Topic: Never Ending Movie Marathon (short reviews)

[samuelrichardscott]

Age of the Gunslinger (2009) AKA Shadowheart

Overview:
1865: James Conners returns home to the town of Legend, New Mexico to avenge his father's death at the hand of the ruthless Will Tunney. Along the way he recaptures his long-lost love Mary Cooper and together they set in motion a chain of events that will change both their lives.

My Thoughts:
Pros:
- A couple of good cameos here from William Sadler, Daniel Baldwin and Rance Howard.
- The best character here is easily the villain, Will Tunney, played as required by Angus MacFadyen.
- The sets are of good quality considering the likely budget of the production.
Cons:
- Whilst the story gets by okay, it is very cliched and unoriginal.
- Justin Ament in the lead role. I've seen plenty worse but it's no wonder this was his last role at the time of writing.
- There's a few plot holes and too many random characters.
Overall:
Not enough originality or polish, but far from the worst I have seen. Still, I recommend you skip this one. 2/5

[samuelrichardscott]

Cleopatra (1963)

Overview:
Possibly the most alluring, mysterious and powerful woman of all time, Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor) changed the course of history when two of the most powerful men in Rome fell in love with her. Rex Harrison is Julius Caesar, who wins the Egyptian throne for Cleopatra, marries her and provides her with a child, Caesarean. Upon returning to his native country, Caesar is crowned Dictator of Rome, but his desperate desire for even greater power causes a worried Roman Senate to fatally conspire against him on the Ides of March.
Several years later, Marc Antony (Richard Burton), previously Caesar's right-hand man, is now a general in charge of all Eastern provinces. Financial troubles cause him to turn to Cleopatra for help and she soon seduces him, setting in motion another all-consuming affair. However, for the new Dictator of Rome, Octavian (Roddy McDowall), Antony is now all that stands in the way of his absolute rule of the Empire. Octavian and the Senate declare war on Egypt, paving the way for a great battle between these two ancient superpowers.

My Thoughts:
Pros:
- Rex Harrison and Roddy McDowell are the real stars here, both putting in exceptional turns.
- They didn't hold back on the set design or the costumes.
- The score by Alex North is varied and very well done, adding tension and drama to the relevant scenes.
Cons:
- Liz Taylor and Richard Burton. Maybe it was to do with all the negative press into their personal lives at the time, but both have proved they are capable of so much better.
- The story seems rushed in parts and just skips over some interesting moments. The original movie was supposed to be over six hours but Fox demanded cuts down to the four hour movie everyone is familiar with.
- Some of the more expressive bits of dialogue is a little rough around the edges.
Overall:
For me, a bit of a disappointment although it was certainly watchable. I just hope we get the six hour+ version one day because I'm sure that'll strengthen the movie massively. Rent it. 3/5

[samuelrichardscott]

btw, I watched the two-hour documentary on this release which is better than the movie itself! It should be noted that although renowned for almost making Fox bankrupt, it actually made its money back when the TV rights were sold. Any sales from VHS, DVD and BR has all been profit, so in the long-run a good investment I guess!

[samuelrichardscott]

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

Overview:
The town of Harmony would like to forget its horrific past. Ten years ago, after a tragic mining accident, Harry Warden awoke from his coma on Valentine's Day - and brutally murdered 22 people with a pickaxe before being killed himself. Now, after years of peace, there's a killer on the loose, again wearing a miner's mask and brandishing a pickaxe. Has Harry Warden returned from the dead?

My Thoughts:
Pros:
- The death scenes are really well done, over the top and well shot. Some cracking gore.
- Jenson Ackles and Jaime King put in good, if slightly mismatched showings, supported by a better than average cast.
- The pace is unrelenting and it doesn't give you time to think.
Cons:
- It's cliched to the max.
- Some of the editing is a bit choppy.
Overall:
It's an entertaining popcorn flick and it doesn't try to be anything else. Some will hate it, but I dug it when I first saw it and enjoyed it again here. Recommended. 3.5/5

[Piffi]

I gave "My Bloody Valentine" a 4 if i remember correctly.
A good movie that i watched on dvd back when it first
came out. I'll pick up the blu if its cheap enough some day

[samuelrichardscott]

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

Overview:
Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson star as Anne and Mary Boleyn in this adaptation of the bestselling novel by Philippa Gregory. While their story is perhaps one of history's most well known, The Other Boleyn Girl has fun with the facts, creating a lusty, dramatic tale of deception and betrayal. The film begins with the girls' power-hungry uncle (David Morrissey), discovering that King Henry VIII's (Eric Bana) marriage to Catherine of Aragon (Ana Torrent) is falling apart. Their uncle suggests to their father (Mark Rylance) that he tempt the King into taking Anne (Portman) as his mistress, thus putting the family in the King's favour. But the King has no time for the strong-willed Anne, and instead turns his attentions to her already married, soft-spoken sister Mary. With her eye on the Queen's crown, Anne renews her attempts to seduce the king, driving a wedge between her and her sister.
Bana is a brooding, sexy Henry, and Portman and Johansson both give strong performances as the beautiful and bewitching sisters. While some might quibble over the historical inaccuracies of the film, most will let themselves get lost in the sea of beautiful bodices, and the anticipation of when those bodices might be ripped.

My Thoughts:
Pros:
- It looks stunning, from the long sweeping shots to the close-ups. The sets, locations and costumes are also exceptional.
- The dialogue is well written and at times thought-provoking.
- The supporting cast, particularly Jim Sturgess and Kristin Scott Thomas are excellent.
Cons:
- Anyone in the UK with a secondary school education can point out how historically inccurate the movie is. Not sure how close it is to the book though as I've never read it.
- I'm a fan of Scarlett Johannson, Natalie Portman and Eric Bana but all three struggle here, especially with the accents. Surely there are more than enough great period actors/actresses in the UK who'd have been perfectly acceptable?
- The end is really cheesy.
Overall:
Overrated, but more than bearable if you can get past the accents and inaccuracies thanks to the supporting cast. 3/5

[samuelrichardscott]

Jack Frost (1997)

Overview:
He's got ice in his veins and he's cold blooded, his name is Jack Frost. After five years of terror and 38 bodies in five states, serial killer Jack is on his way to execution. But a freak accident with a truckload of genetic material in the middle of a snowstorm mutates Jack into a killer snowman. Now only an army can stop the 'slayride' of terror from this frosty monster with icicle fangs. Hell has just frozen over... he's the abominable Jack Frost.

My Thoughts:
Pros:
- Some absolutely hilarious moments, best being the death by baubels.
- Shannon Elizabeth in one of her early roles. Although she isn't a great actress, she is one of the better cast members here and I always like seeing stars in their earlier movies, although she is raped in a bath by a defrosted snowman who refreezes here in one of the more bizarre moments.
- It's completely mental and the script is so bad, it's unintentionally funny.
Cons:
- The standard of acting is poor throughout.
- The gore and special effects are rather lacklustre.
- The story is ridiculously stupid.
Overall:
This is a bad bad film, but it's one that easily fits in the so bad it's good category. Low end rental. 2.5/5

[samuelrichardscott]

Jimmy, I think you would enjoy Jack Frost. There is also a sequel but I'm not daft enough to buy it just yet!

[Jimmy]

Jimmy, I think you would enjoy Jack Frost.

Pete maybe, me probably not

That cover look way too awfull for me, just sound cheap DTDVD to me. I'm more a fan of sixties, seventies and eighties stuff; of course I purchased some more recent horror film occasionally but usually it's to get the free shipping at Amazon.

[samuelrichardscott]

Clubland (2007)

Overview:
Meet the Dwights. Jeannie (Brenda Blethyn) is a loving mother, cook, divorcee, and on the road to a comeback as a comedienne. Her ex-husband is staging a comeback of his own in country music. With eccentric wannabe parents like these and a disabled brother, it's not surprising to see that life hasn't always been easy for Tim, a shy boy, who's a disaster with women. When he meets the beautiful and feisty Jill, things seem to be looking up for him. There is only one thing standing in his path to happiness... his mother!

My Thoughts:
Pros:
- Not only is Brenda Blethyn fantastic as usual, but the otherwise Australian cast ensembled here are above average, especially Khan Chittenden and Emma Booth.
- There's enough light comedy scattered through the drama to never make it overly depressing.
- They work in the disabled brother Mark extremely well, making him one of the main characters rather than only using him for vital plot points.
Cons:
- Brenda Blethyn's character Jeannie gets a bit frustrating to watch towards the end due to the way they have overplayed her breakdown.
- At times, the script feels underdeveloped and they could have delved into some of the characters a bit deeper, like Jill.
Overall:
A solid enough drama that is above average due to the strength of the casting. Recommended. 3.5/5

[samuelrichardscott]

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)

Overview:
Action superstar Jason Statham and iconic director Uwe Boll join forces for the breathtaking action adventure "In The Name Of The King".
A simple farmer is forced to take up arms after evil tyrant Gallian unleashes a bloodthirsty army that ravages his village and ensnares his family. As the marauding forces begin to overrun the country in an effort to crush the noble King Konreid, the once peace-loving Farmer is forced to rise and fight for all he loves and lives for. With a band of skilled and trusted warriors, he embarks on a journey into uncharted territory on a perilous rescue mission to destroy Gallian's brutal reign of terror once and for all.
Featuring an all star cast, including Ron Perlman ("Hellboy"), John Rhys-Davies ("Lord Of The Rings") Burt Reynolds ("Boogie Nights") and Ray Liotta ("Goodfellas") with incredible battle scenes by the world-renowned action choreographer of "Hero" and "House Of Flying Daggers", "In The Name Of The King" delivers the most thrilling spectacle you could possibly imagine.

My Thoughts:
Well first of all, let me get one thing straight. Although Uwe Boll is not a very good director, he is far from the worst ever and I think many people unfairly judge his movies without giving him a chance because it's the cool thing to do. In fact, Boll could make the next Citizen Kane and it would still be hated by critics and the like. Don't get me wrong, In the Name of the King is not a very good film and Boll is a long way off making the next Citizen Kane, but it isn't all bad.  The cast he has amassed is generally rather good. We have Jason Statham, Ron Perlman and Claire Forlani amongst others. However, Matthew Lillard is totally out of place and his part is a complete mess. The film itself, is a below average fantasy romp and I can see what he was aiming for but Boll's biggest problem is everything always seems rushed. He has some good ideas, and he is steadily getting better as a director (well, you couldn't get much worse than his earliest movies) but everything just lacks that finishing touch and polish. The film feels rushed and incomplete, the editing is sloppy and the effects very poor for a movie which had a $60m budget. I can't bring myself to recommend this to anyone but it isn't as bad as many will have you believe. Skip it. 2/5

[samuelrichardscott]

As a side note for the inevitable Boll discussion, I have also seen:
House of the Dead - 1.5/5 (not seen since release and can't remember much)
Alone in the Dark - 1.5/5 (not seen since release and can't remember much)
Far Cry - a generous 2/5

In my to watch pile:
- House of America
- Tunnel Rats

I still hold out a little hope that he stops rushing these productions through... Seriously. he has finished 22 movies since 2000 with three more on the way (one post-production, one filming, one in-production). He should take some time and give himself an entire year for a film and see how the result turns out...

[Jimmy]

Sam at least try to watch his better films... Darfur, Fist of the Reich, Stoic or Tunnel Rats and you'll see that he is a good director when he wants to. Except for Alone in the Dark, who is a complete mess with awfull CGI and a lot of bad casting, I like all his films. You just watch them as fun B-movie nothing else. I'm far more offended when I see a 200$ millions Hollywood pieces of crap ridden with CGI, bad editing, wooden acting and a "we don't care" attitude (to not wrote "we don't give a F") with no soul, at least Uwe Boll like what he do...

[samuelrichardscott]

we just need to watch them as fun B-movie nothing else).

This is what I do! I see potential in Boll, but it isn't necessarily as a director. The guy is a genius at securing finance for the movies he wants to make and getting full control over his movies through his own company. He could be an incredibly good (hands on) producer if he sorted out financing and let someone with a bit more professionalism and skill do the directing. Boll's real problem is that everything feels rushed and not enough thought has gone into it and he needs to think about things a bit more - as a producer, he can do that!

btw, ever seen any interviews with him? He's a complete nutcase. A likeable and to-the-point nutcase, but a gonk all the same.

Also, just realised the House of America I own is not the Boll film, but the Marc Evans film. I will try and check out the films you mentioned but I've only been picking his movies up when I see them for pennies. The three I have, cost me a total of £3.04 so far.

[samuelrichardscott]

btw, another good thing for him concentrating on being a producer would be the casting - because despite his reputation, he still pulls in some reasonable names to his movies.