Draculas_guest Reviews

The Fourth Protocol (1987)

A guilty pleasure.

[7/10 · 6 September 2003]

I wouldn't consider this movie a "classic" or even particularly "great", but for some reason I really enjoy watching this film. I haven't read the book, however I used to own "The Fourth Protocol" computer game for the Commodore 64, and was vaguely familiar with the basic storyline.

I can't pinpoint what exactly it is I like about this movie, but I did enjoy seeing Michael Caine as a British agent tracking down the nuclear bomb. I could probably watch a whole series of films based around his character. I also liked some of the other characters and I think it had a good cast of actors. The workings of government agents was very compelling to watch, but it was good to see that the film wasn't overwhelmed by ridiculous gadgets and stuck to the drama involved.

The 80's technology in the film also had an element of nostalgia about it. This film reminds me of a bygone age of the BBC Micro and Ford transit vans. In fact, I love watching the film just to see the various parts of England as well.

I liked the fact that its a rather 'quiet' movie, but I do think it needed to be re-edited. Some parts of the film just skimmed through major plot developments without giving them time to breath, and other times the film would show a character hopping from various locations in England without giving a sense of the travelling in between. Watching this film would give the impression that England is only about 10 miles wide! Some elements of the film really needed to be fleshed out a bit more.

This isn't the sort of movie I would go to a cinema to see, its more of a "Friday night in" movie that I would watch on TV. I would only recommend it to someone if they were die-hard fans of this genre.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Whats the problem?

[23 May 2003]

I must say that I quite enjoyed this film.

While I enjoyed the first Matrix, I wouldn't say that I was a huge fan of it. I thought the first film was good, and I own it on DVD, but if it wasn't for the bullit-time sequences and the big budget action, it would have just been an episode of The Twilight Zone.

The whole concept of virtual reality and characters not being sure of what the real world is, has been covered countless number of times in episodes of The Outer Limits, Star Trek, The X-files, and there was even episodes of The New Adventures of Superman and Red Dwarf that covered similar territories many years ago, so I really dont give The Matrix credit for originality. Its a pastiche of various sci-fi from The Terminator to William Gibson. (The name "The Matrix" was lifted straight out of Gibsons "Neuromancer")

However The Matrix was an enjoyable film overall, and I do feel that Reloaded is an enjoyable follow up. If anything, I think the world of The Matrix is more dynamic now thanks to Reloaded.

I found Agent Smith much more interesting and much more unique as a "disconnected" agent with the ability to replicate himself. He seemed to have much more of a personal identity in Reloaded, and the revelations with The Architect had me competely gripped, not to mention that the film revealed much more about The Matrix itself, and started probing some of the actual mechanics of it. But generally speaking, it expanded upon things with Zion and the counsel, and seeing Neo and Morpheous fight side by side gave the film a warmer touch.

Overall, I dont see what was so great from the first film that wasn't in the second film. The philosophy is all there, the action is all there, the characters have progressed, and it managed to expand upon the general story, so whats the problem??

Gattaca (1997)

Fantabulous

[10/10 · 5 May 2002]

A classy science-fiction film that doesn't rely on little green men, bland space rogues, constant explosions, or inane babble about warp drives.

Gattaca has very stylish, trendy visuals which look sophisticated enough to be set in the future, yet close enough to our own time to look very real and authentic, with a comfortable moving plot that manages to focus on a good drama about an underdog/ugly duckling struggling in a hi-powered society.

The sciencey bit is convincing enough to be accepted, and the film seems genuinely fresh and compelling. Easily as seminal as 2001:A Space Odyssey. Anyone who says that this film is bad simply wouldnt know a good story if it came and sat on their nose

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

Not the best film in the world, but still enjoyable

[22 January 2002]

I'm not sure why some people are so vicious towards this film. Granted, its not the best in its field, but was more satisfying than others. Personally I liked Kenneth Branagh as Victor Frankenstein. Robert de Niro should have had more screen time, but the look and style of his make-up was a welcome relief from the flat-head, bolt-thru-the-neck Hollywood monster. The breathtaking scenery matched the novel perfectly, and the monster was shown to have a certain amount of dexterity (as in the novel) instead of a lumbering hulk.

There have been comparisons with Dracula (1992), and while Dracula had some gorgeous colours, I found it to be overlong and had too many mis-cast actors. I thought Kenneth Branagh and Helena Bonham-Carter were more believable in their parts as a couple than Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were in Dracula. Dracula had Keanu Reeves, Frankenstein has Robert De Niro, nuff said.

The first half hour of the film was a bit awkward, but the highpoint of the first half for me was the scene where the creature is given life. The novel is very brief in the scene where the creature is bought to life, whereas movie adaptations seem to put a large amount of focus onto it. This film does too, and in this one its quite elaborate, but its incredibly satisfying. Kenneth Branagh was perfect in this scene as he desperately tried to bring his creation to life. So overall not a perfect film, but enjoyable for fans of the novel.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Visual flair can't make up for weak film

[2/10 · 11 December 2001]

This film looked stunning, it had a gorgeous array of colors and had an excellent level of production, but even that cant hide a weak film.

First off, the acting. Everyone else seems to have mentioned this already. Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were dreadful at attempting to play an English couple. Winona Ryder's acting in this film was ok, but hardly her best by any standard. Gary Oldman was completley OTT as the Count, and would have been perfect for a cheesy Hammer film from the 50's and 60's. He may as well have said "I vwont to suck yur blood" and been done with it. His make up and clothing was lavish, but pure fantasy. Hardly the menacing figure of the novel.

Anthony Hopkins. One of the best actors about, and even he had to put up with another ridiculous accent. Perhaps this was all intentional, but it misplaced the film as a parody of Dracula, or a farce.

Obviously the book is far too large to be adapted faithfully to the screen, and a straight adaptation would have been awful, but some of the more memorable moments were completely skimmed over. The passage where Dracula is transported to England on the Demeter was described in detail in the novel. It creates a real feeling of dread as the crew gradually get picked off by an unseen force. Dracula is barely seen, but comes across as genuinely scary with incredible demonic powers. Yet the film only skims through the scene and drastically misses out.

Later on in the Novel, Lucy is attacked by Dracula. Van Helsing is called in and realises they are dealing with a vampire, and Lucy desperately needs blood transfusions to save her life. Again, in the novel Dracula is rarely seen, but comes across as horrific as he literally drains the life out of Lucy over the course of several evenings, creating a real sense of struggle as they try to keep her alive. However in the film, the scene is breezed through and any mystery is constantly killed of by Dracula's constant appearance as a B-movie hound or demonic creature.

Some of the scenes that were in the film lacked a real sense of atmosphere. Many of the outdoor scenes looked like they were filmed within a studio which gave the film an artificial claustrophobic feel, rather than an expansive Gothic atmosphere. More time is given to the story of Dracula's lost love and the romance between the Count and Mina, but this cripples the pace of the film, only when Mina drinks Dracula's blood does the romance have any impact, as well as horror. Adding depth to Count Dracula himself is a nice idea, but the idea of him searching for a lost love just came across as terribly cliched.

Overall the film felt deflating. Nice design, gorgeous colours, fabulous costumes, but plot and acting seemed hollow. Good for a giggle at Keanu Reeves accent, but the film felt very flat

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

erm, ok but not really worth it

[22 October 2001]

I thought the film was alright after I first saw it, but after just watching Alien again, there isnt really any comparison. The film looks cartoonish compared to the grittiness of the first two films. The Alien creatures are probably more suited to CG effects and there were a few nice action scenes, but it was full of cliches with more typical grimy spaceships and Aliens escaping their confinements to wreak havoc on a ship (When will those darn scientists ever learn). I havent seen Alien 3 but I dont think there is really any need for any more installments, the first 2 films work well on their own

Aliens (1986)

Great great film, but one teensy thing.....

[22 October 2001]

.....It just doesn't have the same atmosphere that Alien had. Those early scenes where Ripley is in the hospital, and on the ship headed for the alien planet just dont have the same feel, everything is too cosy, too well lit. Also, the alien planet, well, just doesnt look so alien with those Human colonists there. It reminds me more of the future earth scenes in 'The Terminator'. Perhaps the first Alien film was sluggish for some people but it had a really rich atmosphere which hasn't been replicated in this film, though perhaps thats a good thing as it allows this sequel to stand seperate.

The film really delivers in the second half when they have been stranded on the planet and have to hold off the hordes of aliens attacking them. There is some great tension and the special effects have aged alot better than the first film and makes a perfect companion to Ridley scotts sci-fi horror opus. Bishop was thankfully a completely different type of robot compared to Ash, and it was also nice to see Michael Biehn's character survive to the end, the rest of those commandos were just irritating. All round good fun and good sequel