Apparently, according to whispers that echo in the halls of giant Hollywood corporations, if you mention the words "Charlie's Angels" and "Terminator" and "What the.?" you're likely to get a large punch (or at best a strict shouting at) from a certain McG. Yes, I know, the name is stupid. Why is a forty-year-old film director calling himself McG? Surely most guys have abandoned that fictional name stuff, along with catapults, sticker books and Pokemon cards, when they leave primary school. This doesn't seem the case for the Michigan born filmmaker, the man behind the Charlie's Angels films, and all we as an audience can do is either laugh or tut at the name, depending on our age and demeanour. For the record, I tutted.
So, back to the film. Is it any good? The answer - a resounding victorious yes. This is an absolute triumph, and certainly McG's best film to date. By pushing the Terminator story to 2018, he is given a larger scope to play with, using the oh-so-complex mythology of this dusty, dangerous and machine filled world. But, before we can get to the action, we have the pleasure of seeing the wonderful Helena Bonham Carter talking to new character (and surprisingly good leading man) Marcus, played by newcomer Sam Worthington. He is on death row in 2003, and she is trying to persuade him to hand over his body to medical science after he is executed. This he does, and wakes up in 2018. But he doesn't wake to anything nice - not to a glorious future world with everything bright and rosy, where you are served Horlix by chipmunks with wings. Oh no, nothing like that. He wakes up to the horror of war-torn Planet Earth in the year 2018. And it really is horror. When we first see Marcus wakeup in the future-set narrative he is naked, covered with grit and mud and is screaming dementedly. Of course, he finds himself some clothes and a stable disposition, and teams up with two younger fighters, who are anxiously trying to stay alive as the machines of the "Skynet" corporation are hunting them down. One of these young fighters is a teenager called Kyle. He is important - watch out for Kyle.
You may be asking "where does Christian Bale come into all this?" - A fair question, considering his name is billed first (rather unfairly in my view) on the wealth of publicity that comes with this big-budget franchise reboot. In truth, he does very little. Playing John Connor (the apparent key to the whole Terminator mythology) is clearly no small task, but with what screen time he has he's typically unmemorable. The character is a soldier working for the "Resistance" against the machines. The machines (aka Robots) are fast taking over Earth, making the human-being an endangered species. John Connor has been told that his father is returning to him, but will be much younger. How this affects the Marcus character...well, I dare not say more.
This film perfectly does what it set out to do; reboot a franchise, a franchise that showed signs of failing with the so-so Terminator 3. The actions sequences - and believe me, there are many of them - are excellently judged and crafted so that the desired tension is never lost and the audience doesn't slip into boredom. I should make it clear that this isn't of the masterpiece standard some regard the first films of the series to be, but it is an exciting glimpse of what future instalments may hold. As I have said, Christian Bale is once again playing a lead that deserves gravitas but is generally starved of it by the actor's mediocrity. However, an intelligent script saves him from wrecking the mysterious role he inhabits, but this doesn't stop him from being eclipsed by the promising Sam Worthington.
This is a shakeup of a series, something which both seems fashionable and necessary in the current cinematic climate. It's far from being a landmark film, but it may begin a landmark progression for Hollywood, proving a new type of sequel (or reimagining) can often be the best thing to do when new material is not at hand. This is strong, well structured action-filmmaking that should be embraced rather than maligned.
I am currently re-watching many past Poirot episodes, but out of all the sixty-plus instalments, this has to be my favourite. With imaginative skill, director Paul Unwin takes one of Agatha Christie's more sombre, poignant books and turns it into a visual masterpiece. This is a truly astonishing work; making it all the more unfortunate it will never be shown theatrically.
However, we must be thankful that ITV saw fit to turn their Poirot adaptations around, losing the playful humour of the previous episodes by injecting a tangible sense of fear, menace and sadness. This feature-length story marks a change in tone for the series, and benefits greatly from it. From the opening scene we can see a marked difference. The warm Poirot theme tune has gone (although listen out for a variation on it at the end), replaced by the haunting melody of Erik Satie's First Gnossienne. Music plays a large role in this film, introducing a reflective atmosphere, which proves very appropriate to the cleverly woven plot.
The story is told in flashback - a dangerous technique that can usually distort and hinder rather than help a plot unfold, but here is used to produce an unexpectedly powerful effect. When a young woman, Lucy Crale, returns to England on discovery that her real mother was hanged for killing her father, she commissions Hercule Poirot to look over the case. Part of her motive for this commission is the fact that, at the age of 21, she was given a letter, written by her mother 14 years previously, insisting that she was innocent and was being hanged for a crime she did not commit. Lucy wishes to see the facts for herself, and to put her mind at rest. So Poirot, in his role as a neutral assessor, pays a visit to each of the five adults present at the time of Mr Crale's death.
David Suchet works genius with Poirot as both a character and a pivotal plot device. However, the true star of this sumptuous film is the gorgeous cinematography. The clever mixing of colours - a warm, lush look for the flashbacks set in sunny Devon, and a cold hard look to the present day. Kevin Elyot's screenplay wonderfully captures the darker feel of the novel, and although it does introduce a new homosexual subplot that wasn't so present in Christie's text, it manages to thread the many layers of the story together with expert competence.
Although there are around four new episodes of this series every two years, the quality of this adaptation and its direction has never been matched. Although many of the mysteries are miniature masterpieces, none seem to carry such a wealth of talent as this exceptional piece of drama. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
As 'airport pulp' Dan Brown's novels are world beaters, but turning his clue-laden webs of intricate discovery into screenable movies presents writers and directors with a problem even Harvard Professor hero Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) would need more than his usual 3 minutes to solve. And therein lies the problem.
Imagine the scene: tension mounts as our hero and his tag-along lady 'helper' prepare to open the latest box/door/painting/book/ (insert as appropriate) to reveal some astonishing secret that will transform the world, (or maybe just another clue). "Are you going to open it?" she asks. "Yes" he replies, key poised, "I am about to reveal an ancient secret hidden for centuries by generations of specially-chosen members of an ultra-secret organisation, the very existence of which has been denied for all that time yet whose members have included some of the most powerful men of their generations, and which has been handed down the years from templar knights to Venetian traders, and on down the years to this very night". I made that up, but you get the idea. "Just open it!!" you wail, in agony.
Don't blame screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (I am Legend; I Robot). By not using a 'third person' narrator - a disembodied storyteller - and delivering massive quantities of historical explanation as dialogue Brown's books are full of such excruciating moments. Faced with filming it the only alternatives would be continuous voiceover or more subtitles than a Chinese martial arts masterpiece! No wonder the results can be a little stilted.
Yet amazingly, even this dialogue-heavy awkwardness fails to spoil what, in the end, are two perfectly entertaining movies shot with, at times, an eye-smacking quality of cinematography. 'Angel and Demons' in particular, with it's principle setting in and around Vatican city, makes what probably ranks as the best ever job of capturing the awe-inspiring grandeur and beauty of that incredible space, better even than some of the most lovingly-compiled BBC historical and architectural documentaries. Even 'The Da Vinci Code' does a creditable job of presenting such fascinating places as the Louvre, Westminster Abbey, London's Temple church and the astonishing Rosslyn chapel.
Perhaps lesser screen figures than Hanks, Ian MacKellen, Ewen MacGregor, Audrey Tatou, Jean Reno and Stellan Skarsgard would fail to make Brown's characters work. Perhaps a less accomplished Director than Ron Howard (Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, and Frost/Nixon) would fumble the whole thing. As it is, it does work. Ignore the highbrow critics, and enjoy these for what they are - two cracking good yarns, enjoyably told.
Way better than the first one, can't wait for the next one...
On the first viewing I was entranced at the quality of this production; this French movie is a masterpiece of very morose circumstances.
The players pull off a tale with high art; often there is a piece of irony thrown in to bring the bleak circumstances of the story some humour.
The setting is great and situated around one building in a post apocalyptic urban France, the inhabitants of said building all have their own personal traits.
All in all a good watch, one could do a lot worse with their time like one of those big budget Hollywood monstrosities.
10/10.
Darkly humerous post apocalyptic film.
A bunch of friends (Phil, Stu, Alan) wake up in Las Vegas after a stag night and try to recall the previous nights activities for any clues as to where they can find the groom (Doug) who has disappeared.
A bunch of friends (Phil, Stu, Alan) wake up in Las Vegas after a stag night and try to recall the previous nights activities for any clues as to where they can find the groom (Doug) who has disappeared.
Verdict
The Hangover is one of the best comedies of the year; it's a great bro-mantic laugh that combines rude/crude ladishness with smart humour - not just for the boys!
Remo is my childhood film. It is a funny, all action and heart warming film. The interaction by the main characters is fantastic. For its age the film is sort of a classic. Fred Ward is a wonderful actor and this was one of the first films I saw him in. Joel Grey plays the wonderfully funny korean martial arts master Chuin. It can be tacky in certain places but I wouldn't change it. I recommend it to anyone who is a fan of Fred Ward or the cheesy funny films of that era!
Monsters vs. Aliens is the latest computer-animated effort from Dreamworks. It is very well cast with Reese Witherspoon, Will Arnett, Seth Rogen and Huge Laurie all pulling out non-stop performances as the 'Monsters' in the film.
The plot is a crazy-quilt of 1950s sci-fi, as bride-to-be-Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon) is struck by a meteorite full of an extraterrestrial energy source that makes her into a 50-foot woman. Susan's rushed off to a secret base, where she's quickly introduced to the U.S. Government's secret base of monsters: The Missing Link, a self-important scaly fish-ape (Will Arnett); B.O.B., a indestructible blob who's bright blue and not terribly bright (Seth Rogen); Dr. Cockroach, a human-insect hybrid with a mad scientist's cackle and unfortunate table manners (Hugh Laurie) and Insectasaurus, a hulking gigantic caterpillar from beyond.
The monsters are kept out of sight, but when alien invader Gallaxhar comes calling looking for the energy source that made Susan a giant, he unleashes war-machine robots and our featured creatures are enlisted by General W.R. Monger and President Hathaway as our last, freakiest line of defence.
Monster Vs. Aliens was a funny, sometimes random flick. I wish I had seen this movie in 3-D but I unfortunately did not. Thought what I loved and I think Dreamworks is great at is the quick, and snippy comical references that only people above the age of 14 would get. For example there is a part where Missing Link, one of the monsters, comments on how the earth feels like it has gotten warmer and how that would be a "Convenient Truth". Another thing I thought was a great addition was all the wonderful voice actors, how perfect they were for their rolls. Seth Rogen was amazing as B.O.B and I thought he was what made this movie hysterical.
I thought when Dreamworks released Shrek in 2001 that it was one of the best animated films not done by Pixar. Monsters Vs. Aliens though kicked it up a notch for Dreamworks, especially with the 3-D addition. I unfortunately saw the movie without 3-D but was still stunned at its beauty. When Susan backed into Insect-o-saraus and rubbed the hairs on his belly, it reminded me of Pixars Monsters Inc. The mechanics of the hair on Sully and the hair on Insect-o-saraus were identical and amazing. Bravo Dreamworks, Bravo. Two thumbs up.
Absolutely excellent! So inspiring and tear jerking in parts...one of the best films I have seen in a while!
Few movies offer as much insight into the extreme reaches of the human psyche as "Das Experiment". Based on the novel "Black Box", by Mario Giordano, twenty men, including Mortiz Bleibtreu and Christian Berkel, drawn from all walks of life agree to participate in an extended, fully-monitored group experiment. With the promise of a cash reward firmly set in each of their minds, the men find themselves presented with a detention block and are split into two groups - prisoners and the guards. What follows, is a dark path. As the guards are empowered with basic control of the situation and the ability to reprimand prisoners, the prisoners bind together in boisterous camaraderie. As the guards punish individuals, the solidarity of the prisoners fractures. As punishment becomes abuse and degradation, the prisoners become less than human in the eyes of their captors. This piece of cinema shows how easily small, seemingly-reasonable steps can lead to very dark closer-than-imagined places. Like a surgeon wielding a devastatingly sharp scalpel, Oliver Hirschbiegel slices through layer after layer of pretence, facade and presents a master class in mounting tension and gradual deterioration in human morality. It is inevitable, given its' language, that this film be viewed with no small sense of historical weight. That perfectly reasonable men can commit horrific acts and sleep soundly afterwards is one central theme. But undoubtedly, the innate strength of the individual in such circumstances is another, and, I would suggest, more worthy of remembrance.
This one slipped under the radar as it was released the same time as the Golden Compass (same actress).
A little difficult to follow and some repetitiveness in the plot, but a good fantasy film nonetheless. We enjoyed watching it as a family (including 2 children 11 and 15) but a second viewing was necessary. We enjoyed it!
Good family watch
It's been around a while now - the child actors are now adults, (Sean Austin - Lord of the Rings) but it a funny adventure, a bit like National Treasure for kids. It does carry a 12 rating and probably deserves it - but it is surprising how many people have not seen it. A great bargain from many retailers even if you only watch it once.
A great film
Despite the bizarre plot line this really works. Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder directed by Mel Brooks produce comic genius. Some people just don't get the plot but then I think that Mel Brook's crazy brand of comedy either clicks with you or...it doesn't. Give it a try
A classic comedy
What do you mean you've not seen this classic film? Many modern comedies are not a patch on this. Cary Grant at his best and with Peter Lorrie and Raymond Massey in great roles and Frank Capra's directing it is an excellent formula for success. And for under a fiver from most retailers - what a great buy!
Excellent film - a classic.
We are always looking for films that we can sit down and watch as a family (4 of us - children 11 and 15) and the real test is if we watch it more than once. We have now watched this 3 times in 2 weeks. Some really good laughs for all ages - typical Adam Sandler with his laid back humour and a great supporting cast - despite my dislike of Russell Brand his supporting role is great, a bit like Ricky Gervais in Night at the Museum.
Would recommend this to anyone!
Great family Fun
A very overused word today frequently describing movies, music, clothes etc is cool---- this Lawrence Kasdan (in a stunning directorial debut) movie is HOT!!Plus it's that rare animal in terms of movie watching--one to enjoy again and again.
Classy and stylishly erotic, sweatily atmospheric, ingeniously complex in its imaginative plot, consummately acted and hauntingly unfogettable, its sexually charged urgency is guaranteed to fascinate and envelop the captivated viewer.
This was the title that introduced us to the breathtakingly glamorous and highly sexy Kathleen Turner and what an introduction this turned out to be!
As Matty Walker, bored wife of a local businessman ,she turns every male head, in the local bar and generates a heat that quickly makes even the already sweltering Floridian surroundings more steamy than ever.
William Hurt as Ned Racine, local lawyer is extremely convincing in his well judged performance of a naive and impressionable victim who is willingly caught in Matty's expertly spun web.
The on screen chemistry between the two stars rivals even that of Bogart and Bacall and the memorable scene where Ned smashes the windows of Matty's villa so that he can seduce it's willing occupant, is definitely one of the most highly dramatic and explicitly erotic moments in Hollywood's entire cinematic history .Leave your maiden aunt safely at home with the X Factor!
Richard Crenna as Matty's unfortunate husband is, as usual, excellent and we are also treated to a quirky but likeable performance from Ted Danson and a brief but telling first movie appearance from Mickey Rourke. The film also features one of his best and most descriptive movie scores by ace composer Jonn Barry.
Lushy photographed and taking full advantage of the exotic Floridian setting, this is one storyline that will certainly keep you guessing right up to the moment when those final credits roll!
True its plotline has similarities to that great previous film noir hit, "Double Indemnity", but the movie has more than enough originality and highly involving excitement to satisfy even the most jaded viewer "Body Heat" deserves a place amongst the all time top thrillers and its witty and slick dialogue and surprising denouement will stay with you long after you have forgotten the clichéd and regurgitated plotlines of many contemporary movies.
Italian auteur Gilo Pontecorvo's penultimate film features captivating performances by Marlon Brando and Evaristo Márquez. The former a ruthless agent provocateur for the British Empire hired to instigate a slave revolt on a Portuguese Caribbean colony, in order to secure the island's lucrative sugar cane resources before re-enslaving the natives. The latter; an enslaved citizen turned revolutionary leader, whose newfound political consciousness comes into contention with the imperial powers who fomented the uprising. As good as Pontecorvo's masterpiece 'The Battle Of Algiers' and one of the best political films ever made.
Director James Foley's all star adaptation of Mamet's manic take on 'Death Of A Salesman'; 24 hours in the lives of Real Estate Agents: Closer Al "What a big man you are!" Pacino, has been Jack "Shelly 'The Machine' Levine" Lemmon, Ed "F*** You" Harris, Alan "I...I can't close this" Arkin, sneering boss Kevin "Company Man" Spacey, legendary salesman Alec "Always Be Closing" Baldwin and poor sap Jonathan "yy..yyou cashed my check?" Pyrce. Scathing corporate satire doesn't get any better. Must own.
A really good film! I read the book before seeing the film and I was not dissapointed. Although of course the book was better than the film as there was a lot more included in the book but it doesn't mean it was bad. The acting in it was really good and the effects were too.
This site uses cookies.
More details in our privacy policy