Change Your Image
DOREENCROMPTON
Reviews
Ring of the Nibelungs (2004)
Not a bad effort....
I went to this movie with zero expectations. Every review had lambasted it as an awful effort. Well, the critics are just plain wrong. Alright, it's not exactly the towering greatness that the LOTR films have achieved, and some of its shots may be derivative of LOTR, but this is no turkey. The story of course, is based on the ancient Germanic 'Ring Cycle' legend, which J.R.R. Tolkien ( along with other ancient sagas like the 'Edda', the 'Kalevala' and 'Beowulf' ) derived inspiration. The film may not live up to its source material, but its certainly a more interesting effort than the woeful 'King Arthur' recently released.
Some Slight SPOILERS ( If you don't know the legend )
Our hero Siegfried ( Benno Furmann ), is a prince lost as a boy, living with a blacksmith who found him after a great battle. Raising him as his son, the blacksmith ( an interesting turn from Max von Sydow ) teaches him the crafts of smithy. And when he meets the Queen of Iceland ( Kristianna Loken ) at the site of a meteor crater, the pair fall in love and vow to meet again. On the tale goes, with Siegfried slaying a dragon, capturing his horde of gold, and meeting the king, Gunther ( Samuel West ), and his beautiful sister Kriemhild ( Alicia Witt ). West is excellent as always here. He knows this kind of stuff in his sleep, being a veteran of Fantasy as a genre: playing Prince Caspian in the Chronicles of Narnia BBC TV series ( 1989 ) all those years ago.
Worth a mention are the many and varied visual effects in the picture. The Dragon especially is an amazing creation. Perhaps not of the standard of the more celebrated effects houses, like ILM, Weta Digital, Digital Domain, Sony Imageworks, et all. But certainly an interesting concept and design. Though obviously not on the scale or scope of the films its attempting to copy, this is no 'Hallmark' production, having the look and feel at times of a film three times its low, 30 million dollar budget. Perhaps the only real problem is the disappointing performances of the two leads, Furmann and Loken. Lokens' accent can be questionable, and Furmann struggles to rise to the levels of Von Sydow and West. And despite the lengthy-ness ( some would say over-length ) of the film, characters like Icelandic Queens' rune-seer, and the Ghosts of the Nibelung feel like token additions, with no character work done here.
All in all, this film is far from perfect, and has aspects that disappoint, but, it IS a worthwhile attempt to visualize one of the most important works to the whole fairytale/fantasy genre. It isn't flippant, or played for laughs ( like the woeful 'Dungeons and Dragons', 1999 ); it attempts to present a legend come to life. And in comparison to some other recent stabs at this, it ain't half bad.
King Arthur (2004)
The Knights of the Yawn Table...
The first thing that strikes you about this 'realistic' attempt at the legendary Arthurian tales is how haphazard it is. No structure, poor introduction of characters and slipshod editing rule the roost here. Second is how uninspiring and dull this, one the most famous of all legends, is presented. When compared to true epic films like 'Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King', 'Gladiator', or even the much maligned recent effort of 'Troy', this dreary 'adventure' falls flat. There is little feel for the proto-medieval, ( for want of a better word ) 'magic' and the Arthurian mysticism and wonder. Merlin is simply a decrepid tramp who lives in the woods with his 'Woads'. Where is the Sword in the Stone? The Lady of the Lake? Or any relation to the known legends? Sadly they are missing....
A brief mention of the acting. Clive Owen makes an unconvincing stab at Arthur, portraying him in a rather two-dimensional fashion. Ioan Gruffudd is given nothing, but is still much more interesting ( those who have seen the TV series 'Hornblower' will know what he can do given a proper script ) than Owen. Keria Knightley is again two-dimensional and has little dialouge of note. The villian is even less well developed, just a 'bad guy', with a curious accent, and even more curious hair. The tin-hat is put on though by an atrocious Ray Winstone, who spends most of the movie talking about the length of his organ, or taking a leak with said organ.
All in all if this movie had changed the name of the characters, and removed the briefly glimpsed 'Round Table' at the beginning, it could have been any generic, innacurate period piece - which is not what the Arthurian legends are all about. Very average. *1/2 out of *****
Bertha (1985)
"Oh Bertha, lovely Bertha"
Who can forget this 'claymation' TV show, with it's catchy theme tune? Everyone, it looks like. Bertha, the machine that can make anything....the little robot that moved up and down with a bizarre flatulent-esque sound....the charming ambience of a factory machine that could make anything? Somebody must remember this! I sure do. Shame on you people that haven't posted here. This was a mini-classic of the eighties and early nineties, with an animation style similar to its successor, the inferior Charlie Chalk. It's time this got a little recognition: it certainly stuck in my mind as an impressionable youngster...
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Left me feeling underwhelmed....
( SOME SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW )
Don't believe the undue hype surrounding this movie.
"Why? It has many good aspects", you may say. "Tarantino, Yuen Wo Ping choreography, Uma..."
Well, it may have these aspects, and the fight choreography is excellent, but a film does actually require things like 'plot', 'character', and 'script'. This movie is sadly lacking in all three. Yes, there may be a whole heap of 'cool' references, OTT fight action and extreme violence, but without a grounding; a film without a framework.
Does anybody care about this 'Bride' character? Not really. After all, we all know there is a follow-up movie.
"Ah," You again may say, "willing suspension of disbelief is required". But how can you 'believe' in a film, which makes no attempt to justify it's own 'reality'? In the 'Matrix' films for example, the characters were capable of such incredible kung-fu, because they had disconnected from the artificial 'real' world we live in, and were able to 'bend' reality.
Can Uma Thurman do this? Apparently she is able to defeat forty men, perform impossible acrobatics and be virtually indestructable. How? You tell me.
Tarantinos' obsession with base topics ( Rape, Murder, contract killings...even peodophillia in the 'Anime' section of the movie ), are also on show. There is just no contrast in this film. No light and dark. SPOILER*** When Uma kills one of her rivals in front of her young daughter, there seems to be little reaction: a total lack of humanity pervades the movie....
"Comic Book stylings" would be your exasperated reply. Yet even comic-book tales have pathos and emotion. Superman doesn't cold-bloodedly kill Lex Luthor, then rape Lois Lane, does he?!
Sure Tarantino is talented at what he does; all his directorial flair conjures up great camera angles and clever editing. But 'Kill Bill' as a great movie? I don't think so....
Krull (1983)
Good for the Era...
Back in the olden days, before CGI, before computer editing even, making a Fantasy film was just about the most difficult movie to accomplish. 'Krull', directed by Peter Yates, dates from 1983; and yet, is still quite visually impressive even today. Certainly the massive sets ( constructed in the huge '007' stage at Pinewood ) are one of the highlights.
The basic plot is quite generic, involving the usual 'rescue the Princess' concept of the traditional fairy-story. Many elements are 'borrowed' from famous works like 'Lord of the Rings' ( the idea of a 'black fortress', the design of the 'slayers' ), and films like 'Star Wars' ( the laser battles ). What is most surprising is the quality of the cast. Such luminaries as Robbie Coltrane, and Liam Neeson ( then unknowns ) are involved, as well as many famous English character actors. It's very much an ensamble piece, with surprisingly good characterization ( a conscious effort by the director ), and pathos.
The DVD is a must-have, featuring an extensive commentary by cast, director and editor, as well as a slightly bizarre 'commentary' track of an extensive article in 'Cinefantasique' magazine, from 1982.
In comparison to today's films in and around the genre, the movie can seem quite pedestrian. Certainly it's not in the same league as Peter Jacksons' classic 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, the book of course being an influence on this film ( see if you can spot the similarities in the 'spider' sequence to the ROTK 'Shelob' scenes! ). Nor can it match the other fantasy blockbusters of today, like the new Star Wars or Matrix trilogies, with it's visual flair. It does have a certain charm about it though, and is a worthy addition to anyones' DVD collection.
Not at all bad for it's day....
Ghost Ship (2002)
Very Average film.
'Ghost Ship', a product of the same production team responsible for '13Ghosts' now bring you a film which for all its effort, remains mediocre. While the very grewsome and chilling opening sequence gives hope, this is essentially a cliche 'group in a Haunted House' tale, except on an ocean liner.
*SPOILERS* Gabriel Byrne sails (sorry) through this as a 2-D character, and his was probably the most noteworthy performance. The total lack of proper characterization or back story, leads to a general apathy from the viewer. In no way is this 'The Shining', meets 'The Haunting', meets 'House on Haunted Hill' remotely scary; just excessively violent at times. Karl Urban ( 'Eomer' in 'Lord of the Rings' ) tries manfully to escape the confines of his stereotypical character, but can't save it. The rest of the cast are completely forgettable stock characters, except maybe the 'ghost girl'. The effects are quite good, but the thrash-metal soundtrack removes any chance of atmosphere and is completly inappropriate. It's hard to believe Joel Silver ( a producer in the 'Matrix' trilogy and 'Die Hard', amongst others ) and Robert Zemicks were involved in this. From the viewing of the movie, it seems to be minimal involvement.....
Drive (1997)
Best Buy!!
I bought this movie on DVD, without knowing a thing about it: basically I thought it would be a cheap, straight to video rip - off of the Matrix, something that you could have fun with. How wrong I was. This, alongside the Matrix is one of the best western produced Kung-fu films ever. While it lacks the story and effects of the likes of 'Matrix', 'Matrix: Reloaded' and the budget of 'Rush Hour', the fight scenes are excellent. Aside from the occasional visible wire ( if only they had had the budget to remove them digitally! ), this is the best chop-socky i've seen in a long while. The apartment fight and the opening battle are standouts, as well as the motorcycle Kung-fu scenes. Considering the paltry budget, this is remarkable. The actors are all effective and bring to life their occasionally cliche roles and the story, whilst slight, is a worthy framework for the action. Not bad.
***1/2 out of ***** ( five )
P.S. The Director's Cut DVD is a must have. Deleted scenes, Audio commentary, documentaries, interviews and biography notes and more all for £5.99 in the UK!
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
You have to be braindead to enjoy it.
How can anyone find this entertaining? NO plot, NO pathos, NO acting, NO story, NO intelligence, NO cohesion between scenes, and dodgy effects. Words fail me in describing how bad this 'movie' is. 2Fast 2Furious was an average film, but compared to this it's a classic! At least that had a semblence of story and characterisation. This has nothing at all going for it,( except John Cleeses' running gag ) and as for the 'spoof' Matrix and Matrix Reloaded, Terminator and James Bond rip-offs: absolutley dire. The 'plot' (*Possible SPOILERS**), about a powerful ring that could fall into the wrong hands ( now where have I heard that before? ), is wafer thin. The celebrity cameos are tedious and unnessescary, and even Matt LeBlanc looks embarassed to be there, if you can believe THAT!
Avoid this film like the Black Death, unless you enjoy lessons in pain ( oh, I've just been reminded about that Robbie Williams lookalike: the worst Irish accent ever heard - but that's in keeping with this film ).
Dire. * out of *****(5).
The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982)
This Is Dire
The 'Sword and the Sorcerer' is possibly the worst sub-Conan pile of dirge I've ever witnessed. Cheap sets and woeful acting hamper the movie from the outset, while admittedly the cinematography is sometimes effective, the narrative arc is strained, and due to the shoddy editing, sometimes makes no sense whatsoever. The tone is completely wrong, varying wildly from supernatural horror to smutty sexual innuendo to heroic fantasy in the space of a few minutes. Characters are one-dimensional at best, and provoke apathy in this cliched tale. One to avoid. P.S. The DVD is a very poor quality transfer, with virtually no extras. If you insist on purchasing this, I would suggest the VHS tape, probably from some garage sale bargain bin if you can find it!
2 out of 5.
The Core (2003)
Pretty Accurate
'The Core' is actually pretty scientifically accurate. The materials exist to easily withstand the temperatures and pressures ( in nuclear fission reactors etc ), and ultrasonic drilling is certainly possible. *Possible slight Spoilers* I had to laugh at the reviewer talking about a nuclear explosion having 'little or no' impact in the earth's core. How do you know? Underground nuclear explosions can cause massive impact, as witnessed when underground nuclear testing was carried out by the Pakistani government a few years ago ( literally making a mountain range 'shake' ). The testing was also allegedly responsible for the earthquakes in Afganistan at the same time ( around 8 on the Riecter scale ). So, scientifically at least, the film stands up. On the 'entertainment' scale, i'd rate this a solid 7. It's no masterpiece for sure, but a lot better than I had expected, with solid acting, and exciting scenes. It could have benefited by being, say, fifteen minutes longer, but all in all entertaining fare.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Truly Appalling!
Battlefield Earth looks like a movie. It feels like a movie. In fact, it almost fooled me into thinking it WAS a movie. Scratch the surface however, and what your left with is a series of poorly acted scenes, effects shots of varying quality, and some of the most banal dire-logue ever committed to film. Several other reviewers have drawn comparisons with 'Plan 9', but this is worse. *Spoilers* The plot, such as it is, revolves around a cliched hero in the year 3000, fighting against the rulers of a ruined Earth. These hilarious 'aliens', who look more like some kind of mutated Klingons, are nine foot tall: achieved by simply putting the actors in big boots with stilts inside ( move over 'Lord of the Rings' and all that scale double/blue-screen/false perspective work, just put the actors on stilts! ). Some of the acting is so OTT, especially by the dread-locked Travolta, head of security for these vertically endowed freaks, that it beggars belief. Only 'Dungeons and Dragons' rivals this for sheer lameness. See this movie if you only expect an unintentional comedy. If your after sci-fi metaphor for how humans treat their lesser brethren, try 'Planet of the Apes' ( whom this film rips off, as well as 'The Matrix' and 'Star Wars' in some scenes ), not this stinker.