Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Others (2001)
2/10
Can so many people be so sheltered?
12 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm astounded by the hype.

When The Others was first released on these shores, people were talking about it as if it represented a groundbreaking new genre. It was as if the critics had never seen a haunted house movie before - and despite the glowing recommendations and boundless praise, the 'highlights' that got screened on TV to promote the movie seemed cheap, obvious and just plain silly.

So, in light of all the hype, I avoided the movie until it was screened on TV this evening.

What a load of cobblers.

For a start, The Others isn't creepy in the slightest. Robert Wise's original version of The Haunting was creepy. And some of the scenes in Peter Medak's The Changeling were unsettling in the extreme. The Uninvited got it right as far back as 1944, and yet The Others succeeds in doing little more than rattling chains and shouting BOO! Perhaps part of the problem is the lack of subtlety - I got the whole story at the end of the séance sequence. It said all that needed saying. But just in case you weren't paying attention we're treated to a painfully contrived monologue that renders many of the most effective sequences utterly redundant. It's this lack of regard for the viewer's intelligence that ultimately lets the movie down, as it degenerates into cheap cliché rather than genuine chills.

Or maybe the problem is its lack of originality. I love horror movies. In particular, I love the really scary ones - which are usually very different to the really gory ones. In watching The Others, it seemed as if Amenábar were simply making a list of 'things a ghost story should have'. At times, I felt like I were being treated to selected scenes from The Haunting or The Changeling, but without the tension or elegance of either.

And - spoilers ahoy - the moment I saw Eric Sykes cover those gravestone, I saw the ending coming a mile off. But let's not have any more comparisons with the Sixth Sense, as we'd already seen the same shock ending in movies like Dead and Buried or Blade Runner - and I'm sure they weren't the first to do it either.

In all, The Others proved to be as engaging, frightening and unsettling as Jan De Bont's laughable remake of The Haunting.

If you've never seen a haunted house movie before, please have fun and enjoy The Others. If, like me, you've been spoiled by all the really great stuff that came before, and genuinely enjoy a good cinematic scare, give it a very wide berth. Check out The Devil's Backbone instead - it's pure undiluted terror by comparison.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Third-rate Khan...
6 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILERS AHEAD!*

I was really looking forward to this one. I like Next Gen, and the trailer made Nemesis look like a huge epic spectacular. Add all the claims that Nemesis is the best Trek movie ever, and I was certainly keen to be near the front of the queue when it opened in the UK.

What a disappointment.

The plot was little more than a rehash of the Wrath Of Khan. Think about it - a personal enemy for the captain, driven to the point of madness in his pursuit. A deadly weapon on the baddy's ship. A cunning standoff with both ships dead in space. The noble self-sacrifice of a well-liked crewmember... This is Khan all over again, but nowhere near as good. For one thing, Ricardo Montalban was a much better villain than the spoiled brat that Picard faces in this outing.

And what's happened to Patrick Stewart? In Nemesis he shows none of the imposing and formidable personality or commanding presence that made him such a great captain. It looks like Jean-Luc Picard, but it isn't.

Another gripe is that - aside from brief scenes on Romulus, and one on a planet surface under annoying sepia lens filters - the entire movie takes place on two starships. I could accept this of the TV show, where budgets and time were limited, but not of the tenth big-screen adventure!

Rumour has it that the next movies will follow the original Enterprise crew. Let's hope these are a little more inventive!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Fool me twice, shame on me
31 May 2002
I should have known better than to fork out money at the box office to see Attack of the Clones, but I had to. It had the words Star Wars on the poster, and I just had to. It's like the way I had to buy those crappy plastic toys in 1978 - they weren't just crappy plastic toys, they were STAR WARS toys, I tell ya!

Okay, I thought that Episode I was appalling, but this one can't be nearly as bad, right?

They've got rid of the annoying wee brat and replaced him with an annoying adult that behaves like an annoying wee brat.

Almost every line of dialogue is raw untreated exposition, without the slightest hint of sincerity or character. And where the characters aren't blandly explaining the plot to the audience, they're spouting cliches so rank as to be often hilarious. Not one character is believable - let alone likable - and the whole affair reminds me of Evan Dorkin's Fisher Price Theatre (only without the intelligence or wit).

The action sequences are annoying too. They're so obviously designed to be copied as computer games, I often felt like I was watching a computer game. But the thing about games is they're no fun when someone else is pushing the buttons.

Special effects were good and bad. The ships and cityscapes were marvellous. The CG creatures stank. Still, Lucas (or, more accurately, his cinematographers and effects departments) succeeded in giving us a rich canvas to look at. But in the absence of characterisation or any real drama, that rich canvas soon starts to resemble dull wallpaper - especially when you've been staring at it for almost two and a half hours.

But I really can't blame anyone but myself for this disappointment. Episode One had already convinced me that George Lucas has lost his touch as a film maker - and as a writer, he shouldn't even be allowed to write an envelope.

I was the one stupid enough to spend money at the box office, and I'm the one contributing to the colossal takings that will ultimately persuade Mr Lucas that he can go ahead and make another movie just like the last.

Shame on me!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
More money than sense
11 May 2002
What Lies Beneath must be the most expensive and lavish cheap timefiller I've ever seen.

It's so densely packed with obvious melodrama and genre cliche, that it could easily be mistaken for one of those dire conveyor-belt mini series that Steven King keeps pushing out (supposedly to make up for the shortcomings of Stanley Kubrik or David Cronenberg).

Harrison Ford as a bad guy? Watch Mosquito Coast to see just how menacing the man can really be.

Scary and haunting? Not compared to real spinechillers such as The Changeling.

Tense, dramatic and manipulative? Try Memento instead.

Ultimately, What Lies Beneath, is a catalogue of half-measures. The fact that you've seen it all before shouldn't be a problem, so long as the old cliches are given a new slant, but the movie doesn't even go that far. What's worse is the fact that the movie starts slow, and grinds to a halt within the first hour. Despite a valiant attempt to regain some momentum in the last few reels, it ultimately gets nowhere.

The script alone makes this TV movie fodder, or at best a straight-to-video cheapy. How it got the budget and the names is beyond me.

A big disappointment.
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Exactly what I've been saying all these years!!!
19 December 2001
For the last ten years I've been saying that Peter Jackson would do wonderful things if put behind the wheel of a 'blockbuster' movie.

To my mind, even his early exploiters demonstrated that he's one of the most imaginative and innovative film makers out there. He makes truly unique movies, has a great talent for putting money on the screen, and Heavenly Creatures went further to show Mr Jackson to be a very intelligent dramatist.

I haven't read Lord of the Rings. To be honest, I don't have much interest in Tolkein.

But this film was exactly what I've been waiting for this last decade. A Peter Jackson 'blockbuster'. What would happen? Would the money men take control of the project and leave it neutered? Would he get lost under this huge budget and not know what to do with it? Or would we end up with the diamond I'd hoped for?

I came out of the cinema gobsmacked.

Every tiny detail of Lord Of The Rings screams "THIS IS A PETER JACKSON MOVIE"

The visuals were stunning. The drama was good but not so thickly spread as to interfere with the overall pacing. We know all we need to know about the characters - enough to make us care - but Jackson never lets the movie slip into sentimentality, and for that we can all be thankful!

I had high expectations for Jackson's domination of mainstream cinema (something I really never believed would happen) and the result has far exceeded my expectations.

Great stuff!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
So what if it's a popcorn movie?
2 September 2001
Surprise, kiddies, this comment features NO SPOILERS!

All I can say about Charlie's Angels is that it's the best popcorn movie I've seen in years. Its comedy is cheesy to the extreme, and its action sequences are fabulous. Casting of the title roles is perfect, and the design work is stunning.

If you feel guilty for watching movies purely for entertainment value, I'd recommend hiring "A Man Called Hero" or "Storm Riders".

If, on the other hand, you agree that bubblegum has its place in any balanced diet, switch off and enjoy Charlie's Angels. It's fab.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bagpuss (1974)
Is there still magic in kids' TV?
30 August 2001
Bagpuss - as with all Smallfilms productions - has aged beautifully, retaining all the charm and magic it had three decades ago. There were only 13 episodes, but it still stands out as a true classic of children's entertainment in the UK.

Bagpuss, The Clangers, Noggin The Nog and Ivor The Engine worked because of an immense investment of imagination from creators Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin. Their work was truly magical - a blessing that today's TV seems to lack.

In 30 years time, will any of today's kids' shows be remembered as fondly?
23 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bone (1972)
10/10
Oh you would like that, wouldn't you?
19 August 2001
An superb and breathtaking movie - purely character driven, unpredictable and mesmerising. Fabulous performances all round, an intriguing script, some good satire and excellent pacing throughout.

I'd recommend seeing it without any preconceptions - don't read any plot summaries, and don't be put off by any conclusions you may draw about the movie in the first 15 minutes...

This is an absolute gem!
26 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Traffic (2000)
1/10
E's nekked!
12 August 2001
I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only one to notice that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. Traffic was a catalogue of self-indulgence and affectation, with cardboard off-the-shelf characters and a plot could have come straight from Ronald Reagan's propaganda machine in the 80's.

Far too many plot and character opportunities were wasted - particularly with regard to Michael Douglas's home life. Here, the movie chooses a 'safe', familiar, and ultimately insulting and naive route of depicting a brilliant young girl turned bad as a result of evil nasty DRUGS!

It reminded me of Kroger Babb's "public information" exploitation movies in the post-Hayes Code Carny days. Check out "Reefer Madness" or "She Shoulda Said No" - no less complex in its commentary than Traffic, methinks. But we have no problem identifying these works as the crap that they are. Perhaps if Kroger Babb had kept is camera handheld, shot half the movie in Spanish, and given the finished print an over-exposed sepia wash...

The idea of constructing a narrative from unrelated plot threads is intriguing but hardly new (I actually liked "Honky Tonk Freeway"). However, none of Traffic's plotlines go anywhere, hold my interest or make any attempt to parallel one another.

In short, I found Traffic naive and preachy with nothing to recommend it. This is, however, one of those rare movies that manages to be insulting in its badness.
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed