Change Your Image
rigolgm
Reviews
The Deadly Mantis (1957)
Each scene fizzles out
I've been watching a lot of these 1950s monster movies lately (Tarantula, The Monolith Monsters etc) and usually they achieve a nice frisson of nostalgia and drama.
Not this one. Like some other flops (Revenge of the Creature etc), there's no effort made to create surprise. Moreover, scenes involving action or talking all just fizzle out in The Deadly Mantis.
At the start of the film you see a giant mantis defrosting and an explanation of the lines of radar defences between that location and north America. You might as well stop watching the film at that point, because it's just told you how the remaining 75 minutes are going to pan-out.
*OBVIOUS SPOILER* While most of these films can claim a decent crescendo, and so have the confidence to end abruptly when the monster is destroyed, The Deadly Mantisone doesn't. Instead, after its very routine, boring destruction (shooting at it until it stops moving), there are a few minutes of romantic and comedy drivel. As if the writer or director felt it was lacking content. It was.
The one thing I did like was the intense way we see the monster threateningly buzzing through the sky towards the civilian centres. But even that ends in a fizzle.
So the whole movie feels a bit like a tame date, followed by them saying "no it's fine, I can go myself" when you offer to walk them to their door.
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)
Refreshingly different from factory-line superhero films
I went into this movie expecting very little, assuming it'd reflect the 'factory-line formula' of recent superhero films. It doesn't!
The first 15 minutes rely on flashbacks/voiceovers and that worried me, but those early scenes laid a great foundation for an emotionally rewarding rollercoaster ride of bonding, fighting, surprises and humour.
It taps some of the magic of movie greats like The Princess Bride, using similar charming, wonky pacing and honed character-building to make you care about every scene.
When people left the cinema they had big smiles.
Movies like this feel like the scriptwriters have poured their souls into getting it right, while many of other special effects blockbusters feel like they were written on the back of a handkerchief.
It's not a perfect movie, as it can feel a bit 'knowing' and into itself, but it's still a treat.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
People clapped. A good film
I'm astonished by all the negative feedback in people's reviews here. I just came back from seeing Spiderman 3 in a big cinema and everyone laughed, there was some cheering, and even clapping at the end.
It is true that the film has a slightly messy feel about it, for example with characters like the butler or Sandman seemingly saying things 'just when needed' to move the plot along in a slightly unconvincing way. But many things that other people here cite as weakenesses of the movie seem to me to be actual strengths, for example how you lose sympathy for Peter Parker in the first half of the film because he lacks empathy for Mary Jane - something that I thought was a bold move by the writers that effectively raised the emotional stakes of the last half of the movie.
I really get a strong feeling that people writing bad reviews are being affected by their own expectations too much. Taken on its own merits, this was an intense, funny, happy and satisfyingly oddball movie.
And yes, Bruce Cambell's "I am a French man" (delivered in entirely unconvincing accent) and short goofy performance was a gem. Bruce once tried to get the role of The Flash (but was pipped to the post), and appeared in Darkman too, so it's high time he got his own superhero role! Hail to the Kingpin, baby!
The Last King of Scotland (2006)
Too simple. 6 stars
This film has so much going for it. I won't list all the good things (great acting, very clear progression, strong editing etc) because you can find these in other reviews. I have to say, however, that I still found the film to be extraordinarily linear and simplistic. In the words of one critic "it ultimately leaves you with nothing to think about".
I'm no puritan by any means, however I found it slightly offensive how a white central character's fate is elevated to 'all importance' while black people are tortured and killed around him.
Essential characters are reduced to one-dimensional plot devices that slot very mechanically into the whole story. This undermines the necessary tone of humanity, especially as the central protagonist alongside Amin is of dubious morality.
The final text at the end of the film was annoying, giving some facts about the 300,000 people who died in Uganda in real life . . . then following it and finishing with the shockingly trivial observation that said something like "and no one knows whether the day Amin died on was the one that he had predicted in a dream he that he would die on". If he WAS right are we supposed to think "hmmm . . . maybe he WAS inspired after all!"?? A good film from a 'watchability' point of view, but it still left me feeling like I'd just seen the pantomime version of Jack the Ripper!
Gwoemul (2006)
Has everyone gone mad? This is unwatchable.
Both myself and my friend walked out of watching The Host half way through because it was so awful. So, what I say below is based entirely on the first half of the film! This film is being promoted partly on the basis of its mixing of genres and styles. This it certainly does. Unfortunately the result is the cinematic equivalent of a disgusting smoothee drink made out of giblets, spinach and chilipeppers.
This film has a serious identity crisis and does not know in which direction to take the audience. It tediously flounders from one boring little scene to the next. After 45 minutes nothing fun or interesting had happened - just fairly muted mildly silly scenes that don't make much sense and drag horribly.
Everything is just plain wrong about this film. It carelessly throws in embarrassing pratfall-style comedy that is humourless and strips the film of drama. Dialogue is bizarrely written and makes many scenes disposable and irritating as the characters jabber relentlessly. The film also makes too much of the grim fate of the 13 year old girl, which is just pure cynical movie-making and jars with the supposedly amusing folly of adjoining scenes.
What amazes me so much is that I hate this film despite liking so many different kinds of horror, be it cheesy, serious or satirical, Western or Eastern. I don't even think this film IS horror or satire or drama or comedy. It's just a steaming pile of monster turd.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Seriously lacks dramatic punch.
Some elements of this film (production design, willingness to engage the subject seriously) are great, even awe-inspiring, but there are serious flaws with it too.
Either the screenplay for this film was seriously lacking, or the director somehow failed to develop its potential for dramatic impact. Beautiful in appearance and in its effective portrayal of big themes and evil forces, this film loses all punch by failing to provide enough surprises and dramatic development from scene to scene.
You will find too many scenes where, for example, the key characters will say "oo-er . . . I just have a hunch that we are being followed" and, lo-and-behold, the expected fight scene against orcs occurs perhaps seven minutes later. In that seven minutes, nothing much else will have happened, and certainly no genuine humour. The end result can be best described as one of two things: 1) This movie is, in pace and feel, almost identical to Conan The Barbarian (which, unfortunately, is the case); 2) This movie is rather like watching tha mid-season, mid-table American football game.
*** mild spoilers *** The best example of the dodgy marrative is near the end of the film where, inexplicably, the hunky supporting heroes all spontaneously agree to run off and help two little hobbits rather than to paddle their boats in the other direction and support the fulcrum character of the film - and the scene is unsatisfactory, destroying any epic feel by making two simple hobbits seem more important than going the other way to help save the world (I do understand that they may prove to be "vital" to saving the world in the sequels, but that doesn't make events any better dramatically). Another suspect subplot is where lots of time and effort is made to land Gandalf in a tricky situation atop a tower, only to have him magically employ a moth (and then a giant eagle) to help him, whereby he is returned to safety and back into the central plotline. Like a bad publicity news release, every event seems to have that big "So what? What was all that about?" factor.
Here's a better example of what I'm saying. Just imagine how dull the final lightsabre fight in The Empire Strikes Back would have been if the movie had continually prepped us for the "I am you father" bit by hinting at the "father" fact throughout the movie. Add to that Yoda explaining previously that Luke could potentially equal Vader in the fight, and that Luke could perhaps use a psychic power to let his friends locate him if need be, etc. All those hints and general talk anticipating the fight would have destroyed the climax, and that's exactly what LOTR does. In an attempt to relate to us the central theme of fate, this LOTR movie hints endlessly about what might happen next and about what all the impending threats are! Talk about a passion killer.
Another core problem with this movie is that, in condensing the book, it seems to simplify the "family values" element to something moribund and unelievable. Amid the majesty of the LOTR book the family values felt exciting, providing a fantastic counterpoint to the hugeness of the themes. However, when reduced to a cinema screen the same family values feel simplistic and unsatisfactory. When Elrond gathers together the key characters to create the "Fellowship" central to the movie, all you have on camera is a motley bunch of heroes with the IQs (and personalities) of a football team, being cobbled together in a really arbitrary fashion. They spend the next hour and a half having no social interaction WHATSOEVER apart from firing at everything that moves. There is literally more character exposition in schlock movie greats like Commando. Yet we are constantly told that this "Fellowship" represents our only hope against evil. If that's the case, I'll trade in my ration of hope for a KFC with avalanche and extra fries. Additional damaging elements include the striking lack of extras - in no scene do there ever seem to be more than 15 real humans - and the poor action in which most fights are viewed from the shoulders up with requisite jerky camera.
Overall this movie has left me feeling like I've been touched by a magical world, and a lot of the movie was interesting. But in truth the movie is no more fun than dodgy fantasy flicks like Krull . . . and that's enough criticism to drive ANY movie mogul scurrying back into his hobbit hole! A return to "human" film making, anyone? 4/10
Tokyo Fist (1995)
Bone breaking, but more "human" than most movies.
The comments of others comparing this movie to Raging Bull, Rocky and Fight Club could be misguided. This movie could have been about almost anything and the boxing is just a plot device . . . but a great one!!! . This movie is about people - most other movies are only about characters. The violence helps show just how angry a boring insurance guy (?) can get when something simple blows his world to pieces. It taunts the white-collar viewer by showing a white-collar man's wife getting easily tempted away by a physically muscular man. And the way she decends into perversity is a delightful rebuttal to the anodyne hold her husband had on her. Seeing a meaty, violent boxer intrude into a sterile, hideous modern existence/relationship forces us viewers to consider where our own humanist allegiances lie. The film says things about humanity that other films don't have the guts to say and rings totally true. If you can stomach the jagged aggressiveness of a movie but want the genuine article, see this film. I haven't had such a rough - but rewarding - ride since I last watched "In the Company of Men".
Evil Dead II (1987)
Even my mum loved it!
This film is pure entertainment. Even my mum loved it! The "punchiness" of the cinematographic timing enables the film to combine great slapstick with true shocks. I personally think it'd be a healthy horror option if you want to treat your 12 year old kids to a few shocks and laughs. Bruce Campbell is a true star with many similarities to Jim Carrey and seeing them together in the new film Mr Majestic should be really interesting.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
The only kind of film to get the adrenaline really pumping.
When I first saw this film it was a scratchy third-hand version, and that "griminess" only enhanced the incredible realism (?!) of this movie. Most films get hung-up on pointless storytelling and plot devices that feel so unreal that they inhibit any resulting thrills - but not this movie! In the documentary now available with some copies, one of the crew says "THIS MOVIE HAS HOMOCIDE ON THE BRAIN!" and that about sums it up. And it's so refreshing not to see the creepy, fetishistic, unconvincing high-IQ killers that we get in Silence of the Lambs et al. Equally, we don't suffer here from the drive to humanise/explain murderers that we get in Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer etc. The fun of this movie in particular stems from the sheer inadequacy of the victims to escape the simplistic rage of the killers (if the police got involved, the murderers would be rounded up easily!) - plus, the proximity of a slaughterhouse to the murders gives a message of humans literally being like cattle to the slaughter (a message that secretly amuses animal liberation guys like me!).