Change Your Image
mellowstreet
Reviews
A Fantastic Fear of Everything (2012)
Terrible Film Some Interesting Visuals
This film was made because it is cheap. A man stuck in a room talking to himself and shouting at shadows does not make a movie. A lot of the humour feels at least 30 years old and is the kind of thing we've seen in old cartoons. Clothes get burnt while drying in an oven, a knife gets superglued to a hand etc. There is no real story, no characters to relate to in the slightest, and a lot of padding to keep the lead alone in a studio set for as long as possible. There are some interesting visuals but they don't counteract the boredom and frustration that sets in 15 minutes into the film. Despite the visuals, the film feels cheap because large parts of it are just one guy in a room. Avoid.
Up (2009)
Not a Children's Movie!
Do not take young children to see UP. The movie starts with a depressing montage of an young boy meeting, marrying, and then burying the love of his life. They grow old together, childless, after finding out that she is barren, and then the wife dies. That is how UP opens and it only gets worse from there. There is physical assault, the endangerment of a child, savage dogs, fire, more physical assault and death (again). There is nothing uplifting or redeeming about UP and most of the young children in the theatre had to be carried out crying, because sections of it are dark, menacing and terrifying. The parents I was with agreed that this had to be the product of a disturbed mind and castigated Disney for ever releasing such violent dark content. Nobody had any idea how UP got its rating, with all the violence and darkness. This movie can and probably will damage the Disney brand in terms of how much parents trust it in future. Not suitable for children and by no means is it an uplifting, funny or enjoyable film.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Lamer than a pirate with a peg leg
I am a big fan of Pirates I, the story was great, the action was terrific and Depp and Rush put in excellent performances. The only weak points in the first film were Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. For the life of me, I cannot see what all the fuss is about. They may be pretty to look at, but neither of them can act for toffee. Pirates II is a big let down. The story is laboured and convoluted. I think this may be because the film has to reunite Depp, Bloom and Knightley. Far better to have focused on Johnny Depp - audiences want to see Jack Sparrow not the supporting acts. Knightley and Bloom's agents must have been hard at work because this feels far more like an ensemble piece. I couldn't care less about Will Turner's dramatic reunion with his father or Knightley's take on the post-feminist swashbuckler. Leaving the acting aside for one moment, there are huge plot holes, gaps in logic, character inconsistency (for example; one minute the two comic relief pirates are happy to abandon our heroes, the next they're willing to sail to the ends of the Earth to save them), implausible motivation and unexplained gaps in time. Overall, it feels like a lazy script, which is a shame because I'm a big fan of the writers so I can only guess that it may have been over-developed by the studio. Directing is sharp and the special effects are great but CGI is a dime a dozen nowadays and audiences need strong stories, solid plot and good performances to engage them. Pirates II is a let down, rent Pirates I on DVD instead and remind yourself of how great it was.
King Kong (2005)
Did We Really Need This
All those Peter Jackson fans who get irate at anyone who dares to question the genius of their hero had better stop reading now. The guy suffers from Lucasism - an inability to direct actors, instead relying on the power of special effects to keep the critics and movie-going public in awe. King Kong has some of the worst acting and dialogue in cinema history. I knew we were in for a rough three hours when five minutes in, a random old man was giving us Ann Darrow's backstory by way of a cloying, mawkish speech. Cinema-goers are more sophisticated now than ever, we need less explanation of characters' motivations, not more. The film could have started on the ship and not suffered a single bit. In fact, I would have resented it less as I would not have been forced to make a pointless investment in the backstories of what were essentially, cartoon characters. And what the hell was with the Jimmy subplot? Who gave a damn about him? Frankly, I was hoping the monkey would eat him. The Jimmy subplot involves more wasted time on a minor character, the cabin-boy, and the relationship between him and the ultimately doomed first mate. I thought Hollywood had moved on from killing-off the only featured black character in the late 1970s, but it appears that there is no movie-making cliché too old for Peter Jackson.
I went to see this with a few friends and we spent most of the first half of the movie asking, "Where's the monkey?". The monkey or more correctly, ape, is impressive. But fake fur and Andy Serkis in a CGI suit do not a three hour movie make. The fight scenes between Kong and the dinosaurs were dull because it was obvious who would win. And apart from Kong, most of the CGI in the movie was decidedly poor, something that will become more apparent when the movie is released on DVD. The brontosaurus chase took me back to the early days of green-screen fakery - it has been many years since I've seen such obvious running on the spot. At over three hours the film is both too long and too short. The backstories are a waste but important elements of the film are simply smoothed over or ignored. For example, when Adrien Brody goes off into the jungle, unarmed and alone, how does Jack Black know he will survive and rescue Ann Darrow and bring Kong back in hot pursuit? What makes him believe Brody will survive when an endless number of crewmen have already been killed by the dinosaurs and bugs? It's just one of many examples of lazy scriptwriting. It's probably worth highlighting just another three otherwise I'll be here all day. First, grab the bat must surely replace jumping the shark as a term defining a low-point in screen history. When Brody rescues Ann Darrow and has her on the vine to nowhere, I said to myself, there is no way the writers would be so lazy and unimaginative as to get them out of this by having him ride a bat to safety. I was wrong. I realise it is a fantasy but even fantasy must be grounded in reality. I can live with Ann Darrow's neck not being snapped like a twig at hundreds of points in the movie. I can also live with her winning Kong's heart through the power of dance! And even the ice-skating ape scene. But grabbing a giant vampire bat's wing and riding it to safety? Come on! Then there is the big plot hole. Somehow, the ship sails from Skull Island back to New York, minus most of its crew and with a giant monkey possessed of endless strength safely ensconced in the hold. Not a problem if it had been a twenty-minute journey, but according to the first portion of the movie, the ship had sailed from New York to the Pacific, a journey of at least, what two, three weeks. Probably a month. At least the much-maligned 1970s Jeff Bridges-Charles Grodin remake showed the trouble Kong caused on the journey home. Finally, the closing lines of the movie must rank as some of the worst dialogue ever written. Two photographers are taking pictures of the fallen Kong. It goes something like this: "Why'd he go up there? He must have known they were coming." "Who cares, the planes got him." Then Jack Black appears and says, "It wasn't the planes that got him, it was beauty that killed the beast." In order to hammer home the message that Kong sacrificed himself and allowed himself to be killed, we are forced to endure a photographer who thinks the monkey should have known the planes were coming for him. A monkey who should have known the planes were coming! And I'm afraid I must disagree with Jack Black, it wasn't beauty who killed the beast, it was a money-grabbing, cheating, lying movie director who dragged him off his Island and made a freak-show out of him. Peter Jackson remade this film for himself and that's fine. Go for it buddy. If you can make $200m movies on a whim because you are Hollywood's golden boy, enjoy it while it lasts. What's irritating about King Kong is the fact that the critics have been taken in by the emperor's new clothes. A film with so many obvious flaws should have attracted far more criticism. Why it hasn't may be to do with the studio's huge marketing spend in many newspapers and magazines. Or perhaps the goodwill for the director left over from Lord of the Rings. Kong is self-indulgent and self-important. Cut two hours for the DVD release and it might make a fun monkey romp. But left as it is, steer clear, the effects alone aren't worth three hours of your life and Jurassic Park did it much better anyway.
Serenity (2005)
Not bad
I never saw a single episode of Firefly and had no idea what to expect of this film. It is not bad. It doesn't deserve to be in the top 250 movies of all time and it is certainly not a classic, but it is an okay way to spend two-hours even if you're not a die-hard sci-fi fan. The movie follows the standard Weddon formula. Central female protagonist with incredible talents, hanging with a bunch of friends who are outside the mainstream, facing seemingly insurmountable odds. It is more Star Trek than Star Wars. This was not a grand cinematic opera, this was a movie about people and characters. River's wondering around looking deep but not actually doing much got annoying at times, but apart from that, if you want to see spaceships, action and have some fun, you could do much worse than go and see Serenity.
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Felt longer than the entire BBC series
This production felt extremely flat and somehow managed to bore most of the people in the theatre. Kiera Knightley was okay but she'd basically ripped off her performance from Jennifer Ehle. Matthew MacFayden was wooden. One mark of a poor film is a high number of close-ups. Directors can use them to hide turgid acting or characters that do not gel. Joe Wright's film is full of close-ups. It is also full of fancy rotating tracking shots that cannot cover up the fact that the film feels flat and lifeless. The dipping in and out of conversations by tracking an entire house or party also leaves one unable to get involved with any of the characters. The result? You simply do not care what happens to any of them and none of the relationships in the film develop any chemistry. None of the romances and none of the sibling/sibling or even parent/child relations. And the final scene? What a lacklustre way to end this great story?! Some nice shots of the English countryside, but they've been seen before. Do not believe the critics or the advertising. And ask yourself how many people reviewing on IMDb work for or represent the studio. This is not a patch on the BBC production and even if that version had not existed, this would still be a lousy movie. It made two hours feel like eight.
Revolver (2005)
Not as bad as everyone says
I went to see Revolver with the lowest possible expectations. Yes, it's pretentious. Yes, the music is terribly ham-fisted. Yes, the voice-overs almost had me slitting my wrists with their pseudo-jedi nonsense. Yes, it is a confusing plot. However, it is also a very brave movie and the plot is not so confusing as to be unfathomable. Guy Ritchie is right, it needs to be thought through. Whether, after such thinking, one concludes that the plot is a good one is a whole different matter. Andre 3000 has a bright acting career ahead of him as does Mark Strong, who puts in the movie's best performance as Sorter. It is the kind of movie that the critics could have loved, just to make themselves seem in some way better than the normal viewing public. Instead, in general, they chose to hate it. This may have more to do with a desire to see Guy Ritchie fall - although how much lower he can go after the response to Swept Away and now Revolver remains to be seen. Not a good movie but certainly not the benchmark worst movie ever and worth going to just to see if you can figure out the plot.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Where was the war? Where were the worlds?
Forget about the wasted opportunity. This movie opens with a big 'screw you' shot. Did we need an expensive panning shot to establish that Tom Cruise was a hard-working average Joe? No. He could have been a bartender but that would not have involved wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single shot. And what average Joe other than an average Joe played by a movie star drives a classic Mustang? One review I've seen on IMDb says the movie's opening avoids clichés. That might be true but they've avoided clichés by the numbers. There are no surprises in the first half of the movie - right down to Tom Cruise not carrying his young daughter's suitcase up to her bedroom and leaving his pregnant ex-wife to do it. There wasn't any need for this kind of lazy shorthand character exposition as we got the idea he was a useless father later on in the movie. There was no sense of any worlds being involved in a war. Even their drive out of town on the crowded freeway did not convey any excitement or danger, quite possibly because the sequence was obviously shot in a studio. The entire world was just background - extras in Tom Cruise's life - and as such one could not care less whether they were vaporised, had the blood sucked from their body or turned up at convenient moments to give Tom Cruise and the audience information they needed to know about what was happening. The only surprising part of this movie is the murder of the Tim Robbins character by Tom Cruise. Throughout the movie we see nothing but selfishness from Tom and pretty much everyone else and if Spielberg's intention was to punctuate this with the ultimate act of selfishness, he succeeded. However, he stretched my credulity in doing so. Tim Robbins had a sharpened shovel and a number of knives and tools attached to his tool belt. He towers over Tom and yet somehow Tom was able to murder him without getting more than a little scratch. And why murder him anyway? In the old days, a sock in the jaw would either knock a person out or bring them to their senses. And then the whining son turns up at the end. I knew he would the moment the flaming jeep rolled back over the hill. Why did Spielberg have to be so sentimental? Frankly, I didn't shed a tear when I thought he was dead, but I did when he showed up outside the pristine house in the Boston suburb. Predictable (apart from the premeditated murder), lame and with CGI effects that did nothing for me. If Hollywood really wanted to give us great entertainment they would dazzle us with the unexpected. A real Hitchcokian moment would have been to kill off Tom Cruise in the first fifteen minutes and up the stakes for everyone involved, including the audience. Instead, Spielberg gave us a bizarre combination of the sickly sentimental and the sickly harsh.
Sin City (2005)
Terrible
According to IMDb, this film is most popular with boys aged 0-18. Should tell you all you need to know. It contains some terrible acting. Michael Madsen deserves a rotten tomato for his efforts near the start of the movie. There are no characters to sympathise with, virtually no story and the violence just keeps coming and coming. I was on the verge of walking out of the theatre but with all the great names involved both in front of and behind the camera, I kept hoping for something positive to take away from the movie. I kept waiting and hoping. Hoping and waiting. But nothing positive ever came. The stylized violence becomes too much after about the first five minutes. I know it's based on a 'graphic novel' but we don't need to see every bullet wound, decapitation or castration in graphic detail. Don't waste your time on this movie.
The Interpreter (2005)
By The Numbers
Sean Penn looks tired. Granted, in the film, his ex-wife has just died and he has to protect an interpreter. But I think the real reason he looks tired is because of the sleepless nights he must have had after he agreed to make this movie. What were you thinking Sean? The script seems like it was written by committee, following the Hollywood By The Numbers guide to writing thrillers. How can we make Sean a tortured soul? Let's give him a dead wife. No, no. Let's make her his ex-wife and she was on her way back to be with him when the boyfriend she left him for kills them both. Now that's tragic. Great idea Bob, you want a Mai Tai? There are numerous examples of by the numbers plot devices in this movie and whilst there is nothing wrong with a movie being predictable and formulaic, there is something slightly annoying when the film also takes itself so seriously. Messages are not delivered so much as hammered into one's skull with the subtlety of an elephant taking a dump. With the amount of explanation going on, it felt like I was back at school instead of in a movie theatre trying to enjoy myself. The film gets going when Nicole Kidman decides to take a bus ride, but I found myself gasping with disbelief when the Secret Service agents failed to arrest the bad guy before he had the chance to leave a little surprise on the bus. He'd just been seen leaving an apartment where they found a guy murdered. So what should have been a very tense sequence just left me feeling annoyed at lazy screen writing. I suspect the original ending did not test well, as the ending we were subjected to seemed tacked on and pointless. And the 'twist' of having the woman of words resort to the gun at the end of the movie was predictable and patronising. Unsubtle and dull but given the quality of other movies on offer at the moment, I'm sure it will do okay.