Film Reviews

Kung Fu Hustle Rocked

Posted 19:23, 30th August 2005

I recently saw Kung Fu Hustle at long last. If you haven't seen it yet, you must. It's not as crap as the trailers suggested. It's actually a clever and likeable which combines spoof comedy equal if not superior to Airplane and fight scenes and CG effects to rival The Matrix. Not the shit sequels, the first one.

Spider-man 3 was an Awesome Sandwich

Posted 8:14 Saturday 12th May 2007

I saw Spider-man 3 last weekend while my internet connection was broken. I have to say, I understand exactly why some people didn't like it but I loved every second of that film. Everything in it was perfectly executed. You might not like the way it was put together but damn each one of those components was polished. Read the review over at Joe Loves Crappy Movies - I agree with his sentiments entirely with one exception (minor spoiler warning maybe?): the scene in which Peter struts was not out of place in the slightest. I wouldn't even call it campy. Think about it. They built up the symbiote storyline in the trailers as being this melodramatic over-the-top big deal to the extent that I thought I would be able to predict every single beat of that plot. Then we get the strut sequence. I have to say, it was a delight and a surprise to be reminded that symbiote or none, Peter is still a dork. Even at his most powerful and over-confident he's still Peter Parker. I loved it - it was hilarious and completely true to character.

Magicians

Posted 17:23 10st June 2007

I saw Magicians today, starring Dave Mitchell and Robert Webb. After four series of Peep Show and an hilarious sketch show, they deserved to make a film and it was very funny. I was laughing all the way through - I can think of no greater recommendation. I hope they make more.

Shrek Sequels

Posted 12:15 5th July 2007

I saw Shrek 3 the other day. I wan't thoroughly impressed. I heard they were making five or six of those films. Only hope the next two or three are better than that one was. My favourite of the three is definitely the first because it has the strongest plot by far. There's nothing I love more than the satisfying execution of the three-act structure. Fellow writers will know what I'm talking about - everyone else I would recommend you don't look it up because it could well ruin your enjoyment of most if not every subsequent film or book you watch or read. Good examples of tightly-plotted films are Spider-man 2 and the Lord of the Rings films. Shrek has what those films have. I think the Hollywood term is 'story-telling'.

The sequel was funny and it had a plot. I enjoyed the introduction of the new characters and something interesting was done with the concept. They wrote in too many anachronisms, though, and it felt like the second film wasn't set in the same world as the first. It looked pretty, though.

This third one introduces only a few new characters, the plot was thin on the ground and not without a few holes, the ending was really unsatisftying and most of the characters (in fact all apart from one - and it wasn't Shrek) were extraneous to the plot. Puss in Boots and Donkey had nothing to do in this film and as a result they became annoying. This is just me, of course. I mean, the film made me laugh all the way through. It wasn't bad as such. It's just that the most satisfying thing about films for me is plot so I came away quite dissatisfied, especially considering the film was only an hour and twenty-five minutes. How can they make a film that short and with such little story? It felt like it should have been a straight-to-video release. Pixar would never have made a film like that.

Film 2007 with David Bishop

Posted 02:30 (GMT) 16th December 2007

Hello. It's time to unleash a torrent of criticism! Yay! I've seen a lot of films, both new and not-so-new in the past week. And here's what I thought of them.

Ghost Rider - The film was too bad to be contained in one news post. I had to make a rant. For those of you without the patience for my verbosity, here's the short version. Ghost Rider was shit. The acting was universally bad. The plot was stupid, like it had been drawn up by small children. The special effects were silly-looking. Often stuff would happen for no reason. Now for the balance. Good points...good points. Oh! Uh, Eva Mendes is hot. Then again, so is Natalie Portman, star of Star Wars: Episode II.

Good Luck Chuck - If I was being fair I would say "if you like mindless slap-stick and gross frat-boy humour then you might like this film". Well I'm not fair. If you think you might like a film featuring a man having sex with a watermelon, a really fat woman eating lobster, a woman with three breasts and Jessica Alba falling down a bunch of times then go fuck yourself. Actually, don't. I made Good Luck Chuck sound a lot less mediocre than it is. Just take my word for it: it isn't.

The Golden Compass - I've never read the original His Dark Material trilogy but even I was annoyed by the change of name from Northern Lights to The Golden Compass. It's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone all over again. You want to know why the American publishers changed the name to Sorcerer's Stone? They thought Americans were too stupid to know what a philosopher is. Forget the fact that the philosopher's stone is a real fucking concept that exists outside of the books. But when they made the film they changed the name back for the English release. Why couldn't they do the same with this? Call the film Northern Lights in the UK. They must have known it would annoy fans of the series. Why, then, the script-writers felt the need to say "golden compass" every time they mentioned the alethiometer is beyond me. It was like a tick. "Please pass me the alethiometer, by which I mean the golden compass". Really annoying.

Anyway, the film was good. The fantasy setting was excellently realised and there was some good casting. Nicole Kidman stood out for me as someone who was acting acting. As in, playing a character who wasn't herself but doing it really convincingly. She was quite frightening. I didn't really like the protagonist Lyra - she struck me as a bit mockney, sort of annoying. And so for any situation in which she was in peril I really didn't give a shit, at least not until the last third of the film. A bit more character development would have gone a long way here.

The biggest problem the film faced was that it wasn't Lord of the Rings. Of course, Northern Lights didn't have to be. But the sudden spate of fantasy adaptations following The Lord of the Rings is no coincidence and none of them have reached the same standard and it's quite sad that they expected to or even tried to. I mean, New Line went as far as to make a direct comparison to Lord of the Rings in the trailer! They pretty much said: "This will be the new Lord of the Rings". And it just isn't. You see a battle and you think "That's pretty ass, but it's no Lord of the Rings." You meet some cool characters and you think "These characters are pretty cool, but it's no Lord of the Rings." It doesn't help when you spot names like Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee on the cast list. And McKellen's character is essentially a cross between Gandalf and Aragorn, in that he's heir to a throne and kicks ass but also delivers a lot of exposition and reappears at crucial moments to turn the tide, as it were. And Jim Carter and Sam Elliot are doing a lot of wizardly eyebrow and facial hair acting in their grandfatherly I'm-not-Gandalf-honest roles. They even run over a bridge as it breaks apart at one point. No Balrog this time, unfortunately.

I almost forgot. The ending was a little weak. What was the finale of the film didn't really feel like it should be the finale - and now I know why. I turned to my pal Jason after the credits rolled and he told me they'd chopped off the ending from the book which, according to him, was considerably darker. What a gyp! Instead of a cool dark ending we get an annoyingly over-confident sunshine and daisychains George Lucas ending? Bah!

Another half-hour added to the run time for characterisation, the original ending put back on and a little more grit and blood in the fight sequences and this could have been a film that would have impressed kids more and kept the adults in the audience happier. But they're boneless. They're worried that if they make the film a decent length the kiddie-widdies will get restless. And if it's violent they'll be traumatised. Listen, guys, there's such a thing as too long and too violent (Fight Club is not suitable for childs) but what you've got here is not long or violent enough.

Fido - Best (and only) zombie movie I've seen since Shaun of the Dead. Pretty funny and really quite original. Without giving too much away, this film is set in a sumptuous alternate-history 1950's America plagued by undead. And instead of following the tired old structure of 'zombies rise up and attack in increasing numbers until everyone is dead', it follows the events after the cliche zombie invasion and its structure resembles a Lassie movie. Hence the name. Watch it.

Beowulf - I watched it in 3D, which was ass. I've never watched a film in 3D before. When I first watched the trailer I thought the film was live action and had to re-watch it before I clocked it was CG. Either way, naked Angelina Jolie is naked Angelina Jolie. Anyway, I had high hopes for the animation. What I got was the best video game cut-scene I've ever seen, just without the video game. Naked Angelina Jolie aside, underneath the boobs, the blood and the crazy monsters there's a serious story being told in a well-directed movie. Shame it's not the same story from the poem. As much as I love Neil Gaiman, I rather think he's missed the point here. Alas, such ofermod. Did I mention there were boobs?

I Am Legend

Posted 02:24 (GMT) 8th January 2007

So I saw I Am Robot- I mean, Legend last week. I was expecting something akin to I, Robot - a high concept drama that blossoms into a guns-blazing action flick the more you watch. And whilst guns do blaze I nevertheless got something I didn't really expect: the US version of Children of Men with a dash of Castaway. Only it was less political than Children of Men and less... less God-damn tedious than Castaway. No, replace tedium with balls-to-the-wall intesity. This film is intense. It injects tension and fear right into your spine and it never really gives you a break, rather each scene represents another turn of the screw. It was nail-biting stuff. 'Scary movies' I can deal with, since they're more about slow-witted teenage girls putting themselves in jeopardy for no reason and jumping at shadows. A film which is actually genuinely frightening I can't cope with. I was fidgeting and squirming in my seat, flinching and grabbing the arm of the person next to me. Her husand thought I was making a pass at her and I had to flee the cinema.

But anyway. Will Smith's performance was... wow. Some time between Men in Black and The Pursuit of Happyness he's grown himself some formidable acting chops. No matter what was going on (and remember this is a movie about post-apocalyptic mutants in New York) he completely sold it. I actually forgot I was watching a film, as stupid as that might sound. I was quite relieved to find civilization intact upon leaving the cinema. He deserves an Oscar but I'm old enough to have learnt that won't happen.

So I recommend you watch the film. I can't say, strictly speaking, that I enjoyed it as such because it was so fucking good it made the end of the world seem real. And I quite enjoy it when the world doesn't end. Like this morning, when the world didn't end. Wasn't that awesome?

All content in this web-site is the property of Fourth Floor Comics and Copyright ©Fourth Floor Comics 2004-2012

Unauthorized use of any Life on the Fourth Floor materials including characters, images and texts is strictly prohibited.

Life on the Fourth Floor is hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webhosting and site automation service for webcomics. They specialise in annoying advertisements.