 I watched this film for the first time (again, it was late, I was tired, so I needed to watch something under 90 minutes), and I actually really enjoyed it!
Firstly, the artwork is gorgeous to look at. It’s one of the great tragedies of the modern era that Disney no longer produce hand-drawn animation. These films of the past posses so much character and are far more innovative than the slop that Hollywood serves us these days (a running theme in my criticisms of modern cinema). Secondly, the characters are utterly charming, and the setting of Paris is perfectly depicted! Yeah, the story is nothing to write home about, but for the visuals and characters alone, it’s worth watching. The ‘comedic’ bumblings of the butler, and his storyline, were utterly boring though! Still, check it out and admire the artwork and risk-taking of a bygone era.
0 Comments
 I saw Inside Out years ago, and for the life of me, couldn’t remember the story, but I remember that I wasn’t overly impressed. Still, I’m a fan of animation, and so I thought I may as well check out the sequel.
While I was watching it, I was thinking ‘this ain’t great’. The art was the usual, boring Pixar plasticky style; literally zero innovation or experimentation, which is sad for a company that was founded on those principles. Pixar is now a byword for playing it safe. But then, during the second half of act two, the story took a different turn, and by the end, I felt I had been delivered a profound experience about growing-up and losing what makes childhood so precious. It’s true what they say: an audience will forgive anything for a great ending. Watch it, it’s not only touching, but for all you parents out there, it will give you more empathy towards the challenges facing your adolescent children, and remind you of what it was like when you were that age. Being a kid is probably the most joyous experience you will ever have, and we have to keep it that way.  I wasn’t expecting much from this film, and that’s exactly what I got!
As with many films these days, the problem lies in very basic storytelling mistakes. The John Wick character worked because his motivation was so strong; it was a classic Western archetype, the retired gun-slinger. John Wick never wanted to return to a life of violence, but when he’s attacked, he has no choice but to avenge his loss (it’s not just the dog, it’s what the dog represents). Therefore, his vengeance is a noble quest, and not merely to satisfy his egotistical need for revenge. As an audience member, we’re completely sympathetic to a character that is a killing machine, but has no desire to be one, and fundamentally, just wants to return to a life of peace. The protagonist in Ballerina is the opposite of this. She’s on a mission of revenge to satisfy her own egotistical desire for ‘justice’, innocent lives and peace be damned. As an audience member, I don’t really find myself rooting for her, or her quest. What’s worse, they sully the John Wick character by bringing him into this miss! What makes matters worse is that the person she’s getting revenge for, is no angel either! Her father was a member of the clan, and thus an assassin too! One could argue that his death is an occupational hazard, and she would serve his memory best by having nothing to do with that world; instead, she follows in his foot-steps, becoming a contract killer, which doesn’t exactly make her a righteous character, and one that we can empathise with. I could look past the inconceivability of a petite woman beating the sh!t out of men three times the size of her, after all, these movies aren’t exactly grounded in realism, and less so with each film. The action was ok, but again, if you’re not invested in the character or their quest, it’s all just noise. The film also felt way too long. All in all, a lacklustre and forgettable experience. The John Wick franchise peaked with number two and has been in a steady decline ever since.  Hadn’t seen this film in decades!
I clearly remember when it came out, and eagerly reading the comic book adaptation in anticipation (because in those days, films would come out in the UK months, and sometimes even a year after their US release). The first Predator was a staple of my childhood, and I so wanted to see Arnie return to do battle with the Predator one more time… except, they went and pulled a Nightmare on Elm Street part 2, and made a movie that barely has anything to do with the first one! At the time, it was a major disappointment! (Although, not as much as ‘Nightmare on Elm Street part 2’, which at the time, was the most disappointing sequel ever! ‘The Last Jedi’ has since stolen that crown) Seeing it now, you realise that it’s actually not that bad. Danny Glover does a good job as the lead, but he was never going to be able to fill Arnie’s shoes, and the supporting cast doesn’t compare to the original film’s either. If the film had a cast of heavyweights, then it would definitely stand up to scrutiny, because the concept is pretty solid. Replace an actual jungle with a concrete one, and have the Predator hunt down violent, gun toting drug dealers, with plenty of civilians caught in the cross fire! The Predator is actually the good guy, cleaning up the city more than the cops, which is probably why the cops wanna get rid of him! He’s making them look bad! The film also featured the first ‘Easter Egg’ that hinted at a shared cinematic universe (decades before Marvel movies normalised the idea), by showing the skull of a Xenomorph from the ‘Alien’ movies. I remember everyone being excited by the idea, which lead to the Alien vs. Predator comic book, and eventually the abysmal movies. Speaking of which, Predator 2 is by far the best sequel to the original masterpiece, with every subsequent iteration being utterly sh!t! There’s a lot to like in this movie, and although it doesn’t stand up to the original, it’s definitely worth revisiting.  I first watched this film on BBC2, on a random Sunday night in the 90s. Man, those were the days.
Earlier in the day I was flicking through Taschen’s ‘Movies of the 90s’ (I’ve got their books for every decade from the 1950s onwards), and there’s definitely a case to be made for the 90s being the best decade for cinema, in terms of the variety and quality of films that were made, globally, during that time. One of the main reasons for this was a boom in ‘Indie’ filmmaking. The technology and distribution was more affordable, and accessible than ever before, although still out of reach for the masses. Ironically, filmmaking is a million times more accessible today than it was back then, and yet films are probably worse than they’ve ever been (a discussion for another time!). When it came to American cinema, there were movies that defied the usual genre labels; films that focused on disparate groups of people, which were dialogue/conversation heavy, attempting to recreate how ‘normal’ people talked, instead of only saying things that moved the plot forward. The Real Blonde is a film that treads the line of that type of movie, whilst still having enough of a plot to satisfy mainstream tastes. I really liked it back in the 90s, and seeing it again for the first time in decades, I still like it! The 90’s were full of movies that didn’t fit neatly into genre boxes, and this film is one of them, which is probably why it never really found its audience. It’s not a romcom, or a slice of life; it’s not even quirky enough to be called ‘quirky’. It’s just a film about a bunch of characters making their way in life and trying to survive show-business. A film uniquely from the 90’s and definitely the type of film they simply don’t make anymore. Also, how the hell did Max Caulfield not become a major star? He’s got that smarmy charm, as well as the good looks, to have been a brilliant villain! The cast is full of great actors, and all of them are great in this film. If you fancy watching a quintessentially 90s movie about a rag tag bunch of adults trying to be adults, then look no further! Ignore the low rating on IMDB; this film’s good!  Man, this film really hits the spot.
I watched it for only the second time, and it left me with the same vicarious feelings as it did the first time I watched it. The artwork, the music, the story; everything about it filled me with the feeling that I was living the life I yearned for when I was a younger man (and still yearn for?): Being a successful twenty-something, living in New York, in love, and just winning in life. Especially as I’m currently the exact opposite of all those things! I think I’ll need to revisit it very soon, and you should too! Great film.  I remember when this film first came out and how it was completely savaged by audiences and critics alike; I think it was Jim Carrey’s first flop?
Anyway, I didn’t bother watching it. Since then, however, it has gained a bit of a cult following, so I decided to watch it for the first time ever… Aaaaand, it was crap. Fundamentally, it just wasn’t that funny. The situations, the gags, the characters; they were at best, mildly amusing, but nothing more. Also, the protagonist wasn’t very likeable either. The director’s commentary featuring Ben Stiller (the director), Judd Apatow (the producer) and Jim Carrey (the star), was actually much more entertaining than the actual film! So if you’re gonna watch this, be sure to get it on blu ray! But seriously, it’s not worth watching.  I just got back from watching the latest Mission Impossible, so my thoughts are fresh.
Ugh. What a disappointment. The series peaked with number 5 (Rogue Nation), and they’ve been getting progressively worse since then, culminating in what is being touted as the last Mission Impossible movie. Disclaimer: I am a big fan of Tom Cruise. The guy is a living legend, and I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just bad on a very basic level, despite how impressive Tom Cruise’s stunts were (and they were very impressive!). The entire movie is a series of set-pieces, where the stakes are so high, that failure results in the end of the world! There’s absolutely no levity in this film, whatsoever, it’s just purely fatalistic! Scene after scene of ‘life or death’ situations gets pretty tiresome; proof that a movie made up entirely of ‘third act climaxes’ is dull as dishwater. I mean, there’s literally no arc or development for any of the characters, and each character, apart from the protagonist and his sidekick ‘Benjy’, is an inferior version of characters from the previous movies. They are completely devoid of any traits or personality. When you don’t care about the characters, then you don’t care about the story. Then there’s the editing. They should have called this film ‘Cut To: Flashback – The Movie’ I swear, they must have set a record for the number of callbacks and flashbacks in a single movie! It was so annoying! A character can’t speak without the film inserting a flashback of whatever they’re referring to, as if this film is made for an audience of amnesiacs who watch movies while they’re doom-scrolling! The film begins and ends with characters delivering long monologues to the audience, telling us about how great Ethan Hunt (and thus, Tom Cruise) is, and how the world would be better if we were as self-less as him, etc etc. Because, the world is so divided right now. Er, no it’s not! The entire planet can agree on one thing: politicians and the wealthy elite are the problem. Speaking of villains, the mysterious A.I. ‘Entity’ and its lackey ‘Gabriel’ were SO fcuking sh!t! The equivalent would be a boomer writing a story about how Tik Tok is going to end the world! The fact that they tarnished the other films in the franchise, to somehow coalesce the story into some grand arc, like it was Avengers Endgame or something, was desperate and unnecessary. The whole thing was just a shame. The biggest shame being that the filmmakers, McQuarrie and Cruise, are so far removed from objectivity, that they’re convinced that this film, as well as the last one, are actually good! Sigh. With Hollywood churning out expensive crap, after expensive crap, and A.I. generating life like video in minutes, so audiences can create their own custom-made slop, maybe cinema really is dead. Ah well, at least we still have each other.  With Tom Cruise in publicity overdrive at the moment, I seem to have a strange, completely unrelated urge to watch his movies!
I’d never seen ‘Days of Thunder’, because frankly, it looked sh!t. I mean who, apart from Americans, even watched Nascar in the early 90s? So anyway, I wasn’t missing anything. The film ain’t great. Throughout most of the film, there’s no character development, and no stakes, other than the Team owner potentially losing money. Who cares? Then, in the final third, they introduce some character development and some stakes, but it’s too little too late, and basically just echoes Top Gun, a vastly superior film in the same mould. Not much more to say really.  With all the publicity and promotion regarding the latest Mission Impossible movie (‘The Final Reckoning’), I figured I’d revisit number four in the franchise, as I’d only seen it once, when it came out.
Back then, I thought it was okay, but nothing special. It’s actually a lot better than I remembered! It’s a bit more light-hearted and tongue in cheek; the whole climbing, running, and falling off the tallest building in the world, is as impressive as ever, and with the banter from the other characters, it’s also quite humorous; a quality lacking in subsequent films. Yeah, it’s gone up in my estimation, I must admit. Good film! |
This page is...
A chronicle of films, shows, and theatre I've seen, as well as books I've read, and talks I've attended. Archives
August 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
