Wow

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 7 May 2008 07:16 (A review of Apocalypto)

Wow i really like this film. I love all the gore.

1 comments, Reply to this entry

As bad as the first film, and then some.

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 7 May 2008 01:22 (A review of Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid)

"I had this friend, who had this friend who shot documentaries, and he and his whole crew went down to the Amazon, and they were all eaten by snakes, and that's a true story!"

The first film, Anaconda, was probably the worst monster blockbuster to hit cinemas since...ever. I have no idea why, but the studio seemed to think that a sequel to a dreadful film would be a good idea. But this sequel only lies in the name as there is no link between the two other than the central monster being an anaconda.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is a film that doesn't even work as a guilty pleasure; like its predecessor, the film is B-Grade, appalling and just plain dreadful. Watching the film necessitates a comprehensive disconnection from reality; it's plagued with inconsistencies and factual errors that arrive by the bucket load. The snakes shown here are far from realistic. They are shown to have a fondness for biting, to be fast moving and the size of a Sydney monorail. Usually one could excuse these things for the sake of entertainment, but these ideas aren't sold in a way that's anywhere near believable. Examples include bad CGI, crummy acting, artificial atmosphere, and a predictable script.

The plot isn't terribly good here either - a plant called the blood orchid is discovered in a remote deep jungle in Borneo. Apparently this particular plant is the 'fountain of youth' and only pops up for a very limited amount of time. Predictably, a pharmaceutical company wants to send a team into Borneo on a scientific expedition to retrieve the orchid before it disappears. Upon arrival in the jungle, the anacondas start eating people.

All the characters are terribly, painfully clichéd - there's the serious one that knows how to avoid being eaten, the dumb (or joking) characters who get killed first and a few babes who wear singlet tops to please the men. The whole movie can pretty much be summed up by looking at the front cover. There are no intriguing plot twists and no attempt to remove this from the "B-Grade horror trash" category.

I couldn't believe how bad all the filmmaking was for this production. For one, the directing is tremendously weak. Because the actors deliver their lines in such a shockingly bad way, there is also no passion in the performances and therefore the scares are non-existent. The music is usually meant to assist in the filmmaking and the creation of first-rate scares. Instead the music makes the film even more predictable. Every time the music gets even mildly intense we know that an anaconda is about to pop up and eat someone. It's all so predictable.

Heck, I'll even go so far as to say that the cinematography and locations were bleak. For the most part it felt like it was being filmed on a sound stage. That's not the desired effect on the viewer. And I think the principal flaw is the CGI. It made the snakes look utterly horrible.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid should never have been brought to fruition. The first film was bad enough, but it seems the studio figured they just hadn't tortured their viewers enough. This sequel is even worse than the first movie. And that's one heck of an insult. Interestingly enough, the monkey gets more close-ups than anyone else in the cast.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Woeful monster movie.

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 7 May 2008 01:08 (A review of Anaconda)

"This film was supposed to be my big break, and it turned out to be a big disaster!" (This is actually a quote from the movie. Little did they know they were actually predicting the future)

Before I finally watched Anaconda I was decisively aware of the pasting and criticisms surrounding the production. I don't think I heard even one good thing about the movie. I sometimes enjoy seeking out simple reasonably short (80 or 90-minute) films I know will be crappy. And so equipped with warnings and bad reviews to boot I decided to finally watch it.

Anaconda is a campy, appalling B-Grade horror fest that is every bit as bad as I heard it was. From start to finish, the film is plagued by a dismal script loaded with stereotypical conventions, predictability and despicable characters. The visual effects look embarrassing, with an anaconda that moves like a flimsy animatronic and isn't in the least bit convincing. While watching this "thriller" (I use the term loosely) I was closer to tears of laughter as opposed to shock.

Anaconda follows a documentary crew that head out on the Amazon River to make a documentary concerning a mythical Indian civilisation. While heading upriver, they pick up poacher Paul Sarone (Voight, in his worst performance to date) who surreptitiously plans to use the boat + crew to hunt a large anaconda. As predicted, instead of the original plan the crew become snake bait as they are terrorised by a forty foot anaconda lurking beneath the water.

If you're going to take this film seriously, turn your arse around and go rent something else. Anaconda is seemingly played out for laughs, and if the filmmakers intended to make it serious...they missed the mark completely. The antics of the snake we see in the film are absurd. Every time the snake turns up, there are more factually impossible things that continue adding to the already massive pile of criticisms about the film. These factually impossible snake mannerisms include the thing refusing to die after being blown up, burnt and shot in the head (without a mere scratch, that is).

Performances are all dreadful; following the standard characters clichés (including the most despicable characters dying first, there's someone who wants to catch the snake instead of killing it, the big-breasted girl who's there for show, etc) not to mention the costume design is even dull!

But wait, there's more - each character could be outsmarted by a 5-year-old, the visual effects get worse as time goes on, the "scares" aren't even effective, there's no intensity, when the snake attacks things it made me laugh, the snake is "voiced" by an actor, and the film is almost painful to watch. I could go into so much detail but I think I've pretty much hammered the point convincingly.

At the end of the day, I am aware that Anaconda was meant to be a bit of fun. But...it's not. Instead we're treated to something that is so painfully appalling it couldn't pass as a home movie.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Surprisingly decent.

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 7 May 2008 12:15 (A review of The Amityville Horror)

"Mrs. Lutz, get you and your family out of that house. Right now!"

The original The Amityville Horror was one of the worst horror films I'd had the hardship of enduring. Hollywood is renowned for remaking horror films with the thought in mind of improving upon the original. Because the original film was so dreadful and ineffective I realised that it wouldn’t be too challenging to construct a superior film. And hence, this updated version of The Amityville Horror is one of the first Hollywood horror remakes that I found to be of genuinely decent quality.

This remake is superior to the original in terms of production values and quality of the filmmaking. The original concept was screaming for a remake...and it finally received what it was looking for.

George (Reynolds) and Kathy (George) Lutz move into a Long Island home that was the site of a grisly mass murder several years ago. Not long after moving in, the whole family begin seeing disturbing images of ghosts and horribly demented figures. After a priest discovers that the house is haunted with satanic spirits, he warns them to get out of the house before it's too late.

The original production was a laughably woeful film that was dumb and wasn't scary. The one thing I had hoped for was at least a higher scream rate with this remake. Thankfully, it delivered. Some of the ghastly images had me squirming in my seat. Not to mention a few genuinely spine-chilling moments that caused me to have goose-bumps running over my body. Due to this remake's terrifying nature your eyes will be glued to the screen.

Kudos to the director for his ability to keep the audience enthralled during the intense horror scenes that are kept very taut. And of course the music is another filmmaking aspect that had to be done correctly in order to inspire the appropriate atmosphere. The music here was great and set the tone capably.

Ryan Reynolds is an actor I usually see in comedic roles. Whenever I see the man I usually laugh at his mannerisms and witty dialogue. But here Reynolds displays his potential as a serious actor. Sure there's the odd occasional moment when it's suitable to have a laugh but when he begins to turn evil...Reynolds is quite something. I never would have imagined him doing such a good job in a horror movie. Melissa George is a little clichéd at times but delivers a very good performance from start to finish. I guess she did all she was able to do with a bit of an iffy screenplay.

One of the only shortcomings of the film is its screenplay. At times it's rather dumb. In spite of saying that, some of the dialogue was quite realistic and skilfully written.

The Amityville Horror was a complete surprise for me. Because of how appalling its source material was I had never expected such admirable results. Evidently the film is far from brilliant - but considering how bad the film could have been the effort is outstanding. The Amityville Horror is a rare event that proves there is at least a glimmer of hope for the future of horror remakes. Trust me, I take a strong stand against horror remakes and don't want any others to get the green light; however this particular production is highly enjoyable. For horror buffs, this is a must.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Horribly dated and ineffective.

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 7 May 2008 12:06 (A review of The Amityville Horror)

"What do you want from us? Goddamnit, this is MY house!"

Normally I enjoy classic horror movies because of their inventiveness and their predisposition to be quite terrifying at times. The Amityville Horror strives to be original and scary, but at every opportunity it fails quite astonishingly. The film contains none of the elements that make a good horror movie. Instead of being gripping and scary it's contrived and spurious.

A newly wedded couple named George (Brolin) and Kathy (Kidder) Lutz move into a spacious Long Island house that they believe to be their dream home. Many years ago a mass murder was committed within the walls of the house and as a result the house is haunted with satanic spirits. A local priest (Steiger) feels the presence of pure evil in the house but is powerless to drive it away. The satanic spirits eventually compel him to blindness as he tries to convince George and Kathy to leave the house before it is too late.

The Amityville Horror is a good concept that was loosely based on a true story (and a novel by Jay Anson). Prior to watching it I had anticipated something a lot more terrifying and exciting. However, I was instead left watching this lifeless excremental horror movie that couldn't be scary even when it tried to be. Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is highly farfetched, hence further annihilating every opportunity it had to shock the audience.

James Brolin at least brought some style to his role. Unfortunately he couldn't bring much intensity to his character, but it was obvious that he at least tried to bring some life into the picture. Margot Kidder was occasionally quite whiny and annoying. You could at least feel her character's motivations. She presented us with a very credible interpretation of a house wife. Rod Steiger plays a moderately minor role here. Notwithstanding small screen time he is still one of the only actors to actually inculcate a sense of tension during the scenes of horror that still failed nonetheless. He was perceptibly determined. He just couldn't accomplish much with such a dull screenplay.

The direction is unfortunately an aspect that is sorely deficient here. The director couldn't make the film at all scary, which could probably also be attributed to the screenwriter as well. The music built up some suspense, but was ultimately let down by the feeble visual images and dreadful ideas.

The Amityville Horror had a very good concept. Unfortunately that's one of the only compliments I can grant the film: it ultimately wrote a cheque it couldn't cash. I expected something much less than this austere, dull horror film with a flimsy script that was executed dreadfully. Honestly, the film is dated and ineffective not to mention stupid and contrived. The Amityville Horror scores as a horror film you can honestly afford to miss. Remade in 2005.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Unfathomably overrated.

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 6 May 2008 11:52 (A review of The Bicycle Thief (aka Bicycle Thieves))

"There's a cure for everything except death."

I know I'm in the severe minority here, but The Bicycle Thief is a film I found to be just tolerable as opposed to great. The film is a poignant character study that was an intrepid move at the time of its release. Critics have hailed it as being an all-time classic and the film even won a special Oscar at the Academy Awards of 1949.

I thought The Bicycle Thief was an extraordinarily good drama that delivers a powerful message; however I felt that the whole film built up to an inadequate conclusion. People may say that this is missing the point of the movie. But if it has a point to convey I expected it to be delivered faster as opposed to stretching out the whole thing for 90 minutes. For this message I felt it could have come and gone in less than an hour. I mean we all know that bicycles are stolen constantly and are sometimes found. Anyone could tell you that. So why did the filmmakers have to interminably drag out the movie? I enjoy a good classic drama. This one just couldn't grasp my interest in amidst delivering its message.

The film's plot is fairly straightforward: set in Rome succeeding the conclusion of World War II, jobs are very scarce. It is every man's dream to find themselves a job and earn money to support their family. We follow a man named Antonio Ricci (Maggiorani) who lives with this wife and son. Antonio is given a job as someone who hangs posters around the city. But he needs a bicycle. Although out of funds, they are forced to sacrifice a few household items in order to possess the required cash to obtain a bicycle. As the title would suggest, Antonio's luck soon runs out when his bicycle is stolen. The film is then a tale of Antonio and his son Bruno (Staiola) as they search for the stolen bicycle.

I am in two states of mind about this film. On the one hand, The Bicycle Thief is an excellent movie that delivers an uncompromising, unconventional message. Despite this, I still found the movie to be far too dragged out considering it was just going to deliver this certain, simple message. I liked some of the drama throughout and thought its un-clichéd temperament was bold. Although bold, it was still abundantly unsatisfying.

Surprisingly, the movie was made with all the roles being filled with non-actors. This isn't very obvious because I thought all the performances were absolutely superb. Maggiorani displays a wide range of emotions and is very engaging in his role. The desperation in his eyes is obvious at times, with some scenes being truly unforgettable. The most memorable moment of the movie would have to be the scene in the restaurant that conveys desperation, happiness and the gulf between rich and poor in just a few minutes. Young Staiola is also very good as little Bruno. It's his performance that captures the heart of the movie. The film is not really about the bicycle. It was a portrait of father and son with the mutual concern of dignity and respect.

This film is a beautiful portrait of course. I just wish that it wasn't so stretched out and wasn't so depressing. I understand that it was a perfect way to portray reality, but I guess I just watch too many happy films. It was a nice change of scenery, though.

One important aspect that must be mentioned is the filmmakers have made the city of Rome an actual character in the film. They exhibit the city of Rome with its beautiful churches contrasted with the poverty and effects of the war in a way that would be impossible to replicate by any Hollywood studio.

The Bicycle Thief has been regarded as a classic film that will always be one of the greatest movies of all time. I bitterly disagree with that statement. Regardless of me strongly disagreeing I still found the movie to be a beautiful human portrait created by a director who excels at his craft.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Sweeney Todd Review

Posted : 1 week, 1 day ago on 6 May 2008 09:54 (A review of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street)

Who knew a musical about a serial killer could be so bloody GREAT?!?!?!
LOVED IT. IT IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST FILM I'VE EVER SEEN. The viuals are STUNNING, the acting SUPERB, and Johhny Depp REALLY CAN sing!

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Across the Universe

Posted : 1 week, 2 days ago on 6 May 2008 08:20 (A review of Across the Universe)

I really enjoyed this movie and i thought it was great. If you really enjoy the Beatles then you should definitely watch this movie. All of the songs in it are from the Beatles which made it even more enjoyable.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

fun action - yet again

Posted : 1 week, 2 days ago on 6 May 2008 07:11 (A review of X-Men: The Last Stand)

The idea of mutants and humans is great. And the film is obviously at a specific public that will enjoy such movies and soundtrack.
It's a fun trilogy - but as with most trilogies, the quality goes downhill.
The first X-Men was really enjoyable, while the next two were mediocre in quality; it shows even in the actors' performances.
Patrick Stewart, in this third installment of X-Men, particularly looks as if he were computer generated, it's that pathetic and bad.

In any case, it's fun, action-filled, and it's got a good cast. The movie is worth watching just for that.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

fun action - again

Posted : 1 week, 2 days ago on 6 May 2008 07:10 (A review of X2: X-Men United)

The idea of mutants and humans is great.

This film is obviously at a specific public that will enjoy such movies and soundtrack.
It's a fun trilogy - but as with most trilogies, the quality goes downhill.

The first X-Men was really enjoyable, while the next two were mediocre in quality; it shows even in the actors' performances.

In any case, it's fun, action-filled, and it's got a good cast. The movie is worth watching just for that.


0 comments, Reply to this entry