Change Your Image
clive_slatter
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againQuentin Tarantino hasn't made the list any more than Woody Allen or other notable directors not because their films are not iconic but because I don't like their films very much.
Reviews
The Crow (1994)
It Can't Rain All The Time
Just so that we're clear this is one of my favourite movies and one of my go to movies when looking for something to watch but it's not perfect. It's also nothing like the graphic novel.
When I first watched the movie back in 1994 I had not realised that Brandon Lee had been killed during the making (the internet was still in its infancy at the time) but I had been an avid reader of comics for years and fancied something a bit different. The soundtrack definitely helps sell the movie from The Cure's 'Burn' through to Jane Siberry's 'It Can't Rain All The Time', it all feels in keeping with the tone of the movie.
Brandon Lee was not the first choice for the role of Eric Draven (Christian Slater anyone?) but he did make it his own and won over the author, James O'Barr (who wrote and drew the original comics after the death of his girlfriend).
A year after his and his fiancee's brutal murder Eric is raised from the dead to exact revenge on those responsible; Tin Tin, Funboy, T-Bird and Skank. For a year we are led to believe that Eric's soul has been unable to move on and join with his beloved Shelley Webster and what we see is a man trying to deal with his loss and the battle with madness at having been pulled back into the land of the living.
According to the comics Eric has a guide called the Skull Cowboy that was his guide through his mission of revenge and his strengths and weaknesses. He is warned that his invulnarability remains only whilst he carries out his mission and not to help the living. This helps to explain why, after his fight with Funboy, Draven is patched up with tape (after Draven removes the morphine from Darla's system he is attacked by Funboy with the cutthroat razor Darla dropped earlier). Michael Berryman was cast in the role of the Skull Cowboy but never appears in the movie due to the changes required to produce a complete, largely coherent movie. This was the only aspect that keeps me from awarding the movie a 10 as it always niggled me until I found out what the missing piece was.
This movie won't appeal to everyone but it is considered, at least in part, responsible for more adult superhero movies to be made.
Judge Dredd (1995)
Still can't bring myself to watch it
If you were a fan of 2000 AD comics in the late 70s and 80s then the anticipation of the Judge Dredd movie was almost palpable. Then we find out that Sylvester Stallone was starring as the lead character. Okay... a well established action star was probably needed to sell it. Rumours that Sly had read the comics and wanted to be true to the source material alleviated some other concerns.
Then we watched the movie. Now, if you've never read the comics you are entitled to say you enjoyed the movie and may even be forgiven for saying it was quite good, I'm just not going to agree with you. They did, at least, manage to capture the essence of the mega-city but pretty much everything else was over the top. Karl Urban's Dredd was far truer to the character as was the violence.
What we have here is a film that tries to splice together elements of different stories from the comics into one movie; Rico, The Day the Law Died, Angel Gang, Cursed Earth and even a little ABC Warriors thrown in. Rico in the movie was a wise-cracking pain the neck played painfully by Rob Schneider whereas he was a monster of a man from the undercity who played a pivotal role in the comics.
Don't get me wrong, some of the casting was impressive but I think they were really up against it. They could have simplified the plot a great deal and avoid trying to stuff as much of Dredd's history into a single movie. 30% on Rotten Tomatoes (135.5k ratings) is probably about right compared to 72% for the 2012 version. If you were never really a fan of the comics and just wanted to watch an action movie then that's more-or-less what you got, but if you wanted a film that brought to life one of comics' most iconic characters then you may well have left the cinema very disappointed. Just don't mention the helmet... it's still too painful.
It crops up on TV every now and then and I sit down to watch it just to see if I can and I just catch bring myself to watch more than a couple of minutes of it before switching over to something else. If I had to choose between this and Batman and Robin as my least favourite movies then my head might actually explode.
That said, a friend of mine actually enjoyed the movie but had never read the comics and had nothing to compare it with
Passengers (2016)
Potential not quite met
When I saw the reviews of this film it was very mixed. User reviews seem to praise it a lot and critics the opposite. In truth the film is somewhere in between.
The film starts with a colonisation ship being hit by a meteor shower causing disruption to some of the ship's functions some 90 years earlier than expected, including that of a certain life support pod containing Chris Pratt. We then how he comes to terms with being the sole person on the whole of the ship, including some of the moral choices about whether to deliberately wake up another passenger (Aurora - JL), even though this will mean their eventual death, for companionship. So far, so good.
This is where the film starts to go off the rails a bit. Without successfully accessing any useful part of the ships controls JL (Aurora) and CP (Jim) develop a romantic connection... that is until Aurora discovers how she was awakened too early. It takes the awakening of Laurence Fishburne, as a member of the crew, to provide access to the ship's sensors to discover that the ship is ultimately doomed unless they can work together and bring the plot back into focus... MUST... FIX... SHIP... AND... GO... BACK... TO... DEEP... SLEEP.
It's the second half of the film that leaves me wondering whether I enjoyed the film or not. It appears that wrongly waking a woman from hibernation for selfish reasons and then lying about it can be forgiven by placing yourself in a life-threatening situation. Quid pro quo anyone?
I think I enjoyed it and it probably is worth watching once but I'm not sure I could watch it again.
Alien: Covenant (2017)
High Expectations... Low Delivery
I was hoping that Prometheus had all been a terrible, terrible error of judgement and that Covenant would re-focus the franchise. Having heard that Ridley Scott believes that the franchise drifted beyond it's initial concept (Alien Resurrection did little to disprove that particular point) it was always on the cards that this film would push Prometheus's story line. The trouble is, it doesn't.
This film could almost exist without anything from Prometheus other than explaining how David came to be on this planet. In Alien you came to care somewhat about the characters, and even in the cannon- fodder-ful Aliens you still cared about some of the characters. I wasn't so bothered about the prisoners in 3 or the smugglers in Resurrection (don't mention the abomination that appears at the end) but in Prometheus and Covenant I couldn't care less what happens to them.
Too many things they do just don't make any sense like bringing a spaceship much lower to a storm than the AI wants to or looking into an embryo pod because you're asked to. Would you put your head against a lit cannon just because someone told you to?
This film is dull, predictable and forgettable.
Belyy tigr (2012)
Unexpected pleasure and frustration
When I first starting watching this film I wasn't sure what to expect. This is a sort of Moby Dick with tanks. In the early part of the film we see what remains of a Russian tank regiment after an attack by a German 'Tiger' tank. Whilst trying to prise the hands of a corpse from the steering handles of a tank they discover the driver is still alive despite what looks like 90% burns. Somehow he survives and is selected to hunt the German down using a new prototype tank.
What we are given is a film that builds up tension very well as the Russian seeks to put an end to the Tiger's reign of terror and destruction. Here is where the problem lies as far as I'm concerned. The film builds up really well and is well paced... until the end. What had been a really enjoyable film has a substantial anticlimax. I was left with a real 'is that it?' moment. I had to watch the end several times to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Either that or it's one of the best film endings and I'm too much of a barbarian to appreciate it fully.
Spectre (2015)
Mediocre
If the Star Trek movies were good on the even numbers (the older movies), then the Bond movies are following a similar pattern but on the odd numbers. Casino Royale was passable, Quantum of Solace made no sense and Skyfall was okay.
This brings me on to Spectre. It had a lot of promise but failed to deliver on so many levels. We had a film based around one of the best known criminal organisations in the form of Spectre and one of Bond's most iconic villains in the form of Blofeld. Here is my first problem; I felt Waltz was a good choice to play Blofeld but he is seriously underused. Dave Bautista actually gets more screen time, or at least it feels like he does.
What I feel really let down by is the premise that the previous three films are somehow tied together but in order for that to happen the audience needs to be able to look back and go 'Oh, yes'. Instead we have a standalone film with very little, if anything, that made me think back to the earlier films. For me this was a lazy film, albeit with some nice action sequences but if I want a brainless action film I will go back and watch an old JCVD or Steven Segal movie.
In fairness this film is better than Quantum of Solace but it spends a lot of time building up the plot and very little time resolving a lot of issues.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Meh!!!
I was really looking forward to the film despite the reviews both positive and negative. I must also confess at this point that I was one of those people who couldn't believe they would give Affleck the role of Batman after his portrayal of Daredevil.
In terms of the acting I felt the lead pair did a good job as Batman (Affleck) and Superman (Cavill). Actually, I think Ben Affleck could well put any negativity about his portrayal of DD behind him and Henry Cavill maintains the dark, brooding side of Superman pretty well. Amy Adams is a very versatile actress and again pulls off a decent job as Lois Lane but she is sometimes overused in this film. Jesse Eisenberg for me had his moments as Lex Luther but the script was working against him to a large extent. In the end we end up with a character that looks like LL but has all the maniacal makings of Joker Jnr. Gal Gadot actually cuts a decent figure as Wonder Woman here but they introduced her very quickly into the main battle.
The film is long but in fairness that didn't phase me an awful lot. I've seen shorter films with me begging them to stop. What made the film seem so long is the number of story elements they brought into the mix. We have the premise of Batman vs Superman which is actually quite misleading as their fight lasts only about 10 minutes or so. They might have been better to simply call it 'Dawn of Justice' and be done with it. The pace varies a lot from sluggish to what-the-hell-happened-there and so overall the post production could have been tightened to give a more well-rounded feel.
My biggest gripe with any super hero film is when they take a major character and treat them as an afterthought. Why they thought it would be a good idea to include Doomsday and use this as a way of working within the title of the film I'll never know. Doomsday is one of comic history's iconic villains because he kills Superman. He ran riot across large parts of America and pretty much broke the Justice League, Supergirl and the best that Cadmus could throw at him. It took a grand total of 10-15 minutes of this 2 1/2 hour movie to finish him off.
I liked the way they managed to weave Bruce Wayne into the Man of Steel end battle to give some inkling of disdain for Superman and despite gripes I thought it was a decent movie. I do think DC have a long way to go in terms of matching the Marvel universe because the relationships between characters seems natural. Here the relationships seems contrived, even forced at times and that could have been handled better.
There was only one occasion where I felt the CGI was almost laughable, but from other people have said; you'll know it when you see it.
In my humble opinion your safest bet is not to take the 10/10 ratings too literally, but also don't take the 1/10 ones too seriously either. I found the ones that have posted a lot of reviews are probably a decent benchmark.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Wait a minute...
Firstly let me just take the opportunity to say that I have been a lifelong fan of Star Wars. Episodes IV-VI epitomised everything I wanted from a sci-fi film. I loved the feeling that when the X-wings pulled into the trench of the first Death Star a lot of the audience felt compelled to tilts their heads as well. I engaged with the characters. And then Mr Lucas started playing about with the films because the technology was better. Maybe it was but CGI dates pretty quickly and this was never more obvious than when episodes I-III came out, especially when CGI scenes are followed by live-action ones. I've played more realistic video games.
And so we move on a decade. The rumour mills start; they're getting the band back together. Okay this could be good. Then we hear that there will be less dependence on CGI and going back to good old models. Okay, my interest is definitely piqued. I watch the trailers and I have to admit it all looks pretty good.
And then I go to the cinema...
** SPOILERS **
You know how we had the Death Star, about the size of a small moon. Then we get the new Death Star, bigger than a moon but still smaller than a planet. Do you get where I'm going with this because as the bad old Death Stars are destroyed (enough power to destroy a planet) we are given a new weapon. It's built into a planet and has the power to destroy a planet but in case anyone was stupid enough to try and destroy it, it will be protected by a shield. I appear to have travelled through a time warp and gone back 30 years or so.
The battles between X-wings and TIE fighters are excellent and really date the earlier films in terms of FX. The light sabres appear to have come on somewhat since Luke's day and have the power to slice through trees and metal like they are some sort of spreadable butter (even out of the fridge). And yet Finn is struck by one and gets a nasty, but apparently survivable, injury to his back.
It's not like I didn't like the film, I just didn't love it. The similarities to previous films just left me feeling a little underwhelmed. JJ Abrams is a good director, but did they have to draw so many similarities to the previous films? I've heard several people argue "but they've got to introduce a new audience to the franchise" but when all's said and done it is my opinion after all. Star Wars told you everything you needed to know in the opening credits, stop re-hashing old ideas.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Right Approach
It was with some trepidation that I watched this film. Too many times I have watched films that claim to be reboots but are poorly conceived, imagined or simply bear more than a striking resemblance to the original(s).
In my opinion this isn't one of them. The most notable cast are Theron and Hardy and they are both excellent. There are nods to Max's past, but the film is also well filmed and finished product could easily have been the third part of the trilogy I wished we'd had instead of Thunderdome.
The film is bleak as you'd expect, but some of the slightly sped up scenes such as Max trying to remove his mask all took me back to the earlier two films. There is humour here as well and that is always welcome in a film with a lot of violence. That they have chosen to use sparse special effects and rely and real-life action is a credit to the production. The FX here are used to enhance small aspects of the film but in no way dominate it.
I liked the first two films a lot, almost because it didn't look slick and filmed to death. I liked this one as well so maybe there is hope for reboots.
Breakout (2013)
Rrruuunnn!!!
This is not the film you are looking for. It actually may not be the worst film you'll ever see either. It's the sort of film you can have on in the background whilst you do something else like writing a film review. It's brainless, it's harmless.
Imagine Rain Man meets Forrest Gump with guns and that pretty much sums up the plot. Next you add in the seemingly endless peril of Starflight One and you start to fill up what is quite a short film. Now all that is left to do is to fill all other spaces with running around the forest a lot and utter the word 'run' a lot and there you have it.
Plenty of TV programs and films appear full of guns with endless ammo and bad guys that couldn't hit a barn door from two paces. Picking on these aspects seems a little cruel. It's a bit like telling a puppy off for pooping in the kitchen, rubbing it's face in it and then telling it off for having a filthy face.
Watch it if you like, it's an OK film but don't watch it if you take films way too seriously.
Prometheus (2012)
Epic possibilities, mediocre delivery
I don't want to give to much away with this review but I might.
For me, this has been one of the prequels I have been looking forward to the most for some time. I loved Scott's original which didn't play too much on the actual horror, more on the expectation of it. Given it is now over 30 years old the film stands up pretty well.
Then we come to Prometheus. It's not a bad film in the sense that it sucks, but I don't think it succeeds in any of the important areas. By this I mean it doesn't seem to really tie into the original very well. I think it has tried too hard to be a prequel and maintain some elements of the later films such as a rogue synthetic that has its own agenda. There are some random elements as well such as the alien procreation by pregnancy rather than by gestation and the rather silly post-cesarean runabout by Noomi Rapace.
I expected to be able to move from the prequel and be able to translate these events into the original and I think I felt a little cheated. Was I not entertained? Well, yes it was entertaining but still. Unless there are plans for a sequel to this to answer many unanswered questions then this was an ill-conceived film.
Ho-hum. Let's see what comes of the Blade Runner sequel if it ever happens.
London Boulevard (2010)
Underrated and confused
There is hardly a bad performance in this film providing you ignore Keira Knightley. The premise is good, an ex convict (Farrell) trying to go straight but running foul of a local gangster (Winston). He takes a job bodyguarding an actress but falls for her. Right, basics sorted. Where this film falls short is in the number of sub plots it tries to keep going. The other problem I have with the film is the setting. The feel for it is all very 70's with the fashions and cars and settings. The score also lends itself to the period and yet there are constant modern references such as smoking laws and mobile phones.
I actually quite enjoyed it but is quite quite a mash of ideas and concepts.