The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Sick buckets at the ready

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“How can anyone take The Human Centipede seriously? Please! It is so far out there it's calling long distance and sending postcards airmail! A mad scientist captures tourists and joins them mouth to anus to make a human centipede! Why?? Why not?! He's a mad scientist! That's what mad scientists do! Mad science stuff! IMDb classifies The Human Centipede as Horror / Drama / Thriller. It is also an intensely black and macabre comedy. Some of the dialogue is hilarious, such as the threats made by the Japanese 'segment' of Dieter Laser's insane creation. Technically (Yes, technically!), the film looks way more expensive than its budget would suggest and the craft on show (direction, lighting, acting (!), camera) is very professional. Given the constraints of the situation, the actors especially turn in a fine job. One day you're a couple of girlfriends, looking for the local disco and getting lost, the next you're a helluva lot closer than you or nature ever intended! I saw the film at a market screening, laid on as an extra because the first one was full to bursting. The Human Centipede is a sick and guilty pleasure and I loved it.”

As a body-shock horror film, the human centipede is head, shoulders and anus above the rest.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“This movie is trash. It's a sick fetish-fueler for some weird cult to get off to. The plot is non-existent. If you want to know what this movie is about in a nutshell, here are some key plot points - mouth sewn to anuses, swallowing feces, and humans turned into slaves without dignity. People will say it's an original idea, but OF COURSE IT IS. It's never been done before because NO ONE HAS THOUGHT OF SOMETHING AS SICK AS THIS YET. After watching, I felt like I needed counseling, or something to make me forget the entire concept. On top of that, there is pathetic dialogue, acting, and directing. The movie literally ends without anything resolved and you just think "What was the point of this?" There's no greater idea, or hidden metaphors. The movie is about swallowing feces. DO NOT WATCH IT.”

This brings out the most important thing to remember when thinking about watching or indeed reviewing this…

What I thought:
It’s a horror film and its high concept - body shock idea at the centre of it is so ‘out there’ it will either impress you or annoy you. Either way it’s disgusting, a mad scientist decides to stitch three people mouth to anus; Human Centipede (First sequence). For those that are impressed with the idea you’ll be thinking how the hell they got this film made or how audacious it was to ignore any real science. Which brings me to my next point, one of the biggest criticisms slung at this film are its scientific inaccuracies.

For me it was neither, I was impressed with the idea and how they got it made but even more I was grossed out. Put yourself on their kneecaps and it’s a horrifying thing to happen, some of the later sequences of tension and escape attempts are little hampered by the speed of the film. A slow drip drip rather than a gush of horrific bodily moments and a sustained feeling of fear leave the film a little stretched. Probably an idea best suited as a smaller part of a horror anthology than its own feature.

The best thing about Human Centipede is the performance of Dieter Laser, his highly impressive turn as a creepy scientist is just that; creepy. Flitting between dead eye coldness to adoration for his creation (I’m a poet).It is all nuanced with all extreme emotions tied complete with a loss of humanity. Maybe a bit deep but it is a great performance. In another film it would have been brilliant, sadly with an idea that’s like marmite it will lose a lot of people.

The Human Centipede should not be watched by those easily disgusted and it’s far from perfect, This idea however is so out of this world it is worth seeing in celluloid even if just to think “how the hell did they get away with this?”.

Young Bruce Lee

A beautiful postcard to a Legend

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I expected a lot from this film since the first time I saw the trailer,Bruce Lee is a legend, a hero to many people but this movie is different to other biopics about him...The story is based on the Robert's Lee book about his brother, for that reason here we see Bruce through the eyes of his brother instead through the eyes of a fan...Bruce lee here is Lee Jun Fan, on his teenage years, he is not a superhero, he is just an ordinary boy with the typical problems of youth...that is the great success of the movie, we know the real man instead of the legend.We also know his fiends and family, Bruce's dad is played by tony leung ka fai, probably the best of the film, his performance is powerful,honest and brilliant..I think many Bruce lee fans will feel disappoint with this human portrait of Bruce and others will love it... I am of the second one...as a Bruce lee fan i consider this one his best biopic.”

I agree about it being a good film, however in regards to the ‘human portrait’ of Bruce Lee I’m not so sure.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“For those about to buy this film; Beware... If you expect to learn anything about Bruce Lee, the man as we know, forget it. One hour into this film, Lee is still a small child. We get back stories about every single person who even had a moments contact with him. After the first hour the viewer realises that the film is half over, and there is simply not enough time to spend on the adult Bruce. 129 minutes later, the film ends, with no ending... There is not one fight in the entire film, no scenes of Bruce learning kung fu, nothing at all. And the most frustrating thing of all; after spending 45 minutes on the life of...Bruce lee's aunt, who had cancer, we are shown the great Yip Man; well, we are shown THE BACK OF YIP MAN'S HEAD, for about 8 seconds!! Then a teenage Bruce and some school friends are walking in front of a school and the film ABRUPTLY ends. I still can't believe what i have watched. Is this the same film that people gave a rating of 7 here? Was my DVD defective? I don't think so, because the film did run 129 minutes. In short, action fans will absolutely DESPISE this inane film about Bruce Lee's aunt, as there is not one scene featuring Kung Fu technique. And fans of drama will hate it because there is no ending; the thing just stops with no resolution. I am assuming this was part of a very long mini series, and some dishonest distributor put the first episode on DVD to make a quick buck. And by the way; I was not aware that Bruce Lee had a brother. Of all the Bruce rip-off\cash-in films, "bruce Lee My Brother" is the absolute worst. I returned the DVD to the shop, and let them know it was defective. I mean it HAD to be defective, right? This could not possibly be the final product..”

At the other end of the spectrum we have someone who wanted a Bruce Lee film, not a film about Bruce Lee as a youngster. Shame really as there is some action in the film and though it does breeze over some of the more important issues these are things we know. This film reveals things you might not know.

What I thought:
I really enjoyed this film; I thought that it was a beautifully shot and well-acted story that shows that a lot of care and attention went into it. The story of the young Bruce Lee is the time of his life that a large majority of us know nothing about. It has buckets of silly humour and teenage angst, not to much a pinch of family drama and of course action. This however is not a Burce Lee film; it’s a film about Bruce Lee. From birth to how he leaves Hong Kong and onto our big screens; it traces through building a group of friends around him to tales of teenage delinquency and cha cha contests. Of course there is some action with a boxing rivalry and moments of peril with drug dealers but that’s only a small part.

My only real criticism is just how much dramatic licence has been given, I’m know Bruce Lee Historian but some of the moments seem a bit far-fetched especially the penultimate roof chasing scene. This is small criticism for a film that works well as a lovely tribute to a legend, it is such a well-crafted piece of cinema that even if you don’t appreciate any of the above you can at least appreciate how good looking the film is.

500 Greatest Goals DVD (Beeonfilms first ever competition!)

There is not much to say in a review about this DVD, the Lovers and Haters are simply divided by the love of football. If you’re into football and above all goals this is great fun, statistics and a few interviews make this essential viewing. The fanatics and statisticians both will love re-living some of the greatest goals ever scored.

For everyone else this could be as tedious as watching paint dry!

In celebration of this and The Champions League Final I’m giving away 3 copies of this one, all you have do is answer this simple question, answers in an email to my address or facebook will do just as good, Good Luck!

Who scored the winner in the 98/99 Champions League Final?

Green Zone

NOT ‘Bourne goes Epic’

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I thought this movie was just another typical Iraqi War Based movie where the Americans(both leaders&Soldiers) are the good guys and Iraqi people are the bad asses to be kicked............But it turned out to be the only movie that has brought to light negatives and positives of both the sides(US and Iraq)........Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon kicked the hell out of the old stereotyped movies of heroes vs villains, to bring in a new genre of inside heroes vs inside villains..........The plot of the movie is really believable and the cast did a great job..........the action sequences and the areas were quite convincing..........The last line of freddy "It is not for you to decide what we do here" is an excellent one and it turns the whole perspective around.............WMD was a hoax to obtain oil,remove Saddam............Whatever it might be the movies like these bring in some light to the portions where people are made to know what they should know........This is the only film I have given 10/10 ratings among the Iraq War movies........I definitely think it is above the standards of Hurt Locker or any other movie in this genre..........Hats off to the Greengrass-Damon team for providing 3 most memorable movies.............”

It is a bit of a stretch saying that Paul Greengrass has brought in a ‘new genre’, The team of Grengass and Damon may have brought us the brilliant 2nd and 3rd Bourne films but Green Zone is nowhere near that quality.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“...by this film. After all, Matt Damon is a well-known radical leftist, He is certainly not going to do a film that promotes the U.S. plot about looking for supposedly non-existent WMDs is right out of a Pelosi/Reid/Hollyweird dream. Of course it ignores the WMDs that were found and fabricates a whole "what-if" scenario that aims only to pull down former president George Bush and paint our reason for liberating Iraq with a long streak of yellow paint. As to the acting, Kinnear was good. He has been a pleasant surprise over the years with his best being in "We Were Soldiers". Unless you are a leftist conspiracy person, I seriously doubt that you will appreciate this movie.”

Saying that you disagree with the obvious political standpoint of the film should not mean you didn’t like it. Green Zone was always going to be a provocative film for the issue of WMD’s but I think it’s worth pointing out this reviews obvious political standing.

What I thought:
The Posters told you this was ‘Bourne goes epic’, this is a horribly misleading comment as it’s nothing like Bourne. Miller is nothing like Jason Bourne, this military man more a grunt than Special Forces, who fights with far less proficiency. It’s also much more political than you think; a lot of the running time is spent giving you several different sides of the issue. Whether that’s by giving you the US soldiers POV, the press and The Iraqi’s it’s more interested in playing Devil’s Advocate than it is entertaining you.

The biggest problem with this film is false expectations; don’t watch this film expecting Bourne. You won’t get Bourne and you’ll wonder why this film is trying to tell you all about the scandal surrounding the reason we went to war. It does however do that quite well, it supplies multiple angles on the problem and does them in a clear and not to badly acted way. It’s all just a bit too much for the running time and when you’ve read enough of the press about this you may feel you already know too much. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to use a moment in history, one that is already quite well documented and debated, you will need to do more than just lay out all the facts and hope the action falls into place. Shame really because the Bourne films really are brilliant!

The Kings Speech

A Thoroughly enjoyable English f f f f f f film

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“No spoilers here. I would like to let everyone know that this is an excellent film. I enjoyed it this week at the Mill Valley Film Festival in Marin County, CA. Given the outstanding cast and director, and my fascination with historical figures, I had high hopes for this film, though mixed with a certain resignation that I might be disappointed. There was no way I could have imagined how wonderful "The King's Speech" would be. There was abundant humor without the film ever becoming a comedy, drama without dreariness, and many deeply moving moments. I can't praise this film enough. It boosted my appreciation of the human capacity to become our best selves, and rise to meet even the most daunting challenges.”

A tad on the dramatic side but there is no doubt that The Kings Speech is an inspirational story.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“I watched the movie in a local cinema the other night,I should admit I was caught in the web of marketing and media frenzy,,half way the show I lost my interest and with difficulty and hundreds of yawns I could go through the dragging,,,this could've been a play instead of a movie,,all the hype and media rush is because it was nominated for golden globe,,and we usually have a sort of pack mentality,the leaders(critics,golden globe etc.)said it worth to watch and we rush to see it,,believe me it is not. the title reveals a lot,the name of the movie is "the king's speech" so it is all about kings and queens and speech therapy and a very time consuming effort for George VI to become the next king after the previous George V,all the happening is about the period between two King Georges,if you wait for DVD you won't lose anything!!”

I knew what I was getting myself into with The Kings Speech a slow moving story of how one good man conquers a speech impediment under huge stress with the help of another good man. Anyone bored with the kings Speech is in the cinema for the wrong reasons.

What I thought:
Acting; that’s what I think of when I think of The Kings Speech. More specifically when actors take on real people, where is the line drawn between a brilliant piece of acting or just a very good impersonation. In Speech you get examples of both, at one end you have an almost pantomime impression of Winston Churchill by Timothy Spall and on the other a certain Oscar winner. Colin Firth has come a long way since wet shirts and high collars; he’s starting to brush off his bumbling English appeal in favour of grandeur.

Of course to play the stuttering monarch does include some of the English fool; however what it also required was an impressive take on a speech impediment and courage. A King asked to speak to his people on the break out of yet another war, when that King is infamous for his poor public speaking. Geoffery Rush of course is utterly sublime and though I haven’t seen The Fighter, I think it’s a crime he didn’t get that Oscar.

It’s just a slow moving film sure but a pace that suits its lead, the lessons with Lionel Logue skip by the best. With humour and an almost heart-warming ‘bromance’ it’s a pleasure to watch these two actors play off each other. The Kings Speech is an inspirational tale that despite Oscar will not be everyone’s cup of English Tea, for most though it’s a funny and moving story of an important moment in the history of The English Monarchy.

Bee Movie

The one that comes up all the time if you google me!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“This kids movie was totally awesome and had lot's of adult humor. Welcome back Jerry Seinfeld who hasn't really done anything since Seinfeld. Renne Zellewigger was awesome as usual. Tons of big actors. I hate to say Matthew Brodderick grows on me when I see him in good movies. My favourite character was Chris Rock the Mosquito "I was a blood sucking parasite before... I just needed a briefcase. Animated movies are just mind blowing how smooth the animation is and how realistic. Actors get way more into the voice roles I find. This movie has catchy music and lot's of laughs. Very inventive script. Jerry Seinfeld is a great whiny bee who challenges bee ethics and human nature. This movie is totally cool and I already know I will be buying this on video this week. Sweet...”

They point out the one thing I like most about this film, the casting of Jerry Seinfeld. A lot like the casting of Woody Allen as an ant, the dry humour and observation comedy just fits into these worlds with ease.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“When bee keepers are portrayed as evil scoundrels, it's time to question the intelligence of writers. Not only do they have no concept of bees and bee keeping, they don't know that only the sterile females do all the work. Male bees are DRONES, who do nothing but fertilize young queens. Which highlights why useless people are called drones. We might extend that term to include the writers and producers of this movie. Granted, animation is basically aimed at fanciful imagination and impossible situations. But let's keep it funny. Gross error and stupidity is not funny. Smokers don't kill bees - they discourage bee aggression. Even the "ecological" theme is skewed. The idea of entertainment is to entertain. This movie fails to do so. Undoubtedly, fans of Seinfeld and self absorbed urban culture will enjoy parts of this, but overall, it's awful. Jerry, revive "Seinfeld" if you want to parody New York culture, but spare us from further "bumbling" beez niss.”

I really like this review, I think it’s well written and makes some valid points. However I will mention two things, the portrayal of beekeepers is down to anyone with prior knowledge to decide, but isn’t it just a kids movie? Does it matter that much? Also I’m pretty sure they never use the smokers to literally kill bees just knock them out?

What I thought:
There is a wonderful moment in Bee Movie where the humans wait with bated breath to hear the Bee talk, When the Bee opens his mouth all that comes out is “buzz buzz buzz buzz”. He does it on purpose and it’s one of the biggest laughs in the film, for me it is the epitome of what makes this film funny. That kind of tongue in cheek humour that knows the film is based on a childish idea, it’s the same reason Antz was so good.

Another reason Antz was soo good was the casting of Woody Allen, as I’ve said already the casting of Jerry Seinfeld is very fitting and that kind comedy is well received here. Like Antz it’s a social commentary applied to the life of Bee’s, the intricate design of their beehives is used ingeniously and their social order makes complete sense. From being made to work for the rest of their life in the same job to simple things like yellow and black jumpers, all very clever and worth a smile.

Clever comedy and hilarious cameos from Sting and Ray Liotta however do not help the fact that you don’t really care for the characters. It’s not about character development, it’s just the majority of the running time plays more to the idea of Bee’s having this life and being able to speak. It doesn’t leave much room to develop any affinity to the characters.

It’s a clever comedy with too much emphasis on the nature of the idea than the characters.

Thor

Bring on the guy wearing an American Flag!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Thor was much much better than I expected. I didn't know if they could pull of the balance between the Norse mythology stuff and the real world Marvel Universe. I should've known better because Marvel knows their characters and knows what we want to see. Spider-Man set a new standard for the superhero film genre back in the day. Iron Man upped the ante. Thor takes the ball and runs with it and places that bar even higher. I look forward to seeing it again and know it will do well enough to be worthy of a sequel because word of mouth is going to be great. Trust me when I say Thor REALLY IS as good as Iron Man and is most worthy to be called one of the greatest adaptations ever.”

One of the greatest might be bit of a long shot, however Thor is surprisingly very good! This reviewer hit the nail on the head as to why but more about that later.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Unfortunately it's one of the dumbest things I've seen in years, and is completely full of moronic clichés and the most superficial faux morals. Please do yourself a favour and spend your money on things that are more deserving of it, especially if you've worked hard to earn it. Just in case you want to know what you'll be missing --- * spoiler alert * (though really I'm giving this film a massive compliment by suggesting you could 'spoil' anything in it) Thor's father takes his hammer away and sends him to earth for punishment. While there Thor literally changes overnight from being an arrogant, rash and violent idiot to a wise, humble and pacifist purveyor of all things noble, and the only possible reason for this that's presented in the movie is that he met Natalie Portman and was then told that his father died while he was gone. Once Thor the god of thunder completes this astonishing and instant transformation and sacrifices his life for others, his hammer flies back to him, revives him and he beats the bad guys with it. If you really, really love Marvel movies and viking folklore (to the point where you don't mind these things being made a joke out of) and have 2.5 hours in which you'd otherwise be causing harm to humanity or this planet, go see it. Otherwise you might as well spare yourself from this glorious waste of time and brain cells.”

First and foremost have a go at Marvel for the laughs had at Viking folklore as Thor was their idea. The film is nowhere near as bad as this person is trying to point out and the only point they do have is Thors “change overnight”. The point was always that Thor was a good person beforehand he’s just a bit arrogant and hopefully the character will never lose that. I would say thinking you’ve lost your dad would be extreme enough to change you over night, especially if you think you were part to blame for it? I just don’t know sometimes, if you already have preconceived ideas that you will hate a movie please don’t bother going to see it. This reviewer like most negative reviews of less than 100 words are made up of this sort of people and it’s frustrating to say the least.

What I thought:
When news was announced that Marvel Studios were planning an Avengers movie, I thought; how the hell will they pull off Thor. Just read some of the comics and you’ll know how ridiculous the character can and will be, how could they fit him into this new Iron Man started universe without making him look a bit camp? Well firstly you hire another controversial choice to helm it, Kenneth Branagh’s is not best known for his directing. Arguably better in front of camera than he is behind it, he was a big risk and I have to say I think he’s done it.

Thor may be a little bit wet behind the ears, the running time doesn’t give much room to develop characters or in some peoples point of view; time for characters to change. However its very funny and played out with the kind of charm that worked so well for Iron Man, the action sequences are fast paced and a LOT of fun too. Chris Hemsworth makes the role his own and plays Thor as the arrogant son of Odin he is, it’s only the change in the character that might annoy people but like I’ve pointed out before; I think losing your father can have a pretty fast effect on someone, but you be the judge. It's all a balancing act, keeping the mythical realms of Asgard from being like the Hawkmen from Flash Gordon and tying it in with our wolrd using humour and the "science is magic" line.

Natalie Portman does enough to make Jane Foster likeable and I don’t think we can ask anything more in a film like this. The funniest moments are restricted to Earth bound scene’s with Thor’s fish-out-of-water scenarios that has The Mighty Thor taken down by cars, tasers and injections. Unlike the Avenger-baiting scenes with Shield in Iron Man 2, Thor just has Agent Coulson (The brilliant Clark Gregg) turning up and getting the biggest laughs “Is it one Starks?” The sly little winks to fans are handled brilliantly with mentions of a scientist specialising in gamma radiation, Hawkeyes appearance and of course the now obligatory post credit scene.

All of this makes Thor a brilliant start to the summer season of movies, a writer from Empire put it brilliantly for me “the first and hardest hurdle to The Avengers has been jumped”. I think it sums this movie perfectly and has me counting the days to Captain America.

Bridget Jones Diary

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Bridget Jones's Diary is full of lighthearted fun. The cast is wonderful - especially true for Colin Firth. His performance is magical. Being given such a thin material to work with, playing a `dreadful cold fish', he has artfully shown Mark Darcy's kindness and charm that gradually wins everyone's heart. This would be an impossible mission for actors other than Colin Firth. I enjoy every minute of his performance. In my opinion, they should give this nice boy more camera times - that's the only complain I have about this movie. Besides this complain, I have to congratulate the whole production team for successfully creating a movie of such weightless fun, and at the same time being honest and sincere to the human emotions. It is very hard to believe that this movie is Sharon Maguire's first one. I never read the book. So, you can trust my observation to be totally independent of the book. If you wish to have some fun and also like to dream a little bit, this is definitely the movie for you. BTW. If you enjoy watching drama and haven't seen Colin Firth's "Pride And Prejudice" (BBC), do yourself a favor and rent it. He is *really* a great "Character Actor" - one of the most talented alive.”

Very full of praise for Colin Firth and why not he is very likable in this. However it’s very easy for Colin Firth to play his Darcy in most things he’s in. It is weightless fun but being honest and sincere to human emotions is a bit of a stretch, a woman’s maybe not a man’s.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Renee Zellweger's ludicrous British accent is only one of the outrages perpetrated in Sharon Maguire's film of the Helen Fielding bestseller about the life and loves of a thirty-something single woman. This is a film that could set the feminist cause back thirty years with its shamelessly aggressive belief that women have careers only to make themselves more available to men and that life isn't worth living if Mr. Right doesn't come along. Zellweger spends the entire film trying to convince us she's got the accent down but she's only a caricature--and a blank one at that. Maguire, meanwhile, spends just as much effort trying to convince us that a natural beauty like Zellweger is fat and plain--it's a sham (much like Janeane Garafolo is in `The Truth About Cats & Dogs'). The rest of the cast is uninspired; even the dependable Hugh Grant, trying to play against type as a cad, barely registers a pulse and Colin Firth, as Mr. Right, is curiously unlikable. The script (by Fielding and two other-male-writers) is shallow and tedious.”

That has to be the biggest problem with this film that Renee Zellweger is parading as a middle aged British woman. I stress the word parading as she really does over play it a bit and all with an awful attempt at a British accent. It’s just the best example of just how wrong Americans can get not just us brits but the rest of the world.

What I thought:
Beside my obvious anger at the casting of Miss Zellweger I don’t mind Bridget Jones, for a chick-flic it has enough silly humour that can appeal to both the sexes; From the brilliantly portrayed ‘fight’ between Firth and Grant to the strange relatives and crude Christmas Jumpers. To review this properly however I need the opinion of the appropriate audience. My wife liked Bridget Jones but noted that it was not as good as the book and the sequel even less so. The most frustrating thing though and I agree with her, is with the wealth of female acting talent available on our own shores the creators decided to cast an American.

Not much else to say on this one I’m afraid and I feel a bit like a cheat, it’s a chick-flic that has been out for a while so it’s a little hard for me to talk about in length. However the great thing about having your own blog means you can re-visit reviews as new things pop up.