Pyro's Piss poor review

Nice one PT. By the way, did your copy of Mulholland Drive have no individual scene access? Mine doesn't, which is quite annoying...

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I enjoyed your Mulholland Drive review, good job.

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

Suspect's Reviews

I'll be honest with you, i havn't actually watched my DVD of it yet

But i have read this is a technique Lynch uses on other DVDs to prevent skipping parts of the movie, so it's watched as a whole, as it "meant to be".

__________________

Undead (Spierig Brothers, 2003)



You have to appreciate this film, that's whether you like it or not. The film is rather technical and polished considering budget and adds
some fresh elements to a rather, let's be honest, simple genre. The
sci-fi element was the most notable, and it gives a nice hybrid nature to the genre, the comedy, well, can't have everything. The special effects and CGI are, as mentioned, something to be in awe of, all home computers and their own budget etc. Though, where lack of budget forces film makers to be creative, much of Spierig Brother's finesse was lost or recycled later on.

When the films started, i was expecting a decent zombie flick, the
meteors and the gore were all initially really well done and
imaginative, even the first zombie attacks were fun. Though, it becomes clear, once the film takes off, the makers don't really know where they're going. The supposed cool outsider hero just looked like a numpty, there was no menace, no fear or respect in or for his
character. His plans and actions were inconsistent, 'we've been chosen to fight them..... so we'll hide from them in the basement'. The plot was weak. Much of the following action came repetitive and
uninteresting, OK, they won't die, lets shoot them anyway. There was one scene later on in the store that touched at the earlier finesse but sadly most of this scene was just copied from Peter Jackson.

The acting, while not great was agreeable. The characters just showed how poor the script was, there was no empathy or anything to make you give a damn about these people. There were a few decent one liners, though most dialogue falls flat on it's face, basically it wasn't funny, even the zombie fish were dumb. The direction in general was fine, there was nothing to make it stand out, or collapse. The character development was weak. The ending twist just sticks with the codes and conventions of zombie genre films and i mean the actual end. Though i did enjoy seeing that the protagonist was actually wrong about the whole thing, especially as he was a twat.

Overall, not a bad film, certainly one for zombie fans, though nothing
special or what it was hyped to be. In terms of technical value it's outstandingly well done and as for the genre ingenuity it's pretty good, but genre is nothing without script, and the script was just borrowed from other films. The film itself should have been 30 minutes shorter as pace did suffer. There are times when it seemed to try and be too big for it's shoes and most scenes are re-used, sadly. The fisherman was no Ash and the gore and violence pales in comparison to Braindead or Bad Taste. So to conclude, see Evil Dead or Braindead for A+ zombie films for fun, or see this, a less gratuitous zombie film with interesting mix of sci-fi and horror.

National Treasure (Jon Turteltaub, 2004)



Im sure most the American mo-fos will be more than familiar with this, as it was no1 at US box-office a while i believe. It's just come out in UK and well, i dont think its going to enjoy the same success. Based on the content, the film is very pro America, it almost revolves on America's history, which isn't per se a negative but when it comes across as a tour guide it starts to become weak. This idea could have been interesting for a non-american citizen but i found it to be advertorial.

Nic Cage gives a decent perfomance, not anything special mind. I enjoyed Sean Bean having a big role in the film and NOT dying, as he seems to in most films. Nic's side-kick just reminded of Blade's in his second outting and Dianne Kruger (Troy) started as an almost interesting character but quickly descended into the stereotypical role most women potray in action films. Harvey Keital was criminally underused as was Jon Voight. Both gave average performances.

This was a kids film and aimed at that audience, and when realised, the banner changed from Touchstone to Disney, which should give some clues to content. I could have enjoyed this more, and i think under the surface, there was a more mature film trying to get out. A slightly darker edge and more threat from an almost comical villian would have helped drastically. I did enjoy the FBI/Cage boat escape, set-up scene (trying not to give to much away).
A major cripe i have with the film is that it seemed to lack a beginning, going from early childhood introduction, straight into the middle of the film. This did leave me somewhat disorientated, which is never a good start. Also, during the opening scenes, there's is a massive character change, and devolpment just thrown in your face with no tact what-so-ever- it's not natural, blatantly scripted. The start packs in all the introductions and set-ups into an un-easy fitting package then twists them.

Although, after this and when the films is fully underway, there's a lot of enjoyment to be had. Cage has a lot of charisma and i think there was some nice pacing, no moment was dragged out, particualrly. The ending was a little confusing, and if i didnt get it fully, i have no idea how its young target audience would.
To be fair, this isnt a bad film, even for audiences outside of USA. Several improvements, like Cages irritating thought processes could have been altered. They could this another go, with more focus on Sean Bean's character and a more developed villian all round, also a lot more attention on the FBI and Keital. Of course, this would leave less time for the actual treasure hunting, but i prefer it like that, seeing as when they reach the conclusion, the treasure becomes somewhat irrelevant.

Basically, to make this better, Disney **** off. And in the beginning, when they're on the boat, instead of Cage and side-kick surviving, they should have died, this would follow with Sean Bean, being British and devastating America's history and being bad, with Keital in pursuit.

As it is-

See Indiana Jones trilogy instead

Thanks for the reviews Pyro, I won't be rushing out to see Undead

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

Not even to support your local industry?

Ummmm

Star Wars Epidode 3: Revenge of the Sith (George Lucas, 2005)





Early note, i don't really understand the Star Wars political story, so the lack of plot i found in the early hours maybe due to this.

Basically, i appreciate what Lucas has done, and it does improve on aspects of Ep 1 & 2, and yes, the film is stunning to look at it- but that's about it.

The film begins with a huge space-fight. Ok, looks good, lots of ships, lots of action, though this sequence is set up only by the conventional introduction, which kinda left me to fill in the spaces, although i don't mind being active while watching a film, it did seem rather lazy and eager to show all it's cards in the opening moments. Anakin and Obi Wan are leading a rescue of Palpatine, this brings me to a question- why can't Hayden Christenson act? Lol, no. Why has Palpatine been captured? Maybe someone can answer me this. Perhaps it because the captures know only of him as a Sith Lord leader or it was to do with Anakin, but it's not explained. And the sequence is empty, i wasn't comfortable enough with the characters to care and the outcome was inevitable anyway.

And as i already mentioned it, the acting. It sucked. Anakin spends the whole film pouting like an angry teenager, hardly the solid Darth Vader. Sam Jackson (Mace Windu) got better after a shaky start and his showdown was possibly my favourite moment of the film. And not technically acting but Yoda, he was safe when he was a puppet, why couldn't he remain a puppet? Personally, its hard to emphasise with a green bit of cgi, Frank Oz also seemed to be lacking in the acting department. This brings me to another criticism, the lack of human actors- in particular Commander Cody, he's bloody cgi for most of his parts- what the hell's wrong with a real person? That really annoyed me, and the Wookies- i'm pretty sure they're all cg as well and why are they there? Their little narrative was poor and undeveloped, the only logic i could see was to use Chewbacca to link the III and IV for idiots and have another excuse for some action or the whole Episode VI ewoks thing. Also the new villian General Greivous, pointless. First of all- his cloak, what does he need to hide his indentity in case someone recognizes him or something? And why the **** does a robot have a cough- ok so he has some biological parts but he was just there, with bare relevance to the story and had no history or character to make him interesting in the slightest. Shoulda kept one of the few good actors- Christopher Lee to continue being the antagonist who instead was utterly wasted. And don't get me started on the banal dialogue:

Padme: " I wuv you wots and wots"
Anakin: " Padme, I wuv you more. you're purty"
Padme: " you wuv me"
Anakin: "I wuv you, you purty"
Blah blah blah....

And on a side note, Natalie Portman, fine specimen of a woman, looked terrible in this scene.

The thing with Ep 1 and 2 was they contained new and interesting narratives, which were able to develop characters. maybe there was a little too much of this and less action, but at least there were characters and there was a story. Sadly i felt this was lacking from 3. The first two hours were empty just a chance to show some fancy effects. It's only the towards the end they story emerges and I was given something to follow and engage with.

So I spent all this time complaining about the film, let me share some reason for seeing it- it is the final Episode (allegedly), the graphics are brilliant, despite being overused and Ian McDiarmid does a groovy job.

I don't aim to persuade you not see the film or to see it, as i'm sure you've decided already, or have seen it anyway. Just don't go praising it or comparing it to the originals. Yes, it has lots of action scenes, no Jar Jar Binks (bar one quick shot) and is more enjoyable then the prequels but that doesn't make it good. One can't complain for knowing what happens, who's going to die, who's going to live or the final conclusion, all I wanted was something with good acting, developed characters, strong sensical narrative, a 'darker' edge that doesn't just mean Anakin wears black (hey, look at that great hint- black costume, he's a baddie...duh). and kills some kids.
End of the day, want a film with good effects and good story see Lord of the Rings (especially as i'm sure Lucas ran out of ideas for an ending "hey that lord of the rings was successful, how did that end? huzzah- a volcano, that's where ours will end!") or just see the original 3. When Star Wars Epidode 3 ROTS (geddit'?) away and when the hype dies down, one can only pray producers will realise fancy effects alone don't make a film.

Undead is Australian, are you not also Australian?

I haven't seen Ep III, got no desire to. In fact, it took me until a few months ago to watch Ep II, which was one of the worst big budget films I've ever seen.

Wolf Creek (Greg McLean, 2005)




It's hard to watch this film and not be reminded of either The Hitcher or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Wolf Creek takes from both these movies and fails to come up with anything other than a slightly unhinged Crocodile Dundee. Where the two aforementioned films succeed is with unrelenting pace, and intriguing villians. For a film that's trying to be nasty, the opening hour which is just a road trip is uneventful and does little to help. Character's aren't set up well, although that's clearly the intention, neither is the plot or menace, just some anectodes about alien abductions. Secondly, the villian, while he's played well, and pulls his role off, but there's no catch to his character, i'm not talking childhood trauma motives, just a bit more depth to his character.

The three backapckers are very uneven. Only one character seems real, the others are clearly scripted. One wakes to find herself trapped and tied, instead of screaming or being even a bit concerned she tries to escape, OK, but she then gives up though the 'key' was right in front of her the whole time. The Austrailian character runs into the Outback, he should know best that his chances of survival are slim. The one real character, despite shaky acting, shows the true horror of their predicament with manical giggling and screaming, very Marliyn Burns.

The film is shot with well and on HD, some of the ambient shots get a bit tiresome but it captures the emptiness of the outback well. It's certainly not an MTV horror movie, it's very gritty and revels in nastiness. Most is performed well, there's no major gore scenes, just a few moments of torture, which will make you feel uncomfortable. In fact, most the film will make you uncomfortable, it can get quite tense, not unbearably, but quite. It's good to see that the ending doesn't cop out, though it is 'based in true events'.

Overall the film takes to long getting of it's feet, with characters hard to believe in and subsequentially not care about. A romance is thrown in, though it's left totally unexpanded on. Some of the chases are tense and well shot, but it's not going to give you anything you havn't seen done better in other incarnations.



On a side note, if you approach it with a very open mind, and read into it, as i did, a little twist can be seen. I reckon that the killer was actually an alien, which explains some scenes from the film, especially as nothing says he can't be an alien. With that in mind, it gives the film some much needed depth.

Well, that's a load of bollocks which I haven't encountered since buying Prince's Lovesexy (yes, I was one of the few). And it's definately on the R2 disc too as I bought the thing in Tescos.

I've paid my money and I'll watch it how I darn well like...

Auteur! Auteur! (this should be in the complaining thread, I know )

Yes but I don't have to like every Australian movie, i met a guy at a party years ago, he told me about this zombie movie he had written, and they were making it into a movie, this must be it

I wasn't sure if we were on the same page is all. Of course you don't have to like every Australian film. And wow, you know someone famous (ish)!

Well not really, I just met him at a party, yes I know someone famous(ish)

who ever said that he didn't like star wars episode 3....i spit on your shoes....

Spit on mine then, big boy. They could do with a clean.

*spits on tacitus's shoes*....there.....