Change Your Image
DeclanCochran
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Cricklewood Greats (2012)
Good-natured, gentle comedy to leave you smiling.
This nice, relaxed comedy is one of those you're glad you watched. It does nothing new, doesn't try to shock, has no swearing, and relies on funny characters doing silly things; I loved it for it's simplicity.
It's a mockumentary very much in the style of Garth Marenghi: Peter Capaldi plays himself, as he investigates the history of the fictional "Cricklewood Studios", the kind of studio that makes those stuffy films you watch on late Sunday afternoons, Ealing Comedies and Hammer Horror films. We see footage from some of the films they made, interviews with some of the people involved in making them, and in one surprising moment, Terry Gilliam rears his head, in a sort of send-up of himself.
Like all good mockumentaries, it draws the line very thin indeed between reality and fiction: like Spinal Tap and Garth Marenghi were only slightly exaggerrated versions of what they were spoofing, so too is this, and I have heard several tales of people who actually went to look up the studios, to no avail. It gets this element spot on indeed, and in fact there are a couple of films on here that actually look a bit appealing (the Fly spoof "the Worm" comes to mind).
Peter Capaldi leads it on with grace and charm, and Alex Macqueen as the tour guide through the various artifacts and props from the time is a joy.
This is a fantastically whimsical spoof that doesn't break any new mould but does make you feel slightly happy. The perfect antidote to these sweary, sexy Hollywood comedies that are getting churned out by the dozen these days. A lovely reminder that there is still intelligence and good nature working in comedy today. It might not make you laugh out loud at every opportunity, but it will make you feel all happy and nostalgic on the inside.
Wild at Heart (1990)
A little uneven tonally, and not as profound as 'Velvet', but pure Lynch through and through.
I am quite the fan of David Lynch. He has a knack of combining the massively gratuitous and the oddly sweet, a pastiche he has been using in his films for years (Blue Velvet made me cry, and horrified; few films have the capacity to do either). So, I walked into this as a David Lynch fan, expecting the tropes I'd come to love, with a campy, hammy Nic Cage performance on top and the ever reliable Lynch regular Laura Dern as a bonus. I wasn't disappointed, as it was a fantastic film with virtuoso moments, some fantastic performances (Diane Ladd, whom I had no prior knowledge of, impressed me greatly), and a fantastic tone that marries campy satire with gut-wrenching violence. Yet there was no denying that this was a slighter affair than his best work, and it falls short of being the epic that Blue Velvet or Mulholland were.
It tells the tale of Sailor Ripley (a hypnotic Cage), a man just released from prison (he was put there for killing a man hired to kill him and his girlfriend). He goes on the run with his girlfriend, Talulah (Dern), much to the histrionics of her mother, who hires a hit-man to kill him and her. On the young couple's bizarre road trip they meet a variety of oddballs, none of which are more memorable than Willem Defoe, in a strange performance that is grotesquely unforgettable.
It has an ending, which I won't ruin, and several plot turns which I will also leave unspoilt if you aren't already aware of them. This is a long film, in which a lot happens, and you feel a little bit like you have gone on the road trip with them. It is never too busy, though, and some shots pan out, showing the expanse of the deserts that the couple have got themselves into. This could be symbolic of something, but this is a film in which a lot of things are symbolic of a lot of things. I won't mar your experience by saying what I thought of it all.
It is a queasy film, too, and it doesn't skimp out on the violence (although there is no denying that it has dated somewhat) or the gratuitous sex (which hasn't really dated at all, to be honest), but if you're a Lynch-ite like me, then you won't be offended or off-put by it, but you will admire Lynch's verve, and his bravery to put such un P-C things in his films. Very anti-establishment.
It's flaws. It suffers from repetition. Quite a lot of it. It also drags on ten minutes too long, a little bit of speed could have given the deterioration of the couple's journey a bit more impact, instead of just being a touch inevitable and predictable. The ending feels a little bit unnecessary.
That said, these are niggles in the grand scheme of things, and this is a rare film that manages to provoke a reaction from every person who watches it. Even now it is quite lurid, and it's content would be faintly shocking to most, and offensive to others. It isn't completely accessible, but any film fan worth their salt should really fit this one in at some point in their lives. A brilliant, unforgettable film on the whole.
Metal Man (2008)
Stupendously, unbelievably, monumentally awful.
If there exists another film out there that matches the quality (or massive lack of) of this one, then I might as well give up with life. This isn't a film in so much as an experience, much like toothache, or a migraine is an experience. This marks a new low for films, and if you ever see a copy of it lurking unawares, like a rapist, in your local pound-shop, buy it and burn it. God will smile upon you.
Let's look at this film on a critical level: a mad scientist decides to turn a teenager (who's about 30) into a sub-level Iron Man, complete with dodgy helmet and unspecified powers. As he is being tested in a cold room (?) goons and a gang boss enter and kill the scientist, leaving the boy/man stuck in the suit forever. The goons then go and kill the boys family, for some reason. The boy swears revenge, which goes against the oft repeated fact that he has 'a strong sense of right and wrong'. This is a fact that is repeated by various characters every five minutes. I think the makers, sadists that they must be, decided that every time a character said it, they should down a pint. It would see them through the production of this tank, at the very least.
There is a hammy villain, who clearly wants his way with his dead best friends daughter. There is a duff helmet, which does something to a poor girls head to make it seep blood. There is a token Chinese goon who gets kicked in the balls. There is a prologue which couldn't serve less of a purpose. There is a scene at the beginning in which the boy/man tries to talk to a girl/woman, and fails. I'll see you next Wednesday, she says to him. That was exactly what I uttered to my sanity when I pressed the off button on my DVD player.
Then there's the question of the suit itself, which has no real purpose, and is yet the most important thing in the film. It can't be removed, or so I gathered, but that's okay, because if you say 'stealth' it just disappears for a bit. To navigate the minefield of eating, the scientist made some green stuff that the man/boy could hold next to his neck to provide nourishment, and to open your mind. It gives you super powers, which the dead best friend's daughter proclaims to be 'really awesome'. Because the scientist predicted his death, he made an AI version of himself to speak to the man/boy in the helmet. The list goes on.
The truth be told, I could write a book on the flaws of this film. The fact that it looks like it was made on an iPhone camera, and edited by a blind person comes to mind. The script, which doesn't just recycle the typical clichés but regurgitates them also is also a major factor. In reality, though, just think to yourself, was this film ever going to be good? No, no, no, no and no. Even with the budget of Avatar this film would have tanked.
If you think you'll watch this on the grounds that it could be amusing, pick something passable like Megashark VS Giant Octopus (which looks like an Oscar winning epic next to this) to fill your time. This goes beyond funny and into the realms of 'Oh-my-god-did-they-really-just-put-that-on-screen?'. Treat this film with the kind of contempt you would reserve for terrorists or back-alley dentists. Avoid eye-contact. Don't let it come to your attention. Walk away quickly. This isn't a review, more of a public warning. Never, ever, watch this film. I couldn't wish that torture on my fellow man.
Revenge of the Nerds (1984)
As John Hughes-esque 80's comedies go, this is by no means the worst.
Say what you like about comedies from the 80's, by and large, they generally had a lot of heart. And Revenge of the Nerds is no exception. Characterisation is scant, jokes obvious, dialogue clichéd, and performances running the gamut from bad to worse. Yet it is the heart to this film that made me keep watching, long after I normally would have switched off.
At times it is nasty natured, that I give you (I'm fairly sure the protagonists voyeuristic acts in the girls dorm is illegal), and it doesn't exactly paint the youth of any generation in a good light (this was 1984; things have only gotten worse), but the main thing that kept drawing me in was the romance between Anthony Edwards and Michelle Meyrink as Gilbert and Judy. They have chemistry, they're cute, they work together. They're kind of at the centre of this film, and it's a good centre to have.
The plot doesn't really matter, because it's just an excuse for some set pieces and punchlines, but at times it seems like the writers have looked at certain scenarios, and stuck the same punchline on each of them (David Carradines nasal, annoying, yet amusing laugh).
I did find it a little hard to believe that David Carradine would pull with campus hotty Betty Childs, played by Julia Montgomery in a performance that doesn't really require any acting skill other than the ability to deliver lines saucily, and to not be embarrassed when she gets her breasts out (she does both of these). However I did find it a little hard to believe that she would be won over by Carradine because he is good at sex, and when he said that all nerds think about is sex, which is why he was so good at it, this provided a contradiction with earlier dialogue from him, as well as a complete non-truth.
This, and the fact that a character such as Ogre (Donald Gibb) would be in a university at all, are the only real bum notes the film pulls. I did also have a problem with some of the nudity, as it felt out of place, and gave this film an 'R' rating when it probably would have grossed a lot more with a PG-13. As I have mentioned, a lot of the acts in this film are illegal.
Pluses include the wonderfully rebellious 'Booger', played to perfection by Curtis Armstrong, the final speech, delivered to Queen's 'We Are The Champions', and a party that begins as an awkward affair, and descends into a drug-fuelled orgy (remember kids, drugs are bad!).
At times it is a little hard to know who the audience for this film is, because it is an incredibly sweet movie, with a message that is good for kids, yet it has, as I have mentioned, scenes of nudity, drug taking, and a bestiality joke that made me feel a little uncomfortable.
Yet there is a nice message here, and the ensemble pulls it off nicely (if you can forgive the horrendous gay stereotyping). I'd put it in front of The Great Outdoors and behind Planes, Trains, and Automobiles on a sliding scale, and that is not bad company to be in.
7 stars.
Monsters (2010)
A beautiful piece of art.
Monsters is my favourite film of all time. Ever. At no point during the film did I ever want to be anywhere else. I bought into it fully, and I felt deeply rewarded at the end. It wasn't for everyone though, as it's pathetic box office takings told us. It is very much a marmite film, with the dialogue seeming realistic and clever to some, and laughable to others.
It doesn't stick to the conventions of traditional Hollywood films, so anyone seeing it expecting a true monster movie was going to be disappointed. In a rare case of foresight, I did my research and looked into the film. I knew what to expect, but I never realised how well it would be done. It captured my attention and held it there. Some complained that the characters are clichés, I thought they were unique. Some criticised it for the lack of special effects, I found it a refreshing break from the headache-inducing nightmare of films such as G.I. Joe or Transformers. Despite the title, I never noticed the lack of Monsters anyway. I was so involved in the plot line and characters, I never found myself waiting for the Monsters, and when they did appear, it came at the right time. That is the sign of a good film.
The ending is one of the most poignant and devastating I've seen since There Will Be Blood, and the chills linger long after you've walked out of the cinema. I had to stop myself from crying out at the screen, I was so involved with these characters, I just didn't want it to end.
I know I'm not the only one to share these views: my viewing companion, who is a much harsher critic than me, was at a loss for what to say. I will look back on my viewing of this film in 20 years time as one of the highlights of my cinema-going life.
Anyone who doesn't buy into this film, it's their loss. But the embittered cynics who don't feel moved or even saddened by the ending should be forced to watch this film until they do.
Anyone who complains that this film doesn't have enough action has royally missed the point. It is a film to set the mind on fire, to start you thinking. I know this is rare these days, but you actually have to apply lateral thinking to this film. Are the monsters what are being referred to in the title, or is it talking about the American government? All I can say is that I hope this film finds an audience on DVD. Because it deserves it. It really does.