Change Your Image
Delta Matt
Reviews
Hellraiser: Prophecy (2006)
It's a fan-film, remember.
It might be with some shock that people see the 7 out of 10 rating that I've given this film; after all, I've given far smaller scores for films that were better acted, filmed, edited and directed than "Hellraiser: Prophecy", to say nothing of special makeup effects.
However, a quick look on the official web-site and the "trivia" section here will inform the hardcore horror fans which "Hellraiser: Prophecy" is aimed at that the entire cast and crew of this film was made up of people who have little or no experience of film-making whatsoever. "Hellraiser: Prophecy" is something that the medical students involved in making it should be proud of.
I'm sure if one were to watch every fan film on the internet, one would find that "Star Wars" fan films outnumber all the other ones grouped together at a ratio of about 2:1. Indeed, many of them come out looking fine. This should not be surprising: black and brown robes are readily available at most charity shops, and in these days of cheap (or completely free) sfx packages, rotoscoping a lightsaber is a short and easy job. The makers of "Hellraiser: Prophecy" had no such luck.
Are the cenobite costumes and make-up as realistic as those shown in the official Hellraiser films? No. I can distinctly see the area at which "Angelique"'s skull cap ends, and the actress' hair begins. But considering the fact that most people making this type of film would have made do with leather jackets, tomato ketchup and a pack of children's' face-paints all round, these costumes are to be commended for displaying a great deal of care, time and effort, and were no doubt put together on an extremely small budget, unlike their "official" counter-parts.
The acting is not Oscar-worthy to say the least, and I won't patronise any of those involved by suggesting anything silly like taking it up professionally. But it certainly is a long way off being effortless, and quite a long way off being bad. Indeed, it's at about the same level as a number of so-called professional actors whom I've seen doing dramatic workshops in schools. Again, the people involved certainly punch about their weight.
I certainly doubt that both the director and camera crew have had no experience filming whatsoever; at the very least someone must have made some amateur stuff on their mum and dad's video camera. But with a little more training, I would go so far as saying that these people in fact probably could try to do a professional feature film. With some money behind them for a better camera and a good editor, I think that we're seeing budding talent here. The film flows together well, it's framed well, and the editing's pretty good do. As other people have written, there's some segments with quick cuts that do resemble professional horror film quality.
Sound is the only major category that let this film down. There were some sections where lines were not really audible. I'm assuming that on-set dialogue was recorded using the camera-mic, and thus it's no what you'd call sharp. The Angelique character has an effect placed over the dialogue which makes it difficult to understand in some parts - and it might have been wise to find an effect that distorted the clean voice a bit less. Having said that, the sound editor did make good use of the music in their possession.
Let me say again, this film was made by people who had no experience. Indeed, it was made by medical students; one would therefore think that very few people involved have ambitions of going into professional film-making at all. Are they as good as the amateur film-makers and actors that I know who DO want to go into film-making professionally? Probably not. Would any of my amateur film-making friends be any good as a doctor? Definitely not.
At worst, "Hellraiser: Prophecy" is a good try. At best, it is an inspiration. Take your pick.
Hard Candy (2005)
Watch Misery.
This film comes straight from the great independent film tradition which states that all one needs to do in order to craft the framework of a film is to exhibit the most sordid parts of depressing real life you can possibly imagine. Entertainment and storyline are things that all those pointless, big-budget studio films do.
Sarcasm aside, this film was like watching "Misery" with not-quite-as-good actors in it, and a not-quite-as-good script. Someone more pedantic would point out to me the most noticeable difference; in "Hard Candy" the situation is completely reversed. The Annie Wilkes of this film (played by Ellen Page) is supposed to be the heroine of the piece; torturing paedophiles to meet out justice upon them.
Therein lies the problem. The part of the heroine is played in such a way that it is impossible to feel any sentimentality towards her, and therefore it is next to impossible to get behind her cause. Indeed, the similar character of John Doe in the film "Se7en" is a more likable character: and his exploits are far more villainous than those of Hayley.
What little storyline there was was delivered to us via the way of supposed revelations made by our two main characters, and I think that these revelations were supposed to be "twists". The fact that after about twenty minutes I really didn't care about what either were saying meant that these revelations had considerably less impact than I believe the writer had hoped. A teenage girl brandishing a pair of scissors and announcing that she was going to castrate the gentleman tied down in front of her might demand some kind of a reaction in most films; in "Hard Candy", I simply gazed that the timer on my DVD player, gauging how much time it would take for the writer to get around to acting on this threat.
This leads me on to another point: that this film is simply too long for its plot. Ten minutes in we have our premise for the remainder of the film - he's tied down and she's not happy with him. From then on, there are roughly five pivotal moments, and an awful, awful, awful lot of saying the same things over and over again ad infinitum, with the film reaching a predictable conclusion. This was a half an hour/forty-five minute short that got stretched to breaking point because someone wanted to make a feature length film without coming up with a feature length storyline.
And where was the damn music? Some people may think that making an entire film with only about five minutes of music is new and bold, I think it's pretentious and ridiculous. Time and time again have good scores proved that music can be as important within a film as the main characters themselves; indeed, the music should BE a character.
I think it might have been hoped that the controversial basis for the plot would be enough to convince people that the film is worth watching; it does contain an important message. However, the production staff behind "Hard Candy" are not the first to think this and be totally wrong. We in Britain (and across the water in France) have been the Kings of doing this since the early nineties, which is probably why despite some notable successes, our home-grown film-making business has been in a deplorable state for years.
The purpose of a fictional film (be it independent or studio, moralistic or all out fun) is to entertain the audience. "Hard Candy" did not entertain in the least. It was boring, it was pretentious, and it attempted to be high-brow when the creators of the film are quite obviously completely non-creative.
Dick Tracy (1990)
A few minor glitches, but otherwise superb.
At the time of writing, the rating for this film on the IMDb is 5.7 out of 10 stars. How is this possible, for a film that was nominated for 7 Oscars and won 3 - the second highest scoring film in the 1991 Oscars? There seems to have been some kind of curse placed upon "Dick Tracy". Whilst it was financially successful, got several rave reviews and is generally acknowledged as one of the best looking films of all time, its' reputation seems to have decreased through the years. When telling a friend that there was news of a possible sequel, he replied "a sequel to Dick Tracy? Didn't everyone hate that film?" Where it's got this negative reputation from, I don't know. As far as I can see, "Dick Tracy" is a perfectly sound film.
The acting is in all places fine, and in some places brilliant. The most often highlighted performance in "Dick Tracy" comes from (not-surprisingly) Al Pacino in his role as crime boss "Big Boy" Caprice (earning him his 6th Oscar nomination), who is obviously enjoying himself in his first real departure from complete drama. Glenne Headly makes a great addition to the cast is her role as the long-suffering girlfriend Tess Trueheart - and is highly admirable, considering this was her first "blockbuster" role. Whilst both Warren Beatty himself and Madonna in their respective roles might not be worthy of any awards, they certainly do not perform terribly - indeed, Warren Beatty does a good job of bringing a two dimensional cartoon character to life, considering the said character was not really treated to the same broad characterisation in his paper form as Batman, Superman, The X-Men etc. were treated to before films were made about them.
The look of "Dick Tracy" is immense. Lighting, production-design, cinematography, costume design, make-up; all departments were near perfect. It's becoming a bit of a cliché to say that the look of "Sin City" is quite close to "Dick Tracy", yet it is quite true; "Sin City" being heralded as an icon in film imagery. In particular, cinematographer Vitorio Storaro should feel aggrieved that he did not receive more recognition for his work.
The music of "Dick Tracy" is well documented. Indeed, much effort seems to have been put into making sure the music was a success - the hiring of veteran composer Stephen Sondheim to compose the musical numbers, and an undoubtedly good singer to perform them in the form of Madonna. Yet another underrated aspect of the film is Danny Elfman's score - its Gershwinian influences immersing the audience in the 1930s. In particular, the recurring four note theme used to signify the presence of the film's amoral gangster-cum-vigilante "The Blank" is particularly chilling, mysterious and (to a 7 year old child, the age I first was when I saw "Dick Tracy") terrifying.
Perhaps the one area in which the film lacks is the writing. While I feel that the plot is suitably fun and complex, the execution of writing this plot by script-writers Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. is a little laboured at times. The films sub-plot, leading to the film's "surprise twist" at the end has major problems; the two writers seem not to sure about whether they are supposed to be making said twist a surprise or blindingly obvious for the vast majority of the film.
Having said that, I have seen this film countless times and have enjoyed the experience on each occasion. How "Dick Tracy" has secured its' dubious reputation as a film is a mystery to me. I would recommend at least giving it one try.
And for God's sake, let's have more than a token DVD release, please!
Masters of the Universe (1987)
Re-vamping my opinion.
You'll have to excuse my previous comment for this film, but in my defense, I was rather young. Anyway, to the film.
All in all, my opinion of it has improved, possibly down to the fact that I am now aware of the type of budget this film was made on, i.e. $17 million. Now don't get me wrong, I would dearly love to own $17 million, (preferably pounds, but beggars can't be choosers). But for a fantasy film of the Masters of the Universe ilk, this budget falls sadly short, and (in my opinion) is the main reason why this film has been so slated by fans and critics alike (regardless of when the TV series' popularity high point was).
Now, I own a copy of a fairly early draft of this script, and as one would expect, there are some rather large differences. This script would call for several large, expensive sets (Eternian at that, therefore probably more expensive), far more special effects, far more "gimmicked" Eternians (again, some requiring extensive special effect work), and a hike through Eternian rain forests lasting several pages (and presumably requiring expensive location shooting in South America). Obviously, the budget wouldn't stretch to all this, and it had to be hacked down to what we see on our screens today. And believe me, even this script is quite far away from the He-Man cartoon. So if this wasn't feasible, how can we possibly expect a 90 minute live action He-Man film that is DIRECTLY compatible with the TV series to be?
To satisfy most fans, I'm assuming that these changes would have been desirable from the finished product:
Far more of Eternian terrain covered, more of the familiar characters, Prince Adam/He-Man transformation, less time (if not no time at all) spent on Earth, more familiar (and mystical) sets.
Well, I'm sure that these all appeared in earlier drafts. However, on a budget of $17 million, realistically these were not possible, especially before the digital revolution. Think about it - it's only recently been attempted to use a completely CGI character as a main part throughout a film (i.e. Scooby Doo). In a Masters of the Universe film, you'd be talking about Cringer, Battle Cat and Orko, to say nothing of the several more incidental characters which would have to fit in this bracket. In the 80s, just not possible. So, how would I personally have changed this film?
1) I would have made it NOW, rather than then. After all, He-Man is back on our television screens, and fairly popular. Special effects are more advanced and the money would go further, important on a fantasy film such as this.
2) I would have attempted to secure more money. After all, "Ghostbusters" was made on a budget of $31 million, and that required far less special effects than a more Eternian He-Man film would require.
3) Probably wouldn't hurt to have a more experienced actor in the lead role. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (with dyed hair) possibly? After all, he's just about the best action-guy actor out there (assuming I completed point 1).
4) ILM for special effects.
5) And of course, the film would have made slightly more faithful to the cartoon.
However - I'll say one thing right now - Frank Langella as Skeletor would stay!
V.R. Troopers (1994)
If this was supposed to be a sit-com, it would have been a classic.
It boggles the mind when you think of what executive meeting was behind the creation of this one. "Hey, I've got an idea - let's do Power Rangers with a slashed-in-half budget!" That doesn't sound like such a good idea to me - mainly because it ISN'T a good idea.
Here's your premise - two guys and a girl go around fighting a decadent capitalist who moonlights as the evil Virtual Reality Warlord "Grimlord". They also like to take out his entire army in every episode (goons with such incredible names as Fist-bot and General Eye-bar. Obviously they didn't have the imaginative "Transformers" authors when they came up with the names). It's not such a hard task, as a mop and a bar of soap would be more effective at world domination than Grimlord and his minions.
As one might expect from this type of show, the characterization of our three "heroes" is slightly optimistic. I'm currently 20 years old, coming on 21 - which isn't too far off the age of the three VR Troopers in this "TV Gem". I enjoy singing in my band, going to rock clubs, going to the pub, sitting in front of the tele and listening to a bit of music - which is pretty typical, I'd say. Whereas Ryan, Kaitlin and J.B. have full time jobs, and enjoy going to the Dojo and beating up bad guys in order to save the world in their FREE TIME. Right. If someone asked me whether I wanted to become a VR Trooper, the first question would be "How much?" and the second would be "who's covering for me at the week-end?". As the VR troopers a) seem not to get paid at all (despite the fact that their students debts will still be BLOODY high) and b) drop whatever they're doing 24/7 to go off and play with Grimlord, they must be insane.
Of course, you could argue the fact that without them, the world would be in danger. However, you would be ignoring the fact that no matter how many times Grimlord's army shoots at anything, they never hit the target. So we're really in no danger. And for an Evil Warlord, Grimlord's really not that evil. It seems to never have occurred to the guy that as his army is completely incapable of making the slightest dent on the teen-age heroes when in costume, killing them in their sleep would be the easiest option. After all, Grimlord knows exactly who the VR Troopers actually are, in a bizarre plot point. How long do you think Bruce Wayne would have lasted if the Joker knew who he was? Not too long, really.
While all those issues are slightly silly, there are some aspects of the show that are nothing short of annoying. In a few examples:
1) The way the scene of a fight will shift from a rock face to open land to a forest to a lake and back to the bloody rock face again.
2) When in costume, the VR Troopers compensate for the fact that we can't see their lips by nodding their heads around inanely. It looks ridiculous, and if I talked to one of them, I would point and laugh.
3) The dog. It talks. Strange really, as the motion that the dog makes whilst talking looks incredibly like the motion that a normal dog makes when chewing on something. And the words are (of course) completely out of sinc. Also, the dog's favourite insult is blowing a rasberry at someone. This is obviously achieved by filming the dog putting it's tongue out, and playing it in reverse. And they do that on a regular basis. It's not funny, it's annoying.
4) "Forces of darkness, empower me. Take me back to my virtual reality." Every damn episode. Anyone with a basic education in English could tell whoever wrote that that the second line is a few syllables too long. But Hell, "poetic license". Or in this case "complete-absence-of-poetry license".
5) The features of the programme that were SUPPOSED to be amusing were anything but. For instance - that newspaper editor.
HOWEVER - after all this, this show has perhaps the highest recommendation I could possibly give. And why, you ask? It's one of the funniest things I've seen in my life! It goes into the same bracket as "The Final Countdown" by Europe - things that are so bad, they're brilliant! Forget that it's attempting to be serious, and you will enjoy it as much as "Blackadder", "Fawlty Towers", or any great sit-com which you enjoy.
If you can, watch the episode with "The Doggy Rap" in it. Conclusive proof that not only can white men and women NOT rap, but some black men can't either.
Not to mention the fact that the "actress" playing Kaitlin is very attractive. I'm a red blooded male, after all.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Only a few things to say.
First travesty: It took the sinister character of Darth Vader, the cold, calculating Dark Lord of the Sith, and turned him into Anakin Skywalker, a younger and stupider version of Robbie Coltrane's character from "The Pope Must Die".
Second travesty: Jar Jar Binks. Again.
Third travesty: When the Hell did Anakin Skywalker and Padme have this supposed romance? He went off to study right at the end of the first film, they don't see each other for 10 years, when he comes back they're talking about these feelings they had for each other. WHEN HE WAS ABOUT 8 YEARS OLD?
Fourth travesty: It basically seemed less like a film, and more like a filler to explain a few things to us before we hopefully get a film with a plot that lasts more than 20 minutes.
Fifth travesty: Anakin Skywalker's hair cut.