stephen7272's Reviews

The Family (I) (2013)

3/10

7 January 2016

Warning: Spoilers

A generally unpalatable movie. It shows the French to be weak and inept, which they are not (and I'm English). It uses violence and death as comedy, which it is not. It displays an ignorance of Normandy that only Americans would suffer from. It shows weak Americans as being superhuman, which they are not.

We are meant to believe in the fallacy that this gangster family are capable of horrendous acts of violence. They aren't. I could turn this entire family into a quivering wreck and I've never been involved in the world of gangsters and crime.

The daughter in the movie drops her panties for unprotected sex with the Frenchman and then claims she has been misled. She is a slut.

If this movie was meant to win the affection of a European audience it missed that mark by a mile. Normandy? D-Day landings, yes it was. But people lived there. They were called the Normans. Do you know who the Normans were? They were blood thirsty, skin headed Viking warriors. Not only did they terrorise France, they also won the crown of England lead by William The Conqueror. What is Normandy famous for? Cheese. Idiots.

Italian Mafia gangster movies work when set in New York. When you export them to Europe, you're Italian Mafia gangsters get chewed up and spit out by indigenous populations who have been fighting religious and political wars for over 2,000 years.

Come on Hollywood, let's see you make an American gangster movie in somewhere like Northern Ireland or the Basque region of Spain. Let's see if your wise talking Italian Mafia mobsters can last more than five minutes in a territory dominated by the Provisional IRA or the Ulster Unionists. Think you're good at knee-capping??

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

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

9/10

Finally a historical war movie with no Americans in it

4 January 2016

Warning: Spoilers

I laughed my socks off at some of the negative reviews of this film but I can understand why a fan of say Pirates Of The Caribbean might find this a bit dull in comparison.

This is the Royal Navy old chap, stiff upper lip with understated British emotion, other than when Frenchie is off the port bow.

I think I really enjoyed this film purely for the fact that so few movies are made these days about the British Empire and the Royal Navy. Those that have included them usually show them in a negative light as either the baddies or incompetent such as in The Patriot. This movie returns to the tradition of movies like Zulu, showing the British serviceman as a gallant fellow fighting for what they believe in. Okay it's not perfect, the editing is too choppy for me, but as an Englishman and with so few movies made of this genre these days its hard not to embrace it.

For those who don't understand the historical relevance, there's clearly a tie in with Paul Bettany's character and the trip made by Darwin on the Beagle to the Galapagos islands to fine tune his book the Origins Of Species. Without that information the viewer might wonder why the obsession with visiting those islands in the movie.

A sequel would have been wonderful but alas probably won't happen. A modern version of Sink The Bismark would be wonderful but alas, once again, probably won't happen. Shame. I suppose we'll just have to make do with movies about fantasy pirates and over the top military escapades with the US Navy such as Battleship.

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

Iron Man Three (2013)

4/10

Iron Man without Iron Man (or the Mandarin)

3 January 2016

Warning: Spoilers

Clearly Robert Downey Jnr wanted to make this his last Iron Man movie so a story was contrived to allow him to drive away with honour as a happy man with a fixed heart, both in terms of his love life and his physical injury.

Blockbuster movies these days are designed around demographics. IM 3 is no different. Women have to be empowered so Pepper ends up with super powers. Women don't need men so Tony Stark doesn't save Pepper from her plummet to death. An Asian audience must not be offended so the Mandarin is converted into a white Caucasian. An African American saves the Presidency (i.e. Obama). British actors overwhelm Hollywood movies so a few jokes are thrown in about British theatrical actors playing roles in superhero movies. The esteem of scientists and DNA engineering has been lowered so the bad guy is a scientist who alters DNA. Fallen American soldiers in the Middle East have to be honoured so we are given a young boy who has lost his soldier father. Returning vets from the Middle East suffering from the effects of war are represented by Stark's anxiety attacks. Engineering is too clever a subject for most audiences so Tony Stark becomes a mere mechanic. The super rich are largely detested by the public so Stark's Malibu home gets blown to pieces. Hard drugs users are used as the prototype for the villains who can either handle an overdose or explode in an inferno.

The final message is that there are no superheroes. There are just men and machines. As with modern day drones, the Iron Man suit becomes an unmanned drone that can be lost in battle without harm to its operative.

Very little of the comic book super hero is left. But the makers knew this would appeal to a wider audience of non-superhero fans so they experimented with that path. The comic book fans will wonder if the real Iron Man is still out there somewhere. I'm sure he is and will return one day, slightly dirtier and more hardcore than before.

Unfortunately, once again the editing is dreadful, resorting to the modern craze for 1 second or less camera shots.

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

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

4/10

Predictable And Disappointing

16 August 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Plot: It's not made clear why any of the characters is after the Holy Grail. In the tank scene Indy has his bag strap caught around the barrel of the gun and is unable to release it. But after escaping from being crushed by a rock, his bag strap suddenly no longer restricts his movement. In the invisible bridge scene he crosses the bridge on faith alone and then scatters dirt to reveal the bridge. He could have used dirt to reveal the bridge in the first place. In another escape scene Indy drives away with his father on a motorbike with side car. But he doesn't wait for the Germans in the boat to motor off the shore. There are only two sections of the story that involve the Holy Grail. The rest of the story is once again about Nazi Germany. In general, the story relies too much upon comedy to see it through.

Characters: Predominantly male dominated. The only female is a young woman who sleeps around without contraception and yet miraculously fails to get pregnant. Is she a Nazi, isn't she a Nazi? Even she doesn't know. The 700 year old crusader knight was particularly unconvincing and looked like he was in the wrong movie. Perhaps he thought he was in Monty Python's The Holy Grail. Connery's character struggles to portray Indy's father.

Acting: Harrison Ford's facial expressions are well rehearsed by now and used in every scene. Connery normally relies upon his deep smooth voice but it sounds weak in this movie.

Scenery And Props: The tank was very odd. A WW1 British tank with a turret being employed by the Germans. Even odder was it's speed of 20mph. Most WW1 British tanks could barely manage 5mph. The final location of Petra in Jordan now looks unconvincing considering we know it has no affiliation with Christianity.

Conclusion: A hash of old ideas and a bit of a disappointment. Once again relied heavily upon the Germans as an opponent where the opportunity was there to introduce new adversaries such as the Knights Templar or another religious sect.

Best Scene: The No Ticket scene on the zeppelin.

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

Burlesque (I) (2010)

5/10

Stylish But Predictable

11 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Several attempts have been made to re-create stories based upon The Star Is Born. A few of those have been based upon Burlesque theatrical dance. This movie is one of them. The burlesque style is essentially women dressed as prostitutes dancing provocatively on stage without exposing their bits.

As a movie showcase for Christina Aguilera songs it succeeds. Christina is sweet then raunchy and performs her routines with the high quality visual sexiness we have come to expect from her music videos. This movie came after her Back To Basics album which explored a variety of 20th century dance and singing themes. In the movie she is joined by Cher as the club owner, who in my opinion, has the best ballad in the movie.

In spite of the raunchiness, this is a movie directed at the female audience rather than at the boys. It is about woman having fun dressing up, applying their make-up and enticing men around their little fingers. There are no doormen throwing out troublemakers from the club and no fist fights let alone a gun. This is the opposite of say Roadhouse. Humour is provided superbly by Stanley Tucci.

The song and dance acts are stylish, however the plot of the story is tediously predictable. You won't find a single surprise in this movie.

Burlesque scores highly for it's imagery but it falls far short of the movie Cabaret as a story. Burlesque plays safe whilst Cabaret was a lot more edgy.

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

The Raven (I) (2012)

4/10

80 years after it's time

10 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

There has been a recent trend towards American Gothic horror. The Raven fitted this genre. It was a commercial failure but still has it's admirers. So let me examine why it was a financial flop.

There is plenty of gory action so the reason does not lie there. Both Poe and the murderer indulge in their passion. There is a close partnership between Poe and the police detective. 19th American society is vividly portrayed. The search for Emily and the kidnapper is intriguing and unpredictable. So that's 5 out of 5 good things about this movie.

But the movie is not contemporary. It requires an understanding of Poe's fiction and his literary quotes which is lost on much of today's non-literary audience. It is even harder to comprehend for foreign audiences.

This movie could have been as commercially successful as other American horror if it had been filmed in the 1930's. 2012 is just too late for it to capture the attention of a worldwide audience.

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

Doom (2005)

5/10

Where did the money go?

19 April 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Doom starts off like a B- movie and ends up as a B+ movie. My first question is where did $60 million dollars go. That's a big budget for 2005.

Visually for a horror flick there is very little CGI. The audience have to make do with monsters in rubber suits and zombies in covered plenty of fake blood gel.

The set falls short of an Aliens movie and so does the cast. With budget foreign actors such as Karl Urban, Deobia Oparei, Dexter Fletcher and Rosamund Pike carrying the movie as best they can, it just leaves Dwayne Johnson to do his wrestling style theatrics in front of camera.

Yes it's target audience are 14 year old kids wanting to level up but the movie does have a few things in its favour. Firstly, the science in it is well researched. The inclusion of nano walls, an Ark molecular transporter to Mars and a 24th chromosome are intriguing scientific concepts.

The best action scene in the movie is by far the first person shooter camera angle. This imitates the experience of the computer game perfectly. And the finale of this montage is a chainsaw fight against a wheelchair bound dog type creature (mutated Pinky).

I felt this movie deserves a remake with modern CGI and a better script. But keep the science.

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

God Bless America (2011)

7/10

A movie about American gun culture

17 April 2015

Warning: Spoilers

The basis of this movie is that American society is ill because nobody pays any respect to anyone else. Everyone is selfish, mean and rude. That might be true, but the solution provided in the movie is even worse. That solution is to pick up a gun and kill anyone you find disagreeable. The gun is the only reliable means of earning respect.

America isn't ill because people show no respect. America is ill because using a gun to resolve social problems is now considered the first option. This movie is really about gun control and the right for anyone to own and use a weapon of mass slaughter. Every American is a potential terrorist because of lax gun control laws. The college and school massacres will continue just because some frustrated coward can get their hands on an assault rifle.

What makes this such a gem is the casting. Joel Murray and Tara Barr play the roles of Bonnie and Clyde in such an unassuming manner. The best scene for me was in the movie theatre where minor annoyances that break the house rules lead to a bloodbath.

So 7 out of 10 for entertainment. 0 out of 10 for the message.

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

Red Tails (2012)

7/10

Made like a WW2 propaganda movie

14 April 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Seriously, what is it with some reviewers? A war movie is not meant to be portrayed as a historical documentary. If you're looking for that, go watch a documentary. No this about the razzmatazz of sparkling P51's soaring through the skies.

Red Tails is good old fashioned war propaganda showing the contribution of African Americans to WW2. Sure it's full of combat flaws. Yes, yes, a few machine gun bullets cannot detonate a destroyer or even a steam train. But it makes up for that with a bright optimistic message from a time when America could be truly proud of itself.

Some of the dialogue makes you cringe. The love story is as boring as hell. But it's big, bright and colourful. The only other movie I can think of that matches it in the excitement of WW2 aerial dogfights is The Battle Of Britain movie. And the fly boys all have their own personalities and attributes.

As well as emphasising racial prejudice, it also touches on alcoholism and religious beliefs, both of which must have been used to relieve war stress during WW2. The only missing element is Coca Cola served to American servicemen in abundance.

One final note. There were many black soldiers in German POW camps. But they were from the French colonies rather than American.

If you can overlook the flaws, and let's face it all movies have flaws, Red Tails is all good fun.

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

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

6/10

It's missing something...I think it's humour

13 April 2015

Warning: Spoilers

So it's been established by other reviewers that the screenplay differs from the book. That's to be expected, since the movie is intended to be watched by a large audience who haven't read the book. And Hollywood productions often insist upon a particular plot sequence.

The basis of the story is a clever idea. Take a famous character from American history and place him into an entirely different genre (horror). It is saying that the horror of war isn't enough....vampires are also required to spice things up. Not a bad idea.

Benjamin Walker plays the role of Abe Lincoln convincingly throughout and the other cast back him up. The action scenes are based upon the slow-mo originality provided by the Matrix and the kung-fu jinks of Chinese action movies.

But this movie has a glaring fault that I'm surprised wasn't picked up during production. There is no humour in it. It has action, fear, sorrow and guilt but no humour. The lack of humour is like baking a cake without putting any icing on the top.

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

Sorority Row (2009)

6/10

Good acting saves this movie

12 April 2015

Warning: Spoilers

This could have been a terrible movie. It could have turned into a comedy. But instead it was entertaining thriller. A group teenage flick is always going to be tricky to pull off, but the director, actors and film crew manage it here.

I thought all of the young actors performed their parts well. This movie gives them a springboard to more mature roles.

The script was proficient with several cheeky phrases added to the dialogue. Only a few locations were used which must have kept the production budget lower. The use of predominantly female protagonists and male antagonists made this a bit of a girl power movie, which is fine. Though at times it felt a little like a cross between a Scooby Doo horror story and an episode of Charlie's Angels.

The single flaw with the movie is that it has to compete with so many other teenage mutilation flicks to grab attention. That has been a busy genre with other movies already setting the standard to attain. That makes it very difficult for Sorority Row to stand out, particularly without any proper ghouls.

Good effort all round. Double the production budget would have produced double the entertainment.

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

Edward Scissorhands (1990)

6/10

Edward Scissorhands is a male homosexual

17 March 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Note to film makers - yes you can make a hit movie when you only have sentimental nonsense to work with. Edward Scissorhands proves it. You just have to direct it at the right audience.

So, emotionally sensitive young man who doesn't fit into society finds friendship in a young woman and her mother. Female cosmetics are applied to his face and he learns how to cut hair and prune bushes into sculptures. However much he loves the girl he cannot have intercourse with her. And brash testosterone driven college kid hates him.

So guess who Edward Scissorhands is? Obvious isn't it? He's a male homosexual. Many women would like to have a male homosexual as a friend. Kim (Winona Ryder) gets her wish.

Edward Scissorhands as a monster of horror is garbed in Gothic horror and relies upon a few elements from Frankenstein and Dracula. Vincent Price adds the final touch.

Tim Burton carried similar camp themes into his Batman movies.

Note to audience - whenever you see Alan Arkin in a movie, it's a sign that conventions are being challenged.

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

Repo Men (2010)

5/10

Touchy subject for some people

14 March 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Like Gattica with it's DNA plot, audiences aren't yet ready to find the subject of body organ replacements a topical issue. That's not to say they won't one day. This movie is just about saved by good acting performances from Jude Law, Forest Whitaker and Liev Schreiber. With a different plot it could have been turned into a great buddy movie between law and Whitaker. By setting the organ repossession story in the future with mechanical organs, it kind of lost it's bite for me. It might have been more controversial if it had been based upon the repossession of donated body organs. For most of us this is just a science fiction story, but for many people in the world with faulty organs it really is a matter of life and death today. But it did make me think how fortunate I am to have working body organs, or at least for the moment I do.

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

Gattaca (1997)

5/10

Shame this movie wandered into space

12 March 2015

Warning: Spoilers

1. The topic of genetic discrimination might be more topical in the future but it wasn't in 1997, which is why it flopped at the box office.

2. Genetic science has moved on since this movie was made and proved some of the film's assumptions to be untrue. We all share the same genetic material but some genes are turned on in some people and turned off in other people. One of the goals of modern science is the ability to turn those genes on and off at will.

3. There isn't much acting to do. Jude Law had the hardest role to play and played it well.

4. Several plot flaws such as why don't the authorities have everyone's home address? Why can't they detect alcohol and nicotine in Vincent's bloodstream?

5. If Vincent is concerned about genetic faults holding back his ambitions he should watch a movie like Precious to truly understand the effects of physical discrimination.

6. Why would anyone want to go to Titan? There is far less there than on Earth.

7. Had nobody noticed that many of the greatest scientists were physically imperfect (e.g. Einstein and Stephen Hawking). So there is no relationship between physical attributes and mental attributes. In fact, physical imperfection may result in mental perfection.

8. Great to see Alan Arkin again. Just a hint of his Catch 22 style. Such an underused actor.

9. I suppose this movie appeals to self conscious pretty 20-somethings who feel that a blemish on their skin is a negative attribute.

10. Is it true that physical appearance holds people back in their working careers? The studies show it does. Unfortunately, the script failed to go there. It could have but instead it wandered into space.

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

Total Recall (I) (2012)

7/10

Better than I had expected

9 March 2015

Warning: Spoilers

1. I'd read reviews saying this movie was a let down. It wasn't for me. I enjoyed it.

2. Lots of eye candy for boys and girls.

3. Kate Beckinsale plays the baddie with real enthusiasm and as hot as ever. Colin Farrell is a competent actor for action movies. It'll be interesting to see the roles he takes as he gets older.

4. Blade Runner / 5th Element style cities but without the rain.

5. Dialogue is weak. Quite a few pointless conversations about the meaning of life and the past.

6. The magnetic car chase was a pleasant additive.

7. In hindsight the idea of a brain implant isn't necessary. The protagonist could have just been a double agent from the start.

8. Bill Nighy has terrible lines and struggles with an American accent. Wrong casting choice for me.

9. The CGI was good work by the animators.

10. Overall, I enjoyed this version more than the original.

11. Rather baffled as to why this did so badly at the box office. Bad timing? Fans of the original complained too much?

12. I'd be happy to see a sequel.

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

Batman Begins (2005)

5/10

5 Seconds Of This Movie Are Great

3 March 2015

Warning: Spoilers

1. Steals a little from the origins of David Carradine's Kung Fu storyline.

2. Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, so surely he can afford a sprinkler system in his mansion to prevent it burning to the ground.

3. Relies heavily upon British, Irish and Dutch actors (Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy and Rutger Hauer) which is ironic considering Batman is an American idol. It's essentially a European movie.

4. Some very sexy low angle shots of Katie Holme's breasts to excite the male teenage audience (and us old men).

5. Ludicrous but innovative military Bat car. It could never turn a sharp corner with those wheels.

6. Over complex and unnecessary plot about toxins in the city water supply that then need to be vaporised by a laser type weapon.

7. Enjoyable special effects for the Scarecrow character.

8. The 5 seconds when the Scarecrow sees Batman as a shark toothed bat gargoyle is how Batman should be portrayed all the time in my book. A supernatural Batman would make him truly scary.

9. Compared with other super heroes, Batman is a bit weak on fire power.

10. With all those skyscrapers, I kept expecting to see Spiderman swing around the corner at any moment.

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

Vehicle 19 (2013)

6/10

Reaches it's destination with a few bumps along the way

26 February 2015

Warning: Spoilers

1. A low budget on-the-run-from-the-law movie.

2. An improvement on the tedious and immature Fast And Furious movie franchise.

3. Not the only movie that has been filmed in it's entirety inside a car but it pulls it off better.

4. Solid acting performances from Paul Walker and Naima McLean.

5. Several questionable scenes in the plot that are ignored for the sake of continuing the story.

6. Colourful footage for a low budget movie.

7. Highlights the continuing concerns about government corruption in South Africa.

8. Stereotypes the traditional view of a white apartheid police officer.

9. Could have made more use of characters in the townships in the plot.

10. The car re-spray scene tried to mimic an American movie too much.

11. More Naima McLean please.

12. RIP Paul Walker. He was becoming a better actor.

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

Fortitude (2015–2018)

9/10

Cold But Charismatic

20 February 2015

Warning: Spoilers

The first two scenes of Fortitude tells you where this is heading. A recollection of man's death whilst being attacked by a polar bear and the discovery of an ancient mammoth corpse. Fortitude is about unravelling what happened in the past from the current evidence. The truth hides itself behind the character's attempts to keep their own past a secret from one another. That's why they have all ended up in a town on the edge of the Arctic - to hide their pasts in the snow and ice.

Some viewers may not grasp the subtleties in the script and the behaviour of some of the characters. The script is designed to reveal the truth at the rate of a dripping tap. It's also designed to show the rules of life in the Arctic upon which daily life revolves.

Richard Dormer takes on the lead role of Norwegian sheriff Dan and plays him like a sharp but unsinkable iceberg. Jessica Raine as Jules Sutter proves again she is a formidable actress, just as she did in Wolf Hall, and we can look forward to much more of her on screen. Sofie Gråbøl plays her role as an edgy governor attempting to keep Fortitude attached to civilisation. Stanley Tucci is clearly comfortable playing the role of the charismatic and unphased DCI Morton. Spanish beauty Verónica Echegui seems a little out of place within the Arctic circle but she certainly takes on the challenge of pleasing an English speaking audience. Michael Gambon acts like an anchor to reality.

If you don't appreciate Fortitude, it's probably because you are constantly waiting for more violent action or you just don't do British and European accents. Personally I find it a treat to watch.

31 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4.3.2.1. (2010)

7/10

4 stories in 1 movie

28 January 2014

Warning: Spoilers

Was this written by 1 script writer or 4?

This is an enjoyable movie, particularly for the lads (because there are lots of scenes of young nymphets in skimpy clothing).

It's not about a major crime (that's just a back story). It's about each of the 4 young ladies blaming themselves for their own poor decisions in life and then reconciling with them.

The movie was designed to provide sequel since the ending sees the all flying off the New York together for more adventures.

I thought the actresses and actors did a fine job. The wardrobe was just right and the reverse editing style reminded me on Run Zola Run.

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

Funny Games (2007)

4/10

You Don't Understand What This Movie Is About

10 January 2014

Warning: Spoilers

I can guarantee that you will not understand the point of this movie. It's not about torture, humiliation, fear and murder as you might suppose. It's about movie script writing.

This movie uses a counter image of the script you expect to receive as the viewer. Here are a few examples:

Common scripts would keep the heroine alive - in this script she dies easily.

Common scripts would keep the kid alive - in this script he's the first to die.

Common scripts would employ two foul mouthed murderers dressed in black - this script has two polite boys dressed in white.

Common scripts would ensure the heroine could make use of the knife left in the boat - in this script it doesn't help her.

Common scripts would allow the heroine to shoot her assailant - in this script the plot is wound back after the assailant is shot (that's a clue to what the script is about).

Common scripts would show the heroine partially naked - this script does not allow you that scene.

That's just a few examples of what the director and script writer were doing with this movie. They were showing you how most movies cheat to provide a satisfying outcome.

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

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

8/10

Outsourcing makes sense

11 June 2013

Warning: Spoilers

Some reviewers said "This film is just wrong and horrible" and another "Garbage. Absolute, pure, filthy garbage."

They expected a children's movie full of innocence and instead received a horror movie.

This 2005 version reminded me of the cruelty of the child-snatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. But it's emphasis is educational. It obfuscates the industrial reality we all live in for the benefit of children. Among it's sweet candies are examples of redundancy in the work place, the loss of patent protection, the outsourcing of jobs, the issue of waste disposal and several other contemporary industrial related themes. The adults in the audience will identify most of them.

In addition it tells us a little about the modern consumer. It tells us that the rich kids get everything they want and the poor kids feed upon hopes and dreams. The Golden Ticket is the Lottery Ticket, the town and factory are set in a late Victorian landscape and Willy Wonka himself has to fall in love with himself because nobody else will.

The film is a very good attempt at merging many of the issues we face today in our society. It's not very good at being a children's movie since the special effects are rather tame compared with it's competitors.

My personal favourite scene in the movie is the where the mechanical marionettes are used to welcome the the guests. They fail and spit fire from faulty wiring. That scene is an attempt to say "Goodbye" to the earlier Wonka film of the 70's and usher in a new, far more brutal reality.

My own criticism is that some later components in the movie tend to mirror elements in the end of the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy movie.

Note: It would have been interesting to have made the movie more sinister by casting Peter Cushing as Willy Wonka rather than as his father. Even better, Vincent Price, RIP.

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

The Sting (1973)

6/10

All Paul Newman

20 April 2013

The Sting succeeds on two levels. It succeeds with it's plot and it succeeds with it's characters. This is a rare feat, since most movies fail on both.

The mere suggestion that it's possible to win at gambling is horrendous to many people. But to win by cheating is even more of a crime. However, to those of us who have lost a small sum on a pony or a hand of cards, The Sting is a smug rebuke at the bookies.

Paul Newman carries this movie. His pool shooting character Fast Eddie in The Color Of Money, and jail bird, egg-swallowing Luke have matured into an experienced, confident hustler. We don't think of Paul Newman as the king of crime, but he has more cinematic criminal form than Marlon Brando. Paul Newman is the acceptable version of the criminal world, a role taken over by Tom Hanks in Road To Perdition.

The movie is about cause and effect. If you do A then B will happen. And it never fails. It's also about making words fail...I've explained that in my review of Titanic.

Of course in the real world, something, many things would have gone wrong with the plan in The Sting. Somebody would have sneezed, resulting in a moustache falling off, revealing the entire scam. The whole idea works on the thinnest of error margins.

It's quite frightening how the concept of The Sting solidified itself in the real world of finance with the scandals of Enron and the sale of sub-prime mortgage CDO's to unsuspecting investors. The Sting shows how easily people can be fooled by the promise of making a quick buck.

A movie to watch once, probably twice, but three times is once too many.

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

The Godfather (1972)

8/10

The Sicilian Way doesn't work in the Anglo-Saxon world

20 April 2013

If you lived in Sicily over the last 3,000 years you'd be pretty used to death and devastation by now. Sicily is bang smack in the middle of three prominent pre-Christian empires: the Greek post-Alexander Hellenistic empire, the Roman Empire and the Carthagian-Lavantine Empire. All three of them fought tooth and nail for 3 centuries to control Sicily. And I haven't mentioned yet the tyrants who used to rule Sicilian cities such as Syracuse, for whom the Greek engineer Archimedes worked. Then came the bully-boy, Normans, the Hapsburg Empire, Napoleon, Mussolini, the Nazis...oh where does it end?

In other words, dying, or threatening others with death, is just something else to do on a Sunday afternoon in Sicily. The Sicilians also learnt how to barter with their masters of the day, and how to subjugate their own.

Transfer all of this to a quiet neighbourhood of New York City, and it's like trusting King Kong into the city to clean the windows of the Empire State Building.

The Godfather, adapted from Mario Puzo's novel, shows how capable the Sicilian Mafia are at subduing the authorities to run their own profiteering rackets. But what's interesting is how after the Godfather was shown, how the authorities decided they had had enough of being manipulated by Sicilians. It wasn't long before they put every effort into suppressing these usurpers. The US authorities regained the role the Greeks, Romans and Carthagians had once held.

Sicilian management is impressive, but not as impressive as good old Dutch-Anglo-Saxon mastery of all things profitable.

A point of interest, the decapitation of the horse-head scene in this movie has its foundation in Roman Chariot racing on The Field Of Mars. One of the winning horses would be sacrificed, it's blood mixed with the bodies of the unborn children and its head nailed to the door of the Forum.

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

Doctor Zhivago (1965)

10/10

For a moment happiness and then it slips through your fingers

20 April 2013

Undoubtedly my all time favourite movie.

What is it all about? It's about failure. We live, we fail, we die. Short moments of happiness slip through our fingers into a puddle of despair.

Dr Zhivago, played by Omar Sharif, is an icon of failure. His career as a doctor fails, his marriage fails, his love for Julie Christie fails, his freedom is taken from him, his country fails, his morals fail, his prominent position in life collapses.

Zhivago is like all of us, whether we live in a communist country or a capitalist country, eventually society cripples us and kills us. It eats away at our aspirations and our ethics. It forces us to comply. Zhivago's final submission to society is his compliant, illegitimate daughter working for the state on a dam.

You too must have experienced utter despairing failure to enjoy this movie. If you haven't lost a love one or been helpless when someone is dying, you won't get this movie. This movie lets you know that you are not alone in being pushed and shoved around by the society you live in. You are not alone in wanting something you cannot have and regretting you ever had the desire in the first place.

I give it 10 out of 10 for expressing these feelings simply because there is no other movie that does it so well.

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

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

2/10

It's all because of Jimmy Carter and his peanuts

20 April 2013

Both Star Wars and Star Trek are not movies about the future, but about the past.

Star Trek relies upon the adventures of Captain Cook (even down to red uniforms for the marines, the ones who always get shot). Star Wars relies upon the tales of Medieval Europe.

Someone once told me that the white clad troopers in Star Wars were based upon Nazi storm troopers. Err...this is nonsense. Nazi storm troopers rape and pillaged on a mass scale, neither of which are evident in this movie. The white troopers are the equivalent of medieval crossbowmen; skilled fighters but far below the heraldic level of knights (Jedi Knights).

Star wars is a variant of a late medieval version of Camelot but set in Jerusalem during the Crusades, with Luke Skywalker playing the role of Arthur, Obi Wan Kenobi playing the role of Merlin and Hans Solo playing the role of Lancelot. The robot R2D2 is the court jester and C3Po is a serf. Darth Vader is Saladin, the enemy of the white Christian Knights. Princess Leia is a dose of women's lib thrown in for good measure.

"Feel the force Luke" is the most putrid sickening phrase of the whole movie. It comes straight out of the late 1970's disco scene and is laced with homo-eroticism. "Feel the force." says monkish Obi Wan to his young male student with a twinkle in his eye. It sounds like the advice of Catholic priest to his preferred choir boy.

So I ask myself, why did this movie became so successful? We know up until this point that sci-fi movies were largely serious affairs: 2001 and Silent Running just two examples. Prior to Star Wars the most successful sci-fi movie had been Planet Of The Apes. Is the re-direction from these genres sufficient to explain the success of Star Wars? Probably not.

I believe the true answer lies in the year it was made and the political environment of that year. Jimmy Carter was the president and he was pushing for economic austerity in the use of energy supplies. Driving speed limits were 55mph and the Saudis were in control of most of the US energy supplies(note Darth Vader = Saladin).

Along comes Star Wars where energy usage is limitless. There's plentiful energy for a Death Star, space buggies, robots, laser swords and space fighters. Nobody in the movie is concerned about how much energy they are employing. And the movie doesn't explain where the energy comes from...unless it's that homo-erotic Force? Energy is apparently limitless. No driving speed restrictions, no queues at the pump for your space buggy. Put away those energy efficient, slow moving space ships in 2001 and Silent Running. No need to ride a horse as in Planet Of The Apes.

The audience felt a sense of relief from Carter's energy austerity. Soon they would actually get it when they voted for Jedi Knight Reagan and his "Star Wars" program.

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

stephen7272

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed