplicably the franchise disappeared. Now some seven years later - post National Treasure 1 & 2, post Tomb Raider 1 & 2, and even post Indian Jones 4 - we have The Mummy 3 aka The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. But something is terribly wrong...

I won't summarise the plot because the synopsis is above, I'll get straight on with what is wrong with this hugely expensive summer flick. Brendan Fraser reprises his role and opens the film uneasily, retired from the adventuring business and awkwardly trying to adjust to country life in the family manor. But Fraser looks more awkward than he should, and the script isn't giving him anything to work with. It isn't quirky, funny or romantic, it is hack writing of the worst kind and I really can't say I'm surprised considering the hack writers who hacked it. Alfred Gough & Miles Millar are responsible for many of TV's Smallville episodes, along with such "modern classics" as Herbie Fully Loaded, Shanghai Knights and the upcoming Hannah Montanah: The Movie (can you believe?). So it shouldn't shock you if the writing is shocking, banal and plainly unfunny. And it is the main evil in this film. Everything should hang on the sturdy script, but when the script is this floppy you should just bin it and start again. Silly tongue-in-cheek humour I love, stupidly incompetent plotting and unbelievable characters I don't.

However, the script is not the only evil in the movie. The special FX are dire in places. I have seen better graphics in computer games. Frankly the CGI looks like just that - computer generated imaging - and as such completely loses the suspension of disbelief. The director (Rob Cohen) seems to have sleep walked through the film while all this mess went on around him. His handling of martial arts scenes are typical of a man who thinks that multiple cuts are violent but two professional martial artists - at the top of their profession - like Michelle Yeoh and Jet Li are not graceful and quick enough on their own to dazzle the audience by themselves. On the contrary, both Yeoh and Li are superb, and their beautifully balletic fights are cut up into messy bites of directorial insecurity and editorial masturbation. Not surprising when you consider Cohen's resume includes the upcoming "King of The Nudies" (I kid you not). But the last straw is the casting.

Maria Bello takes over Rachel Weisz' role of Brendan Fraser's fearless, demure and athletically sexy wife Evelyn with none of the sexiness and no coy demureness to be offered. Even her fighting is now distinctly ordinary. But the real blunder is the roll of Alex O'Connell, Rick & Evelyn's son. Luke Ford appears ridiculously too old to be Fraser and Bello's son - and it is an awkward scene between Bello and Ford when they are alone, simply because you could be forgiven in expecting a love scene between them if they weren't playing mother and son. It takes a special kind of idiot to miss this, but universal is apparently awash with such people. There is far more chemistry between Bello and Ford in their scenes than the damp scenes in which she and Fraser are lumped together.

Love interest, Isabella Leong was not cast for her superb acting skills, I think it's fair to say, but she's good in the action scenes and always very pretty to look at. John Hannah annoys less than usual, but has less good lines also. Jet Li eats up scenery and really carries the menace of the undead Emperor. It is Li that merits the few stars this film gets. Overall the film is an uneven experience with no character, a wafer thin plot, ridiculous logic holes and action scene after tedious action scene. I know it's a popcorn, but it's bland, tasteless and cost a lot of money. Someone should have noticed this before me.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Dark & Humourless Night
3 August 2008
It was a trade show - days before the film's release - I had tickets - I was excited - I was going to see The Dark Knight: Chris Nolan's second Batman film after the promising start he had made with Batman Begins...

I had heard Oscar mentions about the late Heath Ledger, and I couldn't wait to see what they had done with the reinvention of The Joker - which I hoped went back to the graphic novels - harsh and insane, but tinged with a little sympathy on our part for what is ultimately a tragic character.

Unfortunately, we got none of this. The movie plods along a path of politically thriller which would suit any vigilante film, except this is Batman - and you could live with it - except there's no light here. The only slight humour in the entire film features Michael Caine (as Alfred the Buttler) and then it's all doom and gloom...

I liked seeing the mechanics of how people support Bruce Wayne in his Batman guise; it's interesting. But the pace is never more than pedestrian unless we're thrown headlong into one of the action sequences - which are excellent, of course. But so what?!! I didn't care about anyone, so I didn't really become emotionally involved with anyone to care if they lived or died. Christian Bale plays Batman with such merciless grimace that it's hard to understand why anyone would speak to him, let alone support him.

All in all the story culminates at around the 2 hour mark with spectacular orchestration and manipulation - and you think 'I can't wait for the sequel' - and then, unfortunately, the film continues for another 30 minutes of action which would be better placed in a whole other movie. By which time you are so numb that you just want to run from the cinema while rubbing the feeling back into your arse cheeks!

The afore mentioned Heath Ledger IS superb. He's the only light in this humourless darkness. I only wish they had gone back to the comic material and given him a proper background. It would have added such depth to what is an extraordinary performance.

It's such a shame that after stunningly inventive and interesting movies like Memento, Insomnia and The Prestige that Chris Nolan has been given enough rope to hang himself with. Batman Begins was too long and warning flags should have been waving. And yet with films costing more than ever, this movie could have cut it's running time and budget by 20%. I could be wrong, but I think the prohibitive length and dour humourless tone it takes could mean it's market cutting shorter than it could otherwise have performed.

Also a word to parents: This is not a kids film. It's violent, a little sadistic, and bares an adult sensibility throughout. Frankly, even if kids were allowed to watch it they would be bored stiff, fidget, talk and possibly fall asleep.

This is not a masterpiece. It's not rubbish. It's a very very long dark night.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alfred the Great (I) (1969)
Alfred the Guts-Ache ?!!
30 May 2008
This movie is dire. It paints England in the squalid colours of cliché and melodrama, where there should be character and drama. The script is mainly at blame here, with its stagy monologues and all-too-often speeches. But, "once more unto the breach" this is not. It is wooden and bereft of any real sense of emotion or motivation for the characters. As a result we are dragged through the major events of Alfred's life without any real notion of what made the man tick. What we have instead is a real Bastard - a man who is arrogant and tyrannical, self opinionated and full of self loathing. So you wonder if you care at all.

David Hemmings is as wooden as the script itself and poor Michael York suffers so much from being a stereotype that he might as well be a cartoon character. Nothing works here. It's long, it's boring, and Hemmings ranting in yet another tirade of opinion does nothing but annoy.

The battle scenes are awful - and I don't mean in the light of today's battle scenes. I mean these are terribly choreographed jumbles which, even when they are trying to be clever with military formations, just look like a load of soccer hooligans going at each other in a field. It's wholly uninspiring stuff! Bare in mind that Spartacus was 1960 and The 300 Spartans (which the film alludes to) was 1961, El Cid 1963, the list goes on... and while this film is an English and not Sword'n'Sandal Epic I see no reason why it could not at least aspire to set pieces such as feature in The Vikings (1958).

The Danes wander around chanting in formation and the chanting is nothing short of infuriating because it goes on and on and on throughout the entire picture. Also the depiction of these pagans is nothing short of ignorant. Yes, certain Gods are mentioned, but any understanding of how these people really thought of them and worshipped them is sold down the river for yet more clichés of the "evil-pagan" vs the "good-christian" - utter rubbish! There are no "real" scenes of Danes at all, and it is films like this that merely fuel ignorance, not dispel it. It all stinks of really bad direction and ill-thought out production.

The colour is drab and lifeless, and life is depicted as not much short of squalid, which we know it wasn't. I kept expecting the Monty Python team to pop up, "there's some lovely mud down 'ere" (a lá The Holy Grail). The costume department do seem to have been more on the ball, but the dull colours only amplify the banal palate of the picture, with it's uninspired wallpaper score and it's pseudo-theatrical pretensions. Even the photography and the editing are dull.

Only Ian McKellen appears to come out of this picture without egg on his face - and that's because he looks wholly uncomfortable in the film, probably wondering what the hell he's doing in this tripe.

And the "Gutts-Ache" of my title is a favoured saying of Alfred in the film awe inspiring script - "you make my guts ache"!!! Dross...
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tut, Tut, Tut....
27 August 2006
It's sad to see. Really. With Russell Mulcahy being the director of Highlander - a must see of my 80's teenage - I thought maybe it was a return to form when I caught a trailer on Sky. I duly tuned in...

That was the start of my troubles. This lack lustre schizophrenic wannabe Indiana Jones clone lacked any sense of pace, character or credibility, and that's leaving the dubious special effects alone. My woes were doubled when I found that at the end of transmission I had only seen the first half of this two part torture.

Through some freak happenstance I collided with part two a week or so later. I accepted the wafer thin plot, the unlikely OTT villains, the stereotypes, the surface characterisations, and even the Very "Special" Special Effects. And from somewhere came the impetus to want the film to be finished. It went into free-fall and became a demon laden action type thingy effort, sort of... You see, it just ended and I thought "There is a God". All I wanted was to see it finished. And mercifully I did.

Please Russell Mulcahy, I beg you, read the script before you say yes to your next film! The Lost Battalion wasn't bad at all! As far as viewers are concerned though - save yourself a couple of hours of your life, because this film is certainly Cursed!
20 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed