PapaT_86 Reviews

2012 (I) (2009)

Up next on Fox... When CGI Buildings Colapse!

[5/10 · 16 November 2009]

Remember the episode of The Simpsons many moons ago where Lisa was distraught to see Homer and Bart finding a show called "When Buildings Collapse" the absolute height of entertainment? A show which simply consisted of buildings, well, collapsing. Well it seems like they would be the ideal audience for 2012, a film which features a lot of stuff falling apart seemingly randomly and without much greater significance or dramatic weight. Then again, even Homer's attention might start to drift during this one, not only during the many sappy dramatic interludes but also by the time the film gets to the 100th CGI object falling apart, it would probably occur even to him that it's not that exciting because it's just being done with a computer which could conjure up 100 times more interesting images.

The appeal of many stunts is knowing, at least subconsciously, that what we are seeing was done "for real", even with whatever safety precautions were put in place and whatever touching-up was added in post production. What exactly is the appeal of watching a CGI ship sink in and of itself? Such a scene needs at least a modicum of suspense to work, something Emmerich seems entirely unable to muster. Either that or we need to care about the characters, and with this overstuffed cast of stock figures there's not much chance of that happening with most of them. One or two such scenes might manage to entertain, but 158 minutes stuffed with them palls fairly quickly.

Still, I will give 2012 a little credit. It's not as obnoxious as Independence Day (i.e. there's no Will Smith punching an alien), nor as dull and melodramatic as The Day After Tomorrow. There are even a couple of set-pieces in this movie which are genuinely exciting stuff. Not surprisingly these are a) two of the earliest set-pieces and b) with the best developed characters in the film. This shows hints of a better movie. I think a focus on one family's attempts to escape the end of the world (as in Spielberg's unfairly maligned War of the Worlds adaptation, from which this film's paternal theme seems "inspired" by) would provide a far stronger and more involving basis for a movie than 2012's attempt to paint a bigger but shallow picture.

And what is it with Emmerich and dogs?

I'll let Homer have the final words..."My favourite part was when the buildings collapsed!"

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

Piggy in a muddle

[4/10 · 21 October 2009]

When George Miller's sequel to the popular and prestigious family film Babe hit cinemas in late 1998 it was squeezed into a crowded family film market, having to share the spotlight with Pixar's second film A Bug's Life and the surprising popular cinematic debut of Nickelodeon's Rugrats. As a result very few people actually saw Babe: Pig in the City while it played in theatres. In proportion to the film's budget so few that it lead to the dismissal of several high-ranking executives at Universal. While it is true that the public cannot truthfully dislike a film it has not seen, I think it's fair to say that the film got an at best mixed response among those of the public that did see it both on it's original theatrical release and subsequently on video and TV, with many viewers alienated by it and few finding it as endearing as the original. Yet there have been many vocal and noteworthy fans of the film ever since its release. The much missed Gene Siskel placed Babe: Pig in the City at the very top of what would tragically turn out to be his last annual Top 10 list. His on screen partner Roger Ebert also found room for it on his Top 10. While not many professional critics quite shared their level of enthusiasm (although the film received generally decent reviews) the film nonetheless developed a kind of cult following who did, among their number being acclaimed musician Tom Waits and popular "internet personality" the Nostalgia Critic.

I saw Babe: Pig in the City upon its UK television premier when I was 13; not really, in my opinion, still a child, yet not at an age where I feel I had fully developed critical facilities that might appreciate the nuances and qualities the film's strongest advocates see in it. At the time I thought it was pretty much a fiasco. Would I keep that opinion or join the film's list of fans after revisiting it as an adult?

Well I'm sorry to say I side with the public over the critics on this one, and still found it to be pretty much a fiasco. I can't even really see what the film's fans see in it. Ultimately, it's a pretty dull slog of a film, with not enough of interest to justify even its slender running time. Granted, there is some good stuff in here. The cinematography, camera-work and production design are often sumptuous, and far above anything you would normally see in a live action kid's movie. The early scenes, set on the same farm the first film took place in, do have the kind of mythical, fairy tale quality Miller clearly intended the whole film to have, but which didn't come across in later parts of the film. And towards the end there is a imaginatively staged and pleasingly old-fashioned slapstick romp involving a clown suit, a lot of bouncing, a well-stacked pyramid of wine glasses and a frustrated waiter. And... that's about it. Which is not to say I cannot appreciate the level of ambition Miller brought to the movie. I think it's ultimately failed ambition, but I can certainly appreciate the effort. Pig in the City is certainly one of the more unusual big budget sequels out there and about as far away from a carbon copy of the original you can get (although perhaps the mice and "that'll do pig" could have been left out this time). But sometimes you find failed ambition entertaining and interesting to watch in it's own right, and sometimes you merely appreciate it. Unfortunately for me, Babe: Pig in the City falls into the later category.

I also find Pig in the City to be short on the charm that its fans must see in it. After the early scenes we are "treated to" near-fatal injuries, a (thankfully off-screen) cavity check, an group of terminal ill children, starvation and a dog facing something which comes disturbingly close to water-boarding. That's could all be fine in the right context, but this time out Babe doesn't have an interesting enough adventure or a strong enough narrative to get us through it; we just slog from one depressing incident to the next. Do I think kids will be adversely affected by this stuff? Not for a minute, but I don't think they'll be particularly entertained either. I know I wasn't.

Also, I hate to say this as I know they can't talk back and are maybe even dead now and certainly didn't ask for this kind of exposure, but a lot of the animals in this movie are awfully hard on the eyes. Am I alone in really not liking looking at monkeys wearing T-shirts, dresses and lipstick? About the only likable animals who have considerable screen time are Ferdinand the Duck, and Babe himself (adorably voiced by singer Elizabeth Daily, ironically perhaps best known for voicing Tommy Pickles from the Rugrats), both of whom can be enjoyed in the vastly superior first film.

Babe: Pig in the City is well intentioned and in some areas well executed, but if you want to be charmed or entertained you're probably better off watching Peppa Pig!

Saw V (2008)

Entertaining Entry in Enduring Horror Series

[7/10 · 30 October 2008]

Being a serial killer and pop culture icon in the eighties and nineties was hard work. Not only did Freddy, Jason, Michael, Chucky, Pinhead, an ageing Norman Bates and others have to find new and interesting ways to slaughter young innocents, they had to compete with each other too! But even if the late Jigsaw gets frustrated laying out his traps, and even if they don't go to plan, he can at least rest in peace knowing that his place as the definitive horror icon of the first decade of the twenty first century is relatively uncontested.

Fifth entries in horror franchises are hardly a prestigious lot, and it's also very rare that you find a good film in which the main character happened to have died (with no chance of a resurrection) two films ago. So it's nice to find that the fifth entry in the Saw series isn't half bad. The narrative is somewhat muddled, but it's much more cohesive than the previous film's; and whilst the plot generally seems a little pointless, it is at least fairly engaging. The jarringly solemn pretentiousness of some previous entries is also thankfully absent.

The main draw with these movies, whether people like to admit it or not, is the elaborate lethal traps set off during the course of the film, and the traps in this film are perhaps the most consistently innovative of the series. While this is a considerably less gory and sleazy film than Saw IV, there are enough gross out shocks to please those who delight in such things.

Doesn't add a whole lot to the series, but at least shows that it still has the ability to entertain (if not actually frighten).

Event Horizon (1997)

Moronics From Outer Space

[4/10 · 10 September 2008]

What good is a horror/sci-fi hybrid which isn't scary and doesn't seem to have even the most basic understanding of science and the rules and limitations of the physical world? Event Horizon suggests it isn't any good at all. In fairness, I have friends who consider this to be the scariest film they have ever seen, but then they did see it in their early teens.

The film borrows liberally from 2001 and 2010, The Haunting, The Shining, The Amityville Horror, The Lawnmower Man and probably about a hundred other films that begin with "the", but most notably it seems to be in debt at all times to the Alien series. The unoriginality wouldn't matter were this an effective or entertaining film, but the script is banal and muddled and the direction is uninspired; Anderson draws on horror clichés like constant lightning flashes... in space! Anderson's films generally have a glossy yet dull look and feel, and this one is no exception; a considerable amount of work obviously went into the production design of this film, yet in the film the sets rarely look as impressive as they could and should do.

In short the film is a dull, borderline incomprehensible mess. It does showcase a good lead performance from Sam Neill, and an amusing supporting one from Richard T. Jones, but neither really makes the film worth seeing. Check out Levithan instead if you want an enjoyable B-movie variation on the Alien theme.

Child's Play (1988)

Capitalism's a Bitch!

[10/10 · 21 August 2008]

What I love about this movie is the way it slyly pokes fun at, and subverts, the 80s Toy Industry. Witness the scene where the single mother couldn't buy her son the "Good Guy" doll he so dearly wanted for his birthday, and has to face his disappointment and reassure him that she'll get one soon. How many parents had to face this scene in real life throughout the 80s? The film also manages to incorporate a sense of the multi pronged, multi-media merchandising attack of many toy lines of the decades. The "Good Guy" dolls are generally considered to be inspired by the "My Buddy" range, but note how they have their own cartoon show, which brings to mind thoughts of He-Man, Transformers, The Care Bears and so on. This kind of detail brings a level of wit to "Child's Play" that is ironically lacking in its increasingly comedic sequels.

"Child's Play" is one of the cleverest and most entertaining horror movies of the 80s. OK, so Chucky isn't scary, but how many of us are really scared by Freddy, Jason, Jigsaw etc.? It is simply great fun, brilliantly executed.

Transformers (2007)

Built by Robots

[5/10 · 19 August 2008]

In his 1982 book "Danse Macabre", Stephen King predicted that the future of bad films was not cheap and cheesy films like the works of Ed Wood and Phil Tucker, but glossy, expensive films of the same quality; films which amounted to the celluloid equivalent of "a dead rat in a Lucite block". While he has had as extensive and successful a career as a writer as anyone could imagine, surely he has never written anything else as insightful or accurate. Exhibit A: Transformers, one of the biggest hits of 2007. Here we have a movie with a plot that would have barely sufficed for an episode of the cartoon on which it was based. You remember, that cartoon that existed exclusively to sell toys. This film also "treats" us to humour that would disgrace a "Police Academy" sequel (trust me, I would know), incomprehensible action scenes, the ugliest character designs this side of The Garbage Pail Kids and the most sanitised combat scenes in a film since "G.I. Joe: The Movie" (though less enjoyably). Military enrolment isn't the only thing this movie wants to advertise either, and boy, it isn't subtle about it. The one redeeming feature of this fiasco is that it features perhaps the most impressive CGI work seen in a film to date. It is also well handled and cleverly incorporated into the film, instead of sticking out like a sore thumb as CGI often does. That is enough to earn the film a pass mark. Though not a recommendation. Much as you wouldn't want the dead rat in the pretty cage, there is no need to see this film just because it looks nice on the outside.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Little bang and not worth the buck.

[4/10 · 19 August 2008]

I guess no one is going to read this. As of this writing there are 1719 reviews for this in the User Comments section already. But I think I might be able to offer something some of the other reviews might not; conciseness. I think the problem with the movie is actually very simple. By now anyone who hasn't seen the film will still have heard the most common complaints; weak CGI, implausible escapes from nuclear danger, a Tarzan imitation, the introduction of elements arguably inappropriate for an Indy movie, irritating characters and so forth. I think a bigger problem is that the movie is generally unexciting and mostly downright BORING! The first two movies had enough action in their first scenes for a whole movie. The opening of this movie is lethargic and unengaging, and the remainder of the film rarely rises above it. The much maligned "Nuke the Fridge" scene is actually one of the better moments of the movie because it is at least amusing!

The issue isn't so much that the film isn't worthy of the Indiana Jones name, it's more that it isn't worth the ticket price.

The Cell (2000)

I would hang it on my wall if I could. It would certainly be preferable to watching it.

[6/10 · 19 August 2008]

"The Cell", at the most basic level, is about a serial killer who slowly drowns young women in large glass cages, and then has sex with their corpses while watching video footage of them drowning to "inspire" him. Lovely. Not one of the better story lines of that year, in my opinion. Though if it were it would have been a waste, as the people behind this film are clearly not adept at storytelling; the story carried as it is by uninteresting characters and almost completely banal dialogue. What the film does offer is arresting, unique and inventive imagery. Indeed, there is enough of it in the final half hour to merit at least one viewing of the film. It is a shame that this imagery wasn't featured in a better film, not least because it means that the rest of this film can't be given the wide berth that, aside from a well executed scene between Vaugh and Lopez, it deserves.

Never Say Never Again (1983)

If

[8/10 · 16 August 2008]

If you can watch a Bond film from 1983 that isn't as good as Octopussy and still enjoy it.

If you can accept production values which aren't that much above the level of a TV movie.

If you can look at Sean Connery with wrinkles on his forehead beneath an obvious toupée and still see James Bond.

If you can get past an inexperienced Basinger, a weaker Largo and a jolly Q.

If you can learn to love an idiosyncratic score, not up there with Barry on his worst day.

If you don't believe the hyperbolic reviews that it was greeted with on release.

If you can meet a poker battle and a video game face off and enjoy them both the same.

Yours is Never Say Never Again and everything that's in it.

And, what is more, you'll probably enjoy it, my son!

Black Dawn (2005 Video)

Get my alternative pies out of the parallel oven!

[2/10 · 16 August 2008]

Even by Seagal DTV standards this is really... quite something. It's considerably worse than The Foreigner, the previous film featuring the same Seagal character, Jonathan Cold. Yes, that's right it's a sequel to that film you probably didn't know existed, your friend passed on, and your neighbour gave up on after twenty minutes. But just think of the possibilities; in an alternative universe maybe this character is as popular as James Bond. "No Mr. Cold, I expect you to die!". In this world they are already on the fifth Cold movie. "Look Up! Look Down! Look Out! Here Comes The Biggest Cold Of All!". Soon, Seagal will quit the role, hoping to stretch as an actor. A new actor is cast as Cold. He re-captures the hearts of audiences, but not the critics. In 2022, Seagal makes an unofficial Cold film. "The spirit of the 2000s is reborn!" the critics cry.

In this world however, Cold isn't a popular character and his films are as much fun as going through withdrawal.

Was this review helpful? Didn't think so.

Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004 Video)

A Shame

[3/10 · 12 August 2008]

I wouldn't say this was a disappointment from the point of view of being a feeble follow up to the original which, satire or not, wasn't *that* great. I would say the disappointment comes more from internal flaws. On the surface this is far better than most DTVs, several aspects of the production cleverly mask the film's low budget, and initially you might be forgiven for thinking it was a theatrical release. Unfortunately four fairly major flaws quickly arise: 1) The film is very boring 2) It doesn't make a lot of sense 3) Even if it was interesting and made sense it would be hard to tell because the camera wont stay still for five seconds 4) If the camera stayed still for five seconds you might not notice because the lighting is so poor.

So, not really worth bothering with then.

Water (1985)

Flawed but worthwhile

[6/10 · 16 July 2008]

Michael Caine is a notoriously prolific actor, the downside of that being that for all his acclaim he has a reputation for being in as many bad films as good. One that many critics are quick to cite as one of the worst is "Water". That's not entirely fair, for while it is certainly not one of the high points of Caine's career or a resounding success it has an odd sort of charm which makes it somewhat endearing. The concept alone is a large part of the film's appeal; rarely have we seen a big screen satire with the bravado to take on colonialism. The script is by legendary Britcom writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, and while it is not up to the standard of the best of their television work, it contains many amusing moments. The main problem with the film is that it has no real momentum. The plot often moves at a sluggish pace, and some scenes feel like they add nothing to the film and could have easily been dropped. What ultimately saves the film is the performance of Leonard Rossiter, in his last film role before his untimely death. Whilst the character of Sir Malcolm Leveridge offers little challenge to Rigsby or Reginald Perrin, Rossiter still provides a great number of laughs and is the best reason to see the film.

The film's soundtrack is also very enjoyable, in particular a great title track from Eddy Grant.