Change Your Image
harry-austin
Reviews
Born of Hope (2009)
Made a plot out of nothing.
I was not expecting anything spectacular. How can you when it is only a fan-made independent film? But 'The Hunt for Gollum' was a lot better. Unlike the latter, 'Born of Hope' has an abysmally poor plot. While yes, the plot is at least in existence it does not really go anywhere, so you are not particularly interested in what is going to happen.
The acting was alright, even if it was hard to believe. The narrator was awful though. She ruined it for me.
The effects were good enough, and the costumes and the setting was commendable considering that the film was done on a shoe-string budget.
This is worth a watch, only if you're a fan of The Lord of the Rings. If not, you won't really enjoy it. Having said that, I am a fan and I was bored by it.
Inception (2010)
Worst Film of 2010
This film should have been awarded a Razzie for having the worst plot, that is if such an award exists. The plot was immensely difficult to follow. I remember reading one of a free cinema magazines while watching it at the cinema. The plot is in a dream, that is in another dream that is in a dream while he is dreaming, or something along those lines. For the first half an hour or so I was engaged with the film's plot. Who wouldn't be interested in the idea that Nolan was playing with? But he took his ideas too far in the case of 'Inception.' The whole thing just became ridiculous.
The bizarre plot had an effect on the other aspects of the film. The otherwise brilliant action scenes became surprisingly dull. As I often had little idea of what was going on, to me the action scenes just seemed pointless as I did not know what the characters motives were.Despite this, the action scenes and the cinematography did offer a real spectacle.
Again, one of the positives was that the acting was, admittedly of a good quality. DiCaprio, Page, Caine and Postlewaite all had good performances. But is was such a shame that I was not able to follow the development of the characters because of the plot.
Overall, if you enjoy a mind-boggling plot then 'Inception' will be for you. If you want a film that you will enjoy from start to finish without having to get into it, 'Inception' will not be for you.
The Hangover (2009)
Over hyped and over rated.
After the reaction that this film created I thought that it was about time I watched it - two years after its release. The name of the film made me believe the humour would be entirely predictable and probably a bit too crude. I was expecting to see the best comedy of the past decade because of people's amazement when I could say 'I have never seen "The Hangover' and I can now say that I don't regret my rather late viewing of the film.
I was disappointed by the film's humour, there were too few 'laugh out loud' moments and I thought that because of this the film just seemed to drag on and on. I would not call it boring, but I would certainly call it mediocre.
The acting was of a fairly decent quality, Bradley Cooper seems to have come out of nowhere, although I seem to be the only person who remembers him from "Wedding Crashers". I have never particularly liked him as an actor, partially because of his arrogant presence on the screen, and this, for me, it a problem in the film. I found the other two of the main characters to be fairly sound, and seeing Heather Graham was a breath of fresh air. It was nice to see her in a major(ish) film, her first since "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me" over ten years ago.
While the above is for the most part fairly negative, it was still a film that you could watch from start to finish while not feeling bored at its end. My particular part was a certain cameo appearance which was probably the highlight of the film, as this made the fairly crude humour to be more ridiculous and entertaining, which was definitely needed.
All in all, "The Hangover" is worth a watch, but don't expect to see the best comedy of your life, because realistically it is not better than most of the other comedies coming out at the moment.
Barry Lyndon (1975)
A Hidden Gem from Kubrick
It is a shame that Kubrick is only remembered for Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange and the Shining to name a few. While more 'die hard' film fans will be more aware of his other films, Barry Lyndon is a fantastic film.
From what I know, it is relatively historically accurate. I am not going to be pedantic and study every last detail and then announce 'wait a minute, in the 18th Century a soldier would not have been awarded that medal' because that is not the point. The basics are right, and that is all that is needed. The way in which the armies march forward in lines is entirely correct, and how while individual men are shot down, the rest stay in perfect formation. The battle scenes are certainly a highlight. Purely because of the vivid costumes and the scale, Kubrick really makes a spectacle.
The decadence of the society that Lyndon has been able to become a part of is also really emphasised the the costumes, the film won various awards for the quality of the costumes in 1975. The elaborate dresses worn by the women to the tail coats of the men are all so finely detailed, there is always something to be in awe of.
The acting is also as good as the costumes. Michael Hordern is flawless in his role as the narrator. Which is a good thing too - considering that the film is well over three hours in length! Horderns clear, yet powerful voice keeps you on the ball with the plot if you struggle with films that are any longer than two hours. Ryan O'Neal, despite being American does not struggle to put on the rugged Irish accent of Barry Lyndon, making the film even more believable.
This is truly a marvellous historical drama. Don't expect battle scenes that are comparable to the scenes in Zulu, but watching a film from this period was a breath of fresh air considering that nearly all war films in the seventies and eighties were based on Vietnam!
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Childish and Predictable
'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.' In the past five or so years a string of films have been created that have been inspired by the growing popularity of graphic novels. 'Watchmen', 'Sin City' and 'Kick-Ass' to name a few successful ones, but for me 'Scott Pilgrim' has to be one of the most irritating pieces of cinema I have ever watched.
First of all, the film has tried far too hard to appear to literally be like watching a comic scroll across the screen. The screen is often cut in sections to show windows of animation, while the use of onomatopoeia as a part of this wears thin. It is a nice idea, and can make things a lot more light-hearted, as it was effectively used throughout the 'Batman and Robin' series with Adam West. But in 'Scott Pilgrim' it is used probably at least once a minute. This is a film! Not a comic, or a television show. One of the main parts of watching a film is also to enjoy the sound effects throughout, we do not need it to be spelled out constantly for us!
And now to what I found to be the most awful part of the film. Michael Cera. His voice is listening to a cat that is being run over a a steam roller. A horrible whiny moan, it really drills into your skull as the film progresses. I always thought that there was a fairly wide selection of young actors at the moment - so why choose the worst?
Admittedly, the film has probably a couple of laugh out loud moments, but not many. Too few for a comedy. Perhaps I have mistaken the viewing age, and maybe it has been aimed at younger teens, or maybe the new 'tween' generation who seem to have some bizarre love for skinny boys with odd haircuts. And maybe that is why this film has become popular, despite it not being especially viewable.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Immensely Disappointing.
The last time that the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchise was looked at was in the awful film 'Freddy vs Jason' that was released nearly ten years ago. Now, unfortunately for the world's cinema goers, they are about to be tormented by would could potentially be 4 or even 5 successive abysmal films.
This re make cannot be compared in any way shape or form to the original 1984 Wes Craven classic. The main reason for this first and foremost is that this film lacks the devilishly good talents of Robert Englund, who acted the original Freddy Kruger. The actor who acted Kruger in the 2010 version was mockable. Not only did he not bring the character to life, but personally I don't think he was really up to the acting the role at all. Despite this, the make-up and cosmetics did not help Jackie Earle Haley (the actor of Kruger in the 2010). Rather than looking like a severely burnt man, he resembled some sort of bizarre cross between a man and an amphibian.
Aside from Kruger, the actors and actresses of Nancy and her friends were biting off more than they could chew. The acting was mediocre at best. Some scenes lacked so much effort from the cast, I felt like falling asleep myself, and killing Kruger myself, thus ending the one and a half hours of boredom.
And finally. What really lets this film down as a whole is how it has attempted to fit in with the other horrors of today's modern cinema. While Craven's original was darkly witty, and made the viewer laugh out in places, you could only help but cringe at this re-make. Not only did it follow the original plot, but it mirrored so many other awful films of today, one including the equally terrible re-make of 'Friday the 13th.'
Come on Hollywood, leave our classics alone and come up with something new!
Road House (1989)
I thought you'd be bigger!
I think that I will remember Patrick Swayze for 'Road House' not for 'Dirty Dancing.' It is one of the best examples of a typical eighties film. The women are ALL attractive, everyone has either facial hair, 'in your face' hair styles, or mullets, a few people get shot, and the odd few get beaten up in immensely comical ways. 'A polar bear fell on me.' Brilliant.
Is the acting good? Well the plot is hardly believable, so many are critically injured, killed and whole buildings are wreaked. Yet when the authorities come in everyone says that 'I did not see nothing.' But thanks to the plot with its overly exaggerated scenes, it is one of the most watchable films I have ever watched. Once the fight scenes start, there is probably only a break of five to ten minutes between each fight scene.
But for me, Swayze makes the movie. How many people did he take out with one kick? His kicking power even lead to the film being spoofed in 'Family Guy'. Which is even better. More and more people will be watching this over and over.
If anyone tells you that they don't like 'Road House' kick them in the face and then rip their throat out!!
Predators (2010)
The only different aspect of this film to the first one is the 'S' added to the end of the title.
Predator (1987) a group of elite American Soldiers are hunted down gradually in the heart of the rain forest. Predators (not the 'S' which is the only definable difference) is again, a group of 'elite killers' who are hunted down by a group of 'Predators' rather than just the one. That is the only difference of any significance.
What really made me give this review only 5 stars is that why did they choose Adrian Brody for the leading role? Yes, he is a talented actor, and off the top of my head he is an Academy Award winner, but lets look at his previous two major roles. A Jewish pianist on the run in Nazi Germany, and then a playwright in King Kong. What made the creators of 'Predators' believe that he would be suitable for the role? He is hardly a Schwarzenegger for the 2000s. What happened to all of the supposed 'action actors' in Hollywood? Did they all run away?
The setting, is obviously different, as it is on another planet. However in essence, the scenery looks identical to that in the first film. I found this a bit irritating, as I instantly thought that the plot would definitely be identical.
The plot was, lets face it, the same as the original. I heard many lines that matched what Schwarzenegger had said in the first film 'Kill me! Do it now!' was very recognisable. They all slowly died, and even the way that Brody killed the final Predator was the same. He was covered in mud running around flames and various traps and other obstacles.
It would have been nice to see some more radical differences. At least in the second film, with Danny Glover, it was set in Los Angeles, which made it a very different film as a result. Therefore, because of the unusual choices in the cast and the lack of originality in the plot, I am only giving this film five stars. Needless to say however, it was still an enjoyable view, even if it was a predictable plot.
The Wicker Man (1973)
True cult classic.
This should be ranked within the top ten films of the 1970s, and it is a great shame that it is not widely known as a film. I am amazed that it has not been broadcast on the BBC, and if it was re-released at the cinema, people would flock to watch it.
I originally wanted to watch this film purely because Christopher Lee stared in it as the eerily charming Lord Summerilse. After seeing him in his more recent films, I wanted to watch his earlier films that brought him to the forefront of the acting world. After watching 'The Wicker Man', I felt that it has certainly exceeded my expectations.
I think that this has been said before in other reviews, but I found the film to be very believable. The way in which the Summerisle Community starts off to appear so innocently and then seeing it at the end in such a barbaric way really creates a chilling contrast. When I hear of May Day now, I won't be thinking off children running round a pole covered in ribbons. But instead an almost possessed, nude Brit Ekland and the chilling howls of Edward Woodwar being burned alive! This is probably the first film I have ever watched that has genuinely horrified me without using any graphic violence.
If you want to watch a film that makes you really think, rather than being slouched on a sofa being brain dead, watch 'The Wicker Man' and by the end, you will be on the floor trembling!
Skins (2007)
Good to bad to ugly.
'Skins' spanned over 4 series. And I would like to point out that series one is definitely worth a watch. In my view, series one is an English version of the first American Pie film made into a television series; it was very light hearted and generally quite amusing. All of the characters were likable, despite the fact that the whole thing was not very believable. I think the first series deserves an eight out of ten.
The second series however was not as good. While the same characters and actors remained, the writers attempted to add more depth to the series, so that it would be more interesting, they arguably tried to make the series darker. And what a bad decision! The series lost most of its original charm, and it made me cringe in places. But it still deserves a six out of ten.
The third series however in my view was a complete disaster! The original cast was scrapped, and replaced with some rather dull individuals indeed. It appears that they were chosen on looks over their actual acting skills. Plus, the writers continued to attempt to give the series more depth and meaning. Purely for its comic value (at how the plot is so bad) this series deserves a three out of ten, and not just a one! Now for the fourth series. Really? This was just absolutely awful. I thought that the third series was bad enough, but the previous cast of the third series remained, and the writers stuck to their guns, and continued to make 'Skins' look more and more 'meaningful' and 'deep'. This really was the rotten cherry on the mouldy cake indeed! My rating for this series is a one out of ten.
But can there really be more to dislike about the last two series? Yes. The characters are really extreme stereotypes, the 'hard man' with no direction in life, the geek, the pretty but unpredictable girl, and the middle man. But while at least 'Skins' shows their personalities, their personalities and appearances are so extreme, it is not at all believable, considering the writers want to relate to the viewers. Therefore, it makes it very hard to like the characters, and to feel any empathy for them.
In conclusion, 'Skins' is just another thing created by Channel 4 to relate to 'today's youth.' I am 16 (a similar age to the characters) and I cannot relate to anyone in 'Skins' and I don't know anyone who can truly say 'I have been through that'.
My rating for 'Skins' as a program (including all series) is a 3.5 out of ten.
Tormented (2009)
Bit average, poor climax.
The actors and actresses were all solid. Yes, there are better ones out there but for a 'teen flick' there were not bad at all, but the way that the film was 'carried out' ruined it for me.
I am English, and when I saw that this was set in Britain in a British school I was expecting the norm for the typical English School. However, the script and costumes have been orientated too much around previous American films, for example how the popular girls have shorter skirts than the unpopular girls. Now, call me old fashioned, but at a school with a school uniform, everyone wears the same thing, who would some girls have skirts down to their knees, while some have them barely covering their arse? And the boys were made to look too much like 'American football jocks' which for me killed the potential charm of this film being British.
The film does have its moments though, some of the violence is not that bad for a small film, and it is even eerie in places, for example when the ghost of the dead victim watches the two lovers have sex, while the couple continue without knowing was one of the best scenes.
In conclusion, it is probably worth a watch, but you are not missing very much if you don't see it.
Black Water (2007)
Not bad at all for a low budget film.
First of all, I would like to point out that I find all thrillers and horror films hilarious, even if they are meant to be serious.
Anyway, now onto the film (I am watching it while typing this, but I have seen it before). Unlike other thrillers and horrors, in this film there are only really three characters; as the tour guide is killed very early on. While the three are trapped up a tree, the film takes advantage of this in allowing the audience to see the characters fully develop, as well as allowing the audience to decide who they like the most, personally 'the blond girl' became quite annoying in my view! But what really makes this film, in my eyes, truly good is first of all the music. Its low tones and tempo really convey the mood perfectly, while having a distinctive Aussie tone to them. The 'creepiest' part of the film for me (even though I laughed) is the night scene, while the two girls hear the crocodile eating one of his victims who they saw being taken from them earlier in the film. This may sound like a stupid scene, but the sound effects really do sound real! The only reason I have only given this film six stars is because of the fact that I still laugh, and as of yet, I have not found a horror or a thriller that I have taken seriously, however this may be because my sense of humour is awful.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Action scenes are good, and that is just about it...
Everyone likes action in a film, in fact, many people dislike films with no action. Therefore, Iron Man 2 takes full advantage of how much people like action in films (as Transformers 2 did). But, if I am honest, the action was the only good part of the film.
For a start, if anything there is too little action, it is almost as if, the film makers were in a rush to get through them, the final action scene for example, did let the film down a bit. Mickey Rourke (who potentially could have been excellent) was not taken to full advantage in the film, in the final scene, he is killed in a matter of seconds, the fight was almost effortless.
And this 'effortless' fighting seems to continue throughout the film, the viewer never gets the impression that Iron Man can die, and when he was closest (the power source thing in his chest that was slowly killing him)to death, he quickly finds a solution preventing it.
And so, the highlights of the film were the action scenes (even though they were limited), the scenes with Mickey Rourke and the scenes with Scarlet Johansson (come on, we all know why she was given a role).
And so, the film was quite disappointing, however, it did have its moments, it is worth a watch.
American Pie Presents: The Book of Love (2009)
Abysmal in every single way, not remotely funny, the actors and actresses cannot act and the plot just stupid.
Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible.
I have never seen such crap, the humour is so blunt, it is not even funny, yes, crude humour can be enjoyable, but this film is just awful, I did not really finish watching it, it was that bad.
The film was really, one long soft pornography film, as the acting was probably as good as something from a pornographic movie, and all of the actors/actresses had the typical 'bimbo' look to match.
Really? Yes, this is, once again, the greed of Hollywood, saving money by releasing films directly to DVD, just to scrap a bit of cash off the already, well, I was going to say series, but really, it has become one long skid mark in the bowl of a public toilet.
Jaws: The Revenge (1987)
The pioneer in cheesy films.
So, sharks can know recognise people as individuals? I always thought shark attacks were because people in general look like seals to sharks, but it looks like sharks are willing to swim hundreds of miles for one family...
Yes, Michael Caine is a good actor, but even that did not make the film any better. For example, in one part, a man falls out of the boat, and into the sharks mouth. Then he floats to the surface, alive and swimming, five minutes later, would that really happen? Maybe the makers of the film forgot the rubber shark was supposed to be real so they showed it as if it was as harmless and stupid as a rubber shark.
If I am honest, it was surprising that the shark did not simply grow legs, learn to talk, and grow hands so that it could walk on shore, break into the Brody household and eat everyone, because the film was that stupid, it would of fitted in with the rest of the film.
However, despite all of my negative views in this, it is one of the best films I have ever seen in terms of comic value. Yes, it was supposed to be a horror or an action film, but the ridiculous plot and abysmal special effects make this film hilarious, so if you really want to watch it, take no notice of the plot or acting, and just laugh.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Not your typical war movie.
If you are looking for a film with a huge, muscular topless guy with a chain gun mowing down hundreds of men, then this movie is not for you, I would recommend that you watch Rambo instead.
Anyway, the only other war films that I have seen that I would believe relate to 'Apocalypse Now' would be 'Full Metal Jacket' (1987) and 'Platoon' (1986).
Firstly, what struck me about this film is the lack of the typical exaggerated, ultra-violent battle scenes which have become the norm for many war films. Instead, to capture the viewer, the mental effects of the war are highlighted by showing how the war in Vietnam has mentally broken and damaged the soldiers, and we can see how they almost deteriorate during the progression of the film, the two scenes that especially capture that are the first five or ten minutes were we can see Martin Sheen, pacing around his room in Saigon, and the scene where Colonel Kurtz speaks of the mutilation of Vietnamese children. This film is truly chilling and allows you to see the Vietnam War from a more realistic, dark perspective. This film is certainly worth a watch, but if your idea of a war film is two hours of violence, you may not appreciate 'Apocalypse Now'and what it aims to get across to you, the viewer.
Hannibal Rising (2007)
Anthony Hopkins, you will always be the best.
This site is becoming more and more common nowadays. Just for money, with little regard for acting or plot, Hollywood will sadly continue to make countless prequels and sequels to classic and cult films, it is not a new thing, and it will never stop, as long as someone gets extra money, it will always happen.
'Hannibal Rising' is a perfect example of this. The plot was a bit random, and there was little structure, the young Hannibal runs across Communist run Eastern Europe (how was he not caught by the Soviets, I don't know), and then he gets into a Medical school, with little education as far as we can see behind him. There are so many flaws in the plot, it is the equivalent of driving on a road full of potholes.
The film is just another below average horror/thriller. And I saw this because of the over use of violent scenes, and how the acts of violence where carried out (a Catana sword?). If you compare this to 'The Silence of the Lambs' (1991) there was really not that much violence, if you compare it to 'Hannibal Rising' and the acting in 'The Silence of the Lambs' is of the highest quality.
if you are a fan of the many 'Hannibal Lector films' by all means watch it, but it is a shame to see what could of been a decent film wrecked by poor acting, a poor plot, and and over use of violent scenes.
Snakehead Terror (2004)
Its a Friday night at a friends house, nothing is on TV......
You've all been there, you are with a couple of friends, and you have flicked through the channels and the DVD collection. and you have found nothing. But wait....what is this channel that you never knew existed, or that gap between the sofa and the wall? That is where you will find this shockingly terrible piece of cinema, it is not even worthy of the bargain bin! So anyway, you have nothing better to do, so you turn on the DVD player, or select that channel that you have never heard of. You open a couple of cans of drink, rip open a bag of crisps (or potato chips) and be prepared to roar with laughter at this pathetic excuse of a film. It is an insult to the 'horror' genre.
In a nutshell, we have a very simple, crude plot. Some teens, including the attractive teenage girls in tight clothes are at a lake in the middle of a forest. A local has been caught disposing of toxic waste into the lake, causing the once small or 'pesky' snake head fish to grow to unreal sizes (one is the size of a bus, this made be cry with laughter). And so, these overgrown, carnivorous fish have strong pectoral fins, enabling them to move on land by using them as limbs. They eat and kill countless people, but as the effects are so bad, all of the scenes involving this a mockable. And of course, the teenagers seek aid in the form of a shotgun, as always.
If you are a traditional film lover, who wants to see a horror film on a league with Hitchcock's or Craven's films, please don't expect much. If you are a 15 year old boy who loves cheesy gore, and you have equally odd friends you will adore this film.
Albino Farm (2009)
Please, don't waste your time watching this.
I have seen a fair few films, while many I have enjoyed I have also seen many terrible ones, most of these being horror films of an extremely poor quality. This film, 'Albino Farm' however is probably the worst I have ever seen.
To start of with, you know when a horror film is terrible when you find the supposed 'scary' or 'gory' scenes humorous, unless the film is designed to be of this sort of entertainment, a 'parody' style film (Shaun of the Dead, one that most a familiar with). This however, was meant to be 'edge of your seats terror' yet to me all it appeared to me was not even that.
In a nutshell, the plot goes along something like this:
1) Some jocks and some attractive girls get lost.
2) An unusual elderly man attempts to scare them.
3) Night falls, they happen to be in a forest, and things begin to 'gobump in the night'.
4) Deformed Texans attack them.
I have just saved you watching around two hours of one of the most poorly made pieces of cinema ever made. If you want to see a good horror film/thriller I suggest you watch 'Silence of the Lambs'(1991), 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'(1984), 'The Birds' (1963) and 'Scream' (1996).
When the Wind Blows (1986)
Comparable to other great war films.
Raymond Briggs, or as you and I would know him 'that guy who made that Christmas movie The Snowman'. Who would have thought that someone who directed such a soft, child friendly heart warming Christams film could direct something as dark, real and as terrifying as this. While, yes it is only a PG, this does not stop it from being just as sinister and tragic as any 15 or 18 war film.
The reason I say this is because it pushes all the right buttons, the worst scenes in all films are the ones when the innocent are always wrongly harmed, except the only characters in this film are the most innocent, naive couple possible. Unlike many other war films, this does not convey battle fronts, but civilians back at home, living an innocent life, naive to what happens outside their quiet lives.
What makes this film 'punch you in the chest' is how it starts off as a light hearted, comic scene of the couple generally doing what other elderly couples do, reading the newspaper speaking of 'back in the day...' and so on. However, as soon as the announcement of the oncoming nuclear missile, the jolly story line plunges into misery, anxiety and eventually the last scene, which is followed up by the unseen scene of the couples death from the radiation poisoning caused by the fallout.
A deeply moving, yet deceptive film, it will leave you with your heart sinking into your chest.
Cat People (1982)
This was not a dull film, the plot was just very odd and seemed far too unreal.
The main reason I watched this film was due to the fact that Malcolm Mcdowell has a leading role, and as I have recently seen A Clockwork Orange (1971) by far his best film, I hoped to see something that might also be good. While I did not find the film at all slow moving, I just thought that the plot was a bit odd, and the whole idea of people turning into Cat's was juts far too surreal for my liking. As you may know, this film was based on a version from 1942. At this time films of a horror genre were very popular and ideas of Frankenstein, Mummies and mutant like beings intrigued people, so this was probably why the idea of 'Cat People' was chosen. However, by the time this version was released in 1982, the idea was a bit old, and it was nothing particularly groundbreaking nor spectacular. While as far as I could see, the acting was hardly weak, yet I did not really get 'sucked in' as it where to the film's plot, as a good film should, simply because I thought the whole idea seemed like the sort of stuff you might see in comic books or cartoons. If the 'cat people' where some sort of violent religious cult, then perhaps it may of been more believable. As well as this, the amount of nudity surprised me, whether the director wanted to somehow relate cats and their jumpy, frisky nature to sex may perhaps be the reason but I do think that the film uses sex as one of it's bases. And so, while the film is an interesting watch, it is by no means a film of any significance. If you did enjoy this film however, try watching 'An American Werewolf in London' or 'Conan the Barbarian' (why I suggest this film, I do not know, i think because it shares an equally unusual plot along with some bizarre characters).
Judge Dredd (1995)
Perhaps a B Grade Movie, but still worth a watch.
If you like Stallone, then this is definitely worth a watch. He is typical action hero in this film, with everything you would expect, from the gun that seems to be able to destroy anything, to the fairly cheesy monster-man that attempts to kill the hero. While the film is by no means something that will win any Oscars, it is still surprisingly entertaining. The plot is quite typical of an action/sci-fi movie, a respected hero loses his title due to an envious villain, then he has to regain it by a great deal of pointless killing. However, it is this that allows you to like this film, yes the plot is very cliché, and it is not a cult/classic but if you are either a geeky teenager who thinks plastic body armour and ray guns are awesome, or if you just like watching violent action scenes then this film is perfect.
Psycho (1960)
The first and best 'slasher suspense' film ever created.
I watched this fairly recently, it stood out to me, for I already appreciated that this is THE HORROR film, the one that comes to mind (shower scene with high pitched music). But for me, what is so marvellous about this film, is that it has not been ruined by adding pointless sex scenes or having countless 'stereotypical blonds' being slaughtered by the thousand, for that is all one will typically see in the slasher movies of the past 20 years. It gave me some relief to see a film that was pure genius in terms of acting, directing (Hitchcock, the best) and how the camera is shot from what was originally seen as and still is seen as rather unusual angles. Instead of the naked blonde teen being killed by the lakeside in the height of summer or in bed with her lover straight into the film, Psycho has some background to it. Lila Crane (Vera Miles)is on the run after stealing a large sum of money, and we see her for the fist 10 or 15 minutes of the film driving anxiously out of the city with the constant fear of being caught or tracked down. She then stops of for a rest at the Bates Motel, and from there the story slowly unfolds at a rate that is not so fast the film just gets far to unreal, but at a rate that allows you to get a good idea of the persona's of the characters, especially Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and it gives you time to wonder, why does him mother sit by the window for such long periods of time without moving an inch? I will leave that for you to find out.
Marnie (1964)
Was not sure what to expect, but Hitchcock does not disappoint!
I watched this fairly recently, as I have told to myself that I will watch all of Hitchcock's movies. So far I have watched Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963) and most recently Marnie (1964).
As I have said in my summary, I was not that sure what to expect, considering all of the Hitchcock movies I had only previously see where more horror movies. However, like The Birds the main role was played very well by Tippi Hedren, of whom debuted her acting career in The Birds. In Marnie, she captures perfectly the persona, of whom is a fairly misunderstood, complex character of whom has a murky, blurred history of which is not discovered until the end of the film with help from Mark Rutland (Sean Connery).
Like many other Hitcock movies, Marnie's genre in my eyes is not easy to identify. It is perhaps a mix of drama with a hint of black comedy to lighten the film, this was done to maybe make the movie easier to watch. While the movie is not the typical 'happy ending' it does offer the viewer an answer to the question that the plot is based around, why is Marnie afraid of storms, the colour red, and the nightmare of which we see her have during various parts of the film.
Marnie is certainly worth watching, and you can sample some fine acting from Hedren and Connery.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
A Cult Film Masterpiece
Kubrick has been renowned for movies that have been viewed as highly controversial, the most notorious being A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Lolita (1962). What makes the movie appear so controversial to watch is how the worst crimes committed by Alex and his gang or 'drogues' as he calls them are conveyed. For example, while Alex and his masked companions break and entry into a couples home, the cripple the husband by kicking him in the Dr Martens boots(a fashion icon from this time)while then moving on to cutting the wife's jumpsuit off with scissors while Alex happily sings 'I'm Singing in the Rain'. He then rapes her of which we o not see. As well as this, the movies most energetic fight scene is done in an almost elegant style, via the use of classical music, of which is used for Alex's love of Beethoven.
A Clockwork Orange vividly captures violence, rape, and sex in an almost disturbing way yet you still remain glued to the screen, it was groundbreaking because of the taboos broken and how far you can go in term so what is simply suitable to be shown in cinema.
An absolute masterpiece.