Change Your Image
merlinsk
Reviews
Smallville (2001)
Still stands up as one of the best Superhero shows ever made
It has been nearly twenty five years (Jesus!) since Smallville premiered and nearly fifteen since it's finalé and despite all that has come since it still holds up well. Yes, it's brighter - in tone and cinematography - and some of the early plots are simplistic, but what makes this show worthy of its reputation is the complexity of the characters development over the ten seasons and the development of the Superman mythology - some of which has been integrated into the main comic book canon.
The first season holds up the least well in my opinion. The teen-drama-Buffyesque monster of the week formula is now dated and the "oh no not another kid infected by meteor rocks" trope does get a little samey but, stick with it into season two and the writers start exploring Clark's alien background and origins and the mythology of the series starts to kick in and this is where Smallville finds its legs.
The series has questionable aspects like why is the twenty something Lex Luther hanging around with characters that are supposed to be 14 year old kids and clearly having a thing for Lana, who also at 14 manages to run a diner and carry on with school (she also later has a relationship with the school football coach) but, in a world where suspension of disbelief is key and like all other high school set series of the period the "kids" are clearly fully grown adults, these far fetched plot points don't really matter all that much. I suspect however that you won't find that kind of thing in a series made today without it being an intentional moral storyline. Times have changed in that respect.
One of the fun things to do while binge watching is to see how many times the Kent's red pick up gets crashed, blown up, sunk or otherwise destroyed and is miraculously back in top working order by the next episode... No wonder the Kent's have permanent money worries!
Basically this is a brilliant, fun, easy watch and sometimes, although I love the big budget complex serial dramas flooding out screens today I sometimes wonder if things are all getting a bit gloomy. One can have too much boobs, incest, gore and swearing... Sometimes it's nice just to sit back and be entertained without too much concentration. If you enjoy old school TV and light hearted entertainment you'll love Smallville!
And let's remember, without Smallville there would be no Arrowverse, no Agents of SHIELD, Daredevil, Jessica Jones... It was the success of Smallville showed superhero TV could be done without the cheese of Batman or Lois and Clark.
The Flash (2023)
A good film let down by poor CGI
Now let's get this out of the way, I never liked Ezra Miller as The Flash right from the start. He just never quite felt right in the role. This opinion was, and still is unrelated to what has emerged about Ezra's real life shenanigans. However, I warmed to Ezra's Flash in Zack Snyder's Justice League and he was still ok in the role in this movie too. The younger version was verging on annoying however, but I think that is somewhat intentional.
The story is clearly based loosely on DC Comic's Flashpoint and I do like how they have tackled it here. They manage to avoid a carbon copy of how the Arrowverse approached the same storyline and, even though the younger Barry is generally annoying I do like the dynamic between the two Barries. Let's face it, how many of us would probably find our eighteen year old selves worthy of a punch in the face?
The Easter eggs cannot fail to bring a smile to film and comic book geeks everywhere - the nod to Eric Stoltz, the 1989 Batmobile, Danny Elfmans score, George Reeves' Superman, Adam West's Batman. The appearance of a Superman that never existed - the Nic Cage/Tim Burton version - was a bit odd, but was certainly a nice nod to a truly alternate history.
It has to be said that seeing the late Christopher Reeve back on screen as Superman brought a tear to my eye. I think Henry Cavill is physically the closest to the comic book Superman, but having grown up with Christopher Reeve as Superman - a fitting tribute to a remarkable man who will ALWAYS be Superman.
Now to the downside. The CGI is bloody awful. Not always, the general CGI stands up ok but in the large set pieces it would be visibly lacking in a modern Netflix series. To give some benefit of the doubt I think that it is a case of trying to stretch the CGI budget too far rather than a lack of care however, in this day and age with a movie of this size, there is no excuse for it. The set piece at the beginning looks like Barry is trying to save a lot of dolls falling from the sky rather than babies and a scene that could have been truly harrowing becomes a farce. Later in the climactic battle, for some inexplicable reason there are conversations between the two Barries where the characters are full CGI, you are literally watching animated characters in a "live action" movie. They're just talking to each other... Why on earth are they CGI?? Hollywood has been doing conversations between two characters played by the same actor for decades, why do it with CGI and if you insist on doing it that way why not spend a proper amount of money to do it effectively? Marvel has almost seemlessly de-aged several actors, so has Martin Scorsese this mediocre level of CGI no longer goes unnoticed - it stands out as much as Ray Harryhausen stop motion but at least that has nostalgic charm.
Having said that, I did still enjoy this film. I do wish that DC/WB could just get their act together and do a DC film RIGHT. On the one hand you have this - ok but flawed and on the other you have The Batman and the Dark Knight Trilogy... Please solve this weird schizophrenia you seem to have with your DC properties! Maybe, just maybe with the new reboot they will.
Preacher (2016)
This is NOT Preacher, this is BASED on Preacher
I first watched this series a few years back when I bought the first season on DVD. I had never got round to reading the comic books, but I've always had a thing for the 'gun-toting preacher'/ avenging angel type movies so I thought I'd give it a go. I never got past the first season. Despite the subject being right up my alley (so to speak), it just didn't work for me. The lead actor lacked charisma which, having seen him in other things seems to just be his way, and he didn't seem the right casting for the character. Tulip suffered the same. The only saving grace was Cassidy bringing humour and unhinged menace that was almost the only thing worth watching. Low budget effects and a dislocated script put the final nails in its coffin.
Recently, having watched "The Boys" adapted from another Garth Ennis book that I absolutely love, and is true to the source material, I have begun reading the comic books (finally!) and they are genius. A complex, subversive plot, intelligent writing and dark, sometimes surreal humour. The Preacher of the comic is a hard, charismatic outsider with a very troubled past who you really don't want to get on the fighting side of. It's a road trip story - three misfits searching for God to kick His holy ass. Annville, the main location of the series features only in what amounts to the prologue, then they hit the road.
This series is NOT that, in anyway. This should have been in the same vein as "The Boys" if the essence of The Preacher was to work on screen but that essence is completely lost. Garth Ennis, despite his Producer credit surely can't have had much say in what went on screen - I can't believe he would have willingly let his story be bastardised in the way it was.
Now "The Boys" has faithfully, and successfully, adapted Ennis's work, maybe it's about time to revisit Preacher. And this time, for God's sake do it properly!!
Punisher: War Zone (2008)
A much better film than it's box office take suggests
I suspect this film was victim to the old (pre-Deadpool) rule of PG13 superhero movies being the only ones to bring a profit, even if it diluted the source material so much that the character's spirit was lost.
Punisher was, and is, a violent character - I remember my dad being extremely disapproving of my teenage self reading it due to its violence, and he isn't generally a prude.
The previous Punisher movies are both watered down for a more mainstream audience, but if Punisher fans want a movie that captures the grittiness, personal torment and sheer unadulterated vengeance meated out by Frank Castle then this is it!
The movie probably also suffered from poor marketing - I for one had never heard of it, I bought it as part of a double DVD box set with it's more well known predecessor and I was sceptical of what I perceived to be a straight-to-video b-movie barrel of pants. How wrong I was. It's less "Hollywood", more realistic, more violent, darker, grittier and morally murky - everything the character deserves.
The villains do suffer from the pre-MCU superhero movie tendency towards camp over-acted hamminess and the acting credentials of those portraying them suggests to me that this was a director driven decision rather than the actors personal choice and, given the overall grittiness of the film it does seem a little incongruous but when you consider this was the norm for this genre before Iron Man came along then it can be forgiven, as can the unnecessarily inept cop that seems to have been inserted as an attempt at a comedic character to lighten the mood and it is to Dash Mihok's credit that the character still remains likeable despite the Lt. Frank Drebin/Clouseau-esque material he was given to work with.
Fans of The Punisher comics should definitely see this movie, fans of the other Punisher movies should watch it to get a truer sense of the source material and Marvel should bring Frank Castle into a Deadpool movie to bring the character into the MCU movie arena rather than relegated to the Netflix series - the potential for a successful portrayal of the darkness and violence of Punisher in a post-Deadpool superhero universe is just waiting to be tapped. In the meantime - watch this.
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
I don't care what the haters say, I f*@#ing loved this!
I was 13/14 years old when I walked in to see the 15 rated Terminator 2 in '91 and honestly came out of the cinema a different person - I'd experienced nothing like it before. I bought the behind the scenes official magazine - the 90's version of DVD extras, the Marvel comic adaptation and the soundtrack and T2 remained my favourite film for the rest of the decade.
I've approached every sequel with a mix of excitement and trepidation that I might relive some the the feeling that I got from T2, and each time I've come away disappointed - T3 was abominable and remains the worst effort, Salvation came close to what I'd imagined as a sequel to T2, but lacked something and came across as a good sci-fi war film, but just didn't cut it as a Terminator movie and although Genysis had potential it was spoiled by the weird timeline plotholes.
Now, finally, Cameron is back and it shows!
People have complained that it's a rehash - it isn't. Yes, there are similarities, but there were similarities between The Terminator and T2 too - the truck chase is in both, the factory is in both, but those similarities didn't detract from the quality of the sequel and they don't here either. To me there was only one action set piece that was very familiar - the early truck chase, and so what? It's a signature set piece that let's you know its a Terminator movie! All the others are either original ideas, or, in the case of the REV9 flying a police chopper, significantly different. Let's face it, the Terminator films are chase movies, how many ways to chase down people are there?!
Granted, the REV9 is not as menacing as Robert Patrick's T1000, but it would take a miracle for anybody to get close to what is an almost perfect performance from Patrick, and despite some comments here, he is a worthy antagonist in a role that is tantamount to trying to play Hannibal Lecter in a post Anthony Hopkins world.
Much has been made of John Connor's death. It was the right decision. Skynet was gone. As far as Sarah and John were concerned it was over. Without his death, they would have led quiet lives - no military training, just John growing up as Mr Ninetofive, no longer the saviour of the human race and Sarah would have no need to be in this movie, she'd be throwing giant balls around in the care home instead of being a motivated Terminator hunter able to help the new leader of the resistance.
Which brings me to the backlash against this being a female led movie... So what? Its not a Ghostbusters type recast just for the sake of political correctness - Terminator had a strong female lead in 1984 for Christ's sake! John may have been destined to lead the resistance, but he'd have been nothing without the strength, resilience and determination of his mother. The whole franchise has been about the strong woman holding the destiny of the world in her hands, Sarah was the key to it all, and now Dani is the key to the new future, and good for her!
The aged T800 is also not a rehash of Genysis - Cameron suggested that idea for Genysis, and now brings how he saw the idea to fruition here. And it works. It even makes sense - we know the T800 can learn and feel an emotional connection to humans, we saw it with 'Uncle Bob' in T2, so it's perfectly acceptable that a surviving T800 would learn to assimilate. What else could he do? We know he can't "self terminate" so he carries out the ultimate infiltration.
Finally, after 29 years, a Terminator sequel I could come away from with a smile on my face having regained a little of that same feeling my 14 year old self felt all those years ago.
The script is excellent and is convincing when so many time travel scripts fail, the acting is quality, apart from a wooden Linda Hamilton but that is no surprise and is bearable. The de-aging of Sarah and John is astounding, it will take your breath away, but for some reason the de-aging of Arnie doesn't quite convince somehow and the CGI pretty much remains that way all through - sometimes excellent, sometimes seeing the join - which is a shame considering T2 was a pioneer of CGI techniques.
It's a shame that this didn't take at the box office which sadly probably means that there won't be further chapters. I for one am gutted about that.
This movie does not deserve the vitriol aimed at it here , I hope it isn't motivated by the right-wing anti-#metoo, anti-PC, anti-'anybody but Americans being involved in Hollywood movies' crowd, but sadly I think it may just be the case...
Ignore the reviews, including mine - they're all just opinions after all - go see this movie, watch it with an open mind. You never know, you may just be transported back to the 90's just like me!
Joker (2019)
Brilliant. How DC movies SHOULD be made!
Believe the hype! Believe the Oscars! A brilliantly written, acted and shot psychological drama showing the descent of a sad, lonely, mentally troubled man into complete and utter insanity that just happens to be a comic book character. Perfect.
Would love to see sequels featuring Batman through the eyes of Arthur Fleck. Let's turn the genre on it's head and see the hero as the 'villain' of the piece through the troubled mind of the 'hero'!
Outlaw King (2018)
A damn fine attempt at making an accurate historical Scottish epic.... And no tartan in sight!
Now let's get this straight right of the bat, Braveheart was a bloody good film. Criminally inaccurate, but bloody good nonetheless.
This film tries to do the same while sticking (mostly) to the facts. People should remember, a movie is for entertainment, if you want 100% accuracy go see a documentary. A historical movie will always take some liberties to aid pace or dramatic effect so always watch with a suspension of disbelief and, in the opinion of an historian, if a movie inspires you to research a subject, if only to find out the inaccuracies, then some success has been had.
Secondly I'd like to say to all those who've complained about the behaviour of the English - burning, raping, killing women and children - well, read some history, we did all of that and more in Scotland. And Ireland. And India. And North America. Anywhere, in fact, that our colonial foot trod. The last incidences of (by then, British) atrocities on our "colonial subjects" was in 1950s Kenya! The Union Flag is indeed the "Bloody Rag"! Patriotism is a good thing, blind patriotism is dangerous, something our American friends could learn too.
Anyway, this film is as accurate as possible though does contain a few small issues - one of which happens in EVERY historical movie involving British royalty, the use of "Your Majesty". This form of address never happened before Henry VIII, it was always "Your Grace" or "My Lord" - these are however understandable and certainly do not detract.
There are some issues at establishing characters. Other than, The Bruce, the two Edwards, the Black Douglas, Angus Mac Donald and Elizabeth, I found myself not knowing who people were even to the point of the death of a character in the final battle who seems important to The Bruce but I didn't really know why.
The pace of the film is just right, the cinematography is just fantastic, helped by locations actually IN Scotland and the script is well done. I found the bald guy's acting poor but he was alone in that and Chris Pine's accent (at least, to an Englishman) seemed spot on, though I do wish they'd used a real Scot for the part but movies are forever using Americans doing (sometimes awful) British accents in lead roles so I guess it's just a marketing thing.
Overall a damn fine movie. Keep doing what you're doing Netflix and you may find yourselves the biggest shake up of the movie industry since colour film!
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
Not a film for GI JOE fans!
If this was any old action flick it would be good, and if you were not a fan of the 80s GI JOE (or Action Force in Europe) comics and cartoons you will probably thoroughly enjoy this film.
The problem is this is marketed as a GI Joe movie, yet the filmmakers for whatever reasons, have pretty much completely disregarded the existing mythology, thereby alienating a large core fan base. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me!
If the above paragraph seems petty to you, imagine some other examples; if the MCU had made Thor a Greek God instead of Norse, Iron Man a robot instead of a man in armour and the Hulk an alien, would the movies have been so successful? What if the rebooted Dr. Who had been made into a human mad scientist whose TARDIS was a dumpster? Or if in JJ Abram's Trek, Spock was Klingon? Answer to all, you just wouldn't do it!
Yes, reboots play with, and tweak the existing mythologies which does in fact often improve things, franchises have to evolve to stay relevant, but there is tweaking and there's bastardising. So much has changed in this movie that it is no longer the GI Joe that the fans loved.
I was, like many of those old enough to remember eagerly awaiting the arrival of the comic, thoroughly disappointed.
Just a comment to those who have made an issue of the multicultural nature of the Joes here taking away from the "Real American Hero", well in the UK GI JOE was "Action Force, International Heroes" because in Europe we're sensible enough to know that America never saves the world alone, her successful wars are when she has allies (even the Revolutionary War before I get any "Well we whupped your ass Limey" comments) 😉. Anyway I can only assume that Hasbro were sensible enough to realise that the movie would be more successful internationally if the team was, in fact, international as was Action Force.
Finally, what the hell is with the lips on Snake Eyes mask??
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
A good film, but a tad pretentious
Leonard Nimoy said about this film in 2012: "I think (Robert Wise) and Gene Roddenberry were looking for a (2001: A) Space Odyssey kind of thing, like (Stanley) Kubrick had done. A cold, cool "we're out here in space and it's kind of quiet and things move very slowly." (Laughs). There was a lot of that and a lot of cerebral stuff. There wasn't enough drama."
That pretty much sums up my opinion of this movie.
The "Space Odyssey" influences are clear, the long lingering shots of the Enterprise when the crew board and again when the ship leaves space dock. The protracted shots of the V'GER cloud intercut with reaction shots of the crew on initial contact and when they're entering the cloud, and most obviously when Spock is space-walking to 'meet' V'GER which is a blatant theft from "2001".
This movie started life as a pilot episode - "In Thy Image" - for a planned TV series to be named Star Trek: Phase II. The script was reworked to become a big screen feature. This is one area where the film suffers. It feels like an extended episode of the original series filled out with extended big budget effects shots and without the humour and spirit of the series on which it was based.
Gene Roddenberry considered Star Trek to be more intelligent than Star Wars and insisted this film be an expression of that. Trouble is, in trying to distance itself from Star Wars it takes all soul from the movie. This a crew that should be a Band of Brothers yet there is no cameraderie, no gentle jibes or teasing... no humour whatsoever. It's all very clinical and business-like and anybody who has worked in high risk/dangerous jobs will tell you that this is just not realistic, and also not in the spirit of the original Star Trek series.
The set design is very '70's' - a lot of shades of beige, which sadly dates the look. The same for the uniforms (which were hated by the cast, hence the new red uniforms in the sequels), which also suffer from the 70's beige "Battlestar Galactica" feel.
Lastly this movie suffers from the same problem the original series and the first two series of The Next Generation series did - Gene Roddenberry. *Hears a muffled murmur of "blasphemy!" from hardcore Trekkies*. Roddenberry deserves praise for getting the series and the movies into fruition but... now here's the slam dunk... he was an ideas man - a good ideas man - he just wasn't very good at implementing those ideas, but like a dictator, ignored advice from those who (possibly) knew better. Roddenberry was forced out of creative control for the sequel... which was, and is still the best Star Trek movie. I think that says it all sadly.
Having said all of that, this is NOT a bad film. It is an experiment that didn't quite work and was acknowledged by the cast and crew and a different tack was taken for the sequel. The visual effects are impressive, though do look a little dated in places but they must have been stunning in their day and aren't distracting. The crowning glory of this movie though is the score by Jerry Goldsmith - I can't find the words to describe how good it is and he was frankly cheated by the Academy in a fit of petty pique on their part, which is a crime!
If you're a Trekkie you have probably seen this anyway and have your own opinion, if you're new to the Trek films watch this one last, wait til you've established if you're a fan or not because this may, and only MAY, put you off... and we wouldn't want that!
This film is good but not nearly perfect, but hey, it kept the franchise alive and it's still going strong 40 years later... that's a reason to watch this film if no other!
Unstoppable (2010)
A fine epitaph to Tony Scott's career!
With the engineer who stopped the real runaway train this story is based on (whose daughters actually did work at Hooters!) as technical advisor, and action film maestro Tony Scott at the helm in his last film we're set for just under 100 minutes of damn fine non-stop adreneline fuelled entertainment.
The tension rises within ten minutes and continues to rise steadily to it's crescendo. The adreneline really doesn't stop flowing until the end of the movie and Tony Scott doesn't let it break for a second.
Denzel and Chris Pine's naturalistic acting styles convince you are watching ordinary blue collar railroad men at work. Their small talk and bickering performed in a realistic documentary style which is ordinary and everyday, but never boring. The hand held camera work can be a tad over the top in places for me but does ramp up the tension and realism as is obviously intended.
I personally own over 400 movies and have seen many more than that in my time, and it has to be said, that this is quite honestly one of the best, most entertaining films I have ever seen of any genre. A must have for everybody's collection!
Merlin (2008)
Perfect family viewing
I watched this first time round on BBC religiously every Saturday night until night shifts got in the way. Re-watching now on DVD, my enjoyment has not diminished.
The essence of legend is that each re-telling takes elements from the previous iteration, adding characters, changing scenarios and redressing the tale into something relevant to the time.
Geoffrey of Monmouth created the tale by taking Welsh oral stories contained in the Mabinogion of a great warrior who fought off dragons and other supernatural beings and added most of the elements we know today, including the creation of Merlin from stories of two historical figures. Chretiens de Troyes later added the quest for the Holy Grail into the mix and played with the narrative to suit his time and readership and those that have followed have done the same.
Those reviewers here who complain of inaccuracies miss the point. There is no such thing in legends. Legends by definition are dynamic and always evolving to be relevant to the time. As for historical inaccuracies... are they talking about inaccuracies to the 5th century Welsh settings of the original tales, the early medieval setting of Geoffrey of Monmouth, late medieval of Chretiens de Troyes or the 15th century of Thomas Malory?? There can be no historical inaccuracies when something is NOT historical! The theme of chivalrous armoured knights jousting is not accurate to the time period of Arthur (5th century), but it's never stopped any depiction before, and so what? We're not telling of Alfred the Great... this is the Once and Future King, the origin and epitome of Myth and Magic!
As for those who don't think dragons and mythical beasts have a place here, read the tales in the Mabinogion!
Here we have a series telling the story for the 21st century audience. Yes, the scripts can be naive at times - when youngsters are a large part of the target audience it is to be expected... look at Dr. Who. Yes, the CGI does suffer from limited UK television budgets but that only adds to the charm in the same way as the old stop-motion stuff in Sinbad movies. As far as I'm concerned it's limitations add the the charm of this series - it's a good old fashioned family adventure fantasy series that began just before Game of Thrones came along with it's gritty pseudo-realism and, having seen GoT's influence in series like Vikings and The Last Kingdom et al, Merlin may just be this style of fantasy series' swansong, and that would be a shame. Amidst all the grittiness, there should always be a place for good old wholesome fun!
Jericho (2016)
No. Just no.
I have written several reviews here and Jericho is the first warranting one star!
If the writers had concentrated on creating a period drama set during the era of British railway building of the late mid-late 19th century they could've had a Poldark style hit on their hands but no, oddly they tried to turn it into a Yorkshire western!??
Ripper Street proves that a 'western' set in Britain's 19th century CAN work without absurd glaring anachronisms. Did the writers/producers of Jericho not learn that there is a huge difference between anachronism and artistic licence? I'm sorry, but you just can't suspend disbelief and I suspect I was not the only one with this view as the series quietly disappeared after the first season.
If you want a British western watch Ripper Street. If you want a railway building western watch Hell On Wheels. Just DON'T watch Jericho!
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
Oh dear!
Thankfully I didn't buy this film, I inherited it among many other dvds from my step father.
If you enjoy watching men in plastic armour fighting men in rubber orc suits then this is the film for you.
If you like hearing pseudo medieval English spoken in American accents then this is the film for you.
If you enjoy watching an entire cast that is completely miscast then this is the film for you.
If you don't enjoy any of the above, don't watch this. In fact stay far, far away!
World Without End (2012)
Don't believe the haters this is a worthy adaptation
Sadly many reviewers are unable to accept that this is an adaptation - meaning it is not a word for word conversion of the book, it has been adapted for the different medium of film. Remember the furore over the removal of Tom Bombadil from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings?
I have read and thoroughly enjoyed all three Kingsbridge novels and the same can be said of the Pillars series. Yes there have been changes made here, more than for Pillars, and during the first episode it was difficult for me to get past them but that was soon forgotten and saw this for the enjoyable historical epic that it is.
All the plot threads from the book are here, though there course doesn't necessarily always flow in the same direction, the destination remains the same.
There is the same quality of acting, effects and cinematography as it's predecessor and it is safe to say if you enjoyed Pillars of the Earth you will enjoy this series too.
If you have read the books approach this with an open mind. Despite the haters this IS still the World Without End you know and love.
Thoroughly enjoyable piece. Worthy successor to Pillars. I wait in hope for the adaptation of Column of Fire.
I would rate this 8/10 but to add some balance to the previous unfair biased reviews I have rated 10/10.
Hickok (2017)
NOT the infamous true story of Wild Bill Hickok!
Don't be fooled by the tag line, this is only very loosely based on truth. Considering the colourful life Hickok led, and his well known narcissism one wonders why they felt the need for so much 'artistic licence'.
Firstly when a movie brands itself as truth, to omit the well known long hair of the main protagonist it is automatically going to have a large proportion of its market constantly niggled by the fact. If this was the 50s when movie stars hardly ever changed their look it would be acceptable but not in 2017. It just stinks of laziness.
That laziness seems to have spread to the actors who all deliver their lines as if bored by the experience. The exception is Dern who manages to conjour enthusiasm that is missing from everyone else, and I excuse Kristofferson who makes a valiant attempt despite his ongoing treatment for Lyme Disease.
A fairly pointless love interest is introduced to create conflict between Hickok and Pope but one wonders why when the true reason for the antagonism between the two men would have been both sufficient and humorous - Pope painted a Bulls penis on the side of his saloon, the town didn't like it, Hickok's request that it be removed was ignored so Hickok removed it himself and that was enough to set the animosity off - the large egos of two stubborn characters!
The music reminded me of a wild west video game, as did some of the dialogue - if the script is poor it's unsurprising the delivery becomes as wooden as the town. And that leads me to the sets. One word. Cheap. The sets combined with the lighting and cinematography just give this the look of a TV movie, you half expect Doctor Quinn to turn up.
Yes, it is a B movie so we shouldn't expect too much but frankly there are some bloody good B westerns so there's no excuse for ones like this that give westerns a bad reputation. It beats me why studios still churn out tosh like this in this day and age. Disappointing.
Rampage (2018)
A fun nonsense action flick based on a fun nonsense arcade game
Rampage (the game) was a simple premise - play as a giant monster and smash buildings (and my favourite arcade game as a preteen kid!). Rampage (the movie) is what you'd expect from an adaption of such a simple premise. It's never going to win an Oscar but if you want two hours of sheer unadulterated pure entertainment then see this movie!
Unlike most muscle-bound action stars the Rock can act, again I doubt he'll ever get an oscar but he enjoys making fun nonsensical action movies and he does it well.
Where this film excels is by not taking itself seriously - it knows it's ridiculous and relishes the fact. Full of almost every cliché you can think of, full of mindless destruction and full of just the right amount of humour. Perhaps surprisingly you may get a lump in your throat now and then too.
Hands down THE best movie based on a video game (not a high bar I know, and the recent Tomb Raider is a close second) and up there with the best action movies too.
Sit down, grab a coke or beer, forget reality, forget rationality and sit down for two hours of sheer bloody fun!!
Warcraft (2016)
Not sure if I watched a film or the actual video game
Firstly, I've not played Warcraft so unlike most reviewers here giving glowing reviews, I am unbiased.
The first problem I have is that for the first half hour I had no idea what the bloody hell was going on! There was a small voice over explaining that a war had been going on for a long time but that was it, if like me you are unfamiliar with the world you'll be none the wiser. Having said that after the initial confusion I did get the gist enough to enjoy the story as the film progressed.
Secondly, there is very little character development and I found it very hard to sympathise with the human characters, I didn't really care if they lived or died. Conversely the Orc's development worked well and because of this I found myself siding with the characters that were technically the bad guys.
Now, the biggy... there is so much CGI. Admittedly on the most part at least, it is unquestionably well done but I would say that for three quarters of the movie the only real things on screen are the human actors. It makes me question if this is a live action movie or an animated movie with human characters inserted. What's more it's unnecessary - LOTR managed a 12 hour trilogy with convincing Orcs in prosthetics. The Orcs size here could have been augmented with CGI of course, and the fantasy landscapes needn't have been full CGI either. The film suffers because of a 'CGI it because we can mentality. Thing is though, the non-CGI sets looked like they were lifted from an Erroll Flynn Robin Hood movie of the 1940s with obvious Styrofoam castle walls that screamed cheap. Not enough money left after paying the techies for their pixel magic maybe?
Then we come to the actors. Don't get me wrong the acting is fine though they do suffer from a script full of quasi-medieval English (I half expected a "forsooth" or a "wherefore art"), but the casting people just seem to have raided every popular TV series going without casting a single A list star save for a pointless cameo from Glenn Close. Maybe after investing in the sets they should've diverted some CGI budget into casting?
So, yes, I have a few problems with the film but it has to be said I enjoyed it. Once I figured out what was going on I got into it. The story is pretty good and benefits from not being a typical 'humans good, other species bad' fantasy film with half the focus (and better development) given to 'the bad guys'. Travis Fimmel does seem to be playing Ragnar Lothbrök without the accent but it's not a huge issue. I don't think it counts as a spoiler to say that they're clearly setting up a sequel at the end, and I will give it a watch.
An average fantasy movie that does have many faults but there is hope that this could develop into an enjoyable franchise.
Battle of Britain (1969)
A movie ALL Americans need to watch!
Americans often say to us Brits "Well, we saved your asses in the war!" Well here's a movie that shows that whilst the US did later help us save Europe, we had saved our own arses 18 months before Pearl Harbor, thank you very much. Having said that, it's a shame that 52% that voted Brexit seem to have forgotten that we couldn't have done it without the crucial help of the Polish/Czech refugee airmen flying in RAF uniform.
A well made, well researched, historically accurate (apart from the lack of Hawker Hurricanes - a purely logistical issue due to lack of surviving examples in 1969) war film in the vein of The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far with possibly the best depiction of WWII aerial combat ever put on film. This film should have pride of place in all movie buff's collections.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Not perfect, but a worthy addition to the Indy saga.
Now let's counter two main criticisms of this movie straight off the bat.... 1. The fridge; the focus on the fridge scene has been compared to "Jumping the Shark". Unfair. Is surviving a nuclear explosion in a 50's fridge really anymore unbelievable than freefalling from a plane in a rubber lifeboat? 2. Aliens; so what?! Is it more unbelievable than the Ark spouting spirits and melting Nazi faces or the Grail giving eternal life? Answer to both questions is no. All of Indy's adventures need a good helping of suspension of disbelief. When you're basing something on Republic Pictures Serials, that is exactly the point, believability comes second to action, adventure, thrills and spills.
Now to my only criticism... the CGI. Now I'm not against CGI but I personally think that Lucas and Spielberg should've stuck to old school practical and photographic effects in the vein of the original trilogy. Yes it would've looked dated and clunky but that would've fitted nicely into the Republic Pictures Serials tribute that the Indy movies are. Yes a big chunk of the jungle DUKW chase wouldn't have been possible but my feeling is that it would've been more exciting to know that stuntmen are really carrying out some derring-do - like the famous 'dragged under the truck' scene - rather than knowing Shia and Harrison are stood on boxes covered in green blankets! An old school movie should use old school techniques so that it looks old school.
That criticism out of the way let's review this by list - the Indy films listed best to worst:
1. Last Crusade
2. Raiders
3. Kingdom
4. Doom
Forget reality for a couple hours. Watch it. Enjoy it.
Even better, re-watch the other three first and make a night of it!
London Has Fallen (2016)
Up there with Under Siege 2 and Speed 2... no that's not a compliment!
Olympus has Fallen, like Under Siege was a new twist on the Die Hard theme - one man against terrorists in a confined space. And it worked very well. London Has Fallen, like Under Siege 2 is a waste of space!
I loved Olympus Has Fallen and this being the case I was looking forward to its sequel with anticipation since it was first announced. Also, as a British person, the chance to see an action film set in London was an attraction in itself.
How disappointed I was!
Now, this is an action film I know but disbelief cannot be suspended far enough. There has clearly been no research carried out on security procedures, state occasions, British chain of command or anything else really. It screams laziness on the part of script writers and producers, one of which was star Gerard Butler who is British.... shame on you for not having the balls to point out glaring cultural errors that verge on racism!
Don't get me wrong, my beef isn't just with the usual American "Jolly hockey sticks" Downton Abbey view of British people, to be fair all of the Heads of State equally suffer from racist stereotyping. My biggest gripe is that its just not believable.
Are we supposed to believe that the terrorists would be able to plan for the Japanese Prime Minister getting stuck in a traffic jam on a bridge? Are we supposed to believe that the terrorists knew the Italian President would decide to have an illicit encounter with his mistress, unguarded, on the roof of Westminster Abbey? Are we supposed to believe that terrorists would be able to not just infiltrate a regiment of Guards, but be able to work it so they were not only in the same regiment, but the same platoon.... every soldier in the platoon was a terrorist I might add... and then, that platoon of terrorists hiding in plain sight in the British Army manage to be on duty in Buckingham Palace on the right day, at the right time to shoot an Angela Merkel clone who stands unguarded with her back to the public standing yards away??!! Oh... and it also seems the entire Metropolitan Police Service are terrorists too! Who came up with this shit?
You don't have to be ex military as I am to know that the simplest plan is always the most effective. At the time all this is happening the US President is entering St Pauls Cathedral for the funeral that everybody should be attending instead of galavanting around London. Why didn't the writers use common sense and place all the leaders where they were supposed to be, in the cathedral attending the funeral, and then blow the place up?
We're supposed to believe the terrorists orchestrated the death of the Prime Minister to get the world leaders together but then kill them in separate attacks across London instead of the one place they can be certain everyone will be. The blowing up of St Paul Cathedral, a building that survived the blitz when everything around it was flattened, a symbol of British resilience and resistance, would have been spectacular and as heart rending to Brits as the destruction of the White House would be to Americans. But no. The powers that be wanted to destroy or damage as many landmarks as possible so worked the plot around the effects set pieces.
That in essence is the problem. Even in a popcorn action flick the plot needs to be the reason for the action, not the action being the reason for a plot.
Sadly, this film has tarnished my liking of Olympus Has Fallen, and if there is a sequel? Nope. Sorry. No way!