Doctor_Mongoose's Reviews

Old (2021)

3/10

10 March 2022

Whilst the rather obvious title of this review is designed to both serve as a brief plot description and a review summary, for the first 20 mins or so I thought the film was going to ruin my fun by being at least semi-intriguing.

You are introduced to the main characters of the film, a fairly young family with two children, in a car ride to their too good to be true beachside paradise retreat, and you immediately get a sense of unease and the feeling that there is something going on beneath the surface, something that you would like to know more about.

Sadly, you wouldn't even need a bucket and spade to get to the depth the film delivers and instead you are treated to banal characters with no reason to empathise with their plight and have to sit through an epoch-spanning, turgid bore-fest where everything goes in exactly the direction you expect.

The most annoying thing about it was that there were no hints as to why everything was happening meaning instead of being horrifying and mysterious everything just felt absurd and drab. Towards the end when they realised that they hadn't given any reason for any of the preceding events they tried to rush in an explanation as to why everything was happening, an explanation that would have been fine if they had set any groundwork for it in the previous hour and a half, but because they didn't you were left feeling as if they could have substituted literally any other reason and the film wouldn't have played out differently.

Definitely less of a dream trip away and more of a tripped over your own shoelaces. Avoid.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Boy Meets Girl (I) (2014)

6/10

Commendable casting and concept can't transcend a wonky script with a lead performance that lacks conviction

27 April 2020

Conceptually, I really liked Boy Meets Girl. It managed to twist the conventional narrative of a transgender woman coming to terms with her identity, and the challenges that come along with it, on its head and have it so that it is the other characters who are unsure of themselves and are seeking clarity and the conviction to be who they are. Unfortunately, unlike the lead characters, the script never found this clarity and conviction to make good of its concept and finds itself train-tracking cardboard characters through stilted conversations and coming-of-gender conventions leaving the whole film feel to feel just a little bit flat at the end of the line.

It is a shame that we have to talk about casting and how it is commendable that an actual transgender actress was cast in the lead role. Michelle Hendley certainly looks the part as Ricky Jones; she is a beautiful transgender woman playing a beautiful transgender woman on screen. The problem is that, based on this performance, she is just not a very good actress. Her delivery never felt natural, regardless of whether she was trying make a snarky comment at an acquaintance or simply serve a customer some coffee. This is made even more noticeable by the performance of Michael Welch as her non-gay best-friend who manages to convey his conflicting feelings with passion and depth, which made it so disappointing that his character was so under-written.

The issue with the script itself is that all of the characters felt as if they existed to interact with Ricky and didn't have enough screen-time to get to really know them so you could understand the journeys that they were going on. This meant that when it was time for them to do the things they needed to do to make the story go forward it rarely felt like it was their choice. There were still moments of comedy and pathos that made the film enjoyable, and it is all very, very sweet, but there wasn't much to think about beyond the superficial once the credits kicked in.

Overall I would say that your enjoyment of this film will very much depend on how much you buy into the lead character. If you can relate to them and project your own personality and experiences onto them I suspect that you'll be left feeling very happy. If you are looking for a character to make you think about yourself, then this is not the film you are going to meet them.

8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Girl (II) (2018)

7/10

A poignant tale of a young transgender woman that could have benefited from a broader scope.

6 September 2019

It is difficult to review this film without referring to the performance and casting of Victor Polster as the Girl the title refers to. Both appear to be quite polarising. There seem to be many reviewers who feel his portrayal was brave, emotive and mature as an adolescent ballet dancer going through a transitionary period in her life in more ways than one: moving to a new school and meeting new people, moving to a different apartment, and, of course, the crux of the film, taking the next step in confirming her gender identity by taking hormones with a view to having gender reassignment surgery in the future. There also appear to be many people, mostly people who identify as either transgender themselves or part of the wider LGBT+ community, who think that the performance and casting is offensive and lacks the nuance that only a real-life transgender actor could bring to the role. Personally, I cannot believe I watched the same film as anyone who thinks that his performance was anything less than exceptional.

Ballet as an art-form creates beauty out of pain, patience and practice, and Lara's journey to become a better dancer runs in parallel with her journey to physically become the woman she believes she is. The routine physical exhaustion and bleeding toes she experiences whilst dancing provide a visceral contrast with the emotional challenges of day-to-day living she has to face, such as showering or going to the toilet, whilst living in a body that just doesn't fit. Victor Polster manages to convey these experiences and emotions, showing an intense determination and underlying vulnerability that never spills over into melodrama. The question of whether or not he should have been cast in the role in the first place is moot as it is evident that he was up to the task. Morally I do not see any reason why a non-trans actor cannot play a trans role if they have the ability to do so, in the same way that an actor does not need to have kids to play the role of a father or mother. I believe that he got the role on merit, in the same way that Daniela Vega got the lead role in A Fantastic Woman, because they were the best person for the job.

Where the film falls slightly flat, however, is that there are no other fully fleshed out characters apart from Lara, and although the film focuses around Lara's pain and experiences in the here and now, there isn't always a clear motivation for her actions. It isn't even clear why she is so keen on becoming a dancer in the first place. I'd like to have seen more of the father and younger brother and how their lives were affected by Lara's situation.

Ultimately it is a painful portrait of a young woman fighting to be who she wants to be that could have benefited from widening the scope and delving into the lives of other characters more in order to give more weight to the situations Lara found herself in. I also feel that the ending, although earned and wincingly effective from an emotional standpoint, didn't provide much closure and left the film feeling unresolved. Having said that, I have a suspicion that this was intentional as stories such as these do not have a cut-off point where the transformation is complete and the only resolution is the acceptance that there is none and that the fight must go on.

Definitely would recommend it.

35 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gigantic (2008)

4/10

A colossal waste of time

17 September 2018

Early on in the film Zooey Deschanel falls asleep on a mattress in a store where future love interest, Paul Dano, works as a salesman. Any viewer lucky enough to have dozed off at a similar time would have not missed much, and would still be able to have a good stab at guessing how it all wrapped up when the credits kicked in.

The script, written by first and hopefully only time director Matt Aselton, mistakes eccentricity for character and randomness for humour and contains bizarre and heavy-handed symbolism that bears no relevance to what little plot there actually is. Paul Dano wants to adopt a specifically Chinese baby and Zooey Deschanel doesn't seem to really want anything, apart from possibly to be loved, and both of them dispassionately amble from scene to scene towards these goals, occasionally interrupted by the odd subplot or two to drag the film out to a standard running time of just over 90 minutes.

A depressing and boring waste of both talent and time.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Earthbound (2012)

3/10

A film that starts off decently then deteriorates quickly into religious propaganda

17 October 2013

I decided to watch this film on a bit of a whim, partly because I like Rafe Spall. He is the sort of actor that is always the best thing about an otherwise unremarkable production, but this time, despite putting in another good performance, he is held back by a script that seems to have been written by a priest trying to surreptitiously infiltrate a secular drama group in order to brainwash them, before giving up and blackmailing a producer or two that spoke a bit too freely during confession.

The main character called Joe wants to get with a girl called Maria either because he is the last remaining Alien of his species or he is an incredibly delusional human, and keeps looking up to the sky to try and see a bright flashing star. There were no donkeys actually on screen, but the overbearing symbolism treats the audience as if they were the ass.

After a slightly contrived yet sort of charmingly amusing set-up, the film then proceeds to pontificate on whether it is right to break someone's belief system if that system gives them strength to live, regardless of if the system is flawed or not. The answer it tries to sell is a resounding yes, but it fails to approach the issue with any actual balance.

If you want to see a good sci-fi film about an Alien who may or may not be crazy, then watch K-Pax. If this film knocks on your door make sure you slam it shut and put on the chain. Double lock it for good measure.

A waste of your time.

10 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Season of the Witch (2011)

6/10

Poor quality CGI and less than spellbinding characters let a reasonably enjoyable film down.

1 May 2012

Season of the Witch is probably the best film that Dominic Sena has managed to do. That is not really high praise considering the quality of his previous work, consisting of dull, run of the mill, "action" films such as Swordfish and Gone in 60 Seconds, which is coincidently the amount of time it takes you to fall asleep watching it. Season of the Witch probably won't make you fall asleep, but by the time it gets to the end you will be probably be ready for bed.

The set up is that Nicolas Cage and Ron Pearlman play a couple of Knights, fighting in the crusades, who suddenly have an epiphany that slaughtering loads of innocent women and children probably isn't the most godly thing to do, so decide to walk away from their lifestyle as holy warriors in a rather aimless manner without any real plan what to do next. On the way to goodness knows where they decide to stop off at a city for some supplies for their trip, to wherever that may be, and then get rumbled as a pair of deserters. News spreads fast in these lands. After being thrown in jail for a while they get roped into transporting a suspected witch from the city off to a monastery so she can be dealt with appropriately.

Both Cage and Perlman are rather convincing as a pair of grizzled companions and it is a shame that their obvious chemistry was underused. Throwing in a few more one-liners and witty asides would have made the story romp along at a bit of a better pace and injected a bit more humour to go along with the action. The rest of the cast just about did enough to earn their salaries, with Claire Foy going way beyond what was required of her with a wickedly smirky performance.

The actual action was fairly enjoyable, if not slightly clichéd. A ropey rope bridge is always a great set-piece for adding a bit of tension and that scene in particular was executed pretty well. The fights were on the whole exciting and the great thing was that you could actually see what was going on, a huge positive in my books in an age where tripods are harder to acquire than a sackful of diamonds. The thing that let these action sequences down, and the film as a whole was that the CGI was really shoddily put together and was a real distraction.

Overall I would say that the film isn't a must see, but probably worth checking out if it pops on TV at some point. The overall plot is a bit daft and thematically agnostic but is made entertaining enough with some decent performances and enjoyable action sequences.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Honeymoon in Vegas (1992)

8/10

A charmingly goofy comedy that shows Nicolas Cage at his best

22 February 2010

Honeymoon in Vegas is a charming little romantic comedy directed by Andrew Bergman, which sees him working with Nicolas Cage for the first time. Two years later would seem them collaborate once more with "It Could Happen To You", a film that is equally as funny and equally as under-appreciated. The pair work really well together as Bergman's style of comedy utilises what makes Cage such a good actor, his ability to portray anxiety in a way that makes you laugh and yet still be fully sympathetic with his plight.

In a pretty high concept plot, Cage plays a private detective, haunted with dreams of his dead mother, who is in a long term relationship with a teacher played by Sarah Jessica Parker but is afraid to tie the knot. Relationship troubles persuade Cage to take the plunge, deciding to head off to Vegas to get married as fast as possible before he is able to change his mind. The comedy really kicks in when James Caan's character, a wealthy professional gambler, spots Cage's fiancée and decides to pursue her himself using the most underhand of tactics as she looks similar to his recently deceased wife.

Granted, the premise might not be the most edgy or original of ones but it consistently manages to serve up some really funny moments. Towards the end it starts to slightly go off the boil with James Caan's character seeming to change in a way that seems geared to reach a resolution rather than unfold naturally. This problem only really briefly manifests itself in places throughout the last fifteen minutes of the film, but can't really detract from the heartwarming climax involving a planeload of skydiving Elvises.

If you are looking for a goofy comedy to watch that you don't need to think about a great deal then you'll not do much better than Honeymoon in Vegas. If you are still not convinced then watch it because Sarah Jessica Parker spends a lot of the time scantily clad, and this is before she looked like some genetic engineering atrocity where the DNA of a horse was spliced with a prune.

16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Quantum of Solace (2008)

4/10

Quantum of Nonsense

1 January 2010

I remember when I saw Casino Royale the day it came out in the cinemas in the UK. I had been ticking off the days, eagerly anticipating it's release and when I finally saw it it was so much better than I had ever hoped. I had a similar experience with The Quantum Of Solace, except this time by the time I finally got round to watching it I was going in with the lowest expectations and the film managed to pull off a miracle by managing to be even more awful than I thought it would be.

There is so much wrong with the film that you feel lost trying to pick it apart, so I think I'll start with the positives. Some of the action sequences are half-interesting and fairly neat in concept and the acting by Daniel Craig and Judi Dench is what you expect from both of them, but that is about it to be honest. Everything else sucks so much I'm surprised people still buy vacuum cleaners.

There isn't a plot to the film. It's pretty much the film equivalent of a dot-to-dot picture with all the action sequences planned out and then just joining them together brainlessly. This wouldn't have been so bad if the action had been completely original and breathtaking, but it is more likely to send you into a seizure due to the plain silly idea that a cut every nanosecond is going to make the action seem more realistic and gritty.

I think action is much more effective when you can see the bigger picture and take it all in. Seeing action unfold in a single uninterrupted take is like looking from the top of the Eiffel Tower and taking in all the sights and being stunned by the scale and beauty of what you see. Watching a sequence unfold from start to finish is what should be seen as a spectator. If I wanted to feel as if I was in the film myself and a part of what was going on I'd just play the video game. I want to be amazed, not left trying to figure out what the hell is actually going on in between random explosions and pointless shots of random debris! Of course, if you think that trying to figure out what is going on in the action sequences themselves is a challenge that even a team of Poirot, Sherlock Holmes and Clarice Starling (with a little help from Watson and Hannibal Lecter of course) wouldn't be able to get their combined intellectual nous around then god help you if you try to follow the actual plot. Most of it seems to consist of Daniel Craig running around looking moody and killing people for no real purpose other than hoping to trip over some information to why he's doing it in the process.

Hopefully, now that they have stopped making Bourne films, the Bond franchise will decide to move away from the flavour of the week style of handhelld incomprehensibility and make a film that manages to keep up with the tradition of the series, yet updated for a new generation, much like they succeeded to do with Casino Royale. One thing is for sure, by the time the next Bond film comes around, it will take a hell of a lot of shaking up for me to be stirred to see it.

6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

4/10

I didn't laugh once

13 November 2009

There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.

The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.

The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once.

30 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

7/10

A great way to spend a lazy afternoon with a couple of mates

13 November 2009

I'm going to say its definitely up there in the top few films I've seen at the cinema this year. It has been criticised for lacking more biting criticism of the US government, but I think people who are saying that are missing the point. It does have a fair bit to say about how stupid the US Military can be and how they like to blow money on obviously pointless ventures, but there is a whole other side to it.

I thought that the film was more about the human spirit and how that if you want to make a difference and want to do something you've got to really go for it no matter how stupid the aim. Obviously the idea of trying to be a psychic spy is unattainable and may sound ludicrous, but so may be the notion of trying to create world peace and help bring different people together over a united cause. The film was more about how these drifters and lost souls managed to find something that they found worthy of pursuing and really devoted themselves to it, and I think this message is more admirable than any side-criticism of the USA.

The film plays out mainly as a buddy movie with Geogre Clooney, who is doing his usual comic act very well, and Ewan McGregor as they head around Iraq not really knowing what they are looking for and getting into loads of hilarious antics along the way. I don't think I've laughed so much in the cinema this year, and the whole audience was laughing along as well.

I thought the structure was hardly groundbreaking, but done really well. Flashbacks involving Jeff Bridges and Clooney help add comic relief during some of the straighter scenes in the film and also at times are used to rack up the tension and reveal interesting insights. It is of course up to your interpretation if the flashbacks are 100% real, because they are told from the point of view of Ewan McGregor, recounting stories that were told to him by Clooney. This sorts out another common criticism that the film is extremely unrealistic, but there are some key scenes saying that Clooney might not be telling the whole truth that I feel have been overlooked.

It isn't going to be Oscar-fare or the greatest thing you'll ever see but with a good cast and a lot of laughs there isn't really going to be a much better way of spending a lazy Saturday afternoon with some popcorn and a buddy or two.

103 out of 168 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fear (1996)

4/10

The only thing I feared was I might fall asleep

24 September 2009

Fear? Oh dear, I really don't know where to start with this awfully dull "thriller". I managed to sit through all of it but for a fairly short film it dragged on and on for what seemed like an eternity and the only thing that I was really fearful of was that I might fall asleep with the TV on and waste money on my parents' electricity bill.

With a thriller you are supposed to build up tension throughout the film and then release it all in a nail biting climax that leaves you gasping for breath and on the edge of your seat. It's a fairly simple idea, but Fear manages to botch it up royally.

You are introduced to a fairly tedious rich family, apparently facing all sorts of problems, and then after about quarter of an hour of mindless bitching the daughter meets supposedly the perfect boyfriend. As the guy says himself "if something seems too good to be true it probably isn't", meaning that he is obviously going to be a psycho. So much time is spent on them being "loving" together it doesn't really add anything to the plot except for making you want to throw up. One particular scene on a roller-coaster was particularly distasteful and quite disturbing for entirely the wrong reasons.

The premise isn't actually that bad, they probably could have squeezed a decent movie out of it if they had really tried but they decide to ignore subtly and hit you in the face with the obvious. They could have let the boyfriend slowly display his psychotic side, flashing the audience hints that the girl doesn't notice, so our fear for her grows the more and more the relationship goes on. The more she doesn't know he's bloody mental and the more we do, the more we care. Instead they decide that he is going to display his mentalness right in front of her face by going ape-**** and attacking one of her buddies, all because the poor dude gave her a hug.

After this the plot just gets more ludicrous and keeps going round in circles but somehow manages to get to a really promising climax. Just when I thought the film might just be able to redeem itself, the director manages to mess up the ending as well. Brilliant.

There isn't really coherent message to the film and the acting from everybody is well below par. The entire film plays out as an endurance contest for how many clichés you can handle before you are forced to turn the TV off.

19 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Glory (1989)

4/10

A repulsively condescending exploitation film

10 September 2009

When I finished watching this film I honestly felt sick. It is one of the most patronising and formulaic films that I've seen in a long time that serves the viewer nothing but overblown sentimentality and self-righteousness.

Race is an extremely important issue that deserves to be treated with respect. This film merely seeks to exploit the highly emotionally charged issues in a pathetic attempt to try and bring hollow tears to the faces of its viewers.

Everything in this film is done by the book. All the stereotypical characters are there, lined up and ready to be used in the most cliché of fashion. The film doesn't even try and tell a story but instead stick a load of over the top scenes together, accompanied by an extremely annoying pretentious score, that try to create many climactic "moments" to try and move the viewer.

Another thing that really annoyed me about this film is the title itself, "Glory". What is really glorious about a load of men getting killed, black or white? The film doesn't even try to portray the foolishness of war and instead resorts to partiotically flag-waving, proud that America was founded on such bloodshed. Mel Gibson in a kilt screaming "FREEDOM" at the top of his lungs would not seem out of place.

However, when you spray as many emotional scenes about the place at least a couple are going to hit their targets. The scene where Matthew Broderick is shouting at the stuttering squirrel shooter and fireing his pistol did manage to get a response out of me. This is because it was one of the few scenes that decided to leave race alone and attempt to deal with the reality of war. Another couple of scenes were well done too, but these scenes' resonance was muted by the overall quality of the others.

The battle scenes were well done, in a sense that they looked realistic. I thought that these might be able to help save the film but, to my dismay, as soon as I'm starting to believe in them another highly telegraphed clichéd plot point comes along that completely breaks up the intensity and disintegrates into farce.

There isn't really a lot more than I can say about the film. I can't really comment on the quality of the acting because the actors were forced to play such one dimensional characters. I had been recommended this movie by a couple of people and had really high hopes for it, but instead of being a glorious experience it was condesending and repulsive.

21 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

500 Days of Summer (2009)

8/10

A fairly fresh, yet slightly over-stylised anti-romantic comedy.

2 September 2009

Before I watched 500 days of Summer I didn't really know too much about it. I had seen the trailer that had spruced it up to be a quirky yet throwaway romantic comedy, yet in reality the film seemed to have much greater aspirations.

The story revolves around this bloke and his obsession with his boss's new secetary, taking us through the story of their relationship in an interesting non-linear way. The non-linear storytelling is only a fraction of the dollops of style that is thrown in the direction of the film. Some of it works perfectly fine, adding an interesting extra dimension to the film, however it seems in places some of the style that was thrown ever so liberally completely misses and ends up getting stuck in your eye, leaving you fidgeting awkwardly wishing it wasn't there.

For the most part the story is interesting, managing to put a freshish spin on the whole "boy meets girl" thing that is seen so often in films. I did slap my head a few times when I thought the film had strayed into the realms of cheese that I thought it was going to stay away from, but these conventions are needed for the story to work. One scene in particular where the dude stands up in a meeting at work and makes a heartfelt speech about what he has learnt (and therefore the films message) went slightly too far in my opinion and cheapened an otherwise pretty original film.

Zooey Deschanel has really sexy eyes.

I think it is attempting to show the reality of love and life, which is that there isn't really a reality beyond what we impose based on our experiences and environment, which these days has been really quite distorted by the fakeness and shallowness of Hollywood love stories. The trouble with trying to do a critique like that is that when you have to write an ending to it you have to follow through with your convictions and let the story come to its natural conclusion, a conclusion, in this case by definition of the thesis, isn't going to sit well with the conventions of the genre. I think they chickened out, but only slightly. I do recommend that you see this film for yourself and see what you think.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

As Good as It Gets (1997)

10/10

A hilarious yet moving masterpiece

15 August 2009

Words cannot express how awesome this film is. Every time I see it I cannot help but burst out laughing and burst into tears in equal measure. Everything about it is perfect. The quality of the acting, the subtle yet purposeful direction and warm true to life visuals all help squeeze the most out of what is an incredibly touching script.

The film is about how passion for things, and for the people we love help us overcome the problems that we face in our everyday lives. It is also about that when you love someone, you both have to face compromise to get it to work and that because of compromising stuff you thought you had to do you can be a better person because of it.

Jack Nicholson definitely deserved his Oscar for his performance as Melvin, a crazy author who has OCD, by managing to make him totally believable. It could have been so easy for him to go all out nuts and overact, taking away the charm and the warmth from his performance that lets us truly feel sorry for and sympathise with his character.

All the other cast members were exceptional as well, with the guy who played the gay dude doing especially well. His performance as the man who is the complete opposite of Melvin and wears his emotions on his sleeve is especially important to make sure the film works. Helen Hunt does pretty nifty too and so many scenes in the film make me smile just because of the expressions on her face.

The best thing about the film has to be the writing though. The are times in other films when lines of movie dialogue are seen as being exactly movie dialogue, but in As Good As It Gets everything seems real. The words are how a real person would say things, not just silly sound-bites that are charged up with emotional language that fools you into thinking they are deep and meaningful. Everything just feels true and natural, which really helps the movie swallow you whole until you are deep inside its warm, snuggly belly surrounded by the reality it creates and feeling every last trace of emotion.

What is also really important to get across is that the film is also absolutely hilarious! There are the immediately amusing one-liners that make you chuckle and smile, but the film also manages to do more than this, setting it miles apart from your average comedy that throws around random words and and "zany" situations. Since you get so involved with the intricacies and quirks of each of the characters, the biggest laughs you will get out of the film are by simple facial expressions or the odd emphasised word that lets you know exactly what the character is thinking.

You should really, REALLY watch this film. It is a masterpiece. It only gets better on repeat viewings as well. At the risk of being extremely cliché and cheesy, as far as romantic comedies go, it really is As Good As It Gets!

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Breaking the Waves (1996)

10/10

Film making at its most beautiful

5 August 2009

Warning: Spoilers

Let me start out by saying that you can disagree with someones opinion, but that doesn't stop you from admiring the passion and beauty that they put in to their argument. This is the first Lars Von Trier film I've seen and, after seeing how well put together this one is, I hope too see many more to come.

The film's main themes all about God, fate and the power of true love to conquer all, however I think there are more interesting subtleties to it than just this. I think it is also about the role of women in religion, with the main character, Bess, being portrayed almost as the female version of Jesus. There are too many similarities for it to be purely coincidental, however I do not particularly want to go into details in fear of ruining an amazing story for anyone who does decide to watch the film.

The film takes a very minimalistic yet realistic style, with an almost documentary feel to it at times. The picture quality a lot of scenes is not great but I think it is done intentionally to help emphasise the feelings of dreariness and hopelessness that are a major part of the film. Something that makes me more sure of this are the stunning still shots of the chapter titles, with some of them actually being extremely bright to give the viewer a sense of hope and calm when it is needed. The title shots themselves are extremely symbolic and are not just put in for the sake of being wondrous natural imagery. One shot towards the end of the film stuck with me in particular, a shot where you see a glorious sunrise with a lush pink sky fading away to a ghostly blue. This to me was symbolic of death, with the blood fading away just to leave a cold reminder of what was once so alive and wondrous.

All the cast put in quality performances, managing to come across as extremely genuine in roles that were very hard to do without going over the top and becoming too melodramatic. Emily Watson in particular, who played the character Bess, was sensational. In her first proper film role she managed to transition from moments of innocence, madness and passion seamlessly and without a performance as good as the one she gave, it would have completely ruined the film. The dude who plays the crippled husband was also pretty nifty as well.

The film is fairly long, clocking in at over 2 and a half hours, but it really didn't feel that long at all. It is important that if you want to watch it that you really set yourself some time aside to do so as the film does require your concentration and undivided attention. If you can find the time to watch it then you will be vastly rewarded. It is a a sad beautiful film that is extremely emotionally draining. You better watch it.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Schindler's List (1993)

7/10

A very entertaining yet flawed film

22 July 2009

Warning: Spoilers

Shindler's List is supposedly Steven Spielberg's greatest achievement, however I cannot say that I agree. Of course there are a lot of good points about the film, it goes without saying that the documentary style and use of black and white gives it a very authentic edge, but it still has its fair share of faults.

The main problem with Shindler's List is the length. I'm of the opinion that when watching a film less is more and if you are going to do a film that is over 3 hours long every scene should be as relevant and important as the next one. In Shindler's List, in my opinion, there are many scenes that repeat each other, giving us no new revelation or insight into the character's emotions or actions.

It was probably Spielberg's intention to show us so many scenes of torture and abuse of the Jews to help show the horrific scale of the events that took place, to show us how many were killed without emotion or reason, but I feel he got too emotionally involved and went over the top, getting to a point where with each random killing he lessened the impact to the audience because you've seen the same thing happen earlier.

Another major problem I have with the film is that some parts come off as strangely comedic, which in my opinion completely goes against the idea of the documentary style. Scenes like when Schindler threatens the guards so they help him find his accountant and when Amon Goeth "pardons" himself in the mirror were extremely ill judged as in my opinion you should not be made to laugh in a film that covers such serious subject matter.

The film is also very biased in a sense that it gives all the Jews a personality and character development whereas every single Nazi in the film is shown to be pure evil and mechanical, enjoying every last little thing they did. Obviously I am not saying anyone committing these atrocious acts should be absolved from our condemnation and scorn, however it would have been interesting to see how the bosses of the labour camps would have dealt with guards who actually had a moral compass and refused to act upon these orders of such brutality. Not doing this, unfortunately, takes a bit of credibility away from the film as it makes it seem only those who are wealthy, only Schindler, had any respect for the Jews or were against the war.

However, despite its faults there is indeed a great deal of tragic beauty to the film. Apart from the scene at the end where Schindler breaks down and cries, which seemed extremely over-acted and quite awkward to watch, the film really does manage to evoke very real emotions. It opens your eyes to the pain and suffering of the Holocaust and gives you a fly-on-the-wall style view into what happened. When you watch from such a close up perspective it really makes you feel that you are there in the film, someone who is standing by and doing nothing to stop the dreadful events that are happening so close to you. This style really helps amplify every emotion you feel to great effect.

A lot of credit must also go to the actors. It is key that in a film like this that you believe what is happening on screen and all the actors do a very good job, especially Ben Kingsley as Itzhak Stern who really manages to capture the emotions of skepticism and hopeless inevitability flawlessly. Liam Neeson does a really good job as Schindler himself, but lets himself down in the final scene where he is just makes you cringe and think "this is acting".

Overall I found the film very entertaining, but there were a lot of minor quibbles with it that lessened my enjoyment somewhat along with a few major problems that I feel cheapened the overwhelming emotional experience that I received. The film is 100% essential viewing and will definitely stand the test of time, but in my honest opinion is not the masterpiece or the demonstration of perfection that many people laud it to be.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ruins (2008)

3/10

So predictable that it completely RUINS the film...

30 June 2009

Basic plot summary is that 2 American couples decide to go on holiday to party and chill by the pool. One of the girls then somehow manages to lose an ear-ring which is coincidently found by a German dude who just so happens to be heading off the next day to visit some ancient Mayan ruins that hardly anyone has been to before. After talking to the German guy for 5 seconds the gang decide what the heck lets go with him. What could possibly go wrong? Despite being well shot, the film is just as stupid as the 4 main characters. All the characters are complete horror movie staples, such as the smart sensible quiet guy who comes out of his shell when trouble is a-foot. Other characters include the guy who is vaguely comic relief, signified by daft hair, the bimbo and the whiny useless chick. The situation they find themselves in is completely ludicrous and then when you realise what the main evil thing is you just laugh because it is completely ridiculous.

Obviously being a horror movie the hot blonde has to get naked and then find excuses to take her clothes off whenever possible and there has got to be lots of blood and gore. The movie succeeds with both these tasks but in the most mundane routine way possible which leaves you completely uninterested in the plot and in the characters fates.

In summary, its a below average horror movie that doesn't really make any sense and you know exactly what is going to happen the entire way through which just makes the whole experience feel old and overgrown.

5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Dark Knight (2008)

4/10

Best film ever? You must be batty!

1 August 2008

Warning: Spoilers

Obviously Christopher Nolan was trying to touch on one of the prominent issues of recent times. That of the environment. He did this by recycling tired old jokes and set pieces from many action films before, and the rest of the plot was salvaged from toilets and rubbish bins. He also comes up with the perfect formula to make a profound sentence, by taking two words that mean complete opposites and shoving them together.

Joking aside, after almost nodding off for the first hour and a half the second half of the movie actually was pretty good, albeit drawn out until the ending which was very frustrating. They literally left the joker hanging while dealing with the completely pointless and irrational side-story of two-face. I'd have thought that a man of dent's resolve would have been made stronger by the events that took place, to get back at the joker and stop such events from happening to other people, instead of deteriorating into the monster of similar calibre to the joker.

I really don't think the film got the best out of the actors involved, probably due to the script. Christian Bale is a fantastic actor, but he is completely wasted as batman where he spends most of his time jumping about in a bat-suit using a silly voice, instead of displaying his incredible character acting skills in movies such as American Psycho and the Machinist. Heath Ledger's performance was the only real solid one in the entire cast, however at plenty of times he guilty of completely over-acting. His introduction to the members of the mob was farcical and the laughter in the cinemas was due to the awkwardness and stupidity of the situation.

The main reason I think the film totally fails is Christopher Nolans approach of trying to make the film really realistic with an explanation for everything. A man running around in a bat costume and a man dressed up in clown make-up is just to surreal to try and be addressed in this manner. This is why I think the original Batman is a lot better because it didn't try to be ultra-realistic and took the comics and had a fairly serious tone with a very comedic undercurrent. Christopher Nolan undoubtedly has talent as a director, memento, the prestige and even insomnia are all great films but I feel his attempts at the batman franchise are far outshone by Tim Burton.

Obviously the film is already a hit and there is nothing anyone can write to stop it from being so, however I must implore you to actually watch the film critically and realise its shortcomings, than get swept away in the hype.

199 out of 491 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Doctor_Mongoose

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed