Another "best British comedy since The Full Monty" claimer, Saving Grace is a film with quite a good main joke (middle aged woman grows marijuana in her greenhouse to pay off debts). However, it never really gets funny enough. There are a few giggles here and there, but it just comes across as being a nice film, without being a funny or good one. All the typical English stereotypes are here (crazy old ladies that drink lots of tea, foolish policemen, rubbish English country doctors etc..) which makes a lot of the film plain annoying. Brenda Blethyn is quite good though, and its nice to see her playing someone less 'common' than she normally does, but its hardly a huge departure. The films stance on drugs is interesting; they never say anything bad about it, but don't pass it off as being good either. The films representation of drug dealers isn't very realistic though (a suarve drugs barron sweeps Brenda off her feet). Overall its just annoyingly average. 4/10
An attempted spoof of the Scream movies (hang on, wasn't Scream sort of a spoof anyway?) and a few other similar (and sometimes not-so-similar) films, Scary Movie instead comes across as another extreme bad taste comedy. People are killed by a penis through the head, women are thrown across the room by their boyfriends ahem.. 'love juice', and the mentally disabled are ridiculed throughout. Why this is funny is beyond me, scenes like these caused more cringes in the cinema than actual laughs. It does have its funny moments though (a lot of these bits are on the trailer), but these aren't frequent enough for this sort of film. If you think back to spoofs like Airplane!, Naked Gun and Hot Shots, the laughs came constantly, not letting you realise you're watching a very weak film. This doesn't happen here, and for a lot of the film, especially in the middle and end sections, its just bad, and not funny at all. Another thing that annoyed me about Scary Movie, was that it took scenes and even large chunks of dialogue directly from Scream throughout the film without even always taking the piss out of them. This just made the film-makers look lazy, and lessened the quality even more. If you do watch this film, you will get a few laughs, but most of the time you will be disgusted, offended and more importantly, bored. 4/10
On paper this film really shouldn't have worked - a wanabe rocker poses as a temporary teacher and instead of teaching the kids maths and english, he teaches them about rock music. The plot reaks of attrocities such as Sister Act 2. However, mainly due to a well balanced script and a great central performance by Jack Black, School of Rock manages to make the grade (sorry, that was terrible). It still contains a number of 'school-film' cliches - e.g. the nerd who becomes cool in his own way, the shy girl who's hiding a great talent etc... but director Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused) and writer Mike White (Chuck & Buck) mix in enough decent gags and demonstrate a clear passion for rock well enough to make it work. As I said earlier Jack Black is also the key to the film's success, and his energetic performance in a role perfectly suited for him is a pleasure to watch. The children in the film are fairly good too, never getting to cloying, and they even pull off a few genuinely funny moments. It would be easy to be more cynical about this film, as there are still some slightly dodgy moments and its hardly a cinematic masterpiece, but it manages to work so well against all the odds, that its definately worth watching. 7/10
I wasn't expecting much from this before I went to see it, however I was pleasantly surprised. Okay, its hardly a great film, but it was certainly enjoyable. Kevin Williamson's departure is noticable, with the humour turning almost slapstick at times, and the irony toned down, but still there. The 'horror' scenes are reasonably tense at times, and although the script isn't quite as witty as the first film, it's still quite funny. On the down side though, the old formula is getting a bit tired (especially the obligatory Scooby Doo-unmasking the murderer that no-one guessed ending). Also a lot of the performances from the supporting cast are horrendous. The scene with Jenny McCarthy was good though. On the whole, Scream 3 is an enjoyable, if creaky, addition (and hopefully end) to the series. 6/10
I'm being a bit cheaky here, as I usually only put up reviews of films I've seen on cinema (I can't review every film I've seen on TV or video, it'd take years), but I felt it necessary, as it's quite new, and I wanted to put it into my review of the year. Sexy Beast is a British gangster film (uh oh, I hear you say, not another), but this time it's a little different. It's actually very good. It boasts an outstanding performance from Ben Kingsley that has to get a supporting actor Oscar nomination or I'll be very pissed off, as well as a fine performance from Ray Winstone. It is a very stylish film, and not just in a 'lets rip-off Lock Stock' way either. The scenes in Spain are stunningly photographed. Also, content wise it's a little bit different too, focusing on a retired gangster who wants to stay out of the business. It's well directed and has some very good dialogue ('c*&t' is used a little too often maybe) too. That's enough for the praise though, it is very good, but not perfect. The plot itself isn't outstanding; not a lot happens, and some of the twists it takes are a bit obvious. It is, as I have said more than once very good though, and certainly the best British Film of the year that I have seen and can think of. 8/10
Being a massive fan of the sitcom Spaced I was very excited about Shaun of the Dead (which comes from the same director/writer/actor team). Luckily, this film manages the difficult conversion from small to large screen admirably. Its not just a feature length version of Spaced either, its a whole different animal. It still shares a similar sense of humour and style though, which if you've seen the series, you'll know this is a good thing. There's a great build up with Simon Pegg's character's life going wrong whilst in the background the city is being overtaken by zombies. There are some hilarious moments whilst he goes about his daily business totally oblivious to the carnage surounding him. He eventually catches on and we're thrown into Romero territory with more humour. Its not all gags though, the gore and horror bases are well covered, with the low budget being well spent. It does lose its way a little towards the end when it tries to get more serious, but an amusingly satirical coda makes up for it. British films have been a bit weak these last few years, but this restored my faith in our skills. Great stuff, keep it up. 8/10
A huge success in America, Shrek came to England with a lot of hype trailing behind it. A little of this is deserved, but if you listen to all of it you will be dissapointed. Shrek has some brilliant moments. The animation and textures are incredible, and the jokes are usually excellent. However, throughout most of the film it seems devoted to taking the mick out of fairy tales, and to a large extent Disney films, which is great, but then by the last half hour or so stumbles into a big wall of fairy tale, Disney-like schmaltz which goes against what the film has been preaching the whole way through. It could be taken as ironic, but I don't think they pull off the mushy ending with their tongues far enough in their cheeks. The good gags continue through to the end though, even in amongst the schmaltz. My only other complaint is with Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz's characters, who were lifeless compared to Eddie Murphy and John Lithgow (given criminally little screen time) who dominated all of the humourous scenes in the film. Myers' accent is a bit suspect too. Still, this is the best summer blockbuster out at the moment, and is definately worth watching if only for the effects, as well as Murphy and Lithgow. 7/10
This is a terrible, terrible film. Without the presence of Arnold Schwarzenegger this piece of rubbish would certainly have gone straight to video, if not TV. The acting is bad, the script is bad, the direction is bad, I could go on, but I don't want to be reminded of the experience. Even the action scenes were poor, the 'big finale' was far too drawn out and frankly, boring. As for Arnie, I just felt sorry for him. It was embarrassing watching him make such a fool out of himself on screen, retirement would be highly beneficial. I love a lot of Arnie's older stuff, but he's approaching sixty now and it shows. His acting abilities are worse than ever, here trying to come across as your average family guy, come saviour of the world. He really should stick to playing cyborgs. On the plus side, there are a couple of unintentionally funny moments, but it's still not fun enough to deem it watchable. 2/10
When the first images and trailers for this film were released I was astonished and eager to watch the finished product, but after the poor reviews leaked out on the net I was less excited, and unfortunately the critics weren't wrong. Sky Captain is very stylish, mimicking old fashioned adventure films and comic strips but reimagining them in the noughties using impressive computer graphics. The way they've put the whole film through a sort of muted colour filter gives it a great look especially. Unfortunately, the style has clearly taken precident, and the whole thing is way overblown, losing any sort of 'soul' the film may have had, and ruining any tension or excitement in the set pieces. This isn't helped by the fact that the actors are constantly acting against a green-screen which clearly mars their performances. Their stilted acting also seems to be the result of director Kerry Conran trying too hard to recreate the styles of old movies though. This might be seen as a clever nod to his influences, but in my opinion acting styles have progressed for a reason. The film threatens to be an exciting adventure at times as the pace is fairly fast and its pretty action packed, but it never engages enough to be anything special. All in all it suffers in the same way that the Star Wars prequels did proving that too much of something good can spoil a film and that CGI is no substitute for strong characters or dramatic action scenes. 4/10
Tim Burton returns to the fray with another great and very odd film. This time it's a stunning looking piece of deliciously over the top schlock horror. The actors ham it up perfectly, and the film is enjoyable throughout. There are some great moments of action, gore and fear as the audience is sent on a dizzying ride through a pantomime world of witches, headless horsemen, and haunted trees. The most outstanding aspect of the film is the look of it, the design team seem to have put everything into creating an oustanding, creapy fantasy world that you don't want to leave. This film is great fun, making my first visit of the year to the cinema a most enjoyable one. 8/10
Following up a debut like Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was always going to be hard, especially after a large number of films have tried to copy its style and wit and failed miserably. Guy Ritchie however has pretty much pulled it off though. Nothing new is thrown in (which is the film's main problem), but the energy and fun of Ritchie's first effort still shows here (after about 20 minutes though). Like Lock Stock, Snatch is very stylishly shot (especially the boxing scenes) and has a great soundtrack which is good, but unfortunately also has a very similar (over-complicated) plot which leaves you a bit dissapointed. Plus, I didn't find Snatch quite as witty as Lock Stock. However, the presence of Brad Pitt this time round is a bonus, as he pulls off an excellent performance as Mickey the gypsy/"pikey" fighter. The rest of the cast keeps things going, Vinnie Jones is almost exactly the same character as he was in the previous film, but he's good at it so it doesn't really matter. Overall this is enjoyable stuff that is only slightly dissapointing. 7/10
Documentaries have been enjoying quite a renaissance recently, with a number of highly acclaimed and highly popular (for the genre) releases in recent years with Bowling For Columbine, Touching the Void and the forthcoming Fog of War and Capturing the Friedmans etc.. and Spellbound continues this trend. Its not what you'd expect from a documentary though. Whereas most seem to focus on the dark underside of the world, trying to uncover disturbing truths and examine our problems, Spellbound is an entertaining and incredibly gripping account of eight children's attempts to win America's National Spelling Bee. The first half or so of the film gives us the backstories of the contestants and lets us see how they've dedicated themselves to spelling, it also establishes a relationship between them and the audience, helping us to really root for them as we watch them take part in the bee. Its when we watch the competition itself that things get very gripping as I mentioned earlier. The tension is unbearable when we watch the children we've grown to really feel for have to spell words that they are clearly unsure of. Its incredibly refreshing to watch a documentary on such a seemingly light topic thats equally as funny as any fictional comedy and equally as thrilling and nerve wracking as any thriller or horror film. The kids are very likeable and I found myself wanting all of them to win, and its devastating when one by one they start to get eliminated from the competition. This is great entertainment and I thoroughly recommend it, especially to those who normally find documentaries dull or depressing. 9/10
The other comic book adaption that I would most liken Spiderman to is Superman I think. Both have a lengthy first half build up of the character's origins and growth, then both follow similar routine clashes between villain and hero. Spiderman is through and through a solid film, with satisfyingly well built characters and plot, which makes a change from most blockbusters these days. The only problem I had was that athough it was 'solid' and very entertaining, it was never outstanding. When watching a summer blockbuster you want something big to take away with you when you leave - some sort of classic amazing moment, and Spiderman never really does this. The action scenes are quite well done, but just never huge, which makes it sort of the antithesis to Star Wars: Episode 2 I think, where that film had some dodgy bits in the film on a whole, but made up for it in massive, never-before-seen scenes of brilliant spectacle. Away from this though, Spiderman does have some good performances, Tobey Maguire makes a good Peter Parker, and Kirsten Dunst is always worth watching (for her acting talents as well as the obvious). I was slightly dissapointed with some of the special effects though, although I think some of the stick it has been getting for this on the internet is a little over the top, the effects are usually excellent, its only on a couple of occasions when you can obviously tell that its CG. The Green Goblin suit is pretty rubbish too. Overall, this leaves good hopes for a sequel, and its certainly worth catching as soon as possible on cinema, but I don't think it deserves to be quite as succesful as it has been. 7/10
I said in my review of Spiderman (see above) that 'it leaves good hopes for a sequel', and guess what, the sequel turned out to be better than the original in my opinion. Spiderman 2 takes the original's qualities, i.e. strong leading characters, enjoyable plot and a solid, believable love story and adds to it. This time round they've made a much more satisfying villain (Willem Dafoe was enjoyably hammy, but his outfit was straight out of the Power Rangers), improved the special effects and added more humour. This all adds together to make probably the best super hero film I can think of. Also, I was pleased to see that Sam Raimi seemed to have been allowed more creative freedom this time round with the inclusion of some hyper-kinetic camera work reminiscent of his earlier days. One scene in a hospital especially felt like a deleted scene from Evil Dead 2, with tentacle-eye-views and some trusty chainsaw action. Bruce Campbell makes another excellent cameo appearance too. There are one or two cheesy moments, which threaten to spoil matters, but never do due to the quality of the rest of the film. The set pieces are all impressive too, especially a heart stopping fight on a run-away train (unfortunately one of the films cheesiest moments comes at the end of this). The lighter, more jokey moments are often what raises this above the rest though, as most super hero films have the set pieces, but this has also got the warmth and humour to keep things fun in-between the fights and explosions. 8/10
Being a massive fan of Hayao Miyazaki's work, I have been dying to see this film ever since it was released in Japan close to two years ago. For those unfamiliar with this great filmmaker, Miyazaki was responsible for the excellent Princess Mononoke released over here a couple of years ago, and a number of other superb animated classics that dissapointingly haven't seen the light of day in this country (apart from The Castle of Cagliostro, which has been released by Manga). My expectations grew even further when it began to get lavished with awards - and now I've finally seen it I wasn't dissapointed (although all the hype spoiled it a little - nothing a second viewing won't cure). As has come to be expected from Miyazaki's films, Spirited Away is a beautifully drawn piece set in a staggeringly imaginative world filled with a wealth of wonderfully bizare creatures. Its well paced with plenty of exciting scenes mixed with poignant moments and some gentle humour. The characters are all well observed, especially the lead, Chihiro, whose gradual transformation through the film makes for uplifting viewing. Its messages are also more subtly handled here than they are in Disney's more heavy handed films. The story is delightfully strange too, and although a lot of it doesn't seem to make sense on paper, within the world of the film you find you can easily accept it. I did find that because of this the plot didn't flow quite as smoothly as with some of Miyazaki's other films though, and the end was maybe a little too strange and abrupt for its own good too. I don't want to dwell on these minor gripes though, as on a whole this is a wonderful film that never fails to delight. Its the sort of film Disney (or any other American animation company) would never make, but you wished it would. For those of you who have had the fortune of watching more of Miyazaki's films, I would have to say I actually prefered Mononoke, Naussica and Laputa, mainly because I found the adventure-based stories more engrosing, but in terms of imagination this is unsurpassed, even by his own work. 9/10
Strangely enough, this kids adventure movie is directed by Robert Rodriguez of El Mariachi, Desperado and Dusk Till Dawn fame, and it shows. Although sticking with its young audience most of the time, this is enjoyable, quirky stuff that those over ten and beyond will still enjoy. One of my favourite features of the film was the fact that a lot of Rodriguez's regular supporting cast was still here even though they look like Mexican bandits. It does occasionally slip into family movie schmaltz, but when it does, it is usually remedied by a swift gag cutting it short. Also, because its a kids film, some of the humour is often of the toilet or slapstick variety which doesn't always work, but occasionally got the adults in the audience chuckling. The most impressive part of the film though is its pace. Rodriguez predictably injects his skill for fast paced fun into the film, and keeps any grudging parents in the cinema from falling asleep. All in all this is a little childish, but a lot of fun none-the-less, and watch out for the hilarious surprise cameo at the end. 7/10
After the massive dissapointment of Phantom Menace (it was OK on cinema, but repeated viewings on TV don't bear much scrutiny), and the thought of a romance based Star Wars film I was very worried going into the cinema today. However, this has certainly restored my faith in the franchise. It is not perfect, and does suffer from a few of Phantom Menaces' problems of clunky dialogue, some shoddy performances and an over-reliance on computer graphics. This is Star Wars though, and many of those problems can be glossed over when you're sat in the cinema watching such a stunningly realised fantasy world unfold in front of your eyes. It also contains possibly most impressive final reel in Star Wars history. I shouldn't give too much away, but chances are you've already seen it or at least read about it before, the final battle is amazing, and then you're treated to a nice bit of lightsaber action, followed by a gobsmackingly good battle between Yoda and Count Dooku (played brilliantly by Christopher Lee). The opening chase through Corruscant (sp?) at the beginning is very exciting too. Unfortunately with such a good opening, and such a superb end, the mid-section lacks a bit of oomph. The love story which unfolds in this section is slightly better than I expected, but it is filled with the most cliched lines and settings and it does get quite annoying at times. A following section in Tattoinne is pretty dodgy too, featuring a brief horrendous turn from the ever rubbish character Shmi Skywalker. This mid-section is nicely intercut with the clones plotline and Obi-Wans investigation into it though, which is pretty good. Ewan McGreggor is certainly given more to do here and has settled into his role nicely. Hayden Christiansen isn't too bad either (certainly better than Jake Lloyd). Overall, this is a lot better than Phantom Menace but still lacks a bit of the fun and innocence of the originals, and George Lucas does need a bit more help with dialogue and directing actors. 6/10
Starsky and Hutch is a highly enjoyable spoof of the cheesy 70's cop show which rather than getting all its laughs from cheaply taking the piss out of the series, actually acts more as an homage to the original with gags built around it. The cheesy camera zooms, cardigans and the Torino are all there, but it never makes a big deal out of them (well maybe the car a little), instead the film uses the strength of Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson's on-screen chemistry to make the film work. Its totally their movie, and they make the best comedy duo in recent memory. The supporting players do well too, especially Will Ferrell who's small role contributes to possibly the best scene in the film (I won't give it away for you). The only thing I found with Starsky and Hutch though was that although its constistently funny, I didn't find it quite as laugh out loud funny as say, Zoolander (which featured much of the same cast). Its the sort of film that is always a lot of fun, but there are few really memorable comic moments to make it classic. The end scene featuring the original Starsky and Hutch is a bit cringeworthy too. All in all, this is definately worth watching though, if only for the great partnership of Stiller and Wilson. 7/10
Featuring a small boy who sees ghosts and is meant to solve their problems, this film is bound to be compared with the Sixth Sense. However, Stir of Echoes did come out at a similar time to the Sixth Sense in America, and Stir of Echoes is based on a book written a while ago, so perhaps Sixth Sense is the rip-off. The film's aren't that similar though; here, the focus of the film is shifted mainly to the boy's father who aquires his son's ability (in an excellent hypnotism scene early on), plus the boy isn't afraid of the ghosts as in the Sixth Sense. The films are still comparable though, and overall, I would say the Sixth Sense is better. Stir of Echoes has all the scares of the other film, but it's emotional scenes aren't as impressive, and the end isn't as good, exchanging shocking twist for slightly dissapointing thriller/mystery revelation and obligatory action finale. Also, bits from other films (The Shining and especially Close Encounters of the Third Kind) are borrowed in Stir of Echoes, which loses a bit of its originality. On the whole, Stir of Echoes is an impressive horror film which is overshadowed by the similarly themed, but better, Sixth Sense. 6/10
Another successful documentary hits the screens riding the current wave of excellent factual pieces enjoying relative success at the box office. And thankfully this is as good as a lot of the others have been, once again confirming that films like Bowling For Columbine and Touching the Void weren't just flashes in the pan. I was worried about how good this would be after hearing about the films central concept - the documentary-maker goes on a strictly MacDonalds-only diet for a month. This could have been very boring and not very effective if this was the only focus, but luckily director Morgan Spurlock has the sense to explore the problem of his nation's health in much more detail, crafting a piece that makes you want to lead a healthier life in general rather than just stop eating at MacDonalds (which is probably why the company allowed him to make the film). Like Michael Moore's films this also reveals some shocking truths about the government and corporations' part in the problem. And again like Moore, Spurlock always keeps us entertained whilst feeding us disturbing relavations. All in all this is definately worth a look, and if any readers still haven't caught the recent documentary bug, this is a very good start. 8/10
(From Insomniac Mania)
