Change Your Image
BlokeWithABrainUK
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Bewertungen
Expedition Unknown: Expedition Unknown: Shark Trek (2021)
Huge fun and genuinely lovely chemistry
I have recently discovered Expedition Unknown, and have been binge watching. I have to say that Josh Gates is pretty much the perfect host for this - one moment serious and respectful, the next genuinely funny and extremely likeable.
Shark Trek was a perfect half hour of television with the eternally youthful William Shatner. The man is truly incredible and the chemistry and friendly cameraderie is lovely to watch.
I was really quite amazed at the carefully calculated risks they took in filming this, and the half hour whizzed past leaving me wanting more.
Whatever you do, make sure you watch it fully to the end.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
What on Earth is going on?
Erm... I have literally no idea. The storyline is nonsensical. If I were you, I wouldn't even bother to try and make sense of it.
However, this movie tries hard. It is totally pointless of course, and adds nothing to the original trilogy, and yet it is just about worth a watch.
You will probably be left with a lot of questions though - such as why the hell wasn't Hugo Weaving in it? And where was Lawrence Fishburne? Two of the truly iconic actors were just missing, replaced by a couple of actors who simply don't have the charisma, although weirdly we do see the originals in flashbacks.
To have Smith and Morpheus in the movie, but not to have Weaving and Fishburne makes no sense on any level.
The other significant problem is that while the set pieces are quite impressive, and the stunts and effects perfectly acceptable, they lack the style and impact of the original films. This just doesn't really look like a Matrix film, more like a "regular" big budget action movie. By the time Toothless the robo-dragon turns up (you'll know what I mean when you see it), the machines have lost most of their power to menace.
Reeves is fine, and Moss (who doesn't seem to have actually aged at all) is great. But the other characters are largely irrelevent. Neil Patrick Harris is an odd bit of casting and he makes all the right noises but he is just too nice to be truly menacing. At more than one point I just wanted him to say "suit up".
Ok, so half of the Wachowski's were missing for this, which is strange as well. Perhaps that's why it just felt like half the movie was missing - mostly the good bits.
It isn't awful in the way that Jupiter Ascending was truly jaw-droppingly dreadful on every level, but you won't want to watch it again. Stick to the original three because this adds nothing and will probably be seen as a bit of a strange curiosity in the annals of iconic sci-fi.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
Better than Crystal Skull - and it had to be
A short review for this one:
The de-aging technology is very impressive.
It reunites some of our favourite characters from the first three.
Waller-Bridge is quite good.
It's has all the main elements you would expect.
It does finally wrap the franchise up with a bow.
Obviously it isn't a patch on the original three, but it is considerably better than the fourth debacle.
Such an iconic and beloved character deserved a better send-off than being a badly CGI'd Tarzan impersonator (embarrassingly replete with overdubbed Tarzan yell).
Not a film you would be likely to watch repeatedly, but worth your time.
Meg 2: The Trench (2023)
Hahahaha - total nonsense, but shamefully enjoyable
I haven't seen the first one, but I suspect that doesn't matter much.
Ok, let's park all credulity at the overpriced concessions stand.
This is some of the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever seen... and yet it isn't offensive, isn't cynical and isn't excessively boring despite the non-stop absurdity of the entire thing.
Where to start?
I quite like Jason Statham. He always plays Jason Statham, and does so here, to the max. We all know, as do the cast, that this is madness from start to finish, but he (and they) do the right thing and play it straight.
Let's forget about the "science" for a moment... no, no, I can't! It's so hilariously stupid that it deserves deep respect and even reverence.
A few highlights:
Apparently there is a thermocline in the ocean which the Megs can't penetrate. Apparently it is like a force field...
There are creatures that can only be described as amphibious velociraptors that can live on land as well as at the very bottom of the ocean.
Deep sea submersibles are like super fast spacecraft- zooming about like racing cars.
The deepest part of the ocean looks rather like a scene from Jacques Cousteau diving on the Great Barrier Reef. It is literally teeming with life including shoals of fish as opposed to the sparsely populated wasteland filled with small blind crustaceans and worms that it really is.
Megs aren't the worst things down there. Apparently there are huge octopi too. Good job there is a massive ecosystem for them all to feed in then.
But here comes the absolute zinger - it is possible for Statham to survive swimming underwater at 25,000 ft without any kind of suit (yes, really), provided he has blown his nose first and expelled all the air from his sinuses. No, I really am not making this up.
Amid all this lunacy events somehow return to the surface and there is an attack on the paradise island called (just in case you didn't realise what it was) Fun Island.
More insanity ensues, with Statham taking to a jet ski to single-handedly do battle with three of the most ferocious predators the planet has ever seen. Naturally, despite having survived for 65million years in the most inhospitable place on earth, they stand little chance.
At the finale, Statham, determined and rugged as hell on his jet-ski does quite literally jump the shark.
But by now you know this was most certainly deliberate and you don't care. In fact you laugh at the filmmaker's wink.
Oppenheimer (2023)
Chris Nolan continues his war against cinemagoers buttocks
This movie, about one of the most significant events in the history of humanity effectively boils the entire story down to a very drawn out HR meeting to decide whether J. Robert gets his security clearance revoked or not many years after the event.
Er... who cares?
I understand that Nolan chose to focus on the man rather than the event, but I think this was a mistake. Three hour biopics can work (rarely), but this is no Schindler's List. It is more a kitchen sink drama where the majority of the characters are one dimensional (Downey Junior gives it his best shot though as always), and the eponymous central character is not particularly compelling. He's interesting in a clinical kind of way but emotionally engaging, no. Despite a strong performance from Murphy, I simply didn't care much about the man.
As a result of this focus there is little to be seen of the immense scientific endeavour of the Manhattan Project (the biggest ever at that point in history until the Apollo Programme), and there isn't much about the physics either. There could have been some real dramatic tension over the perceived race against the Nazis to develop an atomic weapon, but this is only referred to a couple of times in throwaway lines.
Matt Damon is functional, and we get to learn that Robert himself was a bit of a serial shagger (that was a surprise), but again, so what? Oh, he did shag a lady who was a member of the communist party, so he might be tarred by the same brush. Or he might not. That is not a big enough tension to sustain a three hour movie.
The Trinity test is very well done. I have no quibbles about how that is realised, but again so much of the true story of how a team of four thousand scientists laboured for three years to achieve it is simply ignored.
The pacing is extremely uneven. A caption announces at the beginning '1. Fission'. Aha, I thought, it is in three acts. But there was no caption for 2 or 3. Perhaps the editor just forgot to put them in. May I suggest for a director's cut that these are '2. Boom!' and '3. The HR Panel Interview Concludes'.
Flabby, unfocused and really a bit dull. It could have been so much more, in so much less time.
Superman (1978)
This is the daddy
I wanted this again recently after a gap of maybe twenty years.
In that time we have seen CGI become ubiquitous, Marvel become possibly the most profitable studio of all time with a never-ending conveyor belt of super heroes, and endless remakes of films that didn't need to be remade.
And then there is this. The proper original big screen superhero movie, and yes, definitely, uhuh, it's still the best.
There's no overblown CGI (none at all in fact), and it's all the more believable and "realistic" for it. Reeves is absolute perfection, as is Kidder, Hackman and the rest of the cast.
The soaring John Williams score is arguable among his very best, and sheer joy of seeing a man, who really does embody the very best in any of us, fly and even turn back time to save the woman he loves is just, well, as good as this genre gets, and has ever got.
There is only one Christopher Reeves, and one Superman.
Moonfall (2022)
This is mind-bogglingly dumb, and not in a good way
Some moderate spoilers:
There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's this.
Somewhere, deep, deep down, there is a germ of a decent idea in terms of the story premise, but it is so thoroughly strangled and then stamped on that you forget about it within minutes.
Where to start?
Well, I love a good, brash, bonkers sci-fi spectacular, but it has to be believable at lest on some level.
This is just ludicrous nonsense right from the get go. Halle Berry (who doesn't seem to age at all) dials it in, often looking bored. Her co-star is so devoid of any charisma that he is instantly forgettable to the extent that I have forgotten his name as I write this and can't be bothered to look it up. And the chunky British guy who is the comedy relief / genius is bearable at best.
But now to the "science" behind the fiction. It is just so spectacularly stupid that even a flat-earther would find it beyond credible. You know any pretence at authenticity is crashing down like a chunk of the moon when it is stated with complete confidence that "Apollo 11 didn't have any electronics aboard."
No, seriously. That is a key premise of the narrative.
I presume that Emmerich is labouring under the misaprehension that a Saturn 5 and Apollo capsule were entirely manual and presumably operated something like a 19th Century steam locomotive.
Of course, an Apollo capsule is jam packed with electronics and even programmable computers (in 1969 it was truly pioneering in this respect and the PC I am writing this on, and presumably the laptop the script for Moonfall was written on are direct descendants).
But that isn't even the daftest thing about this movie. Oh, no, not by a long shot.
Let's just conclude by saying that when you play fast and loose with gravity, oxygen, mass destruction (yet the cell phone network seems surprisingly fully functional), museum artefacts that can be recomissioned within hours, more mass destruction, Artifical Intelligences that are anything but, and a cast that seem at best bewildered and at worst largely indifferent you end up with a huge, noisy, disjointed and incoherent mess.
Which is precisely my verdict on this film.
Interstellar (2014)
Makes three hours feel like a lifetime - awful
OK, I'll keep this brief, but I'll also nail my credentials to the mast first. I know science, cosmology, sci-fi and film-making pretty well. I have, in the past taught film studies at degree level, and worked on the production of more than one major Hollywood sci-fi film. I read Stephen Baxter and I like space stuff a lot. More than a lot. And why am I telling you this? Because I should have loved "Interstellar", but I didn't for one simple reason: It is a truly dreadful piece of film-making.
I won't even bother with dissecting the "science" in the film, because that isn't really the issue (it is wrong on pretty much every level). I'm not even going to bother complaining about the absurd audio balance in the sound mix. And I'll ignore the sub-standard special effects - because FX don't a great movie make.
The issues I have with Interstellar are essentially these: The film is an arse-numbing three hours long, and feels far longer. The pace is stunningly poorly judged - the first hour in particular could have been cut to ten minutes and far more would have been gained than lost.
The characters are paper-thin, and I didn't care about any of them. The plot is entirely derivative (mostly of the vastly superior "Contact"). The special effects aren't special at all and the editing (or lack of) is so self-indulgent it is a text book example of a director so enamoured with his project that he loses objectivity. The result is a plodding, flabby, and desperately dull movie devoid of any real excitement or emotional impact.
I won't go on, but special mention must be made of the planets - Paddling World and Coldworld. You see virtually nothing of either, and so utterly uninteresting are they that what should have been a moment of genuine cinematic wonderment was squandered with a bit of poor CGI painfully inferior to "A Perfect Storm" and a location less dramatic than your own back garden.
I've probably not been a brief as I intended, but as I write this I feel the disappointment and actual anger I felt on leaving the cinema bubbling to the surface again. It was a total let-down and a waste of more than three hours of my life. The gushing reviews on here are ridiculous and absurd, and I am forced to conclude that reviewers either watched a different film to me, or saw something so brilliant it completely passed me by. I am fairly confident I didn't doze off, although I desperately wanted to.
So in conclusion, "Contact" did all of this far, far better, fifteen years ago. In Contact the characters are human, believable, beautifully realised and you care what happens to them. The relationship between Father and Daughter is deeply moving and inspiring. But then the plot is far more sophisticated anyway, dealing with the social tensions and impact of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life, the science is accurate and entirely plausible (it was written by Carl Sagan after all), the movie is genuinely thrilling and full of spectacle, and it has something very profound to say.
Contact is everything Interstellar is not, and it has a considerably shorter running time. Contact brought tears to my eyes, Interstellar bored me to tears.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Genuinely wonderful and inspiring, but misunderstood
First off, I am a Trek fan, but not obsessively so.
Secondly, this is not your standard Star Trek film, it is entirely different to all the subsequent movies. Indeed by Wrath of Khan a completely different tone had been adopted for the series.
The Motion Picture is much closer to 2001: A Space Odyssey in feel than it is to Wrath of Khan - it is mystical, profound, moving and intelligent. It is also, as others have noted, stunning visually.
Sci-Fi has rarely felt this epic. The sheer scale of the VGER craft, and the secret that lies at its heart are astonishing and humbling. This is a film about what it is to be human, presenting this timeless question in a new and provocative way.
Forget your preconceptions, and watch the more recent Director's cut. This is a wonderful film.
Apollo 13 (1995)
Truly superlative "really happened" movie
I am amazed this film does not have a higher mark than 7.5 at the moment. It is difficult to see how this could have been done any better - a genuinely thrilling story that encompasses the very best in humanity.
The casting is perfect - everyone puts their heart into it (Ed Harris is especially worth a mention), and the special effects are not only an incredible achievement in themselves, but also used just the way they should be - to tell the story, not replace it. The Zero-G is brilliantly executed, and the CGI Saturn5 on the launch pad is utterly convincing.
Regardless of the fact that we all know the outcome to the story before we start viewing, this is compelling edge of the seat stuff. Howard manages to convey the desperation of the situation, while never once leaving us without hope.
This film is just sheer class from beginning to end. You will love it even if you think you aren't interested in space exploration.
Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek makes sci-fi exciting and fun again
This long awaited and anticipated movie is absolutely terrific fun whether you are a Star Trek fan or not. Rarely have I seen a two hour movie that packs so much in and sprints along at such a frenetic pace.
All the new cast were superb (with the possible exception of Simon Pegg who may have misjudged his performance but who we see very little of). Pine and Quinto playing Kirk and Spock totally nail it - really believable while bringing new aspects and their own interpretations to the characters. Carl Urban who plays Bones McCoy is truly superb too as is Zoe Saldana as Uhuru.
This is really a character driven movie, and the Romulan bad guys are secondary to that - the real pleasure is in seeing the new crew get to know each other, interact and master the brand new "original" Enterprise. (The love affair interest is cleverly and deftly handled too).
The effects are phenomenal, and because this is a relatively unknown cast who aren't swallowing up 50% of the budget on their wages, all the money is up there on screen.
It isn't perfect, but it is hard to see how this could have been done much better. JJ Abrahams has accomplished the near impossible - a new invigorated Star Trek that has universal appeal.
If you have illogical prejudices against Star Trek or Sci-Fi and don't see this you are really missing out.
This is how to reboot a franchise - this is just way better than the Star Wars prequels. It's Star Trek, and it has rediscovered its joie de vivre!
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Lots of action, not much story
An entertaining hour and a half (or only just over), but there is little character development amongst the relentless action, and few opportunities to discover more about Bond.
This is a film that actually needs more dialogue and more character development.
In Quantum of Solace, Bond is little more than a one dimensional killing machine, and the nuances of character that made Casino Royale so absorbing are entirely missing here.
A Bond film should be about two hours long. This film feels like the missing 30 minutes should be about narrative and characters. As it is, it is basically one long chase with lots of spectacle but ultimately little of the story that makes a film compelling.
Ghost Town (2008)
Charming little movie with a good heart
I am a Gervais fan, and despite him only really having one character in his repertoire, he does that character very well.
In this feel-good little movie he genuinely shines, managing to play the part of Bertram Pincus with wit and warmth. The comedy is, if anything understated with the funniest line being delivered when he first meets Tea Leonie's dog.
The supporting cast all perform admirable service and the ending avoids the almost inevitable "love" cliché, preferring to leave the viewer to speculate on what might happen next.
Very enjoyable, and will make you smile. Some lovely time-lapse shots of New York too.
Recommended.
Schindler's List (1993)
One of the greatest and most important movies of all time
I am not going into detail here - as all that needs to be said has been said...
But viewing of this film should be compulsory for all. It is to Spielberg's eternal credit that he was able to tackle the hardest of all subjects and humanise the most appalling period in recent history.
The scrip, characterisations, direction, performances and editing are all beyond criticism and after three hours I would defy anyone to remain indifferent to the central message - that in the darkest of hours humanity can overcome evil, and the actions of one person make the most profound difference to many.
Beyond entertainment and beyond compare.
Back to the Future (1985)
Simply the most entertaining movie ever made
I'm a tough guy to please, but this timeless (pun intended) film is simply a total joy from start to finish and on every level you can imagine.
A perfect script, wonderful performances from every single cast member, immaculate inspired direction and absolutely perfect pacing make this one of the few films that you will never ever tire of.
Once in a decade or so, someone has an idea for a story that is simply genius. This is one of those stories. It is astonishing that what is actually quite a complex tale of time paradoxes becomes so accessible and easy to follow. You will be swept along on a wave of pleasure.
Every time I see it I marvel at the imagination, the humour, the sheer joie de vie of a film for which no audience member could fail to be moved and thrilled.
Truly a cinematic masterpiece and a treasure for all ages.
(And the sequels are great too!)
Transformers (2007)
I had no idea the Transformers were so camp
A mildly diverting way to spend an hour and a half and in no way offensive to my sensibilities. However, it was very forgettable - which for a big budget spectacle movie is a problem.
I was never a fan of the original cartoons (I was entirely indifferent to them), so I had little expectation of this film, as well as no preconceived notions as to what it should be.
But I was totally unprepared for the incredibly camp huge robots! At various points I almost expected them to finish their sentences with "Ooh get you!" and "You b1tch!" These were not awesome intergalactic killing machines, they were more whiny, sensitive, over-friendly, overly sincere politically correct accounting software managed virtual learning environments. And about as exciting.
The scene around the outside of the house was nothing short of high farce, and actually quite fun. But when the credits rolled I was confused.
Who was this film aimed at? From the trailer I was expecting a hard edged, dark and violent vision of a future where earth becomes the battleground for a titanic struggle between massively powerful war machines from the far reaches of the cosmos.
What I got was a kids film with big robots who were about as frightening as a small toy that turns from a plane into a Nissan hatchback.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Woeful instalment of a dying franchise
Oh dear, oh dear.
What were the producers thinking?
The first thing that strikes you is the truly preposterous casting. Brendan Fraser is 40 years old, and looks a few years younger. The actor cast as his character's son Alex is 28yrs old, and looks it.
So Rick became a daddy aged about 12. Or did he? Because according to the date this film is set (1947), and a reference to the last time he met a minor character (1923), Rick must be in his 50's. But there has been no attempt to "age" Fraser at all. Indeed, when he appears alongside his son they might be believable as brothers, but father and son? You have to be kidding.
But anyhow, on to the film itself. It suffers from an extremely poor script and an incredibly contrived storyline.
So far, so not good.
But it gets worse. In a shameless display of plagiarism, all the first three Indiana Jones movies are plundered:
1 The nightclub scene and subsequent chase in Shanghai. 2 The characters dragged underneath the chariot. 3 The plane flight into the mountains. 4 The crystal firing a beam of light to show the location of the hidden "well". 5 Father is mortally wounded, son has to get him to the well of immortality, and pour the elixir on his wound which miraculously heals. 6 The elixir is guarded by an immortal....
....and on and on.
It is difficult to put my finger on exactly where this kind of movie goes wrong. Somehow Indiana Jones pulls it off without crossing the line into the preposterous. Mummy 3 not only crosses that line, it accelerates off into the distance faster than you can say "Hang on, John Hannah's character is totally irrelevant."
Which does indeed bring me to poor Mr Hannah. His sole purpose in this debacle appears to be to deliver utterly unfunny one-liners almost directly to camera. His character actually de- evolves in this - a neat trick - to become less than one dimensional.
To be fair, the effects are adequate, and the pace is rapid (it is only really 1hr38mins long), but there is a surprising lack of tension throughout. I found myself siding with Jet Li on more than one occasion.
The love story sub-plot is truly cringe-worthy - not only does Rick's son appear to be virtually the same age as his father, but whereas Fraser the actor exudes charisma, his son is the complete opposite. Unlikeable and instantly forgettable, his attempts to woo an immortal girlie-ninja are so devoid of any spark that I found myself urging her to do us all a favour and stick her dagger into his chest first.
However, she will never age, and so doesn't want to get kissy kissy with him because she would have to watch him grow old and die... ahhhh.
But don't turn off just yet, in virtually the next scene her two thousand year old mother, played tiredly by Michelle Yeoh, rescinds her immortality (in order that the opposing warrior army can live) so she can shack up with dull Alex after all. That was handy.
And so it goes on. And then it ends.
Good.
Tropic Thunder (2008)
Possibly the worst film in many years
For some reason I ordered this on DVD (it was released this weekend). I had glanced at the IMDb score and thought "Good score, must be a fun way to kill a couple of hours..." How tragically and naively wrong I was.
Clearly the IMDb rating has been influenced or manipulated in some way by those with a vested interest. Nothing else could explain the current rating in relation to the vast majority of reviews.
So please pay attention to the following message: DO NOT BUY THIS FILM ON DVD - IT IS BEYOND DREADFUL.
I buy a lot of DVD's, but I am actually really angry that I wasted £10 on this, it is so staggeringly poor. I truly wish I could get my money back as I feel conned.
OK - the film. Well, many others here have already commented, but I am moved to say that rarely has such a total lack of talent been put before the public. I liked Stiller in "Zoolander" - pithy and clever. I quite like "Night at the Museum", and "Meet The Parents" was good fun.
"Tropic Thunder" on the other hand is a whole different barrel of excrement.
Given that it is written by, produced by, scripted by, directed by and starring Mr Stiller, I can only conclude that a/ he has not watched the film himself, or b/ it is noble of him to take the blame.
Some key points: - The script is incoherent, as is Downey Jnr (and most of the rest of the cast).
- The script is desperately poorly written.
- The plot premise is promising, but squandered in minutes.
- The opening two minutes of the film (the spoof trailers) are the only amusing part of the film. It then goes off a cliff like a weighted Artic carrying a lorry load of lead balloons.
- It's crude and crass. Not funny crude and crass. Just nauseatingly puerile and unpleasant. I can't even suggest it is schoolboy humour, as it isn't that sophisticated.
- It isn't satire (satire is intelligent and makes a point). It isn't a spoof (a spoof is ludicrous and funny). It isn't "comedy" either (comedy makes you laugh and smile). It is actually almost a new genre entirely of it's own.
- Jack Black is the worst he has ever been, and his character - a bloated "comedy star" obsessed with hard drugs is so repellent that I spent the entire agonising length of the movie with my face a fixed mask of horror (according to my better half who also attempted to endure this).
- Tom Cruise achieves staggering new heights of embarrassment. His rabid expletive ridden tirades are not biting satire, they are just cringeworthy and forced.
- Nolte is pointless and looks uncomfortable as if he has a horrible sinking feeling throughout. Matthew McConaughey, a great actor when he tries, gives his best shot. But given that his character is effectively one joke which isn't funny in the first place, he is on a hiding to nothing from the start.
- Steve Cougan actually manages to be the best actor in all this hideous mess, and he is dispatched early on anyhow. I think he should be grateful as he is the only one to escape with a shred of dignity.
The stellar cast must be appalled at what Ben Stiller has created. Overblown, pointless, unfunny visual diarrhoea with no discernible redeeming qualities whatsoever. Surely Mr Stiller will never again be able to persuade such actors of note to take part in another debacle.
It saddens me that at no point in the pre-production process did someone have either the nerve or the knowledge to say "Hang on a minute Ben, this just simply isn't funny." Ben Stiller has committed the cardinal film making sin - a comedy that is not only devoid of any laughs, but actually so poor it is offensive to a viewer with any level of discernment.
Having just about managed to watch it (a supreme act of will in itself), I feel insulted and scammed out of my money. I turned to my wife and said, "That was possibly the worst film I have seen in a decade". She not only agreed, but used one of the overused expletives from the movie to describe her dissatisfaction at a wasted 1hr40min of her life.
If I could give it less than one star I would.
Vanishing Act (1986)
An absolute gem of a movie
Completely forgotten and overlooked, this is a murder-mystery par excellence.
Not generally a favourite genre of mine, I stumbled across this movie on TV late one night years ago and never forgot it. I then managed to track it down on an ancient VHS quite recently and watched it again. It was every bit as good as I remembered.
No special effects, no overblown budgets. Just a cracking script, superb performances, tight and efficient direction and one of the best twists ever.
An absolute masterclass in small budget movie-making.