Change Your Image
woodiphora
Reviews
Lone Survivor (2013)
Brutal, realistic, drama-documentary on the reality of war in Afghanistan.
This is a dramatization of a US mission to kill a Taliban activist in 2005, in which the four man team experience the extremes of warfare, and at the end there is a 'lone survivor'. Mixed in with this, is the experience of one of the team in a Pashtun village, where he is inexplicably sheltered from his Taliban pursuers. Can't elaborate any more without giving away some of the plot.
As a war movie, it's pretty accurate-looking, although many moments are distinctly 'Hollywoodized' (particularly one of the death scenes), and the movie makers love of glamorizing explosions is often present.
There is an excess of glib chat between soldiers - there would have been no harm to the accuracy of the movie in toning this down, it didn't tell me anything about the characters or plot. Mark Wahlberg's closing line, obviously something significant, was incomprehensible to me.
There's a lot of padding at the beginning and end of the movie, with shots of service personnel training and other matter, which was repetitive and didn't add to the product as a movie or documentary. Also a lot of slow-motion and intrusive music score, particularly in the earlier part of the movie.
So, a lot of criticism from me, but ... eight out of ten all the same, less one point because of the uneven production issues mentioned above. It's quite good, and leaves one thinking a little. Lone Survivor takes a step further than the much hyped Zero Dark Thirty, by recognizing the role of the people whose home actually is Afghanstan. This is done in a simplistic way, but then this is really a movie about soldiers doing their stuff, and how they cope (or don't) when things go wrong. Grim, but with a thankful message of hope in human nature by the end. Would have loved to have given it eight (although certainly not nine), but it's just a bit to ragged and uneven in places.
Frozen (2013)
Fun(ish), forgettable, Disney fantasy. Won't bore you, but won't change your life!
This is Disney at it's simplest and surest - a plain and fun fantasy about a princess with magical powers, a handsome prince, a couple of goofy characters to provide regular light relief, and a couple of really mean villeins, of course.
Very 'Disney' in it's values - the family is no. 1, good people are beautiful and young, bad people typically ugly, old and have eastern European accents, animals are cute. Actually, the film does break a couple of these rules, but one is very conscious that this is Disneytopia, right down to the emotional manipulation and total lack of depth to any character. Yes, I know it's a kids movie, but all the same ...
Pros: passes the time and gives some smiles, although no big laughs for the adults, or for the children really.
Cons: animation is a little lacking - TV rather than big-screen quality much of the time. Also, there is a LOT of singing, and nothing particularly memorable! (E.g., "Something, something ... let's build a snowman, ... something.") I'd have preferred a bit more goofing around with the fun characters.
Overall: my wife and I saw it on a Sunday evening with a lot of young children in the cinema - not a lot of reaction from them, while it held the attention, would have like to have heard more laughter. Definitely a middling 7/10 from me. Spend an afternoon at the mall for the same (or less) amount of money and have more fun.
Captain Phillips (2013)
Top draw movie, ace performances, a little more Africa back story might have helped.
This is a very good movie. 'Movie' enough that it's enjoyable from a movie-lover's perspective, and realistic enough that you feel you've seen a fair representation of events, as much as any movie can give. Thankfully avoids the gratuitous or bloody violence that afflicts so many modern pictures, while leaving you in no doubt about the potential for extreme violence that the characters have.
Tom Hanks again? Yes, but he tones down much of his characteristic affability, and is very believable as the captain of the cargo ship. (As with George Clooney in The Perfect Storm, Hanks happened to bare a strong likeness to the real captain of the ship, so was pretty much ideal.)
The plot is closely based on a real hijacking of a large cargo ship off the Somali coast in 2009, and the key role of the Captain in manipulating the hard-bitten hijackers and get his ship, his crew and himself to safety ... however, events spiral out of control, thwarting both his and the hijacker's best laid plans, and other forces appear on the scene to raise the stakes even higher. It's hard to say too much without edging into spoiler territory, so if you don't know anything about the actual hijacking, I'd suggest not finding anything out beforehand to get the most from the movie, but even if you do, you won't be disappointed.
The whole cast gives a pretty flawless performance, somewhere between United 93 and Zero Dark Thirty in tone. Barkhad Abdi as the cool, dedicated and desperate pirate leader is mesmerizing, and is a sure Oscar tip. The American crew give such a polished, realistic performance that you can't help placing yourself in the situation, and wondering what you'd be doing or thinking.
The film is well paced, the two hours passing easily, with no spurious padding. It's simply a good movie - not a great one, but good.
I say not 'great', simply because while it entertains, thrills and informs (to an extent), it didn't leaved me 'moved' afterward. I'd have personally liked to have seen more of the hijackers' back stories. I've had a number of good friends from related backgrounds (not Somalia, but Nigeria, rural Zimbabwe and township South Africa), and I think their first reaction would be, 'It's good, nice to see some realism about what some people have to cope with, but we're not all hijackers you know!'.
So, to sum up: top draw movie, ace performances, a little more Africa back story might have helped.
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
Badly directed, badly acted and unpleasant to watch.
This movie was a mistake ... a mistake by the studio to give Gilliam a free hand and to have Ehren Kruger (whose normal specialties are Transformers sequels and shlock horror), and by the actors for agreeing to take part.
It is dreadfully unwatchable and tasteless. It's like one of Monty Python's medieval sketches, drawn out to what seems like three hours and with zero humour. The actors mumble through their lines with accents more in place in 'Allo 'Allo. What passes for humour includes, (person A:) "I've soiled myself", (person B:) "Oh, I thought that was me", and a cat killed by being kicked into a revolving fan, then Jonathan Pryce licking the bloody remains that have been splattered on he face.
It is an ugly, messy, tasteless piece of work, which I'm sorry I had the misfortune to sit through.
Riddick (2013)
Yawn ...
In a word, expensively dull. OK, that was two words. Diesel gets another outing as Riddick, but stripped of pretty much everything that Pitch Black did well and Chronicles did passably.
I've a strong impression that Pitch Black was a good movie by accident, rather than design. Twohy assembled a group of B-list actors and unknowns, but whom gelled well and gave the whole movies a lot of personality. The set and monster design, sub-plots and back stories gave the movie a lot of extra life (note, not directly Twohy's work), the CGI was relatively minimal ... and Diesel didn't actually say that much. Riddick was just one of a number of players. And there was humour. It worked, enjoyably.
Chronicles was an interesting attempt to build on the Riddick character and had some entertaining extended set pieces and concepts, but burned itself out towards the end of the movie. The canvas became very overworked.
So, number three ... largely Diesel grunting and groaning his way through various ugly situations, with unconvincing CGI effects, and discovering ... what? There are no sympathetic characters, no humour and no ending.
Give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, and eventually they'll come up with Hamlet. Give David Twohy an infinite number of B-actors, an infinite amount of funding and an infinite amount of time, and I maybe he'll make another entertaining movie, but this isn't it. Just dumping Diesel in the middle of a dull script and hoping the CGI will hold the whole premise up does not make a movie. Must do better.
It's watchable 'til the end, hence two stars, not one. But then so is the tumble dryer.
Star Trek Continues (2013)
Hmmmmm! Actually, rather good ...
That was a surprise! This was actually rather good. Once I got over the strange faces, this was a refreshing rehash of the original premise. A Roddenbery-style sci-fi drama as only Kirk and the crew can convey it.
The screenplay was excellent, up there with the top of some of the original Star Trek series. This 'Series 4, Episode One' took as its base the rediscovery of one of the crew's old adversaries. This can be a lazy way of story-telling, relying on one's memory of the impact of the original episode to give the new story substance. Wrath of Khan was a good fun movie, but at the end of the day the character of Khan was just lifted straight from the original Trek episode and not developed (apologies to all Trekkies whom I have just insulted). However, here, the screenwriters developed the story and character in a much more imaginative way. The moral dilemmas at the core of many original series episodes is really strongly felt in this production. It really does have the look and feel of Star Trek TOS.
The other good side is the CGI and set design. First class for a TV drama. As good as the original.
Okay, now the criticism ... some of the acting is lacking at times. Vic Mignogna as Kirk is astonishing, utterly believable. The actors playing Scottie, McCoy and Uhura are also good. Spock and the flight crew are not quite so credible, even a little cringing at times, but look at the first Star Trek episode of TOS and several of them were pretty wooden. I'm sure these guys can develop.
The lasting impression is of a gifted amateur production and a good story told. I look forward to future episodes, and hope they have not put all their good ideas into this first show. Keep it up, guys, you have a fan.
The Lone Ranger (2013)
Good fun with a sound cast
I don't know what people expect from a movie to give it such a mediocre score. This is plain good fun. My wife and I laughed a lot. Somewhere along the lines of the original Lone Ranger, but with a lot more humour, and increasingly outrageous set pieces. Some of the horse stunts later in the movie were quite ridiculous, but by that stage one just didn't worry about it too much.
Depp's Tonto is a thinly veiled Jack Sparrow, just older and grumpier, and a pleasure to watch. The Ranger himself was nicely played, and the horse deserves an Oscar.
Criticisms: (1) Too much over the top action in the opening scenes. I thought, 'oh no' at that point, and was expecting a poorly scripted and dull action flick, thankfully I was wrong, and things improved as things progressed. (2) The ending scene is a bit overworked, maybe. I felt the director should have had more faith his work and let it stand as it was. (3) So many people shot dead! OK, it's a movie, but this soured it a little for me. There's no harm in a good few 'air punches' and shot-in-the-shoulder-and-stooping-with-a-groan type of 'violence'. Why the need in modern movies to have so much casual violence? Lost a point here, otherwise 8/10. I'd have been uncomfortable taking a child to it.
Can't see a sequel, but if there is one the appeal would be to see Depp going through his paces again. Good set pieces, please, less violence, please, please, please.
Extreme Archaeology: Living on the Edge (2004)
Time Team with abseiling
This was a really excellent little series, very much in the spirit of Time Team, but instead focusing on hazardous sites which required skills more akin to mountain rescue than archaeological research.
This episode was my favourite, a special prehistoric community living at the edge of the world.
The only slight reservation I have is the hazards were rather over-played at times - it's plainly obvious that although a lot of physical effort is required, there's was no real danger in this age of health-and-safety legislation. All the archaeologists made it to the end of the series!
There was never a second series. What a shame.
Olympus Has Fallen (2013)
Avoid this sadistic 'action thriller'
It could be a reasonably competent action movie, but the periodic sheer brutality, often with a sadistic and nasty edge to it, drags it down severely. This is a great shame, as there are some impressive names in it - Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, and nice to see Rhada Mitchell (came to fame in Pitch Black).
The protagonist is played by Mike Banning, not exactly A-list, and who doesn't come over a very likable. Not Banning's fault, more that of the director with his video nasty style of direction.
The plot falls away towards the end, with increasingly hammy lines and sub plots ... I have to confess I went and did the washing up at this point, having lost all interest.
If you like watching YouTube videos of people being tortured, you may enjoy this, otherwise avoid, avoid, avoid.
Star Trek: The Cage (1966)
Good fun, well acted space drama ... if you don't mind the wooden swords and air punches
Star Trek as it might have been. All the elements are there, except for Shatner. Jeffrey Hunter is clearly a capable actor, but in this 1964 pilot (which only saw light in 1986) he frequently looks like he's trying to remember his lines or pondering which facial expression to use while delivering them. It's so sad that he lost his life just a few years later, as I suspect he'd have been reworked into later episodes, series or even movies.
Susan Oliver is stunning as 'the girl', and a little Googling showed that she was a remarkable individual in real life, overcoming a fear of flying to become a record-settling aviator, amongst other achievements.
As for 'The Cage' as a something to watch, it's enjoyable if you're a Trekkie or sci-fi fan. Not full of the effects, explosions and mandatory action sequences of modern equivalents, but still a quality production - the fight scene is a little quirky, with obviously wooden swords and air punches, but this was a more innocent era when it was not felt necessary to imitate real violence in the way that it is now - the story mattered!
Fun fact from studying IMDb data - Felix Silla (one of the aliens) is one of those actors who pops up, Forrest Gump like, in the background of various trend-setting movies or TV shows, Bonanza, The Addams Family (Cousin It), The Monkees, Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars (an Ewok), Spaceballs and Batman Returns amongst them.
2010: Moby Dick (2010)
Awful, but it made me smile, which a lot of far better movies have failed to do.
This is truly abysmal, but if you can mentally switch off to the embarrassingly terrible dialogue, acting, special effects, make up, set design, camera work and generally everything else to do with the movie, then it's not that bad.
What's good:
(1) The score. Generic action movie background music, but it works quite effectively, helping distract from the general awfulness of what's happening on screen.
(2) The basic premise of the story is good. Replace the sailing ships of the 19th century book with nuclear submarines, making Ishmael a marine biologist abducted by the submarine captain, a man obsessed with hunting down a rouge giant mutant whale, all of them being pursued by the US navy who think that the captain is the cause of all the trouble ... actualty, I'm not quite clear what the motive of the pursuing navy was, but ... actually, I'm not sure about anything else, either, but, hey, it's a movie!
(3) It made me smile, something a lot of 'better' movies have failed to do. Particularly liked the moment when a Russian survivor of a whale attack, who "only speaks Russian", immediately answers her interrogator's questions in English.
(4) The actor playing Ahab is enjoyable, treading a fine line between Gregory Peck and Commandant Lassard in his portrayal of the submarine captain. Barry Bostwick is evidently an accomplished jobbing actor from IMDb information, and I imagine he can grip a stage audience with the conviction of his delivery, but there is no pretence here. He just gives it his all and hopefully managed to pay a couple of household bills afterwards.
Expect a cross between The Hunt for Red October, Jaws VII, Police Academy and Das Boot's less funny out-takes, all performed by the local amateur dramatics theatre company 'B' team, and you won't be far wrong.
I disagree with some other reviews, this is not awful to a "I-wish- there-was-a-way-I-could-unsee-it" degree. I might even watch it again on a dull evening. Eight out of ten? I know, but I just think this movies has a quality all of its own which should be recognized.
Thirteen Days (2000)
Good TV drama with well-directed dramatic tension and some fine performances ... and Kevin Cosner
A good movie, with some excellent performances. Bruce Greenwood is utterly believable as President Kennedy and was a bit of inspired casting, and Steven Culp makes an excellent Bobby Kennedy. The latter's performance deserves special mention, I feel, as Culp is otherwise a relative unknown, someone who has a long list of walk on parts in numerous TV series from The Cosby Show to Grey's Anatomy, yet is not exactly a familiar name or face.
As a drama it is enjoyable to follow and achieves real dramatic tension during critical moments, which is a tricky act to pull off in any story when one already knows the end (if not, Google 'Cuban Missile Crisis'!)
I was not left with an impression of having watched a high end movie, it left more of an impression of a high quality TV drama-documentary. In short I liked it! It kept my attention all the way through, and I'm someone who easily loses interest if I feel the quality of a movie is becoming suspect, or it is simply boringly told.
Kevin Costner ... his performance is good, I suppose, but ... what is it about the man? Towards the end of the movie I get the feeling he's trying to steal the show. He simply a presidential adviser, but as the political tensions escalate I feel Cosner is forgetting that the movie is not about him, but about Kennedy, nucleur missiles and a key moment in world diplomatic history. He should stayed in the background and trusted the abilities of Greenwood, etc. to carry the drama to its conclusion.
Or maybe this criticism should really be directed at the writers or director. However, maybe I'm overdoing the criticism. Costner's a big name. If he'd been an unknown in his first movie I'd be praising he to the heavens.
All-in-all a movie I'd recommend to a friend as a memorable drama which will leave a good impression and even educate one a little bit.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Polished production, very watchable out of curiosity, but ultimately dull and vacuous.
Three out of ten might seem a bit mean, but it reflects my overall view after watching the movie twice. I just found it left a vacuum. The narrative tension was weak, and dependent on spaghetti western tactics of having a few gunshots or explosions every now and then to keep the audience interested. Jessica was entertainingly intense, but the rest of the ensemble gave middling, safe performances.
Bigelow directs well, but only in the sense of giving a professional, technically polished production. Where's the emotion and human involvement? It'll keep you watching and you won't be bored, but I suspect this will rapidly fade in movie-goer consciousness once the hype dies down.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Good in parts, but overblown CGI effects and lack of empathy ruins it.
It had good parts. I enjoyed Martin Freeman's performance in the earlier part of the movie, and the earlier part of the movie in general - because it did play to human interest, but this rapidly evaporated.
CGI very much took over as the movie went on, and on an overwhelming scale. It's like watch an action movie with lots of explosions - after so many one ceases to care any more. There was also a lack of reality (yes, I know it is fantasy!). If a character can harmed by a sword cut then they definitely wouldn't survive multiple falls down cliff faces and into bottomless chasms.
On many occasions the CGI just didn't look right. Gollum, when he appeared, reminded me more of a TV commercial character in the way every second was filled with a movement or facial expression. Likewise with some other characters. 10/10 for effort - this is close to as good as it gets - there is just far, far too much. The canvas is very overworked.
Lastly, too much dialog. Characters rarely stopped jabbering, and it didn't do anything for me in adding enjoyment or plot development.
Sorry, but I just didn't buy this. To balance things out, not a 'bad' movie - I'd happily watch it again, perhaps two or three times, but ultimately forgettable. My wife, incidentally, liked it, and the twelve year old neighbors daughter we took loved it!
Yôjinbô (1961)
A perfect movie ... a couple of minor spoilers, but won't affect the viewing.
To watch this, wait for an evening when there'll be no interruptions, silence the phone, turn the lights down, then sit and watch the movie from beginning to end with a hot drink in your hand. You'll later rediscover it cold, having forgotten to drink it.
The movie is ace. The story of a wandering Japanese samurai who happens upon a small town plagued by two warring clans. He makes it his personal job to craftily manipulate the two sides, getting them to destroy each other so that the town can be at peace again. Actually, his motive is unclear, as he seems to be doing this as a way of amusing himself as much as anything.
There's a lot of production back story. The lead actor, Tishiro Mufune, was profoundly affected by the part he played, and continued to play similar roles for the rest of his career. It was also a turning point for the already accomplished director, Akira Kurosawa. There's a cute little scene where the only remaining dignified samurai in the town sneaks off over a fence rather than hang around for the action, giving Mufune a cheeky grin before strolling off into the distance. This actor was one of Kurosawa's old stalwarts - the director was signaling that the old school needed to make way for the new.
Thankfully black-and-white, otherwise there would be a lot of red paint about. There is occasional chopping off of limbs and sword fights, but its down so theatrically that I don't see the movies as bloodthirsty in any way - no more than Star Wars or countless shoot-em-and-they-fall- down westerns.
The only criticism I could have is to ask whether it is solely a guy's flick? My wife finds zero interest in it. There are female characters, and some key moments are when the macho tone is suddenly broken by realization that there are families trying to live lives in the shattered community. These pieces are short though, and the movie soon returns to its main themes.
I could drawl on, but just wish to say that this is a good as it can get. Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai' is equally excellent, but at well over three hours long can try the patience of the average movie enthusiast.
Lincoln (2012)
Thoughtful drama with stunning performances - utterly believable
I really enjoyed this movie. I knew nothing about it beforehand, not even who directed it, and failed to recognize Daniel Day Lewis as the lead actor. It came across as an excellently-scripted period political drama, and left me feeling that I had seen something special.
Surprised to discover that I had watched a Spielberg movie. It didn't have what I'd describe as the usual Spielberg schmaltzy pathos and fall-back on playing emotional games with the audience.
As a biographical work I think it is good, painting a portrait of the man by focusing on his thoughts and action in a short period of time, rather than trying to tell his life story.
I don't know if the facts of Lincoln's manipulation of political events is correct, but the spirit of the film seems true to the little I know of Lincoln from his own writings.
The beginning of the movie isn't great in my opinion - too dependent on trying to immediately impress the audience I felt - and it then changes tack into complex political discussion. Don't give up to early, as it does drag at times. It all comes together later on and gives a real feel for what the characters must have experienced in real events.
Good movie. Lost a point for its uneven beginning, otherwise can't really fault it.
Argo (2012)
Formulaic and historically inaccurate
A reasonably competent movies from a technical point of view, but in other respects very misleading.
What I liked was Ben's restrained performance as the CIA field operative, and fun to see John Goodman in a straight role, but everything else was a bit lacking. Iran is an extraordinary, culturally rich and diverse country, but it is portrayed as populated entirely by thugs and fundamentalists, with the rest of the population invisible or cowering victims. I'm not being an apologist for a state with poor human rights and a dictatorial government - but it is not what is portrayed in this movie.
The basic fact that for a short period several American consulate workers were in hiding and were flown out under fake identities is true, but a lot is missed out. They first hid in the British consulate, but were moved to Canada House on British advice (as best as I can glean from various Internet sources), and the whole operation was a joint venture between at least three countries. What we get is a 'Yankwash.'
The film-makers have said that people forget that "this is a movie", and deliberate latitude and creativity is necessary for entertainment purposes to make it watchable and engaging. Okay, so if that is the case then what is left is formulaic: bad guys do something bad - maverick individual comes up with a daring plan - plan almost fails at the last minute - car chase - everyone alright now!
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the excuses. This is a lazy way of film- making. The more accurate story could have been well told - with acceptable dramatic liberties such as condensing number of characters, timescales and even adding the (actually never happened) car-chasing-a- jumbo-jet-bit as they finally flee - without having to rewrite history t a degree that becomes offensive.
So, averagely enjoyable if it was fiction and a polished production from a acting and technical point of view, but a desperately inaccurate pastiche of what really happened - a great shame as the real story would have been just as good, if not better for being real.