Change Your Image
chrismrrw
Reviews
Snowpiercer (2013)
As Good As 1984?! Don't Be Silly!
Everyone seems to be concentrating on the sort of factual 'errors' which movies, in my opinion, should be allowed to get away with from time to time. After all, although this movie attempts to be an analogy or even reflection of how the 'real world' works, I still don't mind giving directors a bit of room to stray from the prosaic in order to get their point across or to make things more exciting.
My main beef with this movie is that it was so flat. Some reviewers have mentioned it in the same breath as 1984 and Animal Farm. I think to do that is to really, really not understand the genius of either of those books/films.
In 1984 the population was very cleverly and completely manipulated into thinking that things such as their cause and big brother were truthful and fundamentally good. Simlar things happened in Animal Farm where the pigs overthrew their human masters under the guise of democracy, then set about manipulating almost all of the 'rules' in favour of the elite whilst still making the proletariat believe it was normal and for the greater good.
Snowpiercer is nowhere near as clever as that. There is a fairly strict hierarchy, the proletariat are told that they're basically scum and that they should just accept it. Then there's the 'bully boys' to keep them in check (for what reward I've no idea), some sort of middle class who seem quite pointless and decadent, and a guy (or quasi-demi-god) at the top of the pile).
Treat it as a bit of entertainment. Don't think for a second that it will stand the test of time of the fantastic satires of 1984 and Animal Farm - they're on an adult level, Snowpiercer is, at best, a satire-lite.
Amadeus (1984)
Verges On Sacrilege
I'll keep it short as others have covered this travesty adequately, I think.
Basically, take one of the most talented composers / musicians to have ever lived, make him come across as a complete bumbling idiot with a very annoying and persistent laugh, and that just about covers the central problems with this film, plot aside.
I love much of Mozart's music and have read a biography about him, and as such I got the impression that I'd like him as a person. This film would've made me dislike him intensely had I not read about him prior. Try watching this film for 10 minutes and not thinking 'what an annoying idiot Mozart is'. He just comes across as somebody who can play and write music, but is pretty much useless at every other facet in life, and is very irritating with it.
Human Remains (2000)
So Unknown It's Criminal
Take 6 seemingly normal couples, probe a little deeper into their lives and discover that they are riddled with idiosyncrasies, peculiar sexual proclivities, pitiful, human and, above all, very, very funny.
The writers have written/produced a piece of work that is dark, subtle, fairly original, well acted, well constructed, as believable as any other comedy series, and funny in a way that makes you pity them and thank the heavens that you aren't them.
The first episode is perhaps the weakest, the following four are fantastic, and the final episode is also fantastic but has strong depressing undercurrents.
Perhaps if this show had received more exposure to the mainstream public then each couple could have been developed further and we might have even seen a series for each couple, but then again, comedies like this are often not popular in the mainstream i.e no canned laughter, no 'spot it a mile off' punchlines, dark, and often so subtle that some people might wonder if they've just watched a comedy, or a documentary about a bit of a peculiar couple.
Do watch if you like: Nighty Night, The Thick Of It, Alan Partridge, The Day Today, Saxondale, The Office (maybe)
Maybe give it a miss if you prefer: Friends, two and a half men, my family, everybody loves/hates Raymond/Chris.
Give it a try. You'll know within 10 minutes if it's for you or not. For me, it's pretty much top-notch comedy and years ahead of most.
CM.
The Hill (1965)
'Now, Cut Out This Bashful Virgin Act!'
First of all, this film simply isn't for everyone (my friend once told me that he felt claustrophobic watching it, and so turned it off). For me, however, it grabs me somewhere where most other films simply don't. It penetrates me deeper and draws me in further than most other films could ever dream of.
Other reviewers have touched on the plot, which is quite subtle compared to many films really, but I think the genius of this film lies in the very-much 3D characters, the intensity of the camera work, the razor sharp dialogue (which is often cruel, hateful and witty), but perhaps most of all, the acting.
There are essentially 8 main characters and every single one of them plays his part flawlessly. Anyone of the main characters' acting would be worthy of a lead role in almost any film I can think of.Even the peripheral characters give a 3D feeling to their performances (the camp commandant, the medical officer, for instance).
To help understand how good the characters, the acting and the cameras work together, consider how many films you can think of which don't have a musical score but still generate an atmosphere which grips you - The Hill's 'musical score' is the background shouting from other prisoners in the prison camp as well as the sheer air of intensity throughout the entire film.
Additonal hats of to Lumet for really allowing the British regional dialects free rein throughout the entire cast, although many viewers, including Brits, will have to pay close attention to what is being said, especially when military phrases, acronyms and slang are thrown in.
Watch it, it's up there with the best of them!
Scream 4 (2011)
A Tired Formula
Alright for 2 hours of entertainment, I suppose, but there's nothing new in there really, and I wonder how many more sequels the Scream franchise can have before it is finally killed off.
It's not scary and the only time you're likely to get a shock is more down to the intense musical score when a character gets surprised by the killer(s) etc. than any genuinely scary atmosphere throughout the film.
The characters in this 'horror movie' constantly making reference to 'typical horror movies' or earlier Scream films wears thin very quickly (the 'film within a film'). The dialogue is riddled with characters discussing what victims and killers do in typical horror films/earlier Scream films, and how they themselves should act in order not to be killed. It's as if the film's writer wants you to know that he knows how typical horror films/earlier Scream films pan out and that he wants to make sure, that by acknowledging this, Scream 4 won't fall into the category of being 'typical' and cringe-worthy. The writer is constantly trying to tackle and outwit the viewers' anticipation by telling the viewer what that anticipation is, and then deviating from it. It might seem clever to some, but I found that it (the format itself) ended up becoming predictable, and it was certainly no substitute for times when a good horror film really generates a scary atmosphere throughout.
The way characters part acknowledge that they are in a film will have to be further developed for any future Scream films; I'm not sure how, but I wonder how many more Scream films it would take before the characters were actually looking into the camera and talking to the viewer.
There's no harm in watching it, of course. It's entertaining to some extent, but don't expect it to be anything more than your average slasher flick.
Good luck! :-)
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
I'm mildly embarrassed confessing that I've watched this brainless drivel!
I've only just watched this film, so I haven't reflected greatly on it yet, but I suspect I won't need to as it's a horrible little shallow, massively biased, paranoid, badly thought through, pseudo-documentary full of choice cuts and childishly cheap jibes at every possible turn, to the extent that it makes Michael Moore's 'documentaries' seem like well reasoned, impartial, simple truth. It's completely and utterly one sided/partisan nonsense, and it's clear from the very beginning that Stein & Mathis have already found the answers they want, now all they need is some (usually) anecdotal evidence that somehow fits in with their already held views, and they certainly wouldn't let trivial things like real evidence, showing both sides of the argument or a degree of transparency get in the way of that!. By all means, watch it - it will simply demonstrate to any reasonably intelligently person just how desperate these particular creationist/ID proponents are to persuade people of their ridiculous, unfounded 'sound scientific beliefs'.
I won't go into the film too much (the obvious points and the gist of the film have already been made and given), but in a nutshell; if your IQ is above say 80, then you'll see this tripe for what it really is early on and either see it as mildly pitiful and amusing that people do take the message of this film and way in which this it has been put together seriously, or you'll have better things to do with your time and switch it off before it attempts to patronise your intelligence any further. If your IQ is below the 80 mark (like Ben Stein's seems to be based on his smug, arrogant,'pseudo-just a reasonable guy trying to make some sense and achieve some justice demeanour' hosting of this travesty), and you have any degree of power or influence, then this could be a dangerous piece of 'ridiculously obvious propaganda' of which even Goebels himself might of been embarrassed to put in the public domain - yes, it really is that bad!
Whether you're of an atheistic, agnostic, religious or 'never even thought about it' persuasion, then you should be able to see through the cheap veneer of 'documentaries' like this.
Even the point of the 'film' doesn't remain consistent. It's chief claim is that a fascist gang of evolutionists are persecuting anybody who might claim that evolution doesn't occur, and then goes on to give a few choice cuts of how 'great scientists' have lost their posts for even the mere suggestion that ID might be the case, and how intolerant this 'evolutionary mafia' really is by giving the viewer a few carefully chosen snap shots of what people like Dawkins, Dennett et al actually think ie that the notion of ID is based on nothing other than faith - which for me is a fairly commonsensical view to hold, but even if it wasn't, it doesn't imply that the scientific society is trying to persecute anybody with different beliefs.
It then seems to switch to 'evolution not being fact' in the first place....I won't go into that, I've only read about 2 books on evolution and it seems fairly understandable to me, but Stein doesn't even attempt to understand or explain it. For him a few biologists suggesting that science hasn't got all of the answers yet (such as how life began) is proof enough.
It then drones on about Darwinisim being essentially evil and destructive for mankind, effectively demoting it to the realm of ideology, social engineering and eugenics as opposed to natural scientific fact occurring all around us, and that it caused Hitler to do the terrible things he did. For me, this is a truly shameful piece of film making, and shows a massive lack of knowledge of either natural selection and/or Hitler. Even if Hitler's disgraceful deeds were as a result of natural selection, how would that cause Darwin's theories to be less true!? - so the argument is completely irrelevant really......other than trying to rouse the sentiment and emotion of the viewing audience of course - so either irrelevant or intellectually dishonest - I'll let you decide for yourself!
For Richard Dawkins' response to this 'film' see http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394
To give the film a bit more balance, I suggest you watch it whilst reading the info on; www.expelledexposed.com
The only triumphs I can see for the conceited makers of this film are A). Money for themselves. B). Convincing a few naive, uninquisitive people that this film is 'sticking it to the man' and fighting a just cause, and most importantly C). That it has provoked any debate at all.
Planet Earth (2006)
The Benchmark by which all other nature documentaries will be measured!
There are plenty of other reviews for you to get the gist of this series, so I won't add my 10 pence worth (except to say that if you like nature documentaries, great camera work, beautiful scenery, accompanied by just the right level of information for this type of series, then I can almost guarantee that this series will be truly satisfying, and in all likelihood become the benchmark by which you measure all other nature documentaries, or even all documentaries of every genre - yes, it really is that good!).
As usual with the 'human condition' there are dissenters, which is a good thing in general as it helps drive healthy debate, but from reading some of the negative posts on this website, I suspect that they are dissenting for the sake of dissenting (and appearing intellectual and/or non-conformative), pedancy, or for assuming that the series misses it's own objectives and the 'point' it's trying to make in some way. (I personally don't think the series has an agenda beyond presenting the world with probably the greatest all-round nature programme to have been made!).
Some of the negative points posted are to the effect that;
- The series exposes the viewer to too much death, violence between animals etc.
Well, isn't that what nature is largely about - survival!? (as well as reproduction and co-habitation which are equally as well covered). I suspect that the people who make these points are a bit squeamish and don't want to witness death (especially of 'cute' animals) in the comfort of their own homes. Some reviewer even put forward the ridiculously weak analogy on the series supposedly overdoing the violence aspect that 'if aliens made a documentary about humans, then we'd be unhappy that they only focused on killing and not art and study'. Humans have advanced far beyond the 'hunter-gatherer' status which was widespread tens of thousands of years ago, and if aliens made a documentary back then which happened to include humans, then i think it would have focused largely on the way in which we hunt, co-habitate and reproduce. A series devoted solely to humans would of course look more in depth at our primitive technologies, ability to communicate, social aspects etc....but this series has a much broader spectrum to cover - many of the species on the planet today!, so it's fairly obvious that it should focus on the primary functions of the world's non-human animals - that of hunting, co-habitating and reproduction!
- The series lacks in-depth information. What kind of information where they hoping to gain!? Should the series have gone into the embryology,molecular biology, genetic coding, evolution and ancestry, DNA structure of each individual species!? - it would take far too long, or would limit the series to about 10 different species!...or should the series have gone into ocean currents, plate tectonic movement amongst other things, in order to explain why animals inhabit the places they do!? - of course not!.
This is a nature series, not material for a biology or geology or anything else degree. It's purpose (as with almost all nature programmes) is partly to inform and partly to entertain and inspire - and for me, this series gets the balance just about spot on!
- Humans are not included and not enough info is given to help combat climate change.
I'm not sure it ever claimed to fulfil either wish. The very essence of a nature programme is about humans observing nature, certainly not observing ourselves - that would be called an 'anthropology programme' - humans are far too complex in societal nature (plus there are far too many sub-divisions of the human nature for this series to touch on - science, art, religion, politics, war...ad nauseum) to be included in a nature programme - a brief mention of how we effect nature might be justified, but things like climate change are still very much controversial, and if the series took a side on the issue, then people would have complained that the series had some sort of political agenda - which would undermine the entire series to quite a large extent!.
The claim that 'not enough info is given to combat climate change' is a truism as, again, quite simply because this is not a series on climate change, and climate change is complex and controversial, so a series devoted to climate change would be necessary, and this series should be applauded for not pushing any political agenda down the viewer's throat.
In short, by all means listen to what the people who gave the series negative views have to say. But any reasonably intelligent person who watches this absolute triumph of a piece of film making, should be able to make their own decisions, and, I think, will see it for what it is - a fantastic introduction to nature and the many of the Earth's current inhabitants!