Change Your Image
Vidfan
Reviews
Spycraft (2020)
Good show, amateur narrator
When narrating a documentary, one should be articulate enough to pronounce common words and phrases properly. So when I heard Dylan Berry, the narrator for Spycraft, pronounce "nuclear" as "nu-kyu-lur", I shuddered. Then, thinking I had most surely misheard, I skipped back to rerun the clip. Nope... I had heard correctly. In fact, as I continued to watch the show, I heard it over and over again, from episode to episode.
Berry clearly doesn't do much narrating, and has obviously had no guidance, no training and no tips on how to properly narrate. His inflection comes across as just annoying, his pronunciation of words ultimately and vastly irritating and his voice... shrill.
The series itself if fascinating, and one that could have earned eight stars from me, were it not made nearly unwatchable by Berry's horrendous narration.
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Remarkable, yet flawed
Many have written of the stellar cast, the amazing cinematography, the brilliant direction, etc. And like any movie review, it's all subjective.
This movie is remarkable. It is much of the above, and more. But it has its flaws.
By necessity, the format of film requires a writer/director to abridge a book. If one were to film every "word" of the book, the result would be an incredibly long, and probably boring film. So of course, this film leaves much out. But what it does get, it gets right. It's stark, brutally direct and unforgiving.
Having said that, I found parts of the direction lacking. Endlessly drawn-out shots of the sky, the beach, the jungle were distracting, as if the director was trying to slow down the story, and had me reaching for the fast-forward button. Some shots made little-to-no sense at all, while others were too quick, too short to truly grasp the situation.
My biggest complaint was the score. I honestly couldn't figure out what Raymond Leppard was going for. Was he trying to evoke a feeling of loneliness? Isolation? Fear? Boredom? Whatever it was, it didn't work. Rather, it just annoyed. For example, throughout the movie the score kept returning to a single, tuneless melody played by a solo flute (or piccolo?). It wavered around, with no discernible rhythm or melody, as if someone was simply "making noise" on it. It was shrill and irritated in a nails-on-blackboard does.
Overall, the movie shines as an example of honest filmmaking, despite its flaws. Next time, I'll just mute the sound and imagine the dialogue!
House of Games (1987)
Smart, but stilted
I love a good con movie. From "Harry In Your Pocket" to "The Sting", and everything in between, there's satisfaction and pleasure in watching the story unfold and come together like puzzle pieces. So I'm willing to overlook a lot to enjoy a good con.
"House of Games" isn't a bad movie. In fact, in the right hands, it could have been brilliant. But poor casting choices and what seems to be an iron-fisted direction style have doomed this film to mediocrity.
Director and writer David Mamet seems to have been intent on controlling every moment with an almost obsessive focus. The actors seem to struggle to break free and act. Yet they seem reined in as if every move, every word and action were carefully (and poorly) choreographed.
The script, like the direction, is wooden and inflexible, rendering a dichotomy throughout as if it was written for the stage, not for a camera. It's technically correct, but artistically binding. As a result, the actors struggle to sound realistic and natural, and it comes across as forced.
In the lead role, Lindsay Crouse is stiff and amateurish. Her character never really develops from the cool and uptight physician to the loose and morally reckless criminal that she is supposed to become. Her lines are delivered like a recitation, as if she is struggling to get each syllable correct. I'm not sure if it's her acting or Mamet's directing. Either way, it can be painful to watch at times.
The rest of the cast strive to overcome Mamet's direction, and for the most part, they succeed. Joe Mantegna turns on the charm here and there, and pulls off the affable con man with as much panache as he's allowed.
The story is great, and had the cast been allowed to run with it, the movie might have been a real gem. The subtle nuances that could have given the film depth were all but ignored, sub-plots went nowhere, and characters that should have been more developed came across two-dimensional.
As I said, I'm willing to forgive a lot for art's sake, and this movie required a lot of forgiveness. But it did provide a couple of hours of entertainment. It kept me engrossed and involved, and for that I gave it a 6 out of 10 stars.
The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1982)
Nicely Dated
When I read the opening paragraph from Lechuguilla's review, I thought "That's exactly what I was thinking!" It reads (abridged):
"Maybe when it was first released, this film... wowed viewers with its bawdiness and clear-cut clash of values. But thirty years later, with the internet, cell phones, and gay rights, the underlying premise... strikes me as outdated and largely irrelevant..."
In my opinion, I think the film was as successful as it was only because it "dared" to broach a subject that was, at the time, considered titillating, immoral and slightly naughty. People could feel like they were indulging in a bit of raunchy voyeurism that skirted the limits of acceptable morality. It bordered on slightly wicked, yet allowed one to keep one's social (and self-righteous) moral virtue and rectitude intact.
Now, 30-plus years later, the film is dated by any standard. It was a vehicle for Parton (who does a passable job as Miss Mona)and Reynolds (who is miscast and mediocre at best), a toss-away attempt at cashing in on an excellent and popular stage production at the time.
Viewed as a quaint example of 1980s entertainment, it's moderately successful even now. But there isn't enough enduring substance to hold up over time.
If it were re-made today, I think it could probably succeed if the emphasis on titillation and sex was refocused on the relationships between the main characters and the struggle over the morality of the times.
But as it stands, it has become an archaic and somewhat droll museum piece.
The Golden Compass (2007)
It could have been so much more...
I have to agree with Jamie Sutherland (comment titled: "Entertaining, but missed opportunity"), and I have never read the books. In fact, before this film was released, I had never heard of the series. Just watching the film, I was impressed with the special effects. There's no getting around the fact that they are spectacular. And the acting is superb. It's so nice to see Ms. Kidman playing the vamp, and an evil one at that! It's amazing how Daniel Craig can simply dominate a scene with his presence, despite his sparse dialogue.
I watched the film, and was left feeling that there was something more that needed to be developed. It's as if there is this incredible "mother lode" just waiting to be mined, but has been passed over. It's a shame; there is so much in this story to develop, but the producers and the director simply didn't do it.
Jamie Sutherland rated it a 7, and I gave it a 6. I think it could have been so much more...