Film Reviews by LC

This film has its moments, and the sound design is quite effective, but overall I'm slightly at a loss as to why it has received so much praise. The storyline seemed both slow-moving and fairly predictable, and I felt both the main characters could have been explored in more depth. Not a bad film, by any means, I just found it a distinctly average one.

Whilst I found the first series enjoyably quirky, this second outing sees a bit of a dip in quality. The 'romance' between the two lead characters is so slow-moving it just ends up being frustrating, with the whole thing being very drawn-out and ponderous. A few charming moments along the way, but on the whole this is pretty tiresome, and just doesn't have enough depth of character or story to carry this running time.

For much of it's length, this story of a child kidnapping gone wrong is essentially a two-hander, and both Richard Attenborough and Kim Stanley put in incredible performances as a hen-pecked husband and his mentally-unbalanced wife. The film is well-shot, allowing both actors equal opportunity to shine, whilst the plot has plenty of tension and enough twists for the climax to keep you guessing how it will all end up (at least on first viewing). Highly recommended for any fans of classic British thrillers.

Ironically this CGI-laden adventure film about a quest to steal gunpowder never quite catches fire: the plot is functional but formulaic, and the characters are not particularly interesting. Matt Damon is particularly dull as the lead, so it's a bit like watching an Indian Jones film where Harrison Ford has been replaced by someone with zero charisma. On the positive side it looks fantastic and colourful, and clearly plenty of money has been thrown at the screen. Certainly nothing special, but for a couple of hours of entertaining nonsense, this will pass the time pleasantly enough.

A fairly convincing portrayal of a woman dealing with depression and feeling trapped in her family life, this is reasonably well shot and acted, but drags terribly over the running time. The story itself is so slight that the entire plot can be described in a couple of sentences, so that one waits an entire hour for the inevitable 'escape' to occur. In some ways this does help to bring home the feelings of being hemmed in, but it's not exactly a pleasant viewing experience. I still think there is an interesting premise here, and it's a subject worth exploring, but there simply isn't enough story here to justify the running time.

In terms of genre, this film would probably be best described as a tragedy, though there are enough touches of humour to keep it from becoming unenduringly bleak. In other hands, this material could easily have become a tearfest, but the filmakers resist easy sentimentality, or offering any pat resolutions. The narrative offers a few interesting parallels between the locals attitudes towards a giant headless statue, and actual human suffering, but is never heavy handed. A slight criticism might be that possibly we spend too much of the film with the main character after his accident, and not before - though maybe that sense of loss is itself deliberate? (3.5 out of 5)

Amazing the 10th film in the series, this is one of the better sequels in recent years (which admittedly, isn't saying much). The film looks good and is pretty well shot, we get a decent amount of time with the Cenobites, and the storyline actually tries to develop the mythology, rather than just redoing past glories. Less successfully. the serial killer aspect of the plot is fairly generic, and ultimately the killings are so elaborate that it's hard to take seriously. The addition of a force opposite to the Cenobites own also makes sense on paper, but I'm not sure it entirely works in execution, as it does slightly rob the series bad guys of some of their threat. Nevertheless, at least the filmmakers here are trying to do something new, and there's enough here that works (or is at least interesting) for it to be worth a look for any fans of the earlier films.

Going in, the only thing I had heard about this film was that it contained a scene of infamously gratuitous sexual violence. This is true up to a point, and squeamish viewers might wish to stay clear, but this is a long way from a cheap shock exploitation or horror film. Highly formal in composition, this is as much a cerebral take on events as it is a sensual one, inviting thoughtful analysis as much as gut reaction (even during the attack there are interesting touches, such as the woman's face never being shown, or the way the camera is pinned stationary to the ground along with the victim). The way the narrative plays out in reverse chronology invites the viewer to try and piece the story together, hinting at a certain inevitability to events and the character's fates, and also highlighting the ultimate inability of revenge to turn back the clock. Posters for Kubrick's films are given prominence towards the end, and it's a fair comparison - if you're the sort of person who finds something like 'A Clockwork Orange' interesting (rather than just mindless violence), this will be right up your street. One final note: this should probably come with a warning for those who suffer from light induced epilepsy - the final scene is incredibly 'flashy'.

There is a glorious period feel to this '70's giallo thriller, with atmospheric music, vibrant colour and fashions, some nice cinematography and a stunningly attractive female lead. We also get a generous serving of sex and nudity, so much so that it almost feels like a soft porn film at times, though it's all pretty classy and stylised. Less pleasant, but in keeping with the period, is the casual animal cruelty (several ducks are shot in a hunting scene, whilst a live eel is sliced in half). The 'whodunit' plot has a great hook: a novelist's secretary has disappeared, so her friend takes over her job to try and find out what happened to her. The author begins to dictate what seems like the answer to the mystery - but is he telling the truth, or just creating more fiction? Unfortunately the script gets a bit bogged down with red herrings that ultimately lead nowhere, and the final revelation doesn't quite satisfy. Nevertheless, despite the script being slightly below par, there is more than enough of interest here for this to be well worth a watch.

Infamous in having been rushed into production and given a single cinema showing solely to retain the copyright, I was intrigued to see just how bad this would be, and whether it had any artistic merit at all. This 9th 'Hellraiser' film is clearly low budget, and has some pretty bad acting, but the same could be said of many of the later sequels. We also get a new actor in the Pinhead role, but given that the character has largely been limited to cameo roles for most of the series, this wasn't too disconcerting. If there is a major criticism with this film, it's that it brings almost nothing new to the table - the location and characters are new, but otherwise it follows the familiar story beats of the first film. At least it's brief at only just over an hour in length, but it's difficult to see why anyone would need a reheated version of the original 'Hellraiser' that is clearly inferior in every way.

Made in a period when Argento's work was beginning to show a decline, this is clearly not up to the level of the director's peak works, but still has plenty to appreciate. This tale of a cat and mouse game between police inspector and serial killer is given a twist by the introduction of the heroine's hallucinogenic reaction to works of art, and whilst it perhaps could have been further integrated into the plot, it does provide a nice dreamlike quality. The biggest hurdle one has to overcome is that the 21 year-old Asia Argento is clearly miscast and far too young to be playing a police inspector, however if you can ignore that then her actual performance is fine. The giallo plot is twisty enough to be engaging, though the climax doesn't quite thrill as it might, and the film lacks any of the jaw-dropping set-piece killings of the director's best work. Still, this doesn't miss the mark by much, and is far superior to most of the films to come.

In many ways this is a re-tread of 'Godzilla', but thankfully there are enough original touches to keep this entertaining. The addition of a pair of tiny singing faeries gives this film a wonderfully bizarre slant, whilst the struggles against the villain who captures them keeps the human characters in the foreground. Some occasionally very obvious modelwork aside, this looks great, and is full of colour. Utterly bonkers, but fun.

All three of the films on this two-disc set are worth checking out. 'Killing' is clearly the main feature, both in terms of length and budget. At first this tale of Samurais protecting farmers seems almost too generic (with 'Seven Samurais' being an obvious influence), but we get some odd sexual scenes midway through, before the climax completely veers away from what would usually be expected. The other two are more experimental shorts (both under an hour in length). 'Denchu Kozo' is clearly an early film with zero budget, but is dripping in style, and most obviously the work of the man responsible for 'Tetsuo:Iron Man' - this tale of a boy with an electric pole growing out of his back time travelling to battle future vampires is full of frantic stop-motion editing and cyberpunk lunacy. Finally 'Haze' is a slower-moving horror, with a man waking up in an underground torture chamber - a claustrophobic piece which ends up having a more open metaphoric resolution.

In light of the previous review, it appears that this film has since been reissued - certainly the blu ray I received appeared to be uncut. The film itself is a solid comedy, with both Will Hay and a young Charles Hawtrey putting in good turns (also keep an eye out for an uncredited cameo from future Dr Who William Hartnell). If there is a criticism, it's that towards the latter half it turns more into slapstick action routines which, whilst still amusing, seem slightly generic, so it loses a bit of the character of being specifically a Will Hay film.

Given its reputation as a flop, I was expecting a complete car-crash of a movie, but this simply turns out to be a mediocre X-Men film: it's not terrible, but neither is it going to blow your socks off. The basics of the plot are all there, but nothing quite gels into anything special. It looks nice, and the action scenes are OK, but such CGI superhero fare is ten-a-penny these days. In terms of the emotional journey of the film, the elements are there, but it just doesn't quite work. Sophie Turner doesn't appear to have the charisma to carry the film as the main lead, but almost all the cast seem to struggle with the material, either coming across as wooden or over emoting. Jennifer Lawrence's agent also appears to have struck a deal to give her as little screen and make-up time as possible.