This is the first film I can think of that properly spoofs the Star Trek franchise and does it successfully. Not only stabbing at the films and TV shows themselves, Galaxy Quest also pokes fun at the fans and the lifestyle of the stars now earning a living through sci-fi conventions and mall-openings. It boasts some very enjoyable comic performances from the leads; Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver and Alan Rickman. Some of the biggest laughs however, come from the supporting members, Tony Shalhoub as the permanently stoned Scottie-like character, and Sam Rockwell as the background character with no name, who's comes to the conclusion that because he's got no name he's going to be the only one to get killed. The scenes on earth work better than the scenes in space, and the film is very predictable at times, but all in all it's a good laugh that Trekkies or otherwise will enjoy equally. 7/10
A much less comical approach to horror as Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films, The Gift is a pretty decent horror, mystery film that doesn't try to be anything special but is entertaining enough nonetheless. The scare tactics are quite cliched, but successful, and the plot also suffers from a lack of orginality, which isn't too succesful. However, Raimi keeps things going nicely, and a couple of the performances aren't bad. Most notable is Keanu Reeves' portrayal of a wife-beating hick that is actually quite impressive. Cate Blanchet also puts in a nice turn as the main protagonist. It does have some problems though; I didn't like a lot of the pointless schmaltz when the action focuses around Blanchet's family life, and I didn't like the ending either, which felt tacked on and very corny. Apart from that, this is a little better than it looks, and is worth catching on video maybe, although horror films are always more effective on the big screen. 6/10
There has been a huge amount of hype about this film, and as often is the case, it doesn't really live up to its expectations. Its not bad by any means though. The battle scenes in the gladiator arenas are fantastic, with fights featuring tigers and chariots, big battles with loads of soldiers versus a few gladiators, and also some one on one combat. However, when the action isn't in the arena is where the film dissapoints. The dialogue is very cheesy, with most lines being suitable for trailers or tag lines ("What you do in life echoes in eternity" etc...), and it's very over-dramatic throughout. The opening battle (not in an arena, but 'real' war) is quite cool, but the jittery camera work when the fight gets going is a bit confusing. Also, the computer graphics look very fake when they are used to draw the outside of the collessium and Rome itself. On the plus side, as well as the excellent action scenes, Russell Crowe is fantasticaly cool, and Oliver Reed is very good in the scenes he did properly before he died (the last two times we see him you can tell it has been digitally manipulated, but they're not that bad). Joaquim (sp) Phoenix is a bit annoying though. 8/10
After reading the terrible reviews that this film got, I'm not really sure why I saw Gone in 60 Seconds. The main reason was probably because I have very much enjoyed the last few Bruckheimer action films; ie. Bad Boys, The Rock and Con Air (and to a lesser extent, the dissapointing Armageddon). This however was one of the reasons why I didn't like Gone in 60 Seconds very much though, because it just wasn't as good as these other films. What it really lacked was the humour of the previous movies, it tried once or twice, but failed miserably. It lacked the excitement of them too. A bit like the also dissapointing MI:2, this leaves almost all of the action to the last half hour, which is fine in a thriller, but in a mindless action film you expect more. Also, with a film with such a great premise for excuses for dozens of car chases, of which I am a great fan, there is only one proper full length chase, the rest of the time we just see cars being stolen, driven out of the building, then forgotten about. Another problem with the film is its brotherly love-family relationship scenes which are terrible and totally out of place in a film like this. A film about stealing 50 cars in one night should have been a whole lot funnier and much more exhilarating than this. 3/10
In Goodbye Lenin! a wonderful central premise which you wouldn't have thought could have been made into a feature is finely crafted into a moving but also very funny and interesting film. In East Berlin whilst it is still under Communist control, a woman falls into a coma, and doesn't wake until after the Berlin Wall has fallen, the country unites and the East begins to adopt capitalist ideals. Her son, in an attempt to stop the shock from killing her, does his best to prevent her from realising that this has happened. This idea fuels a number of wonderful scenes as the son does his best to keep his lie together, and also allows for a strong emotional core, showing to what lengths he will go for his mother's wellbeing. There are also strong messages about communism and capitalism as well as the changes the country went through at the time, although I must admit, my knowledge of the subject is a bit rusty to fully appreciate some of it. Its a very well written film with just the right levels of humour, sentiment and moral and political statements. Its visual style is interesting too, but is never over-flashy and doesn't get in the way of the film's content. Its maybe a little overlong, but this is a minor complaint for such a good film. Its rare that you get to see something which is touching, funny and intelligent all at the same time, and I thoroughly recommend anyone to see it, although those with better background knowledge of the period will appreciate it the most. 9/10
I'm not usually a fan of period films like these, they're often stuffy, dull and out of date, wasting time and money on set decoration rather than making the film more enjoyable. This however was a pleasant exception. Here there is a lot of humour which lifts its entertainment value nicely. The most impressive aspect of the film was the strength of its characters though. For a film with such a large cast, its quite amazing how well a lot of the characters are built, although some of them do feel a little ignored, Charles Dance's character especially. The solid performances help this greatly, especially Maggie Smith, who lights up the screen whenever she appears. Altman's direction is superb, controlling a huge and pretty stellar cast, using a flowing camera movement throughout weaving in and out of conversations. My only problem with this film would be its rather flimsy plot elements thrown in near the end, which I suppose give it a bit more of a structure and ending to the film, but just feel a bit tacked on. I think these elements were probably embelished in the script, but the reliance on improvising and the strength of the character development and social examination in the film meant that it was ignored. However, this is still great stuff, and if like me, you're usually put off by period drama's, put that behind you and get it watched. 8/10
After reading the critical mauling this film got from most of the press, I was expecting the worst, but was actually pleasantly surprised, well a bit anyway. Yes, the script is diabolical, many of the performances are weak and the plot falls to bits towards the end, but as a genre piece this was very successful. Horror films are made to frighten you, and this succeeded admirably on that count. A lot of the techniques used are familiar, but they certainly still work. I was on edge through certain sections, I jumped out of my seat a number of times etc... This is manipulative stuff, but you've got to credit it for effectiveness, it does its job very well. Its beautifully shot too, with some nicely moody lighting and some nifty effects including a cool technique of having the camera move through cell windows. All in all, its easy to criticise this film, it does have its problems, but as a by-the-numbers horror movie, its very well done, and for those who don't mind how brainless a film is and just want the sh*t scaring out of them, I would recommend it. 5/10
Frank Darabont has again managed to turn a not very original, almost hackneyed Steven King story into an enthralling, entertaining, and moving film. A good mix of humour, horror (the nasty executions), fantasy, and (a little too much) sentimentality are used to form this well crafted piece. The performances are all spot on, Hanks is pretty much the same as he always is, but it works here, so I'm not complaining. Many of you will think that it looks a little too much like The Shawshank Redemption, and in many ways it is very similar, but here there is a mystical twist to things. Overall this isn't as good as Shawshank though. However, by the look of things, if Darabont finds a much better story than those he's used so far, we could have a masterpiece on our hands.
Plus, it could have done without the dodgy old man 'bookends'. 8/10
The Grinch is not a film for the weak stomached or for diabetics either; never before have I felt so ill by a cringe inducing display of schmaltz. An impossibly good natured all-American little girl sings a high pitched ballad about Christmas, The Grinch is given a back story as to why he hates Christmas and he even has a love interest in the film. Apart from its over indulgent use of sacharine (and special effects), The Grinch is a very uneventful film (it is based on a short story) with sets that look too fake (half of them look as though they're going to fall down at any minute) and a supposedly nasty villain that isn't really nasty enough. The only redeeming feature that holds the whole film together is Jim Carrey in the title role. Although, as I said earlier, I didn't think he was nasty enough, he still dominated the screen and kept me from leaving through his magnetic presence. Overall, this is a feel good film that doesn't make you feel good, and gives an annoying little girl a much too large role. 3/10
A remake of a Japanese horror film (Ju-On: The Grudge) which unfortunately I haven't seen yet, The Grudge reminded me of Gothika in a way (see above). Again here is a film thats not going to win any awards for artistic merit, but when it comes to scaring the audience which is clearly all it intends to do, it succeeds most effectively. Comparing it to Gothika might be a little unfair though because here some of the other elements aren't as bad. The acting for instance, although not outstanding isn't poor by any means and the dialogue isn't as bad as Gothika's. The main falling point though is the plot which is virtually non-existant. Director/writer (of both this and the original film) Takashi Shimizu has the film jump back and forth in time now and again, but this confuses more than adds anything to the story at times, and stops the audience from getting too attached to any of the characters, ultimately spoiling the impact of the film. As I said earlier though, this is still scary stuff, and thats what people want from a film like this. Some of the set pieces were incredibly effective, especially on the big screen. The techniques are starting to get pretty samey with all of these Japanese and Japanese influenced horror films after the Ring etc. but they are used to their maximum potential here, and made me want to go out and buy the original film. All in all it scared the crap out of me, but if you want more from your horror look elsewhere. 6/10
