Change Your Image
davidh-15
Reviews
War of the Worlds (2005)
This Movie made Spielberg's version look good
It is hard to imagine anyone making a Tom Cruise film look good; hard indeed, but this one makes him look good. Very good. Actually, it makes him look like Sir John Gielgud celebrating Very Good Acting Day with a bravura performance.
The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander "My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.
The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.
So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.
Frankenstein's Great Aunt Tillie (1984)
Bizarrely bad
So appalling I nearly stopped watching. I only continued when I realised that only once or twice in a lifetime would one be privileged with the opportunity to see a film quite this bad. It was so stunningly bad I felt compelled to watch it all.
The cast comprised no-name actors and a couple of b-movie actors who one can only assume had very large tax bills to pay that year. To describe the acting as wooden would be only partly accurate it was rotten wooden acting. The dialogue was poorly conceived badly delivered and delivered with the comic timing and deftness only available to those suffering from autism.
It was intended to be funny and tongue in-cheek and had the script not been written by the directors 9 year old it may have succeeded. The cinematography looks like it was done by the 5 year old's elder brother playing with a cheap camcorder he was given for Christmas.
So, then, bad acting, dire script, ludicrous production values. Should you watch it. Yes but remember the eye bleach.
Bronco Bullfrog (1970)
An under-regarded social drama
I went to a viewing of this in Brighton, UK at which the director, Barney Platts-Mills, and one actor, Roy Haywood, was present. tidbits regarding the film: it cost £18k (at 1969 prices) under budget of £20k.
All the actors were untrained and this was their first piece of acting.
Some of the actors were tearaway kids who engaged in theft in real life. They stole filming equipment from the set not realising its value, and that by doing so they threatened the films production.
Martin Scorsese has a 16mm print of the film in his private collection and regards it highly. The original negative was nearly thrown away when the film company went bankrupt but it was recovered from a rubbish pile by an attentive employee.
The director said that he preferred untrained actors to trained ones because they didn't ad-lib or interpret their roles: they played it straight from the script and that this was the reason for the extreme minimalism of the performances. For them it wasn't an exciting filmic opportunity it was, Roy Haywood said, "just a job - not exciting - just a way to earn money". The director said that that made their performances special.
Platts-Mills said that the main theme of the film, which most critics missed, was "why shouldn't a 15 year old girl sleep with those who she wishes to?"
-----
The film's title "Bronco Bullfrog" refers to the thief who escaped from borstal and had to make his way in the world whilst on the run by engaging in theft. He does not play the major role in the film however. That goes to Del and Anne a young couple who meet in the deprived environment of Stratford in East London where there is little for kids to do and where they have no money. Their relationship strengthens and they attempt to escape their limiting environment by running away to the coast.
The films has its comic moments often driven by the utterly spartan & anorexic dialog. Conversations that would occupy tens of minutes of naff method-overacting in a Hollywood film are dispatched in two or three words: for example when the couple meet for the first time and agree to date the entire conversation is: "Del:do you want to go out? Anne:Yea, OK".
These are kids who are adrift and going nowhere. The plot is an engaging slice into their life and a unique fusion of drama and social documentary: unlike anything else made.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Wow could this have been worse?
Having seen this film I too want to get in a tripod, load the death rays and go on a rampaging orgy of slaughter around the World. It stunk like a dying Martian.
How anyone as talented as Spielberg and with a budget larger than the GDP of a pacific island could excrete such a pile of steaming manure is beyond me. I knew Cruise's acting would have its usual emetic effect, how could it be otherwise? I wish cinemas would provide airline sick bags at his films, heavens - they must know by now. The acting? well, lets not grace it with that term, lets call it "doing stuff from a plot script in front of a camera", less pithy perhaps but more accurate. When someone says acting I think of Gielgud or Orson Welles, but then I'm old-school. Can no-one have a conversation in a Hollywood film by talking normally to each other anymore? Do they all have to degenerate into emoting over any inane event? Does Cruise's little girl put in a situation of stress have to be shown in hyper-ventilating hysteria to convey emotion. Does everyone have to EMOTE, AT FULL VOLUME, ALL THE TIME? Jesus. Over the top, hammy and inept. And from Spielberg of all people.
The film could have been so so good if they'd stripped out the schmaltzy mawkish family values sentimentality seen in every film nowadays. The clichéd separated father struggling with his kids for their love and respect. arggggghhhhh!!! Give me **** break.
The special effects were galling ILM excellence. Galling because they showed what the film could have been. There are shocking and disturbing scenes of a tripod using a cage basket of live captive humans as a "snack-as-you-walk" holder, a fleshy sphincter, and Martians using a hypodermic for drinking humans. Quite gross but exactly the sort of thing I hoped would push a 2005 film of the book to cinematic excellence rather than mere cash till bait. Instead we saw nearly nothing of the Martians, little of the military as in the HG Welles original book. No explanation of Martians, expansion of their motives, exploration of their personality or struggles with the moral dilemmas of ravaging the Earth? None was explored: presumably there was no running time left after mr Cruise EMOTING and saving his family.
At no time was there a sense of universal catastrophe. We heard at one stage: "Europe got wiped out" and that was it. Australia? Russia? South America? Not a mention not a single scene. I guess no-one in Idaho would be interested so why bother. This was no so much a film about a global apocalypse, but more one of "Martians go to Boston for a stag night, behave badly and get sick the morning after."
Really don't waste your money, if you're a masochist wait for xmas when your cousin who really hates you will buy it for you.
Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)
yawn - what was it about?
Having heard of Jim Jarmusch but not seen any of his films I thought I'd give him a go. If this was representative of his work I wont see any more.
Films structured around vignettes can be engaging with the right material: ordinary people - real life, slices of the drama of the ordinary. This was not that; it was just a sequence of Jim's famous mates expanding on some less than engaging and theme-less theme of coffee and cigarettes.
I didn't get it and I don't think there was anything *to* get. Alfred Molina and Steve Coogans skit was funny; the only highpoint in a flat film.
Don't bother. Spend the ticket price on beer.
Battle Beneath the Earth (1967)
A howling stinker.
A classic. Utterly dismal. This film must have been made with the change left over from the first Blair Witch project. The rock wall tunnels practically wobble, truck headlights pretending to be rock boring lasers. Englishmen pretending to be Chinese with silly slant eyes - you know the style seen in every lame 60 or 70's movies - how hard is it to hire real Chinese as actors? If the effects stink they are fragrant compared to the plot. At one point to detect the Chinese tunnels the military orders the US to go silent for Gods sake; like it was a submarine on silent running! The whole things is so bad as to be camply hilarious.
Where the Spies Are (1965)
undemanding light 60's vintage spy romp
Accurate in many respects as regards spycraft and the extensive MI6 registry card indices. Also that arabic scenario - set in Beirut which is where Kim Philby escaped to Russia.
David Niven plays a reluctantly doctor persuaded to spy in exchange for a '37 Chrysler LeBaron to replace his 1937 Cord Phaeton.
They even had a dig at the, then, new James Bond: Niven; "I hope you realise I'm not a superspy or an agent in black"; LeMesurier:"well that kind of exhibitionism always ends in disaster". The accurate view of MI6!
Notable for a poignant appearance of the beautiful but doomed Francoise D'Orleac.
The plot is undemanding: Who do I trust? is the pretty girl who seduced me a double agent? The baddies attempt to assassinate the friendly head of an oil state but it all goes wrong for them. can Niven escape the baddies? affable enough but not a masterpiece.
Bend It Like Beckham (2002)
inconsistently funny culture clash
I loathe football so the title was a put off. Having seen the trailer however I thought more may lie behind it, and I was right. The basic premise is a football obsessed Indian girl jess (parminder nagra) fighting the expectations of her family to settle into an arranged marriage and a middle class career. The football does little more than set the background and the script could equally well have substituted music or cars for football - but I suspect the football & hence title was created with an eye to publicity.
What was rather disappointing was the insistence of a lurve interest in the form of a football coach joe (jonathan rhys-myers) who falls for her and a causes a fight with the other main protagonist jules (played by kiera knightley). Tedious and irrelevant and really a waste of screen time that could have been deployed to make a funny film much richer. jules encourages jess to pursue her interest and overcome her unwillingness to fight her family and shyness. Lots of irreverent self-criticism of Indian culture - with parodying of the social climbing of Indians, competitive sari wearing and bubble headed young Indian fashion victims. Strong performance by Jess's father (anupam kher). Kiera knightley is hugely pretty but her acting is a tad, ermmm, American in some places, too method. Tone back those expressions honey. Special mention for Juliet Stevenson performance as jess's mother failing entirely to comprehend why a girl should be interested in football and fighting the same battle to encourage her daughter to pursue girly hobbies. One of the funniest themes of the film was her mistakenly misinterpreting of her daughters friendship with jess as a lesbian affair, and struggling hilariously to comprehend and accept it.
Cameo appearances by some of the 'Goodness gracious me' team assorted football pundits and inevitably David Beckham and wife Victoria.
Funny and well worth watching.
definitely Recommended
Billion Dollar Brain (1967)
An inspired masterful film
Micheal Caine does, as always, play his character with understatement, and there are none of the histrionics often mistaken in Hollywood for acting. Yes it is understated because this is supposed to be a realistic portrayal of how a man in his awful position would behave. Framed and blackmailed into dangerous active service against his will for a country that jailed him and for a secret service whose snobbery and officer class he despises. The plot is, of course, complete tosh. No computer then, or even now, would be capable of the abilities ascribed - so what? Ever heard of "suspension of disbelief"? as for the political scenario, this was, at the time of the film, an echo of the velvet revolution in Hungary just a decade or so before, and it anticipated later events in Estonia and Latvia. Russells cinematography is indeed masterful, his combination of the compelling visual imagery of bleak cold Finnish Landscapes, artistic use of colour and imagery, topped with the inspirational score of Richard Rodney Bennett make for a cinematic tour de force. And for those whose spiritual home is the 60's this film more than most embodies its zeitgeist. This film is an unappreciated gem.