Reviews

220 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Boring 1st hour, picks up 2nd hour, good last 30min
27 October 2024
Kill Bill is one of my all-time favourites (both parts), and Pulp Fiction is clearly a still-thrilling masterpiece. Late-era Tarantino Hateful Eight is different from previous fare as it had a slow methodical build-up, but it's engaging and kinda hypnotic. The payoff is satisfying.

However, Once Upon A Time has an even slower build-up which feels far less connected & consequential to the subsequent payoff. This disconnect made the first hour extremely boring and feels pointless. I was 'this' close to skipping ahead, even began browsing my phone out of boredom. During a Tarantino flick!

Thankfully things picked up in the second hour, including something approaching Hateful Eight's hypnotic-quality during that cult ranch scene when Cliff goes asking after his old sleeping buddy.

But by the time the final half hour rolls, where we finally get some tense graphic action, I frankly didn't care about these characters. Didn't care who would get slaughtered. Regardless of not caring, at least we finally got some 'good' Tarantino movie.

A lot of things wrong with this picture, the dialogue especially is somewhat lifeless. The pacing is yawn-inducing. Not much interesting or dynamic cinematography. Soundtrack so-so. No real humour.

Unrealistic acid-trip behaviour. Al Pacino & Damien Lewis are wasted in forgettable bit-parts. Margot Robbie plays the same character she always plays. Brad & Leo are watchable, thankfully...tho' Leo's accent feels too try-hard.

Not sure who this movie is for. Hollywood-fans?

Feet-fetishists?

First hour 3/10. Second hour 6/10. Final 30min 7/10.

5/10 overall. Not really recommended. Will never watch again.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
low-budget & clichéd yet still nicely effective
26 October 2024
It's a low-budget but well-made mystery chiller about DMT extracted from dead humans' pineal gland which is consumed by people. The resulting effect is that the brain of the user acts as a receiver for Lovecraftian entities which turns the user insane. Familiar stuff if you're versed in Lovecraft (see also the movies From Beyond & In The Mouth of Madness).

As it's low budget we don't see much in the way of monsters. And as it's a movie we obviously don't get a realistic positive picture of DMT, so the usual movie clichés about how psychedelics result in horrific experiences.

It would be very cool to have a CGI-driven film about the realistic effects of DMT...the alternative-reality aspects and jester-type bizarre entities.... Banshee Chapter is not that, at all.

Despite the low-budget and unrealistic negative depiction it is still very engaging as a mystery horror, and still a curious one for DMT-followers to watch. Some elements are fact-based (MK-Ultra, Numbers Stations) which peaks the interest nicely. Tho' for a 90-min flick we can't expect any real depth or deeper message here.

7/10 - good solid trip enhanced by watching the immersive 3D Bluray.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bit better than the first one...
25 October 2024
...because now there's focus on the story & characters. While the main trio of Eren, Mikasa & Armin remain quite bland characterisations we do get some bloom from Hange, the captain and the officer.

The story is more coherent and somewhat engaging, the setting is still pretty good. Some more dynamic ODM action and a fun 'mecha' fight which recalls all those Godzilla-vs flicks.

It's honestly worth your time if you're curious and didn't think the first movie was too terrible. There's a lot less comically-gruesome Titan-feasting, but this sequel didn't need it.

Clearly tho', the animated series is where the really good stuff is. That's a 9/10 series throughout....all killer, no filler.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fright Night (2011)
4/10
Middling, flat, unoriginal, synthetic
24 October 2024
This is the very definition of ho-hum movie-making. Textbook cliché stuff everywhere. The most unoriginal vampire film.

Anton Yelchin (R. I. P.) was very flat, difficult to feel pumped-up for him. David Tennant over-acted, channeling his Doctor Who character at its most annoying. Colin Farrell oozed charm and menace, so at least he was watchable. The support cast were serviceable.

Juvenile bland script doesn't really engage. No really decent cinematography. Forgettable soundtrack. Cartoonish CGI blood & deaths. Not scary in the slightest, more like an unserious teen 'horror'.

Doesn't have a lot going for it, but gets a 4/10 as Colin was good, a couple of scenes were engaging (the car chase) and in 3D some of the CGI splatter popped out of the screen agreeably. Pacing was fine, i didn't skip forward. Mildly entertained, i guess.

Just there's so much out there that's more worth my (and your) time.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
B-movie/fan-film quality
21 October 2024
This is nowhere near the quality, artistry and atmosphere of the anime series. Nowhere near the weighty dialogue, memorable characters and immersive vocal performances (watched both in japanese). Nowhere near the sense of ominous mystery...

The movie has a clumsy b-movie fan-made feel. The story has no real structure, characters are forgettable, pacing is boring, cinematography is merely functional and the action is laughable.

But there is some good stuff: for fans of the anime, seeing this world brought to life in live-action is interesting. The sets are decent. The titans & feasting are kinda hilarious in a dark black-comedy manner. Some of the ODM action is at times quite dynamic.

But this movie can only hold mild interest for those already familiar with AOT, it must be a total mess for everyone else.

I'll watch Part Two only out of that curiousity...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beast (III) (2017)
8/10
Consistently good throughout
5 October 2024
This mystery psycho-drama isn't about mythical beasts as one of the hype blurbs would imply: an "adult fairytale" it is not. It is grounded in reality...and no less gripping for it.

It's the kind of film that has you analysing what's going on and guessing what might come next. As other reviewers have said it's best to go in completely blind. I didn't even read the synopsis, just trusted the intriguing bluray cover, film title and decent IMDB score.

Very well acted by all. Strong script. Nicely filmed: subtly effective rather than anything fancy. The Jersey setting is nice. The plot develops at a consistent pace, there's no drag but also no explosive set-pieces. It's a modest-budget psychological drama which relies heavily on its two main characters carrying the film, which they certainly do!

Gets the 8/10 as it stuck the landing. My 9's and 10's are reserved for really special movies and this modest effort isn't quite that, but it's certainly very good for what it is. And so obscure that the director - who did a fine job here - doesn't even have his own Wikipedia entry.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Flirting with a rare 9/10...
29 September 2024
...but the thinly-drawn characters just about prevent that.

Despite John Boorman's Excalibur being my joint-favourite film of all time (alongside 2001, incidentally), I've avoided other King Arthur efforts for the perhaps mistaken view that they'll all be a massive comedown, however I'm currently - and belatedly - appreciating 3D-Blurays so Guy Ritchie's Arthur got a purchase....tho' my expectations were dialled right down as I wasn't convinced his style would suit such a production.

And it kinda doesn't, and kinda does. It doesn't in terms of having a deep rapport with the characters, so that when they meet their doom we feel for them (here, we don't). It does in terms of kinetic action and pacing: this movie is a very fun trip! With the immersive soundtrack acting as the MVP here. The cast are all serviceable, Hunman's Arthur is fine tho' perhaps lacking in some tangible human weakness. Jude Law's villain was a little underwhelming, i think his character would've been better served by a lesser-known yet more-skilled character actor. David Beckham's appearance during what should be a highlight moment was hugely distracting, breaking the suspension of disbelief these films require...even if to be fair to him he played it alright.

The final battle with the Big Bad ran very cliché, that was the last chance to up the score to 9 so slightly fumbled there.

The whole experience felt like an extended flashy music video. This is normally a negative except Guy & crew pushed this style as high as it could possibly go...and we get a very entertaining ride from it! Fun action, great pace, fine 3D, decent performances....

....but it's no Excalibur.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth it for the gorilla scenes
28 September 2024
If like me, you're not familiar with the real-life story of Dian Fossey, I'd recommend watching this film first before reading up.

Like another reviewer just before me, i've been aware of this film since it came out and always fancied seeing it...36 years later finally got round to it! On DVD, very good clear image considering the lack of HD.

It's worth a watch for the gorilla scenes, the combination of real gorillas and costumes is near-seamless, with only a baby gorilla costume being obvious. The work here is the most realistic ape-costume footage I've ever seen, far above Kubrick's 2001 or the classic Planet of the Apes. The realism factor also trumps the modern CGI Planet of the Apes as they don't have that 'uncanny valley' factor, tho' of course we then don't get epic action scenes...but that's not what we're here for.

Sigourney Weaver is engaging, thankfully so as she's almost always on-screen. Her character's story is an interesting one tho' it does date the movie...anyone sensitive to the 'white saviour' trope' may be rolling their eyes at times (even if the depictions are somewhat faithful to the reality of those times).

The cinematography is excellent, another solid reason to watch if you enjoy documentary-style landscape/jungle shots.

The film does drag in the middle-third during the romantic-angle. While I believe it was indeed part of Ms Fossey's story, it still felt forced...tho' it does serve the audience a narrative of highlighting her emotions & priorities.

The final third attempts to picture Fossey's struggles didn't always quite land, tho' not sure if this may be a limitation of Sigourney's range, or the writing.

These quibbles do prevent a higher score, but a 7/10 is a 'good film' in my book, so recommended to anyone who feels curious about this one.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chinatown (1974)
6/10
Not an engaging story, but fine production
21 September 2024
Chinatown is one of those classics I've been meaning to get round to for literally decades. I still try to go in with neutral expectations. Sometimes I'm blown away by the magnificence (like with Lawrence of Arabia), other times I'm very disappointed (like with Casablanca) and with Chinatown I'm kinda like...meh...it was alright.

Very nicely filmed, expertly acted, clever dense script, decent action when it comes around. But the story was simply not that interesting: a dispute about water supply in 30's Los Angeles being the backdrop for a murder mystery is as dull as it sounds. And the scene immediately preceding the ending didn't make much narrative sense considering how otherwise careful & calculated Jake had been up until then.

Also...why is it even called Chinatown? There's barely 5 minutes set there, and the only Chinese present are a couple of near-wordless bit-parts.

Hard to recommend if you're also considering striking this famous film of your watchlist. I highly rate other Polanski films too, so did feel a little disappointed that arguably his most lauded work felt a bit flat. Maybe noir fans might get more out of it.

For completists however it's still worth a watch because of the fine quality of the production.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Almost as good as the first
1 September 2024
Normally I avoid films scoring less than 5/10 on IMDB, I made an exception here as I enjoyed the first one, and have good memories of playing the first game too. Plus I got it on 3D-Bluray!

First, the bad:

  • acting & dialogue is very basic. It's not much better than PS1/PS2-era voicework, to be honest. English-northerners more known from Game of Thrones struggling with American accents didn't help. The lead actress is passable tho' sometimes unconvincing.


  • the story makes no real sense, and there's no consistency to the plot.


  • the atmosphere is well done but not quite as moodily-effective, nor as visually-game-faithful, as the first movie.


Now the good:

  • what we came for! Namely a handful of standout scenes and disturbing monsters. Decent camera work gave them time to shine, not too much of the fast shakey jump-cuts which ruin lesser horror movies.


  • effective sound design, faithful soundtrack.


  • 3D was nice, some fun popouts and decent depth.


  • VisualFX mostly quite good, tho' the digital-look sometimes was obvious.


7/10 is what I scored the first one too, tho' that would be the upper-tier of a 7...while the sequel here the lower-tier. Both are enjoyable, well worth watching if you also appreciate the Silent Hill aesthetic from the game series.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Overrated in all aspects, but still a trip worth watching
12 August 2024
Just getting my Dune history out of the way: I read the first novel decades ago. Honestly didn't enjoy it much: very dry, technical and convoluted. Lynch's Dune is terrible. I watched Villeneuve's Dune out of a cinematographer's curiosity. His films are a bit detached and overly-stylish but a feast for the senses for things like composition, angles, atmosphere. And Dune Part One is his best film so far: fantastic thrilling atmosphere coupled with a generous handful of memorable scenes and a stand-out performance from Rebecca Ferguson. These strengths overpower the usual Villeneuve detachment, making it a very good 8/10 in my book. The main weakness Part One had was an occasional propensity to look like a stylistic music video, or worse...an extended high-budget commercial advert.

Unfortunately Dune Part Two dials that up to 11, while removing the quality of having a stand-out performance: Lady Jessica had nothing to do other than look sternly & calculatingly cool with exotic writing on her face. That's all the other characters did too: look 'cool' or otherwise conveying a clear emotion by way of wordless glances. Add some basic overly-dramatic dialogue, an explosion, some vistas...then more knowing glances. Repeat. Chani scenes especially guilty of this.

There's no 'character' in Part Two. Stilgar is the only one who comes close but he still feels very basic, had to double-check what he was even called. We the audience don't really get to know him, or anyone else. Chalamet's Paul should at least then be the anchor, the one character we can connect with, but he's a blank bland slate. The antagonists fare no better, just displaying nonsense depraved cruelty while mumbling a 'cool'-sounding one-liner. The nephew antagonist feels like a corny Game Of Thrones reject (also, spot the stunt double during the climactic knife fight). Bautista just shouts a bit. The interesting Baron visuals are present, but his character isn't really.

"Overrated in all aspects" also means the much-lauded production. Frankly, Dune Part One was more impressive (and better paced too). Part Two has some nice visuals, for sure, and the soundtrack is riveting. But Part One had more memorable eyecatching scenes, and even its use of music felt a bit more focussed than what we get here. Part Two's epic vistas also have an overreliance on digital imagery, making it feel less immersive than say classic epic desert vista scenes from Lawrence of Arabia or Spartacus. Somehow, the sand worms feel small here, whereas in Part One they felt huge.

So we're left with the plot...and it's just a series of things happening, with no feeling of audience-attachment connecting the events. This is trademark Villeneuve. It ends like the first one did, preparing for the next chapter.

6/10 is still worth watching. Despite all my criticisms the trip - the ride of the senses - is enjoyable. So dial down expectations and enjoy the ride!

Dune Part Two is however not the messiah.

  • Watched 4K Bluray on Meta Quest 3, filling the entire field-of-view IMAX-style.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
another meh Hitchcock...
10 April 2024
After the 5/10's for Rear Window & North by Northwest, and the 6/10 for Vertigo, I've now done another middling Hitchcock which curiously has a very high IMDB rating.

I guess I just don't see the appeal. Dial M isn't a bad film: it has a neat setup, nicely (if somewhat formally) played by the actors and the ensuing puzzle-solving is watchable enough. But I never felt particularly interested or immersed. It's all quite stagey and detached. Also, the murder scene is very dated...tho' this can be forgiven as a product of its time.

I watched the 3D Bluray, which has artificial depth and a couple of standout popout moments, involving hands. Those scenes were so effective they had me instinctively reaching my own hand out to touch them.

So on the celebrated Director, I do rate Psycho & The Birds...but my search for a third Hitchcock I actually like goes on...

...maybe I won't give up quite yet. Lifeboat, Marnie and The Wrong Man remain on my watchlist.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ran (1985)
7/10
Tonedeaf slapstick mars what could've been a great epic
16 March 2024
This is the third Kurosawa I've seen after Rashomon (6/10) and Seven Samurai (7/10) and it may be the last, at least from his samurai genre. The films are good...not great.

Where Kurosawa's slapstick tone worked with Rashomon & Seven Samurai, it seems out of place here. Ran feels like it should be a dark brooding epic, farcical slapstick ill-serves that vibe. It also has too-theatrical acting from the main character (Hidetora): while he is highly-watchable, the performance does venture into the scenery-chewing absurd at times.

The contrast with the relative monotone from most of the other characters is an uneasy one.

Then there's the typical grunt-barking aggressive japanese dialogue-delivery...it gets tiresome after a while, all the characters sounding alike. The content of that dialogue is often too simplistic, so that the characters aren't able to convincingly sell the premise. The situation far too easily spirals out of control.

Consequence of such being: unlike Seven Samurai, I never felt like I cared for any of these characters or what was going to happen.

Another disappointing aspect is the small feel of the production when compared to english-language epics like Ben Hur, Spartacus, Excalibur, Lawrence of Arabia etc. Despite the big budget, large cast, costumes, castles & landscapes the movie-experience somehow doesn't feel totally 'sweeping' like those other Epic films...maybe because the setting & timespan were restrained to one small area and a short period. Action-wise it's also not that impressive, there's not even any notable one-on-one fights. The gory deaths often look comical rather than dramatic.

With all that out of the way, what was good about Ran? The lauded cinematography is impressive, there are some great shots...after the hour mark there is an extended almost-operatic battle-scene with a gorgeous string-heavy score washing over it. Best scene in the movie. Generally, I appreciated the striking appearance of Hidetora. Lady Kaeda is an intriguingly-vampiric character, well-written and performed. The soundtrack throughout is very nice. The film generally was watchable and fairly entertaining, it didn't drag or get boring.

But is it worth watching? To be worth watching, to be worth seeking out and spending precious hours on, requires a minimum 6/10 in my book. I feel like Ran earns that. But it certainly has issues.

Recommended if you accept there's gonna be that Kurosawa-brand of slapstick-farce amongst the serious stuff.

Incidentally I recently saw Harakiri (8/10) which stimulated me more than the three Kurosawas I've seen. So my focus on that particular style of film-making will be from those less talked about directors. Kwaidan & Onibaba are the next two on my watchlist.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Does what it's meant to very well
13 March 2024
I have no skin in this game: not interested in how it compares to the anime classic, nor do I care for the manufactured 'race controversy'. I'm just interested in watching an entertaining and visually-interesting 3D sci-fi action movie. Bonus points if things get deep & mysterious!

While Ghost in the Shell didn't scratch much deeper than the surface, and while its mysteries were resolved in a simple (yet satisfactory) manner, this movie did scratch that itch in 3D eye-candy! One of the best showcases for this medium. I watched the Bluray in my Meta Quest 3 headset, the screen - extremely curved - filling more than my entire field-of-view...mega immersive! Excellent depth.

Overall an entertaining, engaging & fun 110 minutes. The action was good, Scarlet is a convincing hero (tho' a little monotone, character-wise). The plot is fine. Soundtrack nice. Support cast mostly decent, except Juliette Binoche feels miscast and the villain (the actual villain) is blandly predictable. Generally the philosophical ideas it has are tropes at this stage, and the film didn't approach them at a unique or interesting enough angle to truly stand out.

What pushes this to an 8/10 however are a couple of strong scenes which hint at philosophical depths potential sequels could flesh out. One involving a 'possessed' trucker's inability to remember his daughter is particularly haunting.

If you dial down your expectations, ignore external criticisms you may have heard and choose the 3D version on as big a screen as possible...then for sure you'll enjoy this! Superior to the similar Battle Angel Alita I saw recently.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dredd (2012)
7/10
Fun but thin, slow-mo concept has missed potential
4 March 2024
The best action sci-fi flicks have a (relatively) original concept that they utilise to the max. Terminator had time-travelling cyborg killers, Star Wars had 'the Force', the Avengers movies their movie-spanning arcs, Aliens/Predator their unique antagonists, Edge of Tomorrow the 'Groundhog Day' angle, The Matrix had...the matrix. And so on.

Dredd might have joined this elite group had it put more thought into how to make the film about the slow-mo effect itself: all the cool creative ways it can be used to drive the story (both from antagonists and heroes). Alas...all it's used for is some stylish FX-scenery, some of it pretty dandy...other times the FX have already dated (clearly-digital spurts of blood don't cut it in 2024).

So we're left with a standard setup plot-device of surviving and/or raiding a locked-down building. There's not too much sci-fi going on outside the slow-mo. We've got gangster-warfare clichés and a pair of miscast Judges leading us along to a corny 90's-sounding score. Characterisation generally is very thin, as is the dialogue.

But once we accept that this movie isn't gonna be a great, we can accept it for what it is: a fun dumb action thriller with nice pace, watchable villain, some entertaining deaths and satisfying gunplay.

For doing what's expected, no more no less, it deserves a decent 7/10.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
boring...
28 February 2024
...one of the most boring films I've ever struggled through. Boring story, boring dialogue, boring camera, boring acting. Even the acts of violence are oddly boring. There's a severe lack of energy in every part of the movie.

I'm amazed this has a 7.6 on here. It's terrible. Al Pacino seems to be playing a different character to the Michael Corleone we knew in the first two films....so different that '16 years later' can't quite explain it.

After 40-odd minutes I had to start skipping forward...3 hours of this is unbearable. Reminds me of 1963's The Leopard or 1981's Prince of the City...similarly highly-rated but I found to be soul-crushingly boring.

Gets a point for providing Sopranos with a memorable meme ("just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in!"). Michael's silent scream at the end was pretty good too, only the scene that immediately preceded it was laughable.

It's frankly best to ignore Part III entirely. Parts I & II tell a fine story without the need for a clumsy out-of-character epilogue.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Superior sequel, tho' still not near the greatest
27 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
As with Godfather 1, rewatching Part II for the first time in 25 years hasn't changed my mind as to its subjective quality.

It's very good, improving on the first in every area (with caveats):

  • camera & production is of higher quality, more ambitious believably-busy crowd scenes. Tho' some obvious studio dialogue-overdubs jar a few lines (from Al Pacino, mostly).


  • story is a bit easier to follow. We're still inundated with hard-to-remember italian names, but the setup for each subplot is tidier than in the first one. However, still a couple of things not making sense, like how did the Cuba military-police know they needed to protect Roth? That just happened without any clue as to how or why. Then Pentangeli killing himself made no narrative sense (his character not seeming the type to do this, especially after saving Corleone in the Hearing earlier. Not to mention why Roth's gangsters wanted to fake Michael's involvement by stating "Michael Corleone says hello" during their bungled assassination attempt ...if Pentangeli dies then how does that statement matter? And generally there's a feeling that some deaths simply occur as they make great dramatic material, rather than making any narrative sense. Vito's murder of the Black Hand seemed quite the leap, considering the extortionist had previously hinted he'd be happy with a smaller amount, and then indeed accepted that smaller amount, even praising Vito's attitude.


  • Al Pacino performed admirably, a dark morose presence which felt engaging. His reaction to the abortion-revelation is up there in the pantheon of greatest acting scenes. Overall tho', Michael is
dark to a fault. By the end his oppressive demeanor began to get tiresome. I was hoping for some lighthearted scene to bring out a smile in him...but no....poor guy looks terminally depressed.

  • De Niro in the most challenging role almost outshining Brando himself. The Vito character is clearly the most interesting role of the series.


  • generally solid action, good pacing, strong dialogue, solid death scenes (except..why Johnny Ola didn't put up more of a fight against an old guy with a coathanger...who knows).


8/10 feels fair. I really enjoyed it, a touch more than the first one. But it doesn't break my Top 100. I probably will never see these films again now. Twice seems enough. Godfather III next, that's one I've never seen before. Expectations dialled down as many call it disappointing. Let's see.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Godfather (1972)
7/10
It's good...but nowhere near the greatest
26 February 2024
I first saw The Godfather around 25 years ago, long before I became a film buff. I thought it was good, not great. When registering on IMDB a decade ago I rated it a 7/10 from memory. Incidentally part II I rated a little higher, an 8/10 due to the engaging flashbacks.

Ten years of being a film buff...I've seen some incredible works in that time (including two Coppolas, namely his Apocalypse Now & Dracula). Curious if The Godfathers are as good as their 9.2/9.0 ratings on here, I purchased the Bluray-Restoration Trilogy and just now watched the 3-hour first movie...only my second watch, and the first time since 25 years or so.

....and my opinion is unchanged! The Godfather is a good film. It's very well made, with tons of neat intelligent scenes and dialogue. Well acted. Fitting music. Decent camera work. But it's also tricky to follow, a few times I wondered who characters were referencing...this isn't a problem I've had with Goodfellas or Sopranos. Michael's relationship drama with his two wives isn't really that compelling, and neither is the paranoid mob war. The motives of the antagonist mobsters don't feel convincing.

A couple of action scenes have dated badly. One scene has Sonny punching clear air but the sound effects are claiming contact. Tho' the death scenes were generally done well and still look good today.

Curiously, there's often no offered subtitles when the characters talk in Italian. Specifically an important restaurant scene is missing this. I later watched an online clip with the translation, and I disagree with Copolla: the subs should've stayed in. Also, the image-quality isn't that impressive for a claimed 4k-mastering restoration. Very deep blacks for indoor scenes, meaning you struggle to differentiate among all those black suits. I guess they were going for a chiaroscuro-style (like Caravaggio famously employed in his paintings), so this gets a pass.

7/10 feels absolutely fair. Yet poll after poll still puts this movie right at the top (or very close) in the all-time rankings.

Citizen Kane is one of those I feel deserves such a reputation. The Godfather...not so much.

Part II next. Let's see if it holds its 8/10 (hopefully improves on it!).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tropetastic!
25 February 2024
This movie is so full of tropes it's hard to get engaged:

  • mysterious character with no memory of badass past mixed with manic pixie dream girl.


  • kindly older father figure played by well-known character actor guiding said character.


  • committee-pleasing diverse gang of characters so underdeveloped nobody remembers their names or what happened to them.


  • rich city in the sky that the folk below aspire to.


  • mass garbage dumps.


  • talk of a catastrophic event long ago which ruined the planet.


  • cyborgs with human heads (very Robocop-aesthetic).


  • bad guys who maniacally laugh while hunting their prey.


  • Murderball variant.


  • mysterious 'Big Bad' who eventually reveals his face to be...a famous actor.


Then there's the substandard dialogue, phoned-in acting, messy uninvolving plot and flat CGI (even in 3D, that world just looked flat...like a background matte painting). The much-vaunted Alita-character CGI was too uncanny valley, looking less like a cyborg in real life and more like a Final Fantasy character in a cut-scene.

To add insult to injury, there's no ending. It just ends in the middle of the story...presuming itself to offer a sequel. Risky game to play...tho' it may still come. But will there be interest in it several years later?

I still score an ok 5/10 as despite all these flaws it was fairly watchable, some action was decent. Nothing was really outright poor. It's comparable to Mortal Engines: very similar quality & feel (even sharing the garbage dump trope), tho' Mortal Engines scores slightly higher by its interesting roaming-cities designs.

I can't really recommend Alita. It even lacks the bite & originality of japanese anime so I'm not sure who the audience for this is supposed to be.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
King of the Monsterverse!
24 February 2024
After the watchable but not particularly worth watching Godzilla 2014, Skull Island and the series stinker King of the Monsters I would normally not even bother with a series fourth, but already had this on 3D-Bluray so felt obligated...and turns out it's the best by a mile!

It does everything better:

  • monster fights are numerous but not too many so you never get fatigued. Also clear, bright, had motive, dramatic and easy to follow.


  • human element are the most engaging cast of characters in the series (which isn't saying much, but still).


  • plot made sense (relatively-speaking, it is a giant monster movie).


  • some fantastic, if scientifically-nonsensical, ideas like the Hollow Earth...visually very nicely realised.


  • 3D also the best in the series: great depth.


  • did I mention the monster fights were brightly-lit, satisfyingly-crunchy and easy to follow?


A movie of this bombastic subgenre is unlikely to trouble my Top 100, but Godzilla vs Kong feels as good as something like this can get. I've yet to see the recent critically-acclaimed japanese efforts Shin Godzilla & Minus One....the classics are far too dated for me personally. I did enjoy Peter Jackson's King Kong over a decade ago (due a rewatch). From a narrative perspective that's still the best Kong/Godzilla film out there.

But for pure action, Godzilla vs Kong is the King.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lolita (1962)
9/10
Humour > lewdness
24 February 2024
Superior to the 1997 version as the sharp black humour is more welcome than titillating lewdness or graphic violence. Not to say the Jeremy Irons one is a poor effort, it's pretty good. This 1962 effort however has more to say, and makes more of an impression.

Offsetting the sometimes edgy yet always welcome comedy is a sense of risque danger which most men I'm sure have experienced.

First-class performances from all. James Mason manages to be debonair and pathetic at the same time...quite a feat! Sue Lyon is very effective, and correctly cast (the book Lolita at just 12 years of age really would've made viewing impossibly-uncomfortable). At first I felt Sellers was jarringly-clownish but when his character's role became clear I was able to accept his take.

Lolita is the kind of rare film one still thinks about days after. Lust can be a curious thing. If we let it, lust can be the main driver of our lives...for better or worse.

I tried to read the book but struggled with Nabokov's style, finding it too conversational and meta. Gave up after a few dozen pages. So for me, Kubrick's Lolita is the definitive telling.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Endless (I) (2017)
7/10
Always one step away from Revelation
24 February 2024
The Endless is a modest slowburning mystery sci-fi, there isn't really much horror. The low-budget is apparent but not gallingly so, the crew make the best of what they've got. Performances are competent. It reminds me of Primer.

The theorising from the characters as to what the mystery could be is interesting. We see some tastefully-done scenes which feel inspired from 'Twilight Zone' type mysteries.

However, what's missing is a weighty revelation. While some attempts are made it doesn't really land, leaving the entire experience a bit lightweight and inconsequential.

Still, overall this was an enjoyable stimulating trip. Just don't expect anything mindblowing.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One Way Trip (2011)
6/10
Saved by the ending...avoid spoilers!
26 January 2024
I normally don't watch films rated less than a 5.0 on IMDB, here I made an exception as I'm collecting 3D Blurays and am partial myself to psychonauting.

While the 3D had a couple of fun popouts, it wasn't the main draw (depth being almost non-existent). The psychedelic-trip aspect was also barely explored, at least in a visual or audio sense. The film starts poorly, with basic stilted dialogue, bland or even unlikeable characters, and poor overdubbing even in original German language...the actors clearly in sound booths. We get the usual 'dumb illogical protagonists' fare for these types of slasher movies, tho' this is partly explained by the 'tripping'. The action & tension was ok, a couple of cheap 'false-alarm' jump-scares weren't needed...loud orchestral-hits to startle the viewer is a bit of a copout.

Mostly middling entertainment, with 5 minutes remaining I was ready to give it a 4/10. But the last scene was great! Not just from a narrative perspective, the camera was also - for the first time - dynamic & interesting, showing us the crucial narrative development before telling us it more bluntly. Very effective.

With more naturalistic overdubbing, better script and more experimental use of visual/audio, One Way Trip may have had the potential to be a bit of a 'Geheimtipp' classic.

As it is, it's still worth watching. Dial your expectations down and you may also agree it's worth more than a 4.6 (current IMDB score).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Without 3D, this is a 1/10
24 January 2024
A few days ago I watched and enjoyed 1967's Viy. It had an authentic setting, some cool camera techniques, memorable characters and scenes. While some of it has dated, and is a bit tonally inconsistent, it's well worth the 7/10. Recommended for those interested in vintage horror films (must watch in original language, with subs).

Curious about the 3D modern remake, I had to check 2014's Viy out. Oh dear....

It is so clumsily made that it shouldn't have gotten released: poor dubbing (recalls those old Italian giallo productions), plot-mess, broken FX, amateur-editing. I've seen student films better edited and dubbed than this. The setting, costumes & makeup are inauthentic drama-school stuff. Script is just awful. Humour lame, thrills nay. The ending is total rubbish.

The actors try their best, but the rest of the film-making is so terrible that there's nothing more they can do. And what on Earth is Charles Dance doing on a mess like this? As it seems he appears in the sequel - which has an even lower IMDB score than this one, and unfathomably had an even bigger budget ($48m as opposed to $26m) - we can only guess what his motivations were...

Viy 2014 should've gone the 1967 route: just Russian/Ukranian cast, with perfectly-synchronised native dubbing, so we can at least get a feel for the characters.

A 1/10 candidate...except in 3D there's a few minutes of CGI creature fun: halfway through the film there's an imaginative fantasy-horror section, which actually looked quite neat in 3D. I guess they blew their CGI-budget on those few minutes, as we don't get anymore after that except right at the end with an impressive creature popout.

So gets two points for that bit of fun. Otherwise, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent action overpowers predictable drama & superfluous love story
24 January 2024
The sequel is very similar to the 1986 flick in that it has the same strengths & weaknesses, however with the welcome difference in that its strengths are even better executed, and go on for longer...while its weaknesses are less jarring, and shorter!

The love angle this time is totally tacked on and almost entirely pointless, and it's played so anemically by both leads that we almost miss that graphic tongue-kissing from the first one (almost!). Furthermore, Jennifer Connelly's character is superbland. At least Kelly McGillis's Charlie had some 'character'. Thankfully these scenes are relatively short.

The personal-drama and camaraderie stuff is standard predictable fare we've seen a thousand times in other movies. Quietly effective at best, eye-rollingly simple at worst. It does pay to have seen the first Top Gun, to at least appreciate the more effective elements.

Now on to the good stuff, and the main reason we all watch this movie: the flight action! And it's even better than the first film. It's easier to follow, takes up more runtime, feels ambitious, well-shot & great sound. The main mission is clearly described & understood, so we really feel the tension as the team attempt it! The only negative I have is the usual for modern action films: the editor cuts too quick, we have hundreds of great shots but they're barely a second long...not enough time to really saviour the grand achievements of the camera crew.

The plot is good, and it ends well. Overall 8/10, superior to the 6/10 for 1986's Top Gun.

Watch Maverick on as big a screen as possible! I used the Meta Quest 3 headset, filling my entire field-of-view with the action (while zooming out for the other stuff). Highly-recommended, albeit rather solitary, way of watching movies.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed