Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
paintbeforeassembly
Bewertungen
Tusk (2014)
Silly horror comedy -- all good fun.
Tusk certainly isn't the best horror movie out there, and it isn't the best comedy either, but I did find myself laughing a lot. In pure horror terms, it loses points for making its protagonist/victim a bit of an ass-hat -- on some level, he deserves a comeuppance, and while this is an extreme one, it's not like he's a fully-innocent victim of circumstance, and that dents the horror a little.
But then, this isn't a full-blown horror, it's a horror comedy, and it's goofy and silly. This isn't a movie to stretch your brain. Even the horror is overblown, and something to be laughed at -- it's more horror-parody than anything.
On the famous and extensive cameo appearance in the movie, some people found Johnny Depp's character stupid and hated it. I also found it stupid, but I laughed at it a hell of a lot, so maybe this movie's sense of humour just struck me the right way. In the end, humour is always a question of taste, and you know just how that is -- anyone who doesn't share your taste is an idiot. No room for differing views on the internet! Obey the herd!
Ahem. Anyway, you'll probably know if you're going to like this movie in the first twenty minutes. If it's not doing it for you by then, it probably isn't going to -- and if you're expecting a genuine horror flick, then you're going to be disappointed, because this isn't it. But personally, I spent a pretty enjoyable evening with Mr. Tusk, and I'm looking forward to Mr. Smith's next installment.
Death at a Funeral (2010)
A retelling of the original, not a copy.
It may not be fully the equal of the English movie that it is based on, but I think that what sets this movie out as being worthwhile is that it ISN'T just a flat remake; and yet, at the same time, it faithfully carries the whole heart of the original story. This is still a great movie, and worth a watch.
What sets it apart is that it takes one of the original's greatest strengths - the wonderfully woven storyline that created the whole comic setting that the cast plays off of - and then detaches it from typically dry British humour, then pairs it with the more overstated humour of black American movies. It really is a polar opposite style of comedy -- think of the contrast between a black Gospel church and a quiet Anglican church in Oxfordshire. You could complain about its bluntness compared to the English version; but that's the whole point here, and it's what makes the remake worthwhile. This is the same great story, with the same roles, but new characters playing the parts to a completely different beat.
I'm a born and raised Englishman, and I really love the original. It's a fine example of a British comedy movie, probably the best I've seen in many years. But I think that the American version attracts too much of its criticism for not being the English one, and I think that misses the point. This movie isn't trying to be the original. It's retelling the story, rather than trying to carbon-copy it.
And really, it's the only reinvention of this movie that ever COULD have been worthwhile. Trying to copy the original version, bones, style and all, would have been futile and pointless. But this version, instead, gives the same story a fresh rhythm; a rhythm that may appeal to some on whom the original's dryness might have been lost. And I'm quite unashamed to say that while the original, for me, is the fairest in the land, my heart loves them both nonetheless.
Robinson Crusoe (1997)
Bad accent, but fairly fun.
The Scottish accent is horrible, and obviously a person trying to do a Scots accent instead of someone who actually has one; and some scenes tied to the Scottish side are bad, too. But at the same time, none of the scenes in this film are nearly as boring as many of the scenes in the book, which - though a classic, and rightly regarded as such - suffers badly from age and its role as the "first novel", in that nobody had quite figured out things like pacing just yet.
In short...it's an average movie, not good, and not bad either. Worth a watch if it comes on TV, and not as inclined to bore you out of your skull as the book. And to those who truly love the book...I applaud your patience. As a child of the digital age, my tolerance for descriptions of fence-building is extremely lacking.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Exactly!
This is EXACTLY what I thought when I saw it. The storyline is fantastical, and stretches your belief far more than any of its predecessors did, but the heavy-handed use of CGI to stage impossible (and unnecessary) scenes within the film completely ruined it and shattered what little suspension of disbelief was left. Worse, it ruins any sense of tension, because too often their way out of danger is with the utterly impossible.
I wish they had never driven the jeep. That jeep chase scene is like a massive cancer in the heart of this movie, but it's just the most obvious example of a problem that runs through this movie, and through far too many others these days -- over-use of CGI. Stunt-men always helped movie heroes achieve the impossible, but CGI takes it one step too far and makes them achieve the unbelievable.
Merlin (1998)
A fun, entertaining version of the Arthurian legends
Another reviewer wrote that this isn't the equal of Excalibur, and while I'd agree with that opinion from the point of view of ambition and production, this remains a more simple, entertaining version of the legend. It's shallower than Excalibur, but still deeper than most productions of its kind, largely because it draws upon a set of myths that have been retold, reworked and re-imagined for hundreds of years, and the movie inherits at least some of that depth.
If you like your fantasy a little light-hearted, then you may well find this movie to be the better choice for you. Where Excalibur is a much more serious, dark fantasy (admittedly touched with the wonderfully delivered humor of Nicol Williamson's Merlin), this movie is more cheerful, and a far more family-friendly version of the myth.
As a made-for-TV production, you could never expect this to have the same quality of final delivery that Excalibur had. Indeed, it doesn't, and its sparse CGI (although above-average for this grade of production) shows up its low budget when it is on screen. But what it lacks in money it makes up for with ambition. It's clear that this has a real drive to be more than most TV movies, and it certainly achieves that, with an extremely solid supporting cast that adds a lot of color and character to the production.
In the end, I suppose it's similar to comparing The Dark Knight to Adam West's Batman. As a pure movie, there's really no contest about which is the better made, the better movie or the better production -- but the charm of Adam West's Batman goes beyond its production, and it's the same with Merlin when compared to Excalibur. Excalibur is, quite indisputably, the superior production, and I'd certainly recommend it if you haven't seen it. But I'd also recommend Merlin -- just for different reasons.
RoboCop 3 (1993)
Softened version for the PG-13 market
Robocop 1 was a masterpiece of science fiction that really created a great world and great characters, all bolstered by some very solid acting and direction. It's more ignored by some people than it deserves, and if you've never seen it, then it's probably a lot better than you think it is.
That theory counts double if you've seen Robocop 2 - which was about what you'd expect for a spin-off sequel, really, a movie that had some of the first's sense of humour but lacked its edgy quality and had a lower quality of supporting cast. But if your introduction to Robocop was this nightmare of a movie, then it goes about a thousand times more.
Robocop isn't Robocop anymore in this movie. Oh, he looks like him, but all his attitude is gone, sacrificed to the god of TV and PG-13 political correctness. And that means that with it has gone the ruthlessness of the world he was within. In Robocop, cops are killed frequently, crime is rampant and the world is falling apart - a ruthless, tireless policeman who can shoot with computer-aided accuracy to kill is a solution to the problems of the world, and he meets a brutal world with the brutality needed to break it. But if you dropped the Robocop from THIS movie into the world of the first one, the cop killers would only have died laughing.
Do yourself a favour, give this movie a miss and watch the original. Unlike this one, it won't disappoint.
Merlin's Apprentice (2006)
A weak follow-up
The first Merlin was quite entertaining and involved; but this apparent follow-up felt very weak, repetitive, predictable, frequently dull and more like a long, drawn-out episode of Hercules than a well-written drama.
The scope of the story is much weaker and smaller -- a small group of supposed heroes, with Dark Secrets and so on, and takes place across a small period of time, where Merlin was supposed to span the entire life of the wizard. I guess that's what you get when the first is an adaptation of a dramatic, legendary tale, and the second is written as a cash-in on it.
What is even worse is that they completely failed to properly follow up! The established facts, as portrayed in the first adaptation of the myth of Merlin, are ignored here for convenience -- some of the scenes and time-line are completely at odds with what went before. Combined with the poorly paced and written storyline, it just reeks of laziness. It shouldn't have been hard to spot these problems, so you have to assume they just decided to ignore them.
If you're a fan of the first, don't watch this. And if you watch this and don't like it, don't let it put you off watching the first movie.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Very good, but not perfect
As a big fan of Batman Begins, I was delighted to see that The Dark Knight was a solid movie, with great acting and a serious star turn from Heath Ledger. But while the last hour to an hour and a half is the gripping, perfectly paced excitement that earns this movie its reputation, the first hour is less so inclined. However, that's on the first watch through only -- this really is a movie that gets better the more you watch it.
The first time through, the opening felt a little lost and sluggish, and didn't quite capture the intrigue and anticipation as effectively as the first movie did. I still feel that the opening segments and introductions of Batman Begins were more welcoming to a new viewer. However, The Dark Knight more than makes up with the conclusions and climax of the film, and make no mistake, this is worth sitting through. If you find the opening a little slow, give it time to get going; it'll reward you for your time tenfold, and if you watch the movie again, you won't see the opening through quite the same eyes.
One thing that did disappoint me was the score for the movie. Where it was used the music was as striking and well suited as you'd expect, but in some of the scenes I really felt the absence of the music, and I think the right score might have added a sense of momentum and energy that was slightly missing in those places. It's not a big problem in the movie overall, but I think the right music could easily have pushed my score up from an eight to a nine for this movie.
Twilight (2008)
Good...if you keep an open mind.
I can see how some people might dislike the movie, especially if they go into it with the idea of "vampire movie" in their head, because really this is more of a teen vampire romance. The studio did the viewers no real favors by pitching this with a more action-style trailer, because this isn't an action packed movie -- the tension between the characters is everything. However, I went into it, both knowing what kind of movie it was, expecting something so-so and keeping an open mind; and I enjoyed it much, much more than I had expected to.
It was fairly fun, quite interesting, and I found some of the slightly different angles taken with the vampires to be intriguing. Some people have complained that the romance angle was predictable, but I think that the differences of the relationship presented by this particular take on the vampire myth really change the dynamic around a lot. There are elements that you could guess, but there are plenty of others that you might not, and a few small twists and ideas made this entirely worth the watching for me.
I also found the movie to be quite funny at times, but I had picked up from my wife (who read the books) a few ideas about what was going on under the surface, so I don't know how many of those funny situations would be lost on people who watched the movie without seeing it. However, if you chose to watch this movie with an open mind, and left the idea of "vampire flick" outside the door, I think you'd probably enjoy this film a lot.
Mayonaka no Yaji-san Kita-san (2005)
Great fun, even if you're not Japanese!
Yaji and Kita is a film that, as one other reviewer wrote, was definitely written for the Japanese. It's legendarily filled with pop culture references, including plenty of ones obscure enough to throw even a native Japanese viewer, and has its share of language jokes too. While you may pick up on some of those, chances are good that most of them will pass you by completely. My wife and I caught only a handful of them, and chances are you'll catch a few yourself, but you won't get them all.
But it doesn't matter. In the end, the reasons why many Japanese viewers thought this film was brilliant will be lost on most Western film fans - but like all good films, this one isn't relying on just pop culture and language to make you laugh. The film is full of outright humor that DOESN'T get lost in translation; from the very beginning to the very end, this film was making us laugh. What's lost in translation just isn't enough to stop this film from being great, great fun! I usually loathe musicals, but the musical set pieces in this film are just outright hilarious.
If you enjoy bizarre humor, especially visual gags, then you'll get a kick out of Yaji and Kita : The Midnight Pilgrims. The characters are very bright, very colorful and very vivid, and the humor is extremely off the wall, imaginative and playful. There's a story underneath it, and although the film never discards it, it's really about the comedy. The film featured a fair few respected actors, and their talents help to make every small piece of this movie worth a watch - from start to finish, there are set-piece situations and running gags that will keep you laughing and smiling.
We may never see this film the way a Japanese watcher would...but so what? It's great anyway!
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Too much overblown art, not enough comedy.
I know this is supposed to be a classic and classy comedy, but for me, it was just trying too hard and doing too little for almost the whole film, using long contrived set shots that are nicely cinematic, but don't do anything for me as a viewer. The whole premise is a sound enough idea, and opens well, but after almost an hour into the movie I still felt I was somehow still trapped in the introduction - despite early sparks it took a long time to get going, and then never seemed to really move with any pace.
Charles Durning added a special touch in his near-cameo role, and there are a decent handful of funny moments from Robbins in particular, but overall I found the film predictable, sluggish and ultimately disappointing, as I'd expected so much more. A shame.