Change Your Image
terrypeck
Reviews
Kis Uykusu (2014)
A frustrating film that doesn't uplift
This is a good film, no doubt about it. Depressing, yes, and the weather doesn't help. But I came away feeling disappointed. In a week in which the Turkish PM can tell the world "Equality between men and women is against nature", you hope that this film will go some ways towards disproving this stupid statement. It doesn't, though I think it could and should have.
Some films are made to elucidate ideas, others to put ideas out there and let the viewer decide what to make of them. I left the cinema unsure which of these two kinds of thoughtful film the director was trying to make. Are we supposed to deplore the actions of the landlord getting to grips with a tenant who is way behind in the rent? If so, why? I felt I was being deceived by an attempt to pretend the viewer could come up with his/her own ideas about the supposed iniquity of the rich lording it over the poor, while in fact the film was busy pounding away telling me what to think.
There is much to admire in this beautifully shot and acted film. I didn't mind the length of it, but it will test some. What's not to admire is all too obvious:
a) many very lengthy and wordy existential conversations - even art films work best if this is kept to a minimum
b) animal cruelty - there is simply no excuse for it these days
c) the ending.
There will be those who think this ending is deliberately left open and thus up to our imagination. I disagree. We are being deceptively fed the possibility of the wife's freedom from the past when in fact it's quite apparent what will happen given the way the plot line evolves concerning the money and what happens to women who leave their husbands (the sister says it all - a magnificent performance by the way). I don't see how this shows women to be anything less than commodities and beings to be protected in this culture. Of course, you might say. That's the point. Well, if that's the point, the filmmaker is doing very little to alter this situation. Men's bastardry is one thing, but when the plot itself conspires with the husband to condemn the wife, it's another. That is unforgivable.
About Time (2013)
Public service
This film will eat the inside of your brain out by the time you get to the end - and if you do, you will have let Richard Curtis destroy all the lovely things that life has to offer by presenting them not just once badly, but endless numbers of times badly thanks to...time travel.
Let me go back in time and say that again with a slight twist to make it better.
This film will eat the inside of your brain out by the time you get to the end - and if you don't, you will have taken my advice and skipped possibly the worst movie of this or any other century.
Let me go back in time and say that again without the mind-gutting headache this film has left me with so that I can re-perform this act of public service.
That's better. We could always watch About Time? Nah. Let's close our eyes, clench our fists and imagine a train wreck instead.
You're starting to feel better already, too.
Blue Jasmine (2013)
Not worth the effort
What is it about Cate B. that gets people all fired up? She would have to be the most mannered actress of all time. If we could take her out of the film, and substitute with a really fine actress, the film might make sense.
As it stands, the film is over long and utterly meaningless.
All the other actors shine. But Cate, who still thinks she is back at drama school, acts as if she hasn't learnt much since.
The film lacks any direction and is simply disappointing.
I used to love Woody's films until he used third-rate actresses just because they had arrived via Hollywood.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)
What was THAT all about really?
Where to begin? It didn't make sense. It didn't have laughs. It didn't make it clear which period it was set in. It didn't have character development - it merely had characters to whom things happened. It didn't have any understanding of the drug culture. Or the music culture. Or the technology of the day - whichever day it really is set in. OK, it must be the 80s, 90s because of the cassettes. But as a group they dressed so unlike any teenagers I have ever seen anywhere. And they don't know Bowie? Old music aficionados? It didn't make sense.
The school. It didn't ring true. All the pupils were stock characters. Don't get me started on the gay jock storyline. Cartoon land. As was the fight scene. As was much of the film. A few tender moments, but mostly stuff we've seen a hundred times before.
The acting was fine. Patrick's character annoyed me though. He seemed to have no depth, whereas Charlie was all depth for a very clichéd reason. I am still none the wiser as to why he wasn't sorted out at his first trip to hospital before the film began. You mean the psych doctors didn't probe far enough first time around? And once he lets it all out to his new smiling psychiatrist, he is instantly cured? Freud still lives? Oh please...
It didn't make sense. And what were the perks of being a wallflower anyway? Free pot brownies? Besides he wasn't a wallflower for about 95% of the movie. Oh, so the whole clique were wallflowers, misfits, outsiders? No they weren't. They were just like everyone else with around three good friends each, but in their case, dubious taste in music. I mean Eileen and Heroes? OK, I like Heroes, but so inappropriate for a bunch of youngsters seriously into retro. They think Something by the Beatles is 'out there'? Embarrassing musical clichés at every turn.
Emma Watson, you need to choose better directors and scripts or you'll end up glossed over. Take a leaf out of Jennifer Lawrence's playbook is my advice. Not sure why some here took her acting to task. She delivered. But with the lines she was given I shouldn't be surprised some didn't like her.
This film is a sorry mess that I was expecting much more from. I found myself finding fault with almost every scene. Don't like doing that. Perhaps it might work for kids who have had little movie experience, but wouldn't the music put them off? Why the high IMDb rating? It's a mystery to me.
The Tunnel (2011)
Deserves its better reviews
It's a movie that will irritate a lot of people who like their horror perfectly executed with exacting camera work, dolly shots zooming in on severed heads to accompanying musical crescendos etc. This ain't that. Hand-held camera haters better stay away.
Other reviewers have already written of the provenance of this work, so I needn't go there except to say that the Blair Witch Project has proved a much more important film to the horror genre than I ever expected.
So why do so many critics here give this flick the thumbs down? It's not as if the movie expects much of you. You know who survives but are still asked to go along for the ride, and what's wrong with that? Isn't that the basis of all horror films, even books? You're there too, but *you* survive, right? No, I don't buy that criticism. And some say it is just plain boring. OK, it's no Exorcist but it doesn't try to be.
The main fault of this otherwise quite well-delivered yarn is a single woeful casting error - as anybody who knows anything about acting and line delivery will readily tell you. It's a pity because unless every actor/actress is utterly believable in a found footage film it just can't work. But if you can overlook that, and I admit it's a stretch, The Tunnel is an acceptable way to while away an hour or so. A better tunnel film, though, is Absentia.
A Better Life (2011)
A Best Film
It's hard to believe that a film as good as this could gross so little money. I suppose it has to be remembered it cost almost nothing to make. And people avoid subtitled films.
All the actors are believable and consciously contribute to the overall arc of the film instead of trying to put on a performance. I put this down to the efforts of the director who made sure to keep the story and the message ever in focus. But the story is so delicately and warmly told that the message never seems pushed.
The business of America is business, and you can't help but ruminate about the whys of those who do so much to prevent good people subsidising their country's success, but of course, illegals are illegals.
The brilliance of this film is that you forget all the politics and rights and wrongs and just want things to go well for every "white hat" illegal, and that's most of them - all the while knowing things are probably doomed.
It's a melodrama, true, just like life, and wanting a better life is something so basic we can all relate to the struggle. Yet, when you have so much and these guys so little, do we relate or only think we do? Sympathy or empathy? I know I don't have a right to the latter.
The alternate feelings of closeness and distance never leave you.
Skyfall (2012)
Goodbye Mr Bond
This film effectively kills off the character we all know and love. The plot is shot full of holes, the villain a camp idiot, no Bond girls to speak of, unless sex slaves are your thing (truly vile of Craig not to have objected to that storyline), pointless and seriously unfunny dialogue, unriveting action scenes most of which we've seen done better elsewhere, and telegraphing of practically every prop placement. Oh, wait, there's more: an awful and forgettable Bond film song sung by that large, breathy lady who fudges the top notes and has merely rehashed Goldfinger. And a limp ending.
To be fair I liked the opening credits (minus the song) and I thought Bérénice Marlohe acted well, and Ralph Fiennes enunciates well. The shots of London were OK and the skyscraper neon dazzled - even if the plot at that point fell apart faster than the shot glass.
I wanted to like this film. I wanted to give the mumbling Craig one last chance, but he just isn't Bond, so what do they do? They write a blancmange Bond so Craig will fit right in. Meanwhile we are left holding ticket stubs asking what was THAT all about? It was about a lot of things that had nothing to do with our James. Almost everything that kept the franchise going for 50 years has been interfered or radically dispensed with on purpose! No gadgets, no credible Bond car (they destroy the iconic one - unsubtle flagging of what they are doing to our Bond?). Moneypenny is now black and totes a gun (I kid you not - how do they explain away her colour? But worse, she is (it's all so wrong!) attractive and (sob) beds Bond - words fail.) Dench's M is, as usual, flat and unconvincing but at least she's out of the next films - a good career move, one that Craig should take. Q is a horrible little boy you can't possibly believe a hacker even if you accept the stupidity of casting Q as one...and with big black glasses? Come on...
Maybe Bond should always stay in the 60s, 70s. I mean you don't update Hercule Poirot and have him ponce about in the 21st century. I think they should just stop the Bond farce right now. It can and will only get worse.
Warrior (2011)
Oh dear
OK, OK I understand there is no such thing as an unethical movie. But this has to come as close to proving there just might be such an animal. Truly sickening moments of awfulness. Which the actual sport avoids.
Apart from the pathetic storyline and seriously misjudged opportunities to make a watchable film out of this mess, we have to tolerate wound up sequences of empathy squeezing, drivel dealing moments that make you want to eat your head off.
If you last long enough to eke out your miserable Saturday night life to the finale, the only question is why did you do it? You already knew how ridiculous the plot was. Did you continue out of curiosity? Or sheer terror at realising how bad movies of this genre have now become? The fight sequences are beyond disbelief. They are Disneyland. I could make a tougher movie with my cam. The director tries to make these leaden humans worse on film than even the worst movie monsters of all time, but with such hubris he fails to make them more threatening than blow-up dolls. Without the sensible gore of, say, a decent movie like Rocky, it is mere mind-numbing torture. And I like fight movies.
This is the worst film of any genre I have ever ever watched. And that's saying something.
The Iron Lady (2011)
A moving, wonderful, elucidating film
There are some - very few - films that are beyond sensible reviewing from the general populace. This is one of them. Streep is simply sensational. She has finally achieved Garboesque stature in what has to be her best performance to date, and that says everything.
The film cleverly avoids politicization of its audience; the flashback process works perfectly, since it is about the woman now as much as then. The supporting cast is flawless. (I can't believe some of the dumber reviews here which speak of caricature: that is what the director assiduously avoided.) Alexandra Roach as the young Thatcher is breathtakingly wonderful. Jim B. - I have always loved your performances and here is another masterly turn.
I haven't seen a better film in double digit years. If you have a heart, you will love this film. And I loathed Thatcherism. Still do.
Stone (2010)
Resonates, but it won't with everyone
It's not a bad film by any means, but it could have been so much better. I'll skip the plot; you can read that in other reviews. Let's just say that religion is the main character, and a vengeful god controls this version of organised crime. Everyone else in the movie dances to religion's tune of original sin being behind every bad action. And if that isn't grasped, well, a hell and brimstone preacher sermonising on the radio gets the message over. And that's the problem. We don't need the heavy-handedness. And I mean heavy. A man's soul is at stake, sure, but we have to buy the fairy in the sky story to care. Since no-one else in the movie seems to, it's ultimately a hard ask for the viewer, unless you're a believer, I suppose. In which case you'll do a lot of tut-tutting before the credits roll.
Add to this some of the most mumbled and garbled vocal work of any actors since Brando and you have Lee Strasberg cheering and me saying "get real". No humans I have ever met speak that unintelligibly. It just gets in the way. It isn't acting. It's avoidance of courage in your character.
That said there are some nice moments from all the actors. There should have been more. And a lot less vocal strangulation.
The Clinic (2003)
In a TV world dedicated to faux reality, this is welcome sanity.
This isn't for everybody. Too many viewers (drowning in American slick slop) will need a cheaper fix. But for those who understand how a quality soap is made, it is close to heaven.
The acting is universally good, even great at times. The direction shows competence even when the script occasionally slows. But the scriptwriters do a superb job: never preaching, always entertaining.
Ireland thank you. It's not Wilde, but it's not supposed to be. And I have fallen in love with almost every character - beautiful, sad and wicked - just because they are so believable.
I have never before watched a medical soap which practically makes you feel like a voyeur in a real life clinic. Of course, reality would be unwatchable. The Clinic is sometimes mesmerising.
Inception (2010)
It doesn't work - period
For a film of this kind to work there are (at the very least) three script-writing requirements: a) internal logic, b) characters with depth, and c) the complete omission of wise-a*s gimmickry.
The film fails on all three counts.
I liked the avalanche; I liked the freight train. I laughed at the Kubrick tributes. Beyond that, the thing was too simple for words - but dressed up to be a deep and meaningful experience. You know you are watching a loser when an elevator takes you up and down the guy's consciousness. An elevator? Now who dreamed that up?
World domination? A Japanese accent that is unintelligible? Cartoonish characters of all shades (to sell tickets?) Two female leads, one of whom is frighteningly out of whack with the film's storyline (she doesn't understand anything, but is designing the project!), and the other wandering through scenes meant to be scary but - hey, you need to be able to act first, and it would help to then act scary.
This film is a mess - except for the avalanche and freight train.
Man on Fire (2004)
Almost there till half-way through...then Hollywood wins again
Certainly this film had me for the first half, then lost me completely at the nightclub - for spoiler reasons. From then on it was decidedly downhill, which was a pity because it promised so much. Denzel was very, very good, but why not try to tell a REAL story? Couldn't we take it? I think we could have - given that we were expected to take the wacky film technique - which would have worked if the script had been in sync. (Note: I would prefer it if I could spell wacky as I normally do in my country, but am not allowed to in this database.)
Liked Mickey Rourke too. Missed him for so long. The kid is absolutely glorious. Dakota just does it for me in every scene. Maybe she could have a word to Tony Scott and tell him a few things about how things on film should be done. Tony, you shouldn't have given in to Hollywood with this one. You had the best actors on your side.
Otets i syn (2003)
Underwhelming
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.
We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.