Reviews

This film appears to use professional camera equipment, but that's where the similarities to a real movie end. I picked this up at the video store because the cover showed a post apocalyptic background and described itself as such. You expect Mad Max even if it's just a poor low budget version. The reality when you watch it is that it is a bunch of guys in camouflage fatigues running around in the woods. The plot is goofy and overly moral-agenda ridden, the dialogue consists of things nobody would say, and the actors' experience couldn't consist of more than a few commercials or a late night soft-core porn. This movie would remind me of a soft-core porn (in which the plot is superfluous) except that is cleans up everything but the implied violence, which the camera mostly cuts away.

How do I define fluff? To me it is a show that isn't funny enough to make me laugh, yet the characters are too shallow and stereotypical to make me want to take it seriously.

Hotel Babylon tries to poke fun at the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" but to me ends up cranking out more of the same politically correct caricatures that that are rampant in Hollywood-style sitcoms.

Perhaps this is what Seinfeld would have been like if it was void of humor and had a hidden agenda of bluntly preaching overly cliché morals in each episode.

I'm also noticing a trend that all British series today seem obsessed with the idea that no day ever goes by without some man committing a major sexual offense, and that it is the duty of a TV show to constantly remind people about it in every episode as a kind of public service announcement, even if the show is supposed to be a comedy.

I'd like to offer a shiny review of this film, however this one seemed to me more eye candy than substance. There are many points were you'd expect some substantiation to the sound bites you hear from protagonists, bystanders, corporate leaders, or politicians. Instead you get taken off to more imagery or repetition of the same idea (Max Headroom style). You'd think a picture would be worth a thousand words, but in this case I don't think I learned anything remotely new, and the film isn't likely to win any converts.

Perhaps the sound bite format is intentional. Who knows? A film is supposed to be an artist's venue for expression so why try to hamper your own message using this stifling technique. You have a whole film to say something so why waste it? In a very basic sense you might walk away with a general feeling of "consumerism bad...primitivism good" (or one of the two) but then again the proponent of this idea is made to look like a bit of a moron and often the counter arguments seem stronger than those that the movie title suggest. In short the arguments this film makes which support the title theme could be torn to shreds in a second in their current format.

I can remember back in the late 80's attending a sci-fi convention with several of my high school buddies during which time they were showing off the "New Doctor Who", Sylvester McCoy. Halfway through people were walking out and making dismissive comments. When McCoy stated the phrase, "there's something we need..." my friend blurted out, "YOU NEED TOM BAKER".

After another letdown in the form of the Paul McGann mini-series (though I thought he was a decent Doctor) I waited with anticipation at the next lame attempt at appeasing the fans of Doctor Who. I really did want this installment to be good. I'm not trying to bash it, but really....

...this is a joke. I felt as if I was watching a bunch of film school students from the local Doctor Who fan club messing around with a cam corder.

The era of Tom Baker and other incarnations, though low budget, was an era of imagination and drama. While some criticized it for being slow and long winded, those with patience were rewarded with a show that could take its time building the suspense of a complex plot and intelligent, well developed characters.

This new incarnation is of the flavor of Sylvester McCoy: childish plots that end almost as fast as they begin; naive teens that exist only in the imagination of a director that knows nothing about how real teens act; lame attempts at humour that bypass the concept of wit; and an attempt at trendiness that's way too blunt to be real. Even todays "reality TV" shows look nothing like this.

I'm starting to wonder who's paying all these reviewers to write such rave comments. I also wonder if anyone would even notice this show if it wasn't Doctor Who. Would the amateurish quality have even been accepted on a TV network other than public access or distributed on some fan based website?

Noise boasts, among other things, being in the vein of the Roman Polansky film, The Tennant. My advice is see the Tennant, which is one of the more creepy and trippy psychological dramas you will find. Noise, on the other hand, doesn't know what it wants to be. It falls short of trippiness by sticking to a plot that has few delusions. The ridiculous events of the film really do happen. The characters (especially the most annoying Alley Sheedy) are not believable. The irritability of the "neigbor upstairs" is more like the antics of the old woman from the even more pathetic film Duplex. What you get is an attempt at a funny film that isn't funny. It strives to be Duplex which itself was just annoying. Yet the ridiculousness takes away from the lame attempt at being creepy.

This could have been a passable Blair Witch clone if it had taken more of a reality TV approach. Instead the contrived dialogue (sub-porno quality) made this film seem like something thrown together by some first year film students. None of them resembled anyone I remember in the 70's when this film supposedly took place....no one had hair treatments like that back then. I think the film maker and actors have a great future in amateur sex education video....you know - the kind where they try to portray kids that are supposed to be cool, but in reality nobody would ever say things like that.

The plot also flops on originality. It seems to play off the teens get drunk and goof off in a secluded house with maniac on the loose theme....sorry that went out in the 80's.

I initially was content with King Arthur's medieval atmosphere and tone, given that I don't mind grey films, which was one criticism. In this case I didn't care that the violence was PG. The acting was adequate although Ray Winstone (Bors) reminded me more of a British Soccer Hooligan.

The film eventually dragged for me and strained my credibility on a number of points. Firstly, I just couldn't see Arthur and his seven or so "knights" single handedly being asked to traipse around the British landscape like some bad gun-slinger/Conan movie (I identified more with Arnold in Conan by the way). Secondly, it made no sense that Arthur kept referring to his cronies as "my knights" since he never actually became king until the end of the movie. Who knighted them and how can an indentured soldier of the Roman Empire have the status of knight? Even a squire has higher status than a slave-soldier. How pretentious can you get?

In the end the movie dragged and I didn't feel the sense of connection Arthur had for his people. It seemed as if he hardly knew them, but was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The Excalibur explanation also seemed weak and devoid of the meaning that the legend gave it. It seemed almost pointless to include it. I also expected more of Merlin, who really didn't say much or earn his "sorcerer" title. It's unclear, other than Merlin's influence, why the Britons even bothered to make him king. I guess it's possible that he organized the final battle, but you didn't see that in the movie. The only ones he seemed to be motivating were his own buddies, the handful of knights, who for some reason were the only ones who had horses.

In short this film needed more depth and more of a connection between the myth and fact. Instead the screen writer just used the ambiguity of history to make up his own film based on a smattering of general historical facts.

Let us explore the premise of Nomads where archeologist explores Inuit myth of nomad spirits only to find them clad in leather with a lot of hair moose and driving in a van. We take an interesting premise for a psychological thriller, add some fun 80s riffs from Ted Nugent, and hope for the best. I don't see how people can take this seriously. There are plenty of ways to present evil spirits in a terrifying way. Having your house trashed by members of the band Krokus probably isn't one of them. Did I mention that this film features nomads whose hair just looks too good for people who supposedly live on the street? It must be part of the supernatural dimension of this film...how their hair looks so good I mean.

The idea behind this film was indeed to show the cross-cultural similarities between the myths of any indigenous desert people whether in Africa, the frozen north, or from the imagination of the director of the latest rock video by Krokus. This could be called a historical masterpiece depicting an 80s subculture that probably didn't much exist outside of the minds of high school students and the Hollywood producers that wanted to exploit them. Instead of causing some real damage in a political or sociological sense teens got to watch their favorite musicians pretend to do it for them on TV. Gangs with too much hairspray terrorizing our streets. Who knew?

There are two levels that mark my disapproval of the Passion. The first being that I didn't think it was a very good film and the second being personal dislike of some of the implications of the film including the anti-Semitic elements.

On the first note I saw a strong lack of character development, development of the events leading up to the execution, and an overall simplistic view on human motivations. The result for me was that I felt no attachment or connection to major characters including Jesus. Others who saw this film may have overlooked this because they already know the story and have a personal connection to it. They will tend to fill in some details with their own personal feelings. The tragedy of this is that it's the same good guy / bad guy sentiment that leads to many conflicts in the world. We don't know a lot about the "Enemy" so we speculate and fill in the details about who we think they are rather than actually listening to them. We merely think the devil made them do it or that they are "of their father the devil".

On the second level we have the issues of glorifying masochism over positive action and the issue of the Jewish caricature that has been burned so deeply into some people's brains that they don't even see it for what it is - a ruthless stereotype.

Some see the intention of the Passion as the insanity of a raging mob against a man that just wants peace. Some see the traditional "Jesus suffered for us" scenario. The problem is that the lighting of the film was so grey that I didn't see much hope. The violence didn't shock me because I've seen it all before in movies. The brief smattering of Jesus quotes seemed a bit weak in light of what was happening. The end result for me was just plain masochism, a man who gains pride because he endures pain. In effect it was about pain and watching a guy get beaten up only to return as a Zombie complete with overdone special effects.

Most people, as I said, who see this film will not even notice any anti-Semitism. The film, however shows mainly Jews being the real motivating power behind the evil decisions. Yes the soldiers have their fun, but Pilot and Herod really aren't shown to be the one's responsible in this film. Jews in this film symbolize people who are "of their father the devil" because they heard the messiah but didn't listen.

History and the New Testament itself have often used the archetypal Jew as an example of what not to be. There are still people today who think that behind every evil in politics there is a Jewish conspiracy that influenced it. The movie seems to play up this kind of caricature. I can think of many political cartoons of the middle ages and Nazi Germany that show Jews in a similar light, which is to say full of pomp, riding on a high horse, and virtually in bed with the political authorities.

Most historians will dispute the accuracy of this image even for the historical timeframe of this film. Jews were not in bed with Pontius Pilot. The Jewish dismissal of the gospel preaching and the teachings of Jesus were not simply a mindless raging mob led by the devil. The Talmud and other documents show a much more elaborate debate on key issues. Showing the verdict of a trial and subsequent execution while implying a conspiracy isn't fair without showing the context that led to the brief snapshot.

In short if the public were real Christians they would have done better to spend their money on the poor than to give 300 million dollars to the Mel Gibson fund. Think of it. They could have given $100,000 to 3000 of the poorest people in America, making them conservatively set for life. In the third world you could save entire countries from starvation. Instead they added to another rich man's purse. Think about it.

I'm going to recommend this film only for fans of the original series or 70's nostalgia enthusiasts. The rest probably won't get much out of this. The comic value or plot alone won't float it.

The good news is that few films I've seen really capture the feeling of a 70's film the way this does. Case in point: that 70's show - a show about the 70's with kids that look and act like they're living in the conservative 21st century. Clothes alone and a bit of weed don't do it for that show. Stiller as Starsky, on the other hand, is almost a dead ringer for his counterpart from the original series. This is a show with REAL cars, REAL women (in other words kinda fake...but damn good to look at), and some undefined quality known as attitude.

The real kicker is that the film often hits the mark so well that it can be a bit slow and boring. We've seen the plot many times before. Two unlikely cop partners with an irate chief who yells a lot at their unorthodox practices. Stiller plays Starsky as such a straight man (probably close to the original) so that he feels a bit constrained in the role. Most of us are probably expecting more of Ben's comic expressiveness as per Zoolander or Along Came Polly. Perhaps this shows some of his flexibility as an actor that he can look a part. Still, it would have been fun to see a bit more funkiness and extreme situations, especially on his part. A 70's film can't float on big fro's alone.

In general the film's pace and characters are very authentic, though this tends to make the film drag. The few gags did give me a chuckle, but there weren't that many of them, and the overall feeling was very dry. To put it another way, this isn't like the Austin Powers films that ridicule the 60's/70's. Aside from the few gags this film mostly is the 70's.

I didn't expect much from this having laughed at the trailer. Having seen it I can't say that Hulk succeeds on any level, though possibly the split screen (comic book) camera angles are an effective feature to have on this comic ripoff. Nothing need be said about the acting...it was awful.

The public generally hated the special effects, and for once they are correct. As computer animation goes, this is by far the least convincing of this century. The realism was so absent that they might as well have just painted in the big green guy. He didn't match with the scenery and the physics governing his movements didn't resemble the way any object (living or otherwise) might move on Earth. The closest depiction I can compare the Hulk to is that of a bouncing rubber baby/frog on the moon. Somehow I was more convinced by the original King Kong and virtually any claymation figure you may care to name.

The screenplay was far too unfocused to hold any tension. The characters motives were far too one dimensional hold any interest. In general the 70's TV show was better in spite of Lou Ferrigno's comical grunting and flexing...at least he looked like a real creature. What I liked about the TV show was that the main focus wasn't just about a monster that breaks things...though that's how it usually ended (thanks Lou). The main focus was on the issues surrounding David Banner (very well acted by Bill Bixby). It was a good exploration of the nature of human emotions and in a way it could be compared to the secluded lives of people who for whatever reason fall through the cracks or have a side of themselves that they can't show. I didn't really get any of that from the movie, which seemed to be all over the place. I felt the same way about the new Planet of the Apes, though that was at least somewhat watchable.

I agree that this last in the series was an improvement over the others, though still a bit slow moving. I bought the DVD mainly because it had Tom Baker in it. He seems a bit uncomfortable in the role at first, but gradually sinks into it. The trouble is that Baker's version of "the Doctor" in Doctor Who was so upbeat that when attempting to play the glum Puddleglum, I actually caught him suppressing the big toothy smile that he is famous for. His frog-like frown worked very well, though it took him a while to integrate the glumness naturally into his speaking performance. There are actually two others that I think could play that role quite nicely. One is Ozzy Osbourne. The other is Joey Ramone of the Ramones(though he passed away a while back).

I would also like to comment on one other note that others have ignored so far. While C.S. Lewis intended the books to have a Christian message, he at least had the decency to be subtler in execution so that more general audiences could enjoy the books. The BCC films, on the other hand are as subtle as a New Testament smacked across your forehead.

Just out of curiosity I checked the original ending of Silver Chair against the film, and I was correct in my guess that the screenwriter had changed it. The book does NOT include Aslan's ending line from the film where he says that he also exists in the human world, but that the kids MUST learn his "other name."

There wasn't a moment in the series where the screenwriter didn't go out of his way to remind adult viewers that this is about Jesus, and not magic as would be the case with a movie like Harry Potter or Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The nice thing about Lord of the Rings is that I could just sit back and enjoy it as a story without feeling preached at. Sometimes the Narnia books did that, but the BBC films boiled too much of it down to the preaching.

Ever had the experience of walking into a video store and seeing a box that looks interesting, so you take a risk? You get home, start watching it, only to find yourself being sermonized by some low-budget evangelical propaganda film that is nothing like what the cover suggests. There have been a lot of films coming out like this lately, so I took the liberty of checking out the company that made it to see if it was a coincidence.

The company is called Two Left Shoes Films, which turns out to be a trademark of D.E.J. Productions. D.E.J. productions is a subsidiary of Blockbuster Video and is owned by its parent company Viacom. Its function it to snap up very low-budget films of 1-3 million dollars and market them by contract to, not only Blockbuster, but loads of big chain video stores. Each store dedicates a certain amount of shelf-space to these crummy films using box art and marketing to make them look like normal films. They make a killing at viewer's expense.

Herzog's films are not for everyone, but everyone should be in awe of what went into these films. Gone are the days when a director could come into a project with a few hundred grand, shoot on location with a cast of thousands, and achieve something that is so authentic, yet still maintaining such beautiful film quality. This is no Blair Witch Project. The cameras don't wobble to the point of nausea.

Cobra Verde is not a politically correct film, the dialogue and plot, as usual, are bit quirky. It's a German film, and I've come to expect a bit of quirkiness from German films. This doesn't stop me from appreciating Klaus Kinsky's performance and the authentic performances of the supporting cast. Klaus for me is the William Shatner of German Cinematography. Take that whatever way you will... he's the man.

What I get most from these films is a sense of the grandeur and presence of nature. No one has ever captured the haunting feel of such locations. I keep shaking my head in awe. Where does he find these places? If I were a tourist I wish I had this knack for finding places that so well exemplify the wonders of mother earth. Real or historically accurate? Who cares!!! These are beautiful films.