karlhinze Reviews

Dangerous Game: The Legacy Murders (2022)

Don't be fooled... the game is irrelevant

[1/10 · 1 January 2024]

Well this has to be up there with the worst films I've ever seen - and I've seen The Room (OK so that's kinda brilliant but if you know, you know) and The Hottie and The Nottie.

Aside from the fact that the acting was woeful, the plot was barely existent and the so-called "game" had, from what I could tell, absolutely no bearing on anything at all. "Play the game" it kept telling us... except what the game actually was and why it had anything to do with the fate of the characters, I don't know.

The best way I can describe this film is like trying to watch both Jumanji and Saw at the same time on separate TVs, side by side, and trying to make them link together - except at least we knew what the game was in Jumanji.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

You may have already seen this...

[2/10 · 15 August 2007]

...if you've been a Simpsons fan for as long as I have and have seen most of the classic episodes.

Now I haven't seen the whole film but, working in a cinema, I have seen the beginning and the end, and a few bits in between. And all I saw in that time were watered down parts (no blood in Itchy and Scratchy?!) so that it could be a PG, and jokes that have been recycled from episodes.

For example:

*When Homer goes to church in the beginning he states that he wants to worship God in his own way, like praying like hell on his death bed. He's said this before in the episode "Homer the Heretic", except he used the word "recant" as opposed to "praying like hell" - obviously changed in the movie so kids could understand it.

*When Grandpa has the vision in the church, he rolls around on the floor in a circle... something Homer did in the "Last Exit To Springfield" episode where he is appointed head of the union, and negotiates with Mr Burns in an attempt to get the Dental Plan back.

*Near the end, when Homer and Bart try to make the jump and fail initially... that's been seen before.

*As has the part where Apu changes the sell-by date because the product had gone out of date.

I'm not going to watch the rest of it because I'm sure that, based on the few minutes of this I have seen, there will be more recycled jokes which made me laugh at the time, but not now.

The beauty of The Simpsons, in my opinion, is that the episodes are clever and are there to appeal to an older audience (or certainly were, before they started getting boring and unfunny).

However, the film is just for kids, or for adults to take their kids to the cinema.

It may make new fans this, but I don't think it will please the old ones. And that's why I don't like it.

The Departed (2006)

Let's start with the bad points:

[8/10 · 1 April 2007]

I think that one or two of the performances from the lead actors were overrated.

Matt Damon, for me, seems to fluctuate between good and bad performances. He was great in The Talented Mr Ripley and The Bourne Identity/Supremacy. But I thought this was one of his worse films. His acting seemed quite wooden and forced, and I don't think he was comfortable in his role of a boyfriend.

I also think that, early on, Jack Nicholson showed his age, although he did improve greatly as the film went on.

On a positive note, Leonardo Di Caprio was outstanding. He's one of the most underrated and best actors around at the moment (he's come a long way since his teenage heart-throb status) and could quite easily have added this to his best actor nomination in the Oscars this year. This film would have struggled if it were not for Di Caprio.

As far as the film in itself goes, I hadn't seen or heard much about the original Hong Kong version and was glad of it, as I could judge this solely on its own merit.

It's thrilling, with so much suspense. Who's going to make a breakthrough first? Costello's men or the Police? I hadn't seen this before the Oscars, and at first I couldn't quite work out how on earth best Motion Picture didn't go to Little Miss Sunshine. But now I can understand why.

All in all, simply brilliant.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

The feel-good film of the year.

[8/10 · 18 January 2007]

In fact, film of the year full stop.

It's the sort of film where you can forget all your troubles for an hour and a half or so, relax, and get lost in the moment.

It's essentially a comedy, but there are one or two serious, yet beautiful, heart-stopping moments, helped in no small part by BFCA winners (for this very film) Abigail Breslin and Paul Dano.

I've never heard so much noise in a single cinema auditorium caused by pure, side-splitting laughter - especially during the classic ending. The only downside to this whole film is that the ending doesn't have quite the same effect when watching it at home on your own.

The soundtrack is also superb. Listen out for Sufjan Stevens's "No Man's Land" during the end credits.

A roller-coaster ride you'll wish you can stay on forever.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

What's the fuss all about?

[5/10 · 8 January 2007]

Yeah, this one's OK I suppose. Very imaginative I have to say.

But I think that, apart from the girl's fantasies, the storyline is a bit weak and not really believable. Set just after the Spanish civil war, it's too stereotypical. The mother of a young girl is struggling very hard with the pregnancy of a second child. But her husband, who she's gone to stay with, the captain of his army is evil and doesn't care about her, only about his baby "boy" he is convinced to be having. The scene where they're all gathered around a table having dinner is what caps it off for me. He just insults her to everyone and wouldn't even let her hold his hand. The acting here is poor and too over-the-top. The evil baddie status of the husband is one we've seen far too often in film and is just too extreme here.

There's also too many "Ooh I din't see THAT one coming" moments. Like the bit where the captain conveniently finds a small amount of antibiotics in the woods. He has a really kind doctor, antibiotics are found amongst where his enemies, the good guys, have just been. Mutiny? Never!

That said, the young girl's fantasies are moving and artistic.

But I think this film has had so much praise based solely on the fact that it's in a foreign language and seen by many an English speaking audience. In that way, the film's different... but does that mean it's good?

I think it's over-rated.

The Butterfly Effect (2004)

Gripping isn't the word

[5/10 · 8 January 2007]

I think this has to go down as one of the most encapsulating and thrilling movies I have ever seen. From the off, this has you fixed, and it doesn't let go right til the end.

The film is about a young man who has blackouts as a child and later in life finds a way of remembering and returning to his blackouts. He also realises a way to change what happened with the help of his journal. A journal that he'd kept since not long after his blackouts began. Except each time he changes his past, there are relatively unforeseeable consequences. Bad ones. That's where this movie revels. Each consequence is quite unpredictable. What's going to happen next? Now I think his last return is, even if the most predictable, a brilliant touch.

This was actually the first film I'd seen Ashton Kutcher in, and I hadn't heard good things about him. But I was actually quite surprised with his performance. OK he wasn't exactly worth an award or anything, but he certainly wasn't bad.

The only reason I've not given this a higher rating is that there were 2 different endings, one made for US audiences and one for the UK, so I believe. I've only seen one of the endings - the one I hear is the happier of the two. It was a great finale, but it was as if you can choose which film to watch, based on how happy you like endings to be. I think a film should end how it's supposed to. Which is why I refuse to see the other ending.

Aside from that, it's still a brilliant film.

Minority Report (2002)

Rarely does a film have 2 huge flaws, destroying pivotal moments

[5/10 · 5 January 2007]

But alas, this one does.

First of all, there's no point reading this if you've not seen the film unless you trust me entirely. I'm reviewing this to broadcast my opinion to those who may not realise its two critical errors.

FIRSTLY. John Anderton discovers, with the help of the precogs, that he will kill Leo Crow (a man he does not even know). This is the ONLY THING that causes Anderton to go looking for his victim. In other words the precogs led HIM to the discovery of the man he is supposed to murder. Without the aid of the precogs, Anderton would not have gone looking for Crow and would therefore have committed no murder. So why was one predicted?

SECONDLY. At the end, when Lamarr Burgess is face to face with Anderton, Anderton gives Burgess a lecture in how he can change his future if he wants to, saying "No doubt the precogs have already seen this". But how would Burgess know he was supposed to kill Anderton? Did he see the pre-vision? Did Anderton see it? No. Therefore neither of them knew for sure that Burgess would kill Anderton. In the end, Burgess turns the gun on himself. Which means that he was never destined to kill Anderton. The precogs could have refrained from making the prediction and it would have made no difference. So, again, why was this murder predicted?

This isn't even taking into account other, smaller, yet silly flaws, such as: why was the missing person's case of Anne Lively never pursued? Or why didn't anyone else in Pre-crime remove Anderton's security clearance (he was still able to get through the doors by the use of his eyes)?

Poor, poor film. Probably the worst I've ever seen in terms of storyline.