Change Your Image
KelticKarma
Reviews
Dog Soldiers (2002)
Army Pants
MINOR SPOILERS
This film is a very good example of why a lot of British films are not taken seriously outside the UK.
What we have here is a mish-mash of "American Werewolf in London", "Predator", "Alien", "Blair Witch", and "Way out West". And it just doesn't work, sorry.
A team of RADA (Posh English Acting School) rejects are dropped into the Highlands of Scotland (pretending) to be soldiers on an exercise. These (pretend) soldiers have no radio or medic (!), are apparently equipped with no live ammo (as is standard on a Trainer), and they have no night-sights. Big mistake - the director's that is, not theirs.
Now things get interesting. We leave the nice aerial shots of the real Scottish Highlands behind, to be replaced by what is obviously an English Woodland Park. The director has to save money, you shout ! Well, fair enough, but aren't we paying him ?
Then things get really scary. No, not the plot, which is as predictable as rain on Friday. At their first camp, a dead cow is slung at them. Private Hardman takes a look at it and says "those aren't entry wounds, they're claw marks". You would expect some perturbation at this stage from the poor RADA squaddies, but no; instead they decide to bed down for the night, with no further examination of just WHY a dead cow has been thrown on their campfire. No guards posted, no search of the area. This level of reality is relentlessly pursued throughout
You may now say to me, well, this is billed as a thriller, and also a "black comedy" - wasn't this scene meant to be comedic ? NO. The words "black comedy" are overused in British film. They are employed to fight off criticism of this type, which says "This film is no good", by impliedly responding "well, it was meant to be funny". Think of pulling the chair away as your Granny sits down to her birthday lunch - you get the idea. There was nothing intentionally funny about this disaster.
And the film just goes from bad to worse.
No-one thinks to ask just what manner of beings the attacking creatures are, none of the RADA misfits seems to be in the least surprised to be under attack from other RADA misfit "werewolves" (in the worst costumes you've seen since the Muppets); there is no surprise when they are rescued by a bonny lassie (with a nice English RADA accent) and taken to a ........ wait for it.... deserted farmhouse.
Need I say more ? I hope not. I think we all grasped the plot within three seconds.
What really annoyed me about this film is this; I didn't expect to see a Schmoozeberg movie, with high production values, good acting, believable interaction between the "actors" etc, but what I DID expect to see was a good comedy take on the films I mentioned above. This is how the film was advertised, and advertised very strongly, I might add.
There is not one intentional comedy moment within this sad film. However, there are many unintentional laughs, to be derived from:
(i) the acting: just watch it, you'll know what I mean (ii) the direction: even worse than Guy Ritchie -no suspense whatsoever (iii) the plot: ??? (iv) the people conned into investing in this howler.
So inspired was I by this film, that I have arranged that my mates and I are going to do a remake. We have bought some sheepskin rugs, red felt-tip pens, and old army surplus gear.
Bet we make a better film !!
British cinema deserves better than this.
1/10
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A bit slow in parts ??
Before I annoy all the Kubrickites out there, I had better say that I did enjoy this film. I thought the concepts behind the film were great, and very involving. And I do own the film, and watch it every six months or so.
BUT, it is too slow-paced. I'm sorry, but it is. And I believe that it is so slow-paced because it was made in an era which welcomed that sort of thing. Acid, dope etc.
Take for example the scene where the stewardess walks around the hub to the entrance she requires..... back in Stanley's time, the cinematography must have stood out as something truly amazing. Today, we look at that scene as a 1.30 minute extravagance. Likewise with many other scenes in this film. Most importantly, I feel that the final approach to Jupiter is nothing more than a spaced out trip, too long and overdone.
As I said at the outset, I still regard this film as a great film. It makes us think about the space outside Earth, and what may lie beyond there - is it just ourselves ?
BUT - I feel that it is dated and showy, and could have achieved it's aims in half the time. Sorry.
Swept Away (2002)
Ignore the reviews from Plants
I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB.
The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.
Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?
Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.
Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.
Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.
Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Nice concept, poor execution
Thought Haley J Osment was very good in this film. He IS a mecha !
The idea of the Blue Fairy was always an excellent one - who hasn't wanted to meet a Blue Fairy themselves ?
I thought that the first half of this film was excellent - the gradual absorption, then rejection of HJO, the distress of his "mother" etc..
But then Schmoozeberg ruins it all again. Why the spindly aliens ? Could he have been MORE heavy-handed with their depiction ?
While I appreciate that Phillip K Dick wrote the aliens in, I think he would have been mortified to see the kind of post-ET/3rd Encounters nonsense Schmoozeberg made of his book.
Could have done better - 6/10
Mute Witness (1995)
Pleasantly Surprised
I'm ashamed to admit that I had never heard of this film until tonight, when I rolled in from the pub and turned the telly on.
Great entertainment !
Reviewers below have done a very good job of writing this film up, so I won't attempt to do it again.
It is not a particularly scary film, but it does contain moments of great suspense. I agree with the reviewer who pointed out the parallels between this film and "Spiral Staircase" - a classic "mute woman under threat" film.
Okay, I admit it, I'm a sucker for women who can't speak. LOL.
Seriously, this film was great fun. But not a classic; I felt that the director tried just a little TOO hard to put in a few twists. Scrub that - a lot of twists ! So 7/10.
Try to see it if you can - you will be pleasantly surprised, a lot!
Starship Troopers (1997)
Its AFRAID !!
One of my favourite films, this one.
I love the way Verhoeven approached the idea of Man v Beast. Our "heros" are beautiful, white-teethed Americans, firm of body and morals; our villains are decapitating stick insects, cockroaches, and giant maggots.
Yet who are the real heroes ?
The white-teethed Americans are vacuous, shallow thugs. They are thrust into a war with the Bugs, whose planets, we are told, have been invaded by the Americans. The Bugs are justifiably annoyed.
I couldn't help but laugh at some of the "Nazi" parallels drawn by other reviewers. What Verhoeven is putting across in this film is not a polemic against Nazi ideology, but an attack upon American Imperialism in the latter part of the last century. He is satirising American crusades against other countries, whose inhabitants are portrayed in the American press as no better than Bugs.
Had Verhoeven wished to attack Nazism, he could have given the good guys German accents; he didn't, he gave them American accents. The "Nazi" symbolism as commented upon by other reviewers is not Nazi symbolism at all - it is totalitarian symbolism, full stop. It is right-wing, "bomb them back to the stone age" American totalitarianism.
Why do I believe this ?
Check out the scene where American kids are encouraged to stamp on cockroaches by an overly excited parent. Check out the high fives.
Verhoeven has done a mighty job here. He has made a film which has great action, great cinematography, very cute women (and boys) and yet the film still manages to take the mickey out of the New Order in a very funny and effective manner.
10/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Excellent film
How could anyone dislike this film ?
The Hobbits were great. Anyone with hairy feet has my vote.
And the Elves have nice big ears.
This film sounds a clarion call for all those whose physical characteristics do not conform to the norm.
Too cool for school.
Charlotte Gray (2001)
Mills et Boon
I won't mince my words. This is a poorly put together chick flick, a glammed-up, (should have been) straight-to-video potboiler.
Here's what I believe the director thought:
(1) France looks nice - lets make a picture there (2) Cate Blanchett looks nice - lets put her in France (3) Berets are back in fashion - lets put Cate Blanchett in a beret, in France (4) Hmm.. maybe too nice so far. Lets have some Germans in there, they're not nice. (5) "Crudup" is a great name - lets have him in France, with Cate Blanchett, and her beret. (6) Lets rock !!
Heres what I thought:
(1) Cate Blanchett does look stunning throughout this film, and can certainly wear a beret. (2) It is completely preposterous to have her speak in a Scottish accent prior to her going to France, and in an English accent when she gets there. When she is supposed to be speaking fluent French. (3) Cate appears to have been sent into France by the British with no particular aim in mind. She wombles about, messing everything up, and appears to be completely superfluous; there is not one thing she does for the War effort which could not have been performed just as efficiently by a half-trained monkey - in a beret, of course. (4) Crudup, the heroic Maquis, is just about the most lamebrained person you could hope to meet. He spends a lot of his time shouting at Germans, which I would presume from my knowledge of goings-on in France at that time, is not the best way to remain incognito. (5) The Plot is awful. Yet again the Hollywood-pleasing formula of "Poor Old Jews + Bad Old Germans" is trotted out. Nothing new, cliche follows cliche. Oh, but we now have Bad French too. Big Deal.
This really is a laughably bad film. But it is more than that, it is insulting to the memory of those brave men and women who went into France during the War serving with SOE.
Forget this nonsense. If you want to know what really happened in France during the WW2, rent "Carve Her Name With Pride", the story of Violet Szabo, a real SOE operative.
Schindler's List (1993)
Doesn't stand the test of time
Is it possible for Spielberg to make a film that isn't horrendously mawkish ? Can someone please turn off his sentimentality button ?
Viewed nearly ten years after its making, this film's sole purpose of letting the world know how guilty we all should feel about the holocaust only serves to point up the horrors of the ongoing Israeli occupations in Palestine.
I really don't feel that this is a particularly good film besides that.
Ben Kingsley is insufferable, Ralph Fiennes hams it up, Liam Neeson sounds like The Count from Sesame Street.
Spielberg has stated that he set out to make a memorial to the suffering of his people, and he has done a pretty good job of that. Unfortunately, his undoubted talents lie in the field of fantasy, not reality, and this self-indulgent polemic will not earn him his place in history.
The Others (2001)
Watch it twice...
I really loved this film.
In "unbiased observer" mode first of all, the things that most stood out for me were the performances of the two children; I felt that they were given great lines (credit to the writer, of course) and, most importantly, they delivered them so well. The relationship between the children was very real, teasing and loving by turns. Haley J Osment, look and learn !
Kidman did a great job on the accent. I had the misfortune to watch Jodie Foster try her posh English accent out in "Anna & The King" the night before, and I can tell you now, being a great actress (as Jodie is) does not automatically endow one with the gift of tongues.
A lot of things didn't sit right with me when first I saw this film. I couldn't work out the reason for the animosity between Kidman's character and her daughter Anne, and between Kidman and the "sinister" servants. This is why I say watch this film twice. Although the ending resolves all issues, there are so many subtle nuances in the interactions between the characters prior to this that are very easy to miss the first time around. And make so much sense on a second viewing.
-SPOILERS (if you haven't seen this film yet - shame on you !)-
I know there are people who have posted here who have said they worked out all the plot within five minutes. I find this hard to believe. I am a fairly intelligent person, I watch a lot of films, and I must say that I was taken in.
I can't accept the verdict of other posters that this film was a rip-off of Sixth Sesne either. Yes, SS was a very good film too, but not nearly in the same league as Others. Sure, you have the same base ingredient - people who are unaware they are dead - but I would always have put SS into the same league as "Ghost". The Others is much deeper, in that Kidmans character is an infanticide, and unaware of this horror; she plays the role perfectly, so protective of the children she herself killed. The sinister servants turn out to be helpers, subtly guiding her and the children to a realisation of their state; this latter strand put me in mind of the chiropodist/angel from "Jacobs Ladder".
I could go on and on, but won't.
I think that how one was brought up plays a great role in how one views a story like this. Some people go to see a horror film hoping to see CGI ghosts leaping from cellars. What these people are really after is gore, and would be much more satisfied with Russ Meyers' movies.
What really got me about this film (and this is where the "biased" observer part comes in) is the memories I retain from my own childhood. When I was in my very early teens, my parents took me to stay in a house which was very similar to the one featured in this film. It was an old Manor House, in the grandest of Anglo-Irish traditions, with few guests, and few servants. One evening, I went to the top of the house, and found a small doorway just adjacent to what would, I think, have been the servant's quarters at the turn of the last Century. Going in, I found before me an attic corridor stretching ahead for some distance - this was a big house ! Being in the eaves, the roof was just above my head, and all was painted pure white. There were four rooms to the left, and four to the right. The place was clean, and tidy, but obviously hadn't been occupied for a long time. Each room was tiny, and painted white, and contained nothing but small mementoes of the past, untouched and unarranged; a doll's house in one room, a rocking horse in another etc. And in each tiny room, a cat, sometimes two or three, peering out from behind these artifacts. As a child, these images were disturbing, but I couldn't for many years figure out why. It was only as I got older that I began to appreciate that the disquieting thing about these abandoned rooms was the lack of children, and, at the same time, the overwhelming sense that they were still there.
"The Others" struck a big chord with me, not least because it stirred memories buried for a long time, but also because it is full of great scenes, is brilliantly characterised, and the performances throughout ring as true as they possibly could in a "ghost story".
But... watch it twice.....
American Beauty (1999)
Nice music, loved "The King", but....
I watched this film in the cinema, and thought it was pretty mediocre, but bought the video, expecting to pick up on a lot of things I missed first time around.
Hmmmmm. I'm still missing a lot of things.
I just don't get Spacey's character, for one.
He is clearly portrayed as a complete clutz in the first quarter of the film - letting his briefcase spill open, tripping up in the aisle etc. But he doesn't physically LOOK like a clutz. He looks like K Spacey, Oscar winning actor. I found it very hard to believe this whole clutz thing.
Which brings me to my main point, being, as viewers, we are really given no clue as to why Lester has this complete head transplant. We see very little of his job, tho we eventually discover he earns approx $60k a year - not bad for a loser/clutz. He is married to a beautiful woman, and has a slightly weird ( though not overly weird) daughter.
What happened to make him change so violently ? No psychobabble please....
In a drama such as this, which I believe sold itself on character realisation, I just couldn't believe in, or have any real sympathy for the main character.So I had to give this film a D-.
This rating takes into account the wholly overplayed use of the roses metaphor - which is pushed in one's face at every opportunity - the soap opera stereotypes, and the poorly conceived, written-on-the-back-of-a-napkin ending.
But I'll move it up to a C+ for the excellent music, The King, and Annette Bening, who is truly my ideal of a friends mom.
Now please excuse me while I go buy some G13.....
Sphere (1998)
Jurry ? Jurry ? Jurry ?? Arrrrrgh !!
This is not going to be a particularly intellectual review, I confess.
I just wanted to give a mention to Wee Dustin, whose increasingly hysterical conversations with "Jurry" cracked me up.
And can Samuel L Jackson please play a part as someone OTHER than Samuel L Jackson ? Pleease ?