Change Your Image
Gemma_Philips
Reviews
American Horror Story: Chapter 1 (2016)
We're back to the 1970's/1980's Cabin in the woods Horror films
Only this time it's a house. There's all the same formula complete with the woods being alive, somebody watching, lots of running and the obligatory falling over, the hillbillies in the area, a woman on her own leaving a carving knife she has just been using - to investigate a noise despite having had horrific experiences in the house.
If you have seen the Evil Dead films, I spit On Your Grave, Halloween, Friday 13th, Hill's have eyes, Blair Witch Project ... you get the idea, you've pretty much seen this episode.
Time after time the women are doing things no women would do in the situation. It gets old very fast, I ended up skipping through some scenes because they were plain boring, very slow and worst of all very predictable.
Who Needs Enemies (2013)
Easily the TOP Gangster movie ever made.
The acting by everybody is Oscar winning performances and this is rare in the film industry. I have only seen it once and it's in this gem of a film.
It's one of those films you never want to end, it starts off immediately with a lightening pace and just gets faster. It distorts time. After 20 minutes I thought it had been on for an hour. The ending will make most men cry so make sure you're not with mates and get ready for the most psychedelic roller coaster since the film, Who Needs Enemies ... was made in 2013.
If you liked Scarface with Pachino, Goodfellas, Casino, The Godfather, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels combine all those films together and remember your enjoyment from each - now multiply it by 500.
It is that good. I don't have a Bluray player but I had to have one to own this film on Bluray and so I bought one - and I'm still waiting for it to be released on Bluray. I check most days for a sign of a Bluray release. If I was going to take to a desert island the biggest DVD collection in history OR the single film called Who Needs Enemies, there would be no contest. This one film is what I would take and packed between two pillows in case it gets damaged.
This reminds me. The DVD is so valuable I bought another copy just in case one gets damaged. Somebody tried to watch my DVD without asking and I have not spoke to them since, everybody knows not go near my Who Needs Enemies DVD.
The X Files: Ghost in the Machine (1993)
The episode which has failed the most to stand the test of time.
This will be because of the DOS programming language seen on the computer, the silly voice of the computer which says inexplicable things like "file opened" and "File deleted" and the episode clearly takes it's source from a number of films we have seen in the past which we recognise as soon as we see them. Demon Seed, Space Odyssey 2001, Runaway, The Omen II, Hackers, Die Hard.
That's 6 films from the top of my head crammed into 42 minutes, along with Dr No (James Bond).
Lastly, they are using a 5¼ floppy disc and there was the bigger capacity and more durable 3½ floppy discs when the episode was made ... yet a LAPTOP is provided by Mulder to a prisoner to write a program in a short space of time, despite the Laptop not being able to take the 5¼ floppy disc and despite the Laptop not having the computer language installed on it for coding the program Mulder needs.
It all looks very early 1980's and by default very dated for anybody watching the episode today in 2016 and later..
Tráiganme la cabeza de la Mujer Metralleta (2012)
It's basically a classic Russ Meyer movie (no spoilers here)
Same style, same laugh out loud humour, same degree of nudity, but I would say this is more violent.
There are real belly ache laugh out loud moments and I found it very entertaining after the initial 20 minutes. Some elements at the start aggravated me at first until I got used to the style and there is plenty of style to be seen.
There are some very random "what the hell" which are real eyebrow raisers so be warned. The music is not really my thing but it added to the wackiness of the movie and the sense of fun it seems to convey.
THE MOVIE IS ABOUT: a player of computer games who accidentally becomes involved in a live version of Grand Theft Auto complete with missions and ways to make money on the way. The ultimate mission is the title of the movie "Bring Me The Head Of The Machine Gun Woman." Easier said than done. The guy who stumbles in to the game is given 24 hrs to successfully complete this mission. On the way he has to do other missions.
This is it in a nutshell. If you like Russ Meyer's Vixen movies you will love this as long as you don't mind subtitles or you have found a version dubbed in your language or you can speak Spanish.
I personally decided I like this movie 25 minutes after it started because of the way it makes me laugh so hard.
The Mutilation Man (2010)
This Film Has A Hint Of Friday 13th AND Halloween.
This is because the baddie wears a mask and similar clothes and likes to use a machete. Also, like Jason Vorhees and Michael Myers, he likes to vary the use of his weapons. The music has a John Carpenter type of score too, only less sophisticated.
This is where the similarities pretty much stop. I would think anybody liking those films will find this one appealing, though it's a lot slower, has less victims and is obviously made with a smaller budget.
The merits of the film which gained it a 6 from me is the style in which it was shot. The violence was not gratuitous, it all had a purpose and was not over the top like it could have been. If I had a complaint it would actually be the dynamics of the blood. The recovery speed from pain was too fast and not enough blood flowed from any of the wounds, something I found distracting. So we have restraint from gore but at the same time too much restraint to detract from reality. The acting from one person after being assaulted in a kitchen was terrible.
Real head wounds always look worse than they are while the head wounds in this film look like little cause for concern.
The script is OK, though the lead male character did quite a poor job delivering the bulk of it considering he would be reeling in pain. The using of the leads wife was not lost on me, it served to make the lead male understand his torturer much more than he would have. It is something which brings humanity to the masked man and it says a lot about the masked man's motive. I would have liked the use of flashbacks here but maybe budget constraints prevented it.
It has an old school feel about it. Providing you bear in mind the whole time you are watching a low budget indie film and not looking out for Oscar winning performances, you will see the vote of 6 I awarded it was warranted and that a sequel would be welcoming to you like it is to me. There are some nice touches which place it above lower fare.
Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers (2011)
I Liked The Movie (Possible Spoilers Be Here)
There was quite a bit of tension in some parts of the movie and this makes up for the shortcomings to some extent. I'm not a movie critic, if the movie entertains me then it has done its job, right? I am however quick to see howlers (noooo, not wolves, glaring mistakes). Like I said earlier, I enjoyed the movie and as you've guessed - there's a big BUT and here it is ....
I wanted Riggs to shut up before I was 30 mins into the movie. I so nearly turned it off in the early part of the movie because of that actors voice, his laugh and his terrible timing when reciting lines. Enough about him anyway.
The movie on the whole entertained me but I'm a glut for war movies anyway. Things which spoilt this for me was the men running about trying to evade capture with metal clanging all over their body. Metal plates banging metal cups was seriously bad to see. In reality it would be padded as we all know.
The other thing was the light that illuminated everything they were doing. It was like a spotlight being shined on them. There was no moon out because you could see that it was pitch black beyond the range of the spotlight. So they did have spotlights shone on them. Not something you would be shining throughout the night while trying to evade capture.
The sound often resembled something that was recorded inside on a stage, then edited into the movie during scenes shot outside in the countryside. Sound just isn't like that in big open spaces.
Parachute jumping into a girlfriends garden would need much greater height and the parachutes back then were not controllable like they are today with ropes to steer the direction. It was an impossible landing in 1944.
Why was Riggs running around in the countryside with no helmet? The D-DAY landings were a major secret. Huge steps were taken to ensure the invasion wasn't expected on the other side of the Channel ... yet the girlfriend and her mother knew the parachutist boyfriend was off on a mission to Dunkirk. It wouldn't happen. The boyfriend wouldn't be allowed off base or near a telephone.
Being an American made movie, the historical accuracy of it has to be questioned because of all the past travesties like The Dambusters, U-571 and every other "true story" in between. Pinch of salt? A bucket of salt more like.
Sorry, but since Eddie Livingstone spent most of the movie alone there was nobody to witness what he did. The fact he was captured meant that too much time passed between the events and his release for anything to be substantiated. You could have had Eddie Livingstone doing anything you want, nobody can corroborate the story - so forget the scenes featuring Eddie Livingstone.
Easy on the eye this movie. A lot of people will like it for various reasons. If you're expecting something more than a low budget movie then forget about watching this, if you're not overly critical and just enjoy the ride, you'll like the movie like I do.
The Fear (1988)
Does It Hold Up Well Today?
I bought the series last week from www.networkdvd.net for under 20 quid (On the site write in the search box .... The Fear). I did this on the strength of remembering my enjoyment of it back in 1988. I've searched for it for years, and finally I've found it. It was the first series on TV which made me plan my week to ensure I don't miss it. Yeah, I thought it was that good.
Since buying it last week I've viewed the the first 3 episodes and though the first two were gripping like I remembered, the 3rd episode dragged a bit. I think being 21 years older may have something to with me seeing it differently, and Ian Glenn's way of talking is starting to grate on me a bit. I'll be starting Disk 2 later today, and I hope it picks up a bit. I should add that I remember how it ends, and some of you might too - but all in all I'm very pleased to have it in my DVD collection (at last).
Description: A group of hard youths who have a protection racket led by Carl, climb the underworld ladder in Islington, North London. They do it in a realistic and very credible manner ... which is where much of the acclaim comes from. The people in this series are real and believable. The rest of the acclaim comes from the acting throughout and the writing. If you like Lock Stock ... Long Good Friday ... you'll love this series. It has been imprinted on my mind since seeing it in the 1980's and it's why I've searched for it since the invention of DVD and the internet.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Be Prepared (Very Minor Spoiler)
Anyway, I felt that from this movie onwards there was a lot missing. Richard Harris played Dumbledore as a very wise, fair and most importantly kind old man. Gambon plays him with an Ulster accent like that of Ian Paisley. It sounds abrupt, preaching and everything but friendly. The Dawn French lines made me cringe, and the Granger girl seemed to become the main protagonist. There seems a lot of cost cutting like, "Don't bother going to the Alley to get your books because I've conveniently got them all for you" and let's just cut out Platform 9 and 3/4 and jump straight to the train chugging along with everyone aboard. Many scenes are drawn out to a yawn inducing length which sacrifices quality for quantity.
Overall it felt like this movie and the next has a different Director and Screenplay Writer. I checked this out and it says they're the same, but it doesn't look it. Perhaps the cutting room editor is different, I just don't know. If it isn't broke then don't fix it, but someone has tried. It definitely looks cheaper.
The time travel scenes were blatant 'Back To The Future II' rip offs and they reminded me of accusations of old, primarily that J.K.Rowling had collected many ideas of other's and passed them off as her own. Many people do this to some extent, but not quite like Rowling does. She's like those Hip Hop musicians who rip off sections of popular songs by changing a few lyrics or beats and incorporating them into their next hit.
The first two movies were great and when watched back to back they followed on seamlessly. Prisoner Of Azkaban and Goblet Of Fire look only vaguely related and this is glaringly so when watched straight after Chamber Of Secrets. I found it immensely disappointing.
I found myself persevering with Prisoner just to understand the next movie. Towards the end it picked up a bit but that's scant consolation. I found myself doing the same with Goblet Of Fire, but only this time it didn't pick up. Yawn.
Le Cinquième Élément (1997)
Luc Besson delivers again ....
.....to begin with, as usual, then like two of his other best known movies, Léon (AKA The Professional) and Nikita (AKA La Femme Nikita) - The Fifth Element fizzles out towards the end with astonishing predictability. It seems he got bored around the same point while working on these three movies and handed the reins to somebody else. Putting Chris Tucker's character in the movie is like having the ring-tone The Annoying Thing (AKA Crazy Frog) play on the soundtrack of Schindler's List or Titanic when the ship ...
Anyway, Luc Besson has improved his directorial skills markedly, The Messenger:The Story of Joan of Arc was amazing - and it's the one film which show's Milla Jovovich can really act when she wants to. In Fifth Element she does what the role demands of her, but when you see the exact character reprised in two seriously inferior movies (The Resident Evil ones) then it demeans her performance in this movie. Especially if, like me, you see those movies before this one.
I gave the movie a 7/10 which is high, and had it not introduced the very, very, very annoying Chris Tucker character, it would certainly have been on my Top 10 list of Si-Fi movies ... but unfortunately it did, and it will continue to do so every time I watch the movie - so I'll never watch it again. For comparison, think of the screechy character which spoilt the later additions of the Police Academy series of movies.