Change Your Image
gerbildad
Reviews
John Wick (2014)
Excellent movie....of a certain type
I have mixed feelings about this movie.
On the plus side, it was perfectly cast. The reptilian Keanu Reeves as the reptilian John Wick is spot on! The other main characters are also quite believable in their respective roles. 10/10 for characterization.
On the negative side, the action sequences (basically the whole movie) was extremely well choreographed and fun to watch. However, the way Wick kills literally dozens of attackers without being seriously injured himself strains credulity and really bugs me. 4/10 for believability.
However, I allow that this movie was not meant to be taken too seriously but to be enjoyed at face value, so I will average the two and give it a 7.
Home (2016)
Nifty little horror
It's no Insidious or The Conjuring, but this movie delivers! It starts off slow, and at first it's not clear where the movie is heading. Is it a ghost story? A possession story? Is there social commentary, and if so, is it something I'd like or not like? After the first half hour or so, amidst an atmosphere of gathering dread, things get rolling and the characters seem to be moving forward in adjusting to a difficult situation not of their choosing. Then, the story takes an abrupt turn this reviewer never saw coming!
The acting is generally good, as you might expect with veteran scream queen Heather Langenkamp on board. The lead, Kerry Knuppe, is a joy to watch. (Aaron the boyfriend, however, is somewhat underwhelming.)
Not showing Christianity in a bad light may not be everyone's cup of tea--which might explain why this movie currently has such a bad rating. If this is a requirement, don't bother. If it's not a problem, though, Home is definitely worth a look.
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1916)
An impressive product of its time
It's fun to watch an old silent movie and imagine what it must have been like for people watching it back then. In this case, we have what must have been a blockbuster of the first water (pun intended). It includes a lot--and I mean a LOT--of underwater filming, which apparently hadn't been done before. In this way, millions of people would have gotten their first look at a world they'd never seen before. For the Nautilus they used a real submarine, which compared to later depictions is pretty basic but still must have had a strong impact at the time.
The plot was a reasonably faithful version of the original book, though as usual they took a few liberties. This movie included a back story of where Nemo came from and why he chose the life he leads. As in the original book, Nemo is a Muslim from the Indian subcontinent--something many other film adaptations didn't seem to have the guts to do.
The characters of Nemo and the princess are well and sympathetically portrayed. As you'll have with the silent medium, personality and feelings can be efficiently portrayed with a mere expression or gesture. The princess in particular is established as a charming and lovable character, the kind you could fall in love with and want to take care of the rest of your life. When one of the castaways tries to force himself on her, we find ourselves hating the loathsome blackguard and cheering when he gets his just deserts.
So in general, when viewed through contemporary eyes we have a cracking good story with good character development, along with some revolutionary effects in the underwater photography. A masterpiece! But when seen through modern eyes...oh, dear. Inevitably, there are facets of the film that have not aged at all well. The interminable underwater scenes, though they must have been mind-blowing at the time, slow the pace badly, and compared to what we see every day on TV and the Internet the images are very blurry and indistinct. And, although they portrayed Nemo and the princess as Indian Muslims, they clearly used Western actors in black-face, which tends to wrinkle noses these days.
And Nemo's costume! His coat of indeterminate colour with its white boarder, along with his obviously fake white beard, makes him look like Santa Claus in black-face. Surely they could have done better, even at the time? There are a few silent movies that have stood the test of time and can be appreciated by modern audiences--The Battleship Potempkin comes to mind--but this is not one of them. I would not, for example, try to show it to small children as they would be bored out of their skulls. Still, if you're one of those lucky people who is able to project themselves into the past and see an old movie through the eyes of the time, it's well worth a look.
I really wanted to give this movie two ratings: a 10 for what it achieved at the time, and, say, a 3 for it's overall objective quality, but they don't let you. So, I gave it a 9, which is honest.
The Hippopotamus (2017)
Archetypical Lukewarm English Comedy
Seeing as Stephen Fry with his gentility and wit is my favourite atheist (though he does have his moments), I had high hopes for this movie.
What a disappointment. It proved to be a typical example of a type of English film full of unlikable stock-standard characters (the grumpy old curmudgeon, the ditsy blonde, the brash, rude American, the goofy, horny adolescent, the ineffectual older brother, and of course the requisite gay man). Combine that with a lustreless script sprinkled with the usual assortment of unpleasant details (I'll spare you the spoilers) and almost devoid of laughs, and you've got a waste of two hours.
I gave it a generous 2 because the acting was good.
Somebody must like movies like this because they keep making them, but if that's not your cup of tea spare yourself the anguish.
Spectral (2016)
Not my kind of movie
This movie was a disappointment. Given its high ratings I was expecting a lot. And indeed, the action shots and CGI (and the basic premise) were quite good. Where it falls down for me is its implausibility. If you know anything about thermodynamics and physics, the story does not ring true.
Curiously, it reminds me of Independence Day. If you stop thinking so much and just sit back and enjoy the ride, it's a great movie. However, unlike ID4, it lacked likable characters and a sense of fun.
Other reviewers have compared it to a video game, and in this genre it would work quite well. You're never going to confuse a video game with reality. However, for a movie, even a sci-fi/horror/action/war movie, one expects a bit more plausibility.
Chronicle (2012)
The moral of the story: DO NOT give a troubled teen superpowers!
Every now and then, a movie comes along with unknown actors and a low budget, but then turns out to be far better than you'd ever believe. This is such a movie. The acting is first rate, the plot intriguing, and the characters develop well as the plot unfolds. There are even some mind-blowing special effects that are quite well done.
It's about three teenagers who discover they have developed superpowers. The three have distinct personalities, and handle their new abilities in different ways. The story moves from teenage awkwardness to wonder, then spirals tragically out of control, with some spectacular CGI along the way.
The acting by the three leads is very natural and convincing. Andrew's father on the other hand was truly monstrous; so bad some may find it strains credulity. Unfortunately though, there are real people like that out there; if you find the father's character unbelievable just thank your lucky stars.
I'll give this movie 9/10 because it exceeded expectations so spectacularly. So...why is this movie not more well known?
Calvaire (2004)
Pastiche
I'm of two minds about this movie. No, three.
One: I don't like claustrophobic horror movies where things just get worse and worse. 3/10 for taste.
Two: This was a well-crafted movie that, refreshingly, relied on characterization rather than special effects. The lack of music added to the feeling of claustrophobia. 8/10.
Three: It was a delightful pastiche of many other movies, including Misery, Deliverance, Straw Dogs, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Un Soir, Un Train, etc. I'm sure reviewers more familiar with European movies than I could name quite a few more. 10/10 for erudition.
Avg: 7/10.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Yes, apparently you either love it or you hate it
Well, I saw Apocalypse Now Redux for the first time a day or two ago on DVD. I know we're all supposed to be impressed with the acting and the legendary filming troubles and the (apparent) anti-war message. Granted, there are flashes of brilliance, such as the juxtaposition of the water buffalo sacrifice (which was apparently real) with the killing of the colonel in a similar manner, and the trip up the river moving back through time (as it were), through French Colonialism, then the Stone Age with the arrows and spears, to something so primeval it defies comprehension.
However, I fell asleep twice while attempting to get all the way through it. I finally got there, but to me a movie that puts me to sleep twice before I get to the end once can't be all that great.
The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2004)
Wrong title?
Other reviewers have said most of what I have to say about the movie. Peter Sellers was a complex subject that could never be covered adequately in two hours. However, Geoffrey Rush does an outstanding job of what must have been a truly daunting task in representing that weird man.
In a sense, how you view Sellers depends one how much responsibility for his actions you are willing to lay on him. The film takes a fairly neutral stance, glossing very lightly indeed over the many extremely unsavory deeds he perpetrated, treating him instead as an odd and enigmatic character. I'm not really sure he deserved such sympathy, but there you are.
Rush, as I've mentioned, is simply brilliant. In fact, the quality of his acting is what makes this film worth seeing. Particularly interesting are the scenes where he plays Sellers playing other people (his Dad, his Mum, Stanley Kubrick, Blake Edwards, etc). Fascinating, but...what's it mean? One interpretation is that--as he claimed himself many times--he had no personality of his own, and merely adopted other people's, both on screen and off. Ingenious, but the things Sellers in the movie says as other people show a different perspective from his own--something he himself apparently could not comprehend. One is left with the feeling that it was simply a stunt.
Another facet of note is the fact that the movie is clearly anti-Goon: Spike Milligan and Harry Secombe are portrayed as fluttery nincompoops, and the Goon Show as a string of stupid, puerile jokes. (For those of you who've never heard of it, it was a wild and completely revolutionary BBC radio show in the 1950's that changed British comedy from polite, corny music hall jokes to Monte Python-style surrealism, and rocking the establishment. They were the Eminem of their day.) It was one of Sellers' most famous jobs, and many people feel it's his best work. While it's true that at one point he wanted to distance himself from radio work to break into movies, he owed a tremendous debt to Milligan & Co. for shaping his style, enabling him to play Clouseau and many other characters with such zest. In fact, the Goons remained as close friends as he had until the end of his days (one of the many facets of his life the movie leaves out). Given that the Goon Show is one of those things that you either love or you hate, one gets the impression that the people who made the movie simply didn't like the Goons.
The Roger Lewis biography, "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers", is basically a damning indictment of Sellers (and is also pro-Goon). The Ed Sikov book, "Mr. Strangelove", is considerably more sympathetic (as well as being anti-Goon). Given the tone of the movie, perhaps "Mr Strangelove" would have been a better title.