Change Your Image
john-256-2615
Reviews
Come Play (2020)
scary version of Babadook 2014
So I liked this a lot. It was scary without being gruesome. Essentially the same story as Babadook - a monster that is stalking an autistic child and his mother is trying to protect him. Even down to the detail of the mother screaming "Can't you be normal?". I'm frankly surprised the guys who made Babadook didn't sue.
But more scary. I didn't find Babadook scary at all.
I think the main difference (literally!) is that in Babadook, the monster is the mother's depression made manifest, whereas in this movie the monster is loneliness caused by screens (made manifest).
Other than that they're pretty much the same movie. I prefer this one.
RoboCop (2014)
Not bad but...
This reboot of Robocop is not bad but it isn't quite as good as the original. I'm not just being a purist.
My main objection is the storyline is somewhat too simplistic. The original had a more intricate storyline with the bad guys more clearly ingratiated with OCP. In this version, the crooks are not involved, and the corporation is depicted merely as having monetary interests, and the crooks have crooked interests but nothing to do with removing Robocop from the streets DUE TO him, for example, being better than ED209, which was what the original was about. Instead this is about him being more human and therefore palatable than the ED209.
Secondly I have no idea how it got a 12 age restriction, it shows open brain surgery and disembodied lungs etc., it's gruesome. It should be a 15 at least.
I'm also not clear what Samuel L Jackson's narrator role was, it was pretty clear what was going on. Maybe he was meant to be a satire of Fox News.
It's also not 100% clear what the movie is trying to say about free-will. It makes it apparent that when Robocop is in fighting mode he's more of a "passenger" witnessing what the "computer" is doing. Which is accurate if one follows the work of say Libet, Soon&Hayes, etc. But then they reduce the neural chemicals in his brain and instead of falling asleep he becomes more robotic. I'm not sure they have the neurochemistry right.
Anyway these are relatively minor complaints, it was definitely watchable.
M3GAN (2022)
loved it
Basically Child's Play plus Terminator. Loved it. 10/10. I don't care if it was made less gory, I don't like gore anyway.
The AI learning was plausible, and with the recent release of ChatGPT this particular film is even more alarming.
However I am surprised they didn't give M3gan the 3 laws of robotics: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The Nun (2018)
loved it
I loved it. I've seen tons of horror movies and this one was really good.
Good bits:
1. The jump scares were not nearly as predictable.
2. They used the "I'm sure I just saw something" trope well. You expect the attack from 90 degrees off the sighted enemy, but it either doesn't come or comes from 180 degrees.
3. It was really dark (literally and figuratively). Definitely too scary for kids.
4. There were a lot of scenes where you weren't sure if it was just illusion, e.g. When the nuns all pray together.
Bad bits:
1. The attacks seemed to come from many different beings, not just a nun. If there's allegedly a being possessing a range of bodies, then sure, but that wasn't clear, as many attackers seemed unrelated to the nun itself. E.g. The child. Given his backstory, why was he there? Was he just illusion? I found that confusing. Was there only one attacker/evil force, or... more?
2. The door signs in english... in Romania ("deliveries"). Just a small detail but I notice this kind of error immediately. Be accurate. Should be "livrarile."
3. The "quebec french" guy seemed to have a minor role. At least he doesn't become the savior and love interest. That would be grounds for docking a few stars.
I should give the movie 7 stars but there are so many unfair negative reviews I biased upwards. Don't be negative if you coudnt do better.
Annihilation (2018)
Really unusual
Very unusual and almost unique plot. Not a slasher film, not that many jump scares. Unlike most horror movies, this is very colourful and there is not really ONE enemy. The visuals reminded me of "Color out of Space", although the basic concept of what causes the problems is almost identical to the original Lovecraft idea. There is one really grim scene which in my view should have pushed this to 18. Oh and a twist ending which makes it even more disturbing.
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)
Ignore the negative reviews.
Ignore the negative reviews. It's much better than I expected. From the reviews you'd expect it to be slapstick. Whilst it is not close to the novel (as close as the 1977 version), it's in my view more compelling, the SFX are more believable, and the horror is deeper.
Complaints:
1. Dunno why the Doctor had to wear white etc. It made him too comical.
2. Val Kilmer seemed a bit pointless. Needed more screen time
3. The "big reveal" happens too early in the movie, the 1977 one builds better.
Otherwise, definitely worth watching.
The Adventures of Maid Marian (2022)
weird but interesting
Nice to see a woman lead who is competent in fighting and who rescues the damsel in distress (Robin). Bravo.
But this is an overtly amateur production for a number of reasons.
1. Clothes are too new and unused.
2. Marian wears overt makeup - in AD1199 - after being in an abbey for 3 years. Yeah.. she hid her mascara in her habit so the abbess wouldn't shout at her, I assume.
3. Huts etc look too new and unused. Three years, they need to be dusty and/or dirty etc.
4. Weapons etc generally do not draw blood or kill, even sword slashes etc. Only one wound seems to draw blood.
5. Robin survives too many wounds to be believable. He'd most likely be killed by any of them, within minutes.
6. The characters are generally incompetent in battle except Marian, and only, right at the end, does she turn it around and become a more superhero-like character. However, given that Robin has spent 3 years in battle and he survived, how can he be THIS helpless? I get that they want the movie to be about her, and make the woman the hero, but objectively, he should not be that clean shaven and pretty and ineffectual. He should at least be able to fight if he didn't die after 3 years crusading.
7. The sound of a crowd cheering at the "Execution" scene is weird given that there are like 10 people in attendance and that Robin is still known as a hero of the people.
8. No idea who most of the baddies are, or why they want to kill Robin, except Sheriff of Nottingham, who we know wants to kill him. E.g. The weird bishop guy, the Sheriff's flunky, his lieutenant guy with the beard, - all of them need some backstory to explain why, in the absence of the Sheriff, they still have it in for Robin, and why they hold off murder when they do have plenty of opportunity.
9. Forest scenes are confusing, they feel like a horror movie or "The Village" but then switch to medieval battle. It has to do with the trees and atmospheric sounds i think. And the drone footage. But it makes it unclear what the genre is meant to be for a few seconds.
10. It opens with Marian wearing a cool superhero type uniform and being accurate in her shooting, but she doesn't go back to that level of cool till right at the end, but she doesn't break out her cool uniform more than the opening scene. Which is kinda disappointing, if you're familiar with superhero movies - you except the hero to put on their uniform again when going back into superhero mode.
11. Home alone traps? Just not very effective. Why bother if they're not effective?
I'd say do watch it, mostly to get an idea of just how used to specific styles of film you are used to, so you can see just how it can be ... er... offbalanced. Also, because finally a woman is the hero. But apart from that, it just feels like a group of friend got their iphones out and made a cool project on a low budget.
King Solomon's Mines (2004)
Not as bad as the Chamberlain/Stone monstrosity
This is an OK version of the story. Some not great special effects, and highly unlikely indiana-jones style scenes with booby traps (also, a mine that's like... 100m deep at most?) ... but apart from that much better than the 1985 attempt which was slapstick racist comedy.
At least this is serious, and is more respectful of African culture. Here Mbobo is dignified and serious, and treated with respect by Quatermain. Otherwise it's pretty predictable. Mystified by some of the actors' accents though. They seem to be mostly American and Australian rather than South African. Is that intentional?
King Solomon's Mines (1985)
A parody but super cheesy
This is a parody of the original story and obviously a rip on Indiana Jones. It has little to recommend it unless you enjoy laughing at Germans.
Otherwise it's really racist. If you want to know why, let me give a hint. It has to do with the comicbook trope of throwing pith-helmeted explorers into a large pot. Also, instead of being dignified, Mbobo is a caricatured well-meaning bumbler who is scared of cars. Should be kept mostly as a study in just how racist people were in the 1980s without realising it.
Bad special effects, lots of transition glitches (e.g the pot changes size and design, the number of lions, etc.).
Prepare to be rolling your eyes a lot.
Enemy Mine (1985)
Sad to have to give it a low rating
With apologies to all the people geeking out below.
I had heard a lot of good things about this film. But I suppose it was from people who had watched it in the 1980s. I guess we're spoilt. I went from Oblivion (2013) to this. It's a big difference.
It's a basically a metaphor for interracial harmony and "if you bother to get to know someone you'll find they're noble etc." Think "Dances with Wolves" mixed with "Robinson Crusoe", but lizard aliens instead of First Nations, and same "white man is the saviour" problem. I'm not saying the basic message is wrong (other beings are not inherently enemies). Far from it. My gripe is just that it's so a subtle problem handled in a heavy-handed manner, quite often getting in the way of the believability. Frankly, Avatar (2009) is preferable - and it is basically the same story: white male soldier is trapped on an alien planet with badguys who are miners and he converts to the native culture and sides with the native aliens against his own kind.
The main unusual/surprising thing is the gender issue with the leading alien character, who is also quite believable in his(?) role as the "noble tribesperson" role. But this is also probably, nowadays, of dubious political standing - the whole casting choice. Pretty overt references are also made to Islam from the praying style, and references to overlap in belief systems, as well as mutual blaming for starting wars, etc. Basically it's well-intentioned but overtly preachy, even if the message is good.
I found it somewhat tedious and unnecessarily dragged out, as well. About 40 minutes in, I had to start skimming over the walking, foraging, and teaching sequences, because it was fairly obvious what was going on and the sequences were predictable.
The alien monsters (like the animal-class monsters) were a bit stereotyped and one of them appeared, almost verbatim, from Star Wars Episode 6 (1983) so it could well have been borrowed from there (no idea if it appears in the book of "Enemy Mine" - if it DOES, then I retract this criticism).
Lastly, some gripes against the special effects. They were obviously stage sets, painted backdrops or small models cut and pasted into stage sets etc. At least that stuff wasn't that obvious in the original star wars films (which I saw before they were digitally blasphemed). The only reasonably well-done special effects was the main alien character's make up, it was pretty good for the year, and easily better than Battlefield Earth (2000).
Hmmm ... I'd say watch it at least once so you can say you have watched it.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
aw come on guys, I mean it IS terrible but... it's funny!
And what makes it funnier is they're trying to be serious. Ham acting, bad makeup, 1999 goth boots, dreadlocked aliens *or are they really klingons(tm)? I liked it. I kept watching it hoping it was going to get better but it just got crazier and funnier as it went. It would have probably rocked the box office in 1979. Please do watch it. There are worse films, e.g. Attack of the killer tomatos.
American Insurrection (2021)
Great movie
Set in a near future in which the far-right have succeeded in taking control, this is a traumatic piece on how extreme views lead to violence. The right patrols the roads as "volunteers" who enforce far-right preferences: People who are not straight white christian are barcoded and monitored. What makes this particularly scary is that unlike every other dystopian movie I've seen, this one would just take a small nudge to happen.
The movie mostly focuses on the increasing drama and panic amongst the fugitives rather than the usual dystopian thing which is set in run-down cities. In fact this is more of a psychodrama than a sci-fi movie. I think it probably deserves an oscar actually.
Filmography is good, characters believable, and you develop a care for them (or annoyance, as the case may be).
The negative reviews below - the majority - are from far-right supporters who think this is implausible, or who are angry that they have been portrayed in such a negative light. Well, if you think it's implausible, explain January 6, Kristallnacht, etc. And if you think it portrays the right in a negative light, well, that's the point - to make you re-think your beliefs which are founded on hatred of people who are not white straight christians.
Let's see just how many of the features of this dystopia already exist, shall we?
1. Charismatic leader (check)
2. Patrols of rightwingers harming nonwhites (KKK, Proud Boys, George Floyd, Border patrols, Q-anon insurrection, etc, check)
3. Espionage and face recognition tech (check)
4. Barcoding people (it's possible, compare say yellow stars)
5. Threatening notes on doors (check)
It's really just a matter of extent and formalisation, it's already here.
As for whether the left would do this to the right, I don't see it. Vaccine and mask mandates are not enforced in the South, gun control is not practiced by the South and clearly the movie shows the problem with freely owned guns and the concommitant attitude. There have not been any cases of mass left-wing shooters in the States or left-wing insurrection attempts. There is no equivalent figure to Stalin in the States.
I suggest those who think that this is implausible, please go read the last chapter of "Mediocre" by Ijeoma Oluo, where she explains why you have mass shootings in the States and nowhere else.
Excalibur (1981)
It's 1981... get over it.
First, let's acknowledge the thing people are moaning about. This is made in 1981, made when special effects were terrible and armour was shiny, way too shiny to be believably the property of a knight sloshing his way through muddy battlefields. The cutout leaves when Arthur rides, reminds me of Monty Python. It's definitely not LOTR. It has no CG orc armies. The fake blood is bright red, and obviously food dye or ketchup. The acting is weird, except Morgana. Most actors seem to be overcome with shakes and emotion at weird moments, and prone to giving speeches. It's also way too raunchy and gory for kids. I definitely won't let mine watch it till they're like, 15 or older.
HOWEVER, there are a few things that made me rate it high.
1. It's the most accurate version of / true to the original (1400s) medieval story. The rest digress too much and keep just his name, Merlin's name, and something about a special sword. Whereas this keeps much more intact. I'd really love to see this thing remade with say, Peter Jackson directing and modern effects, but sticking to the story.
2. Merlin really makes it worth watching just for his weirdness.
3. Wagner and Orff. The music is magnificent. It's played in the right spots. The ride with O Fortuna, there is no other word. It really gets the tone. Wagner's Parsifal is the correct music to use when Percival is on his quest.
4. There are a few cast members who are super famous now and they're good in this too.
5. It's got an interesting prechristian theology,in addition to the peculiar nature of the Grail, which involves the king's life being connected to the land, and if you know Fraser's book, The Golden Bough, you'll get it. Super cool feature to include this theology.
Suggestion for people who want something more modern. The version from 2004 with Keira Knightley is probably the most accurate in terms of what we know about Arthur (which is literally nothing except that he probably really lived in the 400s, before they even spoke English in England), so if you want a modern movie with high historical probability as its goal, check that out instead. However, if you want to understand the original, L'Mort d'Arthur, this is the movie to watch, the rest simply digress from the source material too much.
The Hunger Games (2012)
meh
Don't bother. It can be summarised as the unholy mating of The Running Man and Twilight. Way overrated. What did they pay 1 million teenagers to login and rate this up as 7.2/10?
Like the Running Man, it features a future world in which people compete to the death for a prize. Like Twilight it features pouty teenagers sighing over puppy love.
It starts out bleak enough with a tale of an uprising against a central government, punished by annual reminders in the form of young "tributes" that have to fight each other to the death to remind the various districts of their uprising and its consequences. But as soon as the - I don't know what she's meant to be - some kind of pimp? A woman arrives in this outrageous Cirque du Soleil outfit to collect the tributes. And it turns out her dress is normal for women in this future which looks like it's set in Vancouver.
Poor Woody Harrelson - he must have been desperate for the money. You can see he is suffering.
Cthulhu (2007)
Much better than critics make out
I feel sorry for the guys that produced this, because it seems like they made a massive loss.
In my view, having read most of HPL's stuff and in particular recently re-read "A shadow out of Innsmouth", I must say that this is a really good adaptation of the book. In fact, it is the best interpretation of HPL that I've seen. (I've seen others which are truer to his stories but which do not adequately capture the suspense).
My guess is that the nature of the characters (academic, some of them gay) is too hard for the average American to relate to. Outside of the USA (ie where we accept that the chief character is not a gunslinger and a womaniser) this film is really good. I guess the typical American audience didn't understand it because it didn't contain lots of ravishing of bimbos and lots of exploding cars, trucks and aircraft. Oh and not enough shooting. And no car chases. That's probably why it rates so badly.
The various horror scenes are generally implied rather than literal, which also is probably too intellectual for an American audience, accustomed to gratuitous idiotic in-your-face rubbish like Kill Bill. The scene with the camera which flashes periodically is particularly nerve-wracking the first time you see it.
That's why I gave it a 10. If I were to criticise it, it would just be that they didn't understand the low-brow audience who wouldn't get it because it didn't have any ka-blah, ka-blah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeSUuj98Rx0