Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Leap Year (2010)
1/10
Diddlee-eyeing its way across Ireland
26 September 2020
Found this gem through it being mentioned on the Motherfoclóir podcast. Not since the execrable 'Sons of Anarchy' has there been such a fever-dream version of Ireland. There's a stripe of American who thinks the country is stuck 50 years in the past forever. Note to such 'auteurs': there's a wonderful new search website called "go ogle". You can type things into "go ogle" like

"What does Dingle look like?" or "Do Irish people have celphones?" or "Do Irish people eat tripe?" or "How long does it take to sail from Cardiff to Dingle?" or "What kinds of cars do the Irish drive? or "Do Irish buses run on Sunday?", etc etc etc

First the big stuff: unlikeable characters (OK to start with them, not OK to end with them). Character arc, baby. We used to do them.

But it's the portrayal of Ireland that was phantasmagorical, even by Hollywood standards. The yokel pub scene is to be expected. The 'comic yokel relief' of the aul lads arguing was stale shtick, but the drunken man falling over was gross. Yeah, he was going to drive her to dublin but he was too drunk to walk, hahaha the irish amirite? Actually no you're not. Biggest tea drinkers are not the English but the Irish, and the biggest drinkers are the English not the Irish. Go ogle.

So her flight can't land in Dublin (apparently the only airport in Ireland). Could have just landed in Shannon. Oh wait we can't afford a research assistant.

"Go ogle: other airports in Ireland" would have told them about Shannon and presto our character is in "deh wesht" and can enjoy the bucolic delights of Tuam. But no, in Hollywood there is only one airport, so we must redirect to wales. Where (contrary to fact) welsh people are awful.

The opening insanity is the boat trip from Cardiff (there are no ferries from Cardiff, you'd leave from Holyhead, but I guess Americans wouldn't understand that). Still, even in the big ships that's a 2 hour travel time at least, but the Bauld Amy commandeers a small fishing ship and manages to reach Dingle (on the opposite side of Ireland) with time to spare. If the short trip is 2 hours in a huge ferry, she's surely losing at least half a day or a day with her cinematic trip to the wrong side of the country. Or, she could have waited for the next flight.

But I guess they wanted to get her to 'Deh Real Oireland' where "Deh real Oirish" still live.

Fever-dream stuff.

It goes downhill from there. I found the atmosphere anything but charming, actually intensely claustrophobic. In a country with one (old) car, maybe two, the inability to manage a very simple trip to Dublin actually feels Kafkaesque. The constant phone-on-the-wall business was just deranged, in a country where there are more mobile phones than people - by 2010 the market was saturated. The P&T boxes = whatever production company was dressing the sets must have been amazed to find out that they were working on a movie set in 2010, and not 1990.

There's so much to mention: the gruesome dinner kissing scene with the Italians. No conservative Irish couple would be OK with that - they'd squirm. Certainly none of the "go on ya boy ya give yer wife a good one yaroo!" madness. Don't get me started on the tripe. Isn't that more of a Northern English thing? Circa 1965?

Compulsory fight scene (because deh oirish dey're always foitin). Oh, god, the scene where Declan and the guy in the van spit and shake on their deal - no, hollywood, just no. Please stop, I'm asking nicely. Please.

The band he was playing in the care was a Boston American-Irish group, so we know this isn't exactly being marketed to the Irish. But I think the most despicable aspect of the film was the way Declan accuses her of "diddley-eyeing" her way across the country.

No Decko, it's the bloody movie that's doing that.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dreadful
30 January 2011
Look: if you're going to make a low budget movie:

1. Snappy dialog/script. None here. 2. Lighting: lighting is your friend. Either there was too much, or too little. The one minute long scene in the basement with total blackness was suspense-less. 3. Show, don't tell. Scenes where characters were huddled over a monitor. "Ooh, look at that!" Care to share with the audience. 4. Pacing. PACING!!!!! EDIT YOUR FOOTAGE! 5. Ever heard of blocking scenes? 6. Clearly, one of the characters in the movie is the HOUSE - like in The Shining, or the Amityville horror. So, why not go to some effort and find a house that has a sinister aspect? Gothic Revival, dilapidated late 19th/early 20thc - instead of what looks like an average home with vinyl siding! 7. Motivation: something other than "they've all lost people in their past and have ISSUES". Ugh. 8. At least ONE likable character? Someone for the audience to identify with? They're called "protagonists". The lead was not likable. 9. Close-ups are your friend. 10. Dialog that serves no purpose? Cut it. Silence is scarier than stupid dialog. What did Beckett say? "Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness."

Anyway, save yourself a ruined evening, and avoid this film. Try the original "The Haunting" from 1963 if you want to see how this is REALLY done.
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The X-Files: The Truth (2002)
Season 9, Episode 19
1/10
creative exhaustion!
29 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the show first time around in real-time, and have finally watched it again on DVD (over the course of a few months).

The mytharc from seasons 1-6 made a lot more sense than I expected. My low opinions of the alien story were artifacts from the final 3 seasons.

The show peaked around seasons 3-5.

It never recovered from the absence of Darrin Morgan.

In s7, creative exhaustion hit, hard. The wit & originality was gone - along with the Syndicate! Rule #1: there is no drama without conflict. Your PROtagonist MUST have an ANTagonist. Killing them off for a cheap thrill killed the show.

The season 9 "Super Soldiers" arc was lame in the extreme. The Skeptic/Believer structure of the show was also handled poorly - turning Scully into the believer, and Doggett into the skeptic was daft. All it would have taken was one episode - have Doggett see an alien with his own eyes - a "Road to Damascus" - and have him become a believer - acolyte - of Mulders. As Groucho Marx said - "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" That would be credible, and we could have followed his personal arc. Instead, it takes Doggett TWO FREAKING YEARS to accept the obvious, by which time the show is dead.

Were all of the final 3 seasons episodes bad? No - several were well worth watching - but overall, the experience was dispiriting. 8x6 "Redrum" was one of the more original...partly inspired by the movie "Memento", I think.

In Season 7, episode 9 "signs and wonders" at 8 mins, 25 seconds a boom mike operator is visible fully in the left side of the shot, in WS. If you can't keep the boom guy out of the frame, then you have a systemic problem with the show. This might have been excusable in an earlier season, but the 3:4 WS issue was well known by this time. I can't imagine how they allowed such a basic mistake to occur. Not a good omen. At that point, you realise that the Slide has begun.

Another beef: the final 3 seasons killed off critical characters (or saw them disappear for no reason): Krycek, CSM, blonde UN lady, etc. Oh, they all suddenly reappear for the final episode, but for no good reason. Where were they? The show had lost all respect for continuity. You'd think that, given Duchovny's absence, they'd have leaned on these characters more not less - another sign of CC's lack of common sense.

Another irritant: an absence of great villains (antagonists). Krycek and CSM were interesting because they had MOTIVES. You could sense that they were more than just twirly mustache baddies. CSM believed that he was good (a trait of first class baddies). He was evil, but human, with human failings. What do we get in seasons 8 and 9? Kirsh. The phrase "one dimensional" springs to mind. Could this character be less interesting? His sole reason is to be a road block, nothing more. Lazy, lazy, LAZY!!! TIRED, exhausted, tedious characterisation. Of course, he redeems himself, but only in the final episode, and for no apparent reason. Just another gob of phlegm in the face of the audience.

Speaking of 1D characters, Cary Elwes. Were we expected to take him seriously, or was he comic relief? The lone gunmen were scarier than his character.

Yet another irritant: why the ghosts in the final episode? Krycek is suddenly Mulder's guardian angel, in defiance of 9 years as his arch enemy? He's the killer of Scully's sister, or has CC forgotten?

X is back as a spectral visitor - he would have been plausible as a spirit guide instead of Krycek. Why not have Krycek as a spirit demon, taunting Mulder, if they wanted him as a guest star? This isn't rocket science, you know!

X is clearly a ghost, yet hands Mulder a corporeal piece of paper? WTF?

The lone gunmen I could have handled, as Mulder's absence from their funeral was crass and very unheroic - but after Krycek & X, this felt contrived - pandering to the audience, and ultimately not respecting their intelligence. The currency of death was also cheapened - characteristic of too many US TV shows (I'm looking at you, "Heroes").

When you have a property like the X-Files, you have to raise the stakes over time. This was done from seasons 1-6. The only path that makes sense is to show us more, not less, over time. Tease, yes, but RAISE THE STAKES. What we get in the final 3 seasons is less, less, and less. Burt Reynolds as God? I had to shower after that atrocity - not to mention the $$$ that must have been blown. One would think that CC would have realised all this prior to the second film - but no. Even after 7 years or R&R, he has learned nothing. Only a full scale war against the aliens or a first class monster episode would have sufficed. Instead, a sub-mediocre offering like the final TV episode was provided. Truly sad...George Lucas syndrome, it seems.

If I had his money & clout, I'd hire a talented young writer and have them do the heavy lifting. However, in Hollywood, EGO is all. Better to do it yourself and fail, than have someone else do it and succeed.

Note to CC and Lucas: LEARN HOW TO DELEGATE, for FUN & PROFIT.

The next time I watch the show, I'll restrict myself to seasons 1-6, which were magic of the first order. The bulk of the final 3 can safely be consigned to the memory hole, where they so richly belong.
50 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
internal continuity
1 December 2008
I enjoyed this episode - a nice view of the hollow nature of CSM's life - which was also shown in a previous show when Mulder tracks down CSM's apartment. "Look at me. No family, no life, a little power." he says then, and looked pathetic saying it.

My issue with this is that it contradicts a previous ep. (forget which, sorry) when we see a flashback to Roswell, 1947. CSM and Papa Mulder are already FBI agents then. It's clear from this ep. that CSM was still very young in the early 60s - so these two narratives are at odds.

Nitpicky, I know - but writers should try to keep the story internally consistent if possible.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The X-Files: Space (1993)
Season 1, Episode 9
1/10
Gruelling to watch
7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As a real "space" nut, this episode was even harder to watch.

Footage of a spacewalking astronaut was used - the famous EVA of Ed White, who later died in the Apollo 1 oxygen fire. This was both tasteless and lame.

The fictional astronaut is alleged to have been a Gemini astronaut. Mulder says that he stayed up at the age of 14 to watch the spacewalk. If the spacewalk occurred during the Gemini program, then Mulder would have to have been born around 1950 or 1952 - making him at least 10 years older than Duchovny. This is small, but it shows the carelessness of the writer towards the subject matter.

I don't work for NASA, but I know enough to recognise technobabble when I see it. Star Trek Voyager was more realistic. Worst mistake was the NASA "logo" in "mission control" - there are two NASA logos in use - the 70s style "Worm" - the one on the shuttle, and the "Meatball". The one in mission control on the wall was made up. Again, a small detail, but it shows a complete carelessness towards the subject.

Operations of the fictional shuttle program were pure bizarro-world - a PTSD Gemini Astronaut as Czar? With no oversight? This is post-Challenger NASA we're talking about - where you can't attach a screw without filling out sixteen forms.

The idea that the Shuttle astronauts couldn't take manual control of the orbiter without disconnecting communications with Earth and risking death was the single most ludicrous aspect, with even less basis in reality than a Gemini astronaut being possessed by a hill from Mars - and yet again showed us a writer pulling plot devices out of his posterior.

It was not pretty to watch.

And what was with the guest actors? Their chewing of the scenery was fit for a REAL-LIFE X-file...

Spooky.

You could watch this one for fun, in an MST3K sort of way...or make a drinking game out of it. Every time Colonel Blink or Astro-Girlfriend pops a vein, take a shot of Tequila.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
heinous
27 September 2008
I did enjoy Donnie Darko, but I'm not one of the undead Fanboys who glom on to film-makers like Kelly or Lucas.

I wanted to like this film, but in goes off the rails in the first 10 minutes. Interminable narration (a sure sign that the screenwriter doesn't know his craft); poorly cast, flat acting, gibberish politics, and just - plain - dull.

After 30 minutes, I began to fall asleep. I couldn't take any more.

Reading the minority of good reviews for this film, I'm struck by how detached from reality they are. Fanboys giving their hero a 10, I have no doubt. Fellas, real friends tell their friends when they're in trouble, and Kelly is in trouble - like Shyamalan. It's a Hollywood disease - you start with a hit, and are immediately surrounded by yes-men who will do anything except tell you the truth.

The first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem - this applies to Lucas, it applies to Shyamalan, and it applies to Kelly.

For those of you who managed to sit through two hours of this dreck and convince yourselves that it was a great film - all I can say is: WAKE UP!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
re: somewhat biased reviews of this movie here
8 October 2006
Warning - spoiler ahead: *** This movie is dreadful - a fact which would be apparent to a lobotomized cane toad after the first ten minutes *** How peculiar that a movie which scores 5.0 out of 10 (out of 2,597 votes cast) has a very long string of "reviews" giving it a 10 - about 90% of the reviews are a 9 or 10, as of October 2006. This is statistically anomalous.

What this demonstrates is that these reviews are coming from an unrepresentative sample of viewers - people with an agenda unconnected from the movie's cinematic merits (which are few). Their beliefs (in this case, Christian), compel them to flood the comments board with disproportionate praise.

Given the fact that our time on Earth is short, I find this reprehensible. The two hours spent enduring this travesty could be otherwise spent gardening, helping the homeless, or otherwise living one's life to the full.

The film tells the story of a human doormat, a woman with NO self respect; a shallow, whiny, materialistic walking coat hanger...and we are meant to feel SYMPATHY for this dreadful creature? She is everything that is wrong with our consumer driven society - a way of life that Jesus Himself would have truly despised.

I'm disgusted.
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
D.E.B.S. (2004)
1/10
DEBS = Disastrous, Excruciating, Banal, Stagnant.
2 January 2006
What to say? This effort was played for laughs, but achieves NONE. Who but the producers of this dreck would dare to post positive comments on it? The use of "schoolgirls" in short skirts is an attempt to appeal the prurient tastes of what used to be called "dirty old men".

The movie has the characteristic of a failed Saturday Night Live sketch that goes on and on and on, long after the audience (and performers) realise that it's just not funny.

I resent being made to feel embarrassed for the actors in a movie, a feat easily accomplished by "DEBS".

Yuck.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Girl in the Café (2005 TV Movie)
2/10
two movies in one. the first OK, the second - embarrassing
20 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
What starts out as an OK romantic comedy degenerates as soon as the leading lady turns into a political crusader. Every time she lectures the Chancellor or the P.M., I cringed with embarrassment.

Ironically, her social awareness does not extend to chocolate. She eats all the chocolate in the hotel room, but alas, is unaware of the horrific, slave-like conditions of many people who pick coco beans. Child labor is often used in Africa and South America...is she bothered? Hardly. As one of the characters says to her: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Indeed.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed