Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Dark (2005)
6/10
Somebody lent me the DVD
15 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Whilst on a trip to Wales, Adèlle and James's teenaged daughter goes missing and is presumed to have drowned. In her place another teenaged girl named Ebrill appears, who apparently died fifty years earlier. Through the process of trying to discover what happened to her daughter, Adèlle uncovers a disturbing secret involving the town.

Most reviewers already point out that the main problem with this film is its lack of originality. I think that at its core, the film actually has a reasonably unique concept concerning an alternate reality (Anwyn - which is a sort of afterlife), but the film mostly resorts to clichéd scare tactics and fails to really make good use of its subject matter. This kicks in right from the start of the film, which opens with the main character experiencing the loss of her daughter before she is woken up suddenly and we realize that it was simply a dream (as well as a premonition of what will happen later).

Unfortunately for its stars, the film gives them little to work with. With the exception of establishing for no apparent reason that Adèlle is a smoker (which is odd, considering smoking can lead to higher certificates and therefore lower box office intake), there is virtually no character development. Sean Bean is wasted, as his character James has no personality whatsoever and might as well have been played by a cardboard cut-out. Furthermore, while an oddly placed flashback suggests that Adèlle and James may have had some complicated relationship problems, they get along suspiciously well. They don't dislike each other and they don't show any affection for each other. You'd think that the fact they have a daughter together might make their relationship a little more interesting, but the two of them only have about as much chemistry as I have with my postman.

One thing that the film offers that sets it out from many ordinary horror films is its setting of the Welsh countryside. Most of the film takes place by the sea and surprisingly for a film with such a title, it is a very bright horror film. The day time scenes tend to be the more interesting ones, including a scene in which a character standing dangerously close to the edge of a cliff must dodge a horde of sheep racing towards them. I can't say that I've seen that before. However, when it gets dark, we're forced to watch the standard horror scene in which a person walks around a dark place with a torch until they uncover something scary. While comedies at least have to come up with new jokes, it seems to me that there is no end to the number of times a horror film can reuse what is essentially exactly the same scene as we've already seen in countless other films.

The film then makes use of another plot device I didn't need to see yet again, as Adèlle must uncover the dark and somewhat supernatural history of the town. But all the characters around her think that she's crazy and only try to get in her way. Luckily it doesn't last too long and this is another one of the film's strengths – it progresses at a nice fast pace instead of ever dwelling on the same subject for too long.

My main problem with this film's first scene, in which we establish that Adèlle has a tendency to see things that turn out not to be real, is that it means that for the remainder of the film we cannot take anything at face value. So when a girl comes back from the dead, it's difficult to feel as moved by it as we perhaps should because we already know that Adèlle might have made the whole thing up in her mind. And then when James meets the girl and doesn't seem to think that this strange girl who has appeared in an otherwise fairly deserted town is a big deal (because his character is made out of cardboard), it's also hard to feel that her resurrection is in any way significant.

And that for me is what weakened the film the most. It sets out to be a supernatural horror, but none of its supernatural moments pack any punch (It's far from Pinhead's entrances in the Hellraiser films). It would have been nice to be fascinated when Ebrill returns from the dead.

Deep beneath the clichés is an interesting myth and a creepy story concerning a mass suicide that was encouraged by a pastor. Unfortunately while it provides some of the setup for the events of the film, it does not make up for much of the film's runtime and is mostly told through some brief flashbacks whilst a Welshman tells the story to Adèlle. It's a shame, because it was easily the most interesting part of the film for me and I would much rather have seen a film set in the mid 20th century about a mass suicide in a small Welsh town.

I think that the most important thing for a filmmaker to keep in mind when making a film that deals with characters crossing between the real world and an alternate reality, is that the more real the real-life scenes feel, the more surreal and interesting the fantasy scenes will feel. Thanks to a lack of character development and its useless dream sequences, this film fails to create a clear distinction between the two realities and they just sort of blend together. Neither world is established enough to create a contrast.

I don't think that the writers or the director have managed to make much out of their initial ideas here, but at least they tried and at least the film is not a sequel.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Shining (1980)
7/10
Ugly
27 January 2004
Kubrick is a great filmmaker. 2001 is among my favorite movies and I like most of his other movies. But no matter how much I think about the Shining I can't convince myself that it is a good movie. I have now seen it twice and to me it is nothing more than a different, but average movie.

What bothers me the most is the fact that it is boring. A family moves into a house and weird stuff starts to happen. But it all happens so slowly. What should have been a 90-minute movie has been stretched out to 2 hours. It has its moments. There is one scene involving a decomposing naked woman that frightened me just a little and flashing images of two murdered girls. Apart from that, nothing in the film scared me. That is not enough to make it a good horror movie.

Another thing I don't like is the visual look of the film. It's set in a hotel with too much white, poor lighting and not very nice carpets. That may sound silly to you, but visuals are very important to me and The Shining is just plain old ugly. Even the apartment the family is living in before they move into the hotel is white and horrible. Maybe the whole thing is intentional, maybe it's suppose to seem like an ugly place so you don't want to be there. But that would be like making an incredibly boring film and saying it's supposed to show boredom.

The characters are all annoying. I don't like any of them, I can't relate to any of them and none of them are very deep. I don't think Shelley Duvall deserved the Razzie nomination for her part. As annoying as she was, she was just doing her job. Kubrick probably didn't deserve a Razzie nomination for Worst Director, but I think he did do a pretty bad job.

There were a few things I liked. For example the way Jack treats his wife or the scenes in the ballroom. But that's not enough for me to say I enjoyed the film. Maybe the film is just to out of date to scare me. In which case it's a bad movie for not surviving the test of time. I give it Six out of ten.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Misunderstood
26 January 2004
I have seen Batman & Robin many times and that should show that it's not really all that bad.

The biggest problem with this film is that most people misunderstood it. After Tim Burton's very dark Batman films, no one would expect this. The style is completely different and instead of being dark, everything is very colorful. It's more like the 60s TV show. If this had been a movie by its self and not a sequel, maybe people wouldn't hate it so much.

Another flaw is the new character Batgirl. I will never understand why she was created. She serves no purpose and her costume looks cheap. Robin turning up in the last movie was bad enough.

A good thing this movie has is Mr. Freeze. In my opinion he is the best of Batman's villains. He is cool (Haha), likable, funny, has character and doesn't just run around laughing like the previous villains. Poison Ivy however was nothing special.

George Clooney is not Batman. He can play Bruce Wayne, but when he's wearing the bat suit he just looks like George Clooney dressed up as Batman. It looks silly. Maybe it's just the new suit. Robin's suit also looks rather silly, but it looks better than the suit he wore in the 60s. When Batman and Robin are standing next to each other at parties or crime scenes and they are not fighting, they look ridiculous. I just thought I'd point that out.

My conclusion is that this film deserves at least 5 out of 10. That's not great, but better than what a lot of people say. It's an entertaining film that should not be a sequel. Nothing more, nothing less.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Swordfish (2001)
7/10
Graph of fun: _____/-
22 January 2004
Last night I watched swordfish for the third time. The first two times I thought of it as a good action film and would have easily given it 8/10. Now, a year later, I have seen more films and expect much more from them.

One problem with Swordfish is that that there isn't really enough action in it for an Action film and it isn't thrilling enough to be a thriller. The film opens with a bank robbery. We see a beautiful explosion in Bullet Time (it may look great, but it says The Matrix all over it). After that there's a short car chase and a poorly directed scene of people running/falling down a steep hill. Then we see that bank robbery from the beginning again, but this time the full-length thing and that's all the action I can remember.

Between the action sequences there is nothing very entertaining. The story starts off quite simple. A man with no money is hired to hack into some Bank. But then things become extremely complicated as we find out that the people who he is working with aren't who they say they are. Then we find out that maybe they are who they say they are and so on. By the end I don't really know or care anymore.

Most of the characters were pretty stereotypical. Hugh Jackman plays the same character he did in X-Men, but without the claws. Halle Berry plays the same character she did in Die Another Day, but this time she takes off her top and John Travolta plays the kind of bad guy who can't stop talking. So basically he's the same as he was in Battlefield Earth, but slightly more intelligent. Don Cheadle plays a rather friendly FBI agent and is probably the most interesting character.

The Music in the Film is quite interesting. It's not your usual action movie music that you don't even realize is there. It's different because of the choice of instruments that are used and it reminded me of the Computer game Mafia. Which, by the way, is a great game.

The color of this film is orange. Every scene set during the day has orange sunlight. It looks nice. But it's too much of a good thing and becomes irritating after a while.

Overall, I think this film deserves 6 or 7 out of 10. It gains points for the Bullet Time explosion even though it is unoriginal. But looses points for being too complicated and lacking entertainment between the major action scenes. It is not a must see. But watch it if it's on TV and you've nothing better to do.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A comparison of M:I-1 & M:I-2
11 May 2003
Mission: Impossible 1 is a movie about an agent getting framed and then solving a mystery. It's more of a Thriller than an Action movie. Mission: Impossible II is a completely different kind of movie. It's just like every other average action movie: Lots of action, not much plot, a boring bad guy and a good looking woman.

Mission: Impossible 1 is definitely a much better movie than M:I-2. But it does still have quite a few flaws. I often have trouble following plots. But after watching Mission Impossible twice I still don't understand all of what's going on and I don't think I'm the only person who has this problem. This doesn't stop the film from being entertaining, but it's a bit annoying. I think I understood everything in M:I-2, not that there is much to understand.

What annoys me the most about Mission: Impossible 1 is the fact that Jim (Jon Voight), one of the most important characters, isn't around for most of the movie. So his character didn't really get very developed. As for Claire, I don't think the movie would be any different if she weren't in it.

The characters in Mission Impossible II are more traditional. The villain is someone who used to work with Ethan but has now turned bad. He has a Scottish accent, to let us know that he's the bad guy. If Ethan's boss hadn't said anything, I would have never guessed that the villain and Ethan worked with each other. They seem like complete strangers.

My favorite part of Mission Impossible 1 has got to be the bit where Ethan and his gang steal information from the computer in that room with all the high security. I've seen it spoofed in quite a few other things. M:I-2 doesn't really have anything like that. Except Ethan Hunt retrieving the disease. But that wasn't really the same thing and it just turned into a big action scene with lots of guns. Stuff like that isn't very entertaining these days. Most of the action scenes in M:I-2 also involve loads of slow motion. This is just annoying and not cool.

Overall I give Mission: Impossible 3/5 and Mission: Impossible II 2/5. I hope Mission: Impossible 3 will be more like the first film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A comparison of M:I-1 & M:I-2
7 May 2003
Mission: Impossible 1 is a movie about an agent getting framed and then solving a mystery. It's more of a Thriller than an Action movie. Mission: Impossible II is a completely different kind of movie. It's just like every other average action movie: Lots of action, not much plot, a boring bad guy and a good looking woman.

Mission: Impossible 1 is definitely a much better movie than M:I-2. But it does still have quite a few flaws. I often have trouble following plots. But after watching Mission Impossible twice I still don't understand all of what's going on and I don't think I'm the only person who has this problem. This doesn't stop the film from being entertaining, but it's a bit annoying. I think I understood everything in M:I-2, not that there is much to understand.

What annoys me the most about Mission: Impossible 1 is the fact that Jim (Jon Voight), one of the most important characters, isn't around for most of the movie. So his character didn't really get very developed. As for Claire, I don't think the movie would be any different if she weren't in it.

The characters in Mission Impossible II are more traditional. The villain is someone who used to work with Ethan but has now turned bad. He has a Scottish accent, to let us know that he's the bad guy. If Ethan's boss hadn't said anything, I would have never guessed that the villain and Ethan worked with each other. They seem like complete strangers.

My favorite part of Mission Impossible 1 has got to be the bit where Ethan and his gang steal information from the computer in that room with all the high security. I've seen it spoofed in quite a few other things. M:I-2 doesn't really have anything like that. Except Ethan Hunt retrieving the disease. But that wasn't really the same thing and it just turned into a big action scene with lots of guns. Stuff like that isn't very entertaining these days. Most of the action scenes in M:I-2 also involve loads of slow motion. This is just annoying and not cool.

Overall I give Mission: Impossible 3/5 and Mission: Impossible II 2/5. I hope Mission Impossible 3 will be more like the first film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I tilt my hand left and right
25 April 2003
Battlefield Earth is not nearly as bad as most people say it is. It's actually quite entertaining. But it is pretty bad. I think it looks quite nice though. The cinematography is pretty nice. Most of the Visual Effects are good, so are the Sound Effects. The Aliens (the Psychlos, what a stupid name) have cool guns and look rather cool, apart from the way they sometimes have 6 fingers and sometimes only 5. And some of the framing is interesting. The problem with the film is that everything else is bad. All the characters in the film are pathetic and mostly badly acted. I really hate Terl (Travolta). He is such a boring character. Travolta overacts and seems completely unreal. He deserved the Razzie. Johnny, the hero character, is also a bit annoying and I don't like the way all of his friends apart from his stupid woman friend, who should die, die. My favourite character in the film is the Alien from the learning machine, who didn't even get credited. Some of the things people say in this film are just really annoying and stupid. Towards the end of the film Carlo starts saying `Piece a cake' all the time. This becomes a stupid joke. The Humans occasionally make weird monkey like noises, as if they had evolved into apes or something. And the Psychlos are always laughing and it's not even real laughing. It's just `Hahahaha. Haha.' laughing. After seeing this film three times, there are still some things I don't understand (Who is the guy with the weird neck supposed to be?). I think some stuff probably isn't explained in the film. Maybe it was edited out. Speaking of editing, the Star Wars style transition effects between some scenes are really unnecessary. I give this film 2 out of 5. Although it has many flaws, it is actually quite entertaining. I've seen it three times now.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Goonies (1985)
6/10
For the child minded only
7 March 2003
A friend of mine told me about this film a few days ago. I thought it sounded kind of childish. But because I know some of the actors and Spielberg produced it, I watched it. My friend told me it was a bit like Indiana Jones, so I was expecting a mixture of Spy Kids and Indie, which could be quiet good. But this was not the case.

The film starts with some rather childish jokes, but I thought to myself, that this is a children's film. But then people started swearing and talking about drugs and sex, nothing too serious, but I wasn't expecting the `S' word. This made be wonder what the target age group for this film was. Of course there could also be censored versions of this film, but the one I saw was not.

One of the children is Jonathan Ke Quan, who played a very similar part in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I found his Goonies Character extremely annoying. He has these gadgets, like a boxing glove on a spring attached to his chest, which seemed kind of stupid to me. If you find jokes like this funny then you may enjoy this film. If not, you probably shouldn't watch it.

The film starts of rather quickly and the bad guys are soon introduced. One of them is Joe Pantoliano, from The Matrix and Memento. I liked his character in The Matrix and Memento, he seemed kind of smart and made a good bad guy. I thought he might be the same in The Goonies. No such luck, in the Gonnies he plays a really stupid bad guy with a wig that drops of, he reminded me of Daniel Stern in the Home Alone movies.

The Story, which is by Spielberg who doesn't do that much writing, could have been better. It didn't seem interesting enough. And not that much really happens in Chris Columbuses Screenplay. I can't really remember much of the middle of the film, which normally means I either fell a sleep or I got really bored and started daydreaming. I had this problem with Gangs Of New York.

At the end of the film, I felt that Sean Astin's character, Mikey should have been more developed. The story seemed to be mainly about him, but he didn't really have many lines. I suppose a child wouldn't really be bothered by this much. But a good children's film should be suitable for older people too. Or it wouldn't really be a Family Movie.

I can't think of anything good to say about this movie, I didn't like it much. It wasn't all that bad though, I still found it slightly entertaining. But I enjoyed Spy Kids a lot more. I give this film 3 out of 5.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tekken 3 (1997 Video Game)
Good but a bit Sad
23 May 1999
It's quite a good Game: Good graphics, Fun... But I do not like the new Characters & new voice (the "You win, You lose... Voice").
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed