Change Your Image
dopeydave98
Reviews
Scrubs: My Night to Remember (2007)
Think about it people....
Yes, it's a clip show... Yes, it's a bit lame... And yes, it's not what one would of expected from Scrubs...
However, let's think about this shall we.
Clip shows are put together because the creators do not have the time to write a brand new episode. There are a few negative reviews on here from so called "fans" getting on their high horse and ranting that they are disappointed that Scubs has gone down this road of "laziness"... they've sold out... become like all the other inferior shows... The Simpson's did it first... blah blah blah...
Do those same fans think an episode as brilliantly original as My Musical is put together in the same time period as a regular episode...? My guess is that the regular weekly filming schedule had to be preceded by a week of rehearsal with the choreographers... hence the need to put something together quickly to fill the gap...
I'll put up with the downside of a clips show if the upside is a My Musical...
The Game of Their Lives (2005)
A bit of a farce...
OK... if ever there was a movie that needs to be taken with a pinch of salt then this is it. In the final present day scenes the voice over actually says "still considered the greatest upset in World Cup history" which actually made me laugh out loud. I'd be interested to know who actually thinks that. So let's get a few facts straight.
England (and I do mean England not "the Brits" as they are referred to in the movie) were not considered the best team in the world, that was Brazil. The World Cup in 1950 was not the event it is today. Many of the best teams were not present due to the cost of getting a team over to Brazil. The game was a first round group game, so nobody won anything, or even progressed. In fact the US lost their other two games and England proved they weren't the best by losing to Spain as well. All of this seems to be conveniently omitted from the movie.
However I will forgive all of this and focus on the single event, which seems to be the movies intention. "The Game of Their Lives" as a title is somewhat off the mark. A better title might be "The Day England Couldn't Hit A Barn Door", or perhaps "The Keeper Played A Blinder". These kind of games happen all the time in football. The best team hits the woodwork several times, their striker misses a sitter or two, the opposition keeper plays out of his skin. Then the underdogs get a dodgy penalty, or an own goal or (as in this case) a deflected shot goes in. And there we have it 1-0.
And that's the problem with the movie, it just wasn't that big a deal. This has happened many times in World Cup history. Korea beating Italy in '66, Algeria beating West Germany in '82, Cameroon beating Argentina in '90, Senegal beating France and Korea beating Italy (again) in '02. All these wins were against World Cup winners and are certainly considered bigger upsets in the scope of World Cup history. Even looking at this from the USA's point of view it's skewed. They made the semi finals in 1930 and in 2002 reached the Quarter Finals beating Portugal and Mexico along the way. Both these performances are more worthy than the 1950 exploits.
So if we view the movie as an uplifting piece of fiction it doesn't really work. Nobody scored a miracle goal. The team didn't become champions. So in this sense it fails too. The movie is well made and the cinematography is great. Solid performances but very clichéd characterisations. It just seems to me the screenplay picks and chooses which facts to go with and which ones to blatantly ignore. Including the first game against Spain would have added to the story. At least there would have been the element of winning off the back of a defeat.
There are many better underdog movies out there, most of which actually stick to the facts.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Over-rated and over hyped
If you want to watch a 90 minute show reel of camera tricks then this is the movie for you. If you want to watch a movie about the highs and lows of drug taking then go and rent "Trainspotting".
Many of the 10/10 reviews say this is "beautifully made" and "wonderfully shot". That is all well and good but a movie needs substance and here there is none. I felt no sympathy for any of characters, their downfall being all of their own doing. They made their choices and suffered the consequences, all driven ultimately by greed not to gain some sort of high.
Over-rated, over hyped and to be honest I was bored to tears by half way through.
Green Street (2005)
A Movie of Two Halves...
I had heard much about this movie and was very much looking forward to seeing it. The most apt a description I can give is that this is a movie of two halves. The first half starts well, we get into the action pretty quick and there's a lot of exciting stuff. The second half descends into melodrama and stumbles along to a predictable conclusion.
I can forgive the speed at which fresh faced Elijah is accepted into the firm as this allows us to get straight into the story. Lexi Alexander does a good job getting across the atmosphere and passion of the game and how this spills over into the fighting. The fight scenes themselves are well produced and the reality of finding the other firm whilst avoiding the police is pitched just right. I also liked how we are shown that these 'thugs' are ordinary people during the week doing ordinary jobs.
The one thing that grated me was Charlie Hannams laughable Dick Van Dyke cock-er-ney accent. We are told what being a member of a firm is all about... front, respect and belonging. Part of this is the clothes and the language. "Shat yor maff, you wan-car..." says our Charlie... the rest of the cast who I would hazard a guess grew up in London have it spot on, poor Charlie... it's a good try, but as Don Cheadle found out in Oceans 11, if you get it just slightly wrong you sound like a right muppet...
Then we get to the second half. It turns out Charlies brother is the legendary "Major" with a reputation second to none. When being fronted up by his old foe though he simply wilts. Tommy Hatcher is a has been who has to be about 20 years older than the Major, but still manages to bottle him because he was responsible for the ruck that killed his son. And so begins the melodramatic finish.
It's a pity because it all started so well and the premise of a 'yank' being involved is great. I've read the other reviews here and have noticed that most of those that have given the movie a good rating are from the US. Unsurprisingly those giving it lower ratings are from the UK (except one guy from Reading, but then in Reading they wouldn't know good football if it punched them in the face, and they think a good scrap is a conker fight...!). And that says it all really, here we have a clash of cultures. Are we watching a 'film' about the culture of the football firms... or are we watching a 'movie' about a tragic morality tale...
I've given it a 6/10 because it is well made, and I am sure those unfamiliar with the football scene will enjoy it as it gives an insight into a unique culture. I applaud Lexi Alexander for having the balls (as it were) to make an interesting and likable movie... film... movie... well you know what I mean...
American History X (1998)
A thought provoking film with a masterful leading performance
When the nominations were announced for the 1998 Oscars I wasn't surprised that Edward Norton had been nominated again. He had lost out in 1996 for his performance in Primal Fear, although I felt at the time the nomination was more of a recognition for a combination of his work which included The People vs Larry Flynt and Everyone Says I love You.
The thing that bothered me was the film... American History X. Why had I not heard of it, let alone seen it. Unsurprisingly it had got a very limited distribution in the UK, I guess because of it's content. I waited for the video release and I was not disappointed...!?!
Many people have lauded Norton's performance and rightly so. As a demonstration of his range it is masterful. A physical transformation akin to De Niro in Raging Bull, together with an emotional performance that takes in extreme violence, intellectual reasoning, regret, remorse and fear.
But there is more to this film than Norton's performance. Avery Brooks' understated Dr Sweeney allows those around him to bring out the emotion of the piece. Stacey Keach's Godfather-like quiet menace is his best role in years. Much must be said too for Tony Kaye's directing, the starkness of the black & white flashbacks works superbly on several levels. It demonstrates how Derek's reasoning was as black & white as the images on screen, together with the sheer bleakness of the life he was leading; out of date film for out of date attitudes.
Much has been said of the subject matter and the violence; the subject matter simply cannot be approached without reference to the violence, unfortunately that is the world we live in. David McKenna's script does not pick sides, but skillfully tells it's story without prejudice. Derek is a victim of circumstances, he's avenging the injustice of his father's death, falling under the spell of Alexander, leading the struggle on the streets against the politicians who haven't got a clue what's happening in the real world. Dereks journey from a bright schoolkid to a violent criminal seems so straightforward. Yet the real struggle is the journey back.
My one moan would be that we didn't get the opportunity to see more of Derek dealing with life after prison. Norton's portrayal of 'violent' Derek is the lasting image I had of the film, simply because the performance was so good. It's fair to say had he had the chance to explore 'reformed' Derek, Norton with his range would have done a fine job and the film may well have been more widely accepted.
All in all a brave film that demonstrates the actors craft perfectly. One of those word of mouth films, like Shawshank, that will be talked about for many years.