Change Your Image
mockeldritch
Reviews
Hollow (2011)
Scary enough. Found footage fans may enjoy this.
I won't pretend this film doesn't have its problems. The acting isn't amazing and I really didn't think it was paced very well. But it really did scare me, which is essentially what I wanted from it. I can see how the focus on the relationships which occupies most of the film might detract from this for some, but it has its moments even early on.
I am a big FF horror fan, gradually watching my way through all I can find. This one is in the upper third of the list for me so far. Fellow fans of the genre, I would definitely recommend giving it a chance.
Oh and by the way I'm writing this mostly because of the huge swathe of terrible reviews of the film I've just seen, which claim the only reason it's rated as it is (6.5 currently) is owing to fake reviews. I disagree, I actually think 6.5 is pretty accurate based on other movies I've seen. You may apply the "how many other films has this person reviewed" test if you wish, you'll find I haven't reviewed any others (I think. Maybe one). And yet here we are.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
No
Graphic Novel: strong female leader. Film: Sean Connery
Graphic Novel: washed-up, opium-addicted Allan Quartermain. Film: Sean Connery
Graphic Novel: wry, astute observations on 19th century stereotypes & literary conventions. Film: lots of explosions
Graphic Novel: "Shadow boxing, Bond. We're all just shadowboxing". Film: good triumphs over evil.
Graphic Novel: very much a British Empire sort of affair. Film: Hooray for the good 'ol USA! Thanks for saving us all, Tom Sawyer.
Hollywood has been guilty of some terrible things when it comes to making things viewer- friendly (vide Animal Farm) but this is something else. There was a golden opportunity to subvert the usual stereotypes but it was missed. It's horrible to see something with such intelligence and humour reduced to this.
The Aristocrats (2005)
A 30 min TV documentary released as a 90 min film
This film should never have been given a theatrical release. It shouldn't even have been a film. It looks to me like the product of a drunken 5 a.m. conversation that seemed like a good idea at the time.
I have two problems with this film:
1) The idea 2) The execution
The idea itself is reasonable for a short TV documentary. I'd even be prepared to allow 60 minutes' worth. But it is not an idea for a movie. Hence what would have been a reasonably interesting programme to watch in the background with some friends becomes a dull, tedious experience sat in the isolation of a cinema.
The execution magnifies this folly a thousandfold, however. It is the very epitome of irritating modern directorial practices. In order to brighten up this dull patchwork of obscenity, name-dropping and tedious exposition of the starkly obvious the filmmakers decided to add fast cuts in the middle of sentences with the interviewees turning to camera newsreader-style with jarring regularity.
To me, this served mostly to highlight the banality of the imaginations of most of the participants. We are told that there is a tradition of performers attempting to outdo one another with fresh obscenity, yet most of the contributions vary only in the number of times particular swearwords are used.
A few notable exceptions provide moments of biting hilarity, as well as some amusing twists on the basic structure of the joke. However these were not sufficiently regular to prevent me from seriously considering walking out on more than one occasion.
The result is that the idea wears very thin within the first fifteen minutes and most of the material will only amuse if your sense of humour is stuck in the pre-teen stage of finding the mention of rude words the cause for hysterical amusement.
Out of My Head (1995)
More objective than most...
...But still not entirely honest.
Interesting if you're a fan of Rik Mayall, this is an educational film aimed (I assume) at sixth-form or later drug education classes.
It covers all the main drugs of abuse (except, predictably, alcohol and tobacco) with a combination of amusing character acting from Rik, strange and sometimes rather funny portrayals of particular moods, trendy mid-90's music (with videos and bizarre psychedelic backgrounds) and vox-pop style interviews with people describing personal experiences with the use of (mostly illegal) drugs.
On the whole it's a fairly reasonable and accessible portrayal of the personal issues and consequences of drug use, legal consequences and health risks, suitable (despite its UK '18' certificate) for late teenagers who may be more receptive to its style and lack of overtly judgemental messages.
In some places the treatment is not entirely unbiased however, with the relative risks of different drugs being somewhat shifted in favour of a "all drugs have a good and a bad side" message.
Also, issues such as the purity or otherwise of the drugs are conflated with the actual basic issues surrounding the drugs themselves in such a way as to make it unclear which is the greater risk. For example, the principal danger of heroin abuse (addiction) is given little more treatment than the question of whether it's cut with brick dust. Although the issue of purity is very important with the more easily cut drugs and is responsible for many of the health risks these are not intrinsic to the drug itself and this should be clearly understood. If heroin (e.g.) were not addictive then the dangers of its being cut would be far less important; this also bears on the method of administration, since the consequences of injecting many of the pollutants commonly found in such preparations are significantly worse than the consequences of smoking or swallowing them.
Also the vox pops are (occasionally) of dubious authenticity. Several people claim to have severely abused almost every drug covered, which although possible is extremely unusual as most drug users tend to follow fairly rigid patterns of polydrug use. It is an interesting question whether at least one of the contributors is bragging - in the section on LSD her statements on having seen full visual hallucinations are flatly contradicted by the other contributors, who state that such a naive popular conception of the action of hallucinogens is far from the truth. It is interesting to wonder whether the film-makers intended this to be the case, as these comments are juxtaposed with one another.
Depending on how it is viewed this could lead to the audience deciding, with Rik's main character, that none of them are worth the effort. Alternatively they could decide that it is no more risky to chase the dragon or smoke crack than it is to try magic mushrooms.
Although amusing and witty in places the style smacks (ahem) of trying rather too hard to be cool. This may lessen its impact on its target audience.
Saturn 3 (1980)
Sadly underrated
I love this film. It scared me rigid when I was a child and when I saw it again on the BBC last night (about 20 years on) I was almost as scared at the sight of HECTOR.
To me this film has a great deal going for it: the overall atmosphere and silence emphasise the claustrophobia of the situation beautifully.
The play on how much HECTOR learns from Benson, the possibility or otherwise of total self-control and the commentary on how man's creations cannot actually transcend some of his most basic limitations are interesting aspects of the film.
The alien quality of the robot as he shows independence from the control Benson tries to exert on him is also quite eerie: the typed conversation in which HECTOR accuses Benson of murder is really scary.
All-in-all it's an odd film with many flaws but on the whole it does a few things very well indeed.