This is very well-done but also dark, bleak, violent, cynical and depressing. The premise of the film is disturbing, the atmosphere is well-evoked and it's not "cosy" in any sense: there's no optimism here. Of the characters, Manfred is an unpleasant sleaze, Alex Campbell is an uncaring "man in the street" and Donald Pleasance's Inspector Calhoun is a sarcastic philistine who feels it's his right to ignore all social graces; only Sharon Gurney's Patricia Wilson comes across as someone we can empathise with. I have to admire the skill with which it's made but, having already seen it at least twice, it's not a film I would watch again soon.
Reviews
33 Reviews
The Haunting of Bly Manor
(2020)
Self-indulgent
20 June 2021
The series had the germ of some good ideas in it but there really was not enough material there for nine hours, and the frequent time jumps and flashbacks just confused this viewer.
Does anyone making "spooky" films and TV ever consider that people won't always watch in the dark? I have a new, carefully set up 4K TV but there were many times when I just couldn't see what was going on.
Most of the performances were also dubious, with Uncle Henry visibly struggling with his posh English accent and the narrator unsure if she was impersonating the Queen or Jodie Whittaker! If you set your story in England then it makes sense to hire English actors.
Does anyone making "spooky" films and TV ever consider that people won't always watch in the dark? I have a new, carefully set up 4K TV but there were many times when I just couldn't see what was going on.
Most of the performances were also dubious, with Uncle Henry visibly struggling with his posh English accent and the narrator unsure if she was impersonating the Queen or Jodie Whittaker! If you set your story in England then it makes sense to hire English actors.
The Shining
(1980)
An overrated travesty of a great novel
19 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched this twice because, the first time round, I couldn't believe how awful it was. The script, direction and performances completely throw away the empathy created by Stephen King's brilliant novel and the impression is that the director felt either indifferent to or contemptuous of the source material. The received wisdom is that the late Stanley Kubrick was a genius. Not on the evidence of this film. He may have been a talented film-maker but he is/was not the New Messiah.
Kubrick's Shining is a travesty of the book, a one-dimensional film without any emotional impact. The trailers are intriguing but, in truth, there is little more to the film than they show. None of the performances (with the possible exception of Scatman Crothers') have any light or shade and the music score - cobbled together from Bartók, Penderecki and Ligeti - is monotonously bleak. The whole driving force of King's story is cancelled out by Kubrick's lack of build-up and the casting of Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance. As this Torrance is clearly insane and murderous from the start of the film, there is no story to tell. Similarly, Shelley Duvall's Wendy is ready to descend into hysteria at a moment's notice. Duvall's character is completely lacking in the gutsy resourcefulness that a proper portrayal needs. The viewer has to wonder why this version of Wendy contemplated going with Jack in the first place, and didn't go off to her mother's as suggested.
Even worse, Kubrick trivialised the central idea of the Shining, casting the expressionless Danny Lloyd in the role of Danny and reducing his psychic alter ego Tony to a waggling finger! King's careful build-up of a supernatural threat is trivialised into a series of scares and "chilly" scenes. Kubrick reportedly auditioned thousands of boys for the role and still managed to get one without any apparent acting ability. Kubrick and his collaborators also threw away the important character of Hallorann, having him killed off immediately on his reappearance. Surely it's arrogance to disrespect your source in this way.
Admittedly, the film's visuals are impressive: but it seems to be about creating striking images and little else. The result is a relentlessly cold experience that never elicits any sympathy for the characters: a multi-million dollar ornament. Fans of Peter Greenaway and people who enjoy "art house" films will like it but, for those of us who enjoyed the book, the film is an ordeal. I may be a heretic but this film annoys me intensely as a representation of a great novel; nor is it good storytelling.
Kubrick's Shining is a travesty of the book, a one-dimensional film without any emotional impact. The trailers are intriguing but, in truth, there is little more to the film than they show. None of the performances (with the possible exception of Scatman Crothers') have any light or shade and the music score - cobbled together from Bartók, Penderecki and Ligeti - is monotonously bleak. The whole driving force of King's story is cancelled out by Kubrick's lack of build-up and the casting of Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance. As this Torrance is clearly insane and murderous from the start of the film, there is no story to tell. Similarly, Shelley Duvall's Wendy is ready to descend into hysteria at a moment's notice. Duvall's character is completely lacking in the gutsy resourcefulness that a proper portrayal needs. The viewer has to wonder why this version of Wendy contemplated going with Jack in the first place, and didn't go off to her mother's as suggested.
Even worse, Kubrick trivialised the central idea of the Shining, casting the expressionless Danny Lloyd in the role of Danny and reducing his psychic alter ego Tony to a waggling finger! King's careful build-up of a supernatural threat is trivialised into a series of scares and "chilly" scenes. Kubrick reportedly auditioned thousands of boys for the role and still managed to get one without any apparent acting ability. Kubrick and his collaborators also threw away the important character of Hallorann, having him killed off immediately on his reappearance. Surely it's arrogance to disrespect your source in this way.
Admittedly, the film's visuals are impressive: but it seems to be about creating striking images and little else. The result is a relentlessly cold experience that never elicits any sympathy for the characters: a multi-million dollar ornament. Fans of Peter Greenaway and people who enjoy "art house" films will like it but, for those of us who enjoyed the book, the film is an ordeal. I may be a heretic but this film annoys me intensely as a representation of a great novel; nor is it good storytelling.
Nosferatu the Vampyre
(1979)
Beautiful
28 May 2016
I don't think I've ever felt quite so emotionally involved in a vampire film as with this re-interpretation of the classic silent horror film from 1922. It's slow-moving, but also beautifully photographed and extremely atmospheric. At least two of the performances (Roland Topor's Renfield as well as Kinski) are histrionic - and yet still convincing. I'm a fan of Hammer Films and their very different approach to the same material, but this is the first time I've seen an authentic looking Transylvanian inn and a landlord and landlady who looked the parts. Even Dracula himself (this version uses the original names) is believable - while you're watching the film, you feel this scary but pathetic creature *is* a vampire. The film's climax is powerful and tragic, although let down slightly by the twist at the very end.
If you haven't seen this, try to get hold of it - ideally in the German version which, in the words of the director, is "more authentic". Don't expect explicit violence or gore but a "slow burn" and truly original take on the story.
If you haven't seen this, try to get hold of it - ideally in the German version which, in the words of the director, is "more authentic". Don't expect explicit violence or gore but a "slow burn" and truly original take on the story.
Dracula
(1979)
Misconceived
28 May 2016
By 1979, Bram Stoker's novel (or an approximation of it) had been filmed many times, most notably by Universal in 1931 and Hammer in 1958. Audiences could be excused by being jaded, especially as the quality of Hammer's Dracula films had plunged in 1970 and its latter two films, while interesting, were a long way from the book. Something fresh and new was needed.
So what did we get? An expensive production with impressive settings and a good cast. A director who had cut his teeth on TV and had a big success with Saturday Night Fever, a film that cashed in on the brief disco craze. A music score from John Williams, a composer who had already made his name on big films such as The Towering Inferno, Jaws and Star Wars. A portrayal of the Count as a romantic anti-hero, distinct from Schreck and Lugosi's menacing creatures and Christopher Lee's tremendous presence.
With all this in its favour, how did the film fall so flat? Firstly, the director seems to have no feel for the horror genre. The film looks good (at least in its original release) but has very little atmosphere, and plods along in a predictable manner.
Frank Langella's performance is competent but never really comes off. Both the director and the actor seem to forget (or not care) that this is a supernatural monster who condemns his victims to a living hell. Instead we get a film that seems to have been aimed exclusively at middle-aged heterosexual women, showing us the appeal of evil but (in Dracula himself) none of the ferocity or the terror the character should evoke. In a word, bland.
John Williams' music must be amongst his worst - banal and repetitive, and adding nothing. Of course he's produced some great scores, but this isn't one of them. I'm baffled to hear viewers praise it.
As if to emphasise the director's lack of judgement, he had the DVD and Blu ray of the film issued with its colour "bleached", so that many scenes are almost monochrome. This robs the movie of much of its visual dimension. I remember being impressed by its sumptuous look when I saw it on first release, but now one of its few plus points has gone.
While there are some good moments from Trevor Eve as Harker, Donald Pleasance as Seward and Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, overall, this is a tedious film. If you're a horror or a Langella fan, I'd advise you to see it for the sake of completeness; anyone else should avoid it, as they'll only be bored.
So what did we get? An expensive production with impressive settings and a good cast. A director who had cut his teeth on TV and had a big success with Saturday Night Fever, a film that cashed in on the brief disco craze. A music score from John Williams, a composer who had already made his name on big films such as The Towering Inferno, Jaws and Star Wars. A portrayal of the Count as a romantic anti-hero, distinct from Schreck and Lugosi's menacing creatures and Christopher Lee's tremendous presence.
With all this in its favour, how did the film fall so flat? Firstly, the director seems to have no feel for the horror genre. The film looks good (at least in its original release) but has very little atmosphere, and plods along in a predictable manner.
Frank Langella's performance is competent but never really comes off. Both the director and the actor seem to forget (or not care) that this is a supernatural monster who condemns his victims to a living hell. Instead we get a film that seems to have been aimed exclusively at middle-aged heterosexual women, showing us the appeal of evil but (in Dracula himself) none of the ferocity or the terror the character should evoke. In a word, bland.
John Williams' music must be amongst his worst - banal and repetitive, and adding nothing. Of course he's produced some great scores, but this isn't one of them. I'm baffled to hear viewers praise it.
As if to emphasise the director's lack of judgement, he had the DVD and Blu ray of the film issued with its colour "bleached", so that many scenes are almost monochrome. This robs the movie of much of its visual dimension. I remember being impressed by its sumptuous look when I saw it on first release, but now one of its few plus points has gone.
While there are some good moments from Trevor Eve as Harker, Donald Pleasance as Seward and Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, overall, this is a tedious film. If you're a horror or a Langella fan, I'd advise you to see it for the sake of completeness; anyone else should avoid it, as they'll only be bored.
Sinister
(I) (2012)
Very creepy
18 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
An extremely creepy film that manages to explore the darker side of human (and, possibly, inhuman) nature without wallowing in blood and overt violence. There is certainly plenty of violence and cruelty in the film, but these are largely implied rather than shown, and this is the film's strength.
The opening scene hits the viewer right between the eyes with a horrific event captured by the cold eye of an old-fashioned 8mm camera. The viewer immediately wants to know why this is being filmed (a question later asked by the central character), and this becomes the movie's theme.
As Ellison Oswalt, a once successful true crime writer desperate to repeat his one success - now years in the past - Ethan Hawke makes an excellent Everyman and is convincing throughout. The rest of the cast are competent, but this is almost (not quite) a solo show. The film builds to a powerful climax, the only wrong note being that the spectres (when they appear) are too solid and prosaic, like children in face paint, marring the earlier mood of barely-glimpsed evil. Overall, though, well worth viewing.
The opening scene hits the viewer right between the eyes with a horrific event captured by the cold eye of an old-fashioned 8mm camera. The viewer immediately wants to know why this is being filmed (a question later asked by the central character), and this becomes the movie's theme.
As Ellison Oswalt, a once successful true crime writer desperate to repeat his one success - now years in the past - Ethan Hawke makes an excellent Everyman and is convincing throughout. The rest of the cast are competent, but this is almost (not quite) a solo show. The film builds to a powerful climax, the only wrong note being that the spectres (when they appear) are too solid and prosaic, like children in face paint, marring the earlier mood of barely-glimpsed evil. Overall, though, well worth viewing.
Asylum
(I) (1972)
Moments of genius
11 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Viewed in 2013, this film is a strange mixture. A lot of its plot elements seem corny and it's let down badly by the mannikins in the final episode, which fall laughably below the description given by their creator in the dialogue. Douglas Gamley's music score seems a cop-out in some respects, stealing great chunks of Mussorgsky's Night on Bare Mountain and Pictures at an Exhibition without mention in the credits. However, in its quieter moments the music is wonderfully atmospheric, creating an eerie ambiance unmatched by any other composer in horror films of the period - managing to evoke the 1970s with clever use of a Vibraphone, mixing in other "period" instruments like an electric organ and yet somehow never sounding "cheesy".
The script is excellent except for a few bits of clunky dialogue. "No-one can stop me now" would have sounded much better as "No-one will stop me from doing this."
That the film still works is down largely to the excellent cast. The number of good (even great) actors that was affordable within the Amicus budget is amazing - Geoffrey Bayldon, Megs Jenkins, Patrick Magee, Robert Powell, Charlotte Rampling, Sylvia Syms, Richard Todd, James Villiers - a roll-call of British acting talent. Probably the best of all are Barry Morse and Peter Cushing, both giving performances that outshine many more respected actors, and depicting a vaguely absurd storyline with utter conviction. Barry Morse even manages to be convincing while affecting an eastern European accent - an achievement for any Anglophone actor - and the double act between these two greats turns their episode into a genuine tragedy.
Asylum is never less than watchable and, in its best moments, is genuinely chilling.
The script is excellent except for a few bits of clunky dialogue. "No-one can stop me now" would have sounded much better as "No-one will stop me from doing this."
That the film still works is down largely to the excellent cast. The number of good (even great) actors that was affordable within the Amicus budget is amazing - Geoffrey Bayldon, Megs Jenkins, Patrick Magee, Robert Powell, Charlotte Rampling, Sylvia Syms, Richard Todd, James Villiers - a roll-call of British acting talent. Probably the best of all are Barry Morse and Peter Cushing, both giving performances that outshine many more respected actors, and depicting a vaguely absurd storyline with utter conviction. Barry Morse even manages to be convincing while affecting an eastern European accent - an achievement for any Anglophone actor - and the double act between these two greats turns their episode into a genuine tragedy.
Asylum is never less than watchable and, in its best moments, is genuinely chilling.
A Christmas Carol
(1951)
Brilliant evocation of the spirit of Dickens
18 December 2011
A wonderful version of Dickens' A Christmas CAROL, not just for Alistair Sim's performance (full of character and clever subtleties, and never coming across as overdone) but for the clever way it evokes the mood of Victorian Britain. Possibly because it was filmed in the "austerity years" just after World War II when Britain was a grey place, this feels nicely other-worldly in the twenty-first century - I know that the 1950s are far removed from the 1840s but, in this respect, I feel the film works much better than any other version I've seen. The sadness and bleakness of a Victorian world where the death of loved ones was only too common, and kindness and generosity were perhaps valued more highly than they are today, is vividly conveyed. The way the film uses music is effective, too, if oversentimentalised. Particularly moving is the use of the folk song BARBARA ALLEN when the reformed Scrooge first returns to his family - this works all the better for its contrast with the Christmas carols used through the rest of the film.
There are a few niggles: Michael Hordern as Marley's Ghost gives a one- note performance far below his usual standard; and the Cratchit family are several orders of magnitude too "posh" for a poor London family. Otherwise, the film is skilfully cast and well depicted. Please try to avoid the (badly) "colourised" version: this deserves to be seen in its original monochrome.
There are a few niggles: Michael Hordern as Marley's Ghost gives a one- note performance far below his usual standard; and the Cratchit family are several orders of magnitude too "posh" for a poor London family. Otherwise, the film is skilfully cast and well depicted. Please try to avoid the (badly) "colourised" version: this deserves to be seen in its original monochrome.
Inception
(2010)
Chaotic and pretentious
18 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'll begin by saying that I have an inbuilt prejudice against films that seem to put cleverness or 'intelligence' ahead of entertainment value. Having read a lot about this film, I wasn't sure whether I would like it, but in fact was very disappointed to end up disliking it as much as I did.
For me, the film lacked two essential elements of an entertaining movie - a coherent plot and sympathetic characters. The plot didn't really start to make any sense until about halfway through (far too late) and Leonardo di Caprio as the central character, Cobb, was competent but just didn't have the charisma to carry this kind of story. His wife's death was foreshadowed a lot in the early part of the film and I found I just didn't care how or why she died. None of the other characters came across as real people and their connection to Cobb was generally unclear to me. The impression was of good actors (like Tom Hardy) being basically wasted.
I almost switched off the film after the first twenty minutes because its chaotic action seemed designed almost to alienate the viewer. It started to make some sense after that, but was still a long way from what a good film should be. The over-reliance on sudden loud noises (way above the level of the dialogue) in the first half was simply irritating.
The film also seemed to have trouble obeying its own internal logic. Several reviewers have mentioned that there was no consistency in what is supposed to happen when a dreamer dies during a dream; I was unimpressed by the 'projections' in the dreams apparently having their own personalities and being capable of independent thought, although the script also had them as nothing more than figments of the dreamer's imagination.
Yes, the film's settings and special effects were impressive, but that's really not what an evening out (or in) should be about. If the story and characterisations are lacking, then why bother watching at all?
For me, the film lacked two essential elements of an entertaining movie - a coherent plot and sympathetic characters. The plot didn't really start to make any sense until about halfway through (far too late) and Leonardo di Caprio as the central character, Cobb, was competent but just didn't have the charisma to carry this kind of story. His wife's death was foreshadowed a lot in the early part of the film and I found I just didn't care how or why she died. None of the other characters came across as real people and their connection to Cobb was generally unclear to me. The impression was of good actors (like Tom Hardy) being basically wasted.
I almost switched off the film after the first twenty minutes because its chaotic action seemed designed almost to alienate the viewer. It started to make some sense after that, but was still a long way from what a good film should be. The over-reliance on sudden loud noises (way above the level of the dialogue) in the first half was simply irritating.
The film also seemed to have trouble obeying its own internal logic. Several reviewers have mentioned that there was no consistency in what is supposed to happen when a dreamer dies during a dream; I was unimpressed by the 'projections' in the dreams apparently having their own personalities and being capable of independent thought, although the script also had them as nothing more than figments of the dreamer's imagination.
Yes, the film's settings and special effects were impressive, but that's really not what an evening out (or in) should be about. If the story and characterisations are lacking, then why bother watching at all?
Advise & Consent
(1962)
Too long-winded
8 September 2010
I came to this film as a fan of Charles Laughton's performances and through an interest in courtroom dramas. While it had its moments, I found it too slow-moving (it's nearly an hour before the first plot "twist") and insufficiently dramatic. The performances are fine - Laughton is as watchable as ever, although his accent fluctuated and disappeared at times, to the extent that I couldn't believe him as a southern senator. In the circumstances (he must already have been suffering from his final illness) it's still a remarkable performance.
People have talked of the film's "brave" treatment of homosexuality (in one of its sub-plots). On the contrary, to me this story came across as clichéd, predictable, and dated: showing attitudes probably typical of those of the time, today it's at best patronising to gay people, at worst offensive. For a film that had something new to say on the topic and genuinely tried to challenge attitudes, look at the British release "Victim" (1961).
Finally, the ending of this film seems arbitrary, even a cop-out, given the buildup. Advise and Consent is ultimately a disappointment.
People have talked of the film's "brave" treatment of homosexuality (in one of its sub-plots). On the contrary, to me this story came across as clichéd, predictable, and dated: showing attitudes probably typical of those of the time, today it's at best patronising to gay people, at worst offensive. For a film that had something new to say on the topic and genuinely tried to challenge attitudes, look at the British release "Victim" (1961).
Finally, the ending of this film seems arbitrary, even a cop-out, given the buildup. Advise and Consent is ultimately a disappointment.
Batman Returns
(1992)
Less than the sum of its parts
6 September 2010
Watching this for the first time recently on Blu-ray, I was a little disappointed. The film has a lot going for it: a great music score; an impressive use of colour; vividly-drawn villains; nice sets; beautiful photography. The problems seem to be with the plot and the handling of the characters. A lot of the action seems arbitrary, with all of the characters lacking believable motivation. It's hard to care about any of them. Danny DeVito as the Penguin makes a better villain than Jack Nicholson's Joker (the previous film had toppled over into "the Jack Nicholson show") but the actor and the director fail to make the character even vaguely sympathetic. The Penguin wants to be liked, so what does he do to achieve this? He's a villain so, naturally, he cons everyone. Michael Keaton is competent as Batman but again, it's hard to warm to him. Even having seen the previous film, the viewer doesn't get much sense of what makes him do what he does. Michele Pfeiffer's Catwoman comes off best in this respect, mainly down to a good performance: again, the script doesn't make much sense any of her actions.
The director's eccentricities are initially appealing, but the film just isn't enough *fun*. Maybe Tim Burton did treat the material with respect, but the overall effect is too po-faced. The essential ridiculousness of the characters isn't quite acknowledged – we don't laugh at these grotesque and dysfunctional people, but we can't believe in them either. Finally, the film is too long-winded. With tighter editing, ten or fifteen minutes could easily be taken off its running time, giving it a faster pace.
I'll be branded as a heretic for saying so, but I think the third of the initial Batman quadrilogy (Batman Forever) is the best of the four films for bringing back the fun, just as Ed Wood is the best of Tim Burton's films by a long way.
The director's eccentricities are initially appealing, but the film just isn't enough *fun*. Maybe Tim Burton did treat the material with respect, but the overall effect is too po-faced. The essential ridiculousness of the characters isn't quite acknowledged – we don't laugh at these grotesque and dysfunctional people, but we can't believe in them either. Finally, the film is too long-winded. With tighter editing, ten or fifteen minutes could easily be taken off its running time, giving it a faster pace.
I'll be branded as a heretic for saying so, but I think the third of the initial Batman quadrilogy (Batman Forever) is the best of the four films for bringing back the fun, just as Ed Wood is the best of Tim Burton's films by a long way.
Better than some big budget versions
19 November 2009
By 1968 it could be argued that the story of Dracula should already be permanently in the cold ground – done to death by repetition. However, this Thames Television production was quite different from the Hammer film series (that would soon go into a rapid decline). Talky and slightly theatrical, it is – despite this – more interesting than either the 1979 John Badham version or the more recent Coppola one. Like other low budget versions, this one "scales down" the novel, omitting its more epic scenes but concentrating effectively on the middle part of the book.
Denholm Elliott is no substitute for Christopher Lee as The Count (then, who is?) but he gives a competent performance. Colin Redgrave as Harker and Susan George as Lucy are both fascinating to watch, but Bernard Archard as Van Helsing sadly continues the tradition of silly voices in Dracula adaptations with a very distracting accent more redolent of Calcutta than Amsterdam.
Some scenes (such as the meeting with Dracula's brides) are very eerily done, while the final showdown with Dracula is a strange mixture of clumsy staging and convincing effects work. The slight twist at the end is a nice touch, too. A minor version, but worth seeing.
Denholm Elliott is no substitute for Christopher Lee as The Count (then, who is?) but he gives a competent performance. Colin Redgrave as Harker and Susan George as Lucy are both fascinating to watch, but Bernard Archard as Van Helsing sadly continues the tradition of silly voices in Dracula adaptations with a very distracting accent more redolent of Calcutta than Amsterdam.
Some scenes (such as the meeting with Dracula's brides) are very eerily done, while the final showdown with Dracula is a strange mixture of clumsy staging and convincing effects work. The slight twist at the end is a nice touch, too. A minor version, but worth seeing.
Disappointing
25 October 2009
Three disaffected thirtyish men go for a drink in a pub and have a night to remember. After one of them has a chance meeting with a strange girl and another has a mind-bending experience on using the toilet, all three find they have travelled in time and inadvertently changed the future.
The film borrows freely from science fiction films, TV and fiction (The Terminator, Doctor Who and Ray Bradbury's story A Sound of Thunder are among its more obvious influences). The premise is unusual for a comedy and the start of the film seems promising but, after its first half hour, it quickly becomes tedious. I laughed only once or twice in the whole film.
The characters are just not as endearing as they're meant to be and the plot meanders, lacking the excitement of The Terminator and the appeal of Doctor Who. The writer seems uncertain of where to take the story and throws in various gimmicks which seem to go nowhere. I just didn't find it a satisfying story. In any science fiction or fantasy story, "suspension of disbelief" is vital, but the storyline for me just wasn't credible.
After some impressive effects in the opening scene, the rest of the film's relatively few special effects look cheap and feel as if they don't quite belong to the same film. Despite its short running time, it seemed quite long to me - never a good feeling.
The film borrows freely from science fiction films, TV and fiction (The Terminator, Doctor Who and Ray Bradbury's story A Sound of Thunder are among its more obvious influences). The premise is unusual for a comedy and the start of the film seems promising but, after its first half hour, it quickly becomes tedious. I laughed only once or twice in the whole film.
The characters are just not as endearing as they're meant to be and the plot meanders, lacking the excitement of The Terminator and the appeal of Doctor Who. The writer seems uncertain of where to take the story and throws in various gimmicks which seem to go nowhere. I just didn't find it a satisfying story. In any science fiction or fantasy story, "suspension of disbelief" is vital, but the storyline for me just wasn't credible.
After some impressive effects in the opening scene, the rest of the film's relatively few special effects look cheap and feel as if they don't quite belong to the same film. Despite its short running time, it seemed quite long to me - never a good feeling.
Star Trek
(2009)
An action-packed, fun ride
26 September 2009
As a fan of the original series who has just forked out a tidy sum for the Blu-ray version of Season 1, I have to say that the new film pushed all the buttons for me.
The opening is absolutely terrific, with both action and emotion and, apart from a few minutes in the middle of the film, the pace hardly slackens throughout.
Most of the cast are thoroughly engaging – I particularly enjoyed the performances of Christopher Pine, Karl Urban (doing a brilliant version of DeForest Kelley) and Zachary Quinto. The only character who didn't entirely come off in my book was Scotty. Simon Pegg's Scots accent is better than James Doohan's, but the film's attempts at comedy are its least successful aspect and come across as rather laboured. There are certainly scenes that are more reminiscent of Star Wars (a franchise that doesn't appeal to me) than Star Trek, but this didn't offend me at all. While the time travel device is used in a fairly unsubtle way, and purists can no doubt pick various holes in the plot, is this is really important in an action film? Star Trek sets out to entertain and, in this respect, it succeeds completely.
I don't think it's giving anything away to say that the script does two odd things with the character of Spock, that are most apparent towards the end of the film. It'll be interesting to see how these oddities develop in any sequels.
and while I'm talking about sequels, if the team are looking for stories from the original series to remake or "re-imagine", forget Khan and the Tribbles – how about the classic The Menagerie/The Cage? The original story cried out for realistic settings and the Talosians, cleverly realised as they were, could no doubt be done even better in the 21st century. It can't be beyond the wit of Hollywood's writers to think of some apposite new twist to the theme of mind control
The opening is absolutely terrific, with both action and emotion and, apart from a few minutes in the middle of the film, the pace hardly slackens throughout.
Most of the cast are thoroughly engaging – I particularly enjoyed the performances of Christopher Pine, Karl Urban (doing a brilliant version of DeForest Kelley) and Zachary Quinto. The only character who didn't entirely come off in my book was Scotty. Simon Pegg's Scots accent is better than James Doohan's, but the film's attempts at comedy are its least successful aspect and come across as rather laboured. There are certainly scenes that are more reminiscent of Star Wars (a franchise that doesn't appeal to me) than Star Trek, but this didn't offend me at all. While the time travel device is used in a fairly unsubtle way, and purists can no doubt pick various holes in the plot, is this is really important in an action film? Star Trek sets out to entertain and, in this respect, it succeeds completely.
I don't think it's giving anything away to say that the script does two odd things with the character of Spock, that are most apparent towards the end of the film. It'll be interesting to see how these oddities develop in any sequels.
and while I'm talking about sequels, if the team are looking for stories from the original series to remake or "re-imagine", forget Khan and the Tribbles – how about the classic The Menagerie/The Cage? The original story cried out for realistic settings and the Talosians, cleverly realised as they were, could no doubt be done even better in the 21st century. It can't be beyond the wit of Hollywood's writers to think of some apposite new twist to the theme of mind control
The Skeleton Key
(2005)
Atmospheric with some clever twists
24 September 2009
A young care worker moves from a hospice to the home of an elderly couple in New Orleans where the husband is apparently dying from the after-effects of a stroke. As you might guess, not all is as it seems...
A very atmospheric and cleverly worked out story, with some brilliant twists on horror films' usual supernatural conventions. The actors are all very convincing, particularly John Hurt in a role with almost no dialogue. In the final half hour the tension is ramped up beautifully, and the twists have a grimly humorous flavour.
I'm not always the best at understanding subtleties in film story lines but, apart from a few small plot holes, everything here made sense to me. I would say that posters here who say the plot didn't explain itself just need to watch and listen more carefully. I'm delighted to see that some filmmakers can still make a "horror" film that's intelligent, generally scary, and doesn't rely on gore and brutality. A great film.
A very atmospheric and cleverly worked out story, with some brilliant twists on horror films' usual supernatural conventions. The actors are all very convincing, particularly John Hurt in a role with almost no dialogue. In the final half hour the tension is ramped up beautifully, and the twists have a grimly humorous flavour.
I'm not always the best at understanding subtleties in film story lines but, apart from a few small plot holes, everything here made sense to me. I would say that posters here who say the plot didn't explain itself just need to watch and listen more carefully. I'm delighted to see that some filmmakers can still make a "horror" film that's intelligent, generally scary, and doesn't rely on gore and brutality. A great film.
Frost/Nixon
(2008)
Mediocre
31 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
While this is not a bad film, and is no doubt enjoyed by people with a keener interest in politics than me, it seems to fall flat in a number of areas.
Firstly, it's hard to care about either participant: in the film, Nixon is a mean-spirited man thrown out of the top job for criminal activity, but long unwilling to acknowledge that it was his own fault. Frost is shown as a rather lazy playboy who only "does his homework" in the nick of time.
Secondly, can we believe in what we're seeing? Michael Sheen as usual does a very good impersonation of Frost, as well as convincing us that he understands the character. Frank Langella is less successful as Nixon: while his performance is generally competent, he only bears a passing resemblance to the ex-President, and clearly gets Nixon's accent wrong. If this is obvious to me even as a "Brit", then there must be quite a few Americans who find his voice grating. I realise that actors are about more than just impersonation, but convincing the audience that they could be watching the real life characters is part of the essence of this kind of film and, for me, this aspect didn't work.
Thirdly, the whole thing is just a bit over-dramatised: necessary, perhaps, just to keep us watching, but at times it becomes rather silly. I agree absolutely with the other poster here who says "the Frost/Nixon interviews were merely a relatively inconsequential event here being treated as if they were life-and-death".
Overall, a moderately entertaining film, but only worth watching if you have nothing better to do, or are a keen student of 20th century US history.
Firstly, it's hard to care about either participant: in the film, Nixon is a mean-spirited man thrown out of the top job for criminal activity, but long unwilling to acknowledge that it was his own fault. Frost is shown as a rather lazy playboy who only "does his homework" in the nick of time.
Secondly, can we believe in what we're seeing? Michael Sheen as usual does a very good impersonation of Frost, as well as convincing us that he understands the character. Frank Langella is less successful as Nixon: while his performance is generally competent, he only bears a passing resemblance to the ex-President, and clearly gets Nixon's accent wrong. If this is obvious to me even as a "Brit", then there must be quite a few Americans who find his voice grating. I realise that actors are about more than just impersonation, but convincing the audience that they could be watching the real life characters is part of the essence of this kind of film and, for me, this aspect didn't work.
Thirdly, the whole thing is just a bit over-dramatised: necessary, perhaps, just to keep us watching, but at times it becomes rather silly. I agree absolutely with the other poster here who says "the Frost/Nixon interviews were merely a relatively inconsequential event here being treated as if they were life-and-death".
Overall, a moderately entertaining film, but only worth watching if you have nothing better to do, or are a keen student of 20th century US history.
The Mist
(2007)
Too bleak for me
31 December 2008
I enjoyed the novella on which this film was based very much and, after hearing lots of good reviews, had high expectations of the film. Writer/Director Frank Darabont winds up the tension admirably. There are lots of horrific, even harrowing scenes, the character development is interesting and the special effects are never less than good.
So I wasn't totally disappointed, but I did feel that the film's downbeat tone spoiled it. Frank Darabont is well known for his adaptations of Stephen King stories, but his two previous films - "The Shawshank redemption" and "The green mile" - had hope and optimism, despite being tragic.
The mood of "The mist" is relentlessly bleak. I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone, but I'm not revealing anything you won't already know by saying that it isn't a happy one. Yes, it's both clever and ironic, but I agree with some of the previous posters - it feels to me like a cheat. In my opinion, it would have been better left "open" - unresolved, as in the novella.
I watch all films hoping for a positive, life-enhancing experience, and Frank Darabont's have given me that so far. I feel a bit let-down and disappointed by the depressing outcome of this one.
So I wasn't totally disappointed, but I did feel that the film's downbeat tone spoiled it. Frank Darabont is well known for his adaptations of Stephen King stories, but his two previous films - "The Shawshank redemption" and "The green mile" - had hope and optimism, despite being tragic.
The mood of "The mist" is relentlessly bleak. I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone, but I'm not revealing anything you won't already know by saying that it isn't a happy one. Yes, it's both clever and ironic, but I agree with some of the previous posters - it feels to me like a cheat. In my opinion, it would have been better left "open" - unresolved, as in the novella.
I watch all films hoping for a positive, life-enhancing experience, and Frank Darabont's have given me that so far. I feel a bit let-down and disappointed by the depressing outcome of this one.
The Descent
(2005)
Encapsulates everything wrong with the modern horror film
31 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Sadly, for me my title says it all. I foolishly chose this as my "evening's entertainment" after a completely misleading comment from someone that it was a "psychological thriller". For me, it turned out to be as far from that description as possible! After a slow build-up that I found tedious rather than interesting - with one exception, the accident near the beginning - things quickly descended into the usual feast of brutality, extreme violence and gore.
Thankfully, the second half of the film takes place in semi-darkness: unlike some members of the audiences of these films, I don't enjoy seeing characters being violently mutilated in close-up.
To summarise, then, what I disliked about this film was its feeble character development (I found I couldn't work out who was being killed or injured and, what's more, I didn't really care); a reliance on "sudden jolts" and brutal violence instead of atmosphere; dialogue often delivered in barely audible "throw away" style. Maybe this was why the revenge subplot made no sense to me and, even at the end, I couldn't work out the relevance of the road accident near the beginning. The idea behind the film also seemed to me a bit of a nonsense - to take a group of people into an unknown cave when only a couple of them are experienced potholers should have struck the whole party as blatantly suicidal.
On the plus side, I was intrigued by the accident near the beginning and its bearing on the rest of the plot - I just found that my revulsion at the second half of the film meant I couldn't give it close enough attention to find out.
Don't get me wrong: I have enjoyed plenty of horror films over the years. Three of my favourites are Carrie, Hellraiser and Witchfinder General. All of these contain blood, violence and brutality. The difference between these films and The Descent is that the nastiness is relevant to their plots, and they all have characters the viewer can empathise with. I'm baffled and disturbed by the popularity of films that seem to wallow in violence for its own sake, and by the number of good reviews The Descent seems to have got.
Thankfully, the second half of the film takes place in semi-darkness: unlike some members of the audiences of these films, I don't enjoy seeing characters being violently mutilated in close-up.
To summarise, then, what I disliked about this film was its feeble character development (I found I couldn't work out who was being killed or injured and, what's more, I didn't really care); a reliance on "sudden jolts" and brutal violence instead of atmosphere; dialogue often delivered in barely audible "throw away" style. Maybe this was why the revenge subplot made no sense to me and, even at the end, I couldn't work out the relevance of the road accident near the beginning. The idea behind the film also seemed to me a bit of a nonsense - to take a group of people into an unknown cave when only a couple of them are experienced potholers should have struck the whole party as blatantly suicidal.
On the plus side, I was intrigued by the accident near the beginning and its bearing on the rest of the plot - I just found that my revulsion at the second half of the film meant I couldn't give it close enough attention to find out.
Don't get me wrong: I have enjoyed plenty of horror films over the years. Three of my favourites are Carrie, Hellraiser and Witchfinder General. All of these contain blood, violence and brutality. The difference between these films and The Descent is that the nastiness is relevant to their plots, and they all have characters the viewer can empathise with. I'm baffled and disturbed by the popularity of films that seem to wallow in violence for its own sake, and by the number of good reviews The Descent seems to have got.
Hair-raising
9 March 2007
Despite a dubious performance from Simon MacCorkindale and some low-budget effects work at the climax, this works beautifully.
The plot in outline: a long-dead creature unearthed from a tomb in a wall exerts a malign influence on the household of a young vet and his pregnant wife. The idea contains echoes of the third Quatermass story, which helped establish Nigel Kneale as a uniquely original and imaginative writer.
In the best tradition of ghost stories, the atmosphere of this episode is all created by suggestion, helped by some excellent sound effects and a generally good cast. Shelagh Fraser is particularly effective as the wife of the "sitting" vet, her bluff but insensitive manner cleverly increasing the tension. The idea is intriguing at the start and the pace is fairly slow, with the suspense and fear developed beautifully to the climax. Part of the BEASTS TV series from 1976, the episode defies description - you really should see it!
The plot in outline: a long-dead creature unearthed from a tomb in a wall exerts a malign influence on the household of a young vet and his pregnant wife. The idea contains echoes of the third Quatermass story, which helped establish Nigel Kneale as a uniquely original and imaginative writer.
In the best tradition of ghost stories, the atmosphere of this episode is all created by suggestion, helped by some excellent sound effects and a generally good cast. Shelagh Fraser is particularly effective as the wife of the "sitting" vet, her bluff but insensitive manner cleverly increasing the tension. The idea is intriguing at the start and the pace is fairly slow, with the suspense and fear developed beautifully to the climax. Part of the BEASTS TV series from 1976, the episode defies description - you really should see it!
Gosford Park
(2001)
Tedious and uninvolving
1 January 2007
I have to agree with the (minority of) people who didn't like this film. Despite the star-studded cast and some excellent performances, the film seemed at least half an hour too long. There seemed to be no real atmosphere created, certainly no tension or feeling of threat, and even the humour was confined to the occasional titter rather than anything outstandingly clever or funny. For me, the major problem was that I couldn't make myself care about any of the characters - even the murder victim. Director Robert Altman has to take the blame for this, in making many of them witty and amusing, but none of them sympathetic. Social comment, perhaps, but I would say there's more human interest in five minutes worth of the Upstairs, Downstairs TV series than in this whole, long film.
The sound, too, seemed to be badly recorded. Despite turning up the volume on the DVD loud, there were many sections where I was straining to hear what the characters were muttering.
Overall, a waste of time.
The sound, too, seemed to be badly recorded. Despite turning up the volume on the DVD loud, there were many sections where I was straining to hear what the characters were muttering.
Overall, a waste of time.
Bruce Almighty
(2003)
Bit of a missed opportunity
15 November 2006
This could have been dazzling but, for me, was a misfire, mainly because the Jim Carrey character was so hard to like. I'm a Carrey fan, but in this case, the script and direction seemed to be against him.
Near the start of the film, Bruce's boss refers to another character as "an asshole" and says "You couldn't be". However, he behaves like one through most of the film, with his whining and complaining seriously overdone. You have to wonder why his girlfriend sticks with him for so long. As often, the dog (when he appears) steals the show.
The best scenes are the ones a third of the way through, after Bruce first gets his powers. Here the film shows energy, with Carrey doing what he's best at - being an amusing "wise guy". After this, though, it all gets a bit tedious. The performances are fine, particularly from Carrey and Morgan Freeman, but the filmmakers don't seem sure about where they're heading, or what the moral (if any) is. Ultimately the film is a bit of a mess.
Near the start of the film, Bruce's boss refers to another character as "an asshole" and says "You couldn't be". However, he behaves like one through most of the film, with his whining and complaining seriously overdone. You have to wonder why his girlfriend sticks with him for so long. As often, the dog (when he appears) steals the show.
The best scenes are the ones a third of the way through, after Bruce first gets his powers. Here the film shows energy, with Carrey doing what he's best at - being an amusing "wise guy". After this, though, it all gets a bit tedious. The performances are fine, particularly from Carrey and Morgan Freeman, but the filmmakers don't seem sure about where they're heading, or what the moral (if any) is. Ultimately the film is a bit of a mess.
A Taste of Honey
(1961)
Melancholy film with brilliant music
8 March 2006
A working class teenage girl in the north of England goes through a troubled adolescence, clashing with her feckless mother and making bitter-sweet relationships with others. Despite the downbeat material, the thoughtful direction and compulsive performances turn this into a highly watchable film. Only Dora Bryan comes across as a little too sunny and sympathetic for the character she plays - until the final scenes of the film.
John Addison's evocative score lightens a mood that could easily descend into the bleak. Having grown up in the 1960s not so far from the film's setting, I can identify with some aspects of the environment, and it remains one of my favourite films.
John Addison's evocative score lightens a mood that could easily descend into the bleak. Having grown up in the 1960s not so far from the film's setting, I can identify with some aspects of the environment, and it remains one of my favourite films.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
Moving and Visually Spectacular
8 November 2005
I love this film and have difficulty comprehending how some people can dismiss it as "stupid" or "dumb".
Yes, it was sentimental and yes, at times the science seems to be lacking. (My main concern was how David's power source kept him running for thousands of years). However, it was visually stunning and surely - to most intelligent viewers - would provoke all kinds of questions about the nature of life, consciousness and being human.
If David's love for his mother is artificial, does that make it any less valid? Does being created by humans make him less of a "person" than a human being, although he can think and feel? Do any of the mechas deserve the treatment they get, or should we not extend to them the compassion that "living" creatures (including most animals) usually get? Finally, isn't it a strength in a film if it provokes these kind of questions but doesn't attempt simple answers, leaving the audience to work out their own feelings about them?
I felt there were no bad performances, with Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law as accomplished as ever. The ending was perhaps a little oversentimental, but I found it uplifting. It's certainly likely that Stanley Kubrick's version would have been more downbeat, but I've always considered him overrated: his cold and cynical view ruined at least one film for me and made another of his "masterpieces" unsatisfying. Heresy as it may be, I would describe AI as Kubrick's greatest film - ironic that it was one he didn't direct.
Yes, it was sentimental and yes, at times the science seems to be lacking. (My main concern was how David's power source kept him running for thousands of years). However, it was visually stunning and surely - to most intelligent viewers - would provoke all kinds of questions about the nature of life, consciousness and being human.
If David's love for his mother is artificial, does that make it any less valid? Does being created by humans make him less of a "person" than a human being, although he can think and feel? Do any of the mechas deserve the treatment they get, or should we not extend to them the compassion that "living" creatures (including most animals) usually get? Finally, isn't it a strength in a film if it provokes these kind of questions but doesn't attempt simple answers, leaving the audience to work out their own feelings about them?
I felt there were no bad performances, with Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law as accomplished as ever. The ending was perhaps a little oversentimental, but I found it uplifting. It's certainly likely that Stanley Kubrick's version would have been more downbeat, but I've always considered him overrated: his cold and cynical view ruined at least one film for me and made another of his "masterpieces" unsatisfying. Heresy as it may be, I would describe AI as Kubrick's greatest film - ironic that it was one he didn't direct.
One of the best-executed "twists" ever
15 September 2005
This episode is fascinating to watch. The opening scenes suggest that it might just be a succession of murders, but then the pace changes and we see that the main focus will be if, or how, the Michael Jayston character (who has more than one name) will get his come-uppance.
It's clear that at least one of Jayston's latter two lady friends is not what she seems - but very few viewers seem to work out what the final "twist" will be.
Michael Jayston makes a skillful job of playing the man you love to hate, Helen Mirren is appropriately enigmatic and the supporting cast (including the reliable Michael Gwynn and Arthur English) are just right. I would be surprised to find anyone who doesn't enjoy the resolution of this one.
It's clear that at least one of Jayston's latter two lady friends is not what she seems - but very few viewers seem to work out what the final "twist" will be.
Michael Jayston makes a skillful job of playing the man you love to hate, Helen Mirren is appropriately enigmatic and the supporting cast (including the reliable Michael Gwynn and Arthur English) are just right. I would be surprised to find anyone who doesn't enjoy the resolution of this one.
Some good moments, but stretching credibility too far
15 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Despite some good moments, this really doesn't work as a credible story. Robert Powell and Jennie Linden both make the best of the script, but this comes across as one of Brian Clemens' lesser efforts.
It should be obvious to all the characters from an early stage who is attacking them, and Penny herself is unbelievably gullible. This kind of story becomes increasingly predictable, and yet there are none of the trademark 'Thriller' twists. Because the outcome is already clear a third of the way into the story, there is no suspense. While I realise that the whole series is based on implication, it's hard to believe in the character impaled on huge shards of glass at the climax who DOESN'T BLEED...
It should be obvious to all the characters from an early stage who is attacking them, and Penny herself is unbelievably gullible. This kind of story becomes increasingly predictable, and yet there are none of the trademark 'Thriller' twists. Because the outcome is already clear a third of the way into the story, there is no suspense. While I realise that the whole series is based on implication, it's hard to believe in the character impaled on huge shards of glass at the climax who DOESN'T BLEED...
Tell Your Friends