gloshpit Reviews

Ender's Game (2013)

What was the Editor's Game?

[5/10 · 27 October 2013]

Unfilmable, he said. OSC said that his "Pre-teen Sociopath Commits Genocide On Unfortunately Named Space Ants In Space" novel was unable to be filmed simply because the majority of the content takes place in Ender's head. His feelings, the complexity of dealing with his siblings, his resentment and burden of duty. So what best way to apply this cerebral sci-fi to celluloid?

Just ignore the thinky bits.

Ender's Game, The Movie certainly cracks along at quite a pace, you're not left looking at your watching and wondering how long before things wrap up. And the acting is solid enough, complaints there. What doesn't work is the adaptation itself, and the editing.

Anyone who's read the books before going into the cinema will recognise the framework of the story, but will wonder where all of the plot went. Peter appears for all of one scene, solely to show that, yes, he's a violent dick. Valentine appears more often, but mostly as a plot device more than anything character driven. Valentine is nice, Ender likes Valentine, Ender misses Valentine. Locke and Demosthenes? Never heard of them, they don't exist in this version of events. The Mind Game, the one that Ender plays throughout EGTB and mirrors his mental state and thought process? Reduced to a two minute Flash game on an iPad and a sequence of foreshadowing for later in the movie. The series of battle games between the armies that slowly erode Ender's resolve as Graff systematically changes the rules to break Ender down? One 2 v 1 match. Characters are blurred together and virtually written out (notably, neither of the kids Ender beats the hell out of die, assumedly to garner audience empathy - and all the characters are at about twice the age of the ones in the novels, maybe to stop people having to see a 6 year old boy murder another kid in the showers...) and the end result is very different to the novels.

And the editing. It's all over the place - when watching this movie you will feel that it's an edited for TV version and that someone cut out the wrong scenes. The first battle room scene ends abruptly, with not even a discussion of what happened in it. Ender goes from being in Salamander army to being given the name of a new army, to having a whole new army who almost instantly respect him. Worst of all is Ender wanting to quit the program, whereas in EGTB it took place over time and was caused by Graff's increasingly gruelling changing of rules, in EGTM it happens after one game, and the sudden jumps in narrative make Ender look at best like a petulant child and at worst like a schizophrenic:

Graff: "Wake them up early for a game!" Ender: "It's 3am, we're playing a game!" Ender's Army: "It's 2 v 1!" Ender: "Graff's changing the rules! We can still do this, follow my instructions." Ender's Army: "We won using a combination of sacrifice and improbable formations that probably won't foreshadow anything later in the movie at all, hooray!" Ender: "Everything is awesome!" Bonzo: "I am named after a dog and therefore hate you, let me beat you up." Ender: "Oh no, I fought back and hurt him, but he is DEFINITELY still alive. I hate you, Graff, everything is terrible and I'm running away to Earth!"

Although the film as a whole moves quickly, the story itself lurches in patches of ten minute sequences, followed by jumps to the next patch. Perhaps due to the nature of the novel, if you take out the internal narrative and subplots this is what you get, but it seems strange that on one hand the movie would take such liberties with the source material, but on the other hand follow the set pieces so slavishly that it would disrupt the flow of the story.

As a sci-fi film in a vacuum, it's competent - for some reason it reminded me of Stargate, with elements of The Hunger Games - but flawed in places and has a very uneven and badly edited narrative flow. As an adaptation of EGTB... it's a bit of a Bugger.

Don't Look Up (2009)

The last two words are unnecessary.

[2/10 · 13 November 2012]

(Insert obligatory joke about "Don't look it up")

With that out of the way... yes. This looked interesting from the blurb: folk tales and urban legends impinging on modern day filmmakers. Remakes of Asian horror have always been variable quality, from the big budget blockbusters, to the bloodless knockoffs - and ever since the glory days of Ju-on and Ringu, any eastern horror seems to have been considered fair game.

There's nothing wrong with the premise, per se: a doomed film shoot has residual psychic leaks and curses that are inflicted on someone wanting to take up the project decades later. Weird things are seen, accidents happen, fair enough. But the execution is lacking more than a firing squad with blank cartridges. The production in general feels like it would be cheap for a TV movie, with some terrible special effects and props. The acting is almost uniformly taken from the "dull surprise" handbook. And the actual storyline?

I'm sure it made sense when it was being written. Maybe parts were cut out that were integral to the plot, or to try to make it more mysterious and arty. It didn't work, it just made the entire film a confusing slog. Viewers can get the general ideas, but so many things just come right out of nowhere - demon cancers on people's necks, glowing angel girlfriends who have secretly been dead for months - that more time is spent thinking you missed something than actually watching the movie. Hinting at something in a movie without outright telling, in order to let the viewer draw their own conclusions is admirable, but to just throw in seemingly random scenes or twists just for the sake of it means the conclusions drawn are that the scriptwriter and editor need to be replaced.

It's not a total waste of celluloid - some people may enjoy it, by the other reviews some people have. I found it a painful, confusing experience with some parts that could have really played up the creepy aspect (the missing, undeveloped frames for instance) but instead chose to try for bizarre imagery and ridiculously contrived plot devices over substance.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Alien vs Predator: Awsomuiem

[10/10 · 31 May 2008]

This movie is just so awesome, i recommend checking it out!

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

The beautifulest film in the West

[9/10 · 31 May 2008]

First off, nothing I write here will be considered a spoiler, as the film does this itself. Unusually, even the title sums up the entire film, and the narration explains the forthcoming actions before they happen. So why bother with a film you know what's going to happen in? The Devil is in the details. The title does not convey the arc of Robert Ford's naive attempts to impress his childhood hero that sour into betrayal. The narration cannot show the strength of acting ability, emotions, tensions or sumptuous cinematography present in every scene. It's ponderous, certainly, but majestic and inexorable with it. The running time seems to melt away as the viewer is absorbed into the world of the charismatic but unstable outlaw and the ambivalent teenager trying to connect with him, until before you know it the arc has reached the conclusion of the stories.

The cinematography really does merit special mention, it's no surprise the amount of awards this film has garnered. The landscapes are lush, the scenes are all beautiful and authentic, and there is such an eye for art that it will take your breath away. Possibly the most stunning is the arrival of the train near the beginning of the film, it's one of the finest shots that I've seen in the past year. It's a big film, it's a worthy film, but it's haunting and brilliantly realised, one that I'd hesitate without question to anyone willing to spend their time on it.

Caffeine (2006)

Neither fish nor flesh nor film

[5/10 · 26 January 2008]

When the opening scene had two 'stoned' kids explaining in clumsy exposition just how stoned they were ("I am getting anxious! I am so stoned!") I feared that this would be a waste of money, especially given the quality of the trailers on the DVD. But although it's not brilliant, it's actually quite watchable.

The first thing I stated when it had finished was this wasn't really a movie per se, but more like an extended play for television. The style is very much like a theatre piece with a series of dialogues and subplots between sets of characters, leeching between groups at times. The acting was competent and the accents were quite convincing in the cases of Heigl and Suvari although no awards are likely to be won.

The problem I think many people will have is that it's marketed as a "hilarious" comedy, when it's not. It's an observational piece and a study in embarrassment, more along the same lines of The Office than blatant out-and-out comedy. Although it does have wit to it, this is not a comedic film and doesn't even *feel* like an actual film, so it's liable to confuse people. I doubt if I'd watch it again, but it was entertaining while it lasted and doesn't really deserve the lambasting some of the comments have given it.

Flight of the Living Dead (2007)

Snakes on a... BRAAAAAAAAAAINS...

[6/10 · 25 December 2007]

Renting this from the local video store, I expected this to be akin to Alone in the Dark or the execrable House of the Dead. Instead... it was a very watchable, very fun little B-movie. In fact, it was along the same lines as Snakes on a Plane or the second House of the Dead, with likable characters (and some attractive females indeed...), a light wit in the dialogue and some real laugh-out-loud moments.

Best aspects of the film were the banter between characters (especially Frank and Burrows), the fact that some of the main characters actually got taken out (would say "died", but that's not strictly accurate) and the tongue-in-cheek lunacy of some of the set pieces - zombie helplessly strapped to his seat belt and only getting a kill as an undead air-to-air missile, old lady "gumming to death" another character, zombie being sucked into a jet engine... although it's obviously low budget all involved seemed to have had a lot of fun making it. It's not perfect, it ticks pretty much all of the clichés - although it crushes a lot more during the course of the movie - and some of the effects are a little basic, but it's a very watchable and entertaining movie that beats a chunk of big name "Blockbusters" hands down.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Everyone knows filthy man-animals can't make a film!

[3/10 · 26 August 2007]

Where to begin...? First things first - this is not the worst film of all time. I watched it last night, I was laughing along with it in places as well as at it. John Travolta is hilarious as Terl, the head of security for the Psychlos (cunningly subtle name there), with a level of high camp and sneering bad-guyness so stratospheric that you expect him to tie the female love interest to some train tracks and twirl his moustache. Some of his lines are quite funny, and the jokes - although unsubtle as a hand grenade in a paddling pool - do tend to work.

So there's the rub. It's funny and played for laughs by Travolta and Forrest Whittaker. But it's completely not by the rest of the cast, giving it an almost pantomime feel with the brave and serious heroes battling against the bad guys so over-theatrical it makes your teeth itch. If it were just played for laughs, with the knowing humour across the board, then it would have been palatable, almost like a low rent sci-fi Ghostbusters or a modern day They Live. It's not, so you get ridiculous plot aspects - cavemen find a flight simulator that somehow works after 1000 years, in a matter of days (hours?) they're ready to fly somehow fully operational jets, coping with G-forces and suchlike, when shortly before they were just throwing spears? The acting is strictly B-movie fare - Kim Coates is amusing but limited, Sabine Karsenti just looks lovelorn and scared, whilst man-of-the-match Barry Pepper is like a young Nic Cage in a ridiculous wig, never taking the expression of earnest concern from his face or letting acting ability get in the way of his braids.

So in closing, your honour - it has some amusing ideas, it's not the worst film ever made, but it's probably up there with Cutthroat Island as one of the most ill-conceived, ill-executed and ill-received major studio films to be formed. As late night entertainment, it's a way of wasting a couple of hours and having a laugh. As a blockbuster, it's just an enormous bucket of fail.

Evil Aliens (2005)

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll wish you were that cameraman.

[6/10 · 12 August 2007]

Having missed this at Frightfest 2005 it's been on my "to watch" list for some time, and now I finally have the fortune to have seen it. My thoughts? Not bad at all.

It's blatantly and knowingly low budget - there's probably more spent on one episode of Dr Who than the entire film - and if the acting were any camper you could hold a music festival nearby. The special effects amount to getting as much fake blood/goo/manure/other bodily fluids (such as the hole in the wall scene) and splattering it all over the place. This is definitely more akin to Bad Taste than Braindead, but that's not a bad thing in itself, it just means it's something to build on for the next film.

As far the story goes, it's pretty much as expected - aliens attack humans, humans get killed in gloopy ways, aliens are finally defeated. In the disc interview Jake West has said that originally it was going to be a zombie movie but due to the glut of Z-flicks at the time he changed it, so the fact that the bad guys are pretty much interchangeable says it all about the complexity of the storyline. There are a couple of twists, given that you wouldn't be expecting the heroes to die in quite the order they do - and the humour is what carries this film above the average film quality. Apart from the total slapstick and over the top gore action, the final scene is very funny... and the scene where a combine harvester is used to literally mow down a swathe of aliens (in a field with "F*ck You" carved into it, no less) whilst the Wurzels play is comedy genius. It's also fun to note the amount of film references and parodies - so far I've got Jaws, Aliens, Braindead, Bad Taste, The Lost Boys, Ed Wood, The X-Files, Day/Dawn of the Dead (ok, similar scenes appeared in both)... it's all good natured fun, plus it features the delectable Emily Booth. As good a reason to watch as any.

Idiocracy (2006)

Satire is a scalpel. This is a wrecking ball.

[4/10 · 10 June 2007]

I'd heard various reports on this movie, some people loved it as being "satirical" and "subversive" whilst some complained about the lack of polish. I definitely fall into the latter camp - maybe if Fox had put some effort and interest into the film so that it could be better edited and have the bits that just weren't funny excised it could have been a scathing satire on modern-day values. Instead it's content to be amateurish and very sporadically funny.

The concept is great. The future is an extrapolation of stupid rednecks breeding like rabbits whilst smart people have few (if any) children. Therefore the country gets flooded with stupid people, and the IQ levels plummet.

The results do not match the concepts. Although there are some brilliant sequences (such as the much cited meeting to discuss what Brawndo is, with the cabinet just repeating the mantra of advertising) the makers seemed content to aim low and try to get laughs in the fact that hey, these people are kind of dumb - when the real humour comes from the outcome, the blind belief in advertising, the lowest-common-denominator programming. Just having people talk like they're retarded isn't funny in itself, but this movie tends to seem think it's enough to carry the film.

A major part of the problem with the film is that you get flashes of genius when the satire is spot-on, but it never seems to be sure what aspect of modern America it's trying to undermine. There should have been more thought put into what exactly the targets were meant to be - people ending up like Jerry Springer audiences, being brain damaged, being rampant consumers, being mindless capitalists, being obsessed with sex and bodily functions... for a movie that tries to take a pop at stupidity, it fails due to not being smart enough itself. Maybe if Fox hadn't tried to pretend it didn't exist, maybe if someone else with creative control could have taken a look rather than it ending up a one-man self indulgence, maybe if given time it could become more polished and focused, it could have been a worthy successor to the hilarious Office Space. Instead it's a misfiring curio that I wouldn't bother watching through again - you see everything it has to offer first time around.

Pulse (I) (2006)

Why all the hate?

[8/10 · 27 May 2007]

I watched this movie last night and thought that it was an interesting and engaging piece of film making - but according to many of the comments on here it seems some people disagree.

Certainly, the set-up isn't perfect and it does come across at first like another in the stable of The Ring (or, heaven forbid, feardotcom...) with the good looking lead and their not quite so good looking friend, to whom weird stuff starts happening. And yes, you will need to suspend a little bit of disbelief, but to anyone who starts railing about the red tape aspect warranting a '1' vote: not only is it ignoring the ideas actually put forward in the film that the wireless/phone coverage area allows the creatures to move but they themselves are blocked by the red (imagine it being the difference between oxygen and a brick wall) - why are they watching a supernatural thriller instead of a documentary? The acting is fine, no Oscar winners but nothing to drag the film down. The thing that really piqued my attention about this film is that although it begins like one of the same old same old Ring-lite films, the rising theme of a nationwide virus epidemic that swiftly spreads into crashing planes and deserted offices brings to mind films such as Day of the Dead of 28 Days Later, the ending somewhat more suited to apocalyptic zombie films than modern day 'self contained' supernatural thrillers. I enjoyed it for what it was, and would recommend it to be watched again. Of course, this was the UK cut complete with splatty tower suicide, so the emasculated PG-13 version in the US may be somewhat weaker. Seek out the hard stuff.

The Collingswood Story (2002)

Outstanding and gripping indie horror.

[8/10 · 27 May 2007]

When I went to see this at the 2005 Frightfest film festival in London, it was noted that it had been compared to The Blair Witch Project. Certainly the low budget feel and final act draw comparisons, but this piece can stand alone on its own merits.

Without exposition it opens the way it means to go on, cutting between webcam participants engaged in day to day conversation. The subjects veer from the personal to the banal, but even when not setting up the scene the stylised fashion of having the actors speak directly to the cameras is a masterstroke that builds up a sense of intimacy and involvement that would never appear if it were regularly filmed. When the situation goes into distinctly darker waters this makes the viewer feel enmeshed in the danger rather than just being a casual observer.

Whilst at first it seems a little fluffy or a little slow, the use of subliminal cuts, distorted footage and strange ambient noises brings up the tension and the webcam view turns from seemingly a gimmick to deliberately restricting what you can and can't see. At the screening at Frightfest, the tension during the final twenty-five minutes or so was palpable and the stunned silence between the credits coming up and the applause was testament to the effectiveness of the film. Despite a virtually non-existent budget and few actors, the film has the power to shock.

Casshern (2004)

Interesting, but no masterpiece.

[5/10 · 22 April 2007]

After hearing lots of Animecetric friends namedrop this film, I decided to watch it - I was impressed the style and visuals, but the actual film itself feels extremely muddled. It's almost as if the maker had a head full of symbolism and ideas, and had to try to squeeze them onto film... ALL of them onto film. What was the story behind the huge metal lightning bolt that caused the Neoroids to come to life? Never explained. Why are there arctic tundras near a rainforest near a bustling and steamy metropolis all within walking distance? I know it mentions Eurasia in the opening with regards to the war and there's a lot of Cyrillic on the backgrounds but there is nothing explained. If Casshern needs pressurised body armour to stop his skin from rupturing, why does his uncovered face not explode? There are some visually rich sections of the film and it's certainly intriguing, but it is heavily flawed. Whilst some films completely belt the viewer around the head with clunking exposition, this film has absolutely none, and sudden plot and scene changes (Lots of cogs roll, mud men turn to anti-human super-villain in one swift dissolve?) with no dialogue leave the audience to have to make assumptions about the storyline and character motivations. It's not that the plot itself is complex and challenging, more the fact that the way it deliberately chooses to show a visual set piece rather than use a single line a dialogue. Imagine a game of charades where you can only use the medium of interpretive dance, and there's a similar level of frustration.

In summary - looks nice, lots of niggles about not filling in plot holes. Far too much Vaseline on the lens, too, the smearing glow effect is way overused and hurts the eyes after a time.

Primer (2004)

Brain-custard masterpiece

[10/10 · 25 June 2006]

When I rented out this film, I had absolutely no idea what it was about, save for the fact that there's a machine that can do interesting things. That's a little like saying that Jurassic Park is about a bunch of lizards, or Titanic was about a chunk of ice.

First things first - Yes, this film will confuse you. It will confuse the HELL out of you. But then you will start to discuss it with the people you watched it with (who will all be very intellectual sorts and able to keep a decent conversation going... otherwise they'd be off watching Transporter 2 instead), you will want to watch it again, you will formulate theories as to what's going on. Which Abe was that Abe? Who was the Aaron just then, was it Aaron-1 or Aaron-2? Which splinter of time are we on right now? Where can I get some of that stuff in the syringe? All these questions and more... won't be answered in the slightest. Much like the *fairly* similar-in-a-way Donnie Darko, you'll have to dig around and work out your own answers. Timelines have been suggested on the internet, but although they're the most likely happenings, the nature of the film means that there could be any number of outcomes - it's only assumed that there are three alternates. My brother remarked to me when it had finished that he couldn't remember when a movie had impressed him to completely, the way it draws you in with a sense of realism, then challenges you to make sense of the events.

In anyone's book, it's a 9/10 - but the realistic way it's shot, the way that a debut film has such assuredness and deftness of touch, the fact that it cost about $7000 (this would possibly buy sandwiches for Julia Roberts for one day's shooting), that the cast and crew were so small and interleaved (check out the amount of relatives in the cast, or Carruth's filmography) and that it still wipes the floor with the majority of big studio releases, it's worthy of cult status and a full 10. If you enjoy having to think about your movies and don't need flashy explosions or big names to placate you, it comes highly recommended.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Very much a children's movie.

[6/10 · 25 June 2006]

While technically impressive, this film struck me as slightly soulless - although the acting was overall fairly good (Swinton stood out as a very effective Jadis), it appeared content to dazzle younger viewers with almost cartoon-like visuals rather than engage the audience's attention.

It is not without its positive points: Tumnus is also played well by James McAvoy, and the climactic battle scene was at time very impressive. However, the reliance on CGI is a major problem. Although it has been used in the past to great effect to give a realistic feel to proceedings, such as the several thousands of effects in the Lord of the Rings films, in Narnia the effects are very overtly animated, giving some scenes the feel of a Pixar movie rather than a live-action fantasy. To children this would be entertaining, but to older viewers it just seems to be a distraction. Possibly the most egregious case of this is in the rendering of the fox, whose overall effect is quite disturbing, akin to some deformity.

Although the look of Jadis, the minotaur and the overall aesthetic of the final battlefield is well executed, there seems to be very little that stands out other than the main characters. Soldiers are faceless and without personality; even the centaur captain Oreius is devoid of characterisation. The makeup effects on a good deal of the evil creatures are again tending towards simplistically rubbery, in the case of the jail monster to the point of being a basic mass. The effects on creating Aslan are technically good, but are wasted on a design that is simply a large lion instead of the glowing, breathtaking spectacle that it should by rights be, and the ensuing reaction from the assembled army that should be present. Rather than this, the film depicts him as nothing more than a kindly general who happens to be a lion.

And this seems to be the problem with Narnia - it is content to tread through the story in a very workmanlike manner. It feels slightly forced and on rails, moving from one scene to another as if it were checking the 'fantasy epic' boxes one by one - there is no disbelief from the children when they arrive in Narnia, just acceptance and proceeding to the next area (in the case of Lucy, the acceptance is just a large grin and exhalations for several minutes). There is very little subtlety in the film, instead it just boils down C.S. Lewis's story down to the basic elements and pads them out not with characterisation but distractions. Whilst some critics have cited the religious parallels as a reason to give it incredibly high ratings, taken as a purely cinematic experience it is one thing: A children's film, not a family film.

I can't help but wonder how it would have turned out under Peter Jackson...

Dark City (1998)

Dark and complex sci-fi classic

[8/10 · 27 January 2006]

When this movie first came out, I read some very good reviews of it, noted that it starred the rather lovely Jennifer Connelly, and never got round to watching it. Until recently, when I saw it on sale for £5, and snapped it up. This was A GOOD THING.

The visual feel of the movie is the first thing that strikes you - grimy, dark, cold and completely foreboding. The city has an aura straight out of 40's and 50's Noir, with steaming alleys, dishevelled characters and anachronistic architecture. The second thing is the sheer dynamics of the editing. With an ASL of 1.8 seconds, the visuals bombard the viewer, and the dense plot perplexes until the layers are slowly stripped away to reveal the insidious plans of The Strangers.

The story is taut, the acting is convincing and the aesthetics of the movie are quite fantastic, a film noir for the sci-fi age. I was told before seeing it that it was a great film, even if the last twenty minutes were "a little too Dragonball Z", an fairly accurate assessment of some of the shots, but not enough to denigrate from the movie overall. An underrated and overlooked sci-fi classic that anyone with an interest in solid film-making or dark expressionism simply must see.

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005 Video)

Laughter is contagious.

[2/10 · 30 August 2005]

I note that a lot of comments slamming this film and saying there are no redeeming qualities. Not strictly true - I haven't laughed so hard at a zombie movie since House of the Dead.

The zombies are stiff legged and basic. The special effects on Marshall make him look like Hellboy after an industrial accident. The dialogue and exposition is as clunky and awkward as a three-legged dog wearing clogs. And the head doctor is just a comedy goldmine waiting to happen.

I saw this in a cinema full of Frightfest goers, and there were times when everyone was in tears of laughter. When the good doctor is describing the canister - typing whilst talking aloud, of course, for the audience members - he said "The object is a cylinder, about five inches long". Which only provoked painful laughter when he added "I've never seen anything like this before." The human-zombies crossbreed things are a strange macguffin, and look like the makeup tests for Buffy.

The best part is the very end, when the zombies escape and attack passers-by. The shaky camera, pseudo-documentary style actually works quite effectively, but other than that it's a weak movie that has lashings of unintentional laughs. I think I'll get it on DVD.

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

Feature-length advert for Clooney and Co.

[1/10 · 23 August 2005]

Having not seen all of the first film, I decided to watch the second. And ended up finding myself repulsed from the screen by the sheer audacity of putting twelve famous people on screen with no plot, and letting them make a movie about how great they are. At times, I found more interest in a a leaflet for mobile phones that fell out of a magazine.

It's basically a very long advert. It has the slewing camera angles, the 'cool' background music, the freeze frames at random points. It's like a documentary of how much fun these famous people have when they're put in a room together. And paid several million dollars.

The Julia Roberts scene is hideously self-referential, relying on pop culture to carry itself through rather than any semblance of plot. But possibly the worst scene in any film I've seen is that of the thief Night Fox evading laser detection systems... by putting some funky French techno onto his iPod, and break dancing through the lasers. Never mind the fact that the lasers keep passing through his body, it still ranks as one of the sheer stupidest scenes in movie history.

This film is smug, flashy, soulless and far, FAR too knowing for its own good. If you want a decent heist movie, watch the original Italian Job. Not this.