Inspire! by Simon Maier

Inspire!

So a second book to review and hopefully I can make a habit of this, It’s a honour to get a look at fellow film writers work. Inspire is chock full of quotes from cinema and theatre and the idea of these quotes is of course to inspire. It takes you through the last 10 decades of these industries setting the scene for you with a short history on the decade and takes you through films and plays of the era and quotes them explaining why it’s inspirational.

That was a very boring and uninteresting way of putting this book but sadly that’s all the book really is. Reading through it as a film fan it’s often a good book to reminisce with the writer (Simon Maier) and agree whole heartedly that this film was an inspiration. It does end there however with the writer spending more time on exposition than he does with this own commentary. This is a shame as the writing is interesting and sincere, with genuine moments of insight into the speeches he quotes.

Of course with a book of this nature it will divide people, the key is in what an individual person is inspired by. Not everyone for instance can take inspiration from Schindlers List, its dark subject matter leaving some people feeling morose rather than inspired. This means that the book will be di jointed for people reading it, for those that disagree with the writer its even herder. With no where near as much personal writing about why he thought it inspirational; it’s hard to argue with that.

It should be said that Inspire! Is written by a prolific events manager and confident public speaker, it’s also published by a Marshall Cavendish Business. This for me sais all you need to know, meant more of a business motivator that genuine comment on inspiration on screen and on stage it misses the mark for anyone fanatic about film.

Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets

Pigeon Steps

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a huge step on from the first film. In the Philosophers stone we were introduced to the the world of Harry Potter and given a taster of what lies ahead. In the Chamber of Secrets the main story line for the series of books really starts to be told. It is much darker and sinister than the first film and Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint give good performances and give us a glimpse of the fine actors they are becoming. Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs are perfectly cast as Gilderoy Lockhart and Lucius Malfoy and truly bring the characters from the book to life. Mark Williams as Arthur Weasley while under used in this film is going to be great in the next few as his character has more to do. The Cinematography is again superb and somehow the Quiddich game is better than in the first film. A fine sequal to the first film and should dispel any notion that the first one was just a one hit wonder. A firm 10 in my book.”

I wouldn’t say it’s a ten however it does have some perfect casting.

Hater: Taken form IMDB
“Okay I Saw This In Cinema's & I Pretty Much Walked Out When They Found The Entrance. The Plot Is That Harry Potter is in his second year of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He is visited by a house-elf named Dobby and warned not to go back to Hogwarts. Harry ignores his warning, and returns. He is still famous, although still disliked by Snape, Malfoy, and the rest of the Slytherins. But then, strange things start to happen. People are becoming petrified, and no-one knows what is doing it. Harry keeps hearing a voice.. a voice which seems to be coming from within the walls. They are told the story of the Chamber of Secrets. It is said that only Salazar Slytherin's true descendant will be able to open it. Harry, it turns out, is a Parsel-tongue. This means that he is able to speak/understand snakes. Everyone thinks that it's him that has opened the Chamber of Secrets because that is what Slytherin was famous for. OMG I Feel Like Taking A Power Drill To The Bottom Of My Chin & Seeing Where It Goes After That. Rating 1/10”

It’s another one of these reviews that spends its whole time giving you the plot then saying its rubbish! Please don’t take any notice of reviews like this.

What I thought:
This was a slow step forward for a franchise that had a long way to go, from its fluffy beginnings characters are now getting hurt and dealing with man eating Spiders and Snakes. The adult themes are important as they push forward the main focus of the story; Harry’s ultimate destiny. This one falls for the same reasons the first does, with some ropey effects (check out the animatronic Fawkes or Dobby the house elf) and of course our three heroes are still maturing as actors as well as characters.

Again it has some inspired casting, Kenneth Branagh steals every scene he’s in and Jason Isaacs oozes sinister. It has the same things that push the first film; it’s still full on family fun, funny in places and like the DVD Sais contains “minor peril”. It was pigeon steps right up till the end with the look and feel of the series, the third however steered it well in the right direction…

Submarine

Without doubt one of the finest Directorial debuts I have seen

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“We had the pleasure of seeing and listening to Richard Ayoade in person at last night's screening at the Glasgow Film Festival. I am normally a bit scared of coming-of-age movies, mainly because of potential cheesiness and annoying child actors but Submarine managed to an accurate, funny portrayal of the hell of teenage UK school life. There were some slightly Adrian Mole-esque moments but that's not a bad thing. The audience at the screening seemed to think that the whole thing was a rip-roaring comedy and laughed at points which were obviously supposed to be more poignant or sad. Overall, however, the tone is one of wry comedy at the horrors of growing up and even subjects such as brain tumors & divorce are treated as lightly heartedly as possible. Don't be put off that Ben Stiller's production company was behind funding the film - it has nothing in common with a Hollywood teen movie. One of the best British films we have seen”

It is as good as this review sais it is, very good points made too.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Dear Mr. Aoyade: The hero in your film tells a victim of bullying that it will make her stronger. I can tell you for a fact Mr. Aoyade that bullying does not make you stronger. It destroys a person. It destroyed my life. Your "hero" also says that during the two week romance with Jordana they picked on the weak. Oh, you must be a wonderful person to advocate for the harassment of those who can not stand up for themselves. Tell us Mr. Aoyade, do you kick dogs? Do you advocate racial hatred? Do you beat your lovers? Do you smack children? These would seem to be characteristics that you find amusing based on the action of your "heroes". Also, the movie wasn't funny. If I hadn't arranged for a group to go see the film and felt a responsibility, a word whose meaning I'm sure is unfamiliar to you Mr. Aoyade, I would have walked out of the film in the first five minutes.”

This review is hilarious; it’s just a film for Christ sake. If you were bullied at school I sympathise with you but by no means is Richard Aoyade on a personal mission to offend and hurt you all; Terrible over the top review.

What I thought:
From the opening scene you know your watching a quietly brilliant piece of cinema, dialogue is sharp and to the point, cinematography is simple and very easy on the eyes. Richard Aoyades postcard to youth is first a comedy and secondly coming of age drama. Our hero is Oliver Tate a kind of ‘inbetweener’ whose nerdy enough for geek cred but popular enough to have roughish friends. He does have ideas above his station, delusions of being the subject of a movie where everyone loves him. When he’s used by a fellow pupil (Jordana) to make her boyfriend jealous, Oliver stands up for her and so find himself a girlfriend.

It’s about so much more than the relationship running through it and one criticism aimed at the film is that this relationship does seem dampened by other comings and goings. Those other things are solely based around parenting, from cheating mothers to the big C, both characters are dealing with situations at home that at certain points take precedence. All of this I think only adds to the relationship as it affects the way they are together. Another possible criticism is Paddy Considines’ rather pantomime performance; I guess you’ll make your own mind up but I think it suits the character and that rather impressive mullet. However it’s all beside the point, this film is exploring youth through the world weary eyes of a comedian.

In that sense it’s a wonderfully funny film with some genuinely touching moments, snapshots of the main romance to small little touches like the parents dimmer switch. It all comes together in what is one of the most impressive debuts from a director I have seen, Aoyade has a firm grip on cinematography, script and squeezing out extraordinarily impressive acting from child actors.

Harry Potter and The Philosophers Stone

Humble beginnings

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I was free from any anticipation for this film being not overly impressed by the fantasy genre. This film redeems itself above other sorcery films with its old fashioned English ambiance being greater than arch and portentous fantasy. Unlike other fantasy films the directors face the challenge of a highly critical audience of children who are more familiar with the books that they are & waiting expectantly for their favorite part of the book and would tear the director to ices if he was there in their anger such omissions. Any changes in the film would be seen as desecrating the fantasy world that Rowling created. “

On reading this a second time I realised it was actually a review for the second one, however I’ve kept it because I believe the first part make one good point; that about omissions angering the majority of audiences.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“OMG Kids Praise This Series, Holy #### Is This Awful. The Plot Is That It is the tale of Harry Potter, an ordinary 11-year-old boy serving as a sort of slave for his aunt and uncle who learns that he is actually a wizard and has been invited to attend the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry is snatched away from his mundane existence by Hagrid, the grounds keeper for Hogwarts, and quickly thrown into a world completely foreign to both him and the viewer. Famous for an incident that happened at his birth, Harry makes friends easily at his new school. He soon finds, however, that the being a wizard world is far more dangerous for him than he would have imagined, and he quickly learns that not all wizards are ones to be trusted. Now Thats Done The Acting Is Crap (People Might Complain That This Is Their First Movie But If These Kids Were In A Uwe Boll Movie It Would Be Worse Than Any Others. All In All A Crappy Movie Rating: 1/10”

A horrible review that spends the majority of the time giving you the synopsis then slating the child actors and saying the series is awful!? We know the kids are ropey infact the acting from the kids has been up and down the entire series, however whether or not that ruined the film for you is up to you.

What I thought:

Looking back at the first in the series you can see just how far they have come and how drastically the style changed. Chris Columbus hugely kiddie friendly fair is just that, like the book it’s more fun loving and fancy free. Seeing this new ‘wizarding’ world through the innocent eyes of Harry Potter is a delight as the film is chock full of lovely little details; So what if some of the effects are little questionable or our three leads acting largely unconvincing, its good fun.

One thing however that this series has always nailed, partly I suspect to J.K Rowlings excellent writing is the casting of the adult supporting roles. Right from Dumbledore down, played here by Richard Harris all of the actors completely flesh out these characters that will shape the future and indeed the destiny of the “boy who lived”. It is hard to ignore the sometimes terrible acting especially from Radcliffe and Watson both of whom don’t look at any point to have shaken off the face they had when told they got the roles. Rupert Grint is more natural; holding his own with some of the funniest line in the film but even here suffers in the more dramatic moments.

Going back to what I said this does not spoil what is a wonderfully fun joyride for the kids, easing these children slowly into a world that does not shy away from massive adult themes that include torture and murder. This by the way is the fire in my series of Harry Potter reviews to celebrate the ending of the franchise, it will concluded by a little feature about the boy wizard and his legacy.

Animal Kingdom

Matriarchal madness

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“This is a superb movie, with tension building from start to its very clever finish, and an excellent plot. The characters and acting are all beautifully realised. Yes, the characters are not particularly likable or interesting people and they seemingly fail to learn from their actions, but this is the whole point. The opening scene, in which young Josh is more interested in a TV show than his mother dying before him, pretty well sums up this family. As such, they are much more believable as people than most characters you will see in a movie or TV show. Overll, a huge contribution to film, and as good a crime movie as you will seen anywhere”

It is s simple story but the real pleasure in this film is the character exploration.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“I heard good things about this film, but alas, after watching it, I realised that, like so many other Australian films, it's just dull. Slow, boring, well-filmed and dull. If this is the "animal kingdom", then the animals are either dying of disease or stupidity.
The dialogue is average; the story is okay, but very slow, and nothing really lifts the pace in any way. It should have been a stronger, faster film, but instead it traded that for an half-assed character-driven film that limps along. The cinematography is okay in itself, but there's nothing that makes it an iconic Melbourne-set film, which it should have been.
The lead character, 'J' appears to be slightly retarded. The Cody brothers are amateurs, and it's surprising that they lasted as long as they did. We're told that the Cody brothers are drug dealers, and bank robbers, but we never see any of that.
It won an award at Sundance, which I think reflects the quality of other films on offer. It's great that an Australian film has done reasonably well, but unfortunately it represents the entrenched Australian film industry mindset - slow, dull, and without appeal. A 45 minute film stretched to 90 minutes. “

I’m not going to say too much other than they clearly missed the point.

What I thought
When they talk about crime families in the entertainment industry you’ll hear the Corleoni’s or The Sopranos, You should now add The Cody’s. Though a world away from their Mafiosi counterparts the set up is the same with a manipulative matriarch sitting atop a pyramid of male testosterone, Like The Godfather or indeed Tony Soprano. The mother has an edge unlike any of her peers however, looking at her boys through rose tinted glasses and using a mother’s lover to manipulate them to all manner of things including murder.

The plot and set-up are simple enough, when Josh’s mother passes away due to an overdose he must move in with his aunty and the infamous Cody brothers. It’s not long till him and his girlfriend is embroiled in the seedy life of drugs, crooked cops and retaliatory killings. From that point on the film is filled with tense and completely unpredictable scenes as the family spirals out of control. The film itself is understated, filmed simply the pace never going faster than a crawl but then it never needs to.

Animal Kingdom is a powerhouse in the Crime genre, not for gunfights or interesting heists not even cool characters. Its power is in the analysis of the family unit and the way they cope with comings of goings of this choice of lifestyle. The mother of course played impeccably by Jacki Weaver is the real talking point; her Oscar nommed portrayal is as scary as it is fascinating. Animal Kingdoms slow pacing and the fact it has no big bangs mean it won’t appeal to everyone however I strongly suggest everyone check it out, concentrate on the relationship between a mother and her homicidal sons.

The Silent House

All filmed in one continuous shot!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“From its first scene, La Casa Muda establishes an excellent atmosphere of horror and anguish thanks to the rural locations and the efficient "hand-held" work which brings it a semi-documentary style and makes us to "live" the characters' point of view in order to experiment the horror. And during the second scene...one moment...There is no second scene! The whole movie was filmed in a long continuous take (supposedly), something which might be a bit baffling on the beginning. But I could immediately "get into" the screenplay, and that became into an essential factor in order to emphasize the suspense which was achieved this modest horror film, which might not be great, but which kept me very interested and entertained.”

Modest is a key word when thinking about this film, a good review for an effective horror.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“The movie sucks, no scares and no one is confusing! I do not recommend that attended, because, frankly, it was a waste of time my 10 minutes that I'm even spending for comment on the feeling I had when watching a movie as bad as this! At no moment in the film he scares you. and you expect to jump from his chair with that movie, sleeping is better, who knows, you take a trip dreaming! Good movie is "The Grudge" (just watched the two, still have not watched the three). You'll jump! Another good movie that does not alarm, but it is a terror that gives you chills, with Jack Nicholson's "The Shining" (1980). These movies are so great! Another I recommend is "Misery"(1990). All these, I'm sure, who have not watched, will enjoy! Note: 1/10”

Comparing it to The Shining and Misery is massively unfair and unfounded. The fact they make no real point about why they thought it “sucked” speaks volumes.

What I thought:
I’ll talk about the technical achievements first, The Silent House as you may have already guessed was filmed in one continuous tracking shot. When normal movies shout action it could just be for a couple of minutes maybe even less, this film did away with it and what strikes you first is just how much of a logistical nightmare that would have been! For this reason alone The Silent House is a technical work of genius, luckily its actually very creepy.

Because of the nature of the shoot the passage of time may be a bit of an issue for some people, personally I think it made it feel more real that you were really in it with them. The camera following the action frustratingly doesn’t always follow your eye line, again this might be frustrating for some people but I like it. I’ve always been a firm believer in What you don’t see is more scary and by these standards I’m loving this film. One scene in particular using just a Polaroid camera to light up a pitch black room is excellently uncomfortable, the scares equally so!

The film is not without its faults and as predicted it’s the sacrifices they made for the continuous shoot. Certain parts seem to drag further than is necessary, without the breathing space of cutting; the pace of the film is a little muddled. Another thing it loses is time for exposition, this means trying to piece together what’s happening with only little clues. You may get what’s been happening in ‘The Silent House’ but I was a little baffled.

So there you have it, a technical tour de force with some incredibly effective creepy moments and scares. It is only dragged down by its biggest selling point with little or no time for anything else it might be hard to swallow for some.

The Survivor

Past it’s sell by date

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Saw this movie while in the USA in the eighties. Much better and more believable than any of the later run-of-the-mill films I've seen, Stephen King and the like. It might be said that The Survivor is a forerunner to Carrie, also an excellent and scary movie. I remember vividly a scene where a paparazzi photographer is developing a shot of a totally burnt face, and where gradually a pair of large, staring eyes appear, driving the scoundrel out of his mind. I believe that I remember this scene as well as anything from that period of my life, although it's twenty years ago. There's no happy ending to the story, so the spectator ends up with an uncomfortable knowledge of evil and a feeling of tragedy. This film ought to be given another chance with the public. This film really was an eyeopener, and subsequently I've tried never to miss a new Aussie movie.”

This review is a little more favourable than I am, however the film is superbly atmospheric.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Part of an ill-fated two-picture deal (alongside Harlequin) that Robert Powell signed in the wake of Jesus of Nazareth's success, Australian horror movie The Survivor is a fairly good idea undone by clumsy writing and rushed execution, although the film looks like it's either been heavily edited or they ran out of money and couldn't film everything in the script. Ideas are left hanging, motives unexplained and characters disappear after fleeting introductions (third-billed Angela Punch McGregor gets a single line in one brief scene). Powell's pilot is the sole survivor of a crash on take-off and as he falls under suspicion during the crash investigation, those exploiting the tragedy (most notably an unscrupulous photographer) start to die at the hands of the dead victims and Jenny Agutter's psychic tries to enlist his help in giving their spirits peace before the body count rises. All of which sounds much more interesting than the execution, as David Hemmings' direction veers more to the competent than the inspired, though a replay of the spectacular crash scene near the end is highly effective.”

You can tell that the film is strangled by a small budget, like this review says it means that some characters are underused. I don’t think this means it’s a terrible movie however, Robert Powell is a dependable lead and the film is laced with an ever present trace of dread.

What I thought:
The biggest problem with The Survivor is simply how dated it is, filmed in 1981 the music is just one. A lot of dated soundtracks grow with time, Halloween for instance; its soundtrack is still incredibly effective. The music in Survivor undermines the scariest scenes, the sound effects help to keep up the creepy mood though, just audible screams from the doomed passengers work to keep the mood sour. There are a few jumps but either due to lack of budget or the directors’ choice it shows little of the grim side of the story.

This either works for you or not, asking you to use your imagination a little is tough with early 80’s style, direction and music. Sadly I think this film is past it’s sell by date; I think it would have been very effective. Its story precedes things like The Sixth Sense, as does the twisty ending which shows promise. Sadly not enough if watched today, this so called ‘Ozploitation’ film just doesn’t work in the recent these times.

X-Men: First Class

First Class indeed!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“WOW!!! Mathew Vaughn has done it again! This absolutely wipes the floor with x men origins wolverine and X men the last stand, and in my opinion is even better then x men 1 and 2. The story is so well told, all the characters are brilliantly fleshed out and every one of them either has a really interesting character arc or is just awesome or funny. The script is perfect ranging from effective humour, to really dark but emotional scenes (especially a stand out one in a concentration camp), the action is both inventive and astounding with some very clever uses of powers. But the best thing about this is how well every character is explored and how they show some real depth here, in my opinion this is even better intellectually then the dark knight. Everyone gives a great performance too. Nicholaus Hault brings pain and frustration to the character of beast expertly, as does Jenifer Laurence to the character of mystique. but ultimately this is a film about Charles and Erik and when they need to James Mcavoy and Michel Fassbender really display magnificent acting capabilities and presence, the film charts those two coming together as friends and then falling apart, and it does so brilliantly and there performances cement this. I cant recommend X- men first class enough See more”

It is a great film and I loved it to, better than X-Men 2 or The Dark knight? No

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“8.2 out of 10?...seriously? the first x men was OK...the second was bad...the third was a bag full of puke...wolverine origins was a rape....but this one is worst than any of the other x men movies. What's wrong with this pile of garbage? 1- Professor X and Mystique are related? WTF 2-Alex Summers and not Scott? Why? Scott Summers is one of the original X Men, not Alex 3-Where is Angel? I mean Warren Kenneth Worthington III not that little butterfly girl. 4- Where is Iceman? 5- Where is Marvel Girl? What a silly plot. Hollywood can't make good movies anymore. They take a good source and just violated the fans with some stupid adaptation. What's with the romantic relation between Beast and Mystique? Where that came from? Mystique mated with Azazel and that's where Nightcrawler comes from. Stupid movie. I have no idea why the rating is so high. The Wolverine cameo was kind of cool though.”

I’m a bit annoyed really, every criticism aimed at this brilliant film is from fanboys upset that the history of The X-Men has been re written for this film. Firstly who cares if the film is this good with two brilliant central performances! Secondly Marvel rip up and re write their own universe so many times in the comics, why can’t their films!? Looking at this review, firstly X-Men 2 was hugely better than the first and one of the best comic book films ever made, all the other points are clearly from a snotty fanboy who’s got his knickers in a twist because it’s not X-Men the way he wants them. Steer well clear of these kinds of reviews.

What I thought:
Now first let me say that I am one of these fanboys, I like reading comics and The X-Men has always been my favourite. This means I have an interesting perspective on the films, The first X-Men was acceptable but from a clearly action shy director, however he shook off those fears and X-Men 2 was superb. The Last Stand and Wolverine got wrapped up in the how many mutants can we shove in here and make it look fun thing, thus it sacrificed any character development or the ever present themes of discrimination. First Class is exactly what you would expect, a whole new start for a franchise that was dying on its feet. The film itself relies heavily on our two main characters, that complex relationship between Professor X and Magneto is prime ground for exploration.

Thankfully the casting has been spot on, Michael Fassbender being the stand out, his good looks and charm used superbly to make a young magneto a kind of rouge James Bond character. In the early scenes and one of my favourites he plays with the powerless humans as he seeks revenge for his parents. James McAvoy however plays it a little safer; aside from the flirting and using his powers to pull women it’s very much the self-righteous and wise performance of Partick Stewart only with hair. However it is a very good performance and the chemistry between the two drives the film through what could have been its more slowing moving scenes.

There was always going to be danger tying it in with Bryan Singers X-Men, the obvious ones being the inclusion of Cyclops YOUNGER brother, Mystique and Prof X being semi related and How Professor X is able to walk at the end of Wolverine but not at the end of this? I’m sure there are more however I don’t care the films too good to care; it’s obvious that Havok is related to Cyclops just in a different way from the comics. There’s the issue with Mystique but I think she’s key for the breakdown in the relationship between our two Charles and Eric. There there’s the walking; Wolverine was a poor film and I would happily delete it from the franchise if I had the choice.

If you’re an X-Men fan or a fan of comic books it all depends on how willing you are at accepting that this universe has been played with to fit into what is a very good film. Using the 60’s setting to breathe life in give it the perfect excuse to explore the side of X-Men you haven’t seen the “yellow spandex” is in and looks great, it’s also arguably the funniest of the lot.

With new that they are going to do a second I’m very excited and hope they try and bring in some more old school villains. I’d love to finally see Mr Sinister or maybe even Apocalypse (though that would be tough), So I say shove all the fanboys X-Men: First Class is just a great film go and see it and please Mr Vaughn can we have some more?

Harry Brown

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“This film accurately depicts life in modern Britain today. Not the image of a flowing rolling countryside of middle class England which is often depicted in typical international films but one of an inner city "sink" estate - Elephant & Castle in London - with all of its associated problems. I saw the film last night and it brought back all the memories I have of having lived in similar circumstances. Michael Caine is excellent, this is probably one of his best films and I expect film nominations for his role. The film gives a gritty but realistic view of the life most people live on the sink estates of Britain, all are there through no choice of their own, but some are aware of the conditions they are forced to live in. I don't think we'll see the British government promoting this film as it portraits the country in a very bad light, though, if you are not from Britain and would like a taste of what some of us have to put up with I recommend you see this film. Overall, a very well put together film which will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up at times. Well done Michael and all of the team.”

I’ll agree on the acting front and the fact the film has some gritty realism but accurately depicts life in modern Britain? That’s up to you I guess.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“And the basic moral message of the film is that revenge is cool. It is that sick. This film doesn't reflect modern social ills but rather it actually encourages them. Micheal Cain has no problem in shooting kids without any attempt to arrest them or use non lethal force. He makes himself judge, jury and executioner - exactly as bad as the film tries to show the gang members as being. In one particularly sickening scene he forces a young whimpering lad whose only crime was to witness a killing and lead the boy to his death as a human shield against the other boys. And we are meant to applaud this? Harry Brown is genderist, fascist, classist and racist filth. Do not soil your mind by even watching it.”

The question about applauding this movie is up to the way you view this film, like my friend always used to say “It’s all relative”

What I thought:
Not a week goes by in London without hearing about some stabbing or shooting, whether they are gang related or not. A lot of Londoners, me included have become a little desensitized to this kind of news we hear about it so much. Harry Brown was inevitable, Gran Torino showed us a similar movie, where a geriatric old timer decides to hand out good ol-fashioned justice to the wrong doers. The problem we have here is where the lines are drawn; in one hand we have a dark gritty film that put’s a face to youth and the run down estates. In the other hand we have a revenge tale, less interested in exploring the issues and more interested in gore, violence and sticking it to those ‘bloody hoodies!’.

Harry Brown is an ex-marine (aren’t they all!) whose has already lost more than any man should have to cope with, when the local gang of hoodies stab his only friend it pushes him over the edge. Harry then goes on a trail of destruction, taking down drug dealing rapists, torturing a youth and gunning down another. By this point you know next to nothing about the people standing in the way, the part of this story that is sadder than Harry’s. These young offenders who have been brought up at in the wrong place at the wrong time, some abused and most abandoned, most of these kids aren’t evil people. They are bored with no sense of responsibility for who they hurt, who is really to blame for them; Parents, Teachers, The Government or maybe society itself? The society where a staple of British cinema like Michael Caine Ruthlessly takes them out?

It’s a very blurry film as you may have guessed but that means that it does have its good points, Michael Caine Is brilliant at it, giving a real sense of loss and bereavement and making Harry Brown a completely real character. The scenes where the wannabe gangsters are taken out do come with some relish but it’s a guilty kind of relish, how many times have we heard about someone we know being hurt by these people and wanted to give them more than just a policeman’s justice. It’s that kind of feeling this film plays to most.

Though entertaining enough to watch, Harry Brown is a disappointment, it had a chance to give two sides of a coin. Giving us a poignant display of how harsh modern day Britain can be, instead it’s just a guilty pleasure of a revenge flick with a great central performance.

Legion

Avoid like a biblical plague

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Look let's be up front, if you're here reading about what Legion could be, we both know what you are looking for. Legion is awful/awesome. It is quite possibly the least logically sound "A" movie (as opposed to "B" movie) I have ever seen. Which is wonderful, it was exactly what I wanted. We're talking Angelic sepoku, one handed Roc, car wrecks that kill adults but don't bother babies, that guy from Tokyo Drift terrible. Thankfully, it is not self-aware either. All too often you go into a terrifically abysmal movie and you end up with some middling abomination of meta-this and that. No no, Legion took itself seriously and delivered a must-see for fans of bad movies. If you like it nasty, you're not going to find much worse/better.”

I’d agree if there wasn’t some underlining themes of human nature and other pap that just make it a shit film.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“It was awful. It was a complete waste of money. The best part of the whole movie was when Dennis Quaid died. Almost everyone in the theater clapped when he did. The effects were equivalent to Pacman arcade games that I used to play back in the 90's. I felt like the whole movie was just a cheap imitation of Constantine with Keanu Reeves. I couldn't figure out if certain parts of the movie were supposed to be funny or if the acting was just so cheesy that they were. I like how the previews made the movie look way more awesome than it really was. I highly recommend everyone to not see it, or Day Breakers either for that matter.”

I will defend them on the effects, describing them as “Pac-man” is an extreme exaggeration.

What I thought:
Legion depends on one thing, just how silly do you like your action films. If you don’t really care for plot with any real cohesion, or cardboard cut-out characters you couldn’t care less about and ropey special effects then you may like it. It’s an Old-Testament style Apocalypse and God has decided he’s had enough, he appears to have us all possessed by demons and lead by Gabriel. That’s all very well however Gravity defying Grannies who decide they want to eat before despatching the innocent is a little hard to swallow. That’s if you’re still with this storyline, after that its demon children, and Angels kicking each other about.

All the while you’re supposed to watch, believe and feel sorry from some real dreary acting and badly written characters. From dysfunctional family, religious cook dried up men and gun toting reluctant gangster. Every one you’ve seen before, everyone you know where the story is going. With such a silly idea I’m not sure legion could have ever been a good film, it needed spectacular set pieces and comedy that winks to the audience. Instead we’re supposed to swallow a whole “doubting of faith, questioning humanity” theme; it all runs so shallow you don’t blame God for wanting to wipe the lot of them out.

Only bother with Legion if you have nothing else to watch, or it’s the last DVD on earth, actually not even then.

The Joneses

They lost the point

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“One of the few times I've been able to leave a full-price theater thinking that it was totally worth it. I hadn't seen any previews or trailers (watching TV on the web means that my ad exposure is *very* skewed), so I had only the teensy summary on the movie theater website to go by. Thus, I can't speak to others' criticisms of the movie not living up to the hype. It's not super-dark, and I don't think that it goes far enough to be considered truly satirical, particularly given the fact that some of the characters experience a type of redemption, but it's one of the most self-aware movies I've seen in ages. I tried to think of more movies like TYFS to include for comparison, but am coming up short. Therefore, all I can say is that I'd love to see more movies that merge cynical/comedic/dramatic elements so thoroughly.”

A lot of long words and each of them fully justified.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“I believe David Duchovny must have joined the Opus Dei or some other sort of Christian fundamentalist organizacion. Californication could have been the perfect series for the politically incorrect but became a lame excuse to promote family values. He now does The Joneses, a movie that teaches us that a man can turn a FAKE family into a REAL one (or sort of) and in the process we also learn how important it is to have a family. Well, I have nothing against family values but I don't need them slammed on my face every time I turn on the TV or go to the cinema and that is why I believe this movie is crap. Also, there is no character development, you never learn why he, the stallion, is in love with her or why she falls for him. You can giggle two or three times but don't be fooled by the IMDb or whoever marketed this movie, this is no comedy, it is just rubbish. One out of ten and only because I can't give it a zero.”

No one’s forcing you to go to the cinema or keep the channel on when you’re watching these so called “family values”, so stop bloody watching. More importantly stop writing completely useless reviews!

What I thought:
I had no idea about what this film was about before seeing it and I think it made it so much better than it would have been had I known. Seeing this fake family selling seems like such a no-brainer of an idea. The perfect marketing, a family who seem perfect, and the kind of family people aspire to have and buy all the things we want. In that’s sense it’s not just some skewed family values but a comment on shameful consumerism. Sure there is a romance going on there but it’s sidelined for the majority of the running time by the characters (mainly our fake father) going from being happy in their shallow lifestyle to discovering that there’s more to life.

The darkness that has been spoken about is not as dark as you would think, the watery moment passes by without really as much dramatic as you would imagine. At that point in the film it becomes a little disjointed, I thought I was watching a smart satire about the dangers of consumerism and by the final third it’s clear I should have been watching the blossoming fake romance at the head of the family. It’s not that the romance isn’t believable between David Duchovney and Demi Moore; it’s that it never really seems like the focus.

A shame really because I think the film makers missed a chance to make a really thought provoking film. With the talent involved as well it should have been brilliant but by the end we are given what could have been the ending of any Jennifer Anistion headed lame rom-com.

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!