It doesn't matter how good this film is, it doesn't matter how good the plot is, the acting, or the scenery. Joey Adams' voice is like an ice-cold sonic vibration in my skull. This shrill wench's squeak-speak meant I could never understand what Ben Affleck saw in her. And she was continually smug as well, much like Kevin Smith's films.
Reviews
28 Reviews
Reign of Fire
(2002)
Excellent Nonsense
7 September 2002
Very odd film this, but I was pleasantly surprised. It looked great, was set in England (and English people weren't the baddies for once!) and glamourised places like Northumbria and Norwich! This instantly made me warm to the film (pun intended). We did need to be saved by the Americans, but this is a Hollywood film I suppose (interesting parallels with the current "war on terror" perhaps, but probably unintentional.) The plot was bog-standard and often implausible but good peerformances all round and some interesting characterisation raised this film above other summer fare (it's a lot better than Resident Evil). Star Trek fans will be pleasantly surprised to see Alice Krige (Borg Queen) at the beginning and Alexander Siddig (Bashir from DS9) as a bit-part radio operator, not exactly a glorious role but nice to see him again. What did annoy me about the film were the accents. We're in Northumbria, but the castle is populated by (Dick van Dyke style) cockneys. Why? Why weren't there any North-Eastern accents? Does Hollywood only understand two British accents: cockney and posh? And we seemed to hop over to London like it was next door, when London is around 400 miles away. Other plot improbabilities include the weakness of the dragons that leads to their downfall, the fact the dragons thrive on ash yet seem to want to eat people, the fact that the castle population were starving yet they could have easily grown mushrooms/fungi and other produce underground, the fact that the castle occupants had an arsenal of weaponry yet civilians don't have access to guns in the UK (OK maybe they took them from military installations but the weapons weren't British standard issue). All in all a fair bit of nonsense, with some odd homo-erotic fights and stares by the two male leads.
The Pornographer
(1999)
Flawed but Thoughtful
1 September 2002
There were many problems with the film, with plot threads that don't really go anywhere, some cheesy dialogue and daft ideas (that all male porn directors think they are making art - yeah right). However it succeeds in showing the reality of being a lonely male, and the various male needs that lead to use of porn. It looks at different sides of the argument but seems to come down fairly firmly against porn and the industry (the only decent characters are the anti-porn female boss and the naive actress). Makes a valid point that many men would deplore the treatment and exploitation of some women in the porn industry, yet enjoy watching the films. Although the production is pretty bad in some places, it does leave you pondering the issues, which means the film is a success.
The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes
(1995 TV Movie)
Cute
16 July 2002
OK so it's not a great movie by any means, but there's some fine performances from comedy heroes like Larry Miller and Dan Castellanetaetawotsit (yes the voice of Homer Simpson).
The film has particular resonance if you've ever attended a University considered not top of the league. All in all it's a cute movie, with cute performances and cute jokes, although that kid genius is very annoying (which is half the point I suppose).
The film has particular resonance if you've ever attended a University considered not top of the league. All in all it's a cute movie, with cute performances and cute jokes, although that kid genius is very annoying (which is half the point I suppose).
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
THE MEANING OF THE ENDING
26 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS: WARNING:
This film has been accused of many things but I feel people will grow to appreciate it much as they did with Blade Runner. It's accused of being overly sentimental but I thought it was effective in portraying the relationship between a mother and a young child, and the search for meaning and reality in our lives.
The shifts in tone and setting between the three acts was jarring to many people but this was completely intentional and set a unique style to proceedings. Needless to say it was visually stunning with great performances, although Rouge City was strangely sterile and unerotic.
ENDING: But the purpose of MY review is to point out the meaning of the ending for the many who didn't get it. The creatures at the end were NOT aliens, but highly evolved robots/mechas. Evidence for this:
-Gigolo Joe mentions one day humanity will be extinct and all that will be left are mechas -The mechs talk about David, and others like him, being their ancestors, (if they were aliens why would a robot be their ancestor?). -The future mechs talk about humanity being the key to existence and life. Why would aliens think humanity are the basis of life and existence?
Of course the DVD features confirm the beings are robots not aliens but to my mind this was explained in the film, it wasn't hard to figure it out, yet AI has been criticised in many reviews because of the supposedly bizarre ET ending which makes perfect sense if people PAID ATTENTION and THOUGHT about what they were viewing.
OK rant over, greetings to all those who played the AI puzzle trail on the net.
This film has been accused of many things but I feel people will grow to appreciate it much as they did with Blade Runner. It's accused of being overly sentimental but I thought it was effective in portraying the relationship between a mother and a young child, and the search for meaning and reality in our lives.
The shifts in tone and setting between the three acts was jarring to many people but this was completely intentional and set a unique style to proceedings. Needless to say it was visually stunning with great performances, although Rouge City was strangely sterile and unerotic.
ENDING: But the purpose of MY review is to point out the meaning of the ending for the many who didn't get it. The creatures at the end were NOT aliens, but highly evolved robots/mechas. Evidence for this:
-Gigolo Joe mentions one day humanity will be extinct and all that will be left are mechas -The mechs talk about David, and others like him, being their ancestors, (if they were aliens why would a robot be their ancestor?). -The future mechs talk about humanity being the key to existence and life. Why would aliens think humanity are the basis of life and existence?
Of course the DVD features confirm the beings are robots not aliens but to my mind this was explained in the film, it wasn't hard to figure it out, yet AI has been criticised in many reviews because of the supposedly bizarre ET ending which makes perfect sense if people PAID ATTENTION and THOUGHT about what they were viewing.
OK rant over, greetings to all those who played the AI puzzle trail on the net.
Blankman
(1994)
Utterly Bizarre
29 May 2002
Seriously - this is one of the most bizarre films I have ever seen. What does it want to be? A super hero pastiche? Race issues comedy? Surreal wack-fun? Not sure how favourably it can be compared to other flicks such as Meteor Man or Brother From Another Planet. There are some pretty original jokes and situations, and some very unsubtle moments which still work. it held my interest for a while, but the tone seemed all over the place. Still it has Jason (George from Seinfeld, Duckman) in it.
Another Disappointment
17 May 2002
I'm pretty rare, I think this film was worse than Episode I. The dialogue is dreadful, with odd gaps and no natural flow. The plot is still too reliant on the episodic sequence, it doesn't stand alone. The romance is cringingly awful, Amidala/Padme refuses Anakin's advances then all of a sudden says she loves him. There is no consequence for Anakin's evil deeds. There are plot holes (landing in a vent of steam and walking through it would be deadly). The end battle is spectacular, but you don't really care about any of the characters. The film's over long and some of the set pieces drag. There only good performances come from Yoda, Christopher Lee and the bloke who plays Django Fett. And Jar Jar's still in it. You want some deathsticks? (groan).
Ali G Indahouse
(2002)
An English Hero
21 March 2002
There isn't a decent plot, the film isn't as funny as Ali's spoof interviews, but it does a good job of deprecating the character along with whites who obsess over ghetto street culture. Essentially the film is sort of a re-working of Mr Smith goes to Washington (or whatever that was called).
The commitment to Staines shown by Ali is quite cute, deserving of the statue erected to him down there.
Funniest part of the film is Ali's antics in the House of Commons and serving in the Cabinet, along with a bizarre statement by Richard Madeley of Richard and Judy. Some real politicians would have added authenticity and allowed Ali to say some rude stuff, and I felt this opportunity was missed.
The film is mainly mediocre, but occasional (and often subtle or bizarre) moments stand out. It celebrates small town life in the UK and in a strange way, is surprisingly patriotic. It makes a change from hollywood, which can only be a good thing. Bo! (etc).
The commitment to Staines shown by Ali is quite cute, deserving of the statue erected to him down there.
Funniest part of the film is Ali's antics in the House of Commons and serving in the Cabinet, along with a bizarre statement by Richard Madeley of Richard and Judy. Some real politicians would have added authenticity and allowed Ali to say some rude stuff, and I felt this opportunity was missed.
The film is mainly mediocre, but occasional (and often subtle or bizarre) moments stand out. It celebrates small town life in the UK and in a strange way, is surprisingly patriotic. It makes a change from hollywood, which can only be a good thing. Bo! (etc).
Postmodern Cartoon
9 October 2001
Ahhh..do you see? This seems to be what Kevin Smith seems to be saying throughout the film, as he strokes his beard ironically, while parading out references to comics, movies, and most importantly, HIS OWN comics and movies. You can't take this film too seriously, it is essentially a live action cartoon. The film amusingly criticises itself, reading out the idiotic, unimportant opinions of users on internet film review sites. Unfortunately, a lot of the criticisms, such as "Jay and Silent Bob are too one-dimensional to base a movie on" ring true. Still, I'm enjoying reviewing a movie about a movie being made which was reviewed by people on the internet. I just have to wait for J and BS to call at my house and kick me about a bit. Shame the movie wasn't actually that funny, or made any sense, and left the best lines for Smith, and kept saying "Look at this! How post-modern". Enjoyable, but a lot happens without much consequence. And if you haven't seen Smith's other films you won't have a clue what's going on.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
The "Aliens" are not Aliens!
28 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER WARNING:
Can I just tell the other reviewers for this film that the "Aliens" at the end are not extraterrestrials they are highly evolved MACHINES.
Gigolo Joe mentioned in the end only machines would be left, the machines themselves describe David and Teddy as "originals" and it is a common sci-fi idea that machines will replicate and evolve themselves.
With this in mind the ending is not so hard to swallow. No foreshadowing gives an indication that these beings are aliens as it would make no sense. I hope this helps an understanding of the film.
Can I just tell the other reviewers for this film that the "Aliens" at the end are not extraterrestrials they are highly evolved MACHINES.
Gigolo Joe mentioned in the end only machines would be left, the machines themselves describe David and Teddy as "originals" and it is a common sci-fi idea that machines will replicate and evolve themselves.
With this in mind the ending is not so hard to swallow. No foreshadowing gives an indication that these beings are aliens as it would make no sense. I hope this helps an understanding of the film.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
Future Fairy Tale
28 September 2001
What must be considered about this film is that Kubrick saw it as another version of Pinocchio, a future fairy tale. If the film is treated as such it does become emotional viewing. There are some difficult shifts of style and tone throughout the film, but AI feels unique and special. In the future it will probably be looked upon with reverence.
Rapa Nui
(1994)
Gorgeous
28 September 2001
The island itself is stunningly beautiful and the film makes good use of this, especially the race at the end which is compelling in its apparent difficulty for the actors. As for the accuracy of the film it is mainly based on guesswork, so the whole racial element is for the benefit of drama. What surprises me is that some of the other reviewers wonder how an advanced civilisation can be so racist! Take a look at your own society and wonder! As well as a love story there is a competitive element, and an explanation about what happened to the island. If Easter Island interests you this film will entertain. As for the nudity, don't be so prudish!
The Parole Officer
(2001)
Not as sharp as usual
12 August 2001
The best thing about this film is that the humour is surprisingly subtle: Coogan relies on an odd turn of phrase, or mild misunderstandings to garner laughs. Consequently the neanderthals I had the misfortune to view the film with were non plussed. There were not too many American style gross-out jokes, which meant the few sick gags that came along had more effect.
The plot is a disappointment and makes little sense, it had to be another Ealing-style caper instead of something a bit more unique. How did they know the inside of the bank so well? Where did they get all the equipment from? You aren't invited to ponder these things too much, but there just aren't enough jokes to distract you.
The film is cute, likeable, British and idiosyncratic, but there are not a huge amount of belly laughs. At least it's not set in London, which makes a change. Omar Sharif's cameo matters little and it is difficult to care about the characters.
If you like Coogan's style of finding humour from awkwardness, failure and confusion, you'll enjoy it. Shame the story was so dull.
The plot is a disappointment and makes little sense, it had to be another Ealing-style caper instead of something a bit more unique. How did they know the inside of the bank so well? Where did they get all the equipment from? You aren't invited to ponder these things too much, but there just aren't enough jokes to distract you.
The film is cute, likeable, British and idiosyncratic, but there are not a huge amount of belly laughs. At least it's not set in London, which makes a change. Omar Sharif's cameo matters little and it is difficult to care about the characters.
If you like Coogan's style of finding humour from awkwardness, failure and confusion, you'll enjoy it. Shame the story was so dull.
Rush Hour 2
(2001)
Morons: Your Bus is Leaving
8 August 2001
Absolute tosh. One of the few films I almost walked out on half way through. Jackie Chan is as excellent as ever but Chris Tucker must get the combination award of most annoying face and mouth. He has a shrieky shrill voice and moans a lot in nonsensical slurry-like dialogue. He's supposed to be this horny heterosexual guy, but is as camp as Christmas.
The plot is simplistic and unreal, you get to learn nothing about Chinese culture, the jokes are weak and the most entertaining parts are when Tucker gets punched in his stupid gob. There's a tacked on romantic/espionage sub-plot that goes nowhere. There is no emotion, you don't care what happens. The US embassy bombings seem exploitative of current events.
This movie really is mass-produced guff for the morons: why is it so popular? "Shoot him Chan for talking like that about your daddy!" Oh yeh Tucker, great Police Officer you are. Not even the action scenes could hold my interest, which often relied on getting Tucker out of the way so Chan could do his stuff. Ohhh the horrible memory of Tucker......grrrrAAAAARRRG!
The plot is simplistic and unreal, you get to learn nothing about Chinese culture, the jokes are weak and the most entertaining parts are when Tucker gets punched in his stupid gob. There's a tacked on romantic/espionage sub-plot that goes nowhere. There is no emotion, you don't care what happens. The US embassy bombings seem exploitative of current events.
This movie really is mass-produced guff for the morons: why is it so popular? "Shoot him Chan for talking like that about your daddy!" Oh yeh Tucker, great Police Officer you are. Not even the action scenes could hold my interest, which often relied on getting Tucker out of the way so Chan could do his stuff. Ohhh the horrible memory of Tucker......grrrrAAAAARRRG!
The Postman
(1997)
Schmaltzy Apocalyptic Fun
21 November 2000
This is Costner's attempt at Mad Max with depth. And there is depth in terms of length: at more than three hours the pacing is incredibly slow in parts. Costner is likeable as the self deprecating unlikely hero. Patten is also very convincing as an angry little man who finds his purpose in terrorizing others.
There's a lot of plot holes, and the numerous disasters mentioned make one
wonder how anyone survived at all. There's less patriotism than one might think (some incredibly sentimental scenes where a young girl sings the national
anthem) but the Postman could indeed be set in any country. What is more
offensive in this film is the automatic assumption that governments are going to get peopple out of this mess, and that the president (no political parties says Costner- sounding oddly fascist) is necessary for survival. Considering the fact that the US govt couldn't cope with the apocalypse perhaps the good citizens
of the new US should think of something else.
Depressingly, Europe is reduced to a sentence, but what did you expect? This
film is incredibly sentimental and has no sense of irony but is less offensive than Braveheart and The Patriot, with their inflammatory and innacurate
depictions of history.
The ending scene is too abrupt, and it would have been nice to have seen
more of the post-post-apocalyptic world.
There's a lot of plot holes, and the numerous disasters mentioned make one
wonder how anyone survived at all. There's less patriotism than one might think (some incredibly sentimental scenes where a young girl sings the national
anthem) but the Postman could indeed be set in any country. What is more
offensive in this film is the automatic assumption that governments are going to get peopple out of this mess, and that the president (no political parties says Costner- sounding oddly fascist) is necessary for survival. Considering the fact that the US govt couldn't cope with the apocalypse perhaps the good citizens
of the new US should think of something else.
Depressingly, Europe is reduced to a sentence, but what did you expect? This
film is incredibly sentimental and has no sense of irony but is less offensive than Braveheart and The Patriot, with their inflammatory and innacurate
depictions of history.
The ending scene is too abrupt, and it would have been nice to have seen
more of the post-post-apocalyptic world.
Just Not Funny
14 November 2000
Do you find swearing offensive? Then you'll find this film offensive. As i don't I rapidly got bored. The movie as I see it is aimed at children. The parallels of the boys sneaking in to see the Terrence and Phillip movie (rated R) while the
bored and offended adults leave prove that Stone and parker don't really care if kids only like it.
The parallels don't end there. Terrence and Phillip were notoriously responsible for the large drop in the show's ratings (when an unfunny T&P special was
shown instead of the conclusion of a storyline). When will the makers learn that T&P aren't funny?
The movie was dull. It didn't have any of the surreal moments of the series but instead relied on musical numbers.
I couldn't watch more than two thirds of the movie. Not because I ws outraged, but because I was BORED. Swearing is only meaningful in short doses, say
any word again and again and its just a noise.
And how is this movie subversive? because of swearing? they didn't even use
the c word !
bored and offended adults leave prove that Stone and parker don't really care if kids only like it.
The parallels don't end there. Terrence and Phillip were notoriously responsible for the large drop in the show's ratings (when an unfunny T&P special was
shown instead of the conclusion of a storyline). When will the makers learn that T&P aren't funny?
The movie was dull. It didn't have any of the surreal moments of the series but instead relied on musical numbers.
I couldn't watch more than two thirds of the movie. Not because I ws outraged, but because I was BORED. Swearing is only meaningful in short doses, say
any word again and again and its just a noise.
And how is this movie subversive? because of swearing? they didn't even use
the c word !
G.I. Joe: The Movie
(1987 Video)
Cobra deserved better
14 November 2000
I appreciate that this film brings a lot of sentimental feelings back for the reviewers here, but sorry guys, Action Force the Movie (GIJOE makes no sense
in the UK) isn't really very good.
The problem with the cartoon series is that it wasn't a patch on the Marvel
comic book, which was very believable and very sinister. In the comic Cobra is a terrorist organisation: a very successful one. There are real guns and people die. Cobra Commander is a dangerous megalomaniac not a whiny comedic
coward.
Another reviewer mentioned how weird the movie was. The Cobrala plot is
nonsensical and unrealistsic, moving into odd sci fi rather than military stories. Cobrala also interferes with what we want to see: battles between Cobra and
Action force, not some genetic monster guys. And the Seargeant Slaughter
training camp is just bizarre and unnecessary.
The movie should have focused on the enemy brothers Snake Eyes and Storm
Shadow. Many meaningful plots and drama could have been made out of their
quest to kill each other.
The animation's pretty awful too. It's a shame.
in the UK) isn't really very good.
The problem with the cartoon series is that it wasn't a patch on the Marvel
comic book, which was very believable and very sinister. In the comic Cobra is a terrorist organisation: a very successful one. There are real guns and people die. Cobra Commander is a dangerous megalomaniac not a whiny comedic
coward.
Another reviewer mentioned how weird the movie was. The Cobrala plot is
nonsensical and unrealistsic, moving into odd sci fi rather than military stories. Cobrala also interferes with what we want to see: battles between Cobra and
Action force, not some genetic monster guys. And the Seargeant Slaughter
training camp is just bizarre and unnecessary.
The movie should have focused on the enemy brothers Snake Eyes and Storm
Shadow. Many meaningful plots and drama could have been made out of their
quest to kill each other.
The animation's pretty awful too. It's a shame.
The Patriot
(2000)
Yawn
27 June 2000
This movie is a tiresome retread of themes and imagery found in Braveheart. Everyone's favourite right-wing nut Mel Gibson is here once again to tell you how evil the English are, which is a consistent theme in many modern hollywood movies (no doubt due to the fact that the UK is a politically correct enemy in these post USSR times). Barry Norman would no doubt agree.
Why can't we ever have a movie showing the US as the bad guy? Mmmm? And before all you American zealots message me to tell me how great the US is, just stop for one second and don't be so paranoid and insecure! Insecure like this movie! If the UK had won the war of independence, the world would be a better place. Read Turtledove's The Two Georges for evidence.
Why can't we ever have a movie showing the US as the bad guy? Mmmm? And before all you American zealots message me to tell me how great the US is, just stop for one second and don't be so paranoid and insecure! Insecure like this movie! If the UK had won the war of independence, the world would be a better place. Read Turtledove's The Two Georges for evidence.
Lovely
4 June 2000
More sinister than the cartoon, Pokemon is the usual Poke-mix of heavy handed mildly Japanese morality and esoteric lessons. The Americans who believe Pokemon is evil are, to be frank, paranoid fools. Pokemon has continuity, it attempts to portray relationships between youngsters and even if it doesnt succeed, it at least attempts to be more relevant than the tiresome 'wackiness' of most Western animation. If you like Anime, you should see this filma nd take a break from tentacles and mecha. However, Pikachu's vacation short may prematurely rot your brain. Bizarre-me-do!
Sex: The Annabel Chong Story
(1999)
Great fun
4 June 2000
This film was quite literally a banging spectacle. I could see the sub-text of 'pity this poor deluded girl' but I instead chose to ignore it and applaud the young woman's decision to work her way through all those men. On film. I only wish I could have joined in! It's her right, so dont get all snotty, people.
More footage of the actual bang would have been appreciated, and indeed, I believe many guys will pick this film up expecting it to be pure porn. It's a bang-me-do!
More footage of the actual bang would have been appreciated, and indeed, I believe many guys will pick this film up expecting it to be pure porn. It's a bang-me-do!
U-571
(2000)
Glitches?
4 June 2000
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER-ME-DO
Number 1: It was the BRITISH ROYAL NAVY who first captured an enigma machine from a u-boat, but we don't get to see that now do we because Brits (specifically English) are the evil bad guys in most period movies these days (Braveheart, The Patriot). A recent example of British heroism and American villainy (Amistad where a British lawyer defends the mutineer slaves against the American courts) bombed at the box office. Wake up America, you aren't always the good guys.
Ok, on to the plot problems, but first i admit I have hardly any knowledge of submarines, but the following points are worth considering: 1) Why didn't the Germans lock the hatch to the deck when they were being boarded? 2) Didn't the American crew realise the supply u-boat would show up behind them? 3) Why didn't the German captain order the crew to destroy the enigma machine while they were being boarded? 4) How come the Germans' aim with artillery and small arms was so bad? Stormtroopers in every sense... 5) Why didnt the German captain do more to damage the engine while he had the chance? 6) Why didn't more Germans fight back?
The movie itself is a very straightforward WWII adventure action flick, tense and fast-paced, although the 'being a hard decision maker' subtext was both heavy handed and unnecessary. Also there was some rich manipulation prior to the boarding. The makers thought 'hmmmm not too heroic, sneaking on board a u-boat and then murdering the crew.... we'd better make the Germans look evil by executing a load of adrift Allied seamen'. This little piece stuck out like a sore German thumb. Perhaps those who wrote and directed this should acknowledge the current wisdom that war creates few, if any, real heroes. In war, both sides do bad things.
Number 1: It was the BRITISH ROYAL NAVY who first captured an enigma machine from a u-boat, but we don't get to see that now do we because Brits (specifically English) are the evil bad guys in most period movies these days (Braveheart, The Patriot). A recent example of British heroism and American villainy (Amistad where a British lawyer defends the mutineer slaves against the American courts) bombed at the box office. Wake up America, you aren't always the good guys.
Ok, on to the plot problems, but first i admit I have hardly any knowledge of submarines, but the following points are worth considering: 1) Why didn't the Germans lock the hatch to the deck when they were being boarded? 2) Didn't the American crew realise the supply u-boat would show up behind them? 3) Why didn't the German captain order the crew to destroy the enigma machine while they were being boarded? 4) How come the Germans' aim with artillery and small arms was so bad? Stormtroopers in every sense... 5) Why didnt the German captain do more to damage the engine while he had the chance? 6) Why didn't more Germans fight back?
The movie itself is a very straightforward WWII adventure action flick, tense and fast-paced, although the 'being a hard decision maker' subtext was both heavy handed and unnecessary. Also there was some rich manipulation prior to the boarding. The makers thought 'hmmmm not too heroic, sneaking on board a u-boat and then murdering the crew.... we'd better make the Germans look evil by executing a load of adrift Allied seamen'. This little piece stuck out like a sore German thumb. Perhaps those who wrote and directed this should acknowledge the current wisdom that war creates few, if any, real heroes. In war, both sides do bad things.
The Truman Show
(1998)
Beauty
4 June 2000
I would suggest that this film is beautiful. Carrey's performance, the sets, the direction, the music and the plot all exist with a certain kind of beauty. Truman is the Everyman, a Trueman that we all hope we would be, the innocent while everyone else is in on the sinister secret. This film hopes that decency prevails, and is a rarity within the cynicism of modern film-making. I am grateful that this film was made. We should learn from it. 'If I don't see ya....'
Starship Troopers
(1997)
Sinister Like You
4 June 2000
This film may not be closely related to Heinlein's novel, but easily represents Heinlein's extremely frightening Libertarian views. Possibly the most visually stunning film ever, the alien bugs are the most believable xenomorphs ever portrayed, and represent a convincing xeno-society/xenobiology. Reminiscent of films like Aliens and Zulu, Starship Troopers is darkly stylish, though the performances are poor. A return to form for Verhoeven after Robocop. The ending is particularly satisfying as it resists the temptation to wrap things up too neatly.
Amistad
(1997)
About time, America for what it is
4 June 2000
I applaud Spielberg's bravery in making this film. The Americans are resolutely the bad guys and the British (now villified throughout Hollywood period pieces) are the heroes for defending and abolishing slavery first.
This film won't make the Americans feel good, but it is way more historically accurate than the Gibson-fantasy tosh of Braveheart.
Just as in its day, slavery, the cause of much human misery would have been unthinkable to abolish for many people, perhaps the idealists who want guns banned in America will one day have their stories told. An end to suffering. This movie did not do well at the box office. I wonder why???
This film won't make the Americans feel good, but it is way more historically accurate than the Gibson-fantasy tosh of Braveheart.
Just as in its day, slavery, the cause of much human misery would have been unthinkable to abolish for many people, perhaps the idealists who want guns banned in America will one day have their stories told. An end to suffering. This movie did not do well at the box office. I wonder why???
Braveheart
(1995)
Offensive in every Sense
4 June 2000
Mel Gibson, instead of stirring up trouble in the UK, should instead go back to his own country and perhaps make a film about Aboriginal oppression and their struggle for land rights. The Americans love this movie because it is a simplistic and factually incorrect representation of freedom fighting that they think fits in with their own struggle against the British. Why are we always the bad guys?
Britain abolished slavery before America, Britian has the oldest democracy in the world, yet we always represent the evil West so the Americans dont feel guilt. Anyway, onto the film... Factual inconsistencies: The English king outlived William Wallace and the Queen only gave birth YEARS after Wallace died. The portrayal of the homosexual prince as weak and incompetent is completely offensive and probably inspired by Gibson's sense of machismo. The homosexual men of the Roman Empire were weak, weren't they? No, no they were not. Much is made of English cruelty but when the Scots sack York no mention is made of English suffering in the film. The fact is, life in those times was cruel, and the Scots would gladly have enslaved the English if they ever got the chance (Mary Queen of Scots, anyone?) This film is over-sentimental, predictable and depressingly obvious. I gave it 1 out of 10 and was thoroughly bored when watching it.
Britain abolished slavery before America, Britian has the oldest democracy in the world, yet we always represent the evil West so the Americans dont feel guilt. Anyway, onto the film... Factual inconsistencies: The English king outlived William Wallace and the Queen only gave birth YEARS after Wallace died. The portrayal of the homosexual prince as weak and incompetent is completely offensive and probably inspired by Gibson's sense of machismo. The homosexual men of the Roman Empire were weak, weren't they? No, no they were not. Much is made of English cruelty but when the Scots sack York no mention is made of English suffering in the film. The fact is, life in those times was cruel, and the Scots would gladly have enslaved the English if they ever got the chance (Mary Queen of Scots, anyone?) This film is over-sentimental, predictable and depressingly obvious. I gave it 1 out of 10 and was thoroughly bored when watching it.
Tell Your Friends