Rambos // Blu Ray // £13
There is little point being critical about this movie (you know as well as I do, it’s rubbish). I’ll explain the ‘plot’ : A group of religious people ask John ‘Rambos’ Rambo for assistance in taking them to Burma, so that they can give medicine and supplies to dying villagers. Rambos refuses.
Ahhhh, but that’s not quite it. After a ‘deeply moving’ motivational speech from a girl, he decides to do it. The missionaries (of course) get captured and Rambos has to go back to save them, taking a bunch of misfit mercenaries along as ‘help’.
He then single handedly kills everyone in Burma.
Job done.
Rambos.
‘New’ Nike ‘Viral’
Isn’t this:
Just this:
Only lazy and not as smart or as original…
Cloverfield // DVD
By it’s very nature, an unedited recording made by a hysterical man experiencing an attack on his city by a big monster (who narrowly escapes death several times and loses several friends and a relative), would not be particularly cohesive. It may well be sporadically exciting, but there would be little narrative, the characters would be shallow and difficult to empahise with and the camera work would be lamentable.
Unless, of course, this man thought that filming such an attack might be more important than saving his, or his friends, lives. And he happened to be a record/pause genius, who managed to catch only relevant (arguably contrived), dialogue and action. Both somewhat fortunately taped over the top of a previous recording, that occasionally appears to remind us of the validity of our ‘empathy’.
But I guess that might be a silly film, and one someone like me wouldn’t enjoy.
Ratatouille - DVD
I was having a conversation last week about the apparently arbitrary way in which I like or dislike a film that’s narrative is based solely on it’s genre - over any actual ingenious plot or creative idea. Pixar’s Ratatouille is one such film, as I guess are all Pixar features. And, like I said, my like / dislike of said films seems totally arbitrary. I liked Finding Nemo, Cars and Incredibiles and I didn’t like Monsters Inc, Toy Story and Bugs (you see how this works). Each one of those films is basically the same, but my responses differed wildly. I guess what I’m trying to say is that they all share an equal amount of merit, the ‘good or bad’ element is based solely on personal preferences, mood, preconceptions etc.
I liked Ratatouile, I can’t really seriously offer a lot of reasons why, considering my opening gambit. It might be that the animation is awesome, the vocal work and script is fantastic and the central (largely familiar) conflict between family and the pursuit of an ideal, is subtly and very cleverly handled.
Most likely reason: I’m tired and hungover.
JarHead - HD DVD
Nothing much happens in Jarhead. That’s the point; it’s a ‘lack of war film’. It’s about a bunch of highly-trained killing machines (Jake Gyllenhaal being the protagonist), geared up for war and then left to sit and wait for conflict that never really happens for them. I enjoyed it (particularly the blistering turn by Jamie Foxx), while it was on the screen. It looks brilliant, the bleach grade goes along way to highlighting the bleakness of the dessert and in turn, the mental state of the marooned Marines (see what I did there). It’s tense, well directed and the characterization is handled expertly. Basically, it ticks all the boxes.
But, like a lot of ‘lack of’ films, as soon as it stopped I couldn’t help but feel a little like, yeah..? So..?
Firefox Viral
The new Firefox viral is so shit I am not even going to post it on my Blog.
Lucky Number Slevin - Blue Ray
Directed by Paul McGuigan and starring Josh Hartnett, Bruce Willis and Lucy Liu, Lucky Number Slevin moves really fast, so fast in fact, that you barely have time consider any issues with plot. Quick cuts and slick direction cover a lot of cracks. On the plus side, the performances are pretty good, Morgan Freeman stands out - while surprisingly the exception is Ben Kingsley, whose New York Jewish kingpin falls way short of convincing. It’s a competent, nicely executed affair and I enjoyed it - but I wouldn’t go as far as saying it was any good.
Mogulus
“Yesterday, Broadcasting was a closed society. Centralized multi-million dollar studios and government regulations made getting on the air a major obstacle. With Mogulus, you can blend your webcam, video clips from YouTube, and your own original content into your own unique TV program”.
Which is gonna be watched by who exactly ?
V is for Vendetta HD DVD
V for Vendetta is basically a sci-fi action film with some explosions, gunfire, knife throwing and the bloke from the Matrix with the very recognisable voice in an annoying mask.
It’s also supposed to an allegory for our times, which it sort of would be, if it weren’t for the silliness of the above.
I guess it’s a nice idea (I haven’t read the graphic novel) and it looks nice, but I couldn’t help thinking it could have been a lot better.
The film stumbles in so many places, Portman is rubbish and Weaving’s V is far too melodramatic. His voice and mask never really cement - which means the film keeps on saying ‘I’m a rubbish film’. It is interesting to see popular culture responding to today’s political agendas, but in the end the competent but bland execution ensures V is less “A Clockwork Orange” and much more “Van Helsing.”
Hostel Blu Ray
The point of Hostel appears to be simple, it’s merely a vehicle to carry a compilation of ‘offensive’ and violent horror sequences.
A fictionalized snuff outing, with a boring set-up and a totally un-engaging finale.
Don’t be sucked in by the Quentin Tarrentino reference on the box, it’s absolute 100% bum.
Open Season Blu Ray
To be frank this is nothing more than a tired rehash of shit cliches.
The characters are rubbish, the level of imagination in the gags is poor and the quality of the writing is laughable. The film is bum.
But that’s not why I watched it. I wanted to see an new CG animation running in 1080p on my TV. And for that reason alone it was so worth it.
It looked brilliant.
The foggy Silent Hill
Directed by Christophe Gans and based on the similarly titled games, the initially impressive production design delivers a fairly intriguing (foggy) first act. This is sadly let down by a inexplicably long and mostly irrelevant middle and end.
As a big fan of the games, I was sucked in by the visual reference to it’s spooky digital mother, which is continually impressive. The cinematography from Dan Laustsen, is par with the very best of David Lynch. That however, is where the enjoyment and any slight comparison stops. David Lynch can do it because he is good, this isn’t. I won’t be alone in having been here before, a film (even one by Mr Lynch) will not stand on visual treatment alone.
Rubbish (heavily clichéd) scripting, clunky dialogue and a an overly complicated and incredibily preditable plot are testament to that. On top of all of that Silent Hill is about 45 minutes too long, which means that your tollerance is seriously diminished.
If you like the games, then it’s worth a look - but only for the visual interpretation and don’t say I didn’t tell you.
To be totally honest, I felt a little bit stupid after I’d watched this film. When I initially looked at the box I saw that Sean Bean was among the cast - and I should of know then not to rent it.
Superman Returns
Purely eye candy (although the CGI Superman is a bit ropey), the highlight being the spectacular rescue of a crashing space shuttle/plane combo. That’s it really. The other 150 or so minutes see director Brian Singer dawdle along when surely ’super’ speed is of the essence. Other than the CGI and script tweeks, there’s very little to distinguish this version from the original. Aside form the fact I liked the original, and it was, original.
Tired, banal, bum.
Bond and Babble
I’d heard very mixed reviews Casino Royale and to be fair, it deserved them. The first hour was great; it was slick, well performed and generally really enjoyable. I liked Daniel Craig and the slightly darker tone adopted by Martin Campbell - all was well. But then, suddenly, “weirdness”. About two thirds in, the story careered of the road - as did the direction and the characterisation. It was as if Campbell had been fired and they got Michael Winner to finish it. The result was a very abrupt and disappointing conclusion.
Babel, or should I say Babble, is beautifully shot and all the performances are very strong (no-one really stealing the limelight), which is sadly where my enjoyment of this movie ended. The film is a series of seemingly unrelated viginettes strung together by a contrived (and, when it comes to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, a very familiar) plot device. There doesn’t appear to be a deeper theme or overriding idea connecting all these little stories together - aside from the fact it’s called Babel, and that left me a little numb. I also believe it to be true that an editor is a director’s best friend – it appears Inarritu fell out with his.
Overall it’s is fairly depressing, too long, dull and what story there is falls flat when the ‘connections’ are revealed. It’s a bit like watching a Hollywood re-make of casualty.
