lilian-larwood Reviews

Derek Douglas and the Deadly Deception (2013)

Not quite sure what to make of it

[6/10 · 21 February 2014]

Derek Douglas is kind of like a huge "in-ward joke" to the director only as I kind've didn't get the jist and the overall point of the film. I only later found out that there's a graphic novel that's supposed to be a prequel to the short film so maybe that's why I didn't fully understand it. I mean, there's a clear story don't get me wrong but there's something about the characters and the world that they live in that doesn't seem to work. I felt like in a way there should be at least another film or two before this one.

There's quite a few questions that I've yet to understand: Why does Derek Douglas have a gun? Why are the thugs actually after him? Why was the voice on the other end of the phone clearly someone in the same room as Derek? It's a very good adapted story of this modern detective film-noir atmosphere and a well deserved acomplishment. That's why I've rated this generously. Because of the hard work that they've all went through.

Never Speak to Strangers (2013)

Could this be the worst film ever made?

[1/10 · 21 February 2014]

I've had my share of bad movies in the past such as 'The Room', 'Birdemic: Shock and Terror' and 'The Stuff' however I actually think I've hit rock-bottom and watched this film during it's screening at the Lobster pub no more than a couple months ago. I'm still thinking about it and questioning things however this could very well be the worst thing I have ever seen and I've seen '2 Girls 1 Cup'. In fact I would rather watch that again, with my eyes forcefully opened by apparatus (like in Clockwork Orange) than bear another viewing of that film. The film is apparently about Chris Sanford, a bored radio-presenter who doesn't have any decent people to talk to in Norwich (bit arrogant...) I don't know if the film has a message saying that all Norfolk people are boring or not well-educated enough. But anyway the film starts off a little up-itself for the moment until we meet the most annoying character in existence: Jean from Great Yarmouth. She's a suicidal person who (now this is from how I saw this) believes that the youth doesn't understand the society in which we all live in anymore as they ridicule and demolish things that the adults have created and thinks "what's the bloody point?" which fascinates Chris, the arrogant and 'think he's so amazing' presenter. It basically builds up for ages that she's gonna 'do herself in' at the end of the film and to be honest (SPOILER) she does. It's nothing tragic or sad as like I said before, ANNOYING! She's annoying and wastes the film's time. Also she kills herself in a slow and time-consuming way. I'm not gonna say too much, that's for your amusement. I did NOT like this film as a whole. But where to explain HOW it was bad. Let me start off with acting. The acting couldn't have been any worse. It makes Tommy Wiseau look like Phillip Seymour Hoffman (too soon?) and makes every actor in Troll 2 a bunch of Meryl Streeps. I'm also going to include Alan Bagh in this as again this film makes Bagh look like freakin' De Niro! Apparently the writer and director Nigel Pearce and Paul Watson are the two main leads... For god's sake! It was so bad, that it actually became funny, which was so not what Pearce and Watson had in mind for it's audience's reaction. Never and I repeat NEVER cast these two in another film ever again! The only reason they played the leads in this was because they we're in control. So it's not fair that they thought they could actually play these characters convincingly. The special effects were supposed to look non-distracting but clearly it was. The police car was awful and the misplacement of the radio logo outside the building. I couldn't help notice that an actor was deliberately placed in front of green-screen really badly, which seems to be porn aka babestation, but instead changed the name to 'Paulstation' (named after the director/editor)... REALLY!?!? As a woman I found that so offensive and disgusting of the director. The only thing I could deal with and I must admit had a pretty kick-ass soundtrack. The music was very good and I quite liked the idea that music only featured when it was intentionally from the radio in the film-world. Again, for the love of all things that is holy I strongly advice you not to watch this film. To keep your sanity, your eyes and your hair.

Haggard (2003 Video)

A fantastic comedy by some daring performers

[8/10 · 21 February 2014]

I watched this back in 2006 and I got to say this is one of the funniest films I've seen in such a long time. Bam Margera's (technically) directorial debut known as "Haggard" really delivers something special and original to us as it's really a romantic comic tragedy, but made by either Jackass stars or CKY stars (if you're fans with any of them...) Haggard tells the story of Ryan Dunn (playing himself) who gets dumped by the love of his life 'Glauren' for some dude named 'Hellboy' and ever since the devastating news he swears revenge and gets his pals Valo and Falcone to do his dirty word (some of that is pun) at Glauren's house. It's such a ridiculous concept but somehow I have a feeling that we can all relate to this film due to losing someone we love and having mixed emotions over it.

What I love about this film is that it's a film clearly made just for fun. Sure it was funded and well planned/structured, however you can tell they had a good time making it and most of the characters are played by either friends or family of Bam's. But there's something personal behind it and I didn't realise until now that the story is based on Ryan's actual love life where something like that actually happened. You really feel sorry for Ryan and his pain behind it all and for that you're keen to know what happens until the very end.

What I didn't like about the film and unfortunately this happens a lot. I didn't particularly like the skateboarding montages, and I felt that Bam needed to remind us that they're also skilled skaters as well as actors. Is this CKY I'm watching now or a narrative-film? I'm a massive fan of HIM and thought that the music choice was incredible so there's a positive about those random montages throughout the feature.

Overall a fantastic film about love and anger, dealing with the sadness that we can all relate to if we ever had someone to brake our hearts, but still laugh out loud to those lovable characters who either get p***ed on, smear s*** on the door, videotape girl's under wears in their house.

Django Unchained (2012)

The best Tarantino film since Pulp Fiction!

[9/10 · 19 February 2014]

I'm a late bloomer and never got the chance to watch Django Unchained in the cinemas. That was a huge mistake because after watching it for the first time last night I suddenly realised how much of a fool I was for not bothering to see it on the big screen! The writing is unbelievable! Quite possibly the best script in the history of the world as each character was so fascinating and well delivered with their lines. Also Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal as the pompous-yet-charming Calvin Candie is the best thing that DiCaprio has ever done (and yes, I've seen Wolf of Wall Street and Gilbert Grape). I was never bored of this film from start to finish simply because of how clever the narrative was. I understand that Tarantino are a little disappointed in the route that he's going to at the moment as he used to make witty-gangster films and now he's making action-flicks, but I think in my personal opinion it's the best film that he's made since Pulp Fiction (not that you care but the Tarantino film I least cared for was Death Proof - what was it? a killer car with a man inside who hated women or something?) Jamie Foxx was fantastic and going back to DiCaprio this is Foxx's best performance as I was getting quite sick of his somewhat 'cool' characters that he always seems to play. I mean, yes he's technically doing all that in this film as he's supposed to be this awesome Shaft-like character, but it's the rise of a hero with pride, the birth of a nation, the start of something new in the world. This film doesn't educate you I know however it was so entertaining all the way through! I only had one criticism, it being Samuel L. Jackson's performance (please don't hunt me down and kill me in cold blood). I love Jackson as I think he's the coolest actor ever, but I was a little let-down by his weird portrayal of Stephen the somewhat racist black servant of Candie. It was like he was trying to play an old man in a theatre production somewhere.

But that's it! The best Tarantino film I've seen for a while (2nd being Pulp Fiction and 3rd being Inglorious Basterds).

Somewhere (2010)

How is Sofia Coppola getting money for her films!? Oh yeah I remember, cause her talented dad's rich!

[2/10 · 19 February 2014]

I figured that 2 is a funny number to rate a film on IMDb. It ain't the worst thing ever however clearly not the best thing ever. But I don't think that all films should be rated 1 for being truly awful because at least they tried to make something that looks like they went a long way for it. At least that's what I thought about for most films. But again, that is obviously a matter of opinion HOWEVER in Sofia Coppola's 'Somewhere' it is the closest thing I could think of for hating a film which is a rare feeling for me. The laziness of making a film just because her father's got millions astounds me. If she didn't have money (and I mean NOTHING out of it) then the quality would've been the exact same thing.

Not only that but I felt that it was painfully boring! My god, the sheer amount of pills I had to take to keep awake has become somewhat routine for me during that hour and a half of nothingness. The only thing I think this film is decent enough for my life is simply using it to GO TO SLEEP. Like play it just before sleepy-time and I would get the best sleep ever! Don't get me started on the characters (but I'm going to anyway). The character of Johnny Marco was dry, dull, boring and was just... nothing to the story. I understand that it was about a Hollywood star with no life (at least that's what I thought it was about) but nobody seemed to care! I felt nothing for the character, no sympathy, no heart-felt moments for him, nothing! The only character with energy was Chris Pontius's character which was great improvising by the way with Cleo as apparently he's good with kids in real life.

But going back to my title - how did Sofia Coppola get a budget for making nothing!? Because her dad's super successful and famous. I really don't think that some Coppola's should be in the film-making industry, at least not for Sofia's in that way. Only Francis Ford-Coppola and his many years of realising that he's awesome for making The Godfather etc. Sofia went "I wanna make films" and we're going "Pfft! Sure you can!" (sarcastically). Don't get me wrong I quite liked 'Lost in Translation' as I thought it was sweet and pretty but again, typical Sofia with her dry narrative 'skills'.

She had pretty much everything to make this film: Great actors, producers with cash - lots of it, locations, music choice. However he messed it all up with her unimaginative mind and writing on the script which might as well be scwiggly lines. No point whatsoever! A very empty film with a weird beginning, a boring middle and an unsatisfying ending. Either watch it for A: Cause you need to get to sleep, or B: Because you wanna slit your wrists with a blade cause you hate life but you just need that extra push to make you snap and finally do it.

Crazed Departure (2013)

At last! An original film... but with flaws

[6/10 · 19 February 2014]

I came to a screening that was held in Norwich (some kind of Valentine's day special event) the other day with some friends and this film was screened there. I happened to come across this film here on IMDb and couldn't resist the urge to review it.

My first reaction to the film was somewhat positive, as I thought it was actually a very original short film. I haven't seen anything quite like this (and I think I'm hard to impress). The storyline was very different to anything that I might've seen in the past so hats off to Michael Hill's first film - apparently. The idea of murder but done discreetly using free sample fragrance was a good concept. The serial killer known as 'Lilith' was a clever character as I would think realistically she would get away with such daring actions.

However I did detect some flaws in the film. I thought that the actor playing Stephen aka the main character was quite comedic at times when I think the film was trying to be serious and somewhat horrific to watch. He was pulling funny faces and at various times quite 'adorable' to watch rather than taking him seriously. The cinematography was a little shoddy at times. It felt like a child was holding the camera or to be fair a student was holding the camera. As I was watching it I felt that the DOP was trying to create something admiring with the cinematography and I respect that, however I thought he failed badly as it just looked clumsy and again 'shoddy'. I don't particularly understand why the father later on in the film was Northern when I think the actor playing him is actually British trying to put on an accent. Didn't seem to make sense as I was watching it. Who knows? He may be Northern, but I just couldn't believe it. And last but not least why was Lilith selling fragrance in a village hall? I never heard of anyone selling these things in a village hall, no one does that actually!

This is why I'm rating it a 6 instead of anything higher, cause it really could've been something spectacular due to originality. But seeing as it's clearly a first attempt to movie-making i'm gonna give it something reasonable and average - and that's me being kind.