Trelloskilos Reviews

Red Riding Hood (2011)

Grandma. What big teeth you have - All the better to gobble this turkey with, my dear!!

[3/10 · 27 April 2011]

Many people know that the most common children's' tales, especially those from the likes of the brothers Grimm, started out as scary, violent, and unpleasant, but have evolved over time, being toned down with each generation, until they are just a shadow of what they used to be, no teeth, no claws, just innocent & sugary sweet stories with little heart and too much nostalgia.

Considering this, you'd have thought writing a good script for any movie based on a fairytale would be a piece of cake. Just do a bit of historical research, find an old version of the tale, flesh it out, and hey presto! Great storyline!

Red Riding Hood shows us how not to do it! For a start, they stripped the story down to the raw ingredients: (Pretty girl with a red cloak, a wolf, a grandmother, a forest), stuck in a whole load of other characters that serve little purpose to the storyline, added a love triangle and a baddie, then suddenly remembered that this was supposed to be a horror film, so they made the wolf into a WEREwolf.

OK, so it's difficult to spin the tale out to a 100 minute long storyline, but it would have been more entertaining to have just seen Valerie walk in the woods for 80 minutes, and the remaining 20 minutes to be filled with the encounter etc. - All things considered, because the cinematography was absolutely beautiful, this would have been a vast improvement on this film!

Trying to follow the story, the love triangles, the family trysts and deceptions, the "Who desired who, and who has an unrequieted love for..." was more akin to a really bad soap opera than a Gothic horror. This comparison is all the easier considering some of the trite lines and deadpan expressions from some of the actors.

A few moments made this film more bearable for me. It was very stylishly shot, and Gary Oldman's presence made the movie slightly more entertaining, but not enough to rescue this movie.

Unfortunately, it is one for the Twilight generation - a bunch of very pretty boy & girl actors who affect unfocused glassy-eyed expressions to try to convey 'Wisdom beyond their years', and a storyline that was borrowed from a Mills & Boon novella & forced into a mould that didn't quite fit.

Ashes to Ashes: Episode #3.8 (2010) Season 3, Episode 8

A great way for the series to bow out on!

[10/10 · 24 May 2010]

It's only to be expected. The finale of Ashes to Ashes was always going to be controversial, but without wanting to give away spoilers for whoever hasn't seen it yet (which would account for very very few fans of the series), I would have to say that there was absolutely nothing more nonsensical or contrived about the ending.

I mean, come on! Lets face it! Ashes, and Life on Mars already involved a bit of metaphysics, surrealism, time travel and paradoxes that bordered on, but didn't quite descend, to Lynchian realms. People enjoyed the characters, the witty dialogue, the relationships, the action and even the retro nods to 80's nostalgia, but unlike Dempsey & Makepeace, there was an underlying story arc that needed resolution, and that arc was not your standard cop drama fayre.

The clues were already there, not just in the final episode, but throughout the third series...even before the third series! The way Ray would grasp his throat, the shared visions of stars, Chris' increased agitation around whistles & the interesting ways that Jim Keats dealt with dying officers...if the final episode turned out to be a wet blanket, with Alex returning to the present day, Chris & Shaz marrying, Ray heading CID & Gene getting a knighthood, I would have chucked my remote at the TV. The ending was well-written, bittersweet, tied up the loose ends, and rewarded the vast majority of fans. - There would always be a minority who want happily ever afters, or something more straight- laced, but the resolution did work well & made sense to most.

The acting was really noteworthy. Phil Glenister played a great role as Gene, both as the usual swaggering DCI we've all come to love, but also as a transformed, shattered, distraught Gene who finally sees the truth. Everyone, from Keeley Hawes to Monserrat Lombard did amazingly well, no hamming up, just great acting, (especially as Ray, Chris & Shaz all view the videos that Jim has left for them) but the real treat was finally seeing Jim Keats go from being the nerdy pencil pusher to something incredibly sinister, malevolent & mad! Absolutely superb!

To those who still are not convinced, I will ask two simple questions. "How did you expect it to end?", and "Do you think your ending would have really made the series better?".

All in all, great final, great series, and I'm really sorry to see it go.

9 (I) (2009)

Definitely not worth a '9'....

[5/10 · 15 March 2010]

What is it with CGI animators? I realise that things have come a long way from Toy Story, and we will always have the Dreamworks/Disney Pixar rivalries, but CGI animation is becoming more & more depressing. I'm not sure who he target audience of this film would be, and that is the big problem.

The majority of CGI movies nowadays seem to know it's target audience pretty well. Young kids, and parents who have to watch the movie with kids. Take a look at any successful CGI movie, and the formula is the same. Colourful characters, snappy dialogue, and a few risqué jokes that adults will chuckle at, and kids won't get. 9 has absolutely none of that.

I do not think it is a kid's movie by any stretch of the imagination. OK, it's CGI, there are a lot of cutesy characters (mostly borrowing from a narrow range of stereotypes), but the movie is colourless, the subject matter (post-apocalyptic survival, loss of humanity over technology etc.), not to mention several death scenes, scary adversaries, and very little by way of humorous dialogue, would alienate most kids.

I can't see it working as an adult's film either. It's too formulaic. You almost know exactly what is going to happen, and which of the group of 'Little Big Planet' rejects will not make it to the end.

As with most big budget animations, the artwork & rendering are top-notch, but the premise is too bleak to allow for any development. All the locations look pretty much the same, (and unfortunately, so do many of the characters). The story takes a back seat to action scenes, and overlong periods of overt displays of CGI mastery until about half-way through the film, but by then it's too late, and the explanations for the existence of the sack-boys, and of the world is dealt with all in 30 seconds, before we are back to more action scenes and doe eyed puppets.

OK, I will grant that I am presuming all CGI movies must be aimed at kids. I understand this shouldn't be the case. After all, Watership Down, & Animal Farm were examples of animation which were not really that child-friendly, but at least there was an elememt of morality with the tales they told. '9' doesn't really resolve itself that well, and it does end with a very nasty cliché.

Nice try, but there are better CGI movies that both adults AND kids can enjoy out there.

Man Bites Dog (1992)

This is about as black as comedy gets

[5/10 · 15 March 2010]

I'd say I'm a fairly open-minded individual, and I love a good movie that will challenge me psychologically. I'm no prude, and really have no issue with the portrayal of sex or violence in a film...

...but this movie has to be one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen.

I had heard about the movie, that it was a humorous black comedy, with a unique (at the time) perspective. What I ended up watching was a movie that was either boring, pretentious or sickening, with a few moments of great comic timing.

The main character comes across as a slimy, egotistical bigot, very unlikeable and without any redeeming characteristics. I think he was supposed to be a charmer, but if memory serves me well, I had no empathy for the guy (and in a movie like this, if it's going to work, & challenge the audience, it would be better if the audience would take a liking to this serial killer) The death scenes were clearly fake. It does bug me how many people on the IMDb are asking "Was it all real?". - Well, if the odd bobbing adam's apple or moving eyelids of supposedly 'dead' people were anything to go by, then no. Of course it wasn't, and if you are the sort of person who doesn't swallow your own hype, you would see that in the film.

OK, it's not all bad. It can get a bit arty, but there were some great comic moments. It just felt to me though that as stand-alone moments, they would have failed. The moments of comedy worked only because they are surrounded by drab monologues, spontaneous murders and moments of tedium.

Man Bites Dog also contains one of the most disturbing scenes I have ever seen in cinema. The rape scene, while not as graphic as Irreversible, or Baise-Moi, is a very well-done scene (probably the only well-done scene), not least due to one moment where we see one of the film crew laughing away as he drunkenly partakes, then grimaces to himself in disgust as he leaves the scene. That, and the aftermath, were probably the two most jarring & galling moments I have witnessed in cinema, and believe me, I wish I didn't see them. I will give credit where due though, if that was the reaction the director was after with that scene & with the film, he succeeded with this viewer! It's not an easy movie to recommend to anyone. I suppose it does have redeeming qualities, but I certainly do not think I would ever watch this film again.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Not worth the steam off one

[1/10 · 16 November 2009]

I should have known. I feel so stupid! I should have seen the signs!

1. Loads more ads than usual with the usual soundbites such as "Scariest Movie of the Year", and "Completely Disturbing! You won't be able to sleep"

2. Trailer featuring some potentially interesting premise.

3. Trailer also featuring a covert cam that recorded the reactions of a cinema audience.

4. A curious number of IMDb "Comments" that praised the film, and actually used the exact same soundbites as the ads! I mean, I must have been really really stupid to have expected a frightening film after all that. I was suckered in, and I am hoping that this review of the movie might in some way prevent someone else from falling for the same mistake that I made.

If you're into the whole 'reality/shaky-cam' Blair Witch type of film, you might enjoy this, despite the fact that ever since the Blair Witch Project, you've had several copycat movies that rely on shoestring budgets and internet hype to propel them into the mainstream.

Personally, I generally don't enjoy the shaky-cam genre. I give props to Blair Witch for the originality, & the viral method of extending the film onto the internet. Cloverfield was more satisfying movie, and the puzzles & cool hype building the movie up was well-thought. Paranormal Activity on the other hand is nothing more than a load of empty words, and an aggressive ad campaign. Honestly! It is exactly what I felt when I read some of the reviews here, and wondered if I had watched the same film.

My main problems were these.

The couple in the movie were very bland &unlikeable. There was absolutely nothing of interest about them. It's one thing to want to make a horror movie as real as possible, but at the very least, put some characters with a bit of charisma.

The couple act stupidly. - At what point did the male have his common sense gland removed, and decide to stay with this drab woman who seems to be the centre of this haunting, instead of just dumping her and finding someone without any demonic issues? Why do they act either like loons, or completely blase about the phenomena?

The demonic source - One of the things that drove me crazy about the whole Blair Witch thing was that people were saying how scary it was because you NEVER GOT TO SEE THE WITCH. - Ermmm...I must be missing something here, because I was under the impression that a horror film needs a good solid protagonist. Ultimately, I felt that this film just didn't have one.

The usual jump scares. - If you've never watched a horror film, you'll definitely jump. If you've watched a few horror movies, you'll see them a mile off.

The ending - I won't spoil it here, but the 'twist' is really poor. It borrows heavily from another movie I may have mentioned a few times in this review *ahem*, and it doesn't even do that very well at all. There's no psychological head-game, or campfire-tail twist. Just a bit of screaming, a predictable (and terribly handled) denouement that most movie buffs would guess anyway, then a blank screen & the mercy that it was all over.

Honestly, I would like to say something redeemable about this film, but I wouldn't even bother to watch it again if it was on TV and I had nothing better to do, let alone pay good money for tickets.

Please please PLEASE do not fall into the hype & soundbite/slogan-riddled ad campaign. Don't trust the trailer, which must have found the 100 most timid & sensitive souls in the world, & recorded their reactions to the movie. Don't waste your time & money on this wannabe copycat. At a time of year when there are a crop of excellent movies appearing, don't plump for this pre-Christmas turkey!

Crimewave (1985)

A B-Movie that really wants to be a B-movie

[8/10 · 5 October 2009]

Crimewave has 'cult b-movie' written all over it. From the opening credits, to the crazy story, oddball characters and cheezy acting, this is a film that has no pretensions of winning any Oscars.

Unfortunately, it's dated now, and hasn't held up as well as it could do. The setting may have been intended to be late 50's urban downtown America, but the whole thing has been glossed with a nasty 80's varnish that's hard to ignore.

With the exception of a few standouts, the acting overall is very hammy, which is just right for this film, so no points deducted there. Paul Smith's goofy hero is likable enough as a geeky home security installer with a crush on a feisty independent girl, but Bruce Campbell's oily sleezebag heel definitely steals the show, sometimes with just a single slimy look and a self-confident guffaw.

The pace of the film is pretty well established with loads of car chases & cartoon violence, but Sam Raimi has a few tricks up his sleeve. One of the more memorable, and brilliant set pieces is the chase through the 'Safest corridoor in the world', or the attack in the apartment.

Some of the dialogue is a bit poor though, and very predictable, but if the verbal jokes don't make you laugh, the visual ones will.

Great fun the first time around, but not exactly a film I'd want to watch again & again.

Survive Style 5+ (2004)

Incredible, original, and daring

[8/10 · 3 April 2008]

I'm not sure how to even begin a critique of this film. The best analogy that I can think of is a bit like the first time I ever went into a sushi bar. - It wasn't just that the food that I ate was completely different to a palate more used to hamburgers or fish & chips, but that the rules were different too. Instead of having a waitress write down the order, I picked out colourful dishes off a conveyor belt, and ate some wonderfully exotic food. All of this wrapped up in a culture that was decidedly Japanese....and I loved it!!

Exactly the same is true of Survive Style 5. It was completely different from the usual movies I watch, the rules were broken, the experience was extremely colourful, wonderfully exotic, it was decidedly Japanese...and I loved it too!!

The film focuses on several story lines, from the fairly tame (the sexual confusion of a group of young friends), to the surreal (the murdered wife who keeps returning to beat up her husband in ever more bizarre ways), to the absurd (the man stuck in a trance thinking he's a bird after the hypnotist is killed)...and beyond.

The first thing that struck me was the brightness & colour of the film. The words 'kitsch' do not do the sets justice, with big pink fluffy 'Hello Kitty' cuteness or neon manga-esquire style. The movie is not drab in the slightest! Also the film wears its 'Japaneseness' on its sleeve, which is further highlighted by the inclusion of the very un-Japanese Vinnie Jones (playing a hit-man who asks the question "What is your purpose in life?" indiscriminately to air stewardesses and pieces of broccoli).

Amongst all this mish-mash of colour, lunacy, absurdity, and surrealism lies a a big heart. While almost completely disparate in some places, the movie ends in a surprisingly satisfying manner (In fact, it's one of the best endings I could imagine for a movie so off-the-wall).

Maybe the film won't be to everybody's taste, especially those who really do not want to try something different, but what can I say? I like to try something new once in a while, and if you're like me, this might be a tasty plate of Futomaki for you!

The Cottage (2008)

Very lackluster film

[2/10 · 2 April 2008]

I really wanted to like this movie. From all accounts, it was supposed to be a great gory comedy horror. Well, it was a gory comedy horror at least, but 'great'? Not particularly.

...and that's no fault of the actors, who did what they could with the fairly one-dimensional characters they were portraying (Timid nerd, Wannabe gangster, Clumsy idiot, Gutsy mouthy cow etc.). The movie was fairly bare-bones all the way. Scenes were set pretty much in one of only 4-5 different places, music comprised of the quirky kooky intro theme, and then little else until the suspense scenes (e.g jagged swelling violins just about to open a door & screechy violins during the gory bits), and the story was shallow and poorly delivered. Even Tobe Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a more fulfilling plot-laden horror in comparison!

(LIGHT SPOILERS RELATED TO THE PLOT FOLLOW:) The story was also so full of holes, it was pitiful. For example, when Peter phoned his wife to get his mother's bank account details, why not just ask his wife for their own account, seeing as he didn't want to use his mum's account? Is Andrew that stupid that he didn't realise he had a 2nd mobile phone? And what is it about every single character that the moment they see a bodypart here or a blood-soaked corpse there, that their only reaction is to gawp for a while, and then act like they are not in any mortal peril? - More to the point, there were a number of potential plot points that were not really developed (the fear of moths, the farmer's obsession with his wife, the odd relationship between Andrew and Tracey etc.) (SPOILERS END)

My personal problem with the film was that it didn't engage me. The characters were bland, and the build-up was too long in coming. The first part of the movie could have been a stage production. Even the comedy moments were a little weak, and owed more to black sight gags, or people using the F word at key moments. The film didn't offer any backstory other than the brothers themselves, and even that was brief, and finally, the ending felt rushed and a bit pointless.

The film could have been saved if more thought had been put into building up the relationships between the characters, and giving the audience characters that they could empathise with, but all we got was scummy, sweary, stupid or irritating people.

The gore was good though. Very imaginative in some cases, but ultimately, not enough to redeem this lackluster movie.

Run Fatboy Run (2007)

Average, but at least Hugh Grant's not in it....

[6/10 · 14 October 2007]

I get the feeling that Simon Pegg, after building up such a huge following from Spaced, and Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz, seems to be trying to sell out almost as quickly. Like Ricky Gervais & Hugh Grant, he just keeps appearing everywhere.

First two strikes for me were for Big Nothing, a meandering mess of a film with gormless David Schwimmer reprising his 'Oh gee whizz' countenance through a film with too many ridiculous twists. Strike two was for Free Jimmy, an computer animated cartoon featuring a junkie elephant, and utter rubbish...so, strike three for 'Run Fat Boy, Run'? ...No...not really. I kind of liked the film. Simon Pegg seems to be doing the best he can with the material he's presented, (and I guess that goes also for Big Nothing, and Free Jimmy too). OK, the plot came right out of the Brit-com by numbers formula script writing (One downtrodden but lovable guy, one quirky beautiful love interest, one oddball best friend, one slimy rich cad, one cute kid, and one disgraceful old lady with a foul mouth, a lot of the London skyline, and a fair bit of shmaltz) - Well, Run Fat Boy, Run contains all of those to varying degrees, so anyone who loved 'Notting Hill', 'Bridget Jones' or 'Four Weddings' will not be displeased.

As for the rest of the cast, I was a bit surprised to find Dylan Moran's character so badly underused. Dylan, a rare gem of a stand-up comedian, does nothing more than deliver his lines in the film, and, as an embarrassing (and pretty weak) running gag, has his bare bottom shown. - Using Dylan Moran for a cheap sight-gag like that is like hiring a cordon bleu chef to microwave a pizza. It's a huge waste! The rest of the supporting cast are credible. Frank Azaria's villain, to be honest, was still, too nice. Likable, even! However, the pacing of the film was all wrong, and the 'nastiness' factor of Azaria's character was ramped up too little too late. The Indian landlord was another staple of the 'britcom by numbers' formula, but he did add a fair degree of humour to the proceedings, instead of just being stuck in there for the hell of it....

...and OK, maybe I've painted a bad picture of this movie. It's not bad, there are moments of genuine laughter to be had, amid the shmaltz, pratfalls & lame running gags, but don't expect to leave the cinema clutching your ribs, or with a profound sense of witnessing something amazing. Run, Fat Boy Run won't hasten Pegg's transformation into a 2-dimensional Ricky Gervais wannabe, but it does him no favours. However, it does prove one thing. David Schwimmer's post-Friends humour & star appeal is dwindling...!

Vacancy (2007)

pretty vacant....

[2/10 · 1 August 2007]

*Review Contains spoilers*

Vacancy: A very interesting premise, turned into a very lackustre film The premise is a slight twist on the classic "When a stranger calls" urban legend (You know, the one with the babysitter who keeps getting calls from some creep asking if she's checked the children, but anyway...). A dysfunctional couple are forced into taking a room in a nearby motel when their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere, late at night. Once in the hotel room, they decide to settle down & watch some TV. The husband puts a video cassette & discovers that the videotape is of a snuff movie. Worse...they discover to their growing horror, that the movie is set in the very room that they're in! Then, the lights go out....

Very cool premise, definitely, but the problem is how to fill it out to a full featured movie? Also, considering that the majority of the audience going to see the film will already know the bare bones of the plot in advance, what else can you provide to keep them on the edge of their seats, and keep them guessing? Now, there are several approaches that the director could have taken. For a start, why not get the whole plot device out of the way in a 5-10 minute intro, showing the previous motel guests meeting their fate, Then focus on the main couple. After all, that's exactly what happens in all those classic psycho-thrillers like Psycho, Dressed to Kill, When a Stranger Calls, and even Scream. There's no sense in prolonging a story that people already know with a slow-burning start, only to get to the actual crux of the story about half-way in. It's just a suspense killer...

...talking of no sense, the couple and the characters displayed absolutely no sense at all during several scenes. Simple logical steps, like covering the camera lenses, or putting something heavy on the trapdoor in their room might have helped to increase their chances of survival. - The protagonists are also pretty dumb. How about smashing the glass of the motel window if they wanted to get in that badly? (Was it just me, or did anyone notice some continuity issues with regards to whether the door was latched or not?) Also, if the couple just seems to vanish, it's a pretty safe bet that they have discovered the trapdoor. Final kicker. All things considered, why didn't the couple just use the ceiling space in the first place?

So aside from the fairly dismal acting, slow-burning story, dumb & unengaging characters, & illogical leaps from both sides...there's also a truly horrible ending. It's not the worst ending in the world, but it seems so forced, and...well...lame is a pretty good word.

From a directorial point of view, there was a bit of a slap in the face drama-wise. After the heroine kills the main bad guy, there are repeated shots of him on the floor, as if to say 'just checking'. You half-expect the body to go missing, cos you never know if they might do a Vacancy II, & in the true horror/thriller franchise, the killer must disappear, or at the very least, pop up again for one quick cheap shock, but no. He stays dead, and the sappy ending is left to play out its course. Maybe the screenwriter was trying to build suspense using reverse psychology, or maybe they already knew that the film wouldn't be that good, so they didn't bother setting things up for a potential sequel.

Anyway, to summarise; a great premise & potential for a thriller/horror plot, but seriously let down in execution.

The Number 23 (2007)

What a wasted opportunity

[1/10 · 26 July 2007]

Firstly, let's imagine that the film wasn't called "The number 23", but was called "The colour Blue" (or any other colour except Purple). Imagine, if you will, that the main character comes across a book that seems to have an intimate link with his own personal history. Then imagine that the book instills in him a healthy interest in the colour blue. Suddenly, he goes round observing blue objects with unhealthy fascination. He thinks about the colour of his first school uniform, the fact that as a boy, he had to traditionally wear blue, he hears 'Blue Moon' on the radio etc. - are you gripped yet? No. Didn't think so.....

But hang on a sec....this is about numbers, particularly, a number that has a very important place in numerology, conspiracy theories, Illuminati history, religion etc. There is already an inherent mysticism about the number 23 that a casual Google search will reveal. Yet the film fails to exploit any of that. It might as well be the number 31, the colour blue, or the letter D.

So, now that the relevance & cultural impact of a number with a huge degree of potential to the overall plot has been grossly diminished, what do we have left? Well, we have a very confused plot remaining about a book, a string of highly unhealthy coincidences, a cast of characters who seem too quick (or too gullible) to believe in any old rubbish (For an even worse example of this, watch M.Night Shyamalan's 'Lady in the Water' and despair at a whole apartment block full of imbecilic residents!!), and then, a few disparate glitzy arty 'MTV' shots, just to give the film a bit of street cred. Jim Carrey doesn't lend much to the film, other than his name & star appeal. The film didn't benefit from his acting skills, and he didn't really benefit from the film. It could have been any faceless B-movie actor in that role & it wouldn't have made the film any more or less appealing.

The sad thing is, I enjoy a good film with a good 'unreliable narrator' twist in it (6th sense, Usual Suspects etc.), but there are increasingly too many 'bet you can't guess the twist' films that really ruin the genre. (starting with everything Shyamalan has done since the 6th sense, and every copycat film trying to jump a bandwagon!). Unfortunately, the worst thing about the Number 23 isn't the acting, confused plot, or the lack of incorporating the more esoteric aspects of 23 into the plot, but with the 'big denouement'. No, I didn't guess it, but when it finally revealed itself, I was totally underwhelmed. Then, to add insult to injury, the film went on for yet another 20-odd minutes with a very mawkish, tedious and overlong explanation.

There! Film review finished

(ooh! Spooky! That last line had 23 letters in it! Someone call a doctor!!)

Big Nothing (2006)

Fairly sub-par Crime Caper

[4/10 · 13 May 2007]

Includes spoilers Well, I was pretty much underwhelmed by the film.

The premise of the tale is of three people who decide to undertake a simple blackmailing of a local dark-horse reverend. Of course, what starts of as a fairly simple plan goes disastrously wrong by incrementing degrees.

OK, not the most original idea, but what was so much better handled in films such as the Ladykillers, and Welcome to Collinwood is careless & sloppy here.

The film divides itself neatly into two halves. The first half, being all set inside the targeted rev.'s house. I personally felt that there was a lot more potential here, as the conceits, plot twists and cases of mistaken identity (not to mention the body-count) pile up. The second half involved an increasingly elaborate plot to dispose of the bodies left over from the first half of the film. Here's where I lost interest.

Two things happened that made me just despair. The first being the introduction of the diabetic coroner. The second being the 'big twist' around Josie's character.

Aside from the fact that the usually brilliant Simon Pegg seemed like a shell of a comedy actor without Nick Frost, and that David Shwimmer's gamut of emotions have been better used in episodes of "Friends" (He just seems to wear the same 'Oh Gee!' face in every scene!), none of the characters have any charisma. They are all bland, relatively uninteresting, and seem almost embarrassed to be involved. The rest of the supporting cast have too little screen time (usually because they are bumped off scant minutes after they appear), but even those who do have more than 3 lines in the film make such a poor attempt at their roles, that it is uncomfortable to watch.

It's a shame, because there is a lot of potential here.

I wouldn't even worry about the raging debate as to whether Simon Pegg's American accent was any good or not. In a film that just doesn't engage on any level, whether or not his accent is up to scratch is a very moot point.

Mute Witness (1995)

A great, fun and effective (if sadly overlooked) thriller

[9/10 · 20 October 2006]

It is always a well-known, and important directorial device to set up the atmosphere of a film within the first 5 minutes. In the crucial opening scenes, the film should assert itself and make the viewers take notice and get interested in the rest of the film. Here, in "Mute Witness", we find a prime example of this.

*Scene spoiler*

In the first 5-10 minutes, the film opens to a very Hitchcockian scene of a pretty blonde lady in her apartment, with the radio on. She's wandering around, applying lipstick, dolling herself up, and ignoring the news report of a serial killer on the loose. Of course, the serial killer is in her house, and monitoring her moves, knife in hand. She hears a noise, looks in a room, and there is her partner in a pool of blood. At the very point of her screams, she turns around to be faced with the knife-wielding maniac, who stabs her repeatedly in a brutal and horrifying act....

...then something odd happens. As the woman convulses in her death throes, the killer sits down and takes out a cigarette to watch his victim perish. Before he finds his lighter, his cigarette is lit...from someone else in the room! The camera pans out, and we realise that there are more and more people in the room, some taking notes, some filming, some recording the death, and that the lady is taking an awfully long time to die, and making a very hammy job of it too. When the audience realises what's going on, and the whole scene is part of a film, the suspenseful and horrific scene takes on an element of humour.

*End Scene Spoiler*

I have highlighted this opening scene for several reasons. Firstly, it portrays the atmosphere of the whole movie perfectly. A thriller in the style of Hitchcock or De Palma, with some very disorientating, and even blackly humorous moments. - It conveys a central subject matter (that of the difference between a 'movie screen death' and a 'snuff film death', an issue which is elaborated on later in the film), and finally, it introduces the viewer to the characters, all as silently as possible.

The plot of Mute Witness centres around Billy Hughes, an American special effects make-up artist who is working on the set of the film, being shot in a large warehouse in Moscow. Billy cannot speak, but she communicates in sign language through her sister. After the end of an evening's filming, Billy inadvertently finds herself locked in the warehouse by accident, and in her attempt to escape, is witness to two of the crew making what first appears to be a porno film, but turns out to be a snuff movie. Suddenly, her escape from the warehouse is a matter of life and death.

Without doubt, the first half of the film is powerful and absolutely gripping. Billy's saving grace, and her handicap is the fact that she isn't able to utter a sound. (In fact, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it isn't chock-full of women screaming). There are some utterly disturbing moments, and some superb set-pieces of real suspense (The corridoor, and the elevator shaft are perfect examples). The timing is fluid, and the whole first half is an incredibly satisfying experience in itself.

The second half of the film introduces new concepts. While there are still several suspenseful moments, the focus is on plot twists. New characters are introduced, and it is ambiguous as to whose side they are on. While there is nothing wrong per se with the second half of the film, it just doesn't quite measure up to the first half. There are some neat moments of black humour that perfectly juxtapose and punctuate some very dramatic scenes, but there are also some very lame comedy moments (coming specifically from Billy's sister and her fiancée, who happens to be the director of the movie Billy is working on), that almost ruin the film, just because they are badly misplaced and/or mistimed and ruin the pace. - At the end, the twists keep coming at a rapid-fire speed, and the climax of the film is, appropriately, as tense as the first half.

There are several things that really make the movie work. The barriers of communication that Billy must face, both as a mute, and as an American in Moscow, mean that even an emergency call for help becomes a dangerous situation. The actress that plays Billy, Natasha Zudina, does a wonderful job in the film, with an engaging on-screen prescence, and a brilliant performance, and finally, the direction as a whole, but most particularly in the first half of the film, which truly is a study in Alfred Hitchcock's suspense/thriller film techniques.

As I have already said, though, the let-downs in the film are from some terrible comic relief moments that really do not need to be added. There is already a consistent and effective streak of dark humour that appears in the film without the need for the characters of Karen Hughes and Andy Clarke (The sister and the moviemaker) to turn their scenes into some unusual sit-com. However, despite these shortcomings, the film is a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, and ideal for a group viewing at halloween. (Certainly better than the usual slasher horror film...!)

Lady in the Water (2006)

Shyamalan's gratuitous display of public ego-masturbation

[1/10 · 24 September 2006]

What a slide down the tubes, from the 6th Sense, a clever movie with a twist so well-delivered that it had nations discussing it, to this! M.Night Shyamalan is seriously beginning to run out of fresh ideas to hang his hokey 'one trick pony' killer twists on.

The plot centres around a mild-mannered janitor, Cleveland, who discovers Story, the eponymous lady, one evening. During the course of the film, Cleveland discovers that Story is a very special person, who has an important mission to fulfill, but is in danger. As the film progresses, Cleveland and the other tenants of the apartment block discover that they have roles to play in Story's...errm....story.

Anyhoo...without giving away too many spoilers, the full tale is told (painfully slowly), and becomes so implausible that it snaps the oh-so-important element of suspension of belief, repeatedly! Firstly, there are the stupid names.

Secondly, a whole apartment block of fairly diverse characters are ready to completely and unquestioningly drop their rationale and start believing in this far fetched tale, which includes giant eagles, grass rats and invisible evil tree-monkeys. Sure! Okay! It's a film after all, and let's face it, there are films which have crazier plot-lines. The problem is that the mundane and the fantastic does not gel here. (In fact, it never seems to gel in any M.Night Shyamalan film anymore). People are quite happy to just go along with the whole thing without ever questioning their reasoning or their sanity.

Thirdly, the acting is just god-awful. I'm pretty sure that an actor doesn't need much motivation to play a part where the role is to just play an apartment tenant, but 90% of the cast even struggle with that! I will give props, however, to the actress who played the oriental student living with her mother, and to the guy who had to train up one side of his body, not because his acting was much cop (it wasn't), but for actually training part of his body for the role.

Fourthly, there really were no outstanding moments throughout the whole film. No "Oh no!"s, or "YESS!" moments that had you rooting for the characters. Even the scene where Cleveland descends into the pool was about as thrilling as the opening scene where he is squishing a bug in a flat full of squeamish sisters. Even the ending is all very anti-climatic. It just...ends (which is a small mercy, but after having to put up with the agonizing nonsense that makes up the bulk of the film, the payoff is pretty dismal.

Fifthly (are we on five already??!!?), what the hell was the point with the movie critic? Was it supposed to be some sort of inner joke, or a challenge to the audience (at one point) to try to second-guess the outcome, or a metaphor for a separation of what is real and what is just a movie? Whatever Shyamalan had in mind, it didn't work. In fact, it riled me considerably.

There are sixthlys, seventhly's, and even a sixteently, but I don't want to start giving away spoilers for anyone who might actually watch this film, and I'm getting a bit fed up with writing so much on this film already, when there are better efforts in a similar vein from any number of other directors.

Having said all that, the film wasn't a total loss. There were a few redeeming moments, and I suppose it had a moral (something about how our actions influence others, or how you should never give up on your inner child or some-such), and my best compliment on the whole film is "At least it wasn't as pitifully bad as the Village", however, I personally think that the film is a Razzy contender for sure, and Shyamalan should consider taking up poultry farming. He seems to have a knack in producing some big old turkeys!

ADDITIONAL EDIT: I initially gave the movie 3 stars. After seeing that Shyamalan chose to give himeslf an important and messianical role in his own film, I was appalled enough to come back and edit this critique. The sheer AUDACITY of the guy! There is nothing wrong with an ego that deserves praise, but this very act of Shyamalan implementing himself in the role of a writer who will change the course of history is mental narcissism to a sickening degree.

I hope that Shyamalan NEVER makes another film ever again, no matter how good he thinks he is, he has lost touch with the very people he is supposed to be making these films for, and creating castles in the sky based on nothing more than hype and the success of one single film. He should have listened to Disney. They may be commercial, but they at least know how to make popular & successful films.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

It couldn't have been more perfect! *May include some spoilers*

[10/10 · 9 August 2006]

What an amazing achievement! The film just oozes class, atmosphere, sensuality and layers and layers of intrigue. It's one thing to make a film like this, and make it really work, but it's another to salvage a project that was intended to follow in the footsteps of "Twin Peaks" and create something like this.

From an initial viewing with a casual eye, the film looks like it is about Betty, a plucky young actress, who befriends 'Rita', a mysterious woman with amnesia, who seems to have a dark and mysterious background. For a large part of the film, the two women help Betty to achieve success after success in Tinseltown, while Betty helps 'Rita' to try to find out who she really is. During the main storyline, there are several seemingly unconnected scenes elsewhere involving a movie director who sees his wife cheating on him, a strange dwarf in a wheelchair pulling some very major strings, and a scene in which a guy confides a dream to his psychiatrist, then discovers something horrific.

Then, just as the audience is lulled by the viewer-friendly and (mostly) generic progress of the film, the whole movie gets tilted on its axis, and it becomes very strange. The actors are all different, with different roles. The cutesy Betty becomes the down-and-out Diane. Rita's helpless damsel-in-distress character changes to a manipulative femme fatale. Major players become minor roles and vice versa. Things get surreal, confused and jumbled, and the movie plays out to a devastating finale, guaranteed to leave most audience members thinking "What just happened?" Now, here's the genius of David Lynch. He has done exactly the same trick as his other film, "Lost Highway". The audience is not watching a film in the conventional sense. For the majority of the film, they are watching a dream, and the final third, are watching a series of guilt-ridden flashbacks and confused recollections, all in the mind's eye of a desperate and deluded woman, who'se jealousy and disillusionment have driven her to commit a desperate act. "Mulholland Drive" is the nearest one could possibly get to sticking a film reel in someone's mind, recording their thoughts, dreams and memories, then playing the whole thing back on screen. There are clues there in the film, and viewed in the right perspective, the entire film really does make perfect sense. It just takes a shift in perception to see the whole thing, a bit like focusing on a jumble of dots and being able to see a 3D image.

"Mulholland Drive" is as much a visual and aural delight as it is an ingenious movie taken from a unique perspective. The film is full of 'Lynchisms' that any fan will instantly recognize and associate with his other films. Satin draped curtains, singers miming Roy Orbison songs, vintage '50's Americana, mysterious dwarfs and an atmosphere that is so thick, it's tangible even in scenes where not much is happening. (Full credit to Angelo Badlamenti) The sets are stylish, and the acting incredibly polished (Naomi Watts deserves particular mention, being able to turn out a character that goes from 'Brady Bunch meets Nancy Drew' right through the spectrum).

Even if a viewer walked away from the film without understanding it (and no doubt, there will have been a fair few), they are still treated to some amazing cinema, and some very memorable scenes. Very few people who watch the film will forget the 'Club Silencio' scene, and even people who probably hated the film must admit, albeit grudgingly, that the scene is one that's difficult to shake from memory.

Final comments. The film is a challenging film to watch (and all the better for it, in my opinion). It probably has a fairly even division of people who love it and people who hate it, and I can understand there would be some frustration from people who see the film without fully grasping what is going on, but for me, the film is everything I would truly expect from a movie. Something that actually switches my brain on instead of turning it off, and having a very distinct and unique style and flavour that very few directors are ever capable of achieving.

The Village (2004)

Hilarious!! (Hang on. What do you mean it wasn't a comedy?)

[1/10 · 8 August 2006]

I'm sorry, I just don't get the popularity of M Night Shyalaman. The Sixth Sense was a great film, but everything I've seen after that (and with the exception of Lady in the Water, that's everything since)has been either a load of horse puck. I thought that the guy was a one-trick pony, and I think this movie pretty much confirms it.

And so to the Village...

Well, it started off promisingly enough, with the mysterious sounds from the woods and concerned looks during a Village outdoor dinner, but the film was terrible. Not just the pseudo-olde-English (how did the actors keep a straight face when they were reciting their lines?) to the inexplicable ability of a blind girl to run 100 metres without colliding into a single object whilst in other scenes, she was fumbling about for a step on her own front porch. There were many surprise goofs, gaffes and scenes consisting of pure untainted cheese that was enough to set off the giggles, and once the first unintentionally funny moment crops up, the film just throws up more and more.

I guess what made the film so funny was the sincerity and dignity in which it was acted and delivered. Add to that prolonged moments of tedium and then BAM, someone says or does something so unutterably trite, clichéd, or inexplicably stupid that you just have to burst out laughing. It's like someone from the RSC reciting a soliloquy from Othello and accidentally letting one rip.

All said and done, though, I sussed the "Big denouement" of the film about 1/3rd of the way in, and that's saying something, cos normally, I'm a bit thick when it comes to twists. Maybe it's because it is expected of a Shyalaman film, or maybe, like "Signs", it's all been done before but presented in a way that gets movie snobs thinking that it's the first time that particular tale has been told.

It's a good trick, but nothing more. Shyalaman really needs to remember that a good plot is more than just a twist. If the build-up sucks, then the denouement is really going to lack a punch.