I've been lazy so far this year and only posted occasionally.
Today you get Barack Obama anagrams.
Barack Hussein Obama....
....Has Samurai Backbone
(or Samurai Kebab Nachos)
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Board Game Review: Android
Since I put so much work into this, I thought I'd repost it here in case anyone (hah!) would like to read it.
It's a review of a very large and complicated board game by a large and very successful company called Fantasy Flight Games. This game is called Android and sees the players take the roles of detectives investigating a conspiracy and murder against the background of a dystopian future (think Blade Runner meets Space 1999).
The game takes place over two "weeks" (of six turns each, making 12 turns in total)
In these two weeks players assign guilt, uncover the conspiracy all the while playing cards to help themselves and hinder their opponents.
Much of this is spent moving to certain places seeking out leads, which you can assign to the conspiracy or murder suspects.
The conspiracy is discovered in the form of a rather ingenious puzzle that shows a maze of connections, where the links show which persons are involved.
I include it here more for the quality of the writing than trying to get anyone to play with me.
Click the link for the whole thing
===================================================================
I hope I can convey in this review what a game of Android is like and how it works. I also wanted to show you, from experience, how each game can be affected fundamentally by its most ingenious feature - the conspiracy puzzle.
My lofty aim is that this review can be followed and understood not only by those thinking of buying this game who have already done some research but also by those they intend to play it with (who may know nothing). I hope I can achieve this in general enough terms that we avoid a rulebook rehash,
Also, I am bolding certain sections of the post to show the "highlights"
I'm now up to 4 games played of Android and am loving it!
CAVEAT: I would recommend, from experience, that you don't try and teach four players at once! At least not while trying to play as well.
What I am currently liking a lot is how the different investigators are forced, due to their strengths and weaknesses, to take sometimes very different approaches to winning. Though I have never won
I was also impressed (as you'll see) by how despite the killing of one of their suspects in two consecutive games, the (same) winner still adapted and came out on top.
To people who don't know much about the game, I will explain its structure in very general terms. This next section is partially adapted from an email I sent to someone to see if they wanted to play.
================The Game itself - what is it?==================
Android is a game that, like many others, uses the universally accepted all-purpose nebulous currency of Victory Points (VPs).
The winner of the game is the player with the most VPs at the end of the game. (well, duh!)
The trouble is, every turn you have a very limited amount of time to do things - usually allowing for a total of 6 "time" points. The task you have is to use your time well enough to score many points, while fighting off other players traps and roadblocks.
Your characters have a lot of personal stuff to use and think about - a guilty and an innocent hunch to prove, their own stories you live through during the game, and two decks of cards, one that helps them, and one that hurts them.
The detail of the plots, cards and how they work is unnecessary for a review like this, but I think it's worth taking a look at how you can get those all important victory points.
There are three points scoring methods;
1. endings to plots (between -10pts and 14pts),
2. having the right hunches (0pts if unsuccessful to 25pts if both guilty and innocent is correct),
3. picking up tokens from three places (Haas and Jinteki token 3vp each, conspiracy line completions 4vp each).
Aside from scoring for completed lines (horizontal, vertical and diagonal sets of five) the conspiracy puzzle does something even more crucial - it can modify any or all the other points scoring methods by anything from 1vp extra up to potentially (though a not practical or likely outcome) a massive 16vp extra. It can also make things that are worthless except in exchange (the favours) crucial to victory.
=======So this puzzle is the key to everything?======
Not always, but perhaps.... the cool thing about the puzzle is you can only do it if you forgo your right (and time) to do something else important (namely work toward your hunches) - Android is a game where you have very limited time resources to do everything.
You can't afford to ignore the conspiracy though.
FWIW, I think the puzzle can easily be underestimated as a force in the game. Even if you don't want to spend time on it, rest assured that it will affect the outcome of the game significantly if someone else does.
To show this fully, take a look at how it affected our last two games.
=========================Last Weekend==========================
The conspiracy puzzle was defining in both games this last weekend, but in very different ways - take a look and see why.
In the game I played Saturday the conspiracy was complete by turn 4 - everyone wanted some of those crucial 4VP tokens - and the outcome of the conspiracy ended up benefitting the eventual winner most - who crucially had his Guilty Hunch killed off in the process.
The way the conspiracy does this well is that depending on the connections different things become important in different games. In this game it was Street favours - where else could you gain 3VP a turn for just 2 time? Nowhere! They soon ran out.
The other fascinating fact here was that thanks to all those connections, the Innocent hunches came out worth a full 11pts each, as opposed to the 5 they usually are.
Since Guilty Hunches were only worth 17, the conspiracy drastically reduced the points swing between guilty and innocent hunches (there's usually a ten point gap), leading to higher scores and a closer run result (1st Position had 56, 2nd 55 and third 53 - fourth btw had 45. Less said about 5th the better (-7!!!!)) I was third (behind my brother AND my wife, which shows the accessibility of this since Mrs Algo is only an occasional gamer) despite having the guilty hunch!
How did I only come third when I had the highest scoring thing, Guilty hunch, in the game - you may ask? It wasn't because I'm incompetent! Honest!
This was because my innocent hunch was the guy who had been killed (D'OH!), meaning I had lost those 11 points (though bro would still have won if he'd managed to keep him alive and guilty)
By contrast, in the second game I played, with three detectives on Sunday, with some of the same players (mum and bro) the conspiracy was virtually "pointless" though it led to the killing off of the eventual winners innocent hunch, and only Jinteki tokens had four extra points. What Raymond (me) was able to do, was bluff people into chasing Political favours (worth four each for most of the game) and on the last turn, turned the relevant conspiracy piece around and blocked off the relevant link meanign that their hard earned political favours were now worthless! I also totally monopolised the 4vp tokens by leaving no legal placement spaces for pieces very early on (about turn four).
I appreciate that without reading all the cards one won't know this last move could happen, and no-one knew it was coming, but it serves to underline the effect the conspiracy can have on final scoring. (1st place 35pts, 2nd 31pts, 3rd 16pts)
(another cool thing that happened in this game was that an event reduced our "time points per turn" by one for most of the second week. This meant our plans had to be changed on the fly)
=====Get to the point now, Algo!=====
The fact I still came second in the second game despite totally controlling the puzzle shows the flexibility and multiplicity of paths to victory in this great game - and the three player game came in at under three hours. I think this will see more play than TI:3 in terms of gaming hours!
Oh, and about that -7 score in the first game. That was my mum's score (and is a sad indictment of my teaching) BUT she still enjoyed the game enough that it was her suggestion we play again on Sunday. That game she got 16 (and would have had 28 save for my last turn butchery of her points with the conspiracy). I put this down to the fact that Rachel Beckmann appears to be a very tough character to play with rather than any particular poorness on mum's part. This detective seems to have it rough at virtually everything and her money vps didn't make up for it.
On the whole, I was very please I managed to teach the game to four people at once (on Saturday) with mostly success (sorry mum) and this was a hugely fun weekend, with games of Shadows Over Camelot, Princes Of Florence and BSG as well. Just a great, great weekend.
AND I got a Curry one night as well. Does life get any better?
==========Alright, alright. But is the game any good?=========
It REALLY deserves a look. I appreciate many will find themselves unhappy with some of its mechanisms and its harshness with "take that" methods of winning, but if you let it, it can become a fantastic way to spend your time.
Plus, it feels to me like, while playing Android, you are actually playing three or four games (a card game, a race to complete the puzzle, evidence placement and plots) all of which are interconnected. The three to four hour running time doesn't really hurt that much given this fact. Sure, you could play four to six games of Shadows over Camelot in the same time as a five player game of Android - my advice would always be DO BOTH!
Then I think about how you have 5 murders (or, minor rule changes to give it the boring explanation) to try out and five very different characters to play as.
While games are even more expensive than ever, and the economy is so bad I think this big box has ALREADY given me value for money at £8 a game or so, since a movie costs about that much.
=========Hmm, interesting, but it sounds complicated========
My advice to new players is not to get hung up on winning the first game so much. There's so much going on you'll get a headache and won't enjoy it.
I've never been too hung up on winning anyway (lucky, really!)) and I don't think anyone who views games as a social and fun activity can get too upset if their first game is a little unsuccessful points-wise (like mum!))
Take it easy and it'll all become clear, on average, about turn four. If you are really insistently unhappy at the disadvantage your mates may let the game be restarted and you can really go for it then.
If not - don't worry, just have fun. It's a fairly forgiving system so long as you keep an eye on your baggage (and remember draws are bad, just like in SoC).
================Wrap it up, half the audience are asleep!============
I'm very impressed with Android - I think everyone should give it a go, it is clear it does not work for everyone and that's fine, but everyone I have tried it with had a good time and got something out of it.
On a personal level, I am pleased with the variety, the value for money side and replay value.
I highly recommend it.
A
P.S. Thanks for reading and I hope whatever your views on Android or my review, your games are always as fun and memorable as this has clearly been for me. All the best!
See the full post by clicking here...
It's a review of a very large and complicated board game by a large and very successful company called Fantasy Flight Games. This game is called Android and sees the players take the roles of detectives investigating a conspiracy and murder against the background of a dystopian future (think Blade Runner meets Space 1999).
The game takes place over two "weeks" (of six turns each, making 12 turns in total)
In these two weeks players assign guilt, uncover the conspiracy all the while playing cards to help themselves and hinder their opponents.
Much of this is spent moving to certain places seeking out leads, which you can assign to the conspiracy or murder suspects.
The conspiracy is discovered in the form of a rather ingenious puzzle that shows a maze of connections, where the links show which persons are involved.
I include it here more for the quality of the writing than trying to get anyone to play with me.
Click the link for the whole thing
===================================================================
I hope I can convey in this review what a game of Android is like and how it works. I also wanted to show you, from experience, how each game can be affected fundamentally by its most ingenious feature - the conspiracy puzzle.
My lofty aim is that this review can be followed and understood not only by those thinking of buying this game who have already done some research but also by those they intend to play it with (who may know nothing). I hope I can achieve this in general enough terms that we avoid a rulebook rehash,
Also, I am bolding certain sections of the post to show the "highlights"
I'm now up to 4 games played of Android and am loving it!
CAVEAT: I would recommend, from experience, that you don't try and teach four players at once! At least not while trying to play as well.
What I am currently liking a lot is how the different investigators are forced, due to their strengths and weaknesses, to take sometimes very different approaches to winning. Though I have never won
I was also impressed (as you'll see) by how despite the killing of one of their suspects in two consecutive games, the (same) winner still adapted and came out on top.
To people who don't know much about the game, I will explain its structure in very general terms. This next section is partially adapted from an email I sent to someone to see if they wanted to play.
================The Game itself - what is it?==================
Android is a game that, like many others, uses the universally accepted all-purpose nebulous currency of Victory Points (VPs).
The winner of the game is the player with the most VPs at the end of the game. (well, duh!)
The trouble is, every turn you have a very limited amount of time to do things - usually allowing for a total of 6 "time" points. The task you have is to use your time well enough to score many points, while fighting off other players traps and roadblocks.
Your characters have a lot of personal stuff to use and think about - a guilty and an innocent hunch to prove, their own stories you live through during the game, and two decks of cards, one that helps them, and one that hurts them.
The detail of the plots, cards and how they work is unnecessary for a review like this, but I think it's worth taking a look at how you can get those all important victory points.
There are three points scoring methods;
1. endings to plots (between -10pts and 14pts),
2. having the right hunches (0pts if unsuccessful to 25pts if both guilty and innocent is correct),
3. picking up tokens from three places (Haas and Jinteki token 3vp each, conspiracy line completions 4vp each).
Aside from scoring for completed lines (horizontal, vertical and diagonal sets of five) the conspiracy puzzle does something even more crucial - it can modify any or all the other points scoring methods by anything from 1vp extra up to potentially (though a not practical or likely outcome) a massive 16vp extra. It can also make things that are worthless except in exchange (the favours) crucial to victory.
=======So this puzzle is the key to everything?======
Not always, but perhaps.... the cool thing about the puzzle is you can only do it if you forgo your right (and time) to do something else important (namely work toward your hunches) - Android is a game where you have very limited time resources to do everything.
You can't afford to ignore the conspiracy though.
FWIW, I think the puzzle can easily be underestimated as a force in the game. Even if you don't want to spend time on it, rest assured that it will affect the outcome of the game significantly if someone else does.
To show this fully, take a look at how it affected our last two games.
=========================Last Weekend==========================
The conspiracy puzzle was defining in both games this last weekend, but in very different ways - take a look and see why.
In the game I played Saturday the conspiracy was complete by turn 4 - everyone wanted some of those crucial 4VP tokens - and the outcome of the conspiracy ended up benefitting the eventual winner most - who crucially had his Guilty Hunch killed off in the process.
The way the conspiracy does this well is that depending on the connections different things become important in different games. In this game it was Street favours - where else could you gain 3VP a turn for just 2 time? Nowhere! They soon ran out.
The other fascinating fact here was that thanks to all those connections, the Innocent hunches came out worth a full 11pts each, as opposed to the 5 they usually are.
Since Guilty Hunches were only worth 17, the conspiracy drastically reduced the points swing between guilty and innocent hunches (there's usually a ten point gap), leading to higher scores and a closer run result (1st Position had 56, 2nd 55 and third 53 - fourth btw had 45. Less said about 5th the better (-7!!!!)) I was third (behind my brother AND my wife, which shows the accessibility of this since Mrs Algo is only an occasional gamer) despite having the guilty hunch!
How did I only come third when I had the highest scoring thing, Guilty hunch, in the game - you may ask? It wasn't because I'm incompetent! Honest!
This was because my innocent hunch was the guy who had been killed (D'OH!), meaning I had lost those 11 points (though bro would still have won if he'd managed to keep him alive and guilty)
By contrast, in the second game I played, with three detectives on Sunday, with some of the same players (mum and bro) the conspiracy was virtually "pointless" though it led to the killing off of the eventual winners innocent hunch, and only Jinteki tokens had four extra points. What Raymond (me) was able to do, was bluff people into chasing Political favours (worth four each for most of the game) and on the last turn, turned the relevant conspiracy piece around and blocked off the relevant link meanign that their hard earned political favours were now worthless! I also totally monopolised the 4vp tokens by leaving no legal placement spaces for pieces very early on (about turn four).
I appreciate that without reading all the cards one won't know this last move could happen, and no-one knew it was coming, but it serves to underline the effect the conspiracy can have on final scoring. (1st place 35pts, 2nd 31pts, 3rd 16pts)
(another cool thing that happened in this game was that an event reduced our "time points per turn" by one for most of the second week. This meant our plans had to be changed on the fly)
=====Get to the point now, Algo!=====
The fact I still came second in the second game despite totally controlling the puzzle shows the flexibility and multiplicity of paths to victory in this great game - and the three player game came in at under three hours. I think this will see more play than TI:3 in terms of gaming hours!
Oh, and about that -7 score in the first game. That was my mum's score (and is a sad indictment of my teaching) BUT she still enjoyed the game enough that it was her suggestion we play again on Sunday. That game she got 16 (and would have had 28 save for my last turn butchery of her points with the conspiracy). I put this down to the fact that Rachel Beckmann appears to be a very tough character to play with rather than any particular poorness on mum's part. This detective seems to have it rough at virtually everything and her money vps didn't make up for it.
On the whole, I was very please I managed to teach the game to four people at once (on Saturday) with mostly success (sorry mum) and this was a hugely fun weekend, with games of Shadows Over Camelot, Princes Of Florence and BSG as well. Just a great, great weekend.
AND I got a Curry one night as well. Does life get any better?
==========Alright, alright. But is the game any good?=========
It REALLY deserves a look. I appreciate many will find themselves unhappy with some of its mechanisms and its harshness with "take that" methods of winning, but if you let it, it can become a fantastic way to spend your time.
Plus, it feels to me like, while playing Android, you are actually playing three or four games (a card game, a race to complete the puzzle, evidence placement and plots) all of which are interconnected. The three to four hour running time doesn't really hurt that much given this fact. Sure, you could play four to six games of Shadows over Camelot in the same time as a five player game of Android - my advice would always be DO BOTH!
Then I think about how you have 5 murders (or, minor rule changes to give it the boring explanation) to try out and five very different characters to play as.
While games are even more expensive than ever, and the economy is so bad I think this big box has ALREADY given me value for money at £8 a game or so, since a movie costs about that much.
=========Hmm, interesting, but it sounds complicated========
My advice to new players is not to get hung up on winning the first game so much. There's so much going on you'll get a headache and won't enjoy it.
I've never been too hung up on winning anyway (lucky, really!)) and I don't think anyone who views games as a social and fun activity can get too upset if their first game is a little unsuccessful points-wise (like mum!))
Take it easy and it'll all become clear, on average, about turn four. If you are really insistently unhappy at the disadvantage your mates may let the game be restarted and you can really go for it then.
If not - don't worry, just have fun. It's a fairly forgiving system so long as you keep an eye on your baggage (and remember draws are bad, just like in SoC).
================Wrap it up, half the audience are asleep!============
I'm very impressed with Android - I think everyone should give it a go, it is clear it does not work for everyone and that's fine, but everyone I have tried it with had a good time and got something out of it.
On a personal level, I am pleased with the variety, the value for money side and replay value.
I highly recommend it.
A
P.S. Thanks for reading and I hope whatever your views on Android or my review, your games are always as fun and memorable as this has clearly been for me. All the best!
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, January 26, 2009
The cat that nearly was...
A plea for sympathy here, me and Mrs Algo took in an utterly gorgeous long haired marmalade coloured cat on Saturday.
Our neighbour found it in a deserted car park (it had no ID collar) and we grew a little fond of it over the weekend since the vets were closed til Monday.
I took it in today to check for a microchip.
Unfortunately (for us, not the cat) it did have a microchip in it and is even now back in the home of its loving family. Lucky sods.
Hooray! Good karma for us!
It's just that the place seems really empty now.
So we are spending the evening on Mario Kart and Shadows Over Camelot. At least my board game pieces are safe again!
Sigh... the moral of this tale is: don't get attached to the pet before you check the chip!
And the other moral is - always chip your cats!
So... anyone got words of sympathy or similar stories?
Or any jokes to make me laugh?
A
P.S. Oh, and Mrs Algo and I will be getting a cat soon anyway (that's why the neighbour thought of us), so its not the end of the world, but these things are painful at the time.
See the full post by clicking here...
Our neighbour found it in a deserted car park (it had no ID collar) and we grew a little fond of it over the weekend since the vets were closed til Monday.
I took it in today to check for a microchip.
Unfortunately (for us, not the cat) it did have a microchip in it and is even now back in the home of its loving family. Lucky sods.
Hooray! Good karma for us!
It's just that the place seems really empty now.
So we are spending the evening on Mario Kart and Shadows Over Camelot. At least my board game pieces are safe again!
Sigh... the moral of this tale is: don't get attached to the pet before you check the chip!
And the other moral is - always chip your cats!
So... anyone got words of sympathy or similar stories?
Or any jokes to make me laugh?
A
P.S. Oh, and Mrs Algo and I will be getting a cat soon anyway (that's why the neighbour thought of us), so its not the end of the world, but these things are painful at the time.
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, January 24, 2009
I'm free! Yay! Yay! Yay!
Hurrah for Algo!
I am finally up to date with my film reviews and can get back to mixing them up with the occasional rant and thoughts on political issues of the day.
Don't groan and shake your heads! I saw that!
See the full post by clicking here...
I am finally up to date with my film reviews and can get back to mixing them up with the occasional rant and thoughts on political issues of the day.
Don't groan and shake your heads! I saw that!
See the full post by clicking here...
A sour taste - a measured response to Obama
I want to sound a note of caution here.
There's nothing wrong with Barack Hussein Obama, and his ascension to the highest office in his land is nothing short of a fantastic gesture that shows how far equality has come in America since, as he himself said, his father's time - when said gentleman couldn't get served in many places.
But you know all this - it's all we hear on the news and read in the papers (or in my case on the BBC's excellent website)
I remain concerned however, by the proximity of religion to the office of President. I wrote last year about how disappointed I was that despite everything Obama is supposed to represent...
not by himself, but by the world's starry eyed media - except Fox of course
...The USA will have had both an African-American president and probably a female president before it has an atheist president. Actually, let me rephrase that - an openly atheist president.
Many of the world's most intelligent powerful people must have significant doubts about their supposed religions and I have no doubt that Obama is amongst them. An intelligent educated person must at least have some major questions about the sort of God that allows a whole town or a whole country to be drowned or allows women and children to be bombed for weeks because of a few militant nutters.
That is, unless they subscribe to the argument that New Orleans was flooded because of gays being tolerated there. Although if that's the case, given San Fransisco's proximity to the San Andreas fault I'm surprised it hasn't been dropped into the sea already by this twisted psychopathic logic.
This is beside the point, however.
All I wanted to say was that if a man must outwardly display religion to be voted President of The United States, what sort of separation of church and state is that?
I am hopeful, as most people are, that this new regime will not fall into the trap of equating religon with "right" and secular arguments as "wrong". That's no way to go forward.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
There's nothing wrong with Barack Hussein Obama, and his ascension to the highest office in his land is nothing short of a fantastic gesture that shows how far equality has come in America since, as he himself said, his father's time - when said gentleman couldn't get served in many places.
But you know all this - it's all we hear on the news and read in the papers (or in my case on the BBC's excellent website)
I remain concerned however, by the proximity of religion to the office of President. I wrote last year about how disappointed I was that despite everything Obama is supposed to represent...
not by himself, but by the world's starry eyed media - except Fox of course
...The USA will have had both an African-American president and probably a female president before it has an atheist president. Actually, let me rephrase that - an openly atheist president.
Many of the world's most intelligent powerful people must have significant doubts about their supposed religions and I have no doubt that Obama is amongst them. An intelligent educated person must at least have some major questions about the sort of God that allows a whole town or a whole country to be drowned or allows women and children to be bombed for weeks because of a few militant nutters.
That is, unless they subscribe to the argument that New Orleans was flooded because of gays being tolerated there. Although if that's the case, given San Fransisco's proximity to the San Andreas fault I'm surprised it hasn't been dropped into the sea already by this twisted psychopathic logic.
This is beside the point, however.
All I wanted to say was that if a man must outwardly display religion to be voted President of The United States, what sort of separation of church and state is that?
I am hopeful, as most people are, that this new regime will not fall into the trap of equating religon with "right" and secular arguments as "wrong". That's no way to go forward.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: The Seven Samurai
10/10
Oh hell.
Well, you tell me.
What possible other score can be given to one of the most influential, intriguing and beautiful films ever made?
This, above many others, was the crowning pinnacle of the list of films I had never seen - I am pleased to say I was not in the least bit disappointed.
It is not an exaggeration to say that despite its mental running time of 210 minutes, not a single moment is wasted by the actors or filmmakers.
It can happen sometimes that these great classics can be a little tarred with age but with this masterpiece, like with the Apartment, age has neither rendered its powers irrelevant nor has it dimished the quality of the central performances.
For those who come into this review knowing little about the movie, if there are any left I will briefly explain why the first thing you do tomorrow (or right now) is add this to your shopping basket, LOVEFiLM rental list or wishlist.
It is violent, wistful, painful, funny, romantic (in the literal sense), hyper-real, epic yet focused, character driven while retaining scope and utterly unforgettable.
Many of the events, twists, supporting cast and sequences seem reminiscent to the point of cliché at times, but this is because of the influence of this movie, not its reliance on other people's ideas.
The central performance is frequently to be considered to be that of Toshiro Mifune as the child like yet unflinching Kikuchiyo, but the film belongs mainly to the incredible Takashi Shimura, who plays the lead Samurai, Kambei. He is morally unquestionable, noble of stature and yet human and humorous with it. It is an outstanding performance and it serves as the backbone of the movie. Success without his involvement is impossible - with him on "our" side, it seems possible, even likely.
It is, in essence, a siege movie, like The Alamo, or The Return Of The King's Minas Tirith section, but exceeds the former in style, and the latter in genuine impact. The impact is achieved mainly because of the build up, crucial to all siege stories in which we are introduced to just how bad things are for the villagers and how desperate they are get help.
I don't want to rehash the plot or the millions of positive reviews this film has already had, suffice to say that probably for the first time I had absolutely NO hesitation in adding it to the Wall Shadows "10 Club", in which there are, to day only FOUR FILMS.
(The Dark Knight, The Apartment, Metropolis and Seven Samurai if you've not been counting - very different films, all perfect examples of their genre)
A
P.S. I anticipate being made to regret the "what other possible score" rhetorical question.....
See the full post by clicking here...
Oh hell.
Well, you tell me.
What possible other score can be given to one of the most influential, intriguing and beautiful films ever made?
This, above many others, was the crowning pinnacle of the list of films I had never seen - I am pleased to say I was not in the least bit disappointed.
It is not an exaggeration to say that despite its mental running time of 210 minutes, not a single moment is wasted by the actors or filmmakers.
It can happen sometimes that these great classics can be a little tarred with age but with this masterpiece, like with the Apartment, age has neither rendered its powers irrelevant nor has it dimished the quality of the central performances.
For those who come into this review knowing little about the movie, if there are any left I will briefly explain why the first thing you do tomorrow (or right now) is add this to your shopping basket, LOVEFiLM rental list or wishlist.
It is violent, wistful, painful, funny, romantic (in the literal sense), hyper-real, epic yet focused, character driven while retaining scope and utterly unforgettable.
Many of the events, twists, supporting cast and sequences seem reminiscent to the point of cliché at times, but this is because of the influence of this movie, not its reliance on other people's ideas.
The central performance is frequently to be considered to be that of Toshiro Mifune as the child like yet unflinching Kikuchiyo, but the film belongs mainly to the incredible Takashi Shimura, who plays the lead Samurai, Kambei. He is morally unquestionable, noble of stature and yet human and humorous with it. It is an outstanding performance and it serves as the backbone of the movie. Success without his involvement is impossible - with him on "our" side, it seems possible, even likely.
It is, in essence, a siege movie, like The Alamo, or The Return Of The King's Minas Tirith section, but exceeds the former in style, and the latter in genuine impact. The impact is achieved mainly because of the build up, crucial to all siege stories in which we are introduced to just how bad things are for the villagers and how desperate they are get help.
I don't want to rehash the plot or the millions of positive reviews this film has already had, suffice to say that probably for the first time I had absolutely NO hesitation in adding it to the Wall Shadows "10 Club", in which there are, to day only FOUR FILMS.
(The Dark Knight, The Apartment, Metropolis and Seven Samurai if you've not been counting - very different films, all perfect examples of their genre)
A
P.S. I anticipate being made to regret the "what other possible score" rhetorical question.....
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: The Count Of Monte Cristo
5/10
I'm not sure what I was expecting here, really. The great classics have seen a very average set of movies based on them in the last thirty or so years - Man In The Iron Mask, Three Musketeers (with Keifer Sutherland and Chris O'Donnell!) etc etc. The best looking modern one (Terry Gilliam's ill fated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) was never even made, though perhaps it will escape development hell eventually.
This is based on Alexandre Dumas' classic tale of betrayal and revenge.
A night where we didn't really have enough time to watch Seven Samurai and this turns up on TV, I decided to watch it and was pleasantly surprised - a fairly standard tale of repentance and vengeance, only rendered slightly silly that as in most good tales, all the French speak English with an English accent, except a woman who doesn't (because the actress is actually French) and all the Italians, Spanish and English. Who also speak English with an English accent but occasionally break into other languages to show they're foreign. Except the English who don't have the choice.
This problem may be due to the fact that directing this piece of period tosh is none other than "the" Kevin Reynolds who is responsible for Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, which has entered into legend as the ultimate in silly accents, geographical errors and historical misconceptions.
Dumb accent nonsense aside, I had a reasonably good time with the movie - scenes came and went without particular impact, a reasonably long "cameo" from the late great Richard Harris and a decent central performance from Jesus himself, Jim Caviezel.
Everybody else is neither here nor there really, Guy Pearce plays a possible Spaniard with occasional Aussie inflections with sneering gusto, but is far from convincing.
All in all a reasonable way to spend a couple of hours, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I'm not sure what I was expecting here, really. The great classics have seen a very average set of movies based on them in the last thirty or so years - Man In The Iron Mask, Three Musketeers (with Keifer Sutherland and Chris O'Donnell!) etc etc. The best looking modern one (Terry Gilliam's ill fated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) was never even made, though perhaps it will escape development hell eventually.
This is based on Alexandre Dumas' classic tale of betrayal and revenge.
A night where we didn't really have enough time to watch Seven Samurai and this turns up on TV, I decided to watch it and was pleasantly surprised - a fairly standard tale of repentance and vengeance, only rendered slightly silly that as in most good tales, all the French speak English with an English accent, except a woman who doesn't (because the actress is actually French) and all the Italians, Spanish and English. Who also speak English with an English accent but occasionally break into other languages to show they're foreign. Except the English who don't have the choice.
This problem may be due to the fact that directing this piece of period tosh is none other than "the" Kevin Reynolds who is responsible for Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, which has entered into legend as the ultimate in silly accents, geographical errors and historical misconceptions.
Dumb accent nonsense aside, I had a reasonably good time with the movie - scenes came and went without particular impact, a reasonably long "cameo" from the late great Richard Harris and a decent central performance from Jesus himself, Jim Caviezel.
Everybody else is neither here nor there really, Guy Pearce plays a possible Spaniard with occasional Aussie inflections with sneering gusto, but is far from convincing.
All in all a reasonable way to spend a couple of hours, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, January 23, 2009
Quick Movie Review: American Psycho
7/10
An imperfect adaptation of a REALLY weird book it may be, but Christian Bale is superb as the worlds least stable trader. Actually, I'm not sure about that. After all, he doesn't do a lot of trading in this film, though if memory serves he did a bit in the book.
What he does is sit about listening to some of the most godawful music, spouting pseudo intellectual reviews of low rent pop albums as if they're great works of art.
This is pretty much the point - Patrick Bateman has no life (or opinions) of his own - the pinnacle of the world for him is to have a better business card than his colleagues. In fact, the only opinion he displays is popular opinion, hence his mantra like music reviews (I even get the impression they are verbatim repeating of reviews he has read).
And his mania is truly clear when he calls "Duke" the best Genesis album. If that doesn't show he's a menace to society, I don't know what would.
I have to tread carefully past his actual acts of violence for two reasons - one will become apparent as you get to the end of the film, the other is that they're really not that important. Sorry, but that's just the way it is - the film is about the compromising of your soul in the pursuit of wealth and accepted "success".
Thing is, Bateman has lost any ounce of humanity he once had and is, by his own admission, an empty suit - a facsimile of a businessmen, but wihout anything close to normal human emotions or feelings. He spends the time his Fiancée is talking about the wedding listening to Robert Palmer for goodness sake!
If all the performances seem caricatures this is because that is what they have become - the process of success has turned them into these barely human creatures.
What Bateman can't accept is that he is, on the face of it, incredibly successful - but STILL gains no respect from his peers and decides to take it out on those below him.
Of course, it's not quite that simple, but what is, really?
A
P.S. IMHO, the best Genesis album is Foxtrot. Watcher Of The Skies, Can-Utility, Get Em Out by Friday and Supper's Ready? Easy choice.
See the full post by clicking here...
An imperfect adaptation of a REALLY weird book it may be, but Christian Bale is superb as the worlds least stable trader. Actually, I'm not sure about that. After all, he doesn't do a lot of trading in this film, though if memory serves he did a bit in the book.
What he does is sit about listening to some of the most godawful music, spouting pseudo intellectual reviews of low rent pop albums as if they're great works of art.
This is pretty much the point - Patrick Bateman has no life (or opinions) of his own - the pinnacle of the world for him is to have a better business card than his colleagues. In fact, the only opinion he displays is popular opinion, hence his mantra like music reviews (I even get the impression they are verbatim repeating of reviews he has read).
And his mania is truly clear when he calls "Duke" the best Genesis album. If that doesn't show he's a menace to society, I don't know what would.
I have to tread carefully past his actual acts of violence for two reasons - one will become apparent as you get to the end of the film, the other is that they're really not that important. Sorry, but that's just the way it is - the film is about the compromising of your soul in the pursuit of wealth and accepted "success".
Thing is, Bateman has lost any ounce of humanity he once had and is, by his own admission, an empty suit - a facsimile of a businessmen, but wihout anything close to normal human emotions or feelings. He spends the time his Fiancée is talking about the wedding listening to Robert Palmer for goodness sake!
If all the performances seem caricatures this is because that is what they have become - the process of success has turned them into these barely human creatures.
What Bateman can't accept is that he is, on the face of it, incredibly successful - but STILL gains no respect from his peers and decides to take it out on those below him.
Of course, it's not quite that simple, but what is, really?
A
P.S. IMHO, the best Genesis album is Foxtrot. Watcher Of The Skies, Can-Utility, Get Em Out by Friday and Supper's Ready? Easy choice.
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Movie Review: Danger: Diabolik!
4/10A
Now then. If this film was marked for cmoic book accuracy and style alone it would get a much higher score.
It's based on an Italian comic book (or, "fumetti") about the escapades of a master criminal, the eponymous Diabolik. He's a sort of masked nutter with mental eyebrows and a supervillain's laugh, whom we first meet stealing ten million quid from a rolls royce. By stealing the Rolls Royce.
He quickly returns to his lair, a crazy sci fi masterpiece of kitsch.
Oh, not to forget. He has a REALLY REALLY gorgeous girlfriend. I mean, it's absurd how beautiful she is. There's a lot of female flesh on show really, from gangsters' molls in bikinis to society ladies in gowns. Despite all the lovelies populating the world Diabolik's relationship remains entirely monogamous throughout the tale and this is refreshing and kind of sweet.
Of course, sweet in the loose sense since these two are randy as rabbits in spring, and spend the first ten minutes of the film shagging on the ten million quid.
This is the sort of use that Diabolik puts his winnings to - he has little interest in spending his money and is more interested in the craziest and more difficult scams. At one point he decides to steal a gigantic 25 tonne gold ingot that is welded into solid steel. If that ain't a useless bauble I don't know what is.
The film is mental - the acting extreme, and occasionally bad, the effects, while inventive are incredibly cheap (at one point, an aeroplane is created using a 2d drawing and what looks like a stepladder for the boarding steps) and this means that despite this film being a superior work of story and filmmaking than the far more campy and intentionally funny Batman movie from a couple of years previous, it doesn'ty really achieve anything more than moderate success.
It's apparently a massive cult movie and I can see why, it's immensly and purely CULT - I think it's worth seeing for anyone who's into superheroes and supervillains, 60 movies, or even just pretty ladies.
So in summary, it's not a great film, but I greatly enjoyed it, that gets it an A.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Now then. If this film was marked for cmoic book accuracy and style alone it would get a much higher score.
It's based on an Italian comic book (or, "fumetti") about the escapades of a master criminal, the eponymous Diabolik. He's a sort of masked nutter with mental eyebrows and a supervillain's laugh, whom we first meet stealing ten million quid from a rolls royce. By stealing the Rolls Royce.
He quickly returns to his lair, a crazy sci fi masterpiece of kitsch.
Oh, not to forget. He has a REALLY REALLY gorgeous girlfriend. I mean, it's absurd how beautiful she is. There's a lot of female flesh on show really, from gangsters' molls in bikinis to society ladies in gowns. Despite all the lovelies populating the world Diabolik's relationship remains entirely monogamous throughout the tale and this is refreshing and kind of sweet.
Of course, sweet in the loose sense since these two are randy as rabbits in spring, and spend the first ten minutes of the film shagging on the ten million quid.
This is the sort of use that Diabolik puts his winnings to - he has little interest in spending his money and is more interested in the craziest and more difficult scams. At one point he decides to steal a gigantic 25 tonne gold ingot that is welded into solid steel. If that ain't a useless bauble I don't know what is.
The film is mental - the acting extreme, and occasionally bad, the effects, while inventive are incredibly cheap (at one point, an aeroplane is created using a 2d drawing and what looks like a stepladder for the boarding steps) and this means that despite this film being a superior work of story and filmmaking than the far more campy and intentionally funny Batman movie from a couple of years previous, it doesn'ty really achieve anything more than moderate success.
It's apparently a massive cult movie and I can see why, it's immensly and purely CULT - I think it's worth seeing for anyone who's into superheroes and supervillains, 60 movies, or even just pretty ladies.
So in summary, it's not a great film, but I greatly enjoyed it, that gets it an A.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, January 19, 2009
Movie Review: All The President's Men
8/10
Damn lack of cash prevented us from double billing this with its spiritual sequel, Frost/Nixon, but it seemed appropriate since this week sees the end of the reign of what will almost certainly be remembered as the worst president bar Nixon (who was corrupt, but at least apparently competent).
This is, of course, the story of the reporters who chased down the leads and told the story of what would become known as the Watergate scandal (giving birth to the irritating habit of ending controversial things with "-gate" eg Pizzagate, Sachsgate, Stargate.. well maybe not the last one).
Annoying journalist clichés aside and looking at the film we have a true story on our hands, and one in which there will not be a satisfying payoff to enjoy, since all of us know that Nixon was never charged for his involvement.
It is to the film's credit that despite being hampered by a need to relate true events sensibly, the tale is told with tension and interest. This is partly due to the story being a fairly incredible one in real life, and partly to do with the strength of the cast.
Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are excellent as Woodward and Bernstein (or collectively, "Woodstein") the leads and anchors for the tale. The supporting cast is also particularly good, with the evr dependable Jason Robards is superb as the idealistic yet realistic editor in chief (he won an oscar for the performance.
It's all shot in excellent film-noir style, with atmosphere in spades especially during the sequences where Woodward meets his key contact, Deep Throat (hur hur) and the fear that develops as the journalists go deeper and find out the true extent of the conspiracy.
That a true story so well known and covered can be exciting and interesting nevertheless is all due to thehard work made by the cast and crew. Unfortunatley I can't help but think the film came slightly too soon for things to wrap up nicely, the end when it comes is all too sudden and there's little in the way of emotional or moral climax as a result. Everyone is also very earnest and well meaning in their performances and noone looks like they are having fun in their roles, possibly due to the proximity of the events and the protagonists in the tale are mostly still alive (if not at liberty).
The film while it lasts is very good, I can't help feeling with a little more breathing room it may have been a classic.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Damn lack of cash prevented us from double billing this with its spiritual sequel, Frost/Nixon, but it seemed appropriate since this week sees the end of the reign of what will almost certainly be remembered as the worst president bar Nixon (who was corrupt, but at least apparently competent).
This is, of course, the story of the reporters who chased down the leads and told the story of what would become known as the Watergate scandal (giving birth to the irritating habit of ending controversial things with "-gate" eg Pizzagate, Sachsgate, Stargate.. well maybe not the last one).
Annoying journalist clichés aside and looking at the film we have a true story on our hands, and one in which there will not be a satisfying payoff to enjoy, since all of us know that Nixon was never charged for his involvement.
It is to the film's credit that despite being hampered by a need to relate true events sensibly, the tale is told with tension and interest. This is partly due to the story being a fairly incredible one in real life, and partly to do with the strength of the cast.
Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are excellent as Woodward and Bernstein (or collectively, "Woodstein") the leads and anchors for the tale. The supporting cast is also particularly good, with the evr dependable Jason Robards is superb as the idealistic yet realistic editor in chief (he won an oscar for the performance.
It's all shot in excellent film-noir style, with atmosphere in spades especially during the sequences where Woodward meets his key contact, Deep Throat (hur hur) and the fear that develops as the journalists go deeper and find out the true extent of the conspiracy.
That a true story so well known and covered can be exciting and interesting nevertheless is all due to thehard work made by the cast and crew. Unfortunatley I can't help but think the film came slightly too soon for things to wrap up nicely, the end when it comes is all too sudden and there's little in the way of emotional or moral climax as a result. Everyone is also very earnest and well meaning in their performances and noone looks like they are having fun in their roles, possibly due to the proximity of the events and the protagonists in the tale are mostly still alive (if not at liberty).
The film while it lasts is very good, I can't help feeling with a little more breathing room it may have been a classic.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Killers Kiss
5/10
It's an odd beast this, a fairly obvious and interest free plot with no fine performances and little going for it in the controversy stakes.
So not the most auspicious first line for a review! Even having said that, there are many things to enjoy in this movie. Why? The x-factor is that of its director, one Stanley Kubrick.
It's his first big picture (waaay back in 1955) and even then his mind melting talent for shot composition and subverting the unwritten rules of filmmaking mean that the film looks incredible and way ahead of its time.
Unfortunately this is the best thing that can be said for it, as it failed to pull me in, and only occasionally rose above average status.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's an odd beast this, a fairly obvious and interest free plot with no fine performances and little going for it in the controversy stakes.
So not the most auspicious first line for a review! Even having said that, there are many things to enjoy in this movie. Why? The x-factor is that of its director, one Stanley Kubrick.
It's his first big picture (waaay back in 1955) and even then his mind melting talent for shot composition and subverting the unwritten rules of filmmaking mean that the film looks incredible and way ahead of its time.
Unfortunately this is the best thing that can be said for it, as it failed to pull me in, and only occasionally rose above average status.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: The Apartment
10/10
Let's face it, how many comedies have an attempted suicide in? With this obvious classic from 1960, director Billy Wilder saw fit to darken his palette even further, with a tale of moral bankruptcy, greed and sexism.
In the course of the first ten minutes, as with its illustrious predecessor Some Like It Hot, it is clear this is not your usual screwball comedy. Cary Grant would have been a high powered lawyer, Jimmy Stewart would have been a politician, but Jack Lemmon is perfectly suited to the role of.... insurance clerk. And not a high powered one either! This is a man who is at the bottom rung of his organisation - a guy at a numbered desk who has one asset - his apartment.
In return for consideration and favours from the office bigwigs, he lets them use it for secret trysts with their mistresses (and they ALL have one) so often he has to keep a diary and take bookings. He stays at work and can only go home after they're...er... "done".
The film's depth is obvious when it becomes clear that the protagonist is not being forced to do these things, but is using them to climb the corporate ladder, and possibly to impress the charming lift girl with whom he becomes besotted. It is all his idea.
His choice is between the accepted norm of "furthering your career" and that of being true to who is really is.It becomes clear both through the story and Lemmon's performance that while he gains success throught the use of the apartment it leaves him thoroughly alone and thoroughly miserable.
The casting of Shirley MacClaine is another of the films Aces in the hole. She is so lovely, so sweet and so likable you can't help but almost fall for her yourself, and her piteous situation is all the more affecting because of it. I may be biased, since it is very possible she has bewitched me with her bright eyes and happy smile.... (sigh) but her performance is as pitch perfect as it is dark.
I don't really want to eulogise about the films every plot point, or its integrity (it never compromises itself with indulgence or self mockery) so I will simply say this: see it! see it! see it!
In my opinion it is superior in most ways to Some Like It Hot.
It really is that good.
In fact, I believe it's bloody perfect.
Flame On!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Let's face it, how many comedies have an attempted suicide in? With this obvious classic from 1960, director Billy Wilder saw fit to darken his palette even further, with a tale of moral bankruptcy, greed and sexism.
In the course of the first ten minutes, as with its illustrious predecessor Some Like It Hot, it is clear this is not your usual screwball comedy. Cary Grant would have been a high powered lawyer, Jimmy Stewart would have been a politician, but Jack Lemmon is perfectly suited to the role of.... insurance clerk. And not a high powered one either! This is a man who is at the bottom rung of his organisation - a guy at a numbered desk who has one asset - his apartment.
In return for consideration and favours from the office bigwigs, he lets them use it for secret trysts with their mistresses (and they ALL have one) so often he has to keep a diary and take bookings. He stays at work and can only go home after they're...er... "done".
The film's depth is obvious when it becomes clear that the protagonist is not being forced to do these things, but is using them to climb the corporate ladder, and possibly to impress the charming lift girl with whom he becomes besotted. It is all his idea.
His choice is between the accepted norm of "furthering your career" and that of being true to who is really is.It becomes clear both through the story and Lemmon's performance that while he gains success throught the use of the apartment it leaves him thoroughly alone and thoroughly miserable.
The casting of Shirley MacClaine is another of the films Aces in the hole. She is so lovely, so sweet and so likable you can't help but almost fall for her yourself, and her piteous situation is all the more affecting because of it. I may be biased, since it is very possible she has bewitched me with her bright eyes and happy smile.... (sigh) but her performance is as pitch perfect as it is dark.
I don't really want to eulogise about the films every plot point, or its integrity (it never compromises itself with indulgence or self mockery) so I will simply say this: see it! see it! see it!
In my opinion it is superior in most ways to Some Like It Hot.
It really is that good.
In fact, I believe it's bloody perfect.
Flame On!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: A History Of Violence
7/10
A fine example of less is more filmmaking this, from a past master at chucking all sorts of unnecessary gore about, David Cronenberg. Unlike some of his other work (The Fly is reviewed elsewhere on the Blog) this is a measured, thoughtful adaptation of the original story, from a comic book, sorry - a GRAPHIC NOVEL.
The difference between a comic book and a graphic novel is a useful tool to describe how this movie is different from many others. If we look at, say, SAW as an example of comic book movie making, all bangs and flashes, then the graphic novel approach is immeasurably more mature and sensible. If you've read something like Batman: Year One or Watchmen then you'll know that while both are ridiculous in premise as ever, but show a maturity and grit missing from the original campy superheros. Even men in tights can be improved greatly by the Graphic Novel approach. Many other artists and writers have told more down to earth stories in graphic novel form, and this is one of them.
Should say though, there aren't any superheros in this one - this is a very sensible movie about a fairly ridiculous situation - Viggo Mortensen is reliable as ever as a man who inadvertently attracts all sorts of attention after killing two would be robbers in his diner. None of it is particularly welcome, but the arrival of a group of gangsters who claim to know him from years ago, and who harbour a grudge, is definitely the least welcome of it all.
All the acting, from Mortensen to Harris is absolutely fine and dandy, and the story is intriguing too - though I was expecting a bigger twist than that which eventually comes, and the direction is sane, yet nuflinching, focussing on sudden acts of violence which seem fairly realistic, though the final confrontation with William Hurt's character veers a little too close to comedy for some people to stomach, I'll wager.
Overall I had a great time, I'm not totally sure this is for everyone though, since its morals are a little ambiguous - and the realistic but fairly open ending may irritate rather than excite.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
A fine example of less is more filmmaking this, from a past master at chucking all sorts of unnecessary gore about, David Cronenberg. Unlike some of his other work (The Fly is reviewed elsewhere on the Blog) this is a measured, thoughtful adaptation of the original story, from a comic book, sorry - a GRAPHIC NOVEL.
The difference between a comic book and a graphic novel is a useful tool to describe how this movie is different from many others. If we look at, say, SAW as an example of comic book movie making, all bangs and flashes, then the graphic novel approach is immeasurably more mature and sensible. If you've read something like Batman: Year One or Watchmen then you'll know that while both are ridiculous in premise as ever, but show a maturity and grit missing from the original campy superheros. Even men in tights can be improved greatly by the Graphic Novel approach. Many other artists and writers have told more down to earth stories in graphic novel form, and this is one of them.
Should say though, there aren't any superheros in this one - this is a very sensible movie about a fairly ridiculous situation - Viggo Mortensen is reliable as ever as a man who inadvertently attracts all sorts of attention after killing two would be robbers in his diner. None of it is particularly welcome, but the arrival of a group of gangsters who claim to know him from years ago, and who harbour a grudge, is definitely the least welcome of it all.
All the acting, from Mortensen to Harris is absolutely fine and dandy, and the story is intriguing too - though I was expecting a bigger twist than that which eventually comes, and the direction is sane, yet nuflinching, focussing on sudden acts of violence which seem fairly realistic, though the final confrontation with William Hurt's character veers a little too close to comedy for some people to stomach, I'll wager.
Overall I had a great time, I'm not totally sure this is for everyone though, since its morals are a little ambiguous - and the realistic but fairly open ending may irritate rather than excite.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Quick Movie Review: Black Christmas
7/10
I admit a mistake. I always thought the original "slasher" movie was John Carpenter's 1978classic Halloween. I was wrong, apparently. The original nutter witha knife picture appears to be 1974's Black Christmas, a by now hackneyed story of a deeply troubled young man who scares the women in a house silly before picking them off one by one.
Having pointed this out in advance, it's understandable that its hard to approach this film without the oodles of thrity year old baggage telling you this is an obvious and innovation free genre.
To be fair, there's nothing here that hasn't been done again since, from the indecisive cops to running upstairs instead of out the front door. There is one caveat, since this is the originator any fan of the genre should check it out in the same way that sci fi fans should see Forbidden Planet or Metropolis so you can see the blueprints for the future films you enjoy.
Go on!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I admit a mistake. I always thought the original "slasher" movie was John Carpenter's 1978classic Halloween. I was wrong, apparently. The original nutter witha knife picture appears to be 1974's Black Christmas, a by now hackneyed story of a deeply troubled young man who scares the women in a house silly before picking them off one by one.
Having pointed this out in advance, it's understandable that its hard to approach this film without the oodles of thrity year old baggage telling you this is an obvious and innovation free genre.
To be fair, there's nothing here that hasn't been done again since, from the indecisive cops to running upstairs instead of out the front door. There is one caveat, since this is the originator any fan of the genre should check it out in the same way that sci fi fans should see Forbidden Planet or Metropolis so you can see the blueprints for the future films you enjoy.
Go on!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: The Proposition
8/10
I'm a western fan. Not all of them leave a good taste in the mouth but many are epic and majestic in scale while being very focussed on the message they want to put over and the characters in them.
This particular film is not a Western in the literal sense but in the stylistic sense there is nothing else it could be. It's actually set in Australia, during the period in which the land was being settled and "civilised" by the British and turned into a viable colony.
We are introduced to all our main protagonists immediately, Guy Pearce plays a hardened criminal, Charlie Burns, who left his brothers gang after a recent atrocity, taking their youngest brother with him. Problem is they've been caught by the local law, in the guise of Ray Winstone's troubled cop, Captain Stanley. He offers them a "proposition", namely that he won't hang the youngest brother if Guy Pearce is prepared to go kill his older brother, who is responsible for the atrocity we hear of at the start.
We basically go on from there, as Winstone tries to hold down the fort at home, while Pearce heads off to find his brohter, who is hiding in the outback with the remaining gang.
I really enjoyed this film in fact, though I was concerned as its scriptwriter is Nick Cave of all people - and some of his harsher, blackly comic outlook has clearly made it through the filmmaking process to affect the final result.
Acting is all excellent, though the real standout performances are those of Winstone as Stanley and that of his wife, Martha, played by Emily Watson. Their relationship is a rare one, in that it is solid as a rock from start to finish - even when they have the major set to their arcs requires, you always feel that love remains strong between them.
It's not perfect, naturally, while the concentration of a larger part of the movie than usual on the Winstone character is refreshing it does mean that Charlie Burns and his journey feels absurdly quick. With one short altercation with Joh Hurt (who clearly relishes his part) his trek is over, and we are at that point just waiting for him to come to a decision.
But really, this is a complaint for the purists to have. This story is far more concerned with the other part - back at the town - and how the township's desire for vengeance turns them into monsters, perhaps momentarily but undeniably.
The soundtrack is a bit odd too, occasionally so strange that the mood is quite defined by how you reconcile the music with the action. This may be annoying for some people, I thought it was innovative and quite refreshing.
I liked this film considerably, you may not, but its in the television merry-go-round now, so won't cost you anything to see next time. Check it out.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I'm a western fan. Not all of them leave a good taste in the mouth but many are epic and majestic in scale while being very focussed on the message they want to put over and the characters in them.
This particular film is not a Western in the literal sense but in the stylistic sense there is nothing else it could be. It's actually set in Australia, during the period in which the land was being settled and "civilised" by the British and turned into a viable colony.
We are introduced to all our main protagonists immediately, Guy Pearce plays a hardened criminal, Charlie Burns, who left his brothers gang after a recent atrocity, taking their youngest brother with him. Problem is they've been caught by the local law, in the guise of Ray Winstone's troubled cop, Captain Stanley. He offers them a "proposition", namely that he won't hang the youngest brother if Guy Pearce is prepared to go kill his older brother, who is responsible for the atrocity we hear of at the start.
We basically go on from there, as Winstone tries to hold down the fort at home, while Pearce heads off to find his brohter, who is hiding in the outback with the remaining gang.
I really enjoyed this film in fact, though I was concerned as its scriptwriter is Nick Cave of all people - and some of his harsher, blackly comic outlook has clearly made it through the filmmaking process to affect the final result.
Acting is all excellent, though the real standout performances are those of Winstone as Stanley and that of his wife, Martha, played by Emily Watson. Their relationship is a rare one, in that it is solid as a rock from start to finish - even when they have the major set to their arcs requires, you always feel that love remains strong between them.
It's not perfect, naturally, while the concentration of a larger part of the movie than usual on the Winstone character is refreshing it does mean that Charlie Burns and his journey feels absurdly quick. With one short altercation with Joh Hurt (who clearly relishes his part) his trek is over, and we are at that point just waiting for him to come to a decision.
But really, this is a complaint for the purists to have. This story is far more concerned with the other part - back at the town - and how the township's desire for vengeance turns them into monsters, perhaps momentarily but undeniably.
The soundtrack is a bit odd too, occasionally so strange that the mood is quite defined by how you reconcile the music with the action. This may be annoying for some people, I thought it was innovative and quite refreshing.
I liked this film considerably, you may not, but its in the television merry-go-round now, so won't cost you anything to see next time. Check it out.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, January 9, 2009
Wall-Shadows review score distribution
I must admit, good old Gary got me thinking, so here is the distribution of scores so far.
Unfortunately, me and OpenOffice are having a little domestic so I couldn;t get the X-Axis labelling right.
To get the score then, subtract 2 from the row name underneath the bar.
Scores start at "Row 2" with 0 and end at "row 12" with 10.
As I expected it displays a skewed distribution (since the selection of movies to watch is not random) but it still shows the classic shape just peaking at 7 instead of 5.
With this in mind I find that I am happy with the first 10 months reviewage and will continue on the path I tread now.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thin ice, but you'll get my point.
Over the Christmas period myself and my lovely wife watched a film of Richard Pryor's standup.
It was very funny.
A portion of his show is dedicated to the differences between black people and white people, along the lines of White people being a bit uptight and black people being not so uptight.
Now, this is all fine (and very, very funny) but how many white performers would get away with similar humour? Someone like Jimmy Carr is happy to have bash at jokes about religion, politics or taboos like incest but how many does he really tell about race?
It has its roots in something very "white". SHAME.
Classic Shame material is The Black And White Minstrel Show - here's something shameful:
Look at this! A guy colouring himself as a different race and performing demeaning and pathetic stereotyped behaviours of that race in order to get cheap laughs. Sick and wrong.
But look at this:
How is this any different? This film grossed more than 8o million dollars and is JUST as racist as the Black And White Minstrel Show. Was that even an issue? Nah.
It's also total arse as movie go, but even if it was genius on Blazing Saddles or Airplane! levels it would still be just as racist.
But why don't we moan about it?
Oh yeah - SHAME!
We "white folk" did things that were as bad once, true. That doesn't mean other races have the right to be annoyed about them AND THEN DO THE SAME THINGS!
If you do the same thing then you lose any moral high ground you had on the issue!
I mean, if someone I love is killed in a car accident, that doesn't give me the right to come and run over the son of the other driver because they did it first!
Sigh. Rant over.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It was very funny.
A portion of his show is dedicated to the differences between black people and white people, along the lines of White people being a bit uptight and black people being not so uptight.
Now, this is all fine (and very, very funny) but how many white performers would get away with similar humour? Someone like Jimmy Carr is happy to have bash at jokes about religion, politics or taboos like incest but how many does he really tell about race?
It has its roots in something very "white". SHAME.
Classic Shame material is The Black And White Minstrel Show - here's something shameful:
Look at this! A guy colouring himself as a different race and performing demeaning and pathetic stereotyped behaviours of that race in order to get cheap laughs. Sick and wrong.But look at this:
How is this any different? This film grossed more than 8o million dollars and is JUST as racist as the Black And White Minstrel Show. Was that even an issue? Nah.It's also total arse as movie go, but even if it was genius on Blazing Saddles or Airplane! levels it would still be just as racist.
But why don't we moan about it?
Oh yeah - SHAME!
We "white folk" did things that were as bad once, true. That doesn't mean other races have the right to be annoyed about them AND THEN DO THE SAME THINGS!
If you do the same thing then you lose any moral high ground you had on the issue!
I mean, if someone I love is killed in a car accident, that doesn't give me the right to come and run over the son of the other driver because they did it first!
Sigh. Rant over.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Would you say that I had a PLETHORA of reviews?
Oh yes.... you have a plethora!
I promised you'd be seeing reviews appear and golly here they are!
I'm still a little behind but I'm back on track and should be right up to date in the next couple of days.
To explain the shortness of many of them; I originally wrote one post and wrote them all in it, but thought I may as well separate them out for linking purposes. I hope you enjoy them. the only one that has content you need to click through to read is that for Fear City.
You may also notice (especially Gary over at musings cafe, who hates me doing this) that I have already awarded the first 10/10 of 2009. Simply put we have saved some real all time classics from our LoveFilm list for after the Christmas period (tomorrows movie is Kurosawa's Seven Samurai) and I have little hesitation in saying that The Apartment (which I have never seen before) truly deserves such lofty praise.
Full review to follow.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I promised you'd be seeing reviews appear and golly here they are!
I'm still a little behind but I'm back on track and should be right up to date in the next couple of days.
To explain the shortness of many of them; I originally wrote one post and wrote them all in it, but thought I may as well separate them out for linking purposes. I hope you enjoy them. the only one that has content you need to click through to read is that for Fear City.
You may also notice (especially Gary over at musings cafe, who hates me doing this) that I have already awarded the first 10/10 of 2009. Simply put we have saved some real all time classics from our LoveFilm list for after the Christmas period (tomorrows movie is Kurosawa's Seven Samurai) and I have little hesitation in saying that The Apartment (which I have never seen before) truly deserves such lofty praise.
Full review to follow.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Battle Royale II
5/10
I really liked the first one. This one is stylish and exciting, but makes no sense. The characters are no longer desperate and believable, they are absurd in contrast to the schoolteacher played with such genius by Takeshi Kitano in the original, we have another who just left the panto stage by the looks of it. The plot is simple, the references obvious (The Alamo/Butch and Sundance much?) but its message is unclear - are we, in this day and age, really meant to be siding with terrorists? I mean, things aren't always blacka nd white, but this seems distasteful especially since the shot which opens the movie is these terrorists levelling 7 or 8 city skyscrapers full of people.
I am undecided as yet as to whether this weird message is hateful or not, but at the moment it gets a "meh".
See the full post by clicking here...
I really liked the first one. This one is stylish and exciting, but makes no sense. The characters are no longer desperate and believable, they are absurd in contrast to the schoolteacher played with such genius by Takeshi Kitano in the original, we have another who just left the panto stage by the looks of it. The plot is simple, the references obvious (The Alamo/Butch and Sundance much?) but its message is unclear - are we, in this day and age, really meant to be siding with terrorists? I mean, things aren't always blacka nd white, but this seems distasteful especially since the shot which opens the movie is these terrorists levelling 7 or 8 city skyscrapers full of people.
I am undecided as yet as to whether this weird message is hateful or not, but at the moment it gets a "meh".
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Fear City
2/10
It's harsh to bash a film you know is going to be awful, but this was my Christmas present from my old buddy Chris (who I incidentally bought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile for his birthday, so I deserved this). We are connoisseurs of the crap film, having especial love for the triumvurate of Tom Berenger, Billy Zane, and Arnold Vosloo. Of these three, this film only featured Tom Berenger but gave us the bonus rubbishness of Melanie Griffith and Billy Dee Williams.
It is gloriously terrible, though not in the fun way many of our movie choices are, and about halfway in I found the comedy gave way to a seeping depression. What's the movie about? Wel, some freak is killing strippers and other "scum" on the streets of the city. Our heroes run a talent agency for strippers and Tom himself is a retired boxer (he killed a guy in the ring, btw) and they eventually decide to try and stop the killer themselves.
It makes many horrific and hilarious movie errors, one is that it allows a whole sentence of dialogue to be slowed down in the boxing flashback ("yoooooooouuuuu! whhhhhhhyyyyyyyyy diiiiiiiiidn'tttt yoooooooouuuuuu stooooooooop theeeeeeeee fiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhht?), the bad guy is played by a martial artist who can't act so his dialogue is limited to a voiceover that seems to have been written by a teenager and it equates hand waving with character development.
But what of our stars? You may well ask, Berenger is not known for his range, and even this role is too much for him. Melanie Griffith gets her tits out a lot but is not prepared to kiss her (female) lover since that would be distasteful (!) and Billy Dee WIlliams clearly doesn;t want to be there. I mean that literally, his dialogue is delivered in a style only describable as "early finish". It is the most phoned in performance I've seen for ages.
And there are a lot of breasts. It's as if the director just shot a load of footage of the strippers (poor choice of words there, for which I apologise) and then had to justify it to his wife by including as much of it as possible. Like all seedy little movies of its kind, the women's strips don't come over as sexy, more grotesque and depressing.
These films survive to be watched due to a form of ridiculousness that renders them sort of "cult" - surely noone looks at the box for this, or for that matter Crocodile and thinks they are going to be good? Especially when you consider that for the price of three of these bad movies I got a copy of 2001: A Space Oddessy (at least, when I bought it that was the price).
Nevertheless even for connoisseurs such as myself and Chris, you're better off with something else.
See the full post by clicking here...
It's harsh to bash a film you know is going to be awful, but this was my Christmas present from my old buddy Chris (who I incidentally bought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile for his birthday, so I deserved this). We are connoisseurs of the crap film, having especial love for the triumvurate of Tom Berenger, Billy Zane, and Arnold Vosloo. Of these three, this film only featured Tom Berenger but gave us the bonus rubbishness of Melanie Griffith and Billy Dee Williams.
It is gloriously terrible, though not in the fun way many of our movie choices are, and about halfway in I found the comedy gave way to a seeping depression. What's the movie about? Wel, some freak is killing strippers and other "scum" on the streets of the city. Our heroes run a talent agency for strippers and Tom himself is a retired boxer (he killed a guy in the ring, btw) and they eventually decide to try and stop the killer themselves.
It makes many horrific and hilarious movie errors, one is that it allows a whole sentence of dialogue to be slowed down in the boxing flashback ("yoooooooouuuuu! whhhhhhhyyyyyyyyy diiiiiiiiidn'tttt yoooooooouuuuuu stooooooooop theeeeeeeee fiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhhhht?), the bad guy is played by a martial artist who can't act so his dialogue is limited to a voiceover that seems to have been written by a teenager and it equates hand waving with character development.
But what of our stars? You may well ask, Berenger is not known for his range, and even this role is too much for him. Melanie Griffith gets her tits out a lot but is not prepared to kiss her (female) lover since that would be distasteful (!) and Billy Dee WIlliams clearly doesn;t want to be there. I mean that literally, his dialogue is delivered in a style only describable as "early finish". It is the most phoned in performance I've seen for ages.
And there are a lot of breasts. It's as if the director just shot a load of footage of the strippers (poor choice of words there, for which I apologise) and then had to justify it to his wife by including as much of it as possible. Like all seedy little movies of its kind, the women's strips don't come over as sexy, more grotesque and depressing.
These films survive to be watched due to a form of ridiculousness that renders them sort of "cult" - surely noone looks at the box for this, or for that matter Crocodile and thinks they are going to be good? Especially when you consider that for the price of three of these bad movies I got a copy of 2001: A Space Oddessy (at least, when I bought it that was the price).
Nevertheless even for connoisseurs such as myself and Chris, you're better off with something else.
See the full post by clicking here...
Very Quick Movie Review: Carry On Screaming
6/10
The best Carry On for me barring Cleo. Dated as hell, but worth watching just for the joy of spending time with Fenella Fielding, who is literally smoking hot in this movie. And that's a correct use of "literally" by the way. For trivia fans, I looked up the guy who sang the theme song and it turns out he's a famous poet too (actually, it's Ray Pilgrim singing it).
See the full post by clicking here...
The best Carry On for me barring Cleo. Dated as hell, but worth watching just for the joy of spending time with Fenella Fielding, who is literally smoking hot in this movie. And that's a correct use of "literally" by the way. For trivia fans, I looked up the guy who sang the theme song and it turns out he's a famous poet too (actually, it's Ray Pilgrim singing it).
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Airplane!
9/10
Simply put the best of its kind, if a joke doesn't make you laugh never mind, there'll be five along in the next two minutes. Solely responsible for the comedy career of Leslie Nielsen, it makes a genius move of mainly casting people who were "serious" actors up to that point, which gives them the ability to deliver lines as silly as the old...
"They've got to get to a hospital as soon as possible"
"To the Hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building full of sick people, but that's not important right now"
...with a straight face, rendering them a lot sillier. Everytime I watch it I experience something new or forgotten, like listening to the tannoy announcers have a domestic at the beginning, or the pilot who has to talk the plane down stepping through his mirror.
Genius.
See the full post by clicking here...
Simply put the best of its kind, if a joke doesn't make you laugh never mind, there'll be five along in the next two minutes. Solely responsible for the comedy career of Leslie Nielsen, it makes a genius move of mainly casting people who were "serious" actors up to that point, which gives them the ability to deliver lines as silly as the old...
"They've got to get to a hospital as soon as possible"
"To the Hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building full of sick people, but that's not important right now"
...with a straight face, rendering them a lot sillier. Everytime I watch it I experience something new or forgotten, like listening to the tannoy announcers have a domestic at the beginning, or the pilot who has to talk the plane down stepping through his mirror.
Genius.
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Lucky Number Slevin
6/10
Not half as clever as it thinks it is, this is a fairly enjoyable post usual suspects romp in whcih a man is mistaken for an indebted mob crony. All ridiculous from start to finish but studded with a fine if limited performance from Bruce Willis (didn't know he was capable!) and a good one from Lucy Liu. The baddies are silly, the plot is obvious, the twists inevitable. Nevertheless, I at no stage felt particularly bored.
See the full post by clicking here...
Not half as clever as it thinks it is, this is a fairly enjoyable post usual suspects romp in whcih a man is mistaken for an indebted mob crony. All ridiculous from start to finish but studded with a fine if limited performance from Bruce Willis (didn't know he was capable!) and a good one from Lucy Liu. The baddies are silly, the plot is obvious, the twists inevitable. Nevertheless, I at no stage felt particularly bored.
See the full post by clicking here...
TV Review: The Box Of Delights
7/10
Strictly it's a TV serial, but we watched it as a three hour movie, and it's ok in this format. It's traditional to watch it every year (Mrs Algo gets the shakes if we don't) so its score, like that of Three Amigos! is a little questionable, but it retains its magic despite some of the most dated effects I saw all year (and I'm a Blakes 7 fan!). The cast is great, as ever the lead is irritating and nowhere near as talented as half the reast of the kids. Robert Stephens shines as the villain,a nd Patrick Troughton who I love in everything is pure fantasy genius. The last episode is a bit of a letdown though, especially the "and it was all a dream" finale.
See the full post by clicking here...
Strictly it's a TV serial, but we watched it as a three hour movie, and it's ok in this format. It's traditional to watch it every year (Mrs Algo gets the shakes if we don't) so its score, like that of Three Amigos! is a little questionable, but it retains its magic despite some of the most dated effects I saw all year (and I'm a Blakes 7 fan!). The cast is great, as ever the lead is irritating and nowhere near as talented as half the reast of the kids. Robert Stephens shines as the villain,a nd Patrick Troughton who I love in everything is pure fantasy genius. The last episode is a bit of a letdown though, especially the "and it was all a dream" finale.
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Sinbad
5/10
Dreamworks. Poor old Dreamworks. You try and try but no matter what you do people can't stop talking about that Pixar bunch. Well, maybe you need to take a leaf out of their book and invest in better scripts since this obvious moral message movie has little of the charm of Toy Story, or even Cars. It's well animated, and the voice cast is more than game, but it's nothing special. And come on! If you're doing Sinbad you need stop motion. It's the law.
See the full post by clicking here...
Dreamworks. Poor old Dreamworks. You try and try but no matter what you do people can't stop talking about that Pixar bunch. Well, maybe you need to take a leaf out of their book and invest in better scripts since this obvious moral message movie has little of the charm of Toy Story, or even Cars. It's well animated, and the voice cast is more than game, but it's nothing special. And come on! If you're doing Sinbad you need stop motion. It's the law.
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Scrooged
7/10
Bill Murray has always been one talented guy, and here he makes a fairly silly retread of the old Christmas Carol story rise above the pitfalls of bad fashions, mullets and general 80s evil money grabbing scum. Karen Allen is perky and lovable as his lost love and the Ghost Of Christmas Present gains a lot from her reimagining as a borderline psychotic with a penchant for punching. In the age of greed it was probably an ideal time to tell this story again, and cheesy as it is it's one of the better movies made for the Christmas market.
See the full post by clicking here...
Bill Murray has always been one talented guy, and here he makes a fairly silly retread of the old Christmas Carol story rise above the pitfalls of bad fashions, mullets and general 80s evil money grabbing scum. Karen Allen is perky and lovable as his lost love and the Ghost Of Christmas Present gains a lot from her reimagining as a borderline psychotic with a penchant for punching. In the age of greed it was probably an ideal time to tell this story again, and cheesy as it is it's one of the better movies made for the Christmas market.
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: The Golden Compass
3/10
Oh bloody hell.
If you like the books by Philip Pullman much of this movie's runtime will have been spent in incredulous dismay, wondering where on earth the plot, place and excitement went.
Possibly it was squeezed out of the movie in the process of emasculating its atheist, or at least anti church, message.
If you are entirely unacquainted with the very reasonably sized and priced set of books that is the omniously titled "His Dark Materials" trilogy I will attempt to explain the central problems I have with Hollywood's wholesale rape of these without ruining the books for any yet to experience the genius of the first two (and a fair portion of the third).
Do read them though. They are very good. This film, however, is not.
The pretext and context is an acceptance of the "many universes" theory in modern physics, that is to say that there is a potentially infinite number of potential universes, differing in anything from giant amounts to very little. In this particular universe the population are accompanied at all times by animal "familiars" called for whatever reason, Daemons.
Other than that this reality is also a sort of "steampunk" alternate Britain and Europe where enormous zeppelins travel from city to city, and a Cowboy rides a Balloon, rather than a horse.
In the book these are all described in detail and in effervescent realism - so why it was impossible to capture any of Pullman's magic world in the cinema is beyond me. All the technology, while pretty, feels as solid as the CGI that makes it up.
The actors, big names and otherwise, are all trying very hard to tread a fine line between throwing themselves into things wholeheartedly and retaining just enough aloofness to distance themselves from any actual emotion or involvement. The main culprits are of course Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman, both playing their stock characters (aloof brit, aloof brit) with about as much conviction as cardboard plays bricks. The child actors do their best, of course, with some success but our leading young lady is clearly a posh lass doing her best "common" voice and this gets in the way of her performance like all bad accent work does. I don't want to get on the poor lady's back though, since this is the beginning of what may be a fine career - so long as she is allowed to play to her strengths in future.
With a movie based on as complex source material as this is made, there is a danger lurking in the background.
There are a lot of characters and a lot going on at any one time.
Lord Of The Rings, in order to manage its movie makeover, cut swathes of events from the story and remains focussed on a central journey in order to avoid a load of disparate events just sitting next to each other like unconnected scenes from different films. The actors spent ages together building up real bonds of friendship, of fellowhip, that really come across on the screen.
The original book here (Northern Lights, or the Golden Compass depending on editions) is nowhere near this level of complexity and yet still the movie fails to avoid this major pitfall. Scenes come and go at a furious pace, many of which serve little purpose - most obvious in the Magisterium (more on them later) scenes, we gain no feeling (as we did in TLOTR) that any of the characters have any idea who the others are. At no time do we believe Derek Jacobi even knows Nicole Kidman is cast as Mrs Coulter in the movie, so little do his scenes flow from the prior ones. Christopher Lee's two second cameo as a nameless, faceless cardboard cut out is virtually worthless; responding to dialogue he probably only read two minutes before he was filmed speaking it.
And this is a good time to assess our evil enemy, The Magisterium. In the book, this is obviously the Catholic Church in parallel world format. In the movie, it's some weird evil government - the equivalent of the faceless paranoia feeding governments in, say the ghastly Fortress or Running Man.
The decision to remove the overt religion from The Golden Compass' villains destroys the sense of the story's central conflict; between the religious conception of what innocence and freedom should be and genuine innocence and freedom.
Of course, they haven't taken all the references out, since the story really wouldn't hold together at all, but is expressed in such a watered down form (someone did something bad and dust came into the world) that the actions of the Magisterium make absolutely no sense at all. Only something as insidiously self righteous as religion can explain the willingness of anyone to carry out this inexcusable plan to "cure" the children of the world of sin.
Only one character comes through the lemon squeezer safe - that of Sam Elliot's Lee Scorseby, though I reckon this is only because the character is basically Sam Elliot in the first place.
There is no character development, replaced with a series of setpiece fights and effects laden sequences that owe little to Pullman and more to Hollywood marketing. The giant fighting bears are well imagined and executed, for sure but they are not convincing as characters, the whole background of their honour system seems to have been distilled into little more than the guidance notes they asked the casting director to follow with the voice actors. Ian McKellen brings, however, much needed gravitas to the role of a giant drunk bear - a character which voiced by, say, Ben Stiller would be a joke in Ice Age 4.
Add to the panoply of dreadful errors of judgement the decision to cut the story short of its hideous conclusion, when a perceived hero shows their true colours and muddies the moral waters considerably, and this film begins to feel like a real stinker.
It did not do well at the box office, people either avoiding it because they are offended by the books controversial reputation or, if not, seeing through its hollow shell. Needless to say the series that would probably have arisen out of this movie if sucessful is not being made, so if you did really enjoy the film (I'm sure many did), in order to get the real story you'll need to read the books anyway.
Unlike the movies of Lord Of The Rings, which felt like a worthy companion to and retelling of the highlights of what is one of the 20th century's greatest works of fiction, The Golden Compass is an object lesson in exactly how to mess the same thing up. Devoid of any of the books depth, either in feeling or character it is impossible to recommend unless you really are bored.
The books (at least the first two) are superb. Read them instead.
Til next time folks, I am as ever...
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Oh bloody hell.
If you like the books by Philip Pullman much of this movie's runtime will have been spent in incredulous dismay, wondering where on earth the plot, place and excitement went.
Possibly it was squeezed out of the movie in the process of emasculating its atheist, or at least anti church, message.
If you are entirely unacquainted with the very reasonably sized and priced set of books that is the omniously titled "His Dark Materials" trilogy I will attempt to explain the central problems I have with Hollywood's wholesale rape of these without ruining the books for any yet to experience the genius of the first two (and a fair portion of the third).
Do read them though. They are very good. This film, however, is not.
The pretext and context is an acceptance of the "many universes" theory in modern physics, that is to say that there is a potentially infinite number of potential universes, differing in anything from giant amounts to very little. In this particular universe the population are accompanied at all times by animal "familiars" called for whatever reason, Daemons.
Other than that this reality is also a sort of "steampunk" alternate Britain and Europe where enormous zeppelins travel from city to city, and a Cowboy rides a Balloon, rather than a horse.
In the book these are all described in detail and in effervescent realism - so why it was impossible to capture any of Pullman's magic world in the cinema is beyond me. All the technology, while pretty, feels as solid as the CGI that makes it up.
The actors, big names and otherwise, are all trying very hard to tread a fine line between throwing themselves into things wholeheartedly and retaining just enough aloofness to distance themselves from any actual emotion or involvement. The main culprits are of course Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman, both playing their stock characters (aloof brit, aloof brit) with about as much conviction as cardboard plays bricks. The child actors do their best, of course, with some success but our leading young lady is clearly a posh lass doing her best "common" voice and this gets in the way of her performance like all bad accent work does. I don't want to get on the poor lady's back though, since this is the beginning of what may be a fine career - so long as she is allowed to play to her strengths in future.
With a movie based on as complex source material as this is made, there is a danger lurking in the background.
There are a lot of characters and a lot going on at any one time.
Lord Of The Rings, in order to manage its movie makeover, cut swathes of events from the story and remains focussed on a central journey in order to avoid a load of disparate events just sitting next to each other like unconnected scenes from different films. The actors spent ages together building up real bonds of friendship, of fellowhip, that really come across on the screen.
The original book here (Northern Lights, or the Golden Compass depending on editions) is nowhere near this level of complexity and yet still the movie fails to avoid this major pitfall. Scenes come and go at a furious pace, many of which serve little purpose - most obvious in the Magisterium (more on them later) scenes, we gain no feeling (as we did in TLOTR) that any of the characters have any idea who the others are. At no time do we believe Derek Jacobi even knows Nicole Kidman is cast as Mrs Coulter in the movie, so little do his scenes flow from the prior ones. Christopher Lee's two second cameo as a nameless, faceless cardboard cut out is virtually worthless; responding to dialogue he probably only read two minutes before he was filmed speaking it.
And this is a good time to assess our evil enemy, The Magisterium. In the book, this is obviously the Catholic Church in parallel world format. In the movie, it's some weird evil government - the equivalent of the faceless paranoia feeding governments in, say the ghastly Fortress or Running Man.
The decision to remove the overt religion from The Golden Compass' villains destroys the sense of the story's central conflict; between the religious conception of what innocence and freedom should be and genuine innocence and freedom.
Of course, they haven't taken all the references out, since the story really wouldn't hold together at all, but is expressed in such a watered down form (someone did something bad and dust came into the world) that the actions of the Magisterium make absolutely no sense at all. Only something as insidiously self righteous as religion can explain the willingness of anyone to carry out this inexcusable plan to "cure" the children of the world of sin.
Only one character comes through the lemon squeezer safe - that of Sam Elliot's Lee Scorseby, though I reckon this is only because the character is basically Sam Elliot in the first place.
There is no character development, replaced with a series of setpiece fights and effects laden sequences that owe little to Pullman and more to Hollywood marketing. The giant fighting bears are well imagined and executed, for sure but they are not convincing as characters, the whole background of their honour system seems to have been distilled into little more than the guidance notes they asked the casting director to follow with the voice actors. Ian McKellen brings, however, much needed gravitas to the role of a giant drunk bear - a character which voiced by, say, Ben Stiller would be a joke in Ice Age 4.
Add to the panoply of dreadful errors of judgement the decision to cut the story short of its hideous conclusion, when a perceived hero shows their true colours and muddies the moral waters considerably, and this film begins to feel like a real stinker.
It did not do well at the box office, people either avoiding it because they are offended by the books controversial reputation or, if not, seeing through its hollow shell. Needless to say the series that would probably have arisen out of this movie if sucessful is not being made, so if you did really enjoy the film (I'm sure many did), in order to get the real story you'll need to read the books anyway.
Unlike the movies of Lord Of The Rings, which felt like a worthy companion to and retelling of the highlights of what is one of the 20th century's greatest works of fiction, The Golden Compass is an object lesson in exactly how to mess the same thing up. Devoid of any of the books depth, either in feeling or character it is impossible to recommend unless you really are bored.
The books (at least the first two) are superb. Read them instead.
Til next time folks, I am as ever...
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Very Very Quick Movie Review: Wallace And Gromit: Curse Of The Were Rabbit
9/10
A near faultless tale with everything you could possibly want, from references to famous horror films (I was particularly impressed with the reimagined scene from Frankenstein with the police inspector) to a blossoming romantic love all with Aardman's usual wit and attention to detail.
Love it! Love it! Love it!
A
P.S. Told you it was quick
See the full post by clicking here...
A near faultless tale with everything you could possibly want, from references to famous horror films (I was particularly impressed with the reimagined scene from Frankenstein with the police inspector) to a blossoming romantic love all with Aardman's usual wit and attention to detail.
Love it! Love it! Love it!
A
P.S. Told you it was quick
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Quick Movie Review: Three Amigos!
7/10
When I was young this was the film we watched on birthdays every single year.
We watched it this year as part of a highly enjoyable evening of Mexican fun, with a large buffet and margherita selection on offer, and as a result Three Amigos is seen through a haze somewhat of chilli and tequila, but still bears up.
It marked the end of the credible (imho of course) careers of three giants of 80s comedy, namely Martin Short, Steve Martin and Chevy Chase.
It features a frequently told tale of ordinary guys becoming heroes and the like, but also throws in some dumb slapstick too.
It's no classic for sure, but it will always have a special place in my heart, from the singing bush, the invisible swordsman and all to the outrageously attractive leading lady. From the ridiculous outfits worn by the amigos to the unexpected solution to their troubles ("sewing!").
I won't go into huge detail since the love of this film is pretty much a personal matter, and maybe if I saw it for the first time now I'd find it trite and predictable - I hope you saw it when you could still find it funny.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
When I was young this was the film we watched on birthdays every single year.
We watched it this year as part of a highly enjoyable evening of Mexican fun, with a large buffet and margherita selection on offer, and as a result Three Amigos is seen through a haze somewhat of chilli and tequila, but still bears up.
It marked the end of the credible (imho of course) careers of three giants of 80s comedy, namely Martin Short, Steve Martin and Chevy Chase.
It features a frequently told tale of ordinary guys becoming heroes and the like, but also throws in some dumb slapstick too.
It's no classic for sure, but it will always have a special place in my heart, from the singing bush, the invisible swordsman and all to the outrageously attractive leading lady. From the ridiculous outfits worn by the amigos to the unexpected solution to their troubles ("sewing!").
I won't go into huge detail since the love of this film is pretty much a personal matter, and maybe if I saw it for the first time now I'd find it trite and predictable - I hope you saw it when you could still find it funny.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Beowulf
4/10
There aren't many films where your review reading will be associated almost entirely with the technical side of things, since I don't usually care much, but since this film is all technique and little heart I am forced to mention some of the things I'd usually avoid.
As you may well know, the film is made using a motion capture technique similar to the one used to such great effect with Smeagol/Gollum in the Lord Of The Rings films. This renders the movement of each of the characters more realistic than traditional animation and presumably a bit quicker to animate (since the actors do that for you) so more time can be spent on the process of rendering and wireframes etc meaning that the look of the film is fantastic - lush colours and vast wildernesses are created and remain totally in the control of the filmmakers.
Now, I'll be positive first and say that in many ways this technique is sucessful - the film looks great for the most part, and certainly the digital nature of the "camera" means that impossible tracking shots and action photography are possible, with none of the green screening or bad mapping that can characterise such sequences in composite work.
Much advantage is gained from this, so that the fights that bookend the film are some of the most impressive you will see and have a massive scope.
Unfortunately as with so much digital stuff it is the emotion of people's performances that just doesn't come through the process. While the classic "dead eyes" problem that has dogged most computer games (which this resembles more than anything else) is for the most part avoided with dancing firlight and reflections the participants don't resemble much more than animatronic puppets, and there is less emotion or range in their performances in my opinion than we get from Aardman's Gromit - and he doesn't even speak!
Also, the slight changes to people's appearance, noticable in the face of Anthony Hopkin's Hrothgar but most of all in Ray Winstone's Beowulf; rather than being clever is just distracting - they look very similar to their real life counterparts but just differ enough to really distract you. Add to this the bizarre fact that Grendel's mother appears to have high heeled FEET and the character design is just plain odd.
Ah yes, Grendel needs some respect, for two reasons - first he is truly grotesque and the art direction is fantastic for his twisted form plus he is performed brilliantly by the always reliable Crispin Glover (Marty McFly's dad!!!) so its a shame that the story requires his removal so early on. Other performances are fine, particularly Hopkin's jaded king Hrothgar but none are really exceptional, being buried under so many gigabytes of information - plus I still question how good a performance can really be in a blue room with no set props or art design to work with.
The certificate of this film also leads to a strange emasculation of the tale's violence, which while still present is not particularly bloody or convincing - and the sequence where he fights Grendel in the Great Hall resembles nothing so much as the old Austin Powers sequence (when he walks around naked and various things cover his wedding tackle "hilariously") so it raised too many laughs from me to affect in the way it was attempting.
The other problem I have is with foley.
In case, like Mrs Algo, you didn't know what foley is, it's the recording of sound effects you wouldn't normally notice, such as the rustle of clothes, the jangle of jewellery or swords etc or maybe someones footsteps crunching through the snow. Almost universally these effects are absent, as is the wind frequently noticable by its abscence, this may not be a big issue for some of you, but for me it drew me right out of the idea that this was some kind of "realistic" CGI and put the film right back into the cartoon pigeonhole. The absolute apeothesis of this is the scene with the queen and the young woman on the battlements... no wind, no rustling clothes, no nothing. Just dialogue. For me it's a big problem.
It's a shame since maybe with a 15 certificate (or even better an 18) and some foley work I'd probably like this film even more, but maybe I've penalised it based on missed opportunities.
Nevertheless, it gets a lowly 4/10 for its crimes.
Til Next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
There aren't many films where your review reading will be associated almost entirely with the technical side of things, since I don't usually care much, but since this film is all technique and little heart I am forced to mention some of the things I'd usually avoid.
As you may well know, the film is made using a motion capture technique similar to the one used to such great effect with Smeagol/Gollum in the Lord Of The Rings films. This renders the movement of each of the characters more realistic than traditional animation and presumably a bit quicker to animate (since the actors do that for you) so more time can be spent on the process of rendering and wireframes etc meaning that the look of the film is fantastic - lush colours and vast wildernesses are created and remain totally in the control of the filmmakers.
Now, I'll be positive first and say that in many ways this technique is sucessful - the film looks great for the most part, and certainly the digital nature of the "camera" means that impossible tracking shots and action photography are possible, with none of the green screening or bad mapping that can characterise such sequences in composite work.
Much advantage is gained from this, so that the fights that bookend the film are some of the most impressive you will see and have a massive scope.
Unfortunately as with so much digital stuff it is the emotion of people's performances that just doesn't come through the process. While the classic "dead eyes" problem that has dogged most computer games (which this resembles more than anything else) is for the most part avoided with dancing firlight and reflections the participants don't resemble much more than animatronic puppets, and there is less emotion or range in their performances in my opinion than we get from Aardman's Gromit - and he doesn't even speak!
Also, the slight changes to people's appearance, noticable in the face of Anthony Hopkin's Hrothgar but most of all in Ray Winstone's Beowulf; rather than being clever is just distracting - they look very similar to their real life counterparts but just differ enough to really distract you. Add to this the bizarre fact that Grendel's mother appears to have high heeled FEET and the character design is just plain odd.
Ah yes, Grendel needs some respect, for two reasons - first he is truly grotesque and the art direction is fantastic for his twisted form plus he is performed brilliantly by the always reliable Crispin Glover (Marty McFly's dad!!!) so its a shame that the story requires his removal so early on. Other performances are fine, particularly Hopkin's jaded king Hrothgar but none are really exceptional, being buried under so many gigabytes of information - plus I still question how good a performance can really be in a blue room with no set props or art design to work with.
The certificate of this film also leads to a strange emasculation of the tale's violence, which while still present is not particularly bloody or convincing - and the sequence where he fights Grendel in the Great Hall resembles nothing so much as the old Austin Powers sequence (when he walks around naked and various things cover his wedding tackle "hilariously") so it raised too many laughs from me to affect in the way it was attempting.
The other problem I have is with foley.
In case, like Mrs Algo, you didn't know what foley is, it's the recording of sound effects you wouldn't normally notice, such as the rustle of clothes, the jangle of jewellery or swords etc or maybe someones footsteps crunching through the snow. Almost universally these effects are absent, as is the wind frequently noticable by its abscence, this may not be a big issue for some of you, but for me it drew me right out of the idea that this was some kind of "realistic" CGI and put the film right back into the cartoon pigeonhole. The absolute apeothesis of this is the scene with the queen and the young woman on the battlements... no wind, no rustling clothes, no nothing. Just dialogue. For me it's a big problem.
It's a shame since maybe with a 15 certificate (or even better an 18) and some foley work I'd probably like this film even more, but maybe I've penalised it based on missed opportunities.
Nevertheless, it gets a lowly 4/10 for its crimes.
Til Next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Annie
7/10
Ah children's movies. How on Earth is one supposed to rate them and by what criteria?
I watched this one in the highly enjoyable company of my wife and niece (it turned out the wife knows all of the words to the songs) and it shows the broad appeal of this silly little tale.
Sure it's got Albert Finney in it, and that's all very impressive, but the real star turn is from Annie herself; Aileen Quinn who somehow I didn;t want to punch at any stage despite being in my preconceptions one of those irritating little musical theatre moppets who I tend to despise.
Well done young lady... well not young any more, since shes now 37, but you get the point.
There she is... on the left.
Anyway, I thought it was pretty good as these films go, and the others enjoyed it, so lets be nice and give it a seven, but I'm not going to try and read some deep messages into it, about the importance of optimism to happiness, since you can get such stuff from inside fortune cookies.
Plus the film's choreography comes from none other than weird faced queen of Strictly Come Dancing, Arlene Phillips, plus you get another addition to the grotesques collection for Tim Curry.
All I'm saying is, that you need not run away when a young relative wants to watch it. It's perfectly enjoyable.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Ah children's movies. How on Earth is one supposed to rate them and by what criteria?
I watched this one in the highly enjoyable company of my wife and niece (it turned out the wife knows all of the words to the songs) and it shows the broad appeal of this silly little tale.
Sure it's got Albert Finney in it, and that's all very impressive, but the real star turn is from Annie herself; Aileen Quinn who somehow I didn;t want to punch at any stage despite being in my preconceptions one of those irritating little musical theatre moppets who I tend to despise.
Well done young lady... well not young any more, since shes now 37, but you get the point.
There she is... on the left.Anyway, I thought it was pretty good as these films go, and the others enjoyed it, so lets be nice and give it a seven, but I'm not going to try and read some deep messages into it, about the importance of optimism to happiness, since you can get such stuff from inside fortune cookies.
Plus the film's choreography comes from none other than weird faced queen of Strictly Come Dancing, Arlene Phillips, plus you get another addition to the grotesques collection for Tim Curry.
All I'm saying is, that you need not run away when a young relative wants to watch it. It's perfectly enjoyable.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Outland
6/10
Sean Connery was, at the point in history when he worked on Outland, hardly the most convincing action hero. He sported a noticable paunch and the beard of a man content to leave behind the heartthrob status he had enjoyed in the heady days playing Fleming's ruthless killer.
Outland is a space western, which immediately requires me to mention its distant relative, Firefly, a show so good they had to cancel it since that's what US TV execs are like. In both we have characters who just aren't that good at what they do, are hardly heroes and are even less likely to help you cross the road without relieving you of your wallet in the process.
That's not to say Outland is the Wagon Train type story that Firefly and Serenity tell, it's the classic good lawman in a bad town scenario, as Connery's tired Marshal (read: Sherriff) is faced with corruption and drug running on the mining colony of Io. Seems some bad drugs are causing people to commit suicide in various space-specific ways.
Naturally, one good cop finds it hard to gain support for bringing down the status quo and he has to prepare for a set of hired killers to arrive and take him out.
While being atmospheric and committed, I never really feel that Outland achieves its presumable target of being a genuinely powerful battle between a good minority over an evil majority. It is admirable that it remains focused on telling its story rather than moralising or even taking a stand on drug taking, instead focussing on the personal battle of Connery's Marshal O'Neil who is not only seeking a sort of justice but also seeks to prove to his wife that he is more than just a burden to her.
Naturally, being of its time some of the accoutrements and technology seems a it ropy these days, and aside from the inspired turn by Frances Sternhagen (last seen by me in The Mist) as Dr Lazarus the supporting cast leave much to be desired. Connery too is far from convincing at anything other than dejected rage.
Still, I'd say it's a worthwhile way to spend some time, and its displacement of the high noon story to space is intriguing, if not perfectly executed.
Til next Time, and it's good to be back in the saddle!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sean Connery was, at the point in history when he worked on Outland, hardly the most convincing action hero. He sported a noticable paunch and the beard of a man content to leave behind the heartthrob status he had enjoyed in the heady days playing Fleming's ruthless killer.
Outland is a space western, which immediately requires me to mention its distant relative, Firefly, a show so good they had to cancel it since that's what US TV execs are like. In both we have characters who just aren't that good at what they do, are hardly heroes and are even less likely to help you cross the road without relieving you of your wallet in the process.
That's not to say Outland is the Wagon Train type story that Firefly and Serenity tell, it's the classic good lawman in a bad town scenario, as Connery's tired Marshal (read: Sherriff) is faced with corruption and drug running on the mining colony of Io. Seems some bad drugs are causing people to commit suicide in various space-specific ways.
Naturally, one good cop finds it hard to gain support for bringing down the status quo and he has to prepare for a set of hired killers to arrive and take him out.
While being atmospheric and committed, I never really feel that Outland achieves its presumable target of being a genuinely powerful battle between a good minority over an evil majority. It is admirable that it remains focused on telling its story rather than moralising or even taking a stand on drug taking, instead focussing on the personal battle of Connery's Marshal O'Neil who is not only seeking a sort of justice but also seeks to prove to his wife that he is more than just a burden to her.
Naturally, being of its time some of the accoutrements and technology seems a it ropy these days, and aside from the inspired turn by Frances Sternhagen (last seen by me in The Mist) as Dr Lazarus the supporting cast leave much to be desired. Connery too is far from convincing at anything other than dejected rage.
Still, I'd say it's a worthwhile way to spend some time, and its displacement of the high noon story to space is intriguing, if not perfectly executed.
Til next Time, and it's good to be back in the saddle!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
A Short Apology.... I took a break but I'm back, baby!
Just a quick note mentioning that I realise a lot of the films on the list to the right are review-less at the moment. It is the mere fact of a busy week and being out of practice (coupled with a sick wife) that have conspired to destroy my review rhythm.
That and the enormous quantity of movies needing reviews (17!) puts me off a bit.
Expect to see them over the next few days since now I am back and raring to go! Yay!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
That and the enormous quantity of movies needing reviews (17!) puts me off a bit.
Expect to see them over the next few days since now I am back and raring to go! Yay!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
