Change Your Image
JoeMiddletonAlba
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Hustle (2019)
Dreadful rubbish
A gender swapped version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels probably sounded like a good idea but the execution of this film is dreadful. I only got half way through before I had to stop watching as it was utterly awful. Avoid!
The Great Gatsby (2013)
Flawed casting.
Redford and Farrow was ultimately a much more satisfactory combination than the two leads in this remake.
DiCaprio is quite good as the driven Gatsby but Mulligan does not have the charisma or incredible beauty of Farrow. This means that the obsession of Gatsby for Mulligan's character seems rather unlikely to say the least.
The party scenes while undoubtedly visually impressive are ultimately far too overblown and again add a sense of unreality to the story. Tobey Maguire was unremarkable and not particularly sympathetic which again did not help.
It isn't a bad film, the essential storyline still holds some interest and the plot is excellent (as it should be given the source material) but the above flaws prevented the film from being anything special.
This version suggests that certain films are better left alone. The Redford Gatsby was already superb and there was no need to do it again.
Braveheart (1995)
Superb drama about the fight for Scotland's national independence
This powerful 1995 film was nominated for 10 Academy Awards and won an incredible 5 Oscars. It is wholly detested by a great many little Britons who much preferred it when Wallace's patriotic actions were not known to a massive world wide audience! Endless dramas about their pretender Elizabeth I of England are much preferred by 'British' filmmakers. Bruce and Wallace were largely ignored by them until Mel Gibson and Randall Wallace made this cracker.
The huge monument to William Wallace in Stirling shows just how much his memory means to all Scots.
Despite some historical inaccuracies (and although there are a few glaring ones the film definitely gets his horrific martyr's death right) this film definitely did catch the spirit of the fight for Scotland's freedom and independence.
This fight will hopefully end in final victory next year (2014) when Scots will vote on the future of the British union for the first time in 300 years in the Scottish independence referendum which is being organised by our elected SNP Government.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Technical flaws defeat promising concept
I am a Woody Allen fan (who isn't?) and therefore I always look forward to his films. I admire the fact that he is a relentless pusher of boundaries and that he tries to do different films.
Unfortunately however when he is not present as an actor (he has a great screen presence) his films can lack a certain something and this is unfortunately the case here.
The missing Woody isn't the main problem however. There are in fact two major technical problems however which fatally flaw the film.
Firstly, there is an entirely unnecessary voice-over which grates on the ears and adds little to the plot. Voiceovers can of course work well, in context. Michael Caine did a great verbalisation of his thoughts in Hannah and Her Sisters for example which was crucial to the plot.
In this case the voice-over had no connection to the film, wasn't done by a character in it and instead appeared from nowhere as a sort of invisible omniscient presence which was simply unrealistic and distracting. All it did was suggest that the director felt his tale wasn't being properly told by the cast or the footage shot. The plot wasn't difficult to follow so a narration really wasn't required.
Secondly, much of the dialogue in this film is in Spanish or Catalan. None of this is subtitled, leaving large gaps in scenes. It almost seems like the Spanish lines are completely unnecessary and are just in there for 'colour'. Yet why should we sympathise with characters if the director can't be bothered providing their words and thoughts to the audience? With these issues resolved perhaps the film might have worked. Cruz and Bardem were quite charismatic and charming and the plot wasn't bad.
Unfortunately Johansson was as pretty as ever but seemed rather vacant and Hall (who can be very engaging as Starter for 10 proved) seemed to struggle with a rather pointless part.
In short then a disappointment. Allen needs to find a more charismatic muse than Johansson (Match Point was rotten as well) and the complete lack of genuine humour and indeed humanity in the script means this is way below his high standards of the past.
On the brighter side however the use of Barcelona as a backdrop worked well and its beauty shone through the film.
As I say I am a fan of Allen in general and much of his recent output I have liked a lot, Melinda and Melinda was excellent for example as was Curse of the Jade Scorpion but this film needed a stronger script and there needed to be a point to the story.
My partner and I watched the Odd Couple just before this film. While comparisons between old and new films are inevitably unfair it does make one wonder if the new crop of bland good looking so called 'stars' deserve the label compared to the greater brighter talents of the past.
No one can be a genius every day however and Allen's cinematic legacy is already assured. 6/10
The Man Who Sued God (2001)
Brilliant Performance by Connolly saves flawed film
Firstly, I did enjoy 'The man who sued God'. Billy Connolly is excellent, his wit and charm is on display throughout the film and it is very, very, funny, most of the time.
Unfortunately it is slightly too long and there are a few bits that could have been quite easily cut without harming the story.
Billy seems to spend an awful lot of time mooning around churches and the 'divine intervention' bit is embarassingly bad and entirely unnecessary. Quite frankly, whoever came up with this scene should be shot!
However having said that the film does have many qualities. The scenery is fantastic and the cast are generally excelent. Judy Davis is very good as the journo who takes an interest in Connolly's case. She strikes some nice romantic sparks of Connolly who is in great, swearing, ranting mode throughout. Colin Friels is also pretty good as Connolly's brother and Wendy Hughes is nice as the prickly but understanding ex-wife.
I can't imagine many Jews would be too pleased with the portrayal of the Rabbi "So, we just prove there is no God, ...who cares!" seems to be his attitude, but generally the film is pretty amusing with an interesting premise.
As I say there is at lease one totally shoddy scene and some unnecessary wandering that could have been fixed by a decent editor but still, if not a classic, still a genuinely funny film and well worth seeing.
By the way Connolly gives a fantastic (and quite different) acting performance as an ex-con artist in the Debt Collecter (1999). Get a hold of this Scottish thriller if you are a Connolly fan as it is absolutely brilliant.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Visceral story of revenge, friendship, love and bigotry
This movie has `epic' written all over it. Fascinating throughout, Scorcese fires a highly unusual story through many twists and turns without ever losing sight of his most important characters.
The story is about the conflict between Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Lewis) a bigoted but respected Don-type who runs early New York. Bill hates the Irish who he sees as coming in off the boats and getting their citizenship for nothing while he has fought for his corner (against an earlier set of Irish immigrants) and jealously guards it against all comers.
Bill's rival in the story, Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo Di Caprio) is a brooding vengeance filled youngster and multi-scarred poorhouse survivor. He's haunted by the death of his long lost dad, a fighting priest who Bill killed but still grudgingly respects. However the story is complicated by the fact that as Bill has became older his faith in his vision of a pure New York without the Irish seems possibly less important to him than having someone to leave his `empire' to, and indeed many of his associates are his former enemies.
The real stand out in this film is (of course) the astonishing Daniel Day Lewis who gives a complex multi-layered performance of which even Robert De Niro would be proud. Day Lewis has a convincing American Accent with a Bronx twang which may or may not have existed at the time but somehow works anyway.
The casting of Leonardo Di Caprio is justified by a moody yet restrained performance by Leo, looking extremely bulky and tough, fittingly so for the character he plays. Given Day Lewis and Scorcese's past work I'm sure many parts of the story from the awful costumes to the strangely named gangs, have been minutely researched and it has some similarity to the truth. Like Braveheart before it however, that's not the point.
This is a visceral story of revenge, friendship, love and bigotry. The whole cast is committed to the task and everyone in a very large cast seems to fill their role admirably. (Jim Broadbent is typically good as a slimy politician). The subject matter is controversial with almost continual violence throughout and a script which is necessarily often nasty in it's emphasis.
Even myself whose links to Ireland are a few generations out of date, still felt my blood boiling at the treatment of our Celtic brothers. The resulting warfare results in no winners however and it is part of the magic of Day Lewis's performance that even though one dislikes his racist and evil character you can still understand his mindset and his sense of honour. In fact occasionally you find yourself (almost) rooting for Bill at the expense of Di Caprio's vengeful rival who Bill adopts unknowingly as his `heir'.
The film says a lot about racism and the stupidity of it without preaching in a complex and interesting tale. A difficult undertaking but brought off with signature style and substance. Cameron Diaz is also well cast, bringing warmth, sassiness and some needed comic relief to her role as a beautiful (but scarred) pick pocket survivor who warms to Leo, but is also emotionally attached to Bill, her father/protector figure.
A wonderfully non-happy and pointless ending puts all the previous squabbles into perspective with a glorious montage rounding off an extraordinary effort. Altogether, a bold and brilliant film from the greatest director of our time.
The Matrix (1999)
pure distilled film making perfection
The Matrix is pure distilled film making perfection. Every scene from the first to the last has been meticulously planned, story boarded and shot with an eye for the smallest detail. Most people must have seen a lot of movies where you think "that could have been done better" or "that person was miscast" but the Matrix dispenses with all such niggles. The plot is mind-blowing, a brilliant yet so simple idea that you wonder why no-one else came up with it before, executed with extraordinary style and astonishing imagination this film shows individuals working at the height of artistic creativity. From the extraordinary sketches and layouts from the wonderful Geoff Darrow to the inch perfect hitchcock-esque storyboarding (Hitchcock was also famous for filming his movies precisely as he visualised them) an incredibly interesting and subversive script and a dazzling array of cutting edge special effects (inventing whole new ways of filming to fulfill the Wachowski brothers vision) this film has every technical wizardry advance in it's arsenal and deploys every one to their full advantage. The most startling thing about the Matrix though is the incredible performances by all of the actors involved. Three months of intensive martial arts and wire work training make for absolutely astounding and outstanding fight scenes and extraordinary powerful kinetic imagery. The 'making off' documentaries illustrate the startling commitment that Keanu Reeves (in particular) but the rest of the cast also, brought to this extraordinary film. Bruises and broken bones don't stop the cast (none of whom had previous martial arts knowledge) from doing months of intensive martial arts training by a Kung Fu Master. This pays off with the most incredible ballet like movements and brilliantly explosive gunplay. On action alone this film is the ultimate movie. Stylish and sleek the look of the film from the incredible custom built sets to the stitched leather shiny uber-stylishness of the Matrix to the barren realities of the 'real world' the film is class from start to finish. Every perfect scene segues into something ever more startling yet everything adds to a perfect whole. This is the 'Ultimate Film' that could only have been done in this day and age, the last great film of the twentieth century to blast us into the next by bending every genre, flaunting every rule and thrilling the pants of the audience from the opening seconds to the bombastic final theme music. I know everyone who reads this will have probably seen the film but if by a slim chance you haven't run down to the video shop now and buy that DVD or widescreen VHS because you need to see this film right now!
Simply the coolest film ever the Matrix will surely inspire a new generation of filmmakers and the action hasn't ended yet with two films still to come.
If anyone ever says after watching an old movie "they don't make them like that any more" say "Thank god, because if they did we wouldn't have The Matrix".
From Hell (2001)
A very pedestrian re-tread of the Jack the Ripper story
You have to wonder why the studio bought the rights to Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's thoughtful graphic novel to then make a very pedestrian re-tread of the Jack the Ripper story. Despite their supposed poverty every one of the prostitutes had gleaming white teeth, the ending felt like and was a tacked on dreadful joke and the film bore no resemblance to (or respect for) the graphic novel. Oh yeah, evil is black contact lenses and didn't anyone else recognise the voice of Jack the Ripper? Some elements of the book remain (ie the bits that were in the superior TV movie with Michael Caine) but this is standard damsel-in-distress, love story, horror by-the-numbers fare. A waste of time by all involved. Depp's character a pot-headed psychic could never have held the position he did at that time, he'd have been the prime suspect if he's started going on about "seeing the bodies" while Robbie Coltrane adds buddy movie bits (why?). The whole thing was rubbish.
This must surely make Moore even more cautious about allowing any of his other properties to reach the big screen if this kind of tripe is the result of the enormous effort by himself and Campbell. Read the comic (but prepare to need a strong stomach) and watch Sleepy Hollow if you want to see a quality performance by Depp.
Joe Middleton http://joe-middleton.web-page.net
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Jackson not Tolkein - This won't bring the fantasy experience to the masses.
I had looked forward to this film for many months so I had high expectations going in. I had enjoyed the animated version in the past (sadly never finished by Ralph Bakshi though there are sequels available in the US) and felt confident that as with the animated film the basic story would be the same as the book but the look and acting would be improved to give a much clearer version of Tolkein's magnum opus.
Well the look of the film matched my expectations from the incredible opening battle to the lustrousness of the shire. The mine of Moria seemed oddly shaped for a mine however, but it did look spectacular all the same.
Unfortunately I feel Jackson attempted to stamp his own vision on the project. Obviously with an enormous book like LOTR then you have to chop a lot out, however this is let's remember the most popular book on the planet next to the Bible so I feel it's fair to say that Tolkein has written a pretty ng good yarn that doesn't require to be jazzed up.
The dialogue should have remained the same but reduced, instead it was changed and changed unnecessarily also the film had too many unnecessary action scenes and computer generated monsters. The characters of Frodo's two cousins changed from stalwart friends to amiable but stupid buffoons (one with an out of place Scottish accent).
Strider/Aragorn was changed from a tough and brooding haunted figure to an action hero. Who would be scared of the Ring Wraiths when Aragorn can easily kick the crap out of a bunch of them?
LOTR was about subtlety on every level. A deep and very long book which had a lustrous rich history. The first part of the book can be cut into it's basic plot (it was done before by Bakshi) but when it is changed for change's sake then it is reduced to yet another screenplay and ultimately The Fellowship of The Ring is yet another action movie.
This should have been the film that put fantasy on the map but instead I am sure many people must be wondering what all the fuss is about. The great thing about fantasy is the ability to lose yourself in another world, a realistic world in some ways but a different one from ours. This never happened in the film therefore it was a disappointment. Enjoyable enough on a certain level (but then again so was 'The Mummy') and yes it did look lovely but ultimately this just wasn't Tolkein.
PS: For a true fantasy film look at John Boorman's Excalibur which tells an often repeated tale in a beautiful manner but with proper respect for the source material.
joe-middleton.
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
Attractive looking, ultimately hollow, suicidal farce.
I started off enjoying this movie with its stylish visuals and neat soundtrack, but half way through I began to dislike it and by the end I absolutely detested it. The first suicide almost made sense since the little girl seemed sad and was almost granted a personality by the director. Though she wasn't in it long enough to develop much she sympathises with the Downs syndrome kid while the rest are all needlessly cruel, good reason to top yourself, probably not but maybe a kid of 13 *might* think so (I doubt it personally). The later suicides made no sense, they seemed to be added in as an afterthought. Why at all and why altogether? What kind of three teenage sisters would be in agreement to end it all because mummy and daddy burnt their records and kept them all in away from boys? Particularly when they didn't seem to even be bothered by the youngest sisters demise? It all struck me as exploitative rubbish. Sick drivel that really has no place in a movie aimed at a teen audience. This was supposed to be a stylish movie, it was. It also had a good cast but the story was horribly lacking and the 'message' if there was one was pretty sick. The ghoulish male teenagers (overly geekish to a man or strutting around like John Travolta) were if anything more unsympathetic than the girls, stealing diaries and memorabilia and basically just not fitting in. These guys had some *real* issues. Why on earth phone up these girls and then just play pop records? Why be *so* obsessed with a bunch of stuck up bitchy blonde bimbo types (that was all they ever actually acted like) at all? As for the point of the film, what this movie seems to suggest is that if you are a teenager who commits suicide 1) It will be widely reported by the media who will all say how awful and what a shame it is 2) Everyone will remember you fondly for years, hell you'll be practically immortal! Both these scenarios are absolutely wrong. A) Your death will statistically go unnoticed by the media. B) Your friends will remember you as sad and pathetic if they ever remember you at all. Suicide is a tragic pointless waste. This film is the same. Avoid, avoid, avoid! - 2 out of 10 (Crap!)
Being John Malkovich (1999)
Fabulously entertaining - *very* original movie -Amazing!
I have rarely, if ever, seen such an original film as this populated throughout by quirky, original oddball characters. Everyone in a superb ensemble cast played against type in a thoroughly enjoyable, truly hilarious, mind blowing surreal experience. Brilliant!
Heat (1995)
LA Takedown was far better, Mann shouldn't have bothered
The thing I disliked about Heat was it's overblown nature and the over the top performances (particularly from Pacino, almost as bad as in City Hall, FAB in Carlito's Way though so you can't have everything). Pacino bawled away in an only too typical broken marriage alcaholic cop bla de bla role, while De Niro seemed to be sleepwalking in that dull way he perfected in Casino. The action scenes, location, photography etc. was excellent but it just seemed a bloated film, the characterisation just didn't seem to work. I thought at the time that it could have done with being edited down to size. Imagine my surprise then when I saw LA Takedown (Heat's TV movie predecessor), a much tighter script and shorter film with characters who would realistically have more in common (both young talented guys, both obsessed with making some cash, getting ahead etc.) Shorter and more thrilling, LA Takedown was what Heat could have been. Mann made a big mistake re-making it using his earlier script and the big name casting compounded his errors. De Niro and Pacino carry too much baggage in Heat, they are both individually great but together they both sadly sucked. They weren't helped with an overblown boring script and a needlessly sloppy ending. See LA Takedown, avoid Heat (or see them both and wonder why oh why!).