davrosc Reviews

Pilgrimage (2018– )

Not a true reflection of Pilgrimage

[3/10 · 22 May 2023]

Lets be honest. This is not really a true reflection of pilgrimage.

The celebrities don't spend each night in albergues or pilgrim accommodation, they dint walk the whole way, the episodes are edited deliberately to fool you into thinking the celebs do the pilgrimage like everyone else.

For instance in the Road to Portugal Ep1 the pilgrims are seen walking the wrong way. They also say that they have a meeting place "just outside Ponte de Lima" when in fact its 10km away and in the morning they just skip to Ponte de Lima so you know they slept somewhere nice off camera and just taxi them to town.

There's no real deep insight into pilgrimage, faith or religion. It's just candy floss watching with uninteresting Z listers. This would be much more endearing with "real" people doing a true pilgrimage.

I wouldn't expect it from the BBC but they aren't the broadcaster they used ti be. If you've never walked a pilgrimage you'll probably enjoy it but this is not a watch for anyone with knowledge of pilgrimage.

Love Actually (2003)

In reply to JokerSwan

[25 November 2003]

Further to my recent comment...

Describing a movie as "fragmented" is by no means a term of abuse. Life is fragmented and we are all loosely interconnected. No one can understand the complex, extraordinary, mundane, obsolete connections that there are in the world.

American Independent Cinema thrives on ambiguity; on keeping stories open ended; on not explaining everything; on discontinuity; and on fragmentation.

Wile I am by no means even suggesting Love Actually is independent (I'm sure we all know it's a colossal British picture marketed very wisely to certain demographics at this time of year), it shares some small similarities. Its skill may be in drawing in people outside those demographics as well.

Finally being a fan of certain actors is a fact of life, a common obsession. Yet cinema is not made up of its stars, but of its characters. It is the moments and the scenes that make up a film. And in seeing a film for a certain luscious actor detracts from the true essence of cinema. Furthermore in an ensemble film it is about all the actors, not just one.

Love Actually (2003)

The for and against debate

[23 November 2003]

****************** SPOILERS AHEAD ************************

Love Actually appears to be a movie that fiercely divides people: Cosmo in the UK Sunday Times called it "smaltschy' (although that's probably spelt wrong). IMDB users differ from fantastic to likes & dislikes to simply nauseous (or even `nautious' in some cases!!). I'd like to address some of these opinions and add my own.

Firstly to those like Cosmo that thought the film was over sentimental, that it wrapped up too neatly, and other such comments. My answer: yes and no. While it's true to say that Love Actually is a manipulative film, I think it should rather be viewed more as a fairytale. Critics are a hard bunch. Their main problem is they would have been sitting there almost in tears and yet annoyed that a movie should affect them so. Why can't they just sit back and relax? Admittedly some of the stories were silly and implausible, such as Colin's [Kris Marshall] trip to the girl haven of America. But can't we put these niggles aside?

Furthermore the story is not wrapped up. This is NOT a traditional love story or necessary a happy ending. The point is rather that love can be found, lost, misplaced, re appropriated. Of the storylines only a few are optimistic in finale. Daniel [Liam Neeson] has lost his one love by her death. Daniel's son expresses his feelings to Joanna, yet the story offers no real pointers to which way this could swing: she revisits London at the end of the movie but is this just for a week, a month? Who knows? Karen [Emma Thompson] is faced with the dilemma of not knowing whether to stick or split. Her husband Harry [Alan Rickman] has succumbed to his secretary and bought her a necklace. We do not see if there was sex involved or how far the relationship went however.

Meanwhile Mark [Andrew Lincoln] is in love with his best friend's wife [Keira Knightley]. Sarah and Carl [Laura Linney and Rodrigo Santoro] also fizzle as she decides that she is going to put her disturbed brother before any office relationship. The stories that do end on an upbeat are those of Natalie and the PM [Martine McCutcheon and Hugh Grant], and Jamie [Colin Firth]. Not exactly then a film that wraps up neatly and optimistically all round.

The skill of Love Actually is in its true to life stories: not everything does turn out all right in the end. For those who say the film has followed in the steps of mainstream American cinema with the glitz and the glamour, it hasn't. You cannot divorce it from it's British flavour, not merely because of the scenes of the Thames, Selfridges, and other landmarks.

And to those who said there was too much nudity: only two stories contain any nudity as far as I recall. Laura Linney, which could be construed as unnecessary, and Judy and John, the movie stand-ins [Joanna Page and Martin Freeman]. Here the nudity seems appropriate, as it is one of the most touching storylines. They come to work, know each other's bodies in detail, and yet talk about traffic and small talk. It's unusual that to people that have seen each other naked and simulated sex together before even going out, it is a kiss that they are both hesitant about and which means everything.

The cast is literally superb. The storylines may not interlink as much as people would like. Some of it is silly and sometimes, as much as cameos are quite cool, they can get a little overwhelming – Billy Bob Thornton, Claudia Schiffer, Ant & Dec, Shannon Elizabeth, Denise Richards, etc etc. Working Title and Curtis have obviously though hard about the marketing of the film, the stories, the pitches, to set it 4 weeks before Christmas and then release it 4 weeks before Christmas. But what they've formed is a top-notch film. It begins and ends with the Heathrow arrivals scene, with real people meeting their loved ones. This is a film about love, about people and their connections, however much it is showered with big name stars and cameos. It is a film that neither tells us what love should be or dictate to us.

If I've at times been ineloquent, I've tried to misplace some of the complaints mentioned against this film. Some are just malicious gibbering against British films in general, others about how it doesn't live up to other films. I think this is one of the best films I've seen this year. Far superior to the bad films recently and a nice alternative to badly made action films; here I'm thinking of Charlie's Angles 2, Matrix Revolutions, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen among others. All films have errors and problems, and this is no exception, but it is a great movie. And that can't be said of every film out there.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Does anyone get the point?!

[11 August 2002]

I would like to address primarily a few of the points that others have made about this film, and hopefully to dispel some illusions. The Virgin Suicides has had mixed reviews, and it is a pity that many people watch the film for the wrong reasons.

For instance it is clear from many Imdb users that they saw the film after watching other more recent Kirsten Dunst movies. This is not really a film for Kirsten fans to put it mildly. It doesn't have the upbeat tempo of all her recent work. Furthermore it is a pity that Kirsten Dunst has become as big a star as she is. For people often see VS as an excuse to get people to see a film by shoving in Kirsten as the lead role. What they forget is that this is a time when Kirsten was not well known. For the film buffs around, yes, she had been in Jumanji, Small Soldiers and Interview with the Vampire, but she was still hardly known.

Secondly to people who think of VS as a "chick flick" should get your simple, stereotype brains [if you have them] back to romantic comedies. Sure there is undisputably a touch of feminism to the work, not least due to the directional talents of Sofia Coppola. But chick flick!

Thirdly to those that think of VS as improbable, go have a look at Independence Day. It is not uncommon for close relatives to share a bond of emotional conflict. There is nothing unreasonable about sisters all committing suicide and it's not as if killing yourself is an unheard of phenomenon.

For those that say that the plot is tissue thin, for those who say we don't get to know the Lisbon sisters, for those who wanted concrete proof at the end of why the suicides happened, for all those looking for answers: listen carefully.

By making these accusations you've missed one of the major points of the film. The story is told for a masculine perspective, from one of the boys. They don't get to know the girls to understand them. The whole point is as mentioned in the film, that they had scraps of information but there was still empty gaps. The Lisbon sisters are meant to be enigmatic. There is no point in telling the exact story, for that would be trite and impossible. Even the sisters may not know their own reasons. Why they did it? Especially how they died as a lot of people want to know, is irrelevant. And the plot is not tissue thin. It may not be amazingly varied because it follows teenage girls under a strict household. How exciting is three months of your life!

This is one of only two films directed by Sofia Coppola, and as you would expect from the daughter of Francis Ford, she has her own elegance. There is a stamp on this unlike any other film. The cinematography is simple but at times powerful. The songs are so intertwined with the film that they work so well, especially those by Air. Giovanni Ribisi is a great narrator, and Kathleen Turner/Woods make a good couple. Actually the acting all over is frankly superb. Skip Dunst and look at the other sisters. It's amazing that when you take AJ Cook and Chelse Swain out of bad horror films (Ripper and Mangler 2 respectively) their dramatic acting is brilliant. Move aside Dominique Swain your sister may not have your success but she definitely can act. The roles here are minimal but they do have a considerable impact on the film. (Also look out for a small role from our very own lightsaber welding Hayden Christensen)

In the end it would be good if all the actors in VS had just starred in this film, rather than have fans of the actors watching the film, as opposed to people wanting to just watch the film (I am as guilty as everyone else).

Maybe the problem is that most people are unable to grab hold of this film for fear of the subject matter, for fear of depression, or maybe just simply because they would watch a Hollywood blockbuster or a romantic comedy over it any day. This is a haunting film, brilliantly made, and sadly underrated.

Beverly Hills Family Robinson (1997 TV Movie)

Not worth my Saturday evening

[20 April 2002]

*************** S P O I L E R S *************************

When this little number came round to the dregs of Channel 5 on UK television (and the name of C5 should make all those who live in the UK quiver with disgust), I watched it against my better judgement, as all the adverts were screaming "starring Sarah Michelle Gellar".

Actually it doesn't! Although Dyan Cannon - now more known as Judge Whipper from Ally McBeal - is refreshing. Unfortunately Martin Mull (the dastardly Headmaster from Sabrina) also stars in this tale and he is fairly awful at the best of times.

This is definitely a tale for children - it has a bad plot, no real emotion and just a few wide holes in the plot. It can still be enjoyable and the tree house and its contraptions amused me for a little while. Yet the introduction of the pirates, the tourists, and the random windsurfer were very stupid.

In the end it's a shame that 90% of the people who watch this film will do so to look back at Sarah Michelle Gellar before she became famous. Oh, and also the dirtier ones to catch a glimpse of her in a bikini.

America's Sweethearts (2001)

Truly Mediocre

[18 April 2002]

****************** S P O I L E R S ***************************

This is a truly mediocre tale - a lot of the talent is wasted. Also the film never seems to get anywhere. 90 minutes and all that's really happened is a couple of dull set pieces (and not many at that). We don't feel any sympathy for Gwen and Eddie, nor for lee getting his job back at the end.

There are a few good things about the film: 1. Julia Roberts - great as usual (the only character we really sympathise for in this film) 2. Christopher Walken - good performance where he just kinda looks a bit stoned. 3. Keri Lynn Pratt - who?! The girl who is Hal's daughter who we only see for about 10 seconds when she is defending the Spanish guy. Unfortuantely the other scene with her is very good but it was deleted and is only on the DVD.

So not much point wasting any more time on this movie, I hope you don't too.

The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland (1987)

this is a children's masterpiece!

[18 April 2002]

*********************** S P O I L E R S *************************

This is a classic movie. Much better than the first for young kids. So it is only loosely based on the Alice in Wonderland concept but it is highly inventive and colourful and loveable.

It also has a rare thing - some good songs! Nowadays it seems Childrens movies just get thrown around for commercial value and stuck together in no time. Effort has been put in over the songs in this movie.

I bought the video (or rather had it bought for me) back in the 80s and although I'm now in my twenties I still go back and watch it now and then.

Sad maybe but this is a great movie and definitely recommended for children and especially those born into the world of dire late 90s children TV.

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

Grrrrrrrrrrreat!

[17 April 2002]

I remember seeing The Ghost and The Darkness when it hit UK Sky back in 1998 but decided to give it a second bash as it hits UK Terrestrial TV (ITV). The reason: it was pretty amazing the first time round and I wanted to see how it fared the second.

To be honest not as good - it loses a bit of its zing the second time you see it. However for first timers it is terrifying. You don't often get a picture like this that scares you without resorting to special effects or the supernatural genre.

The scenery is great - the acting of Kani (as Samuel) and Val Kilmer (as the bridge builder) is great. Even Michael "I'm the Exec Producer so I want a role in it otherwise I'll cry" Douglas doesn't manage to bring this film down.

It doesn't matter that the film was set on real events.. it doesn't need that to make you sit wide-eyed and rooted to the chair, it just helps for that bit of realism.

I wish I could completely forget this film just so I can go back and watch it for the first time. It is a suspensful piece, slowly building up from the start, and very clever in places. A sure treat!

Amélie (2001)

better than ice cream!

[16 April 2002]

********************** SPOILERS ************************************

Amelie is a strange movie... it's a pity that it has become such a big success because people look at it in a different light and in a way it's a pity that it is only it's reasonable success that made me sit down and watch it.

However Amelie is an addictive concoction of colour and swirl; it makes you want to dance, pushed along by witty dialogue and bright camera shots and by the charm of Audrey Tautou.

It's strange because although she is not amazingly pretty, she has an amazing charm about her that lifts the film up. It's so "je ne sais quoi" - I felt somewhat helpless and surrounded by this unstoppable pace.

The music is great and helps push the film along, lift it up and attain pure harmony. The cinematography is lush. The characters imaginative. It is a story about relationships beyond all else - Amelie and her father, her father and her mother, Amelie with her boyfriend, the two in the coffee shop, the first man she heps and his daughter, the caretaker with her deceased husband, the grocer and his assistant, the assistant and the painter, the painter and Amelie... the list is endless.

It works so well because it has a subtlety lacking in English language films. It's not that it can be taken on many levels; it was almost as if it didn't need to be taken on any level! I was confused where to take it and in the end just let it tread its path. It is hard to exactly analyse what brings this up fro merely good to great but it's as if the screen is alive with physical "pheromones" that pull you in, make you watch.

So the painter seems to know a bit too much about Amelie at the start and the person who lived in her flat in the 50s, he can't paint the middle girl because she evades him, yet she is a coward (a depiction of Amelie). The tapes she sends him have no concrete explanation... you think of many purposes. Yet in all this weirdness you don't stop to question (too much) you just let it take you along on the journey.

This is a rich, colourful and loving child of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. It's a film I will not forget for its uniqueness and strange harmony. And yes, the purchase of the soundtrack is a must for reliving it for years to come.

The Mangler 2 (2002 Video)

Not in a million years

[11 April 2002]

*********************** SPOILERS *************************************

So I thought any film that had Lance Henriksen in couldn't be THAT bad!!! And Chelse Swain seemed a likeable enough person for the main role [sister of Dominique Swain if anyone cares]. Yet all the characters are all over the place - it's obvious they haven't got a clue what their lines even are and Lance makes no attempt to bother acting.

If you're gonna do a B-movie well (a la Evil Dead) then it has to be OTT but really scary at the same time. It also has to have some realism as well.

this is crude - the plot is disasterous. It's not scary at all. Chelse Swain waddles around like a duck for 90 minutes obviously lost. The school was blatantly not one of the best in the state and the scenes were badly shot. A lot of these comments can apply even to a great small movie but this is not one of them. And the ludicrous-ness of the computer terminology and the Mangler virus does not bear talking about.

Don't watch this even if you saw and liked the first one!!! The only two things that kept me from switching it off - 1. Lance wired up at the end was pretty interesting for about 30 seconds, and 2. Daniella Evangelista playing Emily wandering round for most of the movie in just a bikini and a sarong type thing.

That's my verdict as harsh as it may sound... I'm sure there won't be many people out there contesting it.

Driven (2001)

Don't be too fast to bring out the shotgun!

[10 April 2002]

****************************** SPOILERS ********************************

Driven passed by UK cinemas with barely an eye flicker - it had a bit of an advertising budget behind it but lost out to fairly poor reviews and small attendances. As the film comes round for rental release, the story is the same. There aren't many copies out on the shelf and it's not in the rental charts.

So why bother? For a few reasons actually: this film reminded me in a few ways back to "The Fast and The Furious". It's got a good soundtrack, fast cars and some 'mean' camera angles. As a fan of Formula 1, I have however little knowledge of Indy Car racing. yet this seems fairly realistic!

Admittedly a lot of the rev sounds were blatantly from F1 cars and the crashs were OTT and the Special FX fake. Yet for every single special effect that you may have noticed, there would have been another 10 that you didn't. For instance a lot of the crowds and backdrops were computer generated; cars that weren't there were put in; and so on. All these have been done so professionally they are undetectable to the naked eye.

And although a film needs to glamourise its material, there is glamour in the racing world. There are Indy babes and beautiful girls and glamourous events, and Driven does a fairly good job of giving us a peak of this world.

On a performance note, Syl Stallone is not as poor as I often consider him. It is possible that he could be an Indy Car driver; in a way he reminds me of a slightly older David Coulthard. Burt Reynolds is good here, a fresh young cast give the impression that these could be real drivers, not to mention the real drivers themselves (!!) together with a few nice shots of Montoya and others (I noticed Jean Alesi and Jacques Villeneuve hiding somewhere in the credits). On the female side of the cast, Estella Warren hasn't got a pivotal role in the film but she is in quite a few scenes and adds a welcome and multi-dimensional addition to the cast... plus she's gorgeous as usual.

The way the film falls out is on subject matter and ending... it was obviously from the beginning we were talking about a plot going something like "young guy gets scared, needs guidance then kicks back and wins". And yes, I must conceed that Driven is about relationships as well as driving but to make a great movie in a little over 100 minutes there's not time for both - it has to be one or the other.

As said before, the realism is nice. They must have shot a lot of the film in conjunction with the actual-real-live races and this is nice because it adds to that realism. But a race takes 90 minutes in real time plus pre and post commentary so to try and cram races in to the span of a film is pushing it. Not that you need to show the whole race but five minute clips aren't enough to get a good feel of it all.

In summary, there are a few popints that drag the film down but a multitude that hold it back up. Maybe my love of F1 biases me towards the racing material of the film, but hey, there's fast cars, Estella and Gina, and some cracking cinematography (including some intricate and ingenious car mounted cameras). Even though the plot has to be constrained slightly but actual events and follow the film through to the logical conclusion, there is a plot. So you could say it's a bit like "The Fast and The Furious" except it's got a plot as well!!

New Year's Day (2000)

Take it on whatever level you like

[8 April 2002]

MAJOR SPOILERS

To those who say the English don't make good films have obviously been watching the wrong films!

So this tale of two teenage boys who make a suicide pact after their classmates are killed on a skiing trip and they are the only two survivors is not original. It's been done before and many a time.

Yet the way Suri Krishnamma has done it is subtle and original. It's a nice take that the suicide pact involves "A Book of Life"- An affirming set of tasks to carry out before they can commit suicide. It's the dreams and desires of their dead friends that they must carry out ranging from punching a policeman to burning down the school.

To say this is an epic tale of courage, friendship, yada, yada would be more fitting on a drizzling Hollywood Blockbuster. This far surpasses mere words - unlike Hollywood it doesn't make everything explicit, it doesn't treat the audience as if they had an IQ of under 80 and it's not in your face.

For instance the last task "to understand, to mean what I say, to cherish my friends" before the two main characters jump over the cliff, can be taken in so many ways... they survive, it's true, and the film becomes not so much a story about death but a story about life.

The relationship is unusual... Jake is the one who outwardly seems to be getting along well and tries to stop Steven from continuing the suicide pact but it is he who wants death more than anything. Steven is in many respects the opposite.

And it is Jake who manages to fulfill his own suggested task of crashing a car. Steven's wish was to "kill somebody or something" - this may be something he said just to personify himself/ to mask himself in his own representation. But it's not really who Steven is; at the best of times he is an enigmatic and puzzling character and yet when it comes to killing an animal, he can't even fulfill his own dream. Make of it what you will for it can be taken in many ways, BUT it is never thrown in your face.

For those who haven't seen the film, my ineloquence may just confuse you (even though I could keep going another couple of thousand words). This is an engaging story, realistic, and full of emotion.

And it affects people in different ways and will affect you in a different way every time you see it because it does not steer you down a narrow path of "this is how the movie goes; this is the emotions I want you to feel" as directors often have that manipulative power over their audience. It lets you take it the way you want.