Change Your Image
dusty-bottoms
Reviews
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Over-theatrical nonsense
First of all, let me say Gary Oldman would have made a superb Dracula. I say 'would have' because what he plays here is some frenetic Hollywood-esquire demon more suited to comic books than a Gothic romance. This OTT-ness is symptomatic of our over-indulgence in SFX-laden blockbusters, where each film must be noisier, faster, more intense/expensive/silly than the last. This is like a Victorian Matrix Reloaded, a Spiderman 2 for the brain-dead (indistinguishable from the real Spiderman 2), a Batman & Robin for those with a passing interest in the classics. 'Van Helsing' is unwatchable because of this, despite the luminous Kate Beckinsale. (I LOVE Underworld)
Back to Gaz. He is without doubt a fine actor. A fine English actor. Such a fine English actor that I suspect most Americans (and Brits for that matter, including my wife) have no idea of his origin. His ability to BECOME the character he portrays (Leon, Fifth Element, Sid & Nancy etc) would indeed have made him the perfect choice for this role. 'The finest actor of his generation' I would venture, Tim Roth & Johnny Depp notwithstanding. Keanu Reeves most definitely is NOT. Neither is the Welsh/American Anthony Hopkins who, along with the Sean Connerys and Michael Caines of this world gets by with various versions of himself. Not a damning indictment per se (Hopkins' Titus Andronicus was stupendous, Connery & Caine unsurpassed in 'The Man Who Would Be King'). Oldman and Reeves however occupy opposing ends of the acting spectrum. Oldman is great, Reeves isn't (although I LOVED Bill & Ted).
Back to Dracula. A faithful adaptation of the book it isn't. The names are the same, the events have been changed to produce some sort of shouty melodrama. Gary Oldman WOULD have made a superb Dracula, it is a shame he chose to try it in this abysmal pile of dog-poo. 'Interview With a Vampire' suffered terrible mis-casting but (almost) worked. This didn't even re-create the menacing atmosphere it required (see 'Dance of the Vampires'). Five stars to Oldman for being game for a laugh, and otherwise a genuine superstar.
The Pink Panther (2006)
Steve Martin - 10 years without a decent movie
I like Steve Martin. He seems like a nice guy and once upon a time he made a handful of movies that were highly original, entertaining & extremely funny.
What happened? This movie typifies his recent work - it stinks. It has no redeeming features. It is dull, overlong & not at all amusing. I was embarrassed for him, for Kevin Kline and for the lovely Beyonce, all of whom seem to honestly believe they are taking part in something of quality & importance.
It was so bad I went out & bought the original to take away the bad taste. Steve maybe wants to watch this again too. His version was bad, not because he had the effrontery to 'do' Sellers (he didn't), not then because he even tried to do it his own way (if nothing else, a brave effort), but because it simply doesn't work.
He wants to re-acquaint himself with the one thing which characterised Sellers' work and indeed his own, earlier praiseworthy efforts - pathos.
Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000)
Bad, it is (as in 'not good')
Unlike the previous reviewer I actually sat through this pile of toss right to the end. Whether this was morbid fascination in that I couldn't quite believe what I was seeing, or there was nothing else on, I don't recall.
What I do remember in frightening detail is what a complete & utter pile of pointless crap this is.
Jolie & the brilliant Ecclestone in particular are totally wasted in this over-egged pudding of a film.
No amount of ridiculous car chases, OTT stunts or sweary shouting could compensate for the silly plot and Cage falling into the twin traps of believing he is an action hero and that he can act. And what a STUPID ending!
I used to like Nicholas Cage, he made a believable drunk/waster/no-good brother/Elvis - these are the roles to which he was suited. (Raising Arizona is one of my favourite films).
Then he began thinking he was Bruce Willis (One's enough, thanks).
The sheer preposterousness of his more recent offerings beggars belief, and now I hear he's in a remake of THE WICKER MAN! WTF is going on?
Suffice to say, I would rather eat my own eyes than see that, or National Treasure, or indeed anything he is in ever again such is the disillusioned twattishness of this fellow.
Azumi (2003)
Whadya expect, Kurosawa?
I received the double DVD today, thought I'd just have a quick look cos the footie was on and... well, the 2 1/2 hours flew by and I missed a last-gasp winner. But what a great film!
I haven't enjoyed an entry into this genre as much since 'The Water Margin' (but strangely, not 'Monkey').
Po-faced reviewers seem to forget this is basically a live-action manga starring a teenie Japanese popstar. Expect fake blood and cheese in equal measure. A 145-minute pop video with babes, swords, impressive set-pieces and wonderfully over-the-top acting.
Special mention must go to the bickering double-act of Minoru Matsumoto's monkey-faced ninja/dog and Joe Odagiri as a wonderfully foppish ultra-swordsman. Oh, and Aya Ueto is unbelievably cute and can fall on my sword anytime!
Suspend your Kurosawa expectations and watch this movie! My only gripe: I thought the final scene was unnecessary (it should have finished in the water) and pushed the cheesometer almost to the limit, hence ONLY 9/10.
Hard Men (1996)
Diamond geezers
I saw this again on TV tonight for maybe the third or fourth time, and certainly not the last. There is much to like about this little gem, but those looking for a Tarantino-esque experience (because that's all they seem to know), have been disappointed.
These negative reviewers have obviously had a sense of humour bypass, and ought to look up the word "irony" in the dictionary. Comparisons to Tarantino are facile and irrelevant, that world has nothing to do with this.
Another reviewer compared them to the Three Stooges, as if that's a BAD THING!? Although it's certainly more appropriate - three very different yet complimentary characters prone to sudden bursts of comedy violence, I found myself quite liking these guys, as opposed to the non-characters in so many movies where it's difficult to care who lives or dies.
A note on the acting - first-rate, as anyone would realise if they had seen their other work, especially Lee Ross. (The exception of course is Mad Frankie Fraser who plays himself as usual).
Doesn't take itself too seriously - 8/10
The Singing Detective (2003)
Let's remake a classic! What a stupid idea!
The original 48-hour TV production could apparently only be networked either in it's entirety or not at all. Why then was this bastardisation ever allowed? To ascribe Potter's name to this travesty of a mockery of a sham is an insult to possibly the greatest screen writer to ever draw breath.
I was more than ready to hate this, and I must say I was not disappointed. Where to start? The performances (mostly bad), the shoe-horned musical numbers, the lack of character development...
This follows the increasingly wearisome and well-trodden path that is Remake Alley. Take a classic, stick some big-bucks names in it and call it Betty. Have you guys run out of ideas? Get Carter!? The Italian Job!? Do us a favour, get a writer!$#
The (albeit few) positive reviews cite RD Jr's performance. This moist-eyed sentimentality for the drug-addled loon's fall from grace is quite touching. However, methinks he was playing himself, and as for Gibson! No matter what demands the part asks of him, he plays Gibson. A bit like Michael Caine, but devoid of cockney charm & wit. Or Ozzy charm & wit, but he's not even really an Ozzy.
Can't wait for his newie... "Strewth Sheila, I mean Mary! Throw us a tinny, I've been in the bush for 40 days and noights (sic) and I've a mouth like a swagman's grundies!" ...I think not.