crybabystinkypoo Reviews

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Watch the 1982 version

[11 May 2023]

There are some awesome reviews of this un-awesome film; reviews I couldn't possibly match. But for whatever reason I'm giving my five cents worth. Nothing against Jason Mamoa or other cast members; they did what they could; Ron Pearlman's performance as Conan's dad and interaction with boy Conan was moving (the only emotional aspect of the film). I haven't read Ron E. Howard's literary source material or Conan comics: I'm comparing to the 1982 John Milius film. And if it wasn't for that, and possibly the more campy, although good in its own way, Conan The Destroyer (1984), maybe I'd have a more positive view. This film's big budget, but lacks heart and soul (except the beginning when boy Conan's interacting with dad who he's trying to save from imminent death, and other occasional moments. This film's interesting. But to me it's another example of Hollywood's all pervasive lack of originality; undoubtedly energy and passion went into this. But energy, passion and big budget aren't enough; I've commented in other reviews that as Nancy Allen said in regard to Robocop (1987): only remake films where a good idea was executed badly. I concur. Although I understand the justifications Hollywood may use for remakes e.g. Re-imagining a story and or character for a new generation. But maybe it'd be better to simply remaster the original, re-release it with a special, ultimate or collectors edition DVD or Blu-ray cover like the way Universal Studios re-released Gladiator (2000). To be fair this isn't a copy of the 1982 film e.g. This Conan sails on ships and has swashbuckling, pirate adventures, so maybe it's more faithful to the literary source material and comics. But I can't help comparing to the 1982 film. If there has to be a remake, why not use the original director; John Milius is still alive (at the time of writing this) so he was alive when Conan The Barbarian (2011) was made: 'Hi John, this is so and so from Lionsgate and or Columbia Pictures; how'd you like to remake Conan The Barbarian; you can have as much money and creative control as you like'. Marcus Nispel's a good director i.e. Did a good job with Friday the 13th (2009). But that possibly warranted a remake since the original 1980's film was rough, and with todays special effects and budget, could be improved; after all, Jason's an iconic horror character; there'd be plenty wanting to see him brought back to life via a polished, technically improved remake. Comparing to the 1982 version; this remake's not good. Why? I'm nostalgic. The costumes were better. The music was better (go Basil Poledouris). The story and writing was better...the 1982 film's just all round better. But hey...they tried; easy to criticise: try making a film. 6/10.

Red Sonja (1985)

Each to their own. But...

[13 February 2023]

Red Sonja (1985) is an embarrassment. Arnold plays Kalidor; suspect the film makers thought: 'we'll rename Conan 'Kalidor' so we won't be accused of another Conan/it'll look fresh'. If that's the case it didn't work. Instead of trying to cover up the film's undeniable Conan-ness, it would've been better if Arnold had simply played Conan, but as Sonja's sidekick. There are movies set in the Star Wars universe e.g. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) and Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018); Red Sonja could've been a Conan story, with Arnold resuming his role as Conan, set in the Conan world, about a beautiful woman named Sonja who's accompanied by Conan and others as she sets out to avenge her family's brutal murder by evil Queen Gedren and save the world. The music: if Basil Poledouris (who did the music for Conan the Barbarian and Conan the Destroyer) did the music for Red Sonja, it would've been better. The costumes: compare them to Conan The Barbarian (1982) and or Conan the Destroyer (1984). They're notably inferior...if John Bloomfield, who did the costumes for Conan the Barbarian and the Destroyer, did the costumes for Red Sonja, it would've vastly improved things: this could have been a decent Conan movie, with Arnold as Conan, but not taking centre stage. What we have is an embarrassing, cringe worthy Conan rip-off.

The Batman (2022)

Amazing

[10 February 2023]

10/10 for unoriginality. Did we really need another Batman film? Shows how starved Hollywood's for fresh ideas. My five cents worth: cinematically, everything Batman's been said and done; we had the Batman films from 1989 and 1992 (directed by Tim burton). 1992's Batman Returns had Selina Kyle/Catwoman played by Michelle Pfeiffer and it had Penguin played by Danny De Vito. Then in 1995 we got Batman Forever (directed by Joel Schumacher) with Jim Carrey playing The Riddler. If this latest film: The Batman, portrayed some villian or character that we hadn't seen before then maybe it would've been justified. But Penguin, Catwoman and Riddler have been done in Batman Returns (1992) and Batman Forever (1995). And done better: Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle/Catwoman, Danny De Vito's Penguin and Jim Carrey's Riddler were more interesting and cinematic than the said characters in The Batman. Then in 1997 we got: Batman and Robin. Then in 2005 we got Christopher Nolan's return to a more serious tone with: Batman Begins, followed by The Dark Knight (2008) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012). So why did we need another Batman film? We didn't.

Pacific Rim (2013)

Robot Jox rip off

[12 September 2021]

PACIFIC RIM isn't original; it got ideas from Robot Jox (1989). If you want a review of Pacific Rim, there are plenty; what can I add, apart from my five cents worth that Pacific Rim got ideas from a low budget, fairly unknown, sci-fi, mechanical monster film called: Robot Jox.

Monster's Ball (2001)

Glorifies selfishness

[2 September 2021]

Monster's Ball celebrates selfishness: prison guard Billy Bob Thornton kicks his son who's also a prison guard (Heath Ledger) out of home for vomiting whilst walking a death row inmate to the execution chamber; later, back at the house, Billy Bob says to his son 'Yeah, I hate you'; Heath Ledger says: ' Well, I always loved you'. Then Heath Ledger shoots himself. Billy Bob Thornton isn't upset by his son's suicide and gets on with life. What a horrible man. Billy Bob Thornton's next selfish move is to get rid of dad, dumping him in a nursing home. Sure his dad's a racist. But just beause dad's far from perfect doesn't justify abandoning him to a nursing home where he'll likely be neglected and/or abused. True, Billy Bob pays for his dad to go into the nursing home. Still; what an *sshole. 5/10.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Sorry. No

[16 June 2021]

The Witch: A New England Folk Tale (2015); this film's impressed with itself; it's got a grasp of old/New England dialogue, which gives it an air of authenticity. But it's not a good film: 1) it's boring 2) it's low budget; not necessarily a bad thing; look at Resevoir Dogs (1992) which shows a movie can be good without a big budget. But in this case it doesn't do the film any favors; maybe if they had more money it could've been more of a horror film with spfx make-up, blood and gore etc., and then perhaps it wouldn't have been as boring 3) not much happens; in other words: boring. It's supposed to be a horror film. But it's not; lots of dialogue; showing off how people, hundreds of years ago in America, supposedly spoke. Maybe I'd be less scathing if it wasn't for the rave reviews; people carrying on like it's a great film. Dear filmmakers: just because you know how people in puritan New England may have spoken, doesn't mean you can make a boring film that comes off more like a theater production: film's not theater; in film you can do things that can't be done on a stage; after all, this is cinema, not theater. If you want to see a movie that's sourced from a play, that's got a grasp of puritan New England dialogue + good acting, that covers similar terrain and that isn't as boring, watch The Crucible (1996) starring Daniel Day Lewis and Winona Ryder. 5/10 for trying (easy to criticize; try making a film)

Hard Target (1993)

Laughable missed target

[17 March 2021]

HARD TARGET is a stylish, B grade action film from Hong Kong director John Woo (his first U. S. film). Hard Target's first half has a certain depth and social conscience (for an action film) e.g. A homeless man Roper (Willie C. Carpenter) is gunned down in public after no one will help him. But Hard Target's second half (where it moves from the city to the swamps) degenerates at times into downright silliness and has a rushed feel. The finale in an abandoned warehouse filled with old Mardi Gras paraphernalia was meant to be meaningful. But it's not; it's just a finale in an abandoned warehouse filled with old Mardi Gras paraphernalia. Hard Target isn't original; it's a reworking of The Most Dangerous Game (1932) about humans who kill humans for sport. Hard Target also got ideas from the 007 film: Moonraker (1979); check out the scene where Jaws chases Bond's contact through the streets of Rio de Janeiro; Hard Target's screenwriter probably thought no one would notice. Hard Target's also similar to Avenging Force (1986); set in New Orleans (as is Hard Target) about people hunting people; derivative of The Most Dangerous Game (as is Hard Target). But Avenging Force was made approx. 7 yrs before Hard Target.

Hard Target was edited and re edited mainly because of the violence (much of the re editing was forced upon Hard Target by the MPAA and Universal Studios). Hard Target was later released on DVD in around 2000 with much of the action and violence restored. Hard Target's still not as violent as some of Woo's earlier Hong Kong films e.g. The Killer (1989), Bullet in the Head (1990) - probably Woo's best film, and Hardboiled (1992). And since Woo's shoot outs (for which he's renowned) rely on choreographed, prolonged operatic storms of gunfire that would be too violent for mainstream American cinema Hard Target suffers accordingly. But thanks to its polished look, Hard Target's easier to watch than Woo's Hong Kong films e.g. The Killer (which has a grainy, horrible print with crackly sound). Woo reportedly wanted a speed boat chase toward the end of Hard Target. But it ended up Chance on horseback being chased by a helicopter; Woo got his speed boat chase two films later in Face Off (1997). I've seen the 128 min work print of Hard Target (the picture quality's poor). One scene in the work print that was cut from Hard Target was a romantic scene with Natasha in Chance's ramshackle flat. That and some bits of action e.g. A car flipping over and exploding plus music from movies such as Aliens (1986) and The Untouchables (1988) which was better than much of Graeme Revell's music in Hard Target is ammunition people use to say: 'see what Hard Target could've been; John Woo got screwed by Universal Studios, test audiences and the MPAA'. A fan of Hard Target posted a video on YouTube in 2012 pleading with Universal Studios for an extended cut: some work print bits are shown although much of the action 'n violence the fan's asking Universal Studios to restore was restored when Hard Target came out on DVD. Woo's vision may have been compromised. But even with much of the action 'n violence restored, it doesn't excuse Hard Target's failings. Hard Target's silly e.g. Chance swings from a rope like Tarzan as he shoots baddies; Chance is lowered to the floor on a giant pelican Mardi Gras prop as he shoots baddies; Chance's supposedly comical, bow 'n arrow wielding hillbilly uncle, Uncle Douvee (Wilford Brimley) doesn't help the situation either. And the way some of the less important baddies wear black baseball hats as if they're just there to be shot, beaten or blown up cheapen Hard Target. There's a flimsy plot device about the New Orleans police dept. Going on strike which the entrepreneurs use as an opportunity to conduct a hunt in New Orleans. In Robocop (1987) the police strike was plausible because in that film the police had been taken over by a private corporation. But in Hard Target the police strike doesn't ring true. Hard Target is uneven e.g. Mr Fouchon refers to the war in Bosnia as an opportunity that allowed he and his men to conduct previous hunts. This and one or two genuinely moving moments (in the film's first half) plus the fact that Hard Target touches on homelessness and the gap between rich and poor could get your hopes up for a decent film. When Hard Target was released Universal Studios said that John Woo has 'a profound sense of conscience'. It shows (kind of). This could've been good. So I wish Hard Target had not allowed itself to mix important subject matter with hillbillies on horseback. Woo's no stranger to quirkiness, corniness, silliness and uneven tone (evidenced by his Hong Kong films). This can't be blamed on studio interference and re editing. I remember a critic accusing Hard Target of being 'a pyrotechnic dumb fest'. Hard Target features hyper sensational, over the top, super dooper, outlandish action e.g. Chance doing a standing balancing act on a speeding motor bike as he shoots bad guys blasting back at him at from an oncoming SUV; the SUV collides with the motorbike; Chance somersaults off the motorbike, over the SUV; lands feet first, picks up his Beretta and shoots the motorbike dragged under the SUV igniting the motorbike's fuel tank causing the motorbike and SUV to explode; the exploding SUV's filmed in about 7 different angles. You can see the chain holding/tying the exploding SUV down; as if it couldn't have been removed in post production. Woo thinks the more super dooper the action the better or it was used to distract from Hard Target's failings. Death defying stunts, acrobatics and over the top action can only do so much the same way in which special effects can only do so much: icing on the cake. But the cake's got to be baked first. Hard Target is at its best when it exudes compassion for the targets being picked on by 'the dogs' (as Mr Fouchon calls them); black clad, motorbike riding, assistant hunters who mercilessly kick and swipe unfortunate, homeless war veterans as they're chased through New Orleans. Or when Roper's being hunted in a graveyard at night and when he's gunned down in public shortly thereafter. Or when Chance, Natasha and police detective Mitchel are ambushed by Pik Van Cleef (Arnold Vosloo) Mr Fouchon's second in command. All this is in the first half. There's cringe worthy dialogue e.g. Mr Fouchon tells his henchmen pursuing Chance to 'stay on his ass'. Two henchmen beat Chance up telling him to get his girlfriend Natasha to 'point her titties north and step on the gas'. Hard Target is like a spaghetti western, an action thriller and Beverly Hillbillies rolled into one. Some say Hard Target is Jean Claude Van Damme's best film; possibly prior to Hard Target (although that's not saying much). But Universal Soldier (1992) was made before Hard Target. And Universal Soldier is the better film (probably Van Damme's best film).

Woo's next U. S. film was the disappointing Broken Arrow (1996) then the overrated Face Off (1997) followed by the mediocre Mission: Impossible 2 (2000), the box office flop Windtalkers (2002) and the forgettable Paycheck (2003). Woo returned to China to direct the epic yet boring and repetitive Red Cliff (2008) later released as a one disc DVD in an abridged for western audiences version. After Face Off and in between Windtalkers and Paycheck, and before returning to China; Woo continued his U. S. career with a made for TV action flick Blackjack (1998) starring Dolph Lundgren plus a two hour pilot movie for the Canadian TV series Once a Thief (1996); a reworking and Woo's same titled 1991 Hong Kong movie. Woo also produced or co produced two other films The Replacement Killers (1998) and The Big Hit (1998).

Hard Target is silly, crappy, implausible and at times laughable. It has a quirky, uneven tone and a rushed feel. But its first half has a certain depth and social conscience. That coupled with its polished look, its style and some of its action could make you think you're watching something more than a Van Damme flick. I don't like films that are difficult to follow, slow or mysterious. That's where Hard Target should've excelled: a no nonsense, jaw dropping, gun blazing, action extravaganza. But Hard Target is another disappointing, churned out Van Damme flick like 'Double Impact' (1991) this time with eye catching explosions, fluttering pigeons, freeze frames, close ups, slo mo and sweeping, mobile camera work; a visual flare hinting of a foreign sensibility at the helm. If Hard Target was more developed and less rushed; with better judgement from John Woo; without studio interference, and if it had stayed within the confines of the city then it could've stood out as a solid, memorable and hard hitting action film. 5/10.

Outland (1981)

No IBS?

[10 March 2021]

If what happens to Federal Marshal William O'Niel (Connery) happened to me, I'd be ****ting my pants; he's too cool, calm and collected; all these ***ts are coming after him; how about some anxiety to make it more believable

Collateral (2004)

How did he know anybody would be home

[10 March 2021]

Yeah; fault that no one thought of: how did Vincent know his targets would be home

Running Scared (1986)

I wish I cared

[13 July 2020]

Some claim this to be the original buddy cop movie; not even close: Freebie and the Bean (1974), Beverly Hills Cop (1985), To Live and Die in LA (1985) to name a few. Two plain clothes buddy cops childishly traipse around freezing cold Chicago abusing their police power in pursuit of Gonzales (a forgettable villain played by Jimmy Smits). Our buddy cops arrest some people, shoot at some people; a car chase or two; they get their asses chewed out at the police station/precinct house by their captain (cliched even by 80's standards). Then the two wise cracking buddies have had enough and/or are suspended, so they retire to Miami. Sun bathing gets boring so they return to freezing cold Chicago and once again they're on the trial of Gonzales. A car/train chase. Wow. People are impressed by that. But I saw something similar in Code of Silence (1985) also set in freezing Chicago. And a supposedly climactic shootout in a big, empty steel and glass building; Gregory Hines swings from a rope and fires a sub machine gun. Wow. This film's not funny: the jokes aren't humorous; it's about as funny as the level of humor in a TV sitcom with canned laughter. The two buddy cops are infantile, smart arses who I don't feel anything for. In Lethal Weapon (1987) I felt for Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) and to some extent his partner Murtaugh (Danny Glover). But here the protagonists are largely one dimensional. Overrated. 5/10.

Galveston (2018)

?

[28 February 2020]

Sometimes I write a review. Sometimes I give an opinion and comment on a film. And write a review. Sometimes I give my opinion/comment on a film. And that's it. Because: a) I can be lazy b) I'm not passionate about the film and c) I don't think anyone's going to read what I write: there are so many reviews; why would anyone read mine. In this case, it's my opinion/comment. By the way, I respect just about any film 'cause I know how hard they are to produce, finance and get anyone to see it or care. So I respect Galveston in that sense. Now to my opinion/comment: Galveston's an inane, pointless, meandering, arty mess; a total disappointment and a waste of time. 4/10.

Joker (I) (2019)

Big deal

[3 October 2019]

Don't trust good reviews. I'm not impressed. Bad reviews are coming out. Like a critic said: this film doesn't have much to say and says it loudly. The Gotham, Arkham world isn't fresh; same old recycled stuff; seen the TV series Gotham? It's like a bigger budget version of Gotham, focusing on Joker, compacted into a movie. The film's cinematic and atmospheric. But I preferred Joker's back story in Batman (1989). This film's too realistic: I don't want a superhero movie (or in this case a super villain movie) set in such a realistic world. Put simply: a guy named Arthur (Joaquin Phoenix) has problems; he lives with his mom; he works as a clown; he's fired and gradually becomes Joker, leading a social movement of disgruntled mob-mentality citizens dressed as clowns seeking to overthrow Gotham's elite. In the end there's a riot; the mob-mentality disgruntled citizens of Gotham are dressed as clowns. Wow. As if a TV show would invite a loser like Arthur to be a guest; TV host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro) makes fun of Joker who, at this point's a loser named Arthur trying comedy at a stand up club; a videotaped clip's played and ridiculed on the Murray Franklin TV show: it was that bad. Then Arthur's invited to be a guest on the show: guys like Arthur aren't invited to be guests on David Letterman style TV shows; celebrities are, not mentally ill guys like Arthur. The film's all atmosphere and impact. But it lacks substance. I would've liked this as a Batman movie; the epic scale would make for an awesome Batman v Joker film. Joker isn't interesting enough to justify an entire movie spent on him. I remember reading a review of Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) which pointed out that Han Solo's back story isn't interesting. Same here. And it's not like we haven't seen Joker before; Batman (1989) managed to do Joker's story, without it taking up the whole movie. 5/10.

Rambo: Last Blood (2019)

Dumbo

[28 September 2019]

Watching the trailers I suspected Rambo: Last Blood wasn't going to be good; my suspicions were confirmed. Last Blood's off to a slow start; Rambo saving mountaineers from a land slide at night. Then Rambo riding round the ranch on horse back with a Mexican girl he's adopted; bonding with her; keeping 'a lid on it'. This is to show Rambo's a good guy (later Rambo's going to go completely psycho and cross the line into the realm of monstrous so the film has to show him as a good guy in the beginning to try to make us feel sympathy for Rambo). A Mexican girl that Rambo's adopted, ignores sound advice, leaves Rambo ranch and goes to Mexico to find her real father. Things go bad: she's kidnapped into a Mexican brothel/sex trafficking ring run by two brothers; Rambo goes to save the Mexican girl, gets his ass kicked, tries again to save her and succeeds. But she dies in the car on the way back to Rambo ranch. Rambo sets booby traps galore at Rambo ranch, drives to Mexico: while the chief sex trafficker's asleep; Rambo breaks into his house, cuts his head off and drops it out the window of his pick up truck on the way back to Rambo ranch. The other sex trafficking boss's grumpy that his brother's head's been cut off so he gets a band of henchmen together and they drive from Mexico, to Rambo ranch in Arizona; little do they know they're driving into a trap. This is where the shoot 'em up action takes place: at the end. And it's not that good; there's one or two explosions; a few unfortunate henchmen, get set on fire; there's booby traps and some okay gun action. Basically the henchmen conveniently fall into Rambo's traps, and the sex trafficking boss's the last to die: Rambo cuts his heart out after pinning him to the inside of barn doors with his bow and arrow. They had to pump out another Rambo; more thought should've gone into the story. There was speculation the story was going be Rambo fighting an escaped, genetically bred monster in Antarctica. But they needed a symbol of innocence who's killed to justify Rambo unleashing his fury. Why not Rambo fighting ISIS? The Mexico idea's getting too familiar: Sicario (2015), The Counselor (2013)...ring any bells? Last Blood's an excuse for Stallone to go psycho. So was Rambo (2008). But it was better; although flawed, Rambo (2008) was at times genuinely moving. And Rambo (2008) had the occasional slice of exhilarating action. A Good Day to Die Hard aka Die Hard 5 (2013) was the most forgettable Die Hard; same with Last Blood. Rambo: Last Blood (2019): think of Taken (2008); swap Liam Neeson for Stallone, swap Taken's Maggie Grace for a Mexican girl, except the Mexican girl isn't saved at the end; the Mexican girl's rescue comes about 2/3's of the way through. But she dies on way back to Rambo ranch. A 1978 film: I Spit On Your Grave (remade in 2010); cross that with Taken (2008), a dash of Sicario (2015) and the ranch shoot out in the Mark Wahlberg film, Shooter (2007) and you've got Rambo: Last Blood (2019). On a positive note the Mexicans mainly spoke Spanish with subtitled English; the Mexico prostitute/sex trafficking world had an air of authenticity. Technically the film's good (to be expected). Last Blood's soulless; Rambo: First Blood (1982) worked because of it's soulfulness; a psychologically wounded soldier who's pain's exacerbated by an unappreciative world; a misunderstood anti-hero; Stallone pulled that off nicely. But in Last Blood, I didn't sympathize with Rambo. The Mexican girl abducted into the sex trafficking world, didn't move me: the peasant farmers picked on by the Burmese army in Rambo (2008) worked better. In Last Blood, Rambo's a monster. Stallone's got this revenge thing going, evidenced by the remake of Get Carter (2000) where Michael Caine says 'Revenge doesn't work'; Stallone retorts 'sure it does'. Here's what David Morrell (the novelist who created Rambo) said about Last Blood: "The film is a mess. Embarrassed to have my name associated with it." Later tweeting "I hated the film.... Waterworld is a masterpiece compared to this." "I felt degraded and dehumanized after I left the theater.... Instead of being soulful, this new movie lacks one. I felt I was less a human being for having seen it, and today that's an unfortunate message. The sets here look cheap. The direction is awkward." Adding "From multiple perspectives, this film fails miserably". Morrell also tweeted that 2008's Rambo was "better than critics allowed," pointing out that although some of the action went on too long, the film understood the titular character. 4/10.

The Passenger (1975)

Boring, overrated peice of crap

[17 June 2019]

This is one of the worst films I've seen. I don't like to knock movies; I realize how hard they are to produce, finance and shoot etc., let alone get anyone to see or care about. But watching this felt like two hours wasted. I was hoping for a sophisticated character study; a chance to watch Jack Nicholson play a man being closed in on as the narrative works it's way to a devastating finale. I was hoping the talkative, uncinematic boredom would pay off: the final scene's meant to be powerful so I'll keep watching, I told myself. No. It was arid and slow all the way through...the ending as uneventful and forgettable as every other tedious scene. We're seduced into thinking this is good because of Jack Nicholson + a foreign director. One scene has documentary footage of an execution by firing squad; I found it disturbing, depressing and made me loathe this overrated film even more. 1/10.

The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018)

Good

[14 December 2018]

Don't trust the naysayers; they're nitpicking. Not writing a big spiel (can get that from other reviews). True; she escapes unscathed one time too many. But they didn't turn Lisbeth Salander into an action hero or lady killer/Columbiana badass; no; she's Lisbeth Salander, doing no more or less action than in the other films. The film's stylish. Oversimplified plot analysis: when Lisbeth and her sister were kids, they were being abused by their pedophile dad; in adulthood, sis's grumpy because Lisbeth escaped. But sis got left behind/continued to suffer at the hands of kiddy fiddler dad. So in adulthood, sis goes for revenge by **cking with Lisbeth's life. Claire Foy's a hot chick (and a good Lisbeth Salander). 7/10.

Venom (2018)

Fun, engaging, repetitive and unoriginal

[21 November 2018]

Not going to write a big spiel (can get that from other reviews); just want to say I saw Venom; although it was fun and engaging it lacked variety and originality. And as we know the idea was done in Spiderman 3 (2007). I'm weary of movies where someone says: 'You look like **it' (Tom Hardy like every other male lead that's accused in a movie of looking 'like **it' is a handsome man); 'You look like **it' is a lazy attempt at grit (and possibly humour) but audiences aren't paying to see real life; we go to movies like Venom for big budget, comic book thrills and Venom delivers but a line like 'You look like **it', is indicative of mediocrity; compare it to Christopher Reeve's Superman movies i.e. They had real substance and drama; it's a fair comparison because at one point in Superman 3 (1983) the man of steel turn's selfish 'n bad (negatively effected by Kryptonite) so the idea that Superman has a dark side is explored, as it is in the first Christopher Reeve Superman (1978) where he kind of acts selfishly by breaking Kryptonian law: 'It is forbidden for you to interfere with human history' to save Louis Lane's life. Venom's about alter ego; a heroes dark side; conflict between being goody-goody and being bad (but good and heroic). Point is: it was done better in Superman. Venom's repetitive; the same things keep happening; characters get infected with the Venom symbiote; it happens to the ambulance driver in Malaysia in the beginning of the film, it happens to a little girl, it happens to the test subjects that baddie (Riz Ahmed) cruelly experiments on, it happens the protagonists girlfriend (Michelle Williams) who uses her venomous powers (or who's used by the venom symbiote) to save hero/anti-hero Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy); it happens to the chief baddie himself who's symbiote ends up fighting with Tom Hardy's symbiote. Not enough variety! Venom's obviously reminiscent of Spiderman 3 (2007) but also the first Tobey Maguire Spiderman (2002) which toward the end had a fight on a bridge above water at night (as does Venom); other movies Venom's reminiscent of: Fantastic 4, The Hidden (1987) and Fallen (1998) and Iron Man. Venom's a loud, fast-paced ride. But it's unoriginal, repetitive; permeated with a feeling of deja vu and doesn't stand out. 6/10.

Halloween (I) (2018)

Polished turd

[1 November 2018]

HALLOWEEN (2018): don't trust the good reviews; I can't help but affirm they're written by indiscriminate/easily pleased viewers; either that or the good reviews are coming from people connected to the film or who've never seen a Halloween film before. To be fair this latest Halloween's got good photography, good editing; a good title sequence and a heartfelt performance from Jamie Lee Curtis (doing a Sarah Connor) but you can only polish a turd so much. Problem is the idea's stale; this is hardly a profound insight; anyone can see that. But this is really getting boring; there just aren't enough fresh ideas to justify another Halloween movie; this is a cash grab. The film isn't even scary; it's boo scares; Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) is better than this. A good horror film illicit's silence. But when I saw Halloween (2018) the audience was jeering; the girl sitting in front of me was looking at her phone; people were talking, people were getting up and walking out or coming back into the cinema: bored; a good horror film intalls fear; people too scared to look at their phones, too scared to comment 'he's pretty strong', 'don't kill the baby', she's hot', 'he's just standing there' etc. Dear Malek Akkad, JohnCarpenter and others involved: stop flogging this dead horse. There are also problems with the Halloween/Michael Myers concept; it wasn't thought out to begin with because Michael isn't 'pure evil'; he's kind of an anti-hero (killing annoying teens): pure evil would've killed the baby (there's a scene in this Halloween reboot where Michael has an opportunity to kill a baby in a crib). And if Michael Myers was 'pure evil' he would've killed the female patient along with the two guards raping her in Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007). The 1st Halloween (1978), Halloween 2 (1981), Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988), Halloween: H20 (1988) + the 1st half of Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) cover everything you'll want or need to see in regards to Halloween. As one reviewer said about Rob Zombie's (2009) Halloween 2: 'please don't make another one'. Hear, hear. A time travel Halloween e.g. Michael Myers in the future something akin to Jason X (2001), or a Michael v Jason, or Michael v Freddy Krueger are the only ways I can see to breathe new life into this. Btw if a good, blood squirting gory slasher's all u want then you'll have to look elsewhere because there isn't that much of that. What there is is stupidity; teen slasher cliches; a lazy script and some awful, cringe worthy dialogue 'Grandmother, grandmother!' plus a distinct feeling of I've seen it all before. Technically it's good; artistically it's bad. Save your money. But you'll probably see it anyway. 4/10.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

No, no, no

[16 May 2018]

DAWN OF THE DEAD; a remake of George A. Romero's 1978 same titled apocalyptic, epic, zombie horror action thriller drama masterpiece; this 2004 version sometimes seems good, especially in the first 20 or 30 minutes leading up to/getting to the shopping mall (putting aside the cliche of the pretty female nurse working in a major hospital). When the protagonists get inside the mall there's this promising bit where music from the 1978 George A. Romero film composed by the Italian band Goblin, kicks in. But that's the only time in this remake uses that music/it's over in a few seconds and things go downhill from there. The protagonists are now in the shopping mall. They stumble across security guards hiding in the mall, which was meant to add complexity/depth to the situation. But it doesn't; it's just security guards hiding in a mall/protecting their turf (wow). Nancy Allen said in an interview on the Robocop remake (2014); words to the effect of: 'You only remake films that had a good idea but were executed badly'. Exactly. I reckon it'd be cool to remake films for younger audiences who weren't around when the original came out: SPFX have improved; now it's possible to make remake movies so that they're better looking/more polished. But they should leave it to the original director/creative team (if they're still around which George A. Romero certainly was): 'Hey George, this is so and so calling from Universal Studios and we want you to remake Dawn of the Dead; you can have as much money as you like; we'll give you whatever you need/you'll have full creative control'. If the director of the original film agrees (or at least has a role in overseeing the production) then remake it. Otherwise leave it alone. Part of the reason why the original Dawn of the Dead (1978) was better was because George A. Romero worked largely outside of the studio system; he was independent, didn't use big stars and yet his movies kicked arse; the original had a insight into human nature, materialism; captured a sense of dread and uneasiness as we watch a breakdown of society. This remake isn't as good, isn't as insightful and it seems trite in comparison. The remake is uneven in tone, never really gets going/the gore doesn't take off/there's crappy slow motion, like when zombies are being blasted off the caged wire fences in the underground parking lot. After the first act, this remake's boring/there were missed opportunities; the 1978 Dawn of the Dead let rip; this remake doesn't. 5/10 for trying. And hey; it's easy to criticize: try making a film.

Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018)

A spectacle for the ages

[4 April 2018]

PACIFIC RIM 2: UPRISING cost 150 million USD; 40 million less than the first film but you wouldn't know it because the sequel's visually as good if not better. I don't understand the backlash; is it because Ron Perlman wasn't in it and Guillermo del Toro wasn't the director? Or is it because Uprising's Jaeger pilots are teenagers? It's a lighter, less serious film but that doesn't mean people should write it off as a kids film; thankfully the teenage aspect's reconcilled by a coming of age story, like Ender's Game (2013). If people want exactly the same film then watch the original. It's hard to be objective; people (myself incl.) like or dislike films for all sorts of reasons; depending what mood they're in or whether they went in with low or high expectations etc. But we should try to be objective, weigh everything up and judge a film on merit. And with Uprising I don't see why it isn't any less of a film than the original. I saw Pacific Rim at the movies in 2013; didn't love it/didn't hate it; actually the whole premise is kind of silly; monsters coming out of the earth's core and being fought by human made mechanical monsters. But the crowded cinema audience seemed impressed (there were only two people in the cinema when I saw Uprising; me and the other guy looking at his tablet). Rewatched the original in 2015 and reassessed: it's good. But I honestly think the sequel's as good if not better because the battles in the first film take place mostly at night or in the ocean or underwater, like at the end when they're sealing the breach. And the Kaiju attacking the cities during the day are only on screen for a bit and one of those snippets is in the bleak, gloomy rain: I wanted to see more sunny, daytime action; there was only a bit of that in the first film (most of which was a newsflash of Sydney, Australia being attacked). But in Uprising a lot of the action takes place in bright, sunny daylight. Uprising didn't make the mistake that e.g. Robocop 2 (1990) made i.e. A director (Irvin Kirschner) who openly admitted to not liking the original film and a composer (Leonard Rosenman) who also admitted to not liking the original score (which wasn't used anywhere in the sequel much to its detriment); the original Pacific Rim's theme music's retained as are most of the characters and like the first film Uprising has an emotional element but the cinematic aspect's taken to a new level. Pacific Rim 2: Uprising; does it have faults? Yes, like how could the whole of Tokyo's CBD be evacuated into underground shelters i.e. As if some civillians wouldn't have died while the Jaegers and Kaiju tear the city apart; this is also a moral dilemma that the original didn't explore either; should Jaeger pilots worry about civillians inadvertently being killed while they fight the Kaiju i.e. Delay engaging until everyone's out of harms way? Jaeger pilots are meant to be heroes but they're piloting mechanical monsters that are as potentially destructive as the Kaiju; I guess anyone that got caught in the crossfire is collateral damage but it's an issue neither film explores. Uprising's action packed (like the original) but it's less gloomy and subsequently seems more imaginative/more visual and faster paced. Uprising's good entertainment; it's a full throttle, awesome ride. 8/10.

Double Jeopardy (1999)

Sorry I killed your dad

[24 March 2018]

Why not make that the title? After all Libby Parsons kills her kid's dad at the end and I suppose she's going to have to tell him at some point; I wonder what Matty would think of mommy then? Libby: 'Do you know know who I am? I'm your mom...but by the way, I shot and killed your dad the other night; sorry about that'. Sometimes bastards love their kids. This film's two dimensional in that it's from Libby's perspective but it doesn't show the husband's side of the story; she's right and he's wrong. This is where Hollywood fails. And why does everything have to be solved by violence? Judd looks too good to have been in prison for six years (but this is Hollywood). Where does Bruce Greenwood's character get the blood to frame Libby Parsons; the boat's covered in blood; the police would've forensically examined the blood to determine if it was animal blood, so if it wasn't animal blood, where did get all that blood come from; Bruce Greenwood's character would've had to sever a limb to get that amount of his own blood to frame Libby. On a positive note: Tommy Lee Jones and Bruce Greenwood are well cast. 5/10.

La Femme Nikita (1990)

Overrated

[19 March 2018]

Don't be fooled by style; this is not a good film. The best scene's the opening shootout (which is over too quickly); it's downhill from there. I saw this at the cinema in around 1990 (titled 'Nikita' in French dialogue with English subtitles). Thought it was half decent. Then it was released on VHS; dubbed in English with American accents voice-over, no subtitles. I remember endorsing Nikita but someone pointing out how crap it was to have dubbed/American accents voice-over. But I must've liked this movie because even though I'd seen it at the cinema and even though someone pointed out how cheesy the dubbed American accents were, I watched this movie numerous times at home on VHS. Recently I saw it on DVD, restored to it's original title 'La Femme Nikita' with English subtitles and the voice over/dubbed American accents removed. Looking again, I think this movie's not so great. One time in around 1991; watching it on VHS with my dad (who was unimpressed); I remember him saying something about French films being slow; that's right; this movie's slow; it...drags...on. And looking again, it's at times embarrassingly bad; the flamboyant costumes in the clothes shopping scenes, the cheesy dialogue, the romance e.g. The on vacation in Venice gondolier scenes, which play out like a romantic comedy/drama; something akin to Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman (1990): until there's some action (which is over in a couple of seconds). The best scene was the high impact, opening shootout i.e. The drug store robbery (which is over too quickly); in some ways the film's worth seeing just for this opening scene; if only it lasted longer. The story was good/good idea. And it's stylish. Music? Very good. Photography? Good. But there's an undeserved mystique surrounding this film because it's French, so we ignore it's bad points i.e. Silly and tediously slow. One of the strongest elements is Tcheky Kayro as Bob, Nikita's boss. Jean Reno's Victor the Cleaner; I preferred the cleaner played by Harvey Keitel in the USA remake: Point of No Return (1993) aka The Assassin.

Interstellar (2014)

Epic fail

[4 March 2018]

INTERSTELLAR is emotional and well acted but lacking substance: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS FILM WAS ABOUT! Space travel? Interdimensional travel? It's also bleak. 'Contact' (1997) was a similar but much better. Christopher Nolan's best film was 'Insomnia' (2002); 'Batman Begins' (2005) wasn't bad either. 'Inception' (2010) was another Christopher Nolan film I didn't think much of (turned it off) because like Interstellar I'm not sure what it was about; so much going on on the surface; so complex and sophisticated but also empty and convoluted. 4/10.

The Counselor (2013)

Amusing, horrible little film

[12 January 2018]

THE COUNSELOR might be worth comparing to the 1983 masterpiece Scarface; both are morality plays set in the drug world. But Scarface although dealing with at times horrible subject matter is genuinely moving, engaging, cinematic and unforgettable whereas The Counselor's kind of horrible, boring and forgettable; it's more like a play than a film. And it ends abruptly; what a cop out. Still, it captures a nightmarish scenario of a drug deal gone wrong and it's devastating consequences quite effectively. 5/10.

Point of No Return (1993)

Overrated French film remade for english speaking audiences

[11 January 2018]

Remake of the overrated French film La Femme Nikita aka Nikita (1990). Not writing a big speil (you can get that from other reviews). To be fair; this movie has Bridgette Fonda (who's nice to look at). And it's got Harvey Kietel, who brings a raw intensity, nicely contrasting Bridgette Fonda's elegance. But Hans Zimmer's music's terrible; music can make or break (like a hair cut); this film's hugely let down by the music; it's like Hans Zimmer (usually a good composer) got some cutlery, put it into a tumble dryer and recorded the noise. Luc Benson's La Femme Nikita (1990) was stylish and original. Yet it was slow, boring, depressing and overrated. This USA remake (aka The Assassin) might've improved things, if it wasn't for some lackluster action; especially the opening shootout (which was done better in La Femme Nikita). And Point of No Return might've improved things if it wasn't for Hans Zimmer's noise polluting music score. 4/10.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Indieeeeed

[1 January 2018]

Indie's on a quest to find Shiva lingam, and save a village. And he rescues some kiddies on the way. I saw this twice in 1984 at the cinema and it was genuinely scary and suspenseful. And thirty something years later. It still is. Some of those set pieces were great. And if nothing else it brought Kate Capshaw and Spielberg together. Some of it was shot in Sri Lanka and London. But it wasn't filmed in India, where it was set. Because the Indian government banned it being filmed there as it was seen as racist and offensive. Feminists hated this film, as did critics. But it made $179+ million at the US box office. So it must've done something right. 7/10.