Change Your Image
Othy59
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Wolfenstein: The New Order (2014)
A Game That Takes Itself Way Too Seriously
If you played Wolfenstein as an early 3D shooter back in ye olde days of 1992, you know that it was ridiculous fun. Fast forward to 2014 and games since then have passed a lot of waters and have become way more advanced both in graphics and story telling--which I love tbh.
Come the new day, comes Wolfenstein: The New Order, an updated retelling(?) of the classic Nazi shooter romp. I say romp because you're still dealing with ridiculous levels of cheese, mutant cyborg Nazis, giant mechs, going to a Nazi moonbase. My problem that all this was interspersed with a lot of dramatic weight and I mean A LOT of drama. After BJ Blazkowicz's umpteenth grumbling soliloquies about how life is terrible and how the Nazi's do terrible things to good people, you begin to want to tell this roided-up yank to lighten the hell up. You're a walking box of a man with a sexually suggestive name who kills Nazi's in mechs or on a space station.
All the while I played this game, the cuts scenes simply get in the way when something this out there takes itself way too seriously. Have some fun while you can in between the cuts scenes too because it's a surprisingly short game too.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
Doesn't deserve to be called King Arthur.
What can I say about this film that hasn't already been said before. Well for starters, most films tend to have a promising start before either falling into mediocrity or rising to greatness. However, from the get go this film was just a confusing mess of CGI with absolutely no plot what-so-ever and they just continued to roll with this mess all the way through. I can understand trying to reinvent King Arthur for the modern audience, but not THIS way! The film was the worst kind of boring too, it was a boring without personality to boot. If this was to be the start of a franchise, then this so-called runner not only stumbled out the gate, it did a messy bone-breaking tumble before falling off a cliff into an ocean of sharks! PS. If you do want one positive from me - I liked the look of post-Roman Londinium. But it can't decide if it is a film that is in or out of history. If you're in post-Roman Britain, make it look that way. Not Dark Age people running around in Lord of the Rings-esque plate armour! Oh damn, I turned the positive into another negative.
King of New York (1990)
Very Well Made and Criminally Overlooked
Christopher Walken stars in this great, if a little uneven, crime film by controversial director Abel Ferrara (Driller Killer, Bad Lieutenant).
It tells the story of Frank White, a crime lord who, after being released from prison, makes a violent campaign to reclaim his empire in order to use his ill-gotten gain for charitable means in this modern twist on the Robin Hood mythos. At the same time a core group of New York cops are all over him and his gang, determined to go to war, whatever the cost, to bring him down which leads to a violent climax.
In a break from the usual cops and robber movie the line between crook and cop are a little blurry here. Sure Walken's character is a crook who kills people and then goes to parties laden with cocaine and sex, but he kills other scum bags and tries to use his new found freedom to do good things for charity. He's a character who is using his empire as a means to do what he feels is the right thing and raise a poor community up from its poor roots.
The cops on the other hand believe that a crook, will forever be a crook. As David Caruso's (CSI: Miami joke here) character aptly puts, that the more people he kills the more it reflects badly on the cops whilst no matter what they do to stop Frank, he always gets away scot-free. I can definitely see the positives and negatives from both sides as they can be both as bad and both as justifiable in their actions. Really well thought out stuff when you think about it, and this was a film made 12 years before the Wire (which I've still got to finish watching).
Though while I do say it's uneven I still hold to that. Some bits feel a little rushed in pacing and even the lawyer girlfriend to Frank White seems to vanish into thin air during the third act of the film.
But despite being a low budget film, it is still a pretty good looking film with an impressive cast (including Lawrence Fishburn, Wesley Snipes and David Caruso) who play their parts really well. I did have a few niggling problems, mostly with the sound though that could attribute to the copy of the film I had. But the climax of this film is where it's really at as everything that has been building up to this comes to an exciting head.
It's such a shame that this film has been so over looked, I mean I only really found out about it through Christopher Walken's film list. It deserves a lot more credit.
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Knowing what to expect...
... and I've never been so bored. Already seeing the Harryhausen original I had low expectation for this remake (I didn't favour the original as much as Jason and the Argonauts) as you can't really replace the effects maestro himself with just bland CGI. Yes I understand we live in a digital age but they can at least make the monsters seem like characters (like Harryhausen did) and not just a computerised shiny thing to wow idiots with. And the 3D. Thankfully I saw this film in 2D and not 3D as many people have said how god-awful the 3D is. 3D is just a pointless fad in general and seeing Clash of the Titans in 2D saves you a lot of money...
... but, in the end it's not the effects and 3D that makes a film, it's the story.
As far as the story goes it's not really different to the original and so brings nothing new to the table. The characters are one-dimensional, and anyone with any knowledge of films such as King Kong or the Sinbad films, knows that whoever follows our hero around in the film is but a lamb to the slaughter. But the supporting cast was pointless! They had no depth, Mads Mikkelsen's character just seemed more like an arse, than a gruff, tough teacher with nothing remotely wise or helpful to say (except for slapping Sam Worthington around). The two guys -- I think they were warrior merchants -- who follow Perseus added nothing, except their presence. And there was zero chemistry between Worthington and Arterton's character Io (and I won't even mention the crap her character keeps talking about).
Either way a lot of you will be saying I'm reading too much into a film such as this, well, maybe... but even for an action film, there's nothing there and it comes off as boring! When watching the action I felt bored, when watching the characters interact I felt bored, when magic and monsters were flying about the place I felt... well, you know where I'm going with this.
In the end, at least with the original, it wasn't the best sure, but it was entertaining none-the-less. The remake wasn't awful... it was just vacuous and boring!
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
Warning, bring ear plugs!
Let me begin by saying that I went into this film expecting things, the first was that this is a Steven Sommers film so it would have had plenty of CGI goofiness, plucky dialogue that'll give plenty of giggles and barrels of energy. The second was that it was an adaptation of a toy line so there'll be nothing but fights and little plot except for reasons to get the characters into another fight. And thirdly I never properly watched the cartoon so I could be less distracted by the certain creative changes.
Now, to the review.
G.I. Joe is a new offering of CGI silliness from director Steven Sommers (The Mummy/Returns) but unlike those films, Joe definitely lacks the entertaining energy and vocal perkiness. Not only that but it is as loud as any Michael Bay film and by mixing Sommers-esquire energy (the little that was there) and Bay-esquire explosive action loud enough to shake the very foundations of the whole cinema I was left very exhausted towards the end, and not in a good way.
There are elements of a good entertaining film but the noise and flashy images just cover it all up and made me care less and less through to the end. The actors themselves seem to be struggling here to make something of this film and the actors of most attention are Dennis Quaid who just seems to be doing some corny John Wayne impression. Channing Tatum was rubbish in the lead and his flat performance made him one of the weakest links in the whole film. I was surprised by Marlon Wayans (one of the many Wayans who keep infecting us with those crappy spoof films) performance who wasn't all that bad, which is a big shock! All in all this film doesn't have enough to carry it off as an entertaining Saturday afternoon film, it's loud, it's flashy and will give you a headache towards the end. Perhaps I can wait for it to come out on DVD, at least my tele has a volume control.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Harry Potter and the Half-Cooked Film
Like many millions of other people out there I have read the book of the Half-Blood Prince but unlike most I found the book to be a little plodding and too talkative, but with an action packed and exciting ending that left me, strangely, wanting more. Now that the film is out for release I didn't hesitate to go and see it because, quite frankly, I think the films are better than the books.
But the problems arose quite quickly when I saw that all the bad points that I found with the book had been taken and *expanded* on for the film. What I got from this two and-a-half hour film was half an-hour of some exciting stuff happening and two hours of people blathering about relationships and so on with a bit of rampant teenage hormones thrown in for good measure.
The developing relationship between Ron and Hermione being tested by the arrival of Lavender Brown was a nice little addition but I felt that it was too long and got in the way of the plot and characters (some who just made entrances and exits). They got in the way so much that they seemingly shifted Harry too far to the side lines. Even the discovery of Voldemort's heritage and family were cut down considerably to make room for more banter, more teenage hormones, snogging and other boring things that detract from the story.
Gone is Harry's pain of loosing his godfather, gone is a lot of the story of Voldemort and what made him so evil, and gone is a lot of the mystery as to who the half-blood prince is. The end result is that everything seemed so snipped together and strange that when they finally got to the revelation to the thing about the horcrux (however it's spelled) I was just too bored to care.
And that brings us to the lackluster ending, I said before that the ending of the book was exciting and action packed, well this ending had been so repressed I was just fed up by then because nothing about it kept me awake. Hopefully everything will be rectified with the last story (set in two parts apparently) and maybe then we'll have some excitement and we'll have some pain (emotionally that we can feel along with). The performances were still top notch from the young and older cast, there's still a great atmosphere of magic but it was just too ponderous, which is a shame because a lot more could have been done for the two and-a-half hours.
Spawn (1997)
What the hell? (no pun intended)
I watched this film when it was released on VHS, I can't remember maybe '98 so i was 14. To be honest I was a bit of a dim viewer then and would like anything with big explosions, violence anything a teenage boy would like in a movie. But something didn't quite add up with me on this film.
Then, years later, watching the film again I realised... this film sucks! Really blows.
Now, I own a few Spawn related comics and this sweet natured PC version of the dark demonic anti-hero we know as Spawn makes for bad viewing, even if you've never read the comic book (like me then) it's a movie that leaves you wondering, what the hell did I just watch!? Cardboard characters, stupid story, mind numbingly bad script. And what is Nicol Williamson, such a celebrated actor, doing in it? Todd McFarlane, this film must be your own personal hell, that someone would do this to your baby is unthinkable! Really needs a reboot (hint, hint!)
Robin Hood (2006)
A Far Fletched and Faded Façade of Modernist TV
Let me just say this, Robin Hood is a legend, and like all legends (King Arthur for example) has taken different forms and story polarities over the centuries they have been told. Some of the finest and best versions, most recently (in modern times), of the Robin Hood legend have been Michael Praed/Jason Connery's interpretation in Richard Carpenter's "Robin of Sherwood".
However with the BBC's take on the bow-shooting, swash-buckling action series filling in the Doctor Who Saturday night void this version has left me feeling that there could have been better pieces of tripe on TV than this. Yes, people have a tendency to slate things before they are given a real chance, but with me it's been given every possible chance to turn around and really "WOW" me
failing miserably I might add.
The acting is terrible (save for Keith Allen's scenery chewing Sheriff), the stories are poorly construct, the action is ridiculous, clichéd crap and Lucy Griffiths is the blandest-looking Marion I've seen. Even the costuming is about as convincing a, well, a very unconvincing thing
it's trying to be too damn modern (hoodies and what-not, give me a break!).
All in all I KNOW the type of audience this is aimed at (not surprised that they would be pulled in by it though) and I KNOW that it is not what people were expecting
it's just that I expected people to waist their time on other crappy things, like learning to speak French.
Transformers (2007)
After twenty years - Transformer's still "Got the Touch"
I had gone to see Michael Bay's treatment of Transformers with two things in mind. The first was to expect a no-holds-barred action adventure with Bayish cliché's galore and the second was some respect for its source material (namely hardly any plot or decent acting, just big ass robots kicking ten tin cans or crap out of one another). Now, I have not been disappointed. This film gave me everything I expected from a Transformers film directed by said-Bay. Running at nearly 2½ hours Transformers delivers its content fast, hard, loud and hilariously in places.
The return of original Optimus Prime voice actor, Peter Cullen, is a welcome sound to the nostalgic ears and to see the old Gen1 Transformers dukeing it out in spectacular CGI and live action is brilliant.
My only little problems with the film were Megan Fox's character, who I could not care less for (just a nice piece of eye candy for us fella's). Other concerns were with its running time with hardly any development in Transformer character was rather irritating and the typical token black guy who has to talk crap all the time is getting a little tiresome with films now-a-days.
I suppose my hopes for the next Transformers film would be to get a new director (Bay's first films are good but sequels don't always agree with this man), more Transformers and more of their characteristics particularly Starscream's desire for power over the Decepticons and less about the humans, they're developed enough thankyou.
Dracula (2006)
Campy Fun for Generation X
BBC seems to have recently been taking a rather bad turn with their shows at the moment an example of this would be the terrible Robin Hood series to name a few. My disappointment was pushed further with the semi-lacklustre Doctor Who Christmas Special which, although exciting, seemed very panto-like. But the recent updated version of Bram Stoker's Dracula deepened my resentment towards the fact that the BBC's current programmes are being degraded to adapt to a PC, generation X audience level. Whilst there were some strong performances in the film (especially from David Suchet as a very hairy, and a bit loopy, Van Helsing) and some nice eye candy, like Sophia Myles' lovely Lucy; the film suffers from some unnecessary changes in plot and lack of real character development.
Marc Warren's portrayal of Dracula is pretty good (even though he loses his accent at times) but lacking the real sexy, predatory charm that Gary Oldman gave with true panache in Ford Coppola's version. Instead Dracula seems less like a lover/predator but more like some miserable goth who you see hanging around clubs or local parks. And the girl playing Mina, well, let's just say I couldn't help but laugh at her performance in one scene of silly hysterics. This film seems to be only directed at the teens of our generation and may seem more fun than eerie to them. Being at a pitiful hour-and-a-half runtime I found my self tuning out towards the end feeling very unfulfilled by another pointless rehash of a classic book (much like the millions of productions of Dickens's A Christmas Carol). Why can't they just let sleeping vampires lie already?
Eragon (2006)
Something evil lurks in the world of Alagaesia... perhaps it's that film crew over there!
The prospect of a movie of Christopher Paolini's book, "Eragon" was always an on-going debatable prospect of its ability to wow us fans with its enjoyable (yet not wholly original) story "Star Wars" ring a bell? grand world and lovable characters. But since its release, and for anyone who has seen it, we should all know now what that answer is. From start to finish, everything about this movie is bad. The characterisation, acting (much of which is unintentionally funny, sad when you think about it), flow of plot and the fact that Eragon is no longer being chased by a marauding army of savage monsters, but a bunch of fat, slap-headed men with bad chompers.
At first I could let the likes of a PG certificate slip by, because a certificate doesn't make the quality of the movie (look at "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). But the prospect of cramming a 528 page novel into 1hr 40 min long movie!? Well that's just bad screen writing and editing in my mind and will make a flat and dull story, which the film has reduced Eragon to. The set's (the less said on the Teirm set the better) are small, non impressive and just plain dull and give no grandiose fantasy feel to them. Moving swiftly onto the actors. Edward Speleers, our cherry-boy to the world of big screen movie acting, tries his best but falls short of the mark as the films protagonist and prodigal you-must-learn-the-ways-of-the-force-Luke Dragon Rider to be. Jeremy Irons' (Brom) talent is wasted here, Sienna Guillory (Arya) is nothing more than a nonsense talking piece of eye candy and the likes of Djimon Hounsou and Robert Carlyle are merely fluttering through their on-screen line recital through out.
I could go on and on, but to wrap up this final constructive destruction. But it only takes one part feckless new-time director (Stefen Fangmeier) three parts of a writer with a zest for 'lets get this done and out so I can get my paycheck fast' (Peter Buchman) and one big fat chunk of a viperous studio (Fox) to turn a piece of enjoyable shlock, into a half-hour too short, piece of utter crummy shlock. If you still feel obliged to see it by the time your done reading, go ahead and try and enjoy. But heed my warning first. If any of the cast do not return for the sequel fine
non of you (me included) probably will either.
Watership Down (1978)
Not for the Faint of Heart... But Excellent Non the Less
There are very few, if none at all, animated movies that have made such a massive impact on me, and other people, as Watership Down has done. Forget the typical Disney formula of cute and fluffy (like Bambi) and just go with what this film is all about, that the world maybe beautiful but it's not perfect. Seeing the story from the rabbit's point of view, Richard Adams's haunting and weird telling of life as a rabbit is filled with danger, not just from humans, but bigger, other fluffy animals that prey on and kill rabbits. As the narrator so brilliantly puts it,
"All the world will be your enemy, prince with a thousand enemies."
From the beginning of the film you will be: captivated, frightened, moved to tears and all in all just plain dazzled by its imagination. No animated film (not since the Lion King at least) has had such an effect on me.
Though many say it is not for kids, I disagree. This has just the right intensity that kids, sometimes, need to make them understand that the world can be dangerous and we have to be "cunning and full of tricks" to avoid getting hurt. As well as the ecological undertones to the film as to how man will, "never rest until they've spoiled the Earth" just shows us what we are capable of... and that's frightening on its own. Watership Down is just an epic thrill (sometimes fright) for everyone and is essential viewing.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Great Rendition for Children and Adults Alike
Ever since the departure of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy there has been a huge gap left in fantasy cinema since then. Now Disney is obviously trying to fill in the gap with a big screen rendition of CS Lewis' (Tolkien's college friend and fellow fantasy enthusiast) seven-part fantasy saga The Chronicles of Narnia. Though, in my mind, that LotR gap can never be filled, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe does a damn good job at keeping our love of epic fantasy going.
Staying true to the book (with some extra added scenes to explain a little more depth of the story) and using a lot of the books dialogue this is an enjoyable treat for all the family. Though some of the performances are a little wooden, from the actors such as Liam Neeson for example and the kids especially. Even Tilda Swinton, who looked fantastic as Jadis, the White Witch, could have put a bit more malice and venomousness to the role. But this is the films only fault. The final battle is excellent (some bloody deaths could have been added, but that's just me) and the effects are satisfactory (I would have like to have seen some real animals used every now and then).
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is a great teat for the whole family leaving a sweet taste for the next installment, the Horse and His Boy. Just look out for some familiar props from Lord of the Rings like the circular sharpening stone, or, if you look carefully, the sword Narsil itself in the hands of a petrified Centaur.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Better than the Original... but not the Definitive Version
H.G. Well's sci-fi novel has had to some quite a good year. Not only have three different versions of his book been made into celluloid renditions but Jeff Wayne's cult classic musical version has been fully restored and re-released. But I'm not here to badger about the musical version.
I'm a massive fan of the book and Spielberg has done a good job with the atmosphere and horrific loss of life of the masses. The tripods are tremendous as is the CGI effects for them and the SFX for their ominous war-cry. There are faithful nods back, not only to the 50's original, but to the book itself. Whilst the film boasts a mixture of "Saving Private Ryan" style filming and "Independence Day" alien invasion (without the sickening American patriotic tosh, and Will Smith one-liners) it has something else, something that has never been done before. Whatever it is you can decide for yourself because I don't want to give too much away.
Whilst it is a cut above the rest so far, Spielberg's adaptation of the survival-horror / sci-fi classic was actually not due out until 2007. The executives must have got hot-pants for the project and green-lit it too soon. It created the con's result as thus. One of them is employing superstars and not actors. I like Tom Cruise and respect him as a professional but not even his talent was enough to make a convincing unsteady family guy (especially Dakota Fanning), unlike the Freelander's from "Poltergeist". Whilst Spielberg captures Wells' inspiration of a world super power brought to its knees by invading Martians (or to Mr Spielberg
Aliens *groan*) and their monstrous fighting machine tripods, the flick's failing point the same with the 50's version is the ending. The film literally ends half-way through the story. Had the film not have been so rushed would we have a better and much more of a bitter-sweet ending, like the book? And could we have had more footage after the army's bitter defeat? With Steven "They-All-Live-Happily-Ever-After" Spielberg at the helm, I say, probably not. But he has surprised me so far.
But all hope is not lost, until 2007-8 that is. Remember Mr Wayne? Well with the success of his album he is due to release a CGI animated movie
so will that be the definitive version and zap the others with its silver screen heat-ray out of the lime light? Let us hope so. Let the Martian war-cry ring out true
ULLA!!!