Boanthrope Reviews

Final Destination 3 (2006)

Sequelitis at its worst.

[5/10 · 30 July 2006]

Let me start by saying that as pure popcorn fodder there's enough action and gore to keep your average Joe entertained for 90 minutes - hence my score of 5/10.

However... this movie epitomises what usually goes wrong with horror movie franchises. The body count and gore goes up, the tension and characterisation plummets.

For all its flaws, FD1 at least had suspense. The characters being portrayed were genuinely disturbed by the air disaster events and premonition. There were tensions between them. There was an unfolding plot as the characters realised what was happening, became more and more afraid, and tried to figure out how to survive.

By the time FD3 comes along, the premise is exactly the same but we just cut straight to the death scenes. Apart from the lead pair, no-one seems in the least bit shook-up about the roller-coaster accident or the spooky premonition. It's not even clear which characters DID survive the accident. Barely any of the 'characters' have more than a few lines. The film has an excruciatingly basic structure...

Several people survive accident after premonition, as per FD1 & FD2.

Kevin relates events of FD1 Wendy.

Wendy: "Hmm, these photos seem odd. I believe you."

Kevin/Wendy to someone: "Hey, we think you're gonna die soon."

Virtual anonymous character I think I saw somewhere in the opening sequence: "You're crazy. Ha! Ha!"

Above character dies horribly but amusingly after some bizarre, convoluted accident.

Kevin/Wendy: "Look we were right. Now YOU'RE gonna die!"

Next anonymous character: "Despite the above events, I'm still in a jovial mood and I just don't believe you or care. Ha, ha!"

Character dies horribly.

Kevin/Wendy: "Come on, you've got admit this is spooky, and you're next!"

Next anonymous character: "Don't be stupid. In fact, I'm not even sure I've been in the film up to this point. Chuckle, chuckle, you kids!"

Character dies horribly, as augured by the images in the opening credits (as per FD1 and FD2).

... etc. etc.

OK, I've oversimplified things there, but you get my point. The characters' attitudes were completely unbelievable. There is no emotional aftermath of any of the deaths. These kids should be freaked out - especially after the first bizarre deaths. Instead this plays out more like a comedy, which I guess was the director's intention, but just doesn't really work for me.

FD1 was decent and original horror flick. Its tongue was slightly in its cheek, but this didn't detract from the suspense. It even had room for subplot whereby it was suggested the clairvoyant kid was CAUSING these deaths somehow. 7/10.

FD2 signalled the subsequent direction of the series, with the emphasis on the elaborate death scenes and humour, but still had enough plot and character tension to make it credible. 6/10.

FD3 however, throws plot structure and suspense out of the window in favour of humour and extravagant gore. 5/10.

As evidenced by the IMDb ratings and many of the comments on here, a lot of people seem to think this is a good thing, but it just doesn't do anything for me I'm afraid. Just about entertaining, but nothing more.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Comment on 'that scene'

[6/10 · 30 June 2006]

** Spoilers - Comments generally intended for those having already seen the movie ** I've read several of the reviews on here on typically there are people that loved it, people that hated it, and everything between.

One of the recurring themes of the unfavourable reviews is the fact that several of the events depicted are in extremely bad taste and have no place in a horror film such as this. Specifically, I'm referring things like the rape scene, the baby and some people have also commented on the pessimistic open ending.

I don't think movies, in a particular genre or otherwise, should have the follow 'rules' about what is appropriate or not. Obviously I'm not suggesting children's movies should be allowed to show people copulating with dogs or anything like that, but I mean in an adult-rated film I don't think it's fair to criticise a scene simply because it's in bad taste and may offend.

I don't have any personal 'issues' with anything depicted in this film. That's not to say I'm not upset or moved by such things in movies, if done well, in an appropriate way. But actually, I found the rape scene and baby-peril scenes rather funny. Not because I find rape or potentially dead babies amusing at all, but because it completely smacked of the filmmakers' desperation to come up with something shocking. When the mutant started suckling the mother's breast I was just thinking how ridiculous it was and how much it was a pathetic attempt to disturb me - which it didn't.

(I believe there are different cuts of this movie, but I saw the British version which seems to be uncut.) So basically, I thought this was a below average horror flick that tried desperately to be shocking and creepy but just came across as silly. Aside from the gore, there really isn't going for this. I was way too distracted by all the plot holes and leaps in credibility to get involved enough to be either scared or disturbed.

The Shipping News (2001)

Good but flawed.

[7/10 · 23 February 2006]

This was a pretty good film with strong performances all round. I really liked the storyline. (See other comments for a fuller plot outline.) However, I found this to be quite a strange film in the respect that it was simultaneously too long and too short. Let me explain...

The film seemed to be trying to do too many things with too many characters. There were several 'main' characters (Spacey, Moore, Dench, the daughter Bunny, Blanchett to a degree) with their own histories and developments. There were also many peripheral characters, some also with their own stories.

I felt that the film had too much going on and seemed to lose its focus, so instead of being drawn into all the characters' stories we are drawn into none. In that respect I felt the film should have been longer so that the plot lines could be fleshed out more.

For example, towards the end of the film there are several plot revelations relating the main characters. However, instead of thinking, "Oh right! THAT's why that character was behaving that way!" I just thought, "Oh, OK then. If you say so." The revelations seemed to come out of nowhere. I didn't feel I was led to believe there WAS anything to reveal (especially in Julianne Moore's case), or at least the hints were very subtle and not enough to suck me into the characters' stories.

**MAJOR SPOILERS**

I mean, was there ANYTHING in the film to hint at the fact that there was anything untoward about Julianne Moore's marriage? Did we really feel that Judi Dench had some dark, secret from the past? OK, there were hints, but not enough to draw you into her character or make you think anything major occurred. The cousin (?) just came out of nowhere (plotwise) and spilt all the beans. Also, were we led to believe that the Quoyles may have had a sinister past, before we suddenly discover their true origins? All I remember is that they were known as sea-folk.

**END SPOILERS**

Not that I'm condoning the sledgehammer approach, but I did feel that main characters' surfaces were barely scratched before their exteriors were suddenly ripped off, with Spacey a possible exception.

So, despite the fact that I feel that the film should have been longer, my detachment from the main characters made the film seem slightly slow - hence it 'felt' a bit overlong.

All in all, this seems to smack of a film trying to be faithful to a novel (which I have not read) by cramming in as many of its characters and events as possible, while overlooking the main feel, emotions and intrigue of the story and its protagonists.

Having said that, the story itself, as it resolves itself in the end, along with strong performances still make this an above average movie.

The Ninja Squad (1986)

This is a joke, right? Please tell me this is joke!

[1/10 · 14 April 2003]

It grates my potatoes when I read reviews on this site that say things like "This is worst film ever!" about films like Battlefield Earth, Pearl Harbour, etc. OK, these films are dreadful and made by people who should know better but compared to this tripe, and its ilk, I would describe Battlefield Earth as a cinematic masterpiece.

I would concede that it's certainly possible to make a worse film than this but you have to be genuinely trying to make a bad film.

** Spoilers ahead ** (Ha, as if you could spoil this film.)

There are just so many things wrong with this film and it takes multiple viewings to spot them. E.g., at one point, John, a good guy, while trying to come up with a plan with rescue Billy's sister suggests using his adopted children a decoy! Also, the bad guy kidnaps Billy's sister early and doesn't think of using her as bait to capture Billy until right at the end of the film.

Even the one thing that they seem to have put a bit of effort into - the gun-based action sequences - are bad. They're just boring and repetitive.

However, I learnt several interesting things from this movie:

1. Wherever this film is set, it is certainly a very cosmopolitan area. The lead character, who seems to have lived here all his life, has managed to pick up a South African accent. The evil gangsters all seem to sound Mexican and/or Asian. The women have an array of different, peculiar American accents. (Were the dubbing actors having bets on who could do most stupid voices?)

2. Being brutally machine-gunned down results in no more than slight bleeding from the mouth (and then only sometimes).

3. Any slight brush against a ninja's sword results in instantaneous death.

4. Ninjas, i.e. stealth assassins, wear Day-Glo padded suits. A headband with 'ninja' written on it is the current must-have ninja accessory.

5. Job prospects are poor for Asian ninjas nowadays. (You'd think Billy would have thought of that before going off to spend 10 years at Ninja School.) However, many of the causasian ones seem to have jobs that involve poncing about in glades.

6. When a ninja dies, a windchime somewhere falls down.

Nevertheless, this film is a hoot. I honestly can't decide if this it is really as bad this or if someone is taking the piss - especially with regards to the randomly interspersed ninja sequences and the godawful dubbing.

Thoroughly recommended.

Sleepers (1996)

Does it sound familiar?

[8/10 · 24 March 2003]

** Spoilers herein **

A bunch of inseparable kids growing up together are forced to go through a traumatic life-altering experience. After their ordeal they go their separate ways, lose touch and try to forget everything. Years later circumstances bring them back together and they are finally able to confront and conquer the demons of their past. They have one last get-together, reliving their times of innocence before parting company for ever and getting on with the rest of their lives.

Sounds a lot like Stephen King's It to me. Note also that one of the party never moved away and the group of friends are all boys, except for one girl

Escape from Monkey Island (2000 Video Game)

Thoroughly Enjoyable.

[14 March 2002]

I'd never played a Monkey Island game before playing this one but after finishing this game I wish I had.

I'm not a PC gamer, I'm a PlayStation guy. I bought this game for the PS2 (My understanding is that this version is virtually identical to the PC version.) The only games of this type that I had played before are the Broken Sword games for PS1 (which were also excellent) so I can only compare this to them.

Escape from Monkey Island (EMI) is a lot more lighthearted than Broken Sword 1 & 2 (BS1&2). Although there is an element of humour in the Broken Sword games this game is full of it. At times, BS1&2 became tedious, especially during the long, serious life stories of slow-talking characters. EMI is never like that. The conversations are not always short but they're always snappy and interesting.

Not having played a MI game before the whole "I wanna be pirate. Aargh!" sort of vibe was new to me. It was thoroughly infectious though. I loved the overall style of the game and the portrayal of the characters (which were superbly acted). This game is lot more madcap than BS1&2. You can carry a bizarre array of things around with you, all kept neatly in your pants, including a chest, a duck and a rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle!

In BS1&2 you could talk to any character about any object you carried and the character would respond with some relevant comment. Although this is realistic, from a gaming point of view it became tedious after a while because every time you picked up a new object or did something new you felt obliged (for completeness, and sometimes necessity) to ask everybody about it and every time you met a new person you felt you had to show him your whole inventory. The vast majority of the time you would just get some dull, useless comment. EMI goes to the opposite extreme where, in general, you cannot show an object to someone unless it is the solution of one of the puzzles in the game, even when it might seem relevant. For example, I pick up a note "to Herman" written by Jo-Jo Junior. Surely it's not unreasonable to show the note to Jo-Jo or Herman and have him comment on it. If I try to "use note with Jo-Jo" all I get is the standard "I don't think he'd like that" response. I think that somewhere between BS1&2 and EMI would be a better level of object/character interaction.

There were many in-references in this game that I missed out on not having play a MI game before. These included odd references and comments in the dialogue and also recurring characters such as Murray, Stan and Herman. Although I felt I missed out on some of the humour by not being able to identify with some of these references the game is completely self-contained and I didn't feel my progress through the game was hampered.

There were a few niggling technical annoyances in this game. You will often enter a doorway or exit point just by walking too near it. Very annoying given the loading times between areas. Especially when you walk into a room and accidently walk straight back out of it again. Also, as the camera angle changes, the new angle is sometimes from the opposite side. If, for example, you walk left to move to new a camera shot, in the next shot you may need to move right to continue in the same actual direction. But you're still holding left, which just moves you back to where you before. But you're still holding left so you move into the new area again. Etc. Etc. Ad nauseum. This is annoying but just a niggle.

Compared to BS1&2 this game seems very short. I wouldn't say it's any easier or harder but it just didn't take me very long to complete. Maybe this is because of the more succinct dialogue in this game. I don't know really.

Overall, I think I'd rather have a Monkey Island game than a Broken Sword game. Both are great games but I think this, along with other Monkey Island games I believe, is just more fun. And that's what it's all about.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

[3/10 · 7 March 2002]

I found this film hilarious from start to finish. It is so bad you can't help but be entertained by it.

I'm not going to repeat what many people have already said regarding what was bad about this film. What I would like to say is that this is not the worst film of all time. It is not even nearly the worst film of all time. Comparing this film to the likes of Plan 9 From Outer Space, The Creeping Terror and Santa Claus versus The Martians makes it look like a masterpiece.

The badness of this film works on another level. The problem is that this film obviously had a huge budget thrown at it. It had (some) excellent actors. Although this film is undoubtedly better than a hell of a lot of low-budget tripe, it is hilariously incomprehensible how with such money and talent somebody came up with this pile of decomposing tortoise guts. This film got a major cinema release for pity's sake! That is why this film is so entertaining. It just transcends the plane of ordinary mainstream suckitude. I've seen enough bad movies in my time and often enjoy them because they're so bad, but this is a bad movie with class! The Rolls Royce of bad movies, if you will.

Anyway, if you've not seen this film, go and watch it! It is truly a remarkable and landmark achievement in movie history.

Cinema Paradiso (1988)

Absolutely superb. But what about the director's cut?

[10/10 · 6 March 2002]

I completely adore this film. It probably has more depth of emotion then any film that I have ever seen. Period (as you Yanks say).

I'm not going to whitter on about the general stuff concerning this film. There are enough other reviews already here, most of which I agree with.

My comments concern the 160-odd minute "Director's Cut".

I remember taping and watching the original version on TV. A UK TV magazine picked it as 'film of the week' so I thought I'd tape it and watch it some time. I did tape it and although I was only half-heartedly interested in it before putting it on, by the end of the film I was in tears. A few weeks later I watched it again. The tears still came. This film was awesome.

I decided to buy it. But I looked for the DVD and there were two - the regular version and director's cut. I was skeptical about buying the director's cut. At 45-minutes-or-so longer it wasn't just the case of the odd scene added or extended, this was a different film. I went with the director's cut.

In a nutshell I was pleased with the new version. I'd say 85.6% of the new footage actually adds positively to the original film. There are a few 'new' scenes that make me think "Hmmm, why has this been added? It seems a bit pointless." But generally, the extra footage just adds to the depth of the original.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS...

Most of the added footage comes in the later part of the film. There are new some scenes when Salvatore is a teenager but most occur when he is an adult returning home. For example, there is a scene with Toto and Alfredo where we learn Toto's interpretation of Alfredo's story about the soldier who waited for 99 days. Most significantly, whilst Toto is at his home village for Alfredo's funeral he notices (sort of) and eventually meets back up with Elena. This scene is fantastic (barring a one-second camera shot in which the director loses his faith in himself (injustifiably) to put the viewer inside Salvatore's mind).

Like I said before, the director's cut adds to depth of the original 2-hour cut, particularly concerning Alfredo's character. This cut reveals Alfredo to be a much more eccentric and enigmatic character, especially where the relationship between him, Salvatore and Elena is concerned.

So, the original cut is superb and like many great films has a brilliant and uncannily apt and beautiful soundtrack. The director's cut is for the most part, even better. If you get the chance to see this film, you must see it. It's as simple as that.

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)

Yes and no...

[7/10 · 4 August 2001]

I found this a strange film to watch. Basically, there are two components to this film. The first is a character study of a hitman who follows the 'Way of the Samurai' and an interesting look at this ancient philosophy being followed in modern society. I found this part of film compelling viewing and Whitaker's sheer presence on the screen seemed to keep me interested. The direction was generally superb with great use of music and visuals.

The second component was the plot involving a bunch a gangsters. This was just plain awful and full of holes. The characters' actions were often incomprehensible and unjustified. It was just silly, as was a lot of the dialogue. The gangsters' acting was also laughable. They came across as completely unmenacing and inept and would seem more appropriate as villains in a Police Academy-type film.

Whilst watching this film I felt that there must be 2 directors at work - one directing the scenes with Forest Whitaker and another director for the other scenes.

However, for me at least, the good outweighed the bad and it was definitely worth my spending two hours and the rental fee.

Bats (1999)

Seen it all before.

[4/10 · 19 May 2001]

Well, killer bats attacking people. Says it all really. This is a completely mediocre, unexciting, unoriginal example of the normally-harmless-animals-eating-people genre.

The special effects are ropey by today's standards and with it actually being difficult to convincingly depict bats (or even sometimes just a single bat) savaging a human the camerawork uses frantic, in-your-face close-ups of flapping wings and biting teeth, jumping from shot to shot and not allowing you to see what's going on properly. This soon becomes irritating.

Unfortunately, mediocrity permeates every aspect of this film. The acting isn't great, but it's not awful. The same goes for the script. As a result, it doesn't even descend into the so-bad-it's-good category (although there are one or two laughably bad moments). The film doesn't take itself too seriously though and there are a few attempts at humour.

In summary: not very good but not the worst film you'll ever see and hence, probably not worth watching.