Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Death Race (2008) in Movies
Mar 31, 2021
In Death Race, a loose remake (sort of prequel?) to 1975's Death Race 2000, our lord and saviour Paul W.S. Anderson takes all of the things that made his Resident Evil films so mind numbingly shit, and applies them to a car racing movie. You know the drill - seizure inducing quick edits, with a liberal smattering of slow-mo for good measure, plenty of quippy douchebags, and the odd explosion of invasive "cool" guitar riffs.
However - it actually kind of works with the plot template and Death Race is easily one of Anderson's better films.
Jason Statham being in the driver's seat is always going to be a plus. He's being so very Statham as per, but if it ain't broke and all that. I can always appreciate the likes of Joan Allen and Ian McShane, and the action and story is well paced to ensure that it's entertaining as hell from start to finish.
Death Race is the epitome of fast food cinema. It's hot trash, but it's a pretty good time all things considered. A solid 6 angry Stathams out of 10.
However - it actually kind of works with the plot template and Death Race is easily one of Anderson's better films.
Jason Statham being in the driver's seat is always going to be a plus. He's being so very Statham as per, but if it ain't broke and all that. I can always appreciate the likes of Joan Allen and Ian McShane, and the action and story is well paced to ensure that it's entertaining as hell from start to finish.
Death Race is the epitome of fast food cinema. It's hot trash, but it's a pretty good time all things considered. A solid 6 angry Stathams out of 10.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Just when it seemed that these movies were getting slightly better each time, along comes Afterlife to extinguish whatever tiny flame of hope was still flickering.
Paul W.S. Anderson is back at the helm (joy to the world) it's clear that his main intention is to make Milla Jovovich look as "cool" as possible, quipping at every chance given to her. The opening sequence is sort of entertaining, but the over abundance of signature Anderson misplaced arrogant smugness and shoddy CGI violently soils anything positive.
The main bulk of the film is actually a fairly stripped back affair. It's low on scares as per, but I'm not mad at the more grounded feel to proceedings. Just a group of survivors surrounded by zombies, trying to find a solution to their problems. However, this respectable approach to the narrative is squandered. None of the characters are worth caring about, and the few that are, are given no development, as they go through the motions with the smartass-yet-boring script.
In terms of game connections, Ali Larter is back as Claire Redfield, and Wentworth Miller plays Chris Redfield. Kind of cool, of course, but he honestly could have just been playing a dude with a gun. The fact that he is Chris bears no importance to the film. Wesker is there as well but eh. The Majini infected from Resident Evil 5 are present as is The Executioner from the same game. They visually look pretty decent, and unlike previous films, aren't humanised like Nemesis and Tyrant were, so points for that.
The main issue then is all the action. Apart from the dodgy CGI, the set pieces suffer from a truly horrendous amount of slow motion. Not even exaggerating here, if there was no slow motion, the runtime would have been 20 minutes shorter. It's honestly painful. There's also a lot of gimmicky 3D shit being thrown at the camera which I don't really care for - there's just nothing exciting going on.
I'm not sure where else to mention this so I'll put it here, there's not 1, not 2, but 3 seperate scenes that consist of overhead shots of Alice flying a plane with edgy breakbeat music blaring out over it. (Not being chased or anything, just flying and relaxing) Make of that what you will, but basically, everything I hated about the first Resident Evil is still accounted for 8 years later. It's still poorly imitating The Matrix, 11 years later.
I know that these films have a lot of fans, so maybe I'm missing something and being overly spiteful, but I just find them mind numbingly shit. Maybe something will click for me during the last two, but as it stands, Afterlife is the worst of the bunch.
Paul W.S. Anderson is back at the helm (joy to the world) it's clear that his main intention is to make Milla Jovovich look as "cool" as possible, quipping at every chance given to her. The opening sequence is sort of entertaining, but the over abundance of signature Anderson misplaced arrogant smugness and shoddy CGI violently soils anything positive.
The main bulk of the film is actually a fairly stripped back affair. It's low on scares as per, but I'm not mad at the more grounded feel to proceedings. Just a group of survivors surrounded by zombies, trying to find a solution to their problems. However, this respectable approach to the narrative is squandered. None of the characters are worth caring about, and the few that are, are given no development, as they go through the motions with the smartass-yet-boring script.
In terms of game connections, Ali Larter is back as Claire Redfield, and Wentworth Miller plays Chris Redfield. Kind of cool, of course, but he honestly could have just been playing a dude with a gun. The fact that he is Chris bears no importance to the film. Wesker is there as well but eh. The Majini infected from Resident Evil 5 are present as is The Executioner from the same game. They visually look pretty decent, and unlike previous films, aren't humanised like Nemesis and Tyrant were, so points for that.
The main issue then is all the action. Apart from the dodgy CGI, the set pieces suffer from a truly horrendous amount of slow motion. Not even exaggerating here, if there was no slow motion, the runtime would have been 20 minutes shorter. It's honestly painful. There's also a lot of gimmicky 3D shit being thrown at the camera which I don't really care for - there's just nothing exciting going on.
I'm not sure where else to mention this so I'll put it here, there's not 1, not 2, but 3 seperate scenes that consist of overhead shots of Alice flying a plane with edgy breakbeat music blaring out over it. (Not being chased or anything, just flying and relaxing) Make of that what you will, but basically, everything I hated about the first Resident Evil is still accounted for 8 years later. It's still poorly imitating The Matrix, 11 years later.
I know that these films have a lot of fans, so maybe I'm missing something and being overly spiteful, but I just find them mind numbingly shit. Maybe something will click for me during the last two, but as it stands, Afterlife is the worst of the bunch.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Nov 12, 2020
11 years after Scream 3 "graced" cinema screens, Wes Craven returned to his meta horror series in an era where the genre had gone into full remake mode.
I'm not convinced that Scream 4 needs to exist, especially after the underwhelming way the third film closed out the original trilogy, but this entry is definitely a step up.
The Meta side of things is again a little over the top, but it's good to see Ghostface in a more modern setting. This Ghostface is brutal as well, and Scream 4 is arguably the goriest of the franchise, making it's iconic masked antagonist more intimidating than ever.
The returning cast are back again - Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette - and have somehow survived all of the Scream movies - as per usual, it feels like a homecoming with them in tow. It's not often in horror you have one person make it this far, let alone three. It gives the series a uniqueness that I can appreciate.
The new characters are all written like typical cannon fodder slasher victims but they all serve there purpose well. Hayden Panittiere is a welcome addition, and it's nice to see Anthony Anderson in a pre Black-ish role.
The plot is so so. It's all ground that has been relentlessly trodden by this point, but it still works. Sidney is back in town. People start getting stabbed. Everyone is a suspect. Rinse and repeat.
The killer reveal in this one isn't too shoddy either, and makes more sense that the reveals in Scream 2 and 3, and there's a lot of direct homage to the first movie in how it's all executed (coming round full circle to the remake commentary)
All in all, Scream 4 is a bucket load of fun, even if it doesn't quite hit the heights if the original. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming sequel will turn out following Craven's death, but I have the feeling it won't quite be the same. Long live Wes Craven!
I'm not convinced that Scream 4 needs to exist, especially after the underwhelming way the third film closed out the original trilogy, but this entry is definitely a step up.
The Meta side of things is again a little over the top, but it's good to see Ghostface in a more modern setting. This Ghostface is brutal as well, and Scream 4 is arguably the goriest of the franchise, making it's iconic masked antagonist more intimidating than ever.
The returning cast are back again - Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette - and have somehow survived all of the Scream movies - as per usual, it feels like a homecoming with them in tow. It's not often in horror you have one person make it this far, let alone three. It gives the series a uniqueness that I can appreciate.
The new characters are all written like typical cannon fodder slasher victims but they all serve there purpose well. Hayden Panittiere is a welcome addition, and it's nice to see Anthony Anderson in a pre Black-ish role.
The plot is so so. It's all ground that has been relentlessly trodden by this point, but it still works. Sidney is back in town. People start getting stabbed. Everyone is a suspect. Rinse and repeat.
The killer reveal in this one isn't too shoddy either, and makes more sense that the reveals in Scream 2 and 3, and there's a lot of direct homage to the first movie in how it's all executed (coming round full circle to the remake commentary)
All in all, Scream 4 is a bucket load of fun, even if it doesn't quite hit the heights if the original. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming sequel will turn out following Craven's death, but I have the feeling it won't quite be the same. Long live Wes Craven!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.