Change Your Image
Cynical_Moi
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Feardotcom (2002)
Promise me you won't watch
Because it's utter crap, and by watching you're providing a demand for this stuff. This 'stuff' - what do I mean? Well, I certainly don't mean gratuitous violence or gore, because it doesn't score on those counts. What there is is splattered at us like a Jackson Pollock painting, in glimpses devoid of form or tension, meaning nothing because we don't care enough about any of the victims. Ironic, since the premise of the 'doctor' (Stephen Rea) is that the viewer feeds of the 'intimacy' of watching. This is typical of a plot full of half-baked ideas which simply do not hold together or meld into a coherent whole. To work even on a gratuitous level (as a true horror fan I do not look down upon that!), paradoxically you do need to care about the characters, otherwise no horror. Stephens Dorff and Rea between them could bore us to death.com, and Natasha McPretty is unable to do anything with this gibberish script by way of adding any of the attitude she can usually put with her looks. I gave this movie a try because of these stars, thinking it must at least guarantee some quality, and because of the 18 certificate which I thought must at least guarantee some grown-up nastiness - wrong on both counts. If you want the latter, see the Hostels 1 & 2, and if you want the former then don't expect this to do anything more than steal crumbs off The Ring or Saw series.
It does try to be clever with editing and attempts to explore interesting techno-psychological issues of topicalness; things which could work really well if it had a director or writer to speak of. Two stars.
Disappearance (2002)
Don't watch
I wish I had visited Imdb and read all the spoilers first, then I would have known not to watch this movie. I would have avoided being duped out of 90 minutes of my life. This is a plot that doesn't exist, even though for most of the film you are sure it does. The warning signs are there. Heed them. The characters make various stupid decisions, such as the hackneyed not staying together. The 'clues' are tantalising but confused, a sure sign the writers ultimately don't know where to take it. Not funny enough to be comedy horror, not horror enough to be drama, it sits in a nowhere place of genre and plot. Despite much potential and a decent capacity to hook, unforgiveable for its ending and taking the viewer on a fraudulent ride. So 1 point.
After Earth (2013)
Watching this movie is a choice - don't watch it.
I don't give one star lightly. Even the worst attempts at creativity have something going for them; 'style', music, acting, premise, something. The unforgivable thing about this, though, is that it takes itself seriously. It pretends to sci-fi, whilst being fundamentally absurd. It pretends to big budget spectacle, whilst having CGI creatures that look like they're brought in from a Tom and Jerry cartoon. The 'style' is Will Smith's acting, and his interplay with his son (that's the real one as well as the make-believe one) being over a futuristic comlink (Microsoft Teams is more impressive). Let's cut to the chase: it is of course a cynical 'get my boy into the movies' move. Even if it wasn't this, but instead a realistic and sensitive look at father-son love and familial crisis in a sci-fi setting, then it falls dismally short. The much maligned Ad Astra is made to look superb on that count (indeed it is rather good, and does not deserve ITS hate... I digress, hey maybe I'll review Ad Astra here instead. Well, no, lets give Jayden Smith and doting daddie due consideration, this was clearly a dear project to them (or was it more a pocket money trust find thing?):
They were both s--t in this move. As far as I am concerned the senior version shot his bolt in Independence Day, with his ego-centric comedic style (at least that movie did NOT take itself seriously, therefore it just about worked), and junior's delusions of being an actor are hopefully now well-cured. Sorry, but I don't give a damn abouth the Smith family (oh sorry are we meant to?) or the.'Raige' family. If such bland people are what the future holds, then its best the Earth does have its apocalypse.
Death Proof (2007)
Boring, boring, boooooringgg!
Even if you say it in a shrill and chatty voice, it's still boringg! First we're introduced to four vacuous girls who presumably represent the 20-something female sexuality; flaunting themselves, running their ditzy mouths to anyone ditzy enough to listen, whilst deciding who gets the ultimate honour with them. Half way through the film, we're introduced to the psycho antagonist Stuntman Mike (Russell), the definition of psycho being apparently one who hates ditzy girls. He is teased, he enacts his revenge (I believe that is the plot), and later on his next prospective victims enact their revenge on behalf of femalekind. I think Zoe Bell must have given Tarentino a lap dance on condition that he gave her a chance to star herself as a kick-ass feminist, but not realising how imbecilic she came across to anybody with an intellect or over the age of 30. Kurt Russell almost made it interesting for a while, until the actual director (Bell) required his badness to be portrayed as sadness. He'd have been better off revisiting all his yesterdays with an Escape from San Francisco (part iii) - at least Snake Plisken had dignity and those movies had plot. A villain with no depth, 'heroines' with less still, nope sorry it doesn't work. Probably the very worst movie I've ever seen from a mainstream director with a mainstream star.
Blue Steel (1990)
Is he the most annoying villain in movie history?
I don't mean that in any good way at all. Yes, a movie needs a charistmatic villain, but my overriding feeling was I just wanted to stamp on this guy's face from the moment he picked up the gun, and then through every manic and wooden psycho-stare onward and throughout. Bad script. Bad acting, bad everything. It started promisingly, when the theme seemed to be a challenging exploration of the perils of being an armed police - er - person, but this soon dissolved into a showcase for actor Ron Silver's demented mode glare, not to mention also his demented mode glare. Jamie Lee Curtis might have carried the story if there was one to believe in.
Vivarium (2019)
Clever, but if you 'get it' you'll also need to get anti-depressants
For quite a while this was intriguing and disturbing, but that's because I thought it was going to be something that it isn't; science fiction. As such, you stick it out hoping for some kind of explanation, but the longer it goes on you know there won't be one, and this is exactly what happened, leaving you feeling cheated by one big surreal 'affect'. I felt inclined to give it a '1' after the ending, but on reflection there is a cleverness and a point to it. I'll summarize what it was about, because a lot of people just won't get it...
It's an 'allegory' on parenthood and homebuilding, more accurateky comedy-horror than sci-fi. The point is buying and setting up a home will enslave you, eat up everything you've got, and a child is an absolute demon who will take your entire soul and spit you out at the end of it. The typical middle class person gives everything for the 'ideal' of home and family, but it's one torturous prison, and you're entirely expendable once the kid has grown up. That's the idea. Okay, so quite clever, so I feel obliged to give it 5 stars, but it's really not a nice watch and I couldn't stand repeat viewings because the idea is just so cynical and one dimensional for all its clever 'dimensional' special effects.
The Patriot (2000)
Insulting to those who fought and died on both sides.
There's no denying movies like this have the capacity to entertain, but the reason is because producers and directors have a talent for tapping into the most facile of human emotions and playing on nationalistic brainwashing while they're at it. In a subject such as the American War of Independence there's certainly no shortage of the latter. I find myself watching it despite hating so much about it. Why? Because the characters are engaging enough on a personal level (however unreal), with the central bad guy versus good guy conflict.
There is so much wrong with it, though, it's almost the worst kind of war film you can have. I say 'almost', because there's some effort at authenticity in the military tactics and a few glimpses of the horrendous wounding and maiming involved (limbs being taken off by a cannon ball or hacked off by a surgeon for example). However, there's simply not nearly enough fear evident in any of the participants (none at all, actually!). Taking turns firing musket volleys at each other at point blank range must have been right up there with the most terrifying forms of warfare in human history, and let's not even think about the hand-to-hand combat. Most of all, the attempt at a serious historical testament is hamstrung by the whimsical nature of much of the dialogue, and the slow motion scenes of a flag-waving Mel Gibson take us into the realm of comedy - all the more painful since we must assume so many Americans are looking at this with national pride.
We're supposed to hate the British for burning the villagers alive in a church? I felt weirdly bad for not feeling bad enough about this, but hey this has come on the back of the rebels mercilessly executing surrendering British soldiers, and constant gleeful talk of 'killing redcoats' - well, if this was the revolutionary's code then frankly I don't care how many atrocities were done to them also. If the aim of the film was to show how violence goes around in circles and a civil war creates the most awful type of hate and division (I do not think there was anything so lofty about it, though), it does not succeed since it is so obviously geared to showing the 'glory' of the American's victory and kicking out the Brits.
I don't mind my nation Britain being shown getting bloody noses, as she's guilty of many historical shames, but the Americans who made and consume this type of fodder seem to forget they would not have existed in the first place if not for the pioneering spirit of their cousins across the ocean, and then the irony of what the liberated America goes on to do to the Indians in the succeeding centuries is deliciously rich. 'Patriot' - if the term was meant satirically and the movie be anti-nationalistic or anti-war, then it could have been a work of quality. As it is, all it's doing is playing it's part in perpetuating the eternal cycle of human conflict based on notions of identity and reactive hate that need to be made obsolete.
Braveheart worked, for all its nonsense, because the gore was earnestly done and it stands as a fable about freedom, not particularly pretending to be a history lesson, and as such does not really insult the English at a distance of 700 years. Patriot, however, is just politically corrupt and insults just about all the historical characters involved (with the exception of Cornwallis perhaps, but that saving grace is perhaps down to the always excellent Tom Wilkinson), as well as the viewer by shamelessly wanting us to believe in this costume re-enactment.
The Disappearance of Alice Creed (2009)
Predictable
Hardly a 'spoiler', really, the outcome is so obvious. This renders any supposed tension or alleged plot twists completely impotent, since we know ultimately where it is going. The two male villains die, sexy female heroine lives. No point watching.
Vinyan (2008)
The Revevant, Apocalpsye Now, The Emerald Forest?
Non, none of the above. This is death by boredom, resting entirely on alleged horror effect, which is in fact little more than a 90-minute indulgence of racism, as so many western movies have done in the past (but since the 21st century the industry is supposed to be growing out of), playing into our western stereotypes of Asians tending towards savagery and its children kind of multitudinous and expendable. Here they get literally cast as demons, as if their sum total somehow equals the soul of one white boy (the protagonist's lost son). From the wierd black and white credit font - I can tell, maybe it's just me - you feel this is going to one dull pretentious trip. Storyline - has a foundation, a child lost in the Tsunami and maybe 'out there' somewhere - okay, 1 point. Location, vivid and real - 2 points. Tone - 3 points. But from the tone you absolutely know it is not going to end well, which is not necesaarily a bad thing by any means, so long as it *means* something. It doesn't, so where's the tension? I get it; they end up in hell, the father getting his just punishment (as did a few of the gooks), whereas the mother's hell is to become mother to these demon kids for all eternity - but no use when the process of getting there is a hell of turgidness for the viewer,
The Sand (2015)
It took 12 days to make?
Why did it take them so long? Presumably it was the time it took for the models to get their complexions and hair right, to choose their favoured beach-wear, and to have the CGI (computer generated ill-effects) put together. For sure, it couldn't have been the amount of time it took to learn the script - no, wait, judging by the number of brain cells in evidence - and it couldn't have been for creative directorial editing. Yep, must have been make-up preparation time, plus perhaps a few ego issues wanting to ad-lib on the relationship stuff ('because we're good at that').
This is the most dire film I've ever seen, thrown together by a wanabee-but-can't-be director and a bunch of narcissistic and untalented 20-somethings playing characters exactly the same as themselves. For the spectrum of horror, fear, despair, exhaustion and elation they have one mode - hedonistic relationship angst - which they seem to draw upon for their 'professional' palette. I called them 'models' above - I don't know for a fact if they are - because their looks are all they have to offer, they certainly can't act.
Where is the horror in this 'horror' movie? The premise (of a man-eating entity inhabiting the very sand) is intriguing for a moment that's briefer than the girls' bikinis but, as there's not even a hint of intelligent explanation for it, any sense of menace disappears faster than the relationship fidelity of these numbskulls. No credible horror-emotions - no horror. No credible horror effects - no horror. No directorial flair for plot movement - no horror. Oh, it' a comedy? No, it's not - it's a bunch of empty 20-somethings acting like empty teen-somethings.
The two lead models - 26 and 32 at the time of shooting - are hot as hell; so, 2 out of 10 stars. The only things more difficult to believe than the sand-beast are the dazzling perfect breasts and impossibly tidy little butts on parade. I'd find it impossible to choose between the blonde and the darkie, as indeed did the movie's male-meat lead. As for the girl who got eaten by the sand, I'd have given 3 stars if they'd had enough about them to make that gorier and more terrifying, but of course they haven't. Go back to drama school and study Jaws, you guys.
Revenge (2017)
Desert Vixen
There's a better title for you. Not that it's any more apt than the given one, as this movie is indeed about 'revenge' - and that's all it's about - but you've got admit it's a bit more colourful, and since the only colour of this to distinguish it from the galaxy of other revenge movies is the little bad ass (or bad little ass) protagonist Jen (Mathilda Lutz), then I rest my case - Desert Vixen. Let's not even get started on my favourite bigbear - the simplistic one-word titles that sum up simplistic one-track modern movies - and focus instead on what this blood-fest has going for it.
Premise: Narcissistic married prick takes his bit-on-the-side to a hunting trip in the desert wilderness along with two of his prick friends. Sexual tensions arise - theirs - and bit-on-the-side gets raped, so now she is less than happy to be there. So far, this is actually a believable situation with plenty of potential for social comment as well as action. Well, we get action....
Action: She survives murder attempt, but we knew that would have to be, since we've been told it's all about revenge, and she goes on to kick the ass of all three pricks - which we also knew, because the girl has to beat the men especially if she's been sexually wronged, so no spoiler there really. However, the pleasure (we are reminded of this in many scowls and pouts) is in the getting there. We are invited to enjoy the age-old idea of hunted becoming the hunter, and revel in the uber-violence complete with maximimum gore. This has a tongue-in-cheek air to it, which it has to, since no-one could still be standing with wounds like these.
Ultimately this is a Mathilda Lutz vehicle, as we see in no uncertain terms with her metamorphosis into Desert Vixen in the cave, from which point she gets to absolutely flaunt her 12-year-old figure in underwear in many breast and butt angled glimpses, but woe betide if you underestimate her on this account, as she is now a killer all set for a *Franchise*. How many more roles she can land like this will depend on how long she can keep the convincing fresh pout and ballerina physique. Olga Kurylenko is the benchmark for this (making it till at least 40), but she has personality too, so we shall see. Lutz would have been a better choice as Rey in Star Wars than the wooden and even more child-bodied Daisy Ridley, I'll give her that. That's not all I'd give her, in fairness, so yeah... now I've heard of Mathilda Lutz, Desert Vixen.
Amadeus (1984)
Well, there it is.
A rare perfect 10 for me, and that's how it should be; perfection is rare, indeed unattainable for any human construct, but I believe we can award a 10 where the 'failings' are charming in themselves and seem to add a nuance which takes the whole beyond the sum of its parts. Here, we could say that the historical liberties are the main failing - and many historically-minded critics or those for whom Mozart is too precious to be subjected to this indiginity (snobs, in other words) do just that - but that is missing the point that this freedom is what gives the movie its scope for artistic and character comment. Sorry, you classicial music luvvies, but Wolfgang Amadeus - or should I say 'Wolfie' - does not belong to you, he belongs to the world, and he was of such an ilk of genius that the world cannot define him in any prosaic way, but if he is best remembered by many as the characature presented here, that is no bad thing and in fact leads to a greater understanding of his achievements. True appreciators of classical music understand this, but not those to whom it is essentially a status symbol.
Amadeus is not a biopic of Mozart's life (or Salieri's for that matter) but a glorious meditation on the nature of the highest artistic talent humanity has to offer, told with equal depths of humour and tragedy. Mozart and Salieiri and their music have been 'borrowed' as vehicles for this, actually with great integrity and honesty; Mozart IS the genius whom time has unequivocally proven whereas Salieri, for all his undoubted industry and charm, has in brutal truth been demonstrated by the same to be, indeed, 'Court Composer' - which is to say a fine product of his time but nothing higher. I doubt whether he murdered Mozart, though, however much he might have wanted to. And the Oscars do not always get things wrong: F. Murray Abraham throughly deserved his for this subtle, devastating portrait of status-pride and jealousy. Well, there it is.
Don't Breathe (2016)
Don't Expect an Original Twist
At first sight (well, I got my pun in pretty early there), this has much to commend it in the way of plot, tension and a wholesome lashing of violence. Even the rent-a-twenties cast have partially developed characters, which is an improvement on those normally fed to a modern audience sustained on junk food. The villain, however, is the most deeply realised character and - and this is the movie's major flaw - ultimately he is the most sympathetic. So, poor young trash girl wants to improve her prospects in this big bad world, so feels entitled to commit a robbery on a blind old guy - and we're supposed to be pulling for her? Meanwhile, blind old guy is gradually revealed to have been a war hero, and suffered the tragic loss of a daughter to some spoit rich equivalent of trash girl - and we're supposed to pull against him? Maybe it's Stephen Lang's fault; he's too damn good an actor.
Things start well - he wastes the brash amoral one in justifiably summary fashion, and then proceeds to frustrate and terrorize the other two robbing friends, and it even looks like they might get to understand what growing up is about; but that would be forgetting this movie does not want to rise above its station as violent-thriller-with-suggestion-of-horror. That suggestion comes in the form of the girl-driver perpetrator of his daughter's death, whom it transpires he has kept as prisoner in his basement for breeding purposes (the driver-girl that is, not his daughter, now that would have been an even more interesting concept).
Sadly, both his hopes for a 'new daughter' (entirely understandable) and our hopes for a darker, deeper and more daring content are also wasted, and it becomes obvious the last quarter of the movie is going to be the formula frantic heroine 'has-she hasn't-she has-she got away yet no-she-hasn't oh-yes-she-has' climax. There is some consolation in that the newsreels make him out to be victim and hero (which to me he is) and he has survived after all (that's a predictable twist). I do hope he finds another girl; now that would grab me for a sequel, how about something on the lines of a Stockholm Syndrome theme? Now, that's the type of 'horror' that would not get past the censors.
Addendum: I discover there is indeed a sequel in 2021, where he has 'adopted' a girl in some fashion; not quite what I had in mind but intriguing enough.
Witch Hunt: A Century of Murder (2015)
Beautifully Presented
My, that's casting for you, a gorgeous modern young female presenter talking about the fate of female witches in bygone times! So, so far a pretty good sell, and that's even if I wasn't hooked by the theme of witch hunts in the first place - which I am, having experienced the modern form of it plus being a lover of history. Seriously, Suzannah Lipscomb does have a distinctly seductive air, above and beyond being merely beautiful, does she not? It's in the eyes, in her intelligence, and in her eloquence; 400 years ago she would quite probably have been singled out as a witch herself, and it's no coincidence she has got this slot. It makes for a curiously mesmeric watch, but what of the actual content if we can separate that out?
We can, and it's actually pretty good. It's brought to life rather than cheapened by the dramatizations and costumes. Whilst being palatable to the average viewer - and not simply because of the fronting eye candy - it satisfies on an intellectual level. For this, respect to Suzannah. She can't help the way she looks, but all she can do is try to convince of her credentials by what she says. She does not dumb down, but she appeals to us on an empathetic level in inviting us to imagine 'what it was like to undergo those tortures when completely innocent' and to be accused on a whim by spiteful mobs. She also makes some key observations and interpretations, such as the impact of King James's book, the influence of the civil war, and the possibility of sexual resentment being the motivator for the accusation of Gillis Duncan. All in all, she does a good job of evoking the tapestry of hysteria, skepticism, intellectual and spiritual judgement afoot in the 17th century psyche. This - getting a handle on the people of the past - is surely what history is all about.
I'd like to see more of. Suzannah Lipscomb.
Videodrome (1983)
Worth watching for Debbie Harry
That's why I give a '2' - because she was in it, one of the most gorgeous and talented women ever to have lived. The best thing to do would be, if you knew all the points where she appears, just to flick to them and pass on. That said, I'd sit through almost anything to get my fill of her - even this pretentious unpleasant tosh - what can I say about the actual film? Well, It's Cronenburg, so it's meaningless drivel played for effect and calling itself a horror movie. I'm not saying Debbie Harry can save the movie, because she can't, but much less can that sleazy mediocrity James Woods. His most striking achievement seems to have come in later life; getting a cute 20-year-old girlfriend at the age of 65 (soon after having the same when he was slightly less old), and bolstering his rotting image by taking her on his arm to a premiere. Offering her a route into Hollywood, I guess, in addition to getting to hump her in the name of rescuing her from drug troubles. In fairness I'm not blaming her; many dream of walking in elite circles, but hey not everyone can have the talent of Debbie Harry, or even a sliver of it for that matter. By the way, in his 70s now I believe he has moved on to a 30-something woman - just a 40-year age gap. Clearly the man has a talent of sorts, and boy does he need to see it legitimized.
Wild (2014)
Wildly Average
Here we go again with the one-word titles. This is just a little bugbear of mine, which is maybe a sign of old age. Namely, why do so many modern films (starting in the 90s I think) just package up their tour de forces with a one-word title - usually a very basic word at that - instead of coming up with something that powerfully and poetically captures the theme? Could this be because there isn't one, at least not a coherent one? To me it doesn't bode well; I mean, come on, 'wild' can be just anything. It's not that I'm against one-word titles per se. I mean, 'Unforgiven' - now that's deep, it's dark, and so is its movie. Try 'Everest' - you can't quibble with that, it's iconic, and so is the movie for the climbing genre. 'Wild', though - it's just bland and vague, and so is its movie.
Okay, I get it: our supposed heroine has led a wild life and now she is 'in' the wild, ah yes how clever, how profound. No, it isn't. For a start, she was not so wild, not in any original or inspiring way anyway, but just a messy broken family kind of way. Now she's found long-distance walking - something which many (well, a fair minority) of us found and thrived upon without needing to be impelled to it by discovering that drugs and sex with many strangers didn't work for us (I'd be so lucky to have tried the latter). Mind you, she reverts back to that - what does this say? Was it one last shot just to prove what she already knew, or is to teach us that Michiel Huisman is just simply so the all-man type of man that a girl just has to open her legs? It seems to have got him the role of Queen Daenerys's bit of stuff at any rate.
I should attempt constructive criticism, so, how about 'Trail of Redemption' (though perhaps redemption is a bit strong, as she wasn't exactly a wrong-doer in need of it, as the writers seemed at pains to tell us). How about ''Trail of the Soul' or 'Path of Life' (I like that because it analogizes a literal path with path in the sense of the one we are taking in life). Even - come on, the viewer is smart enough - 'Crest of Enlightenment' (Pacific Crest, get it? And on the cusp of finding oneself). Trouble is, the content would have to have the power and focus to match; let's just say I'm not going to seek out the book, unlike I once did for a certain James Dickey for a certain one-word (a meaningful one) John Voight film.
The Mountain Between Us (2017)
Doesn't quite reach classic heights
A survival come romance movie, this does not quite reach epic proportions on either level, but nevertheless is solid and engaging.
For such a genre we need spectacular landscapes and we get them: the mountain terrain is beautifully shot whilst the sense of isolation is properly disturbing. Anybody with experience in winter mountaineering will recognize the seriousness of being stranded in such a region, and the obstacles and challenges the two characters face are convincing, such as sheer gorges barring the route you need, uncrossable watercourses and the danger of skidding clean off the mountain (in the absence of possessing crampons or an ice axe!). As one with such experience, however, I was not quite convinced by the sheer bitter cold and exhaustion they would be feeling. Perhaps, they just looked too damned good - hell, hasn't WInslet aged sexily! - when they ought to be half-starved and dehydrated. You can't feed off snow by the way; your mouth would ulcerate and you get next to no water from a mouth-full of snowball.
Any shortcomings in the convincingness of either survival or romance elements was certainly not the actors' fault. They are class acts, as we well know, and did an earnest job with the material they were given here. I felt Idris was slightly bland, but then that fitted the role of stressed-out surgeon carrying personal heartbreak. His anxiety over falling in love was credible.
Their trek to reach safety was engaging if not somehow 'grim' enough - perhaps it was lack of musical atmosphere - and the chemistry/conflict between them just a little too gentile for such intense circumstances. So, not high drama and high emotion, but we can't be sure how it will turn out for either of them (or the 3 of them rather) and there's plenty of entertainment and charm - and what a cute dog!
Sliding Doors (1998)
If you can get past...
Wondering how badly Gwyneth Paltrow must have starved herself to get to this point in her career, and the implication that a 13-year-old physique should be what men find attractive, then there is plenty of substance to be engaged by in this movie. A meeting of sci-fi and romance, the concept of parallel lives, with a seasoning of humour, yes it all starts off deftly enough. The early tension seems to fade, though, and it feels that charm devolves into tawdriness. I'm not entirely sure why, as everything is clearly very carefully crafted, with due deference given to plot and characters. Maybe it just comes down to the fact I can't personally imagine any guy being torn between shrewy Paltrow and.the steamy Jeanne Tripplehorn. Or then again, perhaps it hits too close to home, as the conflict many of we married men feel between pure sweetness (which Paltrow does pull of perfectly well) and pure sex. It's probably unresolvable, but one wants - even needs - fiction to be the place where it IS resolved. The biggest disaster, in a movie which I can neither fully enjoy nor fully take seriously, is the new hairdo Helen (Paltrow) takes on. A movie that falls down in the small things rather than the big things.
AE: Apocalypse Earth (2013)
I tried to survive it
Not the planet - the movie. Okay, those 'worst movie ever seen' type reviews - however strong the urge to do them - are not particularly helpful, and are probably not true anyway. There is plenty of big-budget Hollywood fare which can seriously lay claim to such an accolade, and have far less excuse than this one. So, I decided to give this a chance, on the basis that every movie has some flaw somewhere, and you can't just write something off unless you've made an effort to bathe yourself in the premise, characters, script, effects, tone and hell even the music. So...
Premise: nothing wrong with that, in fact quite engaging. Humans flee the apocalypse on Earth and find themselves having to survive on a hostile alien world, after crash-landing for some unknown reason (hence mystery too). Characters mostly somewhat feeble, without depth and not particularly believable - but this is where script meets *acting*. We know these are not A-list stars, but this is not fatal if the dialogue and writing are good. They're not, they're barely above student standard at best. And at worst, well... as TNG's Data would say, "my feelings can't be hurt", so here goes... the best thing I can say about the android in *this* film is that he makes me truly appreciate the quality of Brent Spiner's acting. As for the effects, I'm afraid it's one apocalypse too far, totally destroying any chance of getting emotionally engaged in the situation or believing in the setting.
Music is always important, and can even make or break, so it mystifies me why low-budget movies so often accept low-budget film music composition. This is one prime example of where skill could compensate for lack of resources. Obviously they cannot afford John Williams or Vangelis, but they don't have to: there's a galaxy of great classical music or even old pop out there which is past the copyright date, and intelligent use of this could raise the tone. Instead, we have vapid 'all-action' music inflicted on us, which has nothing other-worldly evocative about it and does the exact opposite of providing the tension they seem to think it provides. It's as if, here, all they want to do is confirm to us that this is a cheap action-pic (as opposed to engrossing sci-fi drama).
Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but quite simply the worst CGI; technically, many other B-moves have just as awful, but not where it's so integral to the plot, eg a planet under attack and peril from alien monsters. Those aspects have to be portrayed some other way if the effects at your disposal are so unconvincing. I'd have been willing to give it more than a 4 if not for this. If creating a low-budget movie, someone has to have the skill and judgement to side-step ruinous CGI, as well as compensating for mediocre actors by writing great dialogue and maintaining plot tension. And no, an exotic alien world romance in a lagoon cannot save this either. Even if it could, I was killed off before then by the alleged 'dragon'. No danger of a spoiler, because I was simply too bored to continue to the end; and that's the bottom line - a 'survival' movie (with a sci-fi setting watched by a sci-fi fan) where I wasn't interested enough to see who survived. I dug out my latest recording of a Star Trek TNG episode instead.
PS: by the time I'd finished editing, I'd reached the end, the movie playing the background! An extremely intelligent ending, but an opportunity for a film of sci-fi greatness lost by all the pitfalls of the low-budget industry, and lack of creativity to get round this. I'd like to see the big boys do any better, though, all to often they don't. So I'm promoting this to a '5'.
A Cure for Wellness (2016)
I checked myself out
Yes I understand that movies do not have to be fast-paced, they do not have to be action-packed and they do not have to be awash with loud music. All of those things, I normally despise, and they often signify commercially expedient trash. However, slowness does not in itself equal greatness, and brooding does not necessarily equal depth. The key ingredient which has to be there is tension, whether it's a rollercoaster ride or a cerebral experience you are after, and here it was not. I was luckier than the inmates of the resort, in that I managed to find the will - which I presume we were supposed to be engrossed in discovering why they lacked the same - to check myself out. I was only half way, but this was not going to tie together in any satisfactory way, a feeling which I had from the outset on hearing the irritating 'haunting lullaby' music. As a professional musician, appreciative of many styles, I know pretentious when I hear it. 'The Ring' or 'Rosemary's Baby' this was not, those two being similar musical themes but many times weightier.