Friday, 29 July 2011

The Descent

Even the poster creates suspense...    TheCinemaSource
The Descent, released in July 2005, is a British horror film directed by Neil Marshall that follows six women who go spelunking in an unexplored cave in North Carolina. I suspect I'm giving nothing away when I reveal that things don't go entirely to plan... The film was a critical success, scoring 84% on Rotten Tomatoes, and being placed 7th in Sight & Sound's end-of-year top ten list. is, however, once again a haven for those with no taste whatsoever, nor any kind of reviewing ability.
So. Here. We. Go:
First off everyones entitled to their opinion so I find it bizarre as to why their are so many people obviously like the film trawling negative reviews simply to slate anyone who dislikes it (Maybe it's why they don't like it that people dislike? Or the quality of the review. Or the fact that many, who will be featured later, treat their opinions as fact?). These people are WRONG the one star reviewers are RIGHT (Yeah. What you've certainly not done there is exactly what you just complained about...). This film is ridiculous (No more than most other films. You know that Dumbo? I don't think an elephant could use his ears to fly...). I felt rather embarrassed for the person who decided to comment smarmly by saying to the reviewer: 'My advice is to concentrate when you watch an intelligent adult film or even better stick to films more suited to your age group.' (I suspect he's right. This is an intelligent film for adults.). They've got themselves a wee bit mixed up here and its backfired massively...Its a borderline B-movie, it not supposed to be 'an intelligent adult film' neither was Dog Soilders, thats what made it so good (Dog Soldiers was absolutely not to be taken seriously. But just because they share a director does not mean that this film is equally frivolous. This is a straight-up horror and works as such. [slight SPOILER coming up here] I take it you missed the end bit where the women become as bad as, or worse than, the crawlers? Butchering them horribly, killing their young and sticking thumbs in eye-sockets is pretty nasty. Not many horror films have the guts to turn the heroines against each other and into murderous monsters themselves.). An intelligent adult decision would be to use the DVD as a coaster matt for your pint. (No, that would be a silly thing to do. Surely a specifically designed coaster would do the job far better...)
Jokes aside (Don't become a stand-up.). This is a poor effort (Except it just isn't, though, is it? It does exactly what it intends to do. Scare.). In fairness, the claustrophobic atmosphere created is not bad (Not bad? That goes beyond understatement, and into the realms of stupidity.) and the films grittyness is appealing. Why one star then? (Because you're a fool who wouldn't know a good film if he walked in on one fucking a version himself from a different universe?)
1. The premise has been done to death (What? The only one similar I can think of is the pretty shite Sanctum which came out this year...) so any new attempt has to be very unique and different (Different from what you utter arse? It's not like there's a cave-based horror released every day!). There's just nothing new here (All-female cast? Cave-based terror? Strong acting? Believable monsters?). I was pretty much spot on with the order of who would die before they'd even entered the cave. (You could guess who'd die, but you can do that with any horror.)
2. If you've seen "The Cave" you don't need to watch this. They were more adventurous in their filmaking and did it better, and that's saying something. (Excuse me? First of all, The Cave came out a month after this. And second of all, it was utter bilge. At 13% it is amongst the worst films of 2005. If you think that is better than The Descent, then you are clearly one ball short of an over.) 
3. The plot's ludicrous (It's not that ludicrous. It's a horror film. There is such a thing as 'willing suspension of disbelief'. I'd suggest you'd give it a go.). Without giving too much away, who on earth goes down an uncharted cave system without any map (I believe you rather answered your own question there. The word 'uncharted' means that there is no map for them to take. Fucktard.), back up, safety failsafe and the excuse as to why is crazy (Not really. It was certainly a silly thing to do, but it fitted in well with the character.). Why would you then split up and continue to go deeper after being attacked? (They ran and panicked. One of them fell down a hole. They didn't split up on purpose. Did you even watch the bloody thing?) The ending, a totally unnecessary twist which, which makes zero sense and has no right to be there. (It made sense. [SPOILER] She'd been hallucinating a fair bit, so having cracked her head against the rock floor, it wasn't a surprise she did it again.)
4. Its blatantly obvious its filmed in Scotland not the US. (Actually, it wasn't filmed in Scotland either, so clearly wasn't that obvious... It was filmed in Pinewood Studios, near London with exteriors filmed in a park in Buckinghamshire. So quite far from Scotland really...)
5. Its only really about two people, the other characters are simply their for gore value, which is pretty cheap as you have no empathy for them (This is pretty standard for horror films though. It's very hard to flesh out all the characters without the film becoming bloated and overly long. Besides, this film does somewhat more for its supporting cast than most modern Hollywood horror fare, with the slashers and torture-porn genres particularly badly affected.). The main two main characters relationship is daft and very confusing, I might have caught Juno looking at Sarah's husband at the start for all of about 2 seconds and I think this has something to do with their fractured relationship (It's explained you ignorant prick. You really didn't listen did you? And their relationship seemed realistic and understandable considering the events that shape it.). The problem is for a film like this to work it has to be really character driven and the script's so weak, there's nothing for the actors to flesh out. (The script as as good as it needed to be. There was no exposition-heavy dialogue as far as I can remember, with pretty natural conversations between the characters both prior to the adventure and during.)  
Neil Marshall did so well with Dog Soilders and its a great idea to be different (as mentioned) (This film is original) and have an all women cast, who do the best with the little they've got (They all did very well with the good material they received.). Its a shame its badly let down by a daft script and story and shallow characters. (What was it you said earlier? Ah yes, '[you've] got yourself a wee bit mixed up here and it's backfired massively'. Oh, the glorious irony.)
Here's a somewhat shorter review now:
This film starts off ok for about the first 5 minutes (If the next words aren't 'then gets even better' or somesuch, I'm going to hurt you.), then by the end of the film the starting has practically no relavence at all (Actually, it is massively important. How did you miss that? And now I'm going to have to hurt you. I'm sorry, but I warned you...). Amazingly bad acting (Except the acting was uniformly strong, creating believable characters who could exist in the real world.) and for people that have already seen the film (trying not to give too much away) (You pretty much fail. so major SPOILERS up ahead.) i have to ask you, why does she take her freinds leg out at the end?? it was an accident wasnt it? hmmm... (Several things. Firstly, she didn't see the incident, so she knew only what Beth had told her. Beth believed that it was not an accident, therefore neither did Sarah. Secondly, Beth told Sarah that Juno had been having an affair with Sarah's late husband, so she was pretty mad about that as well. And then there is that it was Juno that led them down the cave in the first place, so there was probably a bit of blame thrown in there too.) but i really wouldnt reccomend this film to any one (Really? I would. I already have in fact.)
 Here, have another!:
Get grip people! This is terrible (I'll get a grip on your neck if you're not careful. If you think this is terrible then you aren't intelligent enough to deserve life...). Dull locations (The cave looked pretty spectacular in places. Especially at the start looking up through the hole.), 50 mins of tedium (The first 50 minutes were superb. The build-up of tension was excellent with some standard cave-based scares, like rock collapses ratcheting up the tension very well.) before the laughable monsters appear (In what way are they laughable? They look realistic and could feasibly exist.) and NO suspense at all! (If by 'suspense' you mean 'clowns', then yes. There weren't any clowns in the first 50 minutes. Or indeed any of the minutes. There was suspense though...) The creatures are feeble and not at all scary (Well the creatures on their own aren't scary, but then neither would pretty much anything else. Alien's Xenomorph wouldn't be scary if it was on its own in the middle of a brightly lit ice-rink. But in combination with the dark location of the cave, the crawlers are pretty scary.) and the location is dull beyond belief (Yeah you said that already, and I already said you were wrong.). This is a really awful film (That'll be why Sight & Sound felt it was the seventh best film of the year then... God, that must have been a shit year eh?). Dog Soldiers was great fun but this is pretentious drivel (It is neither pretentious, nor drivel. This review is drivel. The film really isn't.). I have NEVER been so bored in a film (You clearly have no idea what makes a good horror film then. I suggest you stick to films that give horror cinema a bad name, like Saw and Hostel.). BAD, BAD and bad again (And yet the only thing you can complain about is the 'dull' location and the 'feeble' creatures. Twice. Talking about two things twice, doesn't make a review I'm afraid...). The cast were average (Well, if comparing them against Daniel Day-Lewis I suppose...) and the plot motivation was just completely unbelievable from every angle (What? She wanted to discover a new cave. People actually do that you know. That's how caves are discovered...). Lazy script, lazy film. (And you're a stupid man.)
That's enough for now, I think. Till next time children!

Sunday, 24 July 2011


"Okay you cunts... Let's see what you can
do now!"
The Matthew Vaughn comic-book film Kick-Ass was a surprise hit when it was released last year. With a strong box-office performance and meeting with a positive reaction from the critics too. The film is about the a high-school kid who copies his favourite comic books into a life of super-heroism and vigilanteism. Then he meets a foul-mouthed child and her crusading father who have a very different way of dealing with the organized crime in the city. Usually involving cutting blades and big guns... Some people, somewhat predictably, took against the film though. Including these weirdos from
From the trailer and the various reviews, I was expecting a super hero satire that doesn't take itself too seriously and is simply good fun (with a few laughs thrown in) Boy was I wrong :( (No. Now you're wrong. Your expectations were correct. It is a satire of the superhero genre, the characters of Big Daddy and Hit-Girl are specifically a satire of Batman and Robin. And what isn't funny about a mini gun jetpack? Or attempting to get information from a man in a giant microwave?)

This film is completely devoid of humour (and there is nothing wrong with my sense of humour (Well clearly there is, because everyone I know found plenty of humour in the film. There is plenty of comedy from the interplay between Dave and his school friends alone.)). There is some quality action sequences (but then it does have the old rocket pack with mini guns attached nonsense Grrrr (Yeah. Rocket packs with mini guns are sooo overused...)). The odd moments of extreme violence are right out of left field and frankly odd. (Not really. They're necessary for the film to work. The violence is supposed to be jarring. Unfortunately, the mafia isn't very nice in real life...)

Overall the film is totally undercooked (I like the way you've just stuck this in here with no explanation. In what is, ostensibly, the conclusion. Surely you know that ideas shouldn't be introduced in the conclusion? This area is for tying up the ideas you've already discussed. Fool. Also, the film is not undercooked. It's very well polished. With the editing a particular highlight.) and mediocre (If it's so bad, why can't you say why it is 'mediocre'?), and whilst I don't think its terrible ir really is not deserving of the hype or indeed the "best film of 2010" title. (It is very deserving of the hype it received. It is a very well made film that is different to most of the other films around. Though the best of film of 2010 is Inception.)
Let's have a look at another review shall we?:

Started off very well (And then continued on that way.). The first 20 minutes were great (As were the next 100.). Then the so-called failed superhero became cool. (Well he wasn't a 'so-called' failure at the start. He was. That's why he had the shit beaten out of him. And he became cool because he lost feeling in most of his body so couldn't feel pain when he was hit as a direct result of having the shit beaten out of him. It's not like he became cool overnight for no reason.)
In my opinion this film wasnt funny (Well at least you realise that it's only your opinion. It's still wrong though...). What started off as a comedy, ended up more like a serious superhero film. Either that or it was neither, and somehow just didnt work for me. (One of the best things about the film is how well it keeps its feet in both camps, without feeling confused.)

You want a funny superhero spoof? Then watch "Mystery Men" (1999) starring ben Stiller. Now that is funny! (Mystery Men is average at best, slightly annoying at worst. It is certainly nowhere near Kick-Ass in any way.)
Here's another, fairly brief, review:
I want 2 hours of my life back after watching this rubbish (You know that's just plain impossible, right? That isn't how time works. Amazon don't sell time.). This movie has a great cast (It does indeed.) and the potential for a great story (Remove the word "potential" and you'd be right.), but instead we get a confused (In what way is it confused? The film works, the transition between comedic and more serious scenes is smooth, with none of the lurches in tone that could have occurred.), poorly acted farce (Poorly acted? Were you watching the right film? The young cast are more than solid, whilst Chloe Moretz is superb. It even has that most rare of things these days: a good Nicolas Cage performance... And you clearly have no idea what a 'farce' comedy would be if you think this is one.) and a 10 year old girl who says the ''c'' word (Cooking? Chorizo? Or do you mean cunt?) without breaking stride (Yeah. And? It's a film. She's an actress. Who felt uncomfortable saying the title of the film in interviews, preferring to call it "Kick-Butt" instead. It clearly didn't affect her at all. Probably because she's far more sensible and intelligent than you.). The violence in this film is utterly gratuitous and quiet frankly, alarming. (Except it isn't gratuitous at all. In any way. I'd also like to add that without the violence the whole concept of showing what a bad idea becoming a superhero would be, would be absolutely destroyed. Making the whole project pointless.)
This is a horrible,horrible,horrible film on every single level. (You're supposed to have spaces after a comma. Also, you're wrong. Very wrong. The only film I can think of that is horrible, horrible, horrible on every single level is Cannibal Holocaust. It's not only shit but also racist, sexist, sadistic and with rape scenes that, unlike Salò or Straw Dogs, eroticise the horrific act. And then, just to cap it all off, they murdered a number of animals to make it. You may have guessed that I disliked the experience of watching that particular film...)
Anyway, after that last little diversion, it's back to Kick-Ass with one final review:
Ok..started well..amusing blah blah (Blah blah? If you can't be bothered to write the review properly then don't bother at all. No-one's forcing you to be here.), then rapidly descends, with (That first comma probably could have been a full stop and the second was completely unnecessary. And the quality of the film does not descend) the arrival of a horribly foul mouthed 12 year old female psycho killer (She's not 12, she's 11 and she's not a psycho. She's been conditioned by her father to believe that what she's doing is right and acceptable. And Hit-Girl is an awesome character.), supposedly the heroine (Well, she's not supposed to be a role-model. The film hardly comes out in favour of what her father has done.), into a piece of fascist nonsense (Fascist? In what way is it fascist? Vigilanteism is not exactly supported by the film.), which I can't believe a British director would have produced...Oh sorry, yes I can..look at Guy Ritchie's latest Sherlock fiasco... (Excuse me? First of all Sherlock Holmes is pretty good. Have you read any Holmes? Because that is what they are like quite often. And secondly, are you suggesting the film is fascist as well? Because if you are then you clearly have no idea what fascism actually is.)
What is it with you folks and super violence? (The fucking violence is fucking important to many movies. Especially this one.) Leave it in the comics for goodness sakes so I don't have to watch it (How about you just don't watch films that are violent? Why should the rest of us suffer because you are a squeamish moron?). And no I'm not against swearing, I'm for innocence at a certain age please (This review jumps around more than Jessica Ennis. And, even worse, it's very wrong.). And no it's not ok for violence to occur only against the bad guys (But it didn't occur only against the bad guys. Did you actually watch the fucking thing? Not only does Kick-Ass get beaten up several times in the movie, but [SPOILER] one of the 'good guys' gets killed...)..this is the excuse the US have been using for torture and mass murder for years. (Excuse me? What's that got to do with anything? Are you mad? You're reviewing a fucking DVD not reviewing US policy.)
Avoid at all cost. (I urge any readers who have not seen it, who are not offended by violence or language, to watch this. To annoy this clown as much as anything else...)
That'll do for now I think. See you next time!

Sunday, 10 July 2011

Christopher Tookey Special

The Daily Mail's main critic, Chris Tookey, is a bit of joke really. The man who started a campaign to ban David Cronenberg's Crash (the one about people turned-on by car crashes, not Paul Haggis' dull, preachy, Oscar-winning Crash) has plenty of howling reviews for me to look at. When Tookey gets it wrong, boy does he get it wrong... Let's start with his 2-star review of the French prison drama A Prophet, considered one of the best films of 2009/10 (depending on which release you want to pick):

If you want your melodrama red in tooth and claw, Jacques Audiard's prison movie A Prophet has been wowing critics and winning awards around the world (I'll say. It has an approval rating of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. It won the Grand Prize at Cannes, Best Film at the London Film Festival, the Louis Delluc Prize and best foreign language film awards at both the BAFTAs and the British Independent Film Awards. It was also nominated for 13 César awards, winning 9, and nominated in the Best Foreign Film category at the Oscars.). I'm only sorry I can't join in the chorus of wholehearted approval. (Yeah, you are quite alone here...)
It's the story of Malik (Tahar Rahim), a 19-year-old French thug with Arab origins, coming of age within a brutalising prison system. It's partly a story of self-education, partly a tale of a man descending into a kind of amoral hell. Most reviews emphasise the first aspect. (Well that's because it is a very important part of the film. It is what separates it from other crime films and Rahim's ability to change from learning to brutality freely is central to his wonderful performance.)
Very few point out that the behaviour of the protagonist - which includes several gruesome murders - makes him extremely hard to identify with. (He is a man who has made mistakes in his life, partly as a result of his poverty and illiteracy, who is forced to do horrible things to survive in the brutal world of the prison. Once he has set out on this path, he is drawn in ever more by money and power.)
In a film that lasts for more than two-and-a-half hours, this makes the movie a long haul (It is a tough watch, but who watched this film for light entertainment?). Impressive aspects include an intense performance by newcomer Rahim, and an unforgettably malign one from Niels Arestup as a domineering Corsican crime lord who continues to run his empire from inside prison. (The acting is uniformly excellent, and yet these two do, indeed, stand out.)
Audiard is at his best when dealing with well-observed, quirky detail. There's a lovely little sequence when Malik flies in a plane for the first time and behaves in inappropriate ways learned in prison - opening his mouth when he is scanned by security, and grabbing extra croissants on board when he has the chance (This, too, we agree on. Though my personal favourite scene was the one where Malik is shown how to hide a razorblade in his mouth)
Audiard is less confident with his story's surreal aspects, such as our anti-hero's unexplained prophetic powers (This is the film's only real stumbling point. But not one big enough to knock it down from five stars, let alone down to your 2...) and the repeated appearances in ghostly form of his first murder victim (I attributed this to his guilt at what he has done, and what he has become. And I felt they generally worked pretty well really. I think there was one appearance that didn't work as well, but that's really it.).
Some of the story-telling is muddled, and no attempt is made to imbue the proceedings with any kind of morality (Look, I know that you love morality, but a lot of people in the real world are immoral. It is ridiculous in the extreme to expect every film to show only moral people and moral acts.). We are presumably meant to admire the leading man's opportunism, resilience and ability to cast off and reassume his Muslim identity at will. (I think you're supposed to admire his self-education more than that, to be honest...)
I found the film's reluctance to examine Malik's inner life and personal beliefs irksome (But were such details necessary? No. All they would have done is remove some of the mystery surrounding him, and added to the already long running time.). The picture is also extremely lethargically paced, especially in its first hour (Look, it's bad enough when amateurs complain about films that take their time to develop, but from someone who is supposedly a professional is even worse. No wonder Rotten Tomatoes don't class you as a top critic like they do reviewers from other newspapers like The Guardian...).
A Prophet glorifies crime (Yeah. It all goes so well for everyone...) and regards murder as a perfectly normal response to being a member of a racially abused underclass (What? There's no such thing as 'normal' for a start. And I think you'll find that such a response is an all too common one.) - which may be a fashionable doctrine among film critics, but may not strike quite such a responsive chord with the general public. (Well this is an arthouse film, so the general public won't watch it anyway. They're far too busy watching dross like Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean...)
Now let's have a look at his 'review' of Che: Part One. This film is flawed, but is enthralling nonetheless, and has attained a score of 66% on Rotten Tomatoes from everyone and 79% from Top Critics, so where Tookey gets his score of 0 from I don't know...:

A strong early candidate for the most agonisingly tedious film of 2009 is this first part of Steven Soderbergh's hagiography of Che Guevara. (Look, just because a film takes its time does not make it tedious. How old are you? Five? And Guevara is a saint to many in Bolivia, so technically it is a hagiography...)
He is presented throughout as a secular saint (It may not delve too deep into his flaws, but it never suggests he was perfect), rather than the Stalin-worshipping (He actually became pretty anti-Soviet after the Cuban Missile Crisis.), mass murdering (According to the award-winning biography by Jon Lee Anderson, no innocents were ever put to death by Che or on his orders. He executed only agents of cruel and oppressive dictatorships, dangerous criminals and those guilty of treason or desertion. All of which were common reasons for execution at the time. Especially during times of war.) Communist (Actually he is presented as a communist. It would be quite difficult to tell his story and leave that out. And being a communist is not on a level with mass-murder.) who helped to destroy industry (He actually supported a China-like rapid expansion of industry in Cuba, so how does that work?), society (He did destroy the old Cuban society. One where 1% of the population controlled nearly 50% of the wealth. Clearly a society worth saving...) and the rule of law in Cuba (The rule of law in Cuba? You do realise that Batista was a monster?), and believed he had the right to imprison or execute anyone who disagreed with him (It was war. Such means were not only common, but pretty much required. And the CIA were so much better in executing Guevara weren't they...)
Benicio del Toro poses rather than acts in a series of outfits which seem surprisingly clean for a guerilla. (Yeah. That'll be why legendary critic Roger Ebert described de Toro's performance as "heroic" and "self-effacing".)
The main hint as to why he won Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival is that the chairman of the jury was that well-known armchair revolutionary Sean Penn (Yeah, couldn't possibly because it was a really good performance. And the chairman only has one vote anyway, clearly at least most of the rest of the jury agreed with him.)
Peter Buchman's slack, disorganised screenplay (It was intentionally disorganised. Soderbergh pointed out the stupidity of complaining most films are too conventional, then turning on a film for being unconventional.) never probes Che's character or challenges his beliefs (Perhaps not as much as it should, but this is hardly a heinous crime.), and sparks into life only in the final half hour: a prolonged action sequence in which Guevara captures the town of Santa Clara. (That was a good sequence, but my friends and myself were all entertained throughout the film's running time.)
The rest is as insanely long-winded as a speech by Che's old mate, Fidel Castro (That'll be Castro is so beloved by pretty much everyone in Cuba then...)
Amazingly, I gather that the second half of this movie  -  to be released on February 20  -  is even more turgid than the first. (Really? I heard it was better, though I haven't yet watched the second, so I cannot say for certain.) 
Verdict: Radical chic at its dullest
A turkey (Oh, piss off Tookey you right-wing hack. Do you even know what film criticism is? It isn't disliking a film because you dislike the main character.)
You may have noticed that the last point is a running theme here, a theme that looks set to continue with his review of the small British film Bronson. The film depicts the criminal Charles Bronson (not to be confused with the actor) who is renowned as the most dangerous man in the British prison system:

British Lottery-funded projects don't come much more barking than Bronson (Well it is a strange film. Especially the bits with Tom Hardy on stage in make-up. But those eccentricities are what make the film as great as it is.), a heavyweight contender for most unpleasant, ugly and pointless film of 2009 (Can a film be pointless? I'd argue not. Every film has a point, even if that point is merely to entertain. They may fail, but they still have a point.).
Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn's ill-advised excursion into art-house brutalism (Except he did very well with it. His "ill-advised excursion into art-house brutalism" has a score of begins with the actor playing Britain's most violent prisoner saying to the camera: 'I am Charles Bronson, and all my life I've wanted to be famous.' (Well that is a possible explanation for Bronson's otherwise inexplicable bouts of violence against prison staff.)
Well, now he is (Actually, he already was. The tabloids have been talking about him for years already.). That's one of the most obvious gripes about the movie. In taking a studiously nonjudgmental, fashionably nihilistic line, it will prove to morons the world over that attacking people for no reason is one sure fire way to attain celebrity (Do you really believe these things, or do you just write what The Daily Fail want you to write? Anyone who comes away from this film thinking "Yes, that's all a good idea" has some major psychological problems).
Mr Bronson's offences outside prison have been armed robbery and robbery with violence. Inside, however, he has distinguished himself with such bestial conduct that he has had his sentences extended to 34 years, 30 of them spent in solitary confinement. (Exactly. This strange man was always a likely candidate for the movie treatment. The public have always enjoyed watching criminals. Just look at The Great Train Robbery from 1903.)
Why on earth such a creep should be glorified, I cannot imagine, especially as the film makes no attempt to understand him or derive any lessons from his behaviour (It does actually. He commits one robbery to steal an engagement ring, for a woman who then rejects him. This reignites the anger inside. But when the man himself refuses to say, how can the film just guess? It does a very good job considering.).
It would be churlish to deny that Tom Hardy gives a powerful performance, but it's necessarily one-dimensional, since Bronson appears to have no redeeming virtues whatsoever. (Doesn't he? He is a complex individual who can be intelligent, is a talented artist and yet performs these brutal acts for no gain whatsoever.)
In addition to celebrating violence, this most brutal of biopics is virulently homophobic (Excuse me? It's not homophobic. The character is, not the film. And anyway, it's more than a little rich for you to claim homophobia whilst writing for a newspaper that is demonstrably homophobic.). And its other disagreeable overtones of pretentiousness and precious fringe-theatricality make it a uniquely gruesome experience. (It isn't pretentious. It is just as clever as it thinks it is. It is a fringe film, but that is all that it ever aimed to be. Such a violent film was never going to be a blockbuster.)
Especially distasteful is the use of classical music, in the questionable tradition of Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, to add a pretence of ironic nobility to Bronson's thuggishness. (It actually works rather well. It reinforces the idea that this is the 21st Century's A Clockwork Orange whilst being very much its own film.)
I gather that a worldwide petition is in circulation to free Mr Bronson (That is silly, but is hardly the film's fault.). I would happily sign any petition to keep this ludicrous lout off our streets, and indeed off our screens. (Yeah, but you seem to support the general censorship of all cinema, a la the 1980s. Because you're a fool. Who doesn't understand films he doesn't want to like.)
On the strength of this movie, both Mr Bronson and the Lottery panel need their heads examined. (Yeah, how dare the Lottery panel provide funding for such a successful film.)
Verdict: Could be a big hit... among psychopaths (And, indeed, 77% of critics. Are you saying that most other critics are psychopaths? Pretty sure that's libel...)
I think that'll do for now, but there are plenty of other dreadful excuses for reviews in his canon, so I will be back.

Friday, 8 July 2011


These Transformers were cool.
With the release of Transformers: Dark of the Moon to the audible sound of critics tearing out their hair in desperation, I thought I'd revisit the original. And mock anyone who gave it 5 stars. While not the gangrenous, pus-filled wound that the later films become, it is by no sane man's measure a great film. These reviewers aren't sane men...:
This was this summer's best film (Harry Potter 5? That was a better film. So was The Simpsons, Die Hard 4.0 and The Bourne Ultimatum. And then there were smaller films released in the summer of '07 like 1408 and Rescue Dawn which are both way ahead of this trash.) and the best action film I've seen in ages (Really? I take it you missed the Bourne trilogy then? And the first 2 X- Men movies. And Batman Begins. I really could go on, but this post would just become a list of films released in the few years prior to 2007...). 
Forget 'Independence Day' this movie has FAR MORE PACE THAN THAT (No it doesn't. It's overly long and drags in a number of places. Plus, Independence Day is a film that has better actors, directors and scriptwriters. And far more humanity.). More like the first Terminator film. (Did you really just liken this piece of crap with one of the best and most important action films ever made? James Cameron is a piece of shit, but at least he used to make good films. Unlike Michael Bay who is a piece of shit who doesn't even know what a good film is, let alone how to go about making one. Now, if I ever catch you likening a Bay movie to a stone-cold classic ever again, I will take the largest Optimus Prime toy I can find, and force it up your urethra. And then I'll beat you to death with a Megatron...) 
I saw this with my 4 kids aged 11, 8, 6 and 4 in the cinema. They along with this 45 year old just loved this movie from start to finish (The children can be excused for youthful inexperience. But you should go back to school. Preferably a film school... One that still uses corporal punishment.). 
It is visceral (It isn't, though, is it? Bay even manages to make robots hitting other robots dull. Probably because in every fight it is impossible to work out which robot is which, or which bit of metal belongs to which robot.) without being scary and funny (in places) without being naff (The attempts at humour are cringe-makingly awful.) and it just looks GREAT! (The CGI is pretty good. But what's the point when you can't tell what's what?)
I would agree with the comment made earlier - Big screen TV for this along with surround sound or you'll have wasted your money. (Whatever you watch it on, you've wasted your money. And given that hack director some more money to butcher cinema.)
p.s Female lead is pretty fit, too! (She has a name. It is Megan Fox. Though thank you for summing up Bay's lecherous and misogynistic attitude to women.)
Here's another one:
I was expecting alot from this film (For the love of God why?). Michael Bay & Stephen Spielberg? (Michael Bay directing made you want to see this film? Michael Bay is very probably the worst director this side of Uwe Boll) Rich source material (It's a children's toy!) and enormous transforming robots (These are cool.)? This should be the best movie ever! (Anything that has Bay involved is automatically in the bottom half...)
I went along to the cinema with my wife (yeshy-mesh (?)) after watching all of the other Summer "blockbusters" and we were both blown away! (Clearly you have no taste whatsoever)
It was funny (If you find wooden acting and one-note direction funny, I suppose...), exciting (Not that exciting. Repetitive maybe...), loud (Now that's true. Except that I would say being loud was a negative...), expressionate (That's not even a word.), did justice to the original cartoon (It shat all over the, from what I remember, brilliant cartoon.) and captured my attention for the whole movie (It was dull!).
I loved it, I enjoyed every aspect of the movie especially the "lubricating the human" scene (This is a children's movie. A human peeing on someone was only shown on television for the first time in 1980, I refuse to believe that in only 30 years it has become acceptable for children to see such things.). I won't be buying the DVD (Nor will I. Unless as a punishment for something...). Because I made a resolution to myself that i would buy a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player so i can watch this movie in all of its glory. (I've got a blu-ray player. I hope it will never have to touch this rubbish.)
Best film of the summer (I already explained why it wasn't. Look up there ☝ for a list.)
Lastly, I'll cast my eye over this one:

No words can possibly express how TOTALLY OUT OF THIS WORLD this movie is (Are you serious? I really hope you're taking the piss.). Transformers 2007 is the most amazing (How is it amazing?), exciting (I've said before that isn't as exciting as big robots being hit by other big robots should have been.), emotionally-heart tearing (What? When? The film had all the emotion of a porn film), tear-jerking (Are you lying? Paid by Bay? Or just in denial?), action-packed (Well there was plenty of 'action' I'll give you that), the most funniest (Most funniest? Learn your language.), coolest, just....WONDERFUL movie I have ever seen in the history of movies (Don't watch many films do you? This will never replace The Godfather an Citizen Kane at the top of Best Movie lists. And for a very good reason.). At this present time, I can't tell you anything about the special features on the DVD as it's not even been released yet, so I can only give you a review on the actual movie itself (What a pity. We could have been treated to you telling us that the 'making of' was also better than Taxi Driver...)
To put it all into a nutshell (Even a detailed synopsis would take a few sentences.), the story revolves around a young man named Sam Witwicky. He's not very popular at school, but he's in love with a beautiful young lady named Mikeala (I think you'll find he lusts after her. Bay wouldn't know love if he fell over it. Unless it appeared as a woman's arse or an explosion.), who's in his class. His dream has always been to get his first car and hopefully impress the woman he loves at the same time. He gets his new car, (as well as the lady), who just happens to be the autobot, Bumblebee, who saves his life and they become best friends (As you do.). Eventually, Bumblebee introduces Sam and Mikeala to his other friends, Optimus Prime, Ratchet, Jazz and Ironhide (who is extremely trigger-happy in this movie). Optimus explains the important role that Sam has to play in order to help the Autobots save the human-race and the world from the Decepticons and...well, you're gonna have to watch the rest (Well that's really about it.). I've already gone to the cinema to see it...FOUR times, LOL! (Then you are one of the many responsible for the sequels. When I come to power anyone who has paid to see these films twice or more will be crucified. Literally, there'll be a cross and some thieves and everything.)
Michael Bay certainy did a MAGNIFICENT job on making this movie (But you can't see what's happening most of the time.). This is truly a masterpiece in the history of the Transformers (This film and "masterpiece" should never be in the same paragraph. Except right there where the inverted commas make it okay.). The selection of music and songs they chose for the soundtrack also makes an exciting listening experience and fits each part of the movie perfectly. (It's over dramatic and too loud.)
The acting, computer animation and real-life robots look INCREDIBLY AMAZING and VERY, VERY, VERY REAL INDEED. (The acting is piss-poor from pretty much everyone. How is it even possible to get bad performances from John Turturro and Jon Voight? And you know the robots don't exist in real-life right?)
Optimus Prime: FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT OF ALL SENTIENT BEINGS! (Except those who believe this to be an excellent film. They should be put to work in mines where they'll never get to see the sun again. That'll learn 'em.)
Right that's enough for now. I may well do some reviews for the second one too, if I can work up the courage to watch the hateful thing...
Related Posts with Thumbnails