Change Your Image
Milla-M
Reviews
King Arthur (2004)
King Arthur - A Royal Mess.
The story of King Arthur is one of the most popular mythologies, and there are hundreds of re-tellings of the noble tale, and it's courageous, beautiful and sometimes magical protagonists. 'King Arthur' is probably not one of the best...
The story is supposedly a 'demystified take' on the tale of King Arthur, and even so, it still doesn't really take off. 'King Arthur' follows a band of knights who were recruited, by Rome, against their will, on one of their final missions which would end with their freedom. The motley crew is lead by Arthur (Clive Owen) who they've pledged their allegiance to. However, during the celebrations to mark the end of their reluctant labours, they are informed that Rome has betrayed them and that they must fulfil one last mission. Angered, Arthur persuades his men to acquiesce, and they set out to find the son of a Roman official, who may be endangered. On their journeys they are waylaid by woads (savaged wood folk), battle with barbaric Saxons, and meet a beautiful archer, Guinevere (Keira Knightley). After all their trials and tribulations, the Knights of Arthur end the film with an epic (as un-epic as you can get) battle.
'King Arthur' does have a few good scenes and some good characters, but it looses any of its positive points in a mixture of bland scenes, dull speeches and uninteresting action sequences.
The film springs a battle between Arthur's knights and a group of woads upon the audience quite early in the film, and I was ready to be thrilled by a brilliant little battle sequence, one which never came. I don't really mind when films like 'King Arthur' don't have a brilliant script or characters, as it isn't primarily focused on drama, but it has to at least have good action scenes! The fighting was dull, and slow...it probably actually isn't that bad, but whenever contrasted with films like Lord of the Rings and Troy, its action scenes just don't compare. For me this was the most major disappointment in the film. The final battle wasn't that big, it wasn't thrilling or exciting and by this stage I just wanted it to end. I don't like saying it, but Hollywood has conditioned us to see big, breathtaking battle scenes and 'King Arthur' didn't deliver them. In saying this, there was a battle sequence in 'King Arthur' which occurred on a frozen lake which was actually pretty exhilarating. The direction was good, and the whole flow of the action was well done; if only the final battle had been more like this one!
The script was horrible, and the writing was so insipid and trite. It seemed so much easier to tune out rather than listen in, it seemed like I was back in school listening to a lecture in Physics. The acting was mediocre; the best the actors could do with what they were given to act with. Clive Owen was vapid and dull as Arthur, albeit he looked pretty sexy; however I think he may have been told to deliver his lines in this manner (because after seeing him in Closer...he IS a good actor). Keira Knightley pulled off Guinevere pretty well, and Ioan Gruffudd was dark and brooding as Lancelot. All the characters were tiring, except for Bors (Ray Winstone), who is crude and delectably funny, but also a gentle father, and the stoic Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen). Stellan Skarsgaard played the villain (Cerdic) well but in my opinion was underused, but not as drastically as Merlin (Stephan Dillane), who only had a couple of scenes, albeit he seemed interesting. There is little character development overall anyway.
One thing that annoyed me about this film was that the writer just threw in ideas that just came out of NOWHERE, and had no relevance or impact. For instance, one of Arthur's Knights finds a young boy who develops some kind of confidence in the man. When this knight dies, the young boy is heartbroken, and then he disappears. Who was he? Where did he go? What was the whole point of his characters existence...? I don't know. There is also a traitor in the film. Why is he a traitor? It is never explained. The romance between Guinevere and Arthur...if you are going to do something, do it right or not at all! There was no chemistry between Owen and Knightley and the whole romance side story was awful. A lot of this film is clumsy and boring. The musical score was just alright.
Overall, King Arthur is just NOT a good film. It has no real likable characters (aside from Bors/Tristan), and any characters that showed promise weren't explored enough, its lead characters aren't interesting and it is weighed down with lengthy, boring dialogue and less than satisfactory performances. The film could've been redeemed with exciting battle scenes, but they were anything but exciting. I blame this mostly on poor direction. The source material offered so much, but sadly, it was processed into so little...
My Grade: D+
Tru Calling (2003)
Fun! But don't expect too much
`Tru Calling' is one of those TV shows that you never really set the time aside for, and that you never really become a BIG fan of, and in a couple of years you probably will have forgotten it, but it is a fun show, easy to watch and at times can have its little insightful moments, which makes the show all the more enjoyable. But don't expect TOO much!
Basically, the show follows in the footsteps of an average American girl, Tru Davies (Eliza Dushku), as she jumps back and forth through time, to help save certain people, who without her help, would end up dead. It is never really explained how or why she developed these supernatural skills but as a morgue worker she is handily always in contact with the dead, who can then ask for her help, which subsequently results in Tru being flung back into yesterday, where she then races against the clock to save the person who is soon going to end up dead.
The show has its weaknesses and its strong points, but at the end of the day, the show isn't aiming to be really deep and isn't aiming to address serious situations and shouldn't be treated as such, but rather it aims to provide a thrill, and in this respect, it does achieve its aims. Although half way through the show, we can 90% of the time already have worked out whodunit,' for some beguiling reason it's still interesting to see how the whole thing pans out and what actually occurred. We can pay very close attention but still miss little snippets that will appear later, the storylines are always very twisty, and albeit most twists are predictable, there are some that will still evade the viewer and it's always fun to see a twist make sense, I don't know why, it just is!
I think the characters are a strong point to this show, because the shows are very plot-driven, the characters don't get a lot of development, but after a couple of shows, they grow much stronger and we get a better feel of their personalities. Tru is an interesting character and we always empathise with her, and the supporting cast all have strong personalities. The acting in the show is fine, even the bit-players play their roles well. Of course the acting isn't Oscar-worthy, but it's good enough for this show, and the script is fine as well, at times a little clichéd and slightly cheesy, but overall it works well with the show and the characters.
Other points the programme tries to make is how people react in situations, and how, if something in the situation changes, their reactions change. Like when Tru tells her friend Lindsay (played well by A.J. Cook) that she caught her boyfriend cheating on her, and Lindsay tells Tru that if she was in that situation, she'd make her boyfriend wish he'd never met her. But when Tru repeats the day, and actually confronts her boyfriend, then tells Lindsay, Lindsay talks of how she would never have the guts to do anything like that. It portrays how what people say, and what people actually do and feel is a very different, often sad, thing. The show is very interesting to watch for these scenes, and adds a little more depth to the show.
Overall, the show is fun to watch and offers some cheap thrills, the script and characters are well portrayed and cover up what is otherwise a superficial storyline. The predictable twists are still entertaining to watch and because some twists aren't really figured out until the end, the show is still pleasurable to watch. I would recommend the show to someone who is just looking to be mildly entertained and follow a fast-paced, twisty story, without looking for anything deep. The show isn't to be taken too seriously, but it is better than some of the other shows that TV brings us. Give it a watch, it's a fun waste of an hour with a few kicks but I'm not promising that you'll come away from the experience changed and/or enlightened, and I guess you shouldn't expect to.
Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003)
Jeepers...what an awful film
Hey this is Milla and this is my review on Victor Salva's Jeepers Creepers II. Well, since it's a sequel I guess I'll begin with what I thought of the previous instalment in the Jeepers Creepers line of films.
The first Jeepers Creepers was, in my opinion, alright. I loved the first half an hour of the film and I thought it was really tense, the characters seemed likeable and although both were a little nondescript, I enjoyed their dialogue and I was really afraid for them when they were being chased by the Creeper. When I first saw the Creeper I was filled with terror and I felt so uneasy when it was on screen, however as the film progressed and psychics got involved and nothing was really explained, the film, for me, got less and less enjoyable.
The second time round, in Jeepers Creepers II, I wasn't expecting anything mind-blowing, but it progressed similarly to the first one, except much worse. The opening sequence, with a father and his two sons working in a field, and the Creeper disturbingly imitating a scarecrow before coming to life and snatching one of the kids, was really exciting and the shots of the Creeper dashing through the long stalks of corn were very well done, and really . creepy.
However from there on the film begins to falter. A bus load of teens returning from a successful basketball match falls prey to the Creeper, on one of his last days before he begins his twenty three year hibernation. Why it hibernates? I don't know, and it is never explained. The characters aren't very well portrayed; we have a racist hot-head along with his girlfriend, a geek, the tough bus conductress, the coach, his assistant, a few cheerleaders, a supposed gay guy, arrogant team mate and some other guys there to fill up seats.
They all play their clichéd roles well enough, the acting isn't that bad, but mediocre at best, albeit the script is terrible as well. There are a few mildly funny parts, and unlike the first Jeepers Creepers, I didn't really care about any characters, except for maybe The Bus Driver (Diane Delano) and Rhonda Truitt (Marieh Delfino), the latter of who has a large enough role. The music was fine, although at times I thought it could've sounded more quiet and eerie. The bad thing was, in a horror film of this calibre, I could see past mediocre acting, crap characters and a poor script as long as it was actually scary! Nothing was scary about this film, the Creeper was just not scary, nothing has changed since the first Jeepers Creepers, there was no tension, the action was fun to watch at times but this is not primarily an action film. There is some gore, a decapitation comes to mind (although I think they made this into a joke, kind of?) however the gore isn't too bad.
One of the things which completely flaws this film is the fact that half way through, for no reason at all, one of the female characters - Minxie (Nicki Lynn Aycox) - has a spell of clairvoyance and finds out that the Creeper can smell fear. It is never made clear why she becomes temporarily psychic and the idea that the film maker believes that by making a character psychic, he can get away with writing anything, really annoys me and also lets the film down. The history of the Creeper is never explained or even touched on.
Overall, the film has no real redeeming qualities. After a really good opening scene, and an attractive premise, the film is washed away with plot holes, poor writing, bad characters and worst of all.no scares.
My Grade: D
X2 (2003)
Yep, it's as good as they say it is...
My older brother and his friend decided to go and see X-2 on Thursday night, since I had nothing better to do I decided to tag along (but believe me, I didn't go for the company). I think I was going to see this film at the weekend anyway as my friends were talking about it but I wasn't really excited about seeing it. I have seen the first X-Men and I thought it was fine and maybe a little overrated, my Dad, when he was little, was a big fan of the X-Men and he has a big dusty cardboard box filled with their old, mildewed comics. So one boring summer when I was up in the attic I had a little flick through them. I didn't know a lot about the X-Men but I discovered that I knew more than others. This is my first time reviewing a really big film still in the cinema, so don't mind me if I sound a little bit nervous at times, what with all your big, top quality reviews floating about.
Anyways I'll start with the acting. They cast for this film is incredible and they really make this film just that bit more excellent. Some of the actors that really stand out are Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), Famke Janssen (Dr. Jean Grey), Patrick Stewart (Professor X) and Sir Ian McKellen (Magneto). Thank god Hugh Jackman was chosen to play Wolverine. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing the feral gentleman, Jackman was excellent in the role, switching between berserker rage and gentle and dry. His relationship with Jean Grey is also quite intense, Jean Grey's character is wonderfully acted by Janssen, and this lady seems good at playing deeply troubled yet sophisticatedly sexy roles. Then McKellen and Stewart give an electric performance, the terse conversations, the familiar yet totally obscure relationship between them and their unsurpassed wisdom is excellently pulled off, together they're a wonderful combination. The rest of the acting is really good, I won't name all the actors but Alan Cumming (Nightcrawler), Halle Berry (Storm), Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (Mystique) and Aaron Stanford (Pyro) execute their roles perfectly, bringing the film to life to an even greater extent. I was also glad to see Romijn-Stamos' role exploited more, she plays Mystique brilliantly and her character seems much more human with much more character than before. Kelly Hu gave a great performance (if you can call it that) as the silent but deadly Deathstrike. I also liked the inclusion of some of the other, younger X-Men, Collosus, Siryn, Jubilee and Kitty Pryde (however I hope, if there is a sequel, they will have much MUCH more screen time).
The film was basically story integrated with a lot of action. The action sent my already quivering spine shaking all over again. The opening sequence with an assassination attempt on the President's life played out with some excellent classical music was amazing. Other parts of the film such as the storming of the mansion, Mystique's invasion and Wolverine's cat (tiger) fight were all also astonishing action sequences. The dialogue in the film was quite good as well but it doesn't really stand out in a film with amazing special effects such as this. The special effects were delectable; they made the film seem much more realistic than it could've been. I especially liked Bobby Drake/Iceman's (Shawn Ashmore) mutant abilities as well as some others. Again I have to applaud Mystique as one of the most enjoyable characters in the film; her shape-shifting skills are brilliant to watch.
The story wasn't as intelligent as the first X-Men's but I still enjoyed it, there weren't many heart-stopping twists in the storyline until near the end (of course I'm not going to tell you
), a real tendon-tweaking moment. A lot of the characters aren't fully explored either. I think the director should've tried to incorporate the use of flashbacks more often. I thought for a moment we might've delved deeper in Lady Deathstrike's past (when she starts to get all fidgety when she is with William Stryker and Professor X) or Pyro's past (when he sees all the happy family' photographs on the wall in Bobby Drake's house), but we didn't. These characters were likeable characters but just weren't explored enough for me. Also I think Lady Deathstrike had a past with Wolverine right? This wasn't even touched on in the film, either. The theme of the story was colourfully highlighted. I think basically they were trying to display the intolerance of the human race, how we are always looking for a scapegoat and how people shouldn't be afraid to be themselves:
- `Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else.' - `Because we shouldn't have to.'
Besides the lack of character development I found the pace was a bit off at times (this is very minor) and also that some things could've been explained a littler clearer but overall it was a brilliant film. Once I sat down in the cinema time just slipped through my hands like sand, I didn't even notice it go past. It was a truly brilliant film and I'd recommend it to anyone. It's an improvement upon the last film and I hope another sequel is made. I think the director (Bryan Singer) and the cast all deserve a round of applause. Watch this film; really, you won't forget it!
Grade: A
- Milla.
Heavenly Creatures (1994)
Charmingly disturbing.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***
I saw this film recently, a couple of days ago, Friday or Thursday night methinks (sorry, i've been really busy and I my memory is kind of messed up). Anyways, I was really interested in Lord of the Rings and I found out that the director for Lord of the Rings (Peter Jackson) also directed Heavenly Creatures...which you probably already know. So when I discovered that Heavenly Creatures was on I thought I'd give it a watch.
The story is basically about two rather different girls who form an extremely strong rapport, which is both touching and very unsettling. They become so immersed in their extraordinary friendship that they start to live in a fantasy land, a paradise, and soon they realise that the paradise wouldn't exist without eachother. Between their experimental lesbian encounters and driftings into fantastical realms, one of the girl's mothers stands in there way, threatening to separate them which eventually leads to her horrific demise, at the hands of her daughter and her daughter's best friend...
The acting in this film was excellent, one of the film's strong points. Melanie Lynskey did well pulling off her subdued character (Pauline Rieper) and Kate Winslet was excellent in her flashy, energetic role (Juliet Hulme).
The directing was really good as well, the seamless transitions between reality and fantasy were amazing and the opening to the film (similar to that of The Hole) was excellent and captivated me straight away. The music in the film was kind of bland and didn't really stand out but I guess it wasn't really supposed to anyway?
I found the film deeply disturbing, I don't like the idea that two people can be so consumed in each other that they'll murder one of their own mothers to stay close to eachother. I liked the dialogue and to be honest I think the two girls make a cute couple, it is evident in the film how right they are for eachother, how they slot together like two pieces of a jig-saw puzzle.
The biting irony at the ending was bitter and also one of the most disturbing parts of the film is that ... it makes you think that, from the two girl's point of view, murdering Pauline's mother Honoria Rieper (Sarah Peirse) was sickeningly just. The film exploits both girls and gets inside Pauline's dark mind through the use of her diary.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film however I felt that in some parts it was slow paced and I couldn't help myself feeling disgusted in some parts. The fact that this film is based on real events made this even worse... I know it was 1994 but some of the special effects looked shoddy and I think the whole lesbian aspect of the film needn't have been included.
At the end ... I'm not quite sure. During the film I felt a whirlwind of emotions; awe, disgust, at times laughter, joy and fear.
I'm not sure now if I deeply regret watching this disturbing and depressing film ... or if I am really thankful I saw a brilliant, intriguing film. I must admit though, it is overrated (probably due to the controversy surrounding the film) and I expected a little more but overall it was a good film.
B+
- Milla.
O (2001)
Likeable remake of Shakespeare's Othello.
This was generally a good film, well above average but no where near great. It definitely highlights the theme of 'Everything comes full Circle,' which the Title 'O,' implies. It also concentrates on minor themes such as racism and exploits the human emotions of jealousy and love and how it is such a tender thing which can be easily manipulated. It also portrays how dangerous love is ... as we understand that if Odin didn't really love Desi he wouldn't have gone to such extremes when he discovered her 'betrayal.'
Most of the acting was mediocre at best. I am surprised that Julia Stiles (playing Desi Brable) played an important character but had little screen time, her character Desi was also a little nondescript (compared to Shakespeare's version of her character, Desdemona, who is much more interesting and expresses the virtues of goodness and honesty much more effectively). Elden Henson, Andrew Keegan and Rain Phoenix (Roger Rodriguez, Michael Cassio and Emily respectively), playing supporting roles also gave mediocre performances, I found Rain Phoenix especially poor in parts. Mekhi Phifer (Odin James) and Josh Hartnett (Hugo Goulding) give superb performances, both expressing their characters effectively with great skill.
Of course adapting the script from Shakespeare's play would've been difficult but for a better version of Shakespeares' Othello the pace of the film should've been slower and should have concentrated more on the character's and their feelings...this film actually seemed to focus more screentime on action more than it should've...or needed to.
However the tragic tale was efficiently portrayed and extremely well delivered, it's an enjoyable film. The ending was also quite sad and was worthy of the build-up during the film. The tragedy of how Odin was twisted by Hugo into destroying the one thing he truly loved was sickeningly realised. Overall a nice film in its own way.
Watch it! You won't regret it, but in my opinion, some parts of the film could've been much better.
- Milla.
Resident Evil (2002)
Put it this way ... the videogame was better.
Heya! Well I saw this film twice, first in the cinema and secondly on a rented DVD. The first time I went to see it I wasn't extremely excited about it because I am not a huge Resident Evil fan. I have played most of the games before so I suppose the film did attract my interest a little. I left the cinema feeling a little disappointed, I wasn't built up for an amazing film and as I said before I wasn't overly-excited but I guess I just expected more...
The second time I was actually more eager to see it. My friends had rented some DVDs and among their neat little pile was Resident Evil. I felt that maybe when I watched it this time I would appreciate some of the better bits more rather than criticising all the less than satisfactory areas of the film, I was riding on hope, and I guess I came up with the conclusion that this film is just a little above AVERAGE.
First of all let's start with the acting ... fine! Eric Mabius (who played Matt Addison) was just average. He acted as if he was acting, I know that may not make sense but that's how I feel. Milla Jovovich (she has the same first name as me! I thought I was the only one) (playing Alice) acted well and in some scenes her acting was superb(SPOILER: the scene where she has to decide between killing Rain and her own survival). Michelle Rodriguez, ofcourse, pulled off the tough bitch (she played Rain) act with more than a little ease. The rest of the actors were fine however some were mediocre in parts (Martin Crewes).
I was expecting a spooky mansion with plenty of jumps and chilling special effects. Whilst playing the videogame I jumped hundreds of times and I jumped no times during this film. Unless you have a serious fear of zombies then this film isn't extremely scary...either. The special effects were good in parts (amazing looking zombie dogs) but really, really weak in others (that 'Licker' monster...it almost spoiled the film). The setting was fine and I liked the transitions between computer and reality. The storyline was also interesting and easy to follow and there were a few scenes in the film that were quite tense. Also, using a child's hologram as one of the main villains in the film was an excellent idea and very intriguing and she was actually kind of spooky.
The make-up was okay methinks. The zombies weren't amazing looking but did pull off the 'dead' sensation quite well. I think the make-up artists were going for a more subtle 'dead' feel rather than a gore-spattered monster look (however in my opinion I think this would've worked better). However some of the effects with the zombies (walking on a broken ankle) were excellent, and overall the sheer mass of flesh-eating dead monsters were enough to disturb you.
The action was quite good too. This was one of the better parts of the film, Milla Jovovich racing through corridors, beating the crap out of zombies, executing amazing flying kicks off walls and firing some flashy weaponry made for entertaining watching.
I am not a serious Rock fan but I know good music when I hear it. I'm not saying all the music in the film was good however it worked with the film well and created an eerie harmony, music and image flowed smoothly and effectively together.
The ending in my opinion was a nice, bitter-sweet twist as well. Some people were just fed up with the film thus far and cared nothing for the ending but I felt that it set the film up for a flowing sequel and was also an unexpected, chilling ending.
Overall it retained the essentials of the game and was quite entertaining. It's watchable, you can sit and watch it with no qualms whatsoever however it's not a film you'd go out of your way to make time for. I'm not sure about the DVD, I wouldn't mind owning it but I suppose it wouldn't get a lot of use on my shelf. Combining the acting, action, tension, storyline and other aspects of the film...it was just slightly above average.
Watch it, you probably won't regret it! Some scenes are enjoyable and memorable but most likely you'll forget the rest of the film...
6/10