Change Your Image
primevalsoup
Reviews
Le loup et le lion (2021)
Nice family film
Reviewing with my kids (11, 9 and 5), we decided that it is a nice family film, not too long and is very original and creative. It is also compicated yet simple, understandable and thoughtful. Our 5 year old found it a little scary but otherwise it is a very enjoyable and fun family film.
Me (father) now writing:
Was this based at all on a true story? Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and I couldn't find anything compelling on a quick google. The 5 year old is quite easily scared by films. He was worried at various times a character (animal or human) might die soon, but he made it through in the end though he felt it was generally too stressful and would rather watch Frozen 1... even though the themes in that are far more sinister...
Prometheus (2012)
Excellent film set in Alien universe, with a different emphasis
I loved this film. It's a different beast to the other films sent in the Alien universe. Of all those that have been made before, it feels most like Alien 1, but the emphasis is not so much on terror, but on an interesting, sinister sci-fi mythology that concerns our origins and that of the Aliens. However, there is horror and violence and gore, which was all done well.
The film does leave questions unanswered - that's fine with me. I didn't know sequels were planned when I watched it and I thought it was great. However, I'm incredibly keen to see what the sequels have to offer.
I thought all the acting, action, cinematography etc was great.
I would give Alien 1 10* because it is the most terrifying film I've ever seen, and it's got a great sci-fi feel too. This film definitely has the great sci-fi feel, and it is disturbing and freaky in a good way. It is not aiming for the terrifying award, and though I'm not sure how to categorise the objective of this film, I suspect it will take sequels to realise whatever that is.
One could criticise the 'science' bits - some are rather dodgy. But what the heck, I didn't notice what little they detracted from the film.
The Last Airbender (2010)
Good film in the middle of a racism debate
I liked this a lot, as did my wife. It's a shame that accusations of racism may stop there being sequels made of this very racially diverse film, but the principles at stake are important and without studying the whole "racebender" phenomenon in depth, I ought to stay out of it. However, in defence of the film, the cartoon is ambiguous about the race of the different characters, and there are no rules restricting who a director can cast for roles.
So as for how good a film it is: It isn't the most profound amazing film ever. It was entertaining and emotional and fun. There are some weird/cheesy/pointless lines. There were lots of good story bits and turns I didn't expect. I like the 'look' of the film - obviously inspired by the show but done very well. I liked the graphics - I saw in 2D, as DVD on a widescreen TV. I thought graphics were really great. I liked the action a lot! It had real-time long action scenes - the type I long for and miss in so many 'action films' (or 'random camera shots with fists, weapons and people moving quickly but too close to know what's happening, edited together, before a conclusion shot, supposedly representing fighting) where cheap tricks are employed to represent action. I liked the elements used in the action - I imagine this was a nightmare to do and I thought it was done really well. I suspect for those who know the show it might feel like some horridly shortened version, but I've only seen two episodes and don't have time to invest in the show so as a summary of the first part of it, it works for me, and I'm keen to watch the sequel, if it's ever made.
Maybe in ten years they'll remake with an entirely non-white cast (and possibly non-black as well, or entirely Asian and native American) or maybe a racially diverse, but ambiguous, show cannot be safely made into a film. This could spell the death of attempts to make similar show to film conversions for cartoons. Or maybe because of this big argument there will be more, successful roles for under-represented ethnic groups.
Who knows. The film was fun though.
Wrath of the Titans (2012)
Standard stuff. Not as good as Clash
I think I represent a minority of people who thought Clash of the Titans was amazing, profound, incredibly exciting and had great graphics. Hopefully less people dispute the soundtrack to Clash, which was absolutely fantastic thanks to Ramin Djawadi.
This film feels put together just to rake in sales from people like me who loved the first one, or people who probably didn't get out of the first one what I got out of it. Perhaps the studio, which perhaps (I like to think) saw some of what I saw in Clash realised that the market share I belong to was tiny (just me?) and that the market wanting to see big monsters fight Sam Worthington was worth investing in.
Story: It's alright. Not as upbeat as Clash. A bit depressing. I'm sure there were more gods in Clash than Wrath, so not sure where the others went. The romance was... who's idea was that??? Done rather awfully. And I'm not spoiling anything to declare that Io (Gemma Aterton) wasn't in it, but why? She was good. Because she didn't sign a contract? Maybe she didn't like the script. And for anyone out there who got something special from Clash (this whole rejection of patrons/gods/gifts for some dubious moral principle, despite going up against ridiculous odds) - you probably won't find it here.
Action: I recall Clash being well choreographed. Many action films rely on blurred/fast/over close up shots to give the impression of action and violence. At the other end is very slowed down fighting. My preferred (which I recall there being a lot of in clash) is fast paced, real time and followable action. I suspect this is a nightmare to direct, which is why it happens so infrequently in films. Matrix did it - and was amazing. Anyway, this film goes for close up and can't see what's going on action quite a lot, which is a waste of talent/resources (cool monsters) and money and doesn't look good. Maybe I should change careers and become a choreographer. They ought to be raking it in.
Graphics: Fine. I preferred the monsters from Clash though. And what there was was often too close to see/appreciate properly.
Music: Fine - but not special. Not like Clash. Clash music was AMAZING. I bought it and listened to it a million times and infiltrated it into most of my itunes playlists. This was what you'd expect for a high budget film of this sort when they had nothing left for anyone great, but not memorable or inspiring (I've forgotten it already).
Acting: I'm not an acting critic. No one annoyed me. Sam Worthington was unashamedly Australian and I was fine with that.
So perhaps they got another $25 million to spend, but maybe with inflation this was an equivalent budget? I guess someone decided to change the director and the music composer - why? Sounds like Leterrier was keen, at least from wikipedia. Changing directors might explain aspects of the plot - new male lion arrives and starts killing off what was done by the one before him.
Hugo (2011)
Nothing happens
Spoilers from right now:
When I realised that nothing was going to happen in this film, and that the robot wasn't going to do anything, kill anyone, or even be a bit scary, I figured this might be about how Martin Scorcese wanted to be remembered in the future.
Professor: Hey kids. Are you reading about Martin Scorcese? He was one of my idols during my years, working my way up to be the Professor of 'Knowing stuff about Films'.
Little girl: I had no idea my uncle Martin was a film director!
Hugo: Wow. How spiffingly amazing
Professor: Well since he died, during the Great 'War on Terror', time has not been kind to his movies. However, we have managed to keep hold of this one.
Little girl: But my uncle isn't dead.
Professor: What? But I'm sure I saw him die...
Hugo: Dear sir, can we watch one of his movies?
Professor: Of course! Allow me to introduce you to the genius of Martin Scorcese.
Later
-Knock knock-
Helen: Hello children.
Little girl: Hey Aunty Helen, I had no idea uncle Martin was a famous director!
Hugo: Like, yeah, you know what I mean? How did we not know about dat? What a wise guy. Did he pay off the cops?
Helen: Hugo, why are you wearing sunglasses?
Little girl: You can take them off now. We're indoors.
Hugo: Hey, quit breaking my balls!
Helen: Yes, uncle Martin made films. But he does not like to talk about it any more since the War on Terror ruined his business. Be quiet, or he'll hear us and start emotionally manipulating us into feeling bad.
Martin: It's too late for that.
Little girl: Uncle Martin!
Hugo: Hey what's up Marty? I had no idea you were such a guy, you know? I had you down as one of those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills. Making dumb toys in your shop, which I'd just steal to make my terminator in some random part of the station no one ever goes in, because property is so cheap in Paris there's no incentive to make maximum use of all available space.
Martin: Hugo, before you were an irritating thief but now... what's happened to you?
Hugo: Fuhgeddaboudit.
Little girl: Why did you stop making movies uncle Martin? And why were they so... violent?
Martin: Well, after the War on Terror, all everyone wanted to watch were films and stories about terrorists, corrupt politicians and global warming. No one was bothered about mafia films any more so I went into a strop and burnt all my films and my set. Then I decided to make a terminator to get revenge on society, but all it could do was draw pictures.
Little girl: The academics at the university think you died in the war.
Martin: It's true that my position was nearly overrun during Operation Michael of 2018 in the Franco/Luxembourg war that had been triggered by Jihadists throwing toilet roll at the Centre Pompidou. However, I called in Robert Deniro to help me out. He owes his career to me.
Little girl: What were you doing in the war? Weren't you 75 in 2018?
Martin: I was loading artillery for the Hershey bar fusiliers.
Hugo: Wow. You musta whacked some guys. But life on the streets ain't nothing like the army, where you shoot 'em a mile away. You gotta get up close like this... badaBING! You blow their brains out all over your nice NYU suit.
Martin: I didn't direct 'The Godfather'. How many films have you just watched?
Hugo: You're breaking my balls too!
Martin: Hugo, go and oil some clocks and get out of my house.
Hugo: What did you say m********?!
WALL·E (2008)
It's alright...
Very nice graphics and visuals. Wall E was cute.
Then not much happened for a long time. None of the 'characters' (most of the 'important' ones didn't even speak) really inspired much emotional response within me. The plot was... not amazing. And why did no one care for the significance of the cockroach?
Admittedly I'd seen the trailer and (correctly) thought: How can you make an exciting film about a robot that doesn't speak? But everyone raved about it, and IMDb gave it 8.5. So it had to be good, right? Seems IMDb can be quite off on kids films (like Hugo). Perhaps IMDb could have a special, child friendly voting version so we see what kids think of these 'arthouse' allegedly for children films that are boring.
But yeah - the graphics are very nice. And Wall E was cute, as was that woman robot thing, though her behaviour made no sense.
Deep Cover (1992)
Brilliant under cover cop film
Saw this for the first time just the other day. Excellent. Found the story very believable. Found the characters very believable too. And it was fun and exciting. Politics mixed in in a believable manner too. I don't often watch a film without thinking 'Well that was good but x y and z were stupid'. I liked Fishburne's character a lot and found little to fault about his approach to some tricky situations (the directors didn't make him do anything stupid or dumb just to work the plot. It made lots of sense and I like sense). There were a few weirdly shot moments (or maybe it was 'Lovefilm watchnow' being jerky. Can't be sure.) But I'm really impressed right now. Amazed it's not better known and appreciated. Might change my rating to 10 if I watch again one day and still like it, or am still thinking about it in such a glowing manner in several months. And loved the the Snoop/Dre for the ending credits.
Death Warrant (1990)
Undercover Prison Madness
People are dying in prison so, rather than a sudden government inspection or closing it down and investigating the causes, or even examining the bodies, someone decided that the best approach would be to send in an undercover policemen posing as an inmate. That's how much the police force cares about the people it puts away. It can't bare to see them come to harm. It would rather risk the life of one of its own, knowing full well that if discovered he will surely be horridly killed.
But this is just what the audience knows from near the start. The real plot is described below (and spoiled): Once upon a time, in the 1980s, a brilliant doctor figured out a way of preserving donated organs at fridge/room temperatures for ages in some weird pink jelly stuff. But rather than write up his findings in Nature, the Lancet or the New England Journal, he just sat on this for years. Exactly which organisation funded his research and then did not care that he did not disclose what he was up to to anyone remains a mystery. Perhaps it was the Pablo Escobar Heart Foundation, or the FARC Guerilla Gorilla to Human Transplant Institute. Then, in 1990 or thereabouts, some rich guy approached this doctor (who was now working in a prison), somehow knowing he was an expert in organ transplant, asking him for an organ. Because organ regulations and murder investigations in the US were quite weak in those days, no one realised that a prisoner was mysteriously murdered and had also had his liver removed. So this doctor realised he could make loads of money knocking off prisoners and doing this again and again.
There is also fun with Van Damme - no guard reverse round house kick - fighting, and disappearing ninja bad guys who like to stand in risky positions (like in front of an open furnace they just opened up for no reason), and fickle prisoners that keep changing their minds about murdering someone.
The Eagle (2011)
Great - what I was hoping for
Good: Exciting, violent, good acting and characters who I cared about and did not want to die. Fun (not funny). Not too much shaky camera stuff. Strategy/tactics alright (possibly not perfect but I am not sure and I haven't played enough Rome: Total war to know the difference) Good atmosphere. Good acting - importantly the heroes looked believable as dangerous soldier types that could kill people (even if one of them used to be Billy Elliot. His boxing dad would have been proud). Lovely scenery. Music was good (not last of the Mohicans style good, possibly as good as LA confidential) Appropriately dubious ethics/morals (I'm not always a fan of that but I was for this)
Bad: Action relied too much on close up nonsense action rather than real choreographed moves taking place (as others have pointed out). This denies it its 9th star for me. It is not Gladiator! The story/plot etc is not on that level, nor is the scale of the battles, but then who watched this expecting that? But as a result it does not get its 10th star. Some, rather insignificant (for the sake of enjoying the film) historical inaccuracies. Who cares that orthopaedic knee reconstruction probably was not that good back in AD 120. There were probably others but I did not go to see some educational video. Perhaps the middle went on a bit? I thought it was acceptable. It did not kill the atmosphere anyway and I suspect that was half the game.
So based on the trailer I got what I hoped I would get. Not gladiator, but not ruined by any dumb decisions either (eg they did not cast David Tennant and Colin Farell, or have one guy kill his way through an army of people using leftover food, or some totally retarded plot vehicle, or something completely impossible, or a million other things that other people have ruined perfectly good films with in the past). I wish the action was a bit better, but loads of films are cheap like this these days. I suspect the choreographers that can make good action sequences must be charging obscene amounts for it, or maybe the insurance is unaffordable.
Another random point to make: There were no lines for any women at all. The most one ever heard from a woman was laughter. Oh well.
The Infidel (2010)
Funny. Deals with difficult topic. Shouldn't be offensive
I felt disappointment at the end. But not because there is anything wrong with it. Just that I really want something to hit the nail on the head with Israel/Palestine/Antisemitism/Islamophobia and get rid of this huge problem. Though why would one expect a comedy to do such a thing? The reason I am so desperate to see an end to these conflicts is because they are so difficult to resolve. And because, in my opinion, they are the biggest stimulus for all the terror nonsense going on these days. Why young men get their legs and more blown off every day, people get bombed and shot, air strikes destroy ambulances, loads of people go around being racist, security checks take forever and Western nations end up torturing people thus ruining their credibility when trying advocate human rights. What a mess!
This topic is under publicised considering how important it is. Too little is said. And when I see/hear people discussing it I too often see/hear people rigidly stuck to a position from which no meaningful compromise of opinion can be reached without heat, anger, shouting, conflation of issues etc.
The film does address the issue and I think boldly. Inevitably some people will find this offensive to both Muslim and Jewish people. I am neither (though I know plenty of both). But I like the fact that it has characters coming out with all the racist BS that gets said - and makes it sound ridiculous like it is. And there are 'good' and 'bad' characters from both sides.
The thing about the racist 'BS' mentioned above is that a lot of the criticism that falls on entire religions/races is appropriate when aimed at individuals belonging to those groups. It's the blanket generalisations that are wrong and annoy me. I felt that it helped to demonstrate that it's individual idiots, not idiotic peoples, that give huge numbers of people a tarnished reputation in the eyes of those unwilling to think too hard about all of this. And I am happy this film has done that.
I suspect I might review how highly I think of this film at a later date. Did it seem less funny than it could have because of the subject? Or was I willing it to seem funny because I was happy with what it was trying to do? I know I will laugh upon remembering some scenes and ideas. It should be watched.
Ren zhe wu di (1982)
Classic Kung Fu Ninja madness
When the leader of a clan of elite Chinese warriors receives an invitation to a battle at five locations from the five elements ninjas he suspects a trap. Rightly so - when he caught one of the ninja's rings thrown to him by a disembowelled samurai he was poisoned and he knows he is now unable to use his kung-fu for 'about three months'. So, he considers the offer carefully but eventually decides to follow the elaborate instructions on the invitation to the letter. 90% of his best warriors are predictably ambushed and wiped out, including one being slain by the perverted 'earth' ninjas. What will happen next? Who cares. It will be funny.
Goemon (2009)
Great action fantastical extremely fictional interpretation of events leading up to 'Shogun'
*****************************Spoiler at the very end of this and will justify it*************************
I don't know what the Japanese made of this. I've read Shogun and know a bit of Japanese history. I enjoy a lot of anime action/sci fi stuff. And high paced slasher action (like ninja assassin).
A lot of characters from Shogun featured prominently and I really liked that.
The style was really good. Don't know if it was the screen I was watching it on but wasn't sure of the quality of some of the special effects. But in general it looked really good.
I was giving it a 9 and then I saw the last scenes and I had to downgrade to an 8. So I will risk spoiling to give the following hint about when to turn off the film
**************************** Mild spoiler to identify when to stop watching ***************************
Right at the end very soon after someone rides a horse down a vertical cliff this character will seek someone out for a fight. After the outcome from this fight stop the film and imagine everything else worked out fine. Tokugawa wins and installs a relatively peaceful regime that lasts until 1800s. Then watch Samurai X 'Trust' and 'Betrayal' (anime about end of Tokugawa period)with English translations (in which Kenshin - the protagonist - inspires respect and admiration but then do not watch the series where Kenshin is a gimp.) And then watch 'The Last Samurai'.
Not sure what the hell the producers were thinking throwing the next moments in. Ruined it. Maybe I'll downgrade to a 7. I like to be energised by films and feel good afterwards. Is there an alternative ending?
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
Entertaining.
It is not top quality Hollywood material by a fair distance. But it's beyond a TV movie for quality - the actors are good (not close to Oscar performances but they do the job) and the effects would have been good for 2000AD. And the action sequences would have been good for pre matrix days.
The fact that the film is not up to high budget modern standards, and that it is based on a video game, and that the main guy is called 'Farmer', and that it bombed on the box office, and that it the plot (like most fantasy) is heavily influenced by lord of the rings, that the director has a bad rep for buying film rights and funding his projects with German Government tax rebates, does not stop it from being a fun film to watch.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Good but should have stayed truer to the book
This is a great film and a massive achievement. Well done to the Jackson Team for bringing Lord of the Rings to the big screen and doing it very well. There was an alteration to the story that upset me but does not seem to bother anyone else I know so for most people in the world this film probably qualifies for an 8, 9 or 10.
Spoiler below
I've read the books (twice) and the content covered in this film includes my favourite moment in the books: During the battle outside the city of Gondor, things are looking very bleak for the good guys. They are holed up in the city, the gate is broken down and Ring Wriath number one starts smack talking with Gandalf. The Riders of Rohan turn up and distract the Ring Wriath King and he goes back to his bird creature - no Orcs get into the city. The riders turn up and do really well but(following the King's death etc which plays out pretty much the same) the new King, King Eomer, realises that they're all still stuffed but resolves to fight on to the death honourably.
THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE is this moment, when the battle turns in favour of the good guys. it relates to the UNDEAD people. Aragorn turns up with the ships, having conquered them from the pirates. IN THE BOOK Aragorn had used the undead people from under the Mountain to capture the ships. That is all they do. It is not even established if they are invulnerable or not. Anyway, the ships that arrive at the battle outside Minas Tirith/Gondor are carrying soldiers who were recruited from along the river by Aragorn. Therefore in the book it is Humans and elves and a few dwarfs that risk their lives and finally prevail.
IN THE FILM the ships are still carrying the UNDEAD INVINCIBLE people. They are like a super specialised weaponised virus/nerve gas agent that wipes out all the orcs and saves everyone (though despite this Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli decide to risk their lives anyway - mostly to look cool I think).
Why does this matter? It just takes away a lot of the emotional investment in my opinion. When there are characters fighting for their lives in a desperate battle, one really feels for them in their situation. When they actually win one feels part of the victory - these characters overcame the terrible obstacles and all the suffering etc was worth it. When the undead people win the battle, it just doesn't feel like the good guys really did it. It's like they cheated.
If Aragorn had turned up with special anti Orc Nerve Gas, then the fate of the battle was already determined the moment he had got hold of it. Therefore the emphasis of the story should have centred around the acquisition of this nerve gas. The battle could have raged while Aragorn and co battled ridiculous odds to get the gas, killing Balrogs singlehandedly etc. Then once secured, the transport to the field would have been in the knowledge that so long as they arrived in time everything would be OK. If this were the case, Aragorn would have commandeered a few more riders from Theoden for his quest for nerve gas and the purpose of the other Riders going to the battlefield would have been a delaying tactic (like the subsequent assault upon Mordor by the allies). In both book and film getting help from the dead was like a short side story and relatively little significance seemed to be placed on it. The consequences of this 'little extra help' is out of proportion.
Apologies for this rant on a subject which most people would not even notice existed.
The absence of the reckoning of the Shire - well that was a great part of the book but an acceptable omission. It would have been a great incentive to buy the extended version if it was in there. Unfortunately it was not. And the end did seem to drag on, but then maybe if I had not read the books it would have seemed like an appropriate dragging on.
Gladiator (2000)
Brilliant
Great action, story and acting. Full marks for being one of the best films ever made.
It is not historically accurate with the plot but that's not the point (it seems a mash of different events and people who existed at one time or another in during the Roman Empire. From what I know of ancient Rome the story is within the realms of possibility.)
The characters are all great. Pheonix is annoying but intentionally so - he acts his character perfectly. The script is kind of poetic at times - it seems it underwent at least three full scale revisions by different masters of script writing.
There are a number of different accents in the film but then Rome was probably a pretty multicultural place and we're hardly going to wish they had made it in Latin.