Sir_Lurkalot Reviews

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Bunch of substandard clods

[3/10 · 6 January 2005]

The opening sequence was interesting, and Quartermain's introduction was good, but from there on the film spiraled downwards. It looked good, and the performances were up to par, but the story...yet another big film let down by slack story. A quick sample of some of the logic flaws: * If Professor Moriarty is the bad guy, then logically shouldn't Sherlock Holmes be around? Even if Moriarty is picking the League (and I know he wouldn't pick Holmes) wouldn't Holmes find out about it? And how could you the ultimate crime fighting League without Holmes? * If Moriarty's plan is to get a sample of various characters DNA or whatever, why can't he just visit them himself? With the exception of the Vampire and Mr.Hyde (which Dorian Grey could get) none of them are hard to find or dangerous to Moriarty, until he puts them all together. Maybe Nemo's sub would prove more difficult but not impossible. Certainly it would be less trouble than the overly elaborate scheme we are presented with here.

I wanted this to be a good film, but it wasn't. 3/10

Razor Eaters (2003)

Try hard with a vengeance

[3/10 · 4 January 2005]

This film was better than I expected, but I wasn't expecting anything great. It really had nothing to say, but gave the aura of trying to deliver a message. Took itself way too seriously.

Making the 'Razor Eaters' irresponsible morons, doesn't make them rebellious heroes in my book. And claiming this was based on real life is laughable. Or would be if it was funny. Better than Young's first film, but that is saying nothing.

Some of the special effects were good, but too often I was suddenly out of the world of the film, waiting for the next bit. A good film shouldn't do that.

I try to support local films, but...

Van Helsing (2004)

Just stop it.

[2/10 · 28 November 2004]

This is a genre mix that I like (horror, action and comedy)...when it's well done. This is not. Richard Roxburgh seems to have little to do other than roaring and snarling, a woefully underused actor, Kevin J. O'Connor as yet another sidekick (Deep Rising, The Mummy) with few actually funny lines, and Hugh Jackman, whose Van Helsing is suffering from repressed memory, (think Wolverine). It's the same tired old stuff, and poorly executed. It has a good old movie feel, but that's as far as it goes.

A Bullet in the Arse (2003)

Low budget, high quality

[10/10 · 11 November 2004]

At first glance, this film has three horror words associated with it: low-budget, independent, and Australian. However, do not be deceived, this is a quality product. The use of locations, the world the film makers have established, the action, and the dark humour, more than make up for the lack of name actors, and the occasional piece of faulty music. The guys who made this obviously love Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah films, and this really comes across in the feel and tone. I have never seen a car chase with such crappy underpowered cars before and still been entertained. As with everything else in the film, it's not what they've got, but how they use it! The gunfights are well choreographed, not just another silly Americanised episode. The guns even have to be reloaded! How some of this stuff was done, especially in today's political environment, makes me wonder, but I doubt if I will be seeing anything like this in a low budget film again. Not in this country anyway. On the downside, the supporting cast make the lead seem rather lame, and some of the music, especially towards the end, seems like it was done in a hurry. However, there is nothing about this film that would normally fall under the category of 'Australian', it's not trying to be zany, quirky, or a 'slice of life'. It's just good.