Change Your Image
photographyscotland-969-933420
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Farscape (1999)
Excellent, Good, Average, Poor!
First Series: Excellent.
Second Series: Good.
Third Series: Average.
Fourth Series: Poor.
The reason for my ratings? Judging the speed I went through each series. I flew through the first like starburst. The second I went through like I was going through a wormhole. Then I hit some sort of energy barrier. Most of the episodes in series 3 were a bit of a yawn although it finished on a gloriously apocalyptic high note. But series 4 just seemed to continue the yawn fest of the worst episodes in series 3. I guess the cast and the screen writers were getting a bit jaded towards the end and it shows in the final product. All the best creature effects were in the first two series and maybe they wanted to save money in series 3 and 4. The story lines in the first two series were along classical lines and they were enjoyable but series 3 and 4 it was all this flashback stuff, I found myself neither knowing or caring at the end of an episode what it was all about.
So there it is. Watch the first two series but I guess most will want to know how it all ends and watch 3 and 4 as well.
Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
Really Enjoyed This!
I was surprised that this film missed out on Best Picture because it for me it beat anything else that year in terms of substance, intensity and creativity.
Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor winners here were well deserved, but I think Best Picture would've been justified. I thought Jared Leto's portrayal of the transvestite was amazing, so convincing in terms of fragility and the frustration of being a woman in a man's body, in addition to all the little quirks of mannerism exhibited by effeminate men.
There is so much in this film for the budding film student to consider, it's an absolute treasure of essay worthy material. The single most important topic in the film for me is a man's right to choose alternative medicine as a legitimate treatment for disease, in this case the focus was AIDS, but could also be seen in the context of cancer or anything else.
The ethics of big pharma is covered which is held in contrast to the ethics of the individual entrepreneur played brilliantly here by Matthew McConaughey. While the activities of big pharma are protected by law, the corruptive profit motive at the core of American industry is suggested in the film to be at odds with the public's best interests when McConaughey's entrepreneurial character offers a homeopathic alternative which appears to work. The authorities try everything in the book to put him out of business but the entrepreneurial spirit at the heart of his American Dream to challenge the pharmaceutical industry establishment refuses to concede defeat.
There is a sting in the tail however and I wont mention it here because it is a spoiler for those yet to see this movie. There is a lot more to this movie which includes bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, class struggle, to name but a few of society's least attractive characteristics. Dallas Buyer's Club is a huge dose of gritty realism we haven't seen for quite a while and a true story it appears. Go see it!
Argo (2012)
If This Was The Best of 2013 I Don't Wanna See The Worst!
OK it was watchable fair but to win Best Movie Oscar in 2013 I'm very surprised because where historical biopics are concerned this wasn't exactly up there with Ghandi.
Admittedly it was an interesting story as obviously this operation had been classified until now but clearly there was significant artistic license taken with the veracity of historical facts. Others have written more about that but this film is also heavily clichéd and portrays every Iranian as a mad mullah. Hell, when you consider the historical context of America's puppet the Shah prior to the revolution then I would be mad as hell and wanting every American collaborator dead. Perhaps the Iranians at that point were mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore.
I wasn't much taken with the build up sequences to the rescue between the movie moguls, found it boorish and conceited, meanwhile Affleck sniffs and shuffles his way through the movie equally conceitedly in a ain't I cool and up myself sort of way.
Still the movie was watchable and happy to give a 6, I did consider 7 but given the negative aspects already highlighted I leaned more towards 6. Probably 6.5 would've been just right.
Cloverfield (2008)
And All For A Packet Of Chewits!
They say never judge a book by its cover but for many years now I've been good at spotting a bad movie just by looking at the title and cover art. The title of the movie 'Cloverfield' set in New York was a bad sign from the start and the bland poster art absolutely screamed mediocrity.
Again I was right! This DVD had scuttled about in my closet after picking up from a bargain bucket somewhere for quite a few months before I found the will to put it in the DVD drawer. I was prepared to be pleasantly surprised but expected, as usual, to be badly disappointed. Guess which it was!
Typically for me to score 1/10 I have to quit midway through and I quit after about 35 minutes with Cloverfield, less than half way through. I could see how mindless the whole thing was. People running about screaming, running and screaming, more running and screaming, explosions but why we know not, hand held camera work, all topped off with more running and screaming. In the background you can see some squidgy prehistoric creature waving its tail about amid explosions and fireballs. Nothing makes sense in this movie. Was I the only one wondering why the Air Force doesn't just make a surgical strike on the monster with an air to surface missile?
I wont say anymore other than it was as bad as I expected and so I wasn't too disappointed, especially when it cost about 50p to find out.
A Dangerous Method (2011)
Cubrick Is Dead! Long Live Kronenberg!
As I sup my final can of the amber nectar I am better able to consider the positives and negatives of this movie by an old favourite Kronenberg.
The first half hour was tortuous with Knightley's over the top acting, jutting out her chin and going on about how she enjoyed being sexually abused by her father. Then came the justification of casual sex by the Dr Gross character at which point Jung, played by Fassbender, becomes convinced that he should follow his instincts and have kinky sex with Knightley.
What we see then is the relationship between Jung and Freud played by Mortensen, really badly in my opinion. Too many gruff hmmmms for my liking. I thought his portrayal of Freud was badly clichéd.
The film is shot well enough but has a distinctly digital look about it, something I'll never get used to. The set design is clinical but not offensive.
The film reminds me of what a female film critic said years ago about Cubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. She said that EWS was just a dirty old man's fantasy. Well, now that Cubrick has gone to the great studio in the sky I think Kronenberg is taking over the mantle of dirty old man because all his films from Crash onwards have just been full of pervy nonsense. Crash was at least a good movie to watch.
No this offering from old Krony just lumbers on and while it's nowhere near as bad as Cosmopolis, I'm beginning to think that the sun is setting on the old guy. I had just watched The Fly the day before and I'm left scratching my head and thinking how it has come to this.
I know that creatives don't want to stand still, they want to move on and grow creatively, but at the same time, it needs to be understood by said creatives that they are there to create entertaining material and by checking the box office receipts for this very average flick, it would appear most agree with me, this movie ain't very creative.
I think another problem is that old Krony is working with the same people all the time. Same actors, same DP, same musicican. That's why his movies are jaded. How can you grow creatively when you standardize the creative process? No what this is, is a case of money for old rope!
G.I. Jane (1997)
It Was As Bad As I Expected!
When this film came out I ignored it and finally got around to seeing some of it on You Tube recently. I watched about half an hour although I did anticipate watching the whole movie. Alas I was just so bored with it by the 30 minute mark I had to withdraw from the battlefield.
And it was obviously going to be a real battle against boredom to survive the whole 2 hours of this travesty of a film. Clichéd dialogue from the start, exaggerated acting, the whole thing is a cartoon of reality. Of course the main premise is nonsense, a female navy seal is out to show the patriarchy that women can do the job just as well but that isn't what seals the fate of this trash.
No, what seals the fate of this trash is the superficial photography and fast editing that makes the film look like a TV commercial, which isn't surprising when you consider that's what Ridley Scott is, a TV commercial director.
I like Blade Runner, Alien, The Duelists, but post Blade Runner I think Ridley, like his brother Tony now deceased, has taken the lazy route of film direction and relying mostly on visuals at the expense of depth and substance.
Not much more to say other than avoid this turkey. Doing 100 press ups is much more fun than watching this but I'm sure there will be a few monkey brains who will like this.
The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968)
My Favourite War Movie
I've always liked this film since I first saw it in the late 1970's. There are so many interesting aspects of this movie from the dandified dialogue to the cartoon inserts which are done in the style of Victorian illustrators of the day.
A lot of high caliber actors really shine with the material including David Hemmings with his highly strung manner, Trevor Howard who has the funniest scene in the film when he spanks Fanny Duberley and the Lord Lucan of Harry Andrews who is constantly at war with Lord Cardigan, both being related and despise each other. Even Geilgud shines as the confused Lord Raglan and his ineptitude in the role of commander really highlights the inadequacy of the British military of that age which, if you read the history books, were outclassed by the French management of their forces.
The injustice of the class system is another facet of the film which really gets under the skin and leaves a lasting impression of the British Empire and the military which held it in place. This is particularly the case when one of the Sergeant Majors is flogged for being drunk on duty after Cardigan insists he spy on Nolan played by David Hemmings. All of this demonstrates the sort of internal politics that goes on within organizations but not just the military.
The battle scenes are very impressive, especially the final charge of the Light Brigade and the explanation of how this failure in military decision making occurred, is made perfectly clear.
Cinematography is first rate and the overall art direction delightful. One of the great anti-war movies largely under appreciated by the movie going public of the 60's and has gained much more respect in recent years when compared with the dross being put out today.
Death Proof (2007)
Different, Mostly Entertaining but....................................
I was never a big Tarantino fan, didn't go for Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, From Dusk Till Dawn but loved Jackie Brown, his best movie by far. I think even Mark Kermode thinks Jackie Brown is his best movie.
So what about Death Proof? Let's just say it's different. Pretty much an experimental movie about a serial killing movie stuntman called Mike played by Kurt Russel brilliantly. He really makes this movie worth watching as do the second set of females who turn the tables on Stuntman Mike.
There is some action, mostly at the end with a car chase and some physical violence. A greater part of the film is senseless dialogue between the female groupies who talk incessant nonsense throughout and this is Tarantino's big joke in the movie and Russel representing the ever suffering male trying to get even with a female characteristic that men loathe by killing them with his stunt car.
The film is also notable for being a homage to 70's B movie genre using negative scratching, dated graphics and soundtrack with some black and white scenes.
In conclusion I would say many will hate this film as Mark Kermode certainly did. I think it's different, I found it largely entertaining but some of the dialogue stretches went on too long for me.
RoboCop (1987)
Enjoyable Comic Book Romp!
Just watched this again for the first time since the 90's. Simple comic book storyline about a dead cop reclaimed by a big Corporation and converted into a crime fighting cyborg.
Extremely violent in places with gory details, the robot effects are entertaining as are the moments of satire throughout the film. There isn't too much more to say about it, Robocop is about cheap thrills for those who enjoy violent movies laced with satire.
From what I remember Robocop 2 was decent as well and there is a new Robocop movie but according to Mark Kermode the original is still the best.
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)
I liked it!
When I saw this for the first time in the 1980's I was really excited by the style of the film. The art direction gave a really good feel for a totalitarian regime in the future and it had a very clinically sterile look about it which emphasizes the authoritarian '1984' environment the film attempts to depict.
The storyline is simple enough. The apes are being used as slaves in a fascist culture which is allegory for Orwell's warning in the novel 1984, also a film. The ape central to the story is educated and can speak. He emerges as the great hope for his species to emerge from slavery. Revolution ensues as the slaves attempt to overthrow their masters.
There's nothing complicated about this movie and was the second best of the five films with the original starring Charlton Heston obviously the best.
Prometheus (2012)
Flawed Storyline but Enjoyable!
I'm not a fan of big blockbuster movies from the past decade but since this was by Ridley Scott the Director of Alien and Blade Runner then I was interested.
I think what really got me interested in this movie was that it was vaunted as a 'sort of' prequel to Alien and explains the origins of Alien and of course the title Prometheus was thought provoking, I mean why call the film Prometheus?
We know, or at least we do now, that Prometheus was a Titan banished by Zeus for trying to help humans by giving them fire that was being withheld by Zeus because Zeus wanted to kill off humans. So where does that tie into the film?
At the beginning of the film there is this white being, male, muscular, black eyes. From there we go to these scientists exploring caves in Scotland where markings on the walls seem to explain alien creatures having visited Earth thousands of years ago.
A team of scientists are then sent on a space mission to discover the origins of mankind, this is the first hole in the story because we're left out of the decision making process that sent the team into space so we're not quite sure the specific reason that brought the mission about, for example how they knew about this planet somewhere in space.
The main characters in the film are somewhat forgettable. Even the humanoid aliens are probably not going to stay in your mind in the long term. The only character in the film I engaged with was Michael Fassbender's portrayal of the android David. From the other reviews I've read that appears to be a constant.
Throughout the film there are many holes in the plot and things that don't make sense. One example are the humanoid alien creatures who we are told are the ones responsible for the space jockey from the original Alien film. Basically we're being told these creatures are responsible for the foundation of humanity on Earth hence the title Prometheus. That being the case why are they so bloody hostile to humans?
However what saves the film are the first rate special effects and cinematography. I'm not typically a fan of CGI having grown up with optical effects but Ridley Scott is one of the few who can make a good job with CGI.
At the end of the film the Alien we're familiar with from the Alien series of films pops out of one of the humanoid Aliens. From there the film ends but my interpretation is that the original Alien creatures where at odds with the humanoid aliens perhaps trying to infiltrate the humanoids with a view to taking over new colonies created by the humanoids. It's all left open to interpretation!
The Dead Zone (1983)
Wouldn't It Be Great?
If Hollywood could get back to maving good honest movies like this. You know the sort of movie. One that you can go to the cinema, pay your money and be entertained by a good story unspoiled by ugly CGI effect and mediocre TV actors who think they're A listers.
I watched Dead Zone after trying to tackle Cronenberg's Cosmpopolis having already seen the movie back in the 90's. I think I wanted to just check if Cronenberg really did make The Dead Zone and it was as good as I thought it was after seeing the turkey Cosmopolis.
My curiosity was confirmed. The Dead Zone was a good old fashioned horror thriller, intellectually provoking, great cinematography, great acting from all especially Walken who rarely disappoints. Is it too much to ask that Hollywood goes back to doing what they were always able to do very well? Probably!
The story is about a man who attains psychic abilities after 5 years in a coma due to a car crash. From that point Walken finds himself in various scenarios where his new super powers are put to the test. Martin Sheen hams it up as the nasty presidential candidate. I found the movie, sad in places, at times exciting and also thought provoking. Not as much gore as we normally see from Cronenberg but this was a mainstream production, probably the only one of two he made in that bracket, the other being The Fly.
The Dead Zone had all the ingredients of a good movie and I guess that's why it stands the test of time. I wonder who will remember Cosmopolis?
The Zero Theorem (2013)
Yes The Sum of all Parts is Zero!
Although I can't give it a zero on the IMDb scale I will have to settle for 1 and I do even begrudge giving this 1. I will start by saying I am a fan of Gilliam's early work such as Brazil and Time Bandits, the visuals on both films being absolutely mesmerizing but you do have to realize that Brazil, at a cost of around 50 million dollars which in 1985 equates to around 200 million today, was a super expensive movie and it shows in the finished product. Even the mega blockbusters today are costing around 130 million dollars and this is largely thanks to CGI helping to cut the spiraling costs of special effects so you can see why films like Brazil were so much better than this rubbish.
This movie reaches a new low by Gilliam's standards. He boasts it only cost 10 million dollars to make and it shows. The CGI effect are crummy awful making the whole thing look cheap and tacky. I think part of the problem is that today's movie executives are giving too much credit of past greatness to the Directors without observing the simple fact that the reason movies from the past were so much better was because the industry had talented creatives in cinematography and art direction that it doesn't have today.
The Zero Theorem is a movie well titled and I think Terry Gilliam is now at that silly stage of old age where he just likes to insult people with the rubbish he puts out and make no mistake, this is mindless rubbish.
I gave up at around the 50 minutes mark at the beach scene. It all looked so cheap and tacky I just couldn't take it any more. CGI is one thing but bad CGI is like crap dressed as candyfloss.
The acting is all quirky cartoon behaviour full of silly dialogue. It's a movie about computer programming, hacking or whatever you want to call it. I haven't seen a movie about computer programming that's worked yet but trust Gilliam to back a loser from the start largely motivated by delusions of his own ability to achieve the unachievable.
I wont say more about this turkey. No point in discussing plot because there isn't any its all about your life amounting to zero hence the zero theorem. Believe me when I say if you waste your life watching this rubbish you will feel your life is worth about zero!
Edit: I went on to watch the last hour but my opinion remains unchanged.
Cosmopolis (2012)
I Lasted 12 Minutes
I've been watching movies for decades now and there was a time when I would watch a movie to the end even though it was bad.
Now I'm older and wiser and today even the big budget movies tend to be absolute stinkers and so nowadays I just don't have the time to watch rubbish that cost 100 million dollars to make when I can find greater levels of intrigue from your average YouTuber shooting monologues about the Illuminati from their own bedrooms.
There are so many stinkers being drummed out of Hollywood these days that I can pretty much tell about 10 minutes into the film whether I should bother. The previous film I baled out of was The Zero Theorem by Terry Gilliam, I lasted about 50 minutes there.
The disturbing thing is I've always been a Cronenberg fan. Even when off base his movies still tend to be watchable. Not this! Probably the worst Cronenberg movie ever by a long way. Pure, self indulgent crap!
If I were a movie investor and we know people like Cronenberg often rely on wealthy investors, I would be having second thoughts in the future because this movie bombed big time at the box office.
Right from the start the stupid clipped dialogue rattled off with less emotion than R2D2 burst my bubble of anticipation inflated by the Cronenberg reputation. The lead actor should have been hired by Ridley Scott to play David in Prometheus because he gave the most impressive portrayal of an android I've ever seen but the problem is, he wasn't supposed to be an android.
I can't say any more because I didn't watch beyond 12 minutes but I would advise not to bother. Go feed the ducks at the park, you will find it more intellectually stimulating.