Iro's Reviews

As of writing, Choke has not yet been given official distribution, and will not get it for about another month and a half at least (depending on your location). However, I managed to see it at the annual local film festival. I'll bring this review up when the film gets a wider release, but for now here is my initial opinion.

Choke is the story of sex-addicted loser Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell). Victor's main concern in life is to keep his demented mother (Anjelica Huston) alive and in hospital. He does this in the hope of finding out the truth about his strangely absent father. To pay the bills, he pretends to choke on his dinner in fancy restaurants and plays off his saviour's heroism for financial gain.

I think the majority of readers here are at the very least aware of the existence of Fight Club, the only other major movie aside from Choke to be based off a Chuck Palahniuk novel. Most of the people who will seek out Choke will do it mainly because of the connection to either Fight Club or the Choke novel (or both, as the case may be). Of course, I'll have to play the comparison game here, but it has to be said - Choke is a very different beast to both its source novel and its spiritual predecessor, Fight Club.

Anyone who's read Palahniuk's writing will know that his books are frequently dark, very twisted and somewhat humourous. Words like "diseased" and "cancerous" come to mind. It's this same feeling that infected both the Fight Club and Choke novels and made them perverse joys to read. Palahniuk's touch even translated perfectly in David Fincher's adaptation. With Clark Gregg's adaptation of Choke, the stylish darkness is traded for a far more conventional "quasi-independent comic" approach. Strangely enough, this seems to suit Choke even better.

After all, Choke is first and foremost a comedy. At a guess, I'd say it's roughly 80 per cent faithful to the original novel (more on that later) with a large number of jokes lifted from the novel. The laugh factor was a strange thing. On one hand, the laughs managed to stay more or less consistent, with none of the jokes falling flat. On the other hand, I personally didn't feel like anything was too funny. Everything raised a genuine chuckle but as for anything approaching "struggling-to-breathe" humour, there wasn't much there. It makes me wonder what's better, a comedy with consistent chuckling or sporadic bursts of hilarious moments. Not too sure.

Regardless, the film manages to be an enjoyable experience. First-timer Gregg manages to handle his duties (which include writing, directing and even one very amusing bit part) with confidence, balancing comedy with drama effectively. The acting is impressive to say the least. Rockwell manages to nail Victor perfectly, yet it's Brad William Henke that manages to steal several scenes as Victor's friend Denny. Another treat is the score, which is an interesting blend of different styles.

Choke not only manages to be an entertaining comedy, it also becomes a very good example of how to streamline a 300-page novel into a movie that's just shy of the 90-minute mark. The only problem with it depends on whether or not your sense of humour agrees with the film's, but if this film was already on your "to-see" list, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Nice review thanks

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Nice on Iro, I think I'll enjoy this.

Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are Irish hitmen who have been sent to the titular Belgian town after a job goes wrong. While there, they end up interacting with a variety of interesting characters who are in town before finding out the real reason they’ve been sent to Bruges.

I like to think of movies like In Bruges as genuine gems. When I say “movies like In Bruges”, I don't necessarily think of films with similar subject matter. I tend to think of those kind of films which just…appear. Out of nowhere, you hear about a movie. The promotional material looks rather impressive. The film looks like it belongs to a genre you’re interested in. You allow yourself a glimpse of the basic plot (no more, lest the experience is spoilt) and it sounds like something that, in the right hands, could be inflated into a compelling piece of cinema. In Bruges is a tick in each of those boxes. As of writing, I’d definitely consider it one of the best films I’ve seen all year, if not the best outright.

“What makes you say that?” you may ask. I guess the simple answer is this – everything. Yes, I know, very simple – but everything in this movie just falls right into place and the result is a finely polished caper flick. If I had to pinpoint the film’s strongest individual part, I’d say it was the script. Writer-director McDonagh is also a renowned playwright, and the same quality translates to the film’s story. In Bruges has a very play-like feel to it, largely due to its heavy reliance on character development. As the two leads, Gleeson and Farrell are nothing short of brilliant. They are capable of taking several different “duo” clichés and twisting them into something that feels surprisingly fresh, and even when they’re not paired together, they maintain strong presences on-screen. Gleeson is perfect as the amiable Ken, but Farrell truly shines as Ray, who balances cockiness with insecurity deftly. Even though I haven’t seen much of Farrell’s other work, I honestly think he turned in a potential career-best act here.

The supporting cast is also treated very well. Even the smallest supporting characters are a source of great comedy or great drama, whatever may be needed. Whenever they reappear in the story, it never feels forced but fits in perfectly. Out of all of them, Jordan Prentice steals the show as an embittered American dwarf who’s in Bruges to make an arthouse film. The only real weakness I could find with the cast was Clémence Poésy as drug-dealer/love interest Chlöe, who isn’t necessarily bad, but isn’t really given anything spectacular to work with.

The film rolls along at a great pace. There is the very occasional scene that doesn’t feel like it goes anywhere, but the rest of it manages to be great. The balance between comedy (largely as a result of Ray’s none-too-pleasant altercations with locals and non-locals alike) and drama is excellent. The film has countless laugh-out-loud moments, yet it also has some genuinely shocking twists in it. It manages to remain compelling all throughout its running time. Another aspect I feel really gives the film a distinct feel is the location of Bruges itself. You’ve got to love those films where the location virtually becomes a character in the story, and Bruges (memorably described by Ralph Fiennes’s Harry as a “beautiful f***ing fairy tale town”) certainly comes into its own as such a “character”. The locales are brilliant, none so much as the Bell Tower, which is easily the most memorable building featured in the film.

To conclude, I loved In Bruges. Plain and simple. It’s a hundred-odd minutes worth of entertainment, both comedic and tragic. What few flaws this film has are made up for by its many strengths. It may be a little strong in the violence/language department, but if that doesn’t bother you, you should enjoy this, easily one of the best films I’ve watched in a while.

Nice review iro

yes. great review

I had originally planned to see this at the local international film festival earlier this year but missed out due to other plans. Now, George Romero's latest return to his most notable subject matter - the living dead - has finally arrived on DVD and I jumped at the chance to review it.

Unlike Romero's prior entries in his Dead series (which showed the zombie crisis getting larger and larger with each new film), Diary of the Dead takes place at the beginning of a zombie epidemic. The protagonists of the film are a group of film students and a professor, who first find out about the problem in the midst of shooting their own horror film in the woods near Pittsburgh. They immediately pack into a Winnebago and set off on a trip with little other goal than trying to get back to their homes. The group's director/cameraman, Jason, insists on capturing the events on camera in order to make a "record", for a number of reasons explored in the film. His obsession with making the film irritates many characters throughout the film, most of all fellow student Debra, who finds his behaviour to be counterproductive to the much more important goal of survival.

It seems like one of the more popular gimmicks to use in horror films nowadays is the usage of video cameras wielded by the film's characters to capture the action as opposed to conventional camerawork. In the case of Diary of the Dead, I was actually rather impressed by this (the ability to capture most of the film in long takes without spotting any real crew members still leaves me wondering, "How do they do that?"). Romero utilised the convention rather well, even extending it to several different cameras (including footage taken from mobile phones and security cameras).

While I did think the usage of security cameras in the film's climax was a rather decent touch, as a whole I did find the film's presentation to be somewhat annoying. Seeing as it's supposed to be a student film, it's even edited to look and feel like a fake student film. This includes moments where the raw footage shot by the characters is interspersed with bits of downloaded stock footage of other zombie attacks around the world and even the beloved film student cliché of effects-heavy montages of existing footage. This footage is also accompanied by narration that feels very, very unnecessary (except perhaps for the very last scene of the film), and tries to extol a commentary on Romero's latest target, which is...what again? The media? The Internet? The people who run either one? I can't quite remember. The message was lost on me, to be honest. Funny, because at the same time it felt like I was getting beaten over the head with it. On one last note, the music that Debra opts to include "to fit the mood" is also a rather ridiculous touch. You've got to wonder why anyone would want to add scary music to what was probably the most horrifying experience of their life.

Despite having a decent grasp on the technical side of the film (the gore effects are rather decent and all the more impressive in the context of a handheld camera technique), the film has plenty of plenty of problems. The characters are largely forgettable caricatures, and several of them are rather annoying in both manner and behaviour - none more so than the lead couple of Jason and Debra. It's hard to know what I found more ridiculous, Jason's fixation on his film or Debra's idealist wish to survive. Debra's stubborn nature also leads to what is easily one of the most ridiculous scenes in the whole film in a confrontation with a well-stocked survivalist over taking supplies.

I'm still in two minds over how I really rank this film overall - on one hand I think it's actually rather well-made. Even though the student film angle has plenty of failures, I can't help but admire the complexity of a handheld camera approach (then again, maybe I've still got to get sick of it first). However, plenty of other stuff fails. The students' plight marks one I don't really care for most of the time, and I found myself much more interested in the groups they came in contact with (black gangsters who were finally on top of their town, National Guardsmen turned psychopathic looters, etc) or the stock footage of separate incidents that was also weaved into the film as a whole (including a team of soldiers storming an elderly couple's home searching for zombies). Maybe it's just because I reckon the zombie film needs to expand beyond the clichéd set-up of a group of stereotypes that gets picked off ever so slowly throughout the film. Diary tried to do something different, but in the end it fell flat more often than not. I guess all I can do now is wait for somebody to successfully adapt the stories from Max Brooks' World War Z into a zombie epic that stretches beyond the constraints of the average zombie film.

Nice review. I give it and think that it showcases Romero growing, but most people disagree. Maybe after he and I are dead, it'll gain a Renaissance.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I was contemplating giving it but eh, in the end ratings don't really matter. Wonder how you think a movie like Diary is supposed to signify how Romero, a director who already has 40-odd years worth of filmmaking experience, is "growing".

He's adapting to the youtube techology. Personally, even with your complaints, I find his "fake documentary" the best one of all those I've seen in the last 25 years. On the other hand, it cannot compare with The War Game or "Special Bulletin".

Fair enough. The more I think about it, the more sense it seems to make. Oh, well, review's up and I don't really feel like changing it.

I have a sort of unwritten code when it comes to selecting which movies to review. I try and mix it up a little to keep the reviews interesting. Sometimes the twin realities of preoccupation and lack of inspiration lead me to go for ages without publishing anything new (I think there was a gap of at least two or three months between my reviews for In Bruges and Diary of the Dead). I don't know. I guess sometimes all it takes is for the right movie to hit the right chord and while I may not necessarily like the film a whole lot, I will feel a compulsion to try and express my thoughts on the film in question. This very same thing happened when I watched Pump Up The Volume.

Unlike most movies I've reviewed so far, I have seen Pump Up The Volume more than once, and haven't seen it in full for at least a year or maybe even two. A free VHS copy has been sitting in my room for a couple of months now and for some reason tonight I just felt like putting it on, watching it and coming here just to try and pour my thoughts out into something that made sense. All this happening after midnight on a Friday. A bit weird, but Pump Up The Volume made me feel that way for some reason. I don't know, but I figured I wouldn't really understand why until I finished a review.

The plot revolves around Mark (Christian Slater), a socially awkward teenager who can't fit in at his new high school in a typical suburban town. However, at ten o'clock every night, he airs his own pirate radio station and masquerades as "Happy Harry Hardon", a foul-mouthed rebel who talks in a very manner-of-fact way about all the facets of teen angst. His rants strike a chord with the school's students, inspiring them to act out against the oppression caused by teachers and parents alike. As the popularity of Harry's show grows, so too does the students' capacity for extreme action, ranging from vandalism to suicide. This leads to the concerned adults trying to shut down Harry once and for all.

One way in which Pump Up The Volume differs from most of the other movies I've reviewed thus far is that I'm basing my review off repeated viewings. It does seem like a movie that probably won't stand up to much more viewings after this one, but that's really because I gleaned as much as I could from the first time I saw it. Maybe it's because I learned to seek inspiration from other (better?) sources than Christian Slater, who brings a surprising amount of depth to his role as Mark/Harry. Some of the film's best moments are pure Slater - as "Harry" he becomes an alter-ego that can go from smooth to manic to respectfully quiet all within mere moments without it losing momentum or seeming too forced. Granted, as Mark he does seem rather stilted, but hell, Mark's as withdrawn as they come. Slater's performance rounds out well, which is just as well because without Slater much of the film's impact could have been easily lost. Aside from him, much of the acting in the film is passable at best.

That seems to be the interesting thing about Pump Up The Volume - it has a philosophy to it that has the ability to captivate with its vaguely eloquent musings on the problems faced by the youth of 1990 (and perhaps even now). This is balanced out by the fact that the more visceral aspects of the film seem to be a flaw. As I mentioned already, the acting is rather passable, with the occasional exception (one scene where a gay student relates a disturbing anecdote to Harry on air comes to mind). Many of the characters are one-dimensional - most adults either come in the form of clueless parents or vindictive teachers. Students don't fare much better, as many of them are depicted as Harry's disciples, rebelling against whatever order they know simply by playing recordings of Harry's show or spray-painting his best quotes all over the school.

I think that serves to illustrate the message behind the film in a surprisingly brilliant manner. Harry is the catalyst for many students' growth, whether in a good manner or bad. Although Mark initially has no qualms about spouting whatever he wants onto the airwaves, as the consequences of students acting upon his words start building up, he becomes increasingly reluctant to pursue his show. His ability to connect with the innermost turmoils of every student at his school is both a gift and a curse - he encourages all the clichés of being yourself and not giving a crap that movies like this tend to emphasise, but the results are far from what he expects (if he even expected any). Although the film has a rather obvious intention towards advocating free speech (as evidenced by the film's very last scene, where dozens of students learn to follow Mark's example and start their own radio stations as a means of self-expression), it almost seems far more complex than that.

I don't know. I just rambled about an admittedly cheesy early-90s teen film for ages, trying to make sense of what I was thinking about it. Looking back over it, it's probably the longest review I've done to date and I haven't really done it in a manner anything like the way I've done my other reviews. I haven't really proved any great point. There's still plenty more I could probably address given the right amount of thought, but I've already spent about an hour and a half hammering away at what you already see here. I'm not even going to give the film that good (or bad) a rating, in spite of inspiring a late-night rambling review. I just have to say that I admire the film's writing (and the complexity of the issues it raises) and of course Slater's nuanced performance, but apart from that I find it vaguely lacking. Oh, well. I still like it.

Pump Up The Volume. I always see it on TV and end up watching it.

Great review.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Me too

I know you know I love Pump Up The Volume and I don't find it lacking but that's mostly because it strikes a much more personal chord with me. I'm really glad it does with you too and I hope you don't go on to never watch it again. Its a good flick and bears out just fine on repeated viewings. Good stuff Iro...

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

I love this movie. I used to watch it all the time as a early teenager. I totally forgot about it till now. I think I am going to watch it soon. From what I remember, Iro's review seems to be dead on!

"Talk Hard"- Hard Harry

__________________
Stallone is my hero!

Yeah. Like I said, I thought it was really awesome first time around (this time last year I would give it a ). On a superficial level, it's not exactly the greatest and has its fair share of moments that do seem overly dramatic (a montage of students running wild while listening to Harry's show seemed rather over-the-top), but I find that doesn't matter so much in the face of the film's thematic content, which I reckon is expressed well. It's clever without being overly intellectual and while it does border on being too preachy about freedom of speech, it doesn't go all-out to condone Harry's decidedly illegal, if somewhat benevolent, actions (especially since it ends with Harry's arrest). It's a brilliantly executed philosophy which I feel is let down slightly by some clunky acting and one-dimensional characters.

However, it does have Kick Out The Jams on the soundtrack so I can forgive it.

Well, it's coming up on the first anniversary of the creation of this thread. In order to commemorate my rather erratic contributions to this site, I have decided to review an old favourite I promised myself I'd get reacquainted with - and get reacquainted I did...


It's been roughly four years (give or take a couple of weeks) since I stayed up late to watch Brazil for the first time on TV one balmy December night. I remember that much. There's a gap of at least two years between my last viewing and my second last (mainly as I've been busy soaking up other movies or living life). I was inspired to rewatch Brazil (for what I think must be the sixth time) because it's Christmas (and the film also takes place during Christmas) so I thought it a fitting way to spend Christmas Eve. Watching Brazil again reminds me just how easy it is to forget a brilliant classic sometimes.

Brazil takes place "somewhere in the 20th century", in a bizarre English dystopia that combines all the worst traits of society into a woefully ineffecient system built on bureaucracy, brutality and banality. The film's plot centres on Sam Lowry (Jonathon Pryce), a rather ordinary office worker who constantly dreams of being a knight of shining armour pursuing a mythical goddess (Kim Greist). Sam's uneventful life is interrupted by the sudden appearance of Jill, a belligerent truck driver who resembles the girl of his dreams. She in turn is trying to rectify one of the system's countless grave mistakes - a computer malfunction that leads to an arrest warrant being printed for an innocent man. Sam then proceeds to risk everything - his job, his home, his very life - in order to chase his dream woman.

On occasion, I tend to watch a film that gets so overwhelming that I find it a challenge to try and organise my thoughts and opinions on it into a coherent review. Brazil is such a film. I've seen a relatively small number of entries in Terry Gilliam's filmography, but even the weaker ones still showcase, if nothing else, Gilliam's distinct flair when it comes to visual extravaganzas. Brazil is a prime example - every possible facet of the film's look is realised perfectly. Brazil's look is at once bleak yet unbelievably weird. Gilliam manages to craft a reality that manages to surprise viewers with imagery that is at once so very incredibly surreal yet also horribly familiar (because the Brazil universe is hardly one you'd really want to live in). The most insignificant of props have their own unique "alternate reality" twist on them (such as making phone calls by inserting certain coloured plugs instead of pressing numbers). The attention to detail is incredibly meticulous, and it's all captured with amazing aptitude by cinematographer Roger Pratt, whose camerawork also deserves a mention for capturing the weird world of Brazil in a manner as equally bizarre yet familiar.If anything really stands out to anybody watching Brazil for the first time, it should be the mind-bending kaleidoscope of "art" that comprises Brazil's visuals.

Brazil isn't just an amazingly rich visual experience. The story is also surprisingly competent and well-written. Brazil is one of the best examples of blackly comic satire this side of Dr. Strangelove, and its myriad cast of characters, the actions they take and the world they inhabit are all serving as a superbly-done mockery of what I suppose could be described as Western civilization. Barely a scene goes by in Brazil where something doesn't go wrong, often at the fault of the Brazil universe's socio-political structure and the people within. Many characters act out of an incredibly misguided sense of right and wrong in order to benefit the system they are a part of (with the main exception being Robert De Niro's rogue heating engineer Tuttle, a criminal by the system's standards simply because he gets his job done properly and without filling out mountains of unnecessary paperwork). Wealth and social status are the motivation for several characters' actions. It's a strange and terrible world, yet Sam's optimism and strength of spirit allows him to endure all that the world throws at him in his pursuit of freedoms frowned upon and even punished by pig-headed government drones. The best thing about Brazil is that despite being 23 years old and being very retro sci-fi, it's still painfully relevant in this day and age. A government whose actions walk a fine line between gross incompetence and outright brutality, a society that places emphasis on one's looks and class over their personality or actions, a world where paranoia and disaster are encouraged and disregarded respectively...yeah. All too familiar.

I find Brazil to be quite simply brilliant, but I will acknowledge that it's not totally perfect. For all the praise I can heap on its script, the only part of it that doesn't ring completely true for me is the love story that develops between Sam and Jill. I can't really say too much without giving away the film, but I'll say that while in the context of the film it does appear to make some sort of sense (in a world where very little makes sense at all), for some reason it does seem a little forced by the writers. Outside of that, I really have no complaint with Brazil. It's a tick in every box - Gilliam has a very strong command of cinematic language, and he crafts a weird-as-they-come fairytale that does make a mockery out of the minutiae of the world at large (from civil service to plastic surgery) whilst crafting a strangely uplifting story of passion and hope that leads to one of the most jaw-dropping "happy endings" ever. Utterly brilliant filmmaking.

Good stuff again Iro, is this the new version that came out a little while ago? I've read that its pretty good. I have an old VHS copy of the original version but I almost don't want to watch it because I've read that the newer version is so good.

Newer version? I guess so. The way I heard it, the original version has a more conventional "happy ending" than the one used in Gilliam's own cut. I don't think there's that much of a difference other than they cut out the original ending, but then again, once you've actually seen the original ending, you'll understand just how great the difference will be.

I'd be willing to bet said VHS probably has the studio ending. Shame - the last 5 minutes are amazing.