Change Your Image
jonathan45
I have loved movies since i could watch 'em, particularly SC-FI, horror, fantasy.Fav directors= Kubrik, Carpenter, ridly scott.
Reviews
Octane (2003)
Madelaine Stowe good ...the rest bad.
Another film with all the style of an art house intelligent movie but none of the substance. Great mood setting in places but no script to back it up. Madelaine Stowe, easily the best actor in the movie, did her best with a muddled script and a potentially interesting character. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is an okay actor but too pretty boy to convince in most roles, Mischa Barton was fine at playing the same character she plays in the O.C. Bijou Phillips isn't a good actor but looks the part as a screwed up killer. This film faltered and halted all over the place, intriguing characters were dropped and ignored to howls of frustration- the Christian looking couple- were eerie and exciting yet ignored completely , reduced to atmospheric window dressing. The motivational speaker who had such an effect on Madelaine Stowes drugged up mum was another, i suspect in these scenes we were seeing the script that was before the director hacked it to shreds. In summation this movie felt like a great script ruined by an inexperienced music video director who has a good visual eye but no talent for characterisation.
The Hitcher (2007)
Bean was good with a middling film.
Remake of the excellent 1980's original- this was always going to be a difficult- and for the fans- baffling choice for an effects heavy update. Given the virtual reproduction of key original scenes the first question is why?. Replacing Rutger Haurs mysterious remorseless killer was always going to be a tricky choice and they settled on the more commercially bankable Sean Bean. Sean Bean does a good sideline in villains and here plays Ryder as more sexual- when we first encounter him he makes crude remarks about the girlfriend (Sophia Bush) and later attempts to rape her. In some scenes he comes across as a cold eyed psychotic in other bland and lifeless. The two leads aren't terrible but are given little characterisation and as such i didn't really care whether they lived or died. This film could have been so much better and i would have been interested to see what Sean Bean could have come up with with a better script that left the original behind.
Payback (1999)
tough guy kills wife and bad guys ,almost self in process.
Porter (Mel Gibson) is a violent crook, a bank robber who only robs criminals ( called a 'standover man'- in that he stands over the bodies of other criminals) . He is betrayed by his wife and partner, left for dead he seeks revenge. Porter doesn't have any nice qualitys- he is quick to use extreme violence on women and men and shows no remorse when he takes a life. Even stealing from a homeless guy for a few quick bucks is fair game to a predator like Porter. The one scene i liked, Porter sat leaning against a lampost watching the crowds like a cat watches a mouse hole, searching for the easy mark, the soft touch.We have all walked quickly past people like that- especially at night or in run down areas. This film has a lot of inconsistencies in it, the crooks live in huge mansions yet quibble over 70,000 dollars, they would pay him and then hire hit men to take him out. Some good actors are wasted in roles that could have been better written and directed ( but Brian Hegland was fired by Mel Gibson- suppose it must be difficult directing an actor who has won Oscars for directing already)
28 Weeks Later (2007)
could have been better.
This was a flawed film that seemed to want to say more than it was capable of delivering, it had all the dressing of a more thoughtfull indie film but none of the substance. It had many plot holes which other reviewers have detailed. The actors all deliver good performances but Robert Carlyle was wasted as the dad and they should have used excellent character actors more like Idris Elba (better known as Stringer Bell from h.b.o's the wire). The director went overboard to ram home the war references a bit but it had nothing new to add or say on the subject. The camera lingered a bit too long on the beautiful young girls face a bit too long making me think of a perfume advert.
The Woodsman (2004)
He'll probably re-offend...
I was wary about watching this film as the subject matter is important but distasteful at the same time. Hollywood being Hollywood i was worried this would be a revenge fantasy or some crass 'gross-out' comedy. Instead it was intelligently handled, written well and had some good performances from Mos deff, Kyra Sedgewick and Kevin Bacon. The film avoided showing anything too explicit ( id have switched over at that point I'm afraid) and tried to show if its possible for a child rapist to be allowed to rehabilitate. But this film has flaws, Kevin Bacons character is unlikeable- perhaps purposefully, his crimes provoke disgust at best from society- but we need to sympathise with the character at some point, and this wasn't achieved. During his probationary hearings he is truculent and barely seems repentant for his crimes. The police officer drops by to check on him, and never 'tosses' the flat to find illegal items other than a cursory search. Rather than being angry and scornful with Bacons character he ends up sharing a private moment with him, this feels false. Is Bacons character going to stop offending because the cop shares a horror story?. He starts a relationship with a emotionally damaged women who seems to accept his past and probable future crimes as re-offending rates for paedophiles is about 80%. The film ends with Bacons character choosing not to molest a young girl he has stalked then befriended, this was a disturbing turn in the story as Bacons character 'recognises' the girl as a shy loner and therefore easy prey. ( i watched a documentary about predators once, where the cops said an experienced predator can 'scan' a mall and identify the ones who wont scream or fight back, it was a disturbing programme and not comforting). This is a disturbing film , well acted with a few crass moments but thankfully avoids anything graphic.
Superman Returns (2006)
superman is super deadbeat dad
Plot holes: 1. Supermans kid uses his super strength to save his mother from a nasty beating ( and inappropriate considering the films light tone thus far) by throwing a piano across the room killing the goon (breaking Supermans 'no murder' rule) yet when locked in the pantry doesn't break the door down when his mother asks him to..there is no explanation for this. 2. Superman is incapacitated by a small shard of Kryptonite yet manages to 'power through' the pain of lifting a continent sized chunk of Kryptonite which should have killed him. 3. We see an early shot of Clark as a young teen racing across the farm at super speed..yet he is wearing glasses, since he hasn't developed the personality of Superman at that point, he has no need for the glasses disguise. These are just the major ones i can think of..now for the complaints generally; Kevin Spacey was wasted in this film, a talented character actor they should have written great dialogue for him and made Lex messianic and dreamt up a better plot for world domination..maybe using the Krypton technology to change his body so he becomes like Superman?. Kate Bosworth made a mediocre Lois Lane, there was none of the spiky surface toughness and vulnerability underneath that made Superman fall in love with her. Her brown hair didn't suit her features and she looked too young. And why was Supermans kid sick all the time? this too was never explained. James Marsters character was paper thin, he might as well not have been there. Frank Langella- another great character actor was, like Spacey left to sleep through a role never developed..he would have made a great villain!. Brandon Routh seems to have been chosen because of his resemblance to Christopher Reeve but sadly seems to share none of his talent. He looks too GQ handsome and is too muscular to convince as the bumbling Clark Kent and wasn't imposing or iconic as Superman. Reeves was instantly likable as Kent and was often winking at the audience showing how much fun the 'man of steel' has playing the role of this mild mannered guy.
The dialogue was terrible and cliché ridden, Parker Posey was a screeching harridan and made me fast forward through her performance. Supermans uniform was a bad design choice. The film was too dark. The 'heat' between Lois and Superman wasn't convincing. And when Clark shows up after a five year absence she barely says hello- they are supposed to have been journalistic partners ,colleagues and friends.Just terrible writing generally... And the icing on the cake was Supermans response to his kid..he flew away...hes a dead beat dad.. he is supposed to always 'do the right thing' and be an inspiration to others yet in this film seems to care little how his actions effect others. Surely in time the child will work out who his real father is..what then..therapy? . In summation this was a terrible film, judging by its similarities to the previous films there seemed no real point in making it..so why did they?..
The Lost Boys (1987)
Funny meets horror in this vamp pic
The lost boys is a film about a biker gang of teen vampires and their attempts to turn a recently divorced mother and two sons in to the undead. They set about recruiting the older teenager,the rudderless Michael. In their path is his younger brother Sam, who along with his friends the comically humourless Frog brothers set about to kill the vamps. Joel Schumaker wisely keeps his trademark campness to a minimum here and avoids doing any political 'gay' elements which would have alienated the audience, instead he keeps the social commentary in the background with the affecting shots of homeless teens eating from rubbish bins, easy prey for society's predators - undead or otherwise. The vampires here are disturbing, razor teeth and wolf like features and sadistic laughing from the shadows hit the nerves. The direction has a humour to it without ruining the horror. Best is the stoner grandad with the last line in the movie '..all the damn vampires'
Hulk (2003)
Why hire Lee if you wont let him work?
When i first heard that Ang Lee was chosen to direct The Hulk i was pleasantly surprised, an established Oscar winning art director picked for what was inevitably written to be a popcorn -'whack an explosion in every five minutes'- brain anaesthetic.Not that there is anything wrong with dumb*ss movies, they can be fun and entertaining if there done 'right' and don't dominate the box office, leaving people, who want something, anything else scurrying for cable or DVD. I was further gratified when i saw the actors he had chosen Nick Nolte ( who always was an art movie actor in a leading mans clothes), Eric Bana ,who turned in one brilliant performance in Chopper...then nothing else since but i was prepared to give him a chance since i knew he could be good again. Ang also chose sundry other top quality supporting talent, all this raised my level of excitement. The film itself was a sad disappointment, the film seemed to be fighting with itself over whether to be an intellectuals art movie about the themes of violence being learned by a son witnessing his fathers violence and reconciliation with ones own inner rage, and the strange grim future science may offer us if unharnessed by cynical interests. Contrasting with the Hollywood Hulk bursting through walls and flipping cars over but with no real reason why. The result was a film that left both sides of the audience let down. There was a much better film under the surface that could have pleased both but it never emerged. There are action films that have good clever, even erudite scripts and exciting fast paced tension ( the French Connection, The Wire, Sopranoes) so why not here. Sadly this was an all too rare example of Hollywood executives taking a risk on a great director and letting him loose on a potential action franchise i suspect this film will limit the chances of this sort of symbiosis being green lit again.
The Quiet Earth (1985)
'I have been condemned to live..'
Zac Hobson is a scientist working on an internal investigation in to 'Project Flashlight' a joint operation between America and New Zealand to use the solar energy of the sun and keep planes in the air indefinitely without the need for refuelling. But Zack is finding holes in the reports from the American scientists, they are hiding information from him, are they using 'Project Flashlight' for more sinister purposes?. He awakes from a horrible dream nauseated, gulping down water he finds his radio is broadcasting static, later in his car he sees deserted streets,and a starkly empty garage with a toilet locked from the inside. With panic setting in he breaks in to a cottage, bellowing through the smashed window 'Is there anybody here?' More is to come, amid the myriad empty vehicles alongside the roads he spots a crashed jumbo jet, making his way through the rubble he finds seats with the seat belts locked but no passengers.He heads to Project Flashlight and discovers some uncomfortable truths, it appears he is the last person alive on Earth and the project he has been working on may have something to do with it. Alone and guilt ridden Zack turns to the bottle, but his tiny hotel room sinks him in to a depression and so he moves in a mansion, along the way he dresses like a millionaire and begins to talk to himself. But the expensive clothes and beautiful surroundings cant compete with simple human contact and, continuing to drink heavily, he sinks in to a psychosis. Dressing in a woman's slip he addresses an army of silent worshippers ( cardboard cut outs of history's famous and infamous) and proclaims himself God. God of a 'silent earth'. Luckily Zack manages to find a way out of his growing insanity, by reaching a kind of epiphany just before the point of suicide.But not before running in to a church with a shotgun, taking aim at a statue of Jesus Christ and demanding God change things back or 'the kid gets it'. We find Zack later clean shaven and setting up a generator to power his computer he has turned the corner and has become more positive about his situation. In to this new calm comes the bewitching Joanne a beautiful and young red headed woman. After the initial shock at finally seeing someone, they hug deeply, this warmest of physical contact cuts all barriers and cultures and immediately puts them at ease with each other. They develop a friendship which turns periodically sexual as they search the country for anyone else . They do in fact find someone else the intimidating Api a Maori and a somewhat shady character. Dressed in military gear and with a quick temper Api rubs up against Zack, fighting for the attentions of Joanne. Yet Api is no mindless thug cliché, he is spiritual and his Maori culture informs him that he may be a ghost. They share information about how they could have survived and discover that they were all at the point of death before 'The Effect' as Zack refers to what happened to everyone else. Zack also has more, disturbing news, the effect wasn't just a 'one-off' it will happen again and soon. And the only way to possibly stop it is to destroy the Flashlight project.But the building is now irradiated and if anyone gets too close it means death Zack detonates a truck full of Dynamite at the exact moment The Effect occurs again. This time he is transported to a plant much like earth but with a beautiful horizon and a ringed planet where our moon should be. Where is Zack, another universe, a parallel earth or Heaven?. This is an interesting film about many themes. How we need human contact, even Api and Zack need each other. How materialism, no matter how luxurious, doesn't mean anything if we cant share the experience with others. Api's spiritual approach to his situation contrasts with Zacks scientific rationals.The characterisation is well fleshed out in this film particularly Bruno Larewnce as the pitiable Zack.
Baywatch (1989)
Don't hassle The Hoff hes just out rescuin'!.
Baywatch is quite a cynical bit of television, producers have long since known that beautiful people with toned bodies sell product and increase ratings. Normally soap operas pander to this in the more obvious way, we all know soap actors have it written In to their contract that the women have to occasionally walk around in their underwear or lounge seductively by the pool in a bikini and the men always find time to lift weights with their shirts off or walk around in a towel. But Baywatch threw plot and script out the window and just concentrated on the beautiful bodies, in fact they went even further by putting those beautiful bodies in swimsuits. The swimsuits are far too small of course, the men walk around shirtless flexing and gazing off in to the distance or if their a 'bad boy' fixing their Harley shirtless. The women are squeezed in to one piece costumes so tiny and tight i wonder if they breathe or eat. The plots revolve around distressed swimmers, drug dealing punks or selfish polluters which the team pursue in slow motion allowing for optimum 'jiggle factor'. Its easy to sneer however at this lowest common denominator show but it did have some things going for it, it had a positive message on the environment and 'doing the right thing' and promoted fitness. And David Hasselhoff has his usual 'high cheese factor' it is comical watching him suck in the gut ( partied too hard in the eighties Dave?) or chase women young enough to be his daughter or punch out bodybuilders with his dodgy karate moves. I remember a campaign by some British housewives and young mothers to ban Baywatch they referred to it as 'soft, soft porn' did they achieve success?. In any case i think thats taking it too far, certainly it shows off the bodies of the beautiful cast and probably had a high teenage boy audience who tuned in to ogle but it was ultimately a 'theme show' with mediocre scripts, babes,hunks and 'The Hoff'.
Knight Rider (1982)
leave fond memories to the past
I remember watching Knight Rider as a child in the eighties ( i was more of a child of the nineties but i was young enough in the late eighties to remember Knight Rider repeats) and falling head over heels in love with Kitt. What child after watching that show didn't pretend to be Michael Knight, hurtling around eighties America, beating up corrupt small town sheriffs or greedy property developers with a a few well placed martial art kicks to the head. And that synthesised theme tune sent shivers down my spine whenever i heard it, my parents sofa was on the receiving end of a few super powered jumps in Kitt as my imagination rode me around the room. As an adult re- watching Knight Rider it is too easy to sneer, David Hasselhoofs cheesy 'son of Fonze' leather and jean outfit and afro haircut and perma tan he really couldn't look more 'eighties cool'. The plots are laughable and paper thin, its the same locations every week and the same stunts. Anyone with even a sense of physics could point out more than a few plot holes and inconsistencies. The role of women in the series is sexist with the script leaving them with little to do but be rescued or provide a 'comedy' put down to Davids aching chat up lines. The fact is these types of shows have been parodied so much no one can take them as anything other than comedy these days, irony has killed them. I find it painful to return to these treasured childhood memories, like the films you saw, music you loved and all the other memoria from childhood revisiting them as an adult is not always wise, you can end up ruining forever those golden memories that provide comfort and a positive communal reference point as you proceed through life. Sometimes is it better not to look backwards.
The Amityville Horror (2005)
Don't put the girl on the roof!
Mediocre remake of the 1979 original. The young couple look too MTV pretty to be working stiff parents. The only way the dad could get a physique like that would be to lift weights all day and night, if he was a real building contractor he'd have big shoulders and forearms and probably a gut from eating fast food on the job, he looks more like a male model. In keeping with modern films there is little or no tension in the script, where showing a psychological breakdown of the father and its effects on the family was needed we get CGI and cheap 'cat jumping from the cupboard' scares. The babysitter in the skimpy outfit was egregious, would she really wear an outfit like that to look after young kids?, she might as well say to the parents 'after you leave my boyfriend is climbing in the back window and were going to have sex in your marital bed while your kids raid the fridge for alcohol' no parent would let her look after their children dressed like that. The acting was competent, Mellissa George is a talented actor and does her best with a weak script, the fathers breakdown came too quickly and the family put up with far too much supernatural activity before acting on it. The big shock for me though came on the DVD extras, the young girl is asked to perform a stunt i wouldn't put an experienced stunt person through, winched up to one hundred feet in the air and asked to walk along the top of the house barely held secure by a thin safety line it had me watching through my fingers. Since they used Cgi through out the film surely they could have used these effects to create a false impression of height and kept the kid on the ground, her mum seemed more interested in getting it done and dusted!, another poor fame kid on the path to skid row thanks to a pushy stage mum!.
28 Days Later... (2002)
so many plot holes, so little time...
plot holes:1: the cod science about developing a virus that creates an extreme psychosis in the host, you cannot create a virus by showing violent images to an ape then 'farming' the blood. 2.Its doubtful despair would set in so quickly with the soldiers( 28 days) especially under the command of Major Henry West ( Christopher Eccelston) who is authoritative, and respected and enough by his men to stop them from raping the woman with a few words.Its more likely they would have set up an international communication radio, signalled for help, been given orders by the many British military generals serving in other country's and calmly waited for back up whilst broadcasting a help and advice signal for any survivors. It is further doubtful a virus passed on through the blood could have wiped out a government in 28 days, the infected are dangerous but they aren't organised and cant use weapons, but they can be killed or, one presumes rounded up and caged till a treatment can be found 8.The Cillian Murphy character is about 8 stone soaking wet and has just woken up from a coma, yet manages to kill four trained, armed soldiers who use army fighting techniques on him earlier showing they know how to do it!. It does have some plus points however, good effects, reasonable tension and good acting from stalwarts like Brendan Gleeson and Chris Eccleston.But for me the huge problems with the script meant i spent my time pointing out the plot holes rather than watching it.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Terminatrix fails to whip T3 in to shape.
With this film i suspect they tried to redress the criticisms levelled at the T2 film. Leaving the pubescent behind the film concentrates instead on a twenty something John. His mother is dead and he is living 'off grid', working odd day construction, getting paid in cash and getting drunk. He drives recklessly at night on a bike, in short John Conner is in something of a rut. In to his world the film introduces a new Terminater or 'Terminatrix', dressed in a red leather outfit and tightly pinned back hair Kristianna Loken is the machine a teenage boy with a Sn'M fixation would have built. She severely scans her environment, killing her targets with a sadistic smile playing across her cold, model looks. As a machine she doesn't match up to the other two. Her technology seems neither as intimidatingly huge as Arnie or as strange or sinister than the T2. The special effects are OK ,but nothing unique and the action sequences seemed neither plausible or particularly spectacular. Claire Danes as Johns future wife irritates with her shrill whining, and has little chemistry with her two other leads. Nick Stahl is a talented actor and brings a introspective, confused element to the older john conner. Arnie worked hard to regain a younger mans physique, but there is no hiding his age. More ill advised 'Terminater humour' fell flat with me, and was a poor replacement for a darker tone considering the films theme of a nuclear Apocalypse. The films script has huge plot holes in it and inconsistencies which other reviewers have pointed out. Sadly T3 fell foul of the ringing cash machine behind the script and with a 18 certificate, more adult script it could have been so much better. Since it is inevitable that they will make a T4 i hope they at last make the film T2 and T3 should have been.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
'DONT put the kid in the picture...'
This film suffers from its PG certificate. Out goes the violence, nudity and bleak depictions of urban America in comes the 'jokes' the ill thought out war=bad philosophy and a whiny irritating pubescent to corner the teen girl market. The Terminater is no longer the killing machine of yore, he shoots his enemy's in the knee cap, we have cliché laden dialogue 'why are your eyes leaking' 'what is the emotion called love human?'...terrible, terrible. The film is plainly aimed at the teen market, from the mall setting, teen lead and junk food and video game product placement it suffers as a result. It has many plot holes in it which other reviewers have covered. The acting from Lijnda Hamilton was competent though i didn't believe her descent in to psychosis. But is does have some saving elements, for those who saw the film at the cinema the effects did seem revolutionary at the time. The chase sequences though repeated endlessly are fast paced if doubtful. In summation this sequel should have been an 18 and included a better cleverer script, but it made millions and a sequel to this sequel was inevitable.
The Terminator (1984)
Sarah Conner...?
The Terminater: Huge and almost unstoppable, but not just a tank with legs, it uses subterfuge and guerrilla tactics to hunt its enemy down. It has an artificial intelligence that seems both human and machine.
Reese: Was raised in a future concentration camp, instead of Nazis they are run by machines and their credo is not to wipe out one race but all races, all organic life.
Sarah Conner: mother to a hero, but when we first see her she's just an ordinary twenty year old with no major plans for the future.
There are many great scenes in Termniater and a few duff ones, in places the effects look great and in others the budget and technology of the time make scenes look dated. The main theme of the film is technology gone out of control, this was made during the height of the cold war and 'a nuclear error' (to quote Joe Strummer) was on everyones mind. the Termninater is a great screen villain, completely implacable following his grisly programming without an iota of self doubt, truly a 'super soldier'. The cast turn in great performances even the minor roles are well fleshed out, particularly the humorous interplay between the 'seen it all before' detectives. It has a bleak apocalyptic ending with Sarah retreating to the mountains of Mexico to raise John in isolation to fight the future war.
Toolbox Murders (2004)
too many women being killed...
This film is quite violent toward women, most of the victims are women killed in very sadistic attacks. I quite like horror movies as a a genre so long as they have an element of intelligence in the script and they are not too misogynistic. It had a saving grace in allowing the female lead to use her intelligence to work out what was going on ( finding out where the killer was) and stop being a victim, though when she went in to shock when her boyfriend turned up she became a little annoying ( it was understandable she would be upset but i find screaming hard on my nerves). The characters weren't really given any depth and i struggled to care whether they lived or died and the killer was just 'yer average' scarred lunatic. I'm not a huge fan of gore and i don't like seeing bits flying off people and violence against women turns my stomach normally in films. They should have shown the women being more competent and less vulnerable, women in action films dominate the box office these days so it seems old fashioned to not 'doff the hat' to this. In summation it was relatively tense with too much sadistic violence, not enough character development or humour.
Nightmares & Dreamscapes: From the Stories of Stephen King (2006)
top cast, rubbish adaptations,
The first episode set the bar quite high i thought. It starred William Hurt as a hit-man who is contracted to kill a toymaker. We are given very little information on his character or who is paying him to kill, indeed the episode is notable for having no dialogue at all. Returning to his modernist penthouse he is delivered a package containing toy soldiers, this gives him a smile but he dismisses it and goes about his business. But he is in for a night of hell, the soldiers are alive and are about to wage war, driving jeeps, shooting machine guns and bazookas and even flying helicopters!. The special effects are good for a TV show and it becomes quite tense as he dodges around the apartment using his wits to survive, sometimes getting the upper hand and other times not. I wont spoil the ending but suffice to say it was a clever little twist. This gave me hope for the rest of the series but i was in for a disappointment, the other episodes were all rubbish and i lost interest by the fourth one. Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag and these are no exception
Batman Begins (2005)
So disappointing...
This should have been a great film but was just another plot hole filled 'whack an explosion in every five minutes blockbuster'. It could have been directed by anybody and starred any identikit action hero. The real shame was the quality of talent in this movie and how they were wasted, i assume they all wanted to work with Christopher Nolan. I expect they were disappointed on both the script and direction, i hope they return if he makes a better film in the future. The only interesting scene was where Bruce confronts the crime boss Carmine Falcone in his club and Falcone instructs him on the nature of fear and respect. There were subtexts and issues in this film that surfaced every now and again such as society's attitude to violent criminals, vigilantism versus law and order but they were simplistic and juvenile leaving me with the question 'was the script 'hollywood doctored'?.
Pulse (1988)
could have been much better...
This film had great potential but ended up being a mediocre 'X Files episode'. There were interesting ideas about the sentience of machines and technology running amok but these were never fully explored. the acting was slightly above average for a dtv and the director did a good job of injecting an element of mysterious tension to the proceedings. Some elements however, were wasted completely, such as the shots of circuitry melting in to one another in the TV, making connections and forming an intelligence. The idea that appliances we use daily are increasingly getting sophisticated and most of use have little idea how they work and what they could be capable of becoming was mentioned briefly by the TV repair man but frustratingly never matured in to anything. However the decision to make the 'pulse' homicidal for no reason made little sense. Wouldn't somebody in government have noticed this by now ( or were we supposed to believe the patrolling police were 'in on it') and investigated the street?. A better idea would have been a govt 'A.I' got loose and in to the Grid and started growing and learning and developing in to something ...just an idea but they could have done much better with this plot imo.
Haute tension (2003)
mediocre movie, much too violent.
This movie is very violent and gory and does seem to revel a little too much in the sadism of the serial killer. Showing the beast getting a blow job from a decapitated head was an image ill not soon forget and seemingly him getting turned on by cutting off some poor woman's hand was another blood soaked wander through depravity i could have lived without. The film itself is mediocre, the acting is fine, though the hysteria of the woman at the end got a little annoying..wouldn't't shock have set in at this point or her survival instinct?. The acting of the lead actress was good and less misogynistic than most of these type of movies. She didn't wander around in her underwear or scream idiotically, she was athletically muscular and rescourcefull. The plot twist seemed tacked on for shock value though it made no sense what so ever!, other reviewers have pointed out the galactic sized holes in this plot so i don't have to.It would have made much more sense to put a little thought in to a twist such as: the two women hired the man to kill the family for an inheritance but he turned psycho, just my suggestion but..they could have done something with a little thought in to it.
The Quiller Memorandum (1966)
Segal shines as cheerfull spy with the hard edge.
Quiller is an American spy seconded to the British secret service in order to find out information about a burgeoning neo nazi group in East Berlin. The fascist group is trying to infiltrate the government and influence the society toward fascism again, they have already proved the seriousness of their intent by killing two British agents who were trying to infiltrate them. Quiller seems at first a bit of a playboy. When being given the assignment by his superior (Alec Guinness) he appears blase, he is sarcastic and far removed from our idea of a cold blooded, steel nerved spy.This is in order that later on in the film we will be surprised at his competence. We find he can speak German, knows martial arts, can drive with great skill and works best when he is thinking on his feet.The other actors are excellent particularly Max Von Syndow as the calculating, ruthless Oktober. Stand out scenes are the interogation sequence, and the final scene with the bomb.
The Thing (1982)
' Trust's a hard thing to come by these days...'
Winter, Antartica. A group of scientists and pilots are stationed in a US observation post. With the arrival of a seemingly insane Norweigen helicopter crew shooting wildly at a fleeing husky dog the film starts with violence. The dog runs in to the American base prompting the hysterical rifleman to chase after him, firing blindly. Garry the base officer shoots and kills him. After trying to radio out for advice on how to proceed the base radio operator 'Windows' tells them he has been getting nothing but static for two weeks. Concerned at this crews seemingly randomly insane behaviour, Dr Copper wants to check on the Norweigen crew at their base in case anyone else is hurt, recruiting helicoper pilot McReady to shuttle him. The Norweigen base is destroyed, decimated by fire. Searching the ruins they see the grisly sight of a man who has cut his throat and wrists in an apparent suicide..what happened here to make a man do this to himself. Could they have all gone crazy out here in the frozen wilderness?. Outside they come across what appears to be the burnt remains of several men , they wrap it up and take it back for examination. Later Fuchs the dog handler takes the dog which has been wandering aimlessly about the base and puts it with the other huskies. Checking on the animal later to see how it is settling in he is confronted with something out of a nightmare..something is killing the dogs . The men spring in to action and use a flamethrower on the monster they find, but not before it cleaves off a part of itself and disappears through the roof of the dog shed. Blair the biologist does an autopsy of the dogs mangled remains and makes a horrific discovery. The dogs were not being attacked they were being taken over by this creature, and then imitated. After further research in to the imitations capabilities Blair comes to the stark conclusion ..if one single cell of this imitator reaches a populated area in 27,000 hours it will have imitated the entire population of the earth. And there is further bad news, there is a 75% chance that one or more members of the crew have now been imitated. With this realisation paranoia descends on the crew as they realise this alien can imitate anyone of them perfectly and no one would know until it is too late. With trust gone, how will the men survive ?.
Part of John Carpenters 'Apocolypse Trilogy' ( the other two being; In The Mouth Of Madness and Escape From L.A) The Thing is his masterwork. A brilliant adaptation of sci-fi short story 'Who Goes There?'. Focusing on the paranoia of an enclosed group who are isolated from civilisation and the authoritys by their environment. And this is interesting, when the alien(s) can look like anybody who can you trust?. Certainly not the head of the base Garry ( brilliantly played by the reliable Donald Moffat) who the group begin to suspect when the blood is contaminated. There are no square jawed heroics in this bleak film, the characters are all ordinary men thrust in to a terrifying situation with a creature they have no control over. A being who lives by taking over, then imitating others. Ruthless decisions are made and made quickly. McReady is the loner alcoholic pilot who takes control when others refuse it. But we see he is doing this for one reason only- to protect his own hide. When push comes to shove ( and it does) Mcready is more than willing to kill any of his co-workers if he suspects one of them is a Thing. The Thing is clever and manipulative and uses the mens suspicion of each other to divide them, getting them alone so it can attack and imitate.. The acting in this movie is excellent, all the actors working at the peak of their powers to create realistic , physical characters with all their flaws and pettiness. Kurt Russell turns in one of his best performances as the pilot McReady a man who is not to be crossed when the chips are down. The ending is bleak and ambiguous. With the fires dying down and the temperature dropping Childs and McReady seemed fated to die. Is one of them an imitation?. This film will have you talking afterwards, would we all react the same in similar situations, turning on each other?. This remains my favourite John Carpenter movie and one of my favourite films of all time.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Why Keanu , Mr Coppolla?.
Francis Ford Coppola adapts the book Dracula for the modern audience. The film is beautiful to look at in places, the costumes worn by Dracula and the women in the film are wonderful. The set pieces are also worth applauding, referencing the Dracula films that came before it, Coppola does a fine job of creating a victorian england and a wild pre-communist, superstition ruled Transylvannia. Gary Oldman is one of the finest character actors working in movies these days and seems to work far too infrequently ,even in trash ( Lost in Space) he is a standout. In this movie he does a good job of portraying the tortured, cursed count in all his incarnations. The Counts various manifestations are the best movie effects can offer, from a dessicated Count, to a huge bat like creature to a werewolf all are frighteningly realistic. Anthony Hopkins is an excellent actor and brings his usual intelligent gravitas to the role of Van Helsing. Keanuu Reeves however, ruins most of the movie for me, he is a terrible actor, after some twenty years in Hollywood movies he hasn't improved one iota and still performs with cue card timidity and paper thin characterisation. He simply doesn't have the ability to perform as anything other than a pretty face. No doubt he was a studio choice to get the women and teenage girls in to see a horror movie they otherwise may not have chosen to see. Francis Ford Copploa does a good job here and unleashes the repressed erotoscism of the original novel. He also seems to use every director trick in the book from speding up frames, to slowing them down, to reversing the action to playing it at half speed in an attempt to disorient the viewer in to accepting a dreamlike, nightmarish world of the vampire. In summary it is a visually impressive film with excellent performances and intelligently directed. But ruined by the casting of Hollywood pin-up Keanu Reeves.
Lost (2004)
self improvement through self awareness is the theme
****POSSIBLE SPOILERS**** Lost, the TV series from the creators of Alias now in to its second season. The show concerns a disparate group of plane crash survivors who are now stranded on a desert island.It soon becomes clear that the group are all suffering in one form or another from some kind of turmoil, whether physical ( drug addiction, paralysis) or emotional (loss, self doubt) and that the island seems to be indirectly helping them to come to terms with their frailties and 'move on' becoming more enlightened, better people in the process. Quick to establish leadership is Dr Jack Shepeard his skills become valuable to the group as he treats those who need medical help.But he is not the confident leader others see him as.As a child we learn his surgeon fathers cold criticisms have left him riven with self doubt, it seems the island is helping him to come to terms with this so he can 'move on'.The doctor however is not the only alpha male in the group we have Sawyer, a selfish, cynical con artist (well played by Josh Holloway) who we learn had a horrible childhood making him hate the world.For him to 'move on' he must learn to be less selfish, trust people and learn to make friends. Also there is John Locke( played by the excellent Terry O'Quinn) an enigmatic knife wielding survivalist who unlike the others is happy to be on the island, as it apparently reverses his paralysis. Before the crash Lockes life was empty, imprisoned in a boring job and with no friends or loved ones. Later we learn he was abandoned by his parents. Contacting them as an adult he meets his father, who is rich but selfish and manipulative. His father tricks Locke in to giving up a kidney then abandons him after the operation leaving Locke feeling depressed and worthless.Desperate for human contact and a sense of belonging before the crash he finds himself valued as a tracker and confident to the others.Will his new found friends allow him to 'move on'. Boone is the son of a wealthy businesswoman and is travelling with his self involved sister Shannon.We learn he is in love with her and this is his 'pain'. With Locke providing a spiritual guidance role he realises that the relationship he wanted is because of her dependence on him and would never work or make him happy.Having made this conclusion he can now move on. Charlie was a bass player in a successful rock band, but is now a heroin addict desperately chasing former glory's and abusing those around him. With Lockes help he gives up his drugs, throwing them in to the fire. He helps Jack escape from a cave-in finding self worth in helping others.All the characters in Lost are experiencing spiritual turmoil of some kind, the pain they are carrying is stopping them from growing as people, but these were the ones i found interesting. The island seems to be a purgatory of some kind, holding the people till change occurs.Dharma is the name of the project on the island which is i feel significant. Dharma is the process of finding self fulfillment and personal happiness .