As nice as it was seeing all the game references new and old the film lost me about halfway in. It was a great looking movie and it had a nice underlying message but I found myself not liking ANY of the supporting cast, especially the little girl played by Sarah Silverman, who for me made parts of the film practically unbearable. Having said that, it was enjoyable enough when I watched it, even though I did check my watch several times through the second half.
I don't think I'll be able to take this new Les Mis film seriously because I just find Anne Hathaway with short hair really sexy, which I don't think is the intended effect of her character at all.
As nice as it was seeing all the game references new and old the film lost me about halfway in. It was a great looking movie and it had a nice underlying message but I found myself not liking ANY of the supporting cast, especially the little girl played by Sarah Silverman, who for me made parts of the film practically unbearable. Having said that, it was enjoyable enough when I watched it, even though I did check my watch several times through the second half.
Boo-urns and all that, should've won the Oscar last night too. Each to their own though, that's cool.
Beautiful Creatures
4/10
This suffered from having no real proper/direct villain or conflict. All there was was the eventual lingering "decision" but prior to that there was very little to get any sort of tension going. Even in the end Lena's mother provided nothing of a threat. It also felt at some points that they kind of skipped steps in terms of character's reactions; like Ethan should have been a bit more scared and wary of Lena after his first encounter with Macon before he approached her again being all charming. I have to say that the aforementioned meeting when Macon forces Ethan to see his future was actually a wonderful little moment of horror and I wouldn't have minded seeing more of that kind of morally grey stuff put in there.
I'm half tempted to start a David Lynch thread after this. Trying to explain the plot is not so much a spoiler, more of an impossibility. Something happens and then... something weird happens and then... something weird happens and then... something unconnected happens and then Robert Blake laughs.
I didn't understand Eraserhead, but enjoyed it. This? Not so much. It's claustrophobic, paranoid and weird... but a little dull.
I did manage to find this review of it, though:
Marina Warner said:
'Asserts an all American, suburban-Puritan belief in the idiosyncratic eyewitness and the visionary, the truth of an individual viewpoint and even of messianic derangement, while all the while conveying almost wearily that such subjectivity as idealised elsewhere has entered terminal decline.'
Most of what I've seen of Lynch's work (Eraserhead, Mullholland Drive and Twin Peaks) I've loved and... I think I've mostly understood. At least after a re-watch or two. A lot of his stuff that HAS a deeper meaning seems like pretty straightforward (if particularly imaginative) allegory to me, but then what do I know? I don't get paid to spout pseudo-intellectual bollocks for Sight and Sound.
The one that eludes me is the end of Fire Walk With Me - What the f*ck is that all about? I can't discern any meaning from that whatsoever, and without any deeper meaning that scene is just a pointless waste of time and a terrible nothing of an ending to a series I otherwise loved. Even much of the rest of the film is spent showing us things that were already known or inferred in the series - At least the end of the TV series was surprising.
Lost Highway was on the 'recommended viewing' list for a unit I did at uni and I'm sure I remember watching it, but I barely remember anything about it. I think the explanation in one of the text books was something like 'Bill Pullman's desire to remove himself from his own wretched situation was so great that he temporarily became Balthazar Getty', but why this would lead to their lives beginning to intertwine, I've no idea. I liked the track Bowie did for the film, but that was about all I took away from it.
I liked Lynch's early-mid period work (I think Blue Velvet is hands down his best film), but really by the time he got to Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, I felt like he was parodying himself. Mulholland Drive in particular, I thought was David Lynch self-consciously setting out to make a David Lynch film.
Where's ilmaestro when you need him to leap to the defence of Mulholland Drive? Buggered off for good, it looks like. Oh, don't tell me I have to do it.
Professor Irony said:
I thought was David Lynch self-consciously setting out to make a David Lynch film.
Well, I think what really bothers me with Mulholland Drive is its indulgence in full-on 'dream logic', wherein the scenes follow each other seemingly without any rhyme or reason whatsoever. A kind of story does emerge from underneath it all, but by the time it reached a conclusion, I found the journey so willfully obtuse that I no longer cared about the outcome.
What makes me feel that there was an element of cynicism about all this is the fact that Lynch felt the need to publish a list of clues to help you understand the film. If he felt the need to explain what was going on, why not construct the film in such a way that shows the audience to begin with? I just found myself mulling over the parts that seemed to have the least to do with the main narrative and they all seemed so much like what you'd expect from a David Lynch film. In particular, both the scene with Michael J. Anderson and little skit with the psychologist at the diner seem like they could have come straight from Twin Peaks, so I can't help getting the feeling that the key to Lynch's understanding of the film is to remember what Lynch has done before.
I'm probably doing the film a bit of a disservice as, since I saw it that first time, I've read that it was originally intended as a tv series rather than a one-off. Lynch also doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'd do anything so half-hearted as recycle his earlier ideas, but without knowing the circumstances, that was the impression I got.
Apparently the first sequel to Die Hard specifically written as a sequel and ironically feels the least like a Die Hard film of the bunch. For one I didn't appreciate Mcclane teaming up with his son. Their chemistry was poor at best and I want Mcclane as the hero of a Die Hard film, not with a character his equal that looks like they're going to include him in future films. The team up idea worked in the third film with Sam Jackson because even though Willis plays the guy thrown into a situation he's still a cop and has gone through similar stuff in previous movies, Jacksons character is a regular guy as they come who is forcibly dragged into the scenario which makes for some great comedic beats. This brings me to my next point, the great thing about Die Hard movies is that we have this guy who's flung into these deadly situations. He doesn't want to be there in the least. Here he is the regular action hero, go to Russia, get his son, beat the bad guys.
Next I felt the pacing of this movie was all off. Very quickly Mcclane travels to russia and he's in the thick of it. No real transition or culture clash, nothing. The first 20 to 30 minutes could and should have been about that, just to flesh this movie out somewhat. Sure there was a lot of stuff getting blown up during the runtime but nothing was really inventive or interesting and I got bored several times. Just going back to the fact they wrote this as an actual sequel to the Die Hard films, why oh why wasn't there more of an effort to tie this movie in with previous films in some way? How about bringing back Holly or Officer Powell? Also, why Russia?
Conclusion. This is a C Grade generic Willis action movie, rename the character and take away the Die Hard title and nobody would have cared about it whatsoever.
Well, I think what really bothers me with Mulholland Drive is its indulgence in full-on 'dream logic', wherein the scenes follow each other seemingly without any rhyme or reason whatsoever. A kind of story does emerge from underneath it all, but by the time it reached a conclusion, I found the journey so willfully obtuse that I no longer cared about the outcome.
What makes me feel that there was an element of cynicism about all this is the fact that Lynch felt the need to publish a list of clues to help you understand the film. If he felt the need to explain what was going on, why not construct the film in such a way that shows the audience to begin with? I just found myself mulling over the parts that seemed to have the least to do with the main narrative and they all seemed so much like what you'd expect from a David Lynch film. In particular, both the scene with Michael J. Anderson and little skit with the psychologist at the diner seem like they could have come straight from Twin Peaks, so I can't help getting the feeling that the key to Lynch's understanding of the film is to remember what Lynch has done before.
I'm probably doing the film a bit of a disservice as, since I saw it that first time, I've read that it was originally intended as a tv series rather than a one-off. Lynch also doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'd do anything so half-hearted as recycle his earlier ideas, but without knowing the circumstances, that was the impression I got.
I guess once you've been a director for a while it's probably hard to win. If you keep on doing what you've always done you're going to get detractors who deride your work as too similar or derivative of your earlier works, but if you stop and do something different you're going to attract criticism as well. Lynch strikes me (much like Herzog) as someone who's going to keep on doing exactly what he wants to do, not what his audience or the industry expect. And for that he has my respect.
Once the final act kicked in I felt as though the story came together pretty quickly and everything did ultimately make sense, but I enjoyed the experience of not knowing what's going on and trying to make sense of it all up until that point as well. I didn't find that experience much different to that of Twin Peaks. I'll agree with you that the one-off scenes with characters which seem important at the time but we never see again are an unnecessarily convoluted method of extrapolation which probably should have been axed and done differently when it became a theatrical rather than a TV production. I'm also quite surprised he provided those hints, but it's not like you have to take any notice of them - The film does tell the audience a coherent story by itself if they're prepared to pay attention.
Being a well versed chap in the world of film I'm sure you're already aware of the fact (but I imagine some won't be) that the title alludes pretty specifically to another film about the darker side and dream-shattering power of Hollywood, that film being the (also excellent) Sunset Boulevard. I think it's a probably lot easier for anyone to get a grip of the place Mulholland Drive is coming from with that association in their mind before they begin.
-----
Skyfall - 8/10
Now that was a worthy successor to Casino Royale. Javier Bardem always has the uncanny ability to make me smile for some reason, it's like he has such charisma that's even able to be transmitted through video. Even in No Country for Old Men I was grinning like a lunatic even when I knew he was about to murder someone. The increased focus on M (an unexplored and original idea for a Bond film) was a great move and it was about time they utilised Dench's acting abilities to greater effect. Some great cinematography on that drive up the Scotland too.
Probably my only real complaint is of the unnecessary - I felt there were several moments which could have been cut and tightened up the story. One example that leaps to mind is the scene where
MI6's security is compromised by Silva's laptop - You'd think once it cuts to show the laptop and Q says "****" you would cut the scene there. But Q then walks up to the laptop, pulls out the cables and exclaims needlessly "we've be hacked" - You don't say?
It would have been a 9 but I'm knocking off an entire star for that wince inducing final scene which made the awkwardly shoehorned "Robin" reference in TDKR look subtle. It should have ended on the rooftop, maybe with Bond dropping the ceramic bulldog off it and saying "That's for my car" or something before walking away with a grin. It was already blindingly obvious Fiennes was going to be the new M, and couldn't they simply have greeted each other as "Bond" and "Moneypenny" when she came to give him the box? It might still have been cheesy, but at least it wouldn't have been five cheese with cheese-stuffed crust and a free cheese garlic bread.
Like most horror these days it starts off with decent ideas but is completely lacking in execution and unravels more and more as it draws to a climax.
There's simply not much original to it. I wish del Toro would stop putting his name on all and sundry, especially so many low end horror flicks, as it's just bringing him down in my estimation.
Jessica Chastain manages to look even hotter though, with her "alt/rock" look.
@ayase It was pretty obvious that Skyfall was going to be Judi Dench's final film as M. After all, in interviews she did reveal that her eye problems have gotten so bad that she needed her script to be read to her. I wouldn't be surprised if she permanently retired from acting in a few years. I'm guessing that she saw the 50th anniversary film to be a good opportunity to bow out.
I do agree with not liking the Moneypenny reference, it felt so forced. Others were more natural, like Q's reference to the pen from GoldenEye and heck, even the obviously blatant fanwank that was the Aston Martin DB5 felt more natural.
Yeah... at first the DB5 seemed perfectly reasonable continuity wise (Craig's Bond having won it in Casino Royale and presumably stowed it away in that lock-up) but then I started to wonder at what point all those gadgets got fitted to it, because that would surely make it Connery's Bond's car... which would almost have confirmed the theory that "James Bond" is just a codename passed from one "Agent 007" to the next and that the films are all one continuity, if not for the fact that Skyfall also confirmed that it was definitely Craig's Bond's birth name...
Given the fact that the film shows his original home was in Scotland and how dilapidated it looked, that actually makes far more sense than it should Sy, especially if Connery was the first.
Yeah... at first the DB5 seemed perfectly reasonable continuity wise (Craig's Bond having won it in Casino Royale and presumably stowed it away in that lock-up) but then I started to wonder at what point all those gadgets got fitted to it, because that would surely make it Connery's Bond's car... which would almost have confirmed the theory that "James Bond" is just a codename passed from one "Agent 007" to the next and that the films are all one continuity, if not for the fact that Skyfall also confirmed that it was definitely Craig's Bond's birth name...
Park Chan-Wook's English language début and it contains just what you'd expect from him: Beautifully shot, concise, crisp movement of shots, unsettling, chilling, sexualised violence. What's not to like?
I think this film is one of the best cast films I've seen in a while. I can't remember the last time I saw a "family" in a movie and thought that they could've all been honestly related based on looks alone. All the principal cast put in great performances and there were times I thought they were doing and conveying so much just with their eyes!
Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme
I read about this animated movie a while back on Wikipedia and saw it had rather mixed reviews and I did only pay £3.50 for it, so I won't say I expected it to be brilliant - in fact, I went in with low expectations and when I saw it for as cheap as it was in HMV I thought "I might as well".
For the record, although I really like Dr. Strange as a character, I have very limited experience with his comics (I've only read Doctor Strange: From Inside the Marvel Vault, Doctor Strange: The Oath and seen the character's limited appearances in events like Civil War and Avengers vs X-Men, although I have recently started reading New Avengers) so I can't critique this film like a die-hard fan would (sometimes I wish I was around my age in the 60s/70s so I could have read the original comics). However, I can talk about it as a casual watcher and film fan I suppose.
I think watching the "Who is Doctor Strange?" special feature after watching the movie will expose all of its flaws - they talk about how Stephen Strange is a character with a lot of depth and the limits that needed to be placed in a world where magic is real and I had to wonder if they watched the same movie I did. They lazily tacked on a story about how his sister died on his operating table and tried to pass it off as the emotional baggage that chains Stephen to the material world, yet they never explored how that led the then-caring doctor to become the one he is most known as having been - a cruel dick who was more interested in how much money he could get out of potential patients.
In regards to the limits of magic, the people in the feature mentioned how every character needed a certain element to their magic and how it couldn't just be a case of creating anything to get out of any situation (aside from The Ancient One) - except that's exactly what Strange did in his training encounter with Mordo and such limits to one's magic element wasn't even mentioned in the film. Stephen's training seemed really false as well, like how he was suddenly amazing at magic just because the Ancient One made him believe that if he believed a giant stone cube was weightless he could move it. I also felt that Mordo's defection to Dormammu was pretty predictable.
I also didn't like the acting in this movie, it just didn't feel like any emotion was put into it (especially from Bryce Johnson's Dr. Strange).
Another issue I had with this film is I don't think it knew whether it was a kid's film or not - there was an obvious lack of any blood or gore (we had demons getting their tails cut off but not bleeding), but it also had a fair amount of death (people being swarmed by flying mouths and being left as skeletons). Also, I felt some things like Dr. Strange attempting suicide by jumping off a bridge were also a bit much for a PG film.
Overall, I did enjoy it though. It wasn't anything remarkable by any means, but it was a mildly entertaining hour and 10 minutes. I do hope the upcoming live action movie can do a better job with the Sorcerer Supreme.
Paranormal Activity 4: aka MICROSOFT'S KINECT IS WELL NEAT, EH?
What we have here is the third sequel to what was a pretty dire original. Fourth in the franchise and there's nowhere for it to go.
Really, all that happens is... a kid stares at Kinect while talking to it while pretty green infrared tracking beads shine across the room. Microsoft must have been financial backers since Kinect has a good presence in the film.
Oh, a few other things happen as always in these films - something invisible likes to smack people, cutlery goes flying around and there's a preposterously silly final five minutes. Seriously, this time that final section was hilarious.
But this time it's all about Kinect. Yeah, let the invisible demon thing play Kinect, or he gets rather p'd off.
1/10
Or let him play Kinect, and then let him get p'd off for its inaccuracy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
:cry: 
