Movies – Doghouse Review (or “A Film With The Sort Of Plot You’d Use In A Game Of Balderdash’)

Among my group of friends, we have a bit of a piss-take affection for everyone’s favourite Cockney Thespian, Danny Dyer.

So when we had a get-together over the bank holiday weekend, we were looking for a film to watch and stumbled across one of his efforts – Doghouse – on NetFlix.

Would hilarity ensue?

Let’s find out…

Doghouse Review – What’s It About?

A group of men head to a remote village to help one of their friends get over his divorce; when they get there though, they discover that all the women have been infected with a virus that makes them man-hating cannibals.

If anyone ever plays the great boardgame, Balderdash, then that’s a fantastic answer for Film Round right there.

Doghouse Review – How Highly Is It Rated?

Well NetFlix gave it three and a half stars, while imdb rate it at 6.0 from just short of 13,000 votes and Rotten Tomatoes give it an approval rating of 48%

Doghouse Review – Who’s In It?

It stars the aforementioned Danny Dyer, along with Noel Clark (Mickey off Dr Who) and Stephen Graham (Al Capone in Boardwalk Empire). There are also minor cameos from the likes of Billy Murray and Mary Tamm.

Thoughts

I was pleasantly surprised by Doghouse.

It’s often the case that films like that try to be funny and fail miserably, but in this instance, there were more than a few occasions where everyone in the room laughed out loud, and even one bit where we had to rewind it a couple of times to see it again (it was the bit where Dyer’s character kicks the old woman with the football and then celebrates before being smacked in the head with a saucepan. Sounds stupid and it was, but it was funny).

We also loved the sub-plot with their mate Banksy.

Sure, it’s not got the most original or exciting plot in the world, the reason for the outbreak was a bit daft and it’s clearly influenced by Zombie Comedies like Shaun of the Dead, but with expectations starting off low, I thought it turned out pretty well.

The standard of acting was good enough (well, apart from Dyer, but because I think even he knows he’s crap he gets away with it), there was a far amount of gore and while the setting meant that it was never going to look anything less than authentic.

Ultimately, Doghouse is a basic tale of Lads vs Zombies. The “Lads” all have the Match of the Day ringtone on their phones, while the all-female Zombie cast are everything from Lollypop ladies to big fat thumpers in their unappealing negligée.

It’s simple, it’s effective, it’s funny, it’s shallow, and running at 89 minutes, you won’t get bored.

Should You Watch Doghouse?

If you switch off your brain and are of a mindset to enjoy a stereotypical bunch of “Laaaaaaaaads” fight some female zombies, then you’ll like it.

However, if you’re the sort of person who is only interested in depth and world-class storytelling, I wouldn’t bother.

6.0 out of 10 is usually considered a poor rating, but there shouldn’t be anything wrong about that. The chances are it was a 6/10, but since so many films that are really only 3/10 or 4/10 get ratings of 7.6 and the like, I’d take the imdb view with a pinch of salt.

Movies – Side Effects Review (or ‘A Hitchcock Film in 2013′)

With a day off at my disposal, I decided on a whim to use my Unlimited Card and nip along to the cinema to see Side Effects, a film I hadn’t even heard of until I checked the listings this morning.

I’m glad I did.

Side Effects Review: What’s This Film About

“A young woman’s world unravels when a drug prescribed by her psychiatrist has unexpected side effects”

Well, that’s what the synopsis says. The truth is, this film is about so much more.

Side Effects Review: How Highly Is It Rated?

Right now, imdb.com rates Side Effects at 7.4/10 from just under 10,000 votes, while Rotten Tomatoes gives it an approval rating of 85%

Side Effects Review: Who’s In It?

It stars Jude “James McFadden’s More Handsome Brother” Law, Catherine “I Got Old All Of A Sudden” Zeta-Jones, Rooney “Looks Considerably Older Than Her Older Sister” Mara and Channing Tatum, who for some reason I always thought was an actress. 

Thoughts – I Can’t Spoil This

Here’s the thing; based on then synopsis alone, I expected this film to be something it wasn’t.

At the start at least I thought it was a story of depression and how a woman (Mara) was struggling to get better in the rather crazy world of the American Healthcare System.

And I was enjoying it.

But then there came a twist, and that twist was followed by another twist and then the film went off into a completely different direction.

Not quite a Psycho level change of direction, but one that seriously impacts my ability to go into great detail about the plot.

If this was 1960 and I started to talk about Norman Bates’s Motel and all the stuff that went down there in a review of Psycho, it wouldn’t be fair. Similarly, if I wrote a review of the Sixth Sense before you’d all had a chance to see it and discussed how Bruce Willis’s character was dead all along, you’d be pissed. Hey, I can talk about it now because of the Statute of Limitations on Spoilers, but I can’t talk about the twists in Side Effects.

But they are good; very good.

What I can say about this film – a film that is both well acted and directed – is that is reminds me of a Hitchcock effort. It’s a thriller with a healthy dose of suspense.

Jude Law in particular is excellent, and I think it would be fair to say that his performance is reminiscent of James Stewart in his prime. You could imagine Stewart in this part in a film made back in the 50s.

And that’s another good thing about Side Effects; it has an enduring plot. You look at some old films and realise that advancement in technology or social change means that they couldn’t be made like that today (unless they were made as period pieces) and the same applies in reverse. A good script rises above that; Side Effects rises above that.

So let me keep this brief for you.

I enjoyed Side Effects immensely. I was finding the film interesting to start off with, but when the twists and turns started to happen I invested in it far more.

For the first time in a long time, I went to see a film and didn’t feel the need to check the time once.

Because of the nature it, where enjoyment is linked to surprise, I don’t think I would rush to see it again any time soon, but I don’t think that should count against it.

This is without doubt the best film I’ve seen in 2013, and is easily better than Arg0, the best film I saw in 2012.

Side Effects Review: Should You Go To See Side Effects?

I’d give it a strong thumbs up.

A top, top film with a brilliant story.

It’s a Hitchcock Movie in 2013.

 

Movies – Psycho Review (or ‘A Triumph For Direction and Shock Value, But Not The Best Of Stories’)

Anyone who follows me on twitter (@sgmilne) may remember that I actually watched Psycho a few weeks ago now, so this review will be a broader study of the movie rather than focusing on the minutia that’s fresh in my memory.

But then I don’t think a review of Psycho needs to be too deep in its examination because there’s so much you can say about it generally.

There’s no doubt that the film is of huge cultural significance to the world of motion pictures, both in terms of the relaxing of certain censorships (can you believe that before this, a flushing toilet couldn’t be seen on-screen?) and how patrons approach the cinema-going experience (this was one of the first films where the public were urged to get to the cinema for the start of the film and the cinema management were told to turn away late-comers. This was done because it was advertised as starring Janet Leigh and she’s only in the first part of it).

And then there’s the famous shower scene which has become one of the most iconic scenes in entertainment history. Everyone knows it, everyone recognises the wonderfully emotive incidental music that plays over it and probably everyone has seen it parodied many times over.

But for all that Psycho is remembered for those reasons, and for all that it is not only one of Hitchcock’s most famous films but one of the world’s most famous films, is it actually any good?

What’s It About?

Psycho is perhaps the definitive example of the bait-and-switch movie.

What starts as a film about a young woman stealing money from her work and making a break for it turns into a suspenseful horror film about murder in an off-track motel and the investigation into her disappearance.

How Highly Is It Rated?

Psycho comes with an approval rating of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and is rated on imdb.com at 8.6/10 by 237,376 people, giving it an overall ranking of #30 in the IMDB Top #250.

High praise indeed

Thoughts

Being blunt, the first section of the film – the part about Janet Leigh stealing money – is not up to much. But let’s be honest here; most people will just forget about that when the shower scene happens.

There’s absolutely no doubt that it is an iconic scene and does deserve praise, but if I’m being honest I actually prefer the second murder scene from later on in the film. The high camera angle, increased urgency and the look of terror on Arbogast’s face are brilliant.

Or is it that the average viewer simply isn’t expecting that second murder to happen?

I mean, sure, the shower scene is great, but anyone watching it for the first time now will know exactly what’s about to happen the moment Leigh steps into the bathroom. And because of that, it probably loses most of its impact.

The same goes for the revelation that it’s not Norman’s mother who is killing people, but Norman himself. The words ‘Norman Bates’ are ingrained in the psyche of our society to mean…er…a psycho and yet in this film, that’s not revealed until the very end.

Up until that reveal, we’re led to believe that Norman is a nice ‘Good Ol’ Boy’ type who has to clear up is insane mother’s mess.

Watching it with foreknowledge perhaps ruins it a bit.

And though the film shouldn’t be marked down for that too much – because it was made with the intention of being seen in the cinema rather than with the foreknowledge of VCRs, DVD players and multiple repeats on TV – a film as highly rated as Psycho is should be able to sustain its impact when the shock value diminishes.

Now don’t get me wrong; I think it’s a good film that is well acted on the whole (although Anthony Perkins is the only stand-out  and the direction (which is superb in terms of the range and choice of camera angles, the building of suspense and the way it moves the plot along), the music, and the use of black & white in an era that had mostly shifted to colour are brilliant, but it could be argued that Psycho is rated so highly because of what it represents rather than how good it is as an overall package.

Remember too that before the film was edited to make the shock factor more pronounced, it was heading for not so much the bin but to be made into a two-part television special, such was the lack of enthusiasm from the studio bigwigs about how exciting this was as a story.

After all, if you take a step back and look at the actual plot for what it is, it could be summed up as

• Woman goes to motel – gets killed
• Private Detective goes to motel – gets killed
• Woman’s sister and boyfriend go to motel – survive.

When you look at it like that, it’s not the most exciting tale?

Take out the two murders, or if you prefer keep them in and get a less capable director to shoot them, and I think this film would be remembered and rated for less than it currently is.S

Surely there has to be more to a movie than that?

Final Thoughts

For what it is, Psycho deserves a huge amount of credit. It has shock value and it was directed extremely well for the time. For that reason, it’s remembered so fondly to this day.

But a truly great film has to be about more than just shocks and direction for me. There has to be a great story – which this doesn’t have – and there has to be top quality acting in it too. There’s nothing wrong with the acting in Psycho – it’s of a perfectly acceptable standard – but there’s nothing wonderful about it either.

So it deserves to be remembered and rated highly for what it represents, but the 30th best movie of all time? No, I’m not having that.

 

Stuart Reviews Stuff Index. Direct Links To All Articles

Since I’ve reached a milestone of 250 articles, I’ve decided to create an index so you can easily find the article you want.

Movies

12 Angry Men
127 Hours Later
30 Minutes or Less
A Lonely Place To Die
The Adjustment Bureau
The Amazing Spiderman
American Reunion
Apollo 18
Argo
The Artist
Attack the Block
Black Swan
Bridesmaids
Captain America: The First Avenger
Chronicle
Contagian
The Dark Knight Rises
Django Unchained
Double Indemnity
Drive
Final Destination 5
Flight
Friends With Benefits
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
The Green Hornet
The Green Lantern
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Harvey
Hitchcock
The Impossible
Killer Elite
The King’s Speech
Lincoln
Looper
Marvel’s Avengers Assemble
The Muppets
The Passion of Christ
Perry Mason: The Case of the Glass Coffin
The Raid
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Scream
Scream 4
Senna
Skyfall
Sorry, Wrong Number
Ted
Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy
Thor
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
True Grit
Unknown
War Horse
Warrior
Wreck-It Ralph
The Wrong Man
X-Men: First Class

Television Reviews

Africa
Coming of Age – The Worst Television Show Ever Made
Homeland
House of Cards (US Remake)
House of Cards (UK Original)
The Newsroom
Revenge
Sherlock

Television & Film Articles

15 Under-Appeciated Filmes You Need To Watch – Part One
15 Under-Appeciated Filmes You Need To Watch – Part Two
15 Under-Appeciated Filmes You Need To Watch – Part Three

15 Under-Appreciated TV Shows You Need To Watch – Part One
15 Under-Appreciated TV Shows You Need To Watch – Part Two
15 Under-Appreciated TV Shows You Need To Watch – Part Three

500 Episodes of The Simpsons and 10 Other Shows That Outstayed Their Welcome

9/11 Documentaries: Awful and Fascinating in Equal Measures

Death On TV – Is It Wrong To Make It Too ‘Familiar’

How I Met Your Mother: A Once Great Show That Is Now A Load of Absolute Codswallop

Television Theme Tunes – A Lost Art (My Top 20 TV Themes)

Things That Annoy Me In TV & Film – Part One
Things That Annoy Me In TV & Film – Part Two
Things That Annoy Me In TV & Film – Part Three
Things That Annoy Me In TV & Film – Part Four
Things That Annoy Me In TV & Film – Part Five
Things That Annoy Me In TV & Film – Part Six

Things That Don’t Make Sense About Zombie Apocalypses 

Games

12 Underrated/Under-Appreciated Games You Need To Play – Part One
12 Underrated/Under-Appreciated Games You Need To Play – Part Two
Denki Word Quest
Dirt 3
Food Run
Geometry Wars
Hidden In Plain Sight
Ms ‘Splosion Man
N+
Quarrel
Super Tank Run
The Walking Dead

Year In Reviews

2011: The Best & Worst of Games
Film, Game & TV Awards: 2012

Random Articles

New Year, New You? 10 Tips To Help You Achieve Your Weight Loss & Fitness Goals in 2013

Organising Indoor Football: Absolutely Not Worth The Hassle (A Rant)

Rich Beyond The Dreams of Avarice – A Comparison To Media Available Now Compared to the 80s, 90s and Early 00s

Stuart Reviews Stuff Room 101 – Part One
Stuart Reviews Stuff Room 101 – Part Two
Stuart Reviews Stuff Room 101 – Part Three

Doctor Who

William Hartnell era rankings

An Unearthly Child
The Daleks
The Edge Of Destruction
Marco Polo
The Keys Of Marinus
The Aztecs
The Sensorites
The Reign Of Terror
Farewell Great Macedon (unmade)
The Fragile Yellow Arc Of Fragrance (unmade)
Planet Of Giants
The Dalek Invasion Of Earth
The Rescue
The Romans
The Web Planet
The Crusade
The Space Museum
The Chase
The Time Meddler
Galaxy Four
The Myth Makers
Mission To The Unknown / The Daleks’ Master Plan
The Massacre Of St Bartholomew’s Eve
The Ark
The Celestial Toymaker
The Gunfighters
The Savages
The War Machines
The Smugglers
The Tenth Planet

Patrick Troughton era rankings

The Power Of The Daleks
The Highlanders
The Underwater Menace
The Moonbase
The Macra Terror
The Faceless Ones
The Evil Of The Daleks
The Tomb Of The Cybermen
The Abominable Snowmen
The Ice Warriors
The Enemy Of The World
The Web Of Fear
Fury From The Deep
The Wheel In Space
The Dominators
The Mind Robber
The Invasion
The Krotons
The Seeds Of Death
The Space Pirates
The War Games

Jon Pertwee era rankings

Spearhead From Space
Doctor Who And The Silurians
The Ambassadors Of Death
Inferno
Terror Of The Autons
The Mind Of Evil
The Claws Of Axos
Colony In Space
The Daemons
Day Of The Daleks
The Curse Of Peladon
The Sea Devils
The Mutants
The Time Monster
The Three Doctors
Carnival Of Monsters
Frontier In Space
Planet Of The Daleks
The Green Death
The Time Warrior
Invasion Of The Dinosaurs
Death To The Daleks
The Monster Of Peladon
Planet Of The Spiders

Tom Baker Era Rankings

Robot
The Ark In Space
The Sontaran Experiment
Genesis Of The Daleks
Revenge Of The Cybermen
Terror Of The Zygons
Planet Of Evil
The Pyramids Of Mars
The Android Invasion
The Brain Of Morbius
The Seeds Of Doom
The Masque Of Mandragora
The Hand Of Fear
The Deadly Assassin
The Face Of Evil
The Robots Of Death
The Talons Of Weng Chiang
Horror Of The Fang Rock
The Invisible Enemy
Image Of The Fendahl
The Sun Makers
Underworld
The Invasion Of Time
The Ribos Operation
The Pirate Planet
The Stones Of Blood
The Androids Of Tara
The Power Of Kroll
The Armageddon Factor
Destiny Of The Daleks
City Of Death
The Creature From The Pit
Nightmare Of Eden
The Horns Of Nimon
Shada
The Leisure Hive
Meglos
Full Circle
State Of Decay
Warriors’ Gate
The Keeper of Traken
Logopolis

Castrovalva

Movies – The Wrong Man Review (or ‘Sometimes Real Life Just Isn’t Interesting Enough’

As any regular reader of this blog will know, I’m currently in the middle of a Dr Who review project, where I review each story from the William Hartnell Era all the way through to the present day.

It’s a fun little project that keeps me writing and it has plenty of followers.

But some readers have asked that I mix it up more often in my reviews because they aren’t all that interested in the BBC’s most famous Doctor.

So what to do? If there isn’t much on TV or if I haven’t been to the cinema, what else is there to write about?

Well I thought I would try doing a Hitchcock review project, going through as many of his films as possible and offering my opinion.

Chances are that these reviews won’t be anywhere near as extensive as some of my Doctor Who ones as there’s less to write about, but I’ll try my best.

To start, I’ll review a film I thought I had never seen before – The Wrong Man.

What’s It About?

Henry Fonda stars in the true story of a band musician – Christopher Emmanuel “Manny” Balestrero - mistakenly identified as and arrested for a number of armed robberies of local businesses in the 1950s New York.

The stress of the arrest and subsequent trial takes its toll on Manny and his wife (played by Vera Miles), with her having to be committed because of a nervous breakdown.

As it turns out, all charges against Manny are dropped because the real criminal is caught holding up another shop.

How Highly Is It Rated?

The Wrong Man comes in with a score of 7.5 on imdb.com and has a Rotten Tomatoes Approval Rating of 89%

Thoughts – An Un-Memorable Affair

You’ll note above that I said I thought I’d never seen The Wrong Man before, but I realised around 20 minutes in that I actually had done a few years ago.

And therein lies the immediate problem with The Wrong Man – it’s not memorable in the slightest.

The question is ‘Why?’.

Well what you have to consider is that this is based on a true story. Indeed, Hitchcock himself starts the film by telling the audience that this is unlike any film he’s ever made before because of that very fact.

But the unfortunate truth is that true stories are often a bit dull.

So Manny is arrested, and that’s all very stressful for him, but that in itself just isn’t exciting enough to carry an entire plot.

There is no suspense, there are shocks and there are no twists or turns, and even if it is the truth, the fact that it’s resolved by the real criminal being caught in the act towards the end just makes the whole thing feel like a colossal waste of time.

Basically it’s just: Man gets arrested. Man goes to trial. Man gets off because of something totally outwith his control. Not the most exciting of plots.

On a similar note, the very end of the film has Manny leaving his wife in care because she’s too far gone to understand that the charges were dropped, and then it’s followed up with a caption saying “Manny’s wife recovered and now they live in Florida”. Why not just have a scene from when she got better?

Positive Notes

In fairness, Henry Fonda is perfectly acceptable in the lead role because of his innocent nature. While someone like Cary Grant would seem miscast in a role like this, Fonda just doesn’t seem like the type of guy who would commit such crimes and so he’s believable in the part.

The direction is also good, with some great lighting, approach shots through doors and lingering close-ups of the characters that did a grand job of getting their emotions across.

Furthermore, the film also does an important job of highlighting what can happen in cases of mistaken identity.

Is It Deserving of Its Rating?

While I can praise aspects like direction and casting all day, a good film needs an engaging plot and this just doesn’t have it.

The big thing for me is that I couldn’t remember watching it the first time and that says it all.

It’s not terrible, but it’s certainly not worth the high ratings it seems to attract.

One to avoid.

Films: Wreck-It Ralph Review (or “A Fantastic Nostalgia-Fest For Anyone Who Likes Video Games”)

These days you just assume a Disney film will be made by Pixar, but not Wreck-It Ralph.

Indeed, this will only be the second 100% Disney film I’ve seen in the last 10 years, the disappointing Bolt being the other one.

So can Disney emerge from Pixar’s shadow to make a movie that people will compare to the likes of Toy Story?

What’s This One About

Wreck-It Ralph is a villain in an old arcade game who wants to be the hero for a change, so he decides to leave his own game and tries to win a heroic medal in a different one.

Thoughts – A Great Film For Arcade Fans

In many ways this is like Toy Story, but in an Arcade Game setting.

While the toys in Toy Story come to life whenever Andy is out of the room, in Wreck-It Ralph the game characters live their lives when the Arcade shuts at night, and mix amongst each other in their own little world.

Immediately then, you get the feeling that while this is a film that will appeal to kids, it’s really one that is made for guys like me, by guys like me. In other words, it’s made for people who were old enough to play Arcade games in the 1980s and 90s.

And what a nostalgic treat it is.

While the two main games featured in the movie are fictional, there are cameos from characters from games like Sonic the Hedgehog, Pac-Man, Q-bert, Root Beer Tapper (obviously, they all drink in Tapper’s bar), Street Fighter, Mario, Dance Dance Revolution, Qix and Burger Time Deluxe.

Seeing these characters on-screen is just fantastic for anyone who has grown up with the evolution of video games.

While it’s fair to say that the young kids watching it won’t really appreciate that since…well…Arcades aren’t exactly in vogue any-more, I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference to their enjoyment, but it will instantly mean the film is a winner in the eyes of my generation.

But Is It Any Good Beyond The Nostalgia?

Of course, a film can’t just work on nostalgia alone; if Wreck-It Ralph was pish beyond that, it’d be hard to compliment it.

Luckily though, it’s a strong film with a plot that moves along fairly well.

I say fairly, because I do think it slowed down a bit too much in the middle, but it started and finished strong.

What it is though is standard Animated film fayre (I would say ‘Disney fayre’ but Shrek is the same) about a hero (or anti-hero) who goes on a journey, meets an unlikely sidekick who he initially doesn’t like but ultimately becomes great friends with and then overcomes some sort of moral problem before living happily ever after.

I can accept that as a story for kids – even if it is much of a muchness – because it gives off a feel-good and morally acceptable message to them.

Animation

The animation of Wreck-It Ralph is also very good.

I saw it  the normal way, so I can’t comment on how it looked in 3D, but I was pleased with the rich colours, the realisation of the animated characters and also the way each of the characters moved. That last point might seem a bit odd, but what I mean is that the characters from the old pixelated games from the 80s move like characters from games from that era, even when they are shown in their full 3D form. It adds a level of authenticity to the animation of a film that you can tell was made as a labour of love (although because it was made in the Disney Studio – aka Mousewitz – it’ll be a labour of love made under ridiculous pressure).

Random Observations

• As you’re probably aware, Disney films always start with an unrelated animated short before the main feature. In this case it’s a short called Paperman. It’s a black & white animation set presumably in the 50s or 60s about a Brief Encounter between a young man and woman. They bump into each other in a train station but she leaves before he can get her number. He then sees her some time later in the building opposite from his office window, as tries to get her attention with a paper aeroplane. It’s a simple cartoon with no dialogue, but it’s beautifully hand-drawn in a traditional 2D style and is probably better than Wreck-It Ralph, which isn’t doing the main feature a disservice in the least.
• More films should be drawn in that style.
• I like the whole sidestory of “Going Turbo”, as well as its resolution, which is actually quite surprising.
• I had no idea Zangief was a video game villain.
• King Candy has a voice that sounds very much like Roger Rabbit, but alas it’s not the same guy.
• The end bit is reminiscent of – but suitable different from – The Iron Giant, which I think is probably one of the more underrated animated films out there.
• If I was to criticise the film, I’d say it might be slightly too long for some kids to enjoy. I went to an early afternoon showing, and by the last half hour, the under-10s in the audience were clearly losing focus. Then again, they’re probably too young to be in a cinema anyway.

Should You Go To See Wreck-It Ralph?

While it’s sad that there will be plenty of people who will refuse to go to see a Disney film unless they have children with them, these people are missing out.

Wreck-It Ralph is hardly a new formula for Disney, but where it stands out is that offers guys like me who have an appreciation of video games and arcades of the past a proper nostalgia fest for a couple of hours.

And it does it very well.

What’s more, it also shows that Disney are capable of making a good, well-animated movie without Pixar.

 

Films – Hitchcock Review (A Film That Tried To Cover Too Many Bases And Failed)

It’s not often that I go to see a film that I’ve heard from multiple sources is rubbish, but today I did.

Personally, I hadn’t read any published reviews of Hitchcock, but I’d read people’s opinions on Twitter, as well as hearing the ‘Word on the Street’ from members of my family.

But reviews be damned, I wanted to see it, and at only 90 minutes long, and with an Unlimited Card in my wallet I didn’t see the harm.

So what’s the Stuart Reviews Stuff word on this one?

What’s It About?

A film that combines the making of Psycho with Alfred Hitchcock’s own personal and marital problems.

Thoughts – A Film That Casts Its Net Too Wide

By no means is Hitchcock a bad film, but the problem with it is that it’s not quite sure what it wants to be.

Is it a film about Hitchcock and his relationship with his wife and leading ladies – as was the case in the recent BBC drama ‘The Girl’ – or is it a film about the making of Psycho?

You might think the latter wouldn’t be a particularly interesting subject, but I disagree. Psycho was a film made under trying circumstances, with Hitchcock having to fund it himself, getting his cast to agree to lesser fees, having to deal with censorship boards and having to film in black & white to keep the budget down.

It was also the first Hollywood film to start the ‘No late admission’ trend. My knowledge on the subject is sketchy, as I’m not film historian, but it was common practice in those days for people to come into films half way through, and because the supposed star of the show – Janet Leigh – is killed off so close to the start, Hitchcock wouldn’t allow that to happen. Essentially it shaped our own cinema-going habits to this day.

So to me, that’s something that could really have worked as the subject of the film, and I was very much looking forward to it.

Unfortunately, the making of Psycho is really an afterthought to the personal relationships of Hitchcock and his wife Alma, with most of the issues surrounding Psycho’s creation being hurriedly dealt with in a 5 minute period towards the end.

And as a result, we’re left with a film that tries to do too much and ultimately fails to deliver.

It starts off well, but you seen begin to realise that time is almost up and it hasn’t dealt with half the stuff you’d expect, and so many of the plot threads have limp resolutions.

The Girl & Anthony Hopkins

Another part of the problem for me is that what it tries to do too much of – namely focusing on Hitchcock’s marriage – the BBC managed to do better in The Girl.

That was a TV show that – while not spectacular – knew what it was doing. It focused on Hitchcock and his unsuccessful desire to be with the platinum blonde starlets he cast rather than his frumpy wife, and did a solid job of it.

Here, Hitchcock’s wife was portrayed as…well…more glamorous than she perhaps should have been. I’m only 30, so I don’t see the appeal, but I understand gentlemen of a certain age consider Helen Mirren to be quite the catch. So she was mis-cast in my opinion.

Not just that, but Hopkins himself wasn’t anywhere near as good or as convincing as Toby Jones in the BBC production. In fact, Anthony Hopkins came across as a bloke in a fat suit doing a rather over the top impression at a party.

The rest of the cast were fine, but ultimately had very little to work with.

So to me, having seen something better on the subject recently, it misfired.

The Bits In His Head

I might be missing something here – as I did miss the first couple of minutes of the film – but I had no idea what the point of the dream sequences were either. Not only did they add absolutely nothing to the plot, but they didn’t make sense and took time away from dealing with stuff that could have been interesting.

Should You Go To See Hitchcock?

I wouldn’t say so.

Don’t get me wrong; it didn’t drag on, and was a decent watch, but it just didn’t do all that much for me.

The star wasn’t all that good, the leading lady was mis-cast, the rest of the cast didn’t get much of a look in and it didn’t seem to know what direction to go in.

The writers should have decided to focus on one aspect of the film or the other. Either make it about the troubles he had making Psycho, or make it a film about personal relationships like The Girl.

It did neither, so it left me cold.

Films: Flight Review (or ‘Cocaine – An Apparent Miracle Cure’)

The hook to getting you in to see Flight is that – on the surface at least – it’s about a pilot who manages to save a plane from crashing with some fantastic flying skill, despite being dangerously drunk at the time.

But what it’s really about is an alcoholic who struggles to come to terms with his problems.

Starring Denzel Washington as the booze guzzling, coke snorting pilot, William “Whip” Whittaker, Flight is a good film, but once again it suffers from the same problem as every single film I’ve seen at the cinema this year; it would have been better if it was slightly shorter.

Thoughts 

It would be fair to say that this is another “Game of Two Halves” style film; the first half being about plane crash itself and the second focusing on the pilot himself.

And there is a place for both.

For anyone who doesn’t like flying, the plane’s troubles and ultimate crash landing are worryingly well executed, with it flying upside down for a spell in a successful bid to prevent crashing to Earth at a fatal speed.

The whole sequence is high on drama and superb in terms of acting and special effects.

But the positive aspects of Flight don’t begin and end with that. Washington is very good as Whittaker, and the aftermath of the incident is handled in an engrossing way.

For me at least, it was interesting to see how his own brilliant piloting plays second fiddle to a blame game over who was ultimately responsible.

And I did enjoy Whittaker’s breakdown, as he gradually becomes consumed by his problems, with it all coming to a head the morning of the official enquiry.

Where the film could have lost a little bit of time was on the setup of the character of Nicole. Ultimately she became an incidental character with about 50 minutes left, so wasting a good 15 minutes of scenes introducing her seemed a bit needless.

Three Cheers For Cocaine, Kids! (Spoilers)

What I didn’t like though – if I was to be perhaps a little bit over-critical – was his acceptance of his alcohol problems at the hearing. To me, that’s poor storytelling because it’s too easy and obvious.

Throughout the whole film, he’s brushed over his problems like any other alcoholic that you’ve ever known, lying to everyone around him and to himself as he fails to come to terms with his issues.

For him to finally admit to them right at the end, just at the point where he could have got off scot-free, was a bit too mushy and Hollywood for my liking.

It makes for a feel good-ending, but not necessarily a realistic one.

Of course, had he not come to terms with his problems, the film would have finished on a sour note, as if it was validating alcoholism, but I’m sure there are ways of overcoming it.

Actually though – and bear in mind I’m the sort of person who hates Ferris Bueler’s Day Off because it encourages and indeed glamorises truancy – one thing this film does do is promote cocaine as a wonderful way to recover from a hangover in short order.

Now I don’t drink, and I certainly don’t take drugs, so it’s neither here nor there to me, but I did feel that some people might come away from it thinking “You know what I need? Some cocaine!!”. Sure, Whittaker acknowledged that he had a problem, but snorting some coke meant he could still fly a plane better than most other sober pilots and attend a hearing an hour after being found on his hotel bathroom floor, pissed as a fart and barely conscious.

Maybe that’s what coke does, I wouldn’t know, but it seemed to be promoted as a miracle cure here, sold by John Goodman in a Hawaiian shirt. And it shouldn’t be.

Drugs are bad kids, okay?

Should You Go To See Flight?

My issues with the ending and the glorification of cocaine aside, Flight was a pretty decent film, all things considered.

It’s the sort of film where I’d watch the first 45 minutes or so again of it was on TV, just to see the brilliantly done plane crash, but beyond that, I don’t think I’d bother.

But I enjoyed it as I watched it, and though it would have been better running under two hours, it didn’t drag all that much.

So it’s solid, but unspectacular.

And Denzel Washington is good in it.

Films: Lincoln Review (or ‘A Drearily Dull, Self Important Film With No Genuinely Praiseworthy Qualities’)

Interesting Stuart Fact – I’ve never seen a film with Daniel Day-Lewis in it before seeing Lincoln this evening.

“But wait!” I hear you say, “That’s not in the least bit interesting”.

Well all I can say to you is that having sat through that film about the United States’ most famous president and his struggle to get the 13th Amendment – the abolition of slavery – voted through the Senate at the tail end of the American Civil War for two and a half hours, that little tidbit seems like the very definition of interesting.

Indeed, the contents of my own handkerchief would probably be more riveting to me at this stage.

And here’s why.

Thoughts – Almost No Dramatic Content

The very essence of a good film to me is a good story. This didn’t have it.

Instead, it was two and a half hours of unwell looking blokes debating in poorly lit rooms about a foregone conclusion.

Where is the drama in knowing fine well that the vote would be passed through the senate? There is none.

If there had at least been a struggle behind it then it might have been a little bit exciting, but alas there was no drama. Lincoln needed to get some votes, so he sent some of his people to bargain with some of the swaying members on the other side of the house, and he got them.

Wow.

Astonishing.

Genuinely, that’s almost all there is to this film.

They tried to add a bit of an extra dimension to it by having a couple of lazy subplots concerning his family life; his shaky relationship with his wife, and his son’s desire to fight in the Civil War against their wishes, but neither storyline led anywhere.

And the acting wasn’t up to much either. I say that because while it was perfectly acceptable I suppose, I felt that everyone in it was performing their parts with a sort of smug ‘Well this will win me an Oscar’ type way. Urgh, please. The sad thing is though that it probably will.

Whatsmore, it felt so self-important. Obviously they had to end the film on the note that he was assassinated in Ford’s Theatre, but after having him leave his office to go there with foreshadowing spread on so thick you could taste it, they show a different theatre where some bloke breaks the news that he’s been killed to the audience. It’s as if it would be beneath them to show the actual assassination.

One other thing – the music for the film is unsurprisingly delivered by John Williams. I can’t be the only person sick to death of his highly repetitive scores. Find a new way of delivering incidental music, please!!

Stuart, You’re A Philistine!!

Some of you will be reading this and haughtily suggesting that I’m not refined enough to appreciate the supposed beauty or intellectual value of a movie like Lincoln. I must be the sort of bloke who is only interested in drivel like The Fast & The Furious or the latest big budget blockbuster.

It’s simply not true, as anyone who regularly reads my reviews will attest to;  I love a good political drama or biopic and much as the next man.

No, to me, this was just dull. It offered – as I’ve already said – no dramatic content and I don’t think I learnt anything that I didn’t already know.

If I was to offer it the smallest bit of praise, I’d say the only bit that got even slightly interesting was when the vote took place, even though I knew the result.

The thing is though, if you watch shows like the West Wing or have seen supposedly dated movies like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, you’ve seen all of this stuff done before; only you’ve seen it done immeasurably better.

Yes, the events of Lincoln are based on reality, but reality doesn’t always equate to exciting or provide value for money for the cinemagoer.

I think this just seems like the sort of film that is hoping to glide through based on who is directing, who is starring and who the subject is, rather than on any genuine merit.

Should You Go To See Lincoln.

No.

The film isn’t bad, but it is dull, with practically no redeeming features.

That it gets 7.9 on imdb either shows that I’m misjudging its supposed brilliance, or it’s getting a blindly patriotic American and or Spielbergian vote.

Avoid.

Django Unchained Review (or ‘The Video Nasty Version of Song of the South’)

Back in my Argo review I complained about cinema start times are always way off.

Well I’ve learned from it, and yesterday decided to turn up to the 4:45 showing of Django Unchained at 5:20, and though the girl selling me the ticket said “Oh, that film started ages ago“, when I went in, the film title card was just showing up on the screen.

It’s ridiculous.

What’s even more ridiculous is that Cineworld offer a service now where Unlimited Card holders can reserve tickets for collection, but must turn up 15 minutes before the advertised start time.

So had I done that, I’d have been sitting in the cinema for 50 minutes before the film actually began, and then had to sit through a film that lasted for almost three hours.

Madness.

But anyway, at least I’ve got utility out of my unlimited card this month.

As to the film itself…

What’s It About?

This is like two films rolled into one.

The first half is an all guns blazing, over the top Western – going at 100 miles an hour – about a bounty hunter who has taken on a black slave (Django) that can help him identify his next target.

The second half of the film is a much slower burning piece, with the two men looking to rescue Django’s wife, who is a slave of one of the owner of one of the most brutal plantation owners in the Deep South.

Thoughts – A Film of Two Halves

This is a film that starts off strong. It looks good, it has a suitable amount of gore from the explosive gun shots and it has plenty of moments that are genuinely funny.

Indeed, the first half of this film is exactly what I expected from a Tarantino effort going in.

But then it slowed down, almost to a crawl.

I understand why that is; the first part was merely the setup to the main storyline, where Django and Dr. King Schultz had to play the long game to buy back Django’s wife. The idea behind it was that they would pretend to be interested in purchasing black slaves for fights to the death for a massive price, and then make a far smaller offer – the only genuine offer on the table – for the woman.

And while that’s fine, the change of gear from the in your face violence to an over the top examination of race relations from that era – a sort of video nasty version of Song of the South – was so stark that it made that second hour of the film difficult to truly embrace.

That’s not to say it was bad, because it wasn’t – both Leonardo di Caprio and Samuel L. Jackson were enjoyable to watch, even if they were playing their parts like cartoon characters – but it slowed it down too much for my liking.

Towards the end things heated up again, with mindless, comical violence the order of the day. Some people might say it was too brutal, but it was so over the top it was more amusing than distressing.

For me though, it could have lost a good half an hour in the middle, and I’d have enjoyed it far more.

Random Observations

• Now obviously, using a racist term like “N*gger” in 21st century society is wrong, and rightly so. Even when not using it offensively, like writing a review like this, it still feels wrong to the extent that I feel as though I should censor it. But because of the context of the film and the time it was set in, that word got used a lot. A lot. Now I don’t have a problem with it, but I can’t help but think it was overused to almost childish levels. It was as if the writer knew it was fair game to use it, and thus wanted to get it in there as much as possible. It seemed like he was almost wanting to shock with it, and even someone like me, who doesn’t really get offended by words, noticed it. 
• On the other hand, words like that were just part of the dialect, so maybe I’m being…dare I say it…overly PC.
• Tarantino’s little cameo was rubbish. That man can’t speak with an Australian accent.
• The Colonel Sanders, Ku Klux Klan type looked exactly like a member of my extended family who I can’t stand, so I cheered when he got his head blown off.
• Without spoiling it, the bit with the dogs was pretty horrible.
• Credit has to be given to Tarantino though for the effective use of music throughout. I particularly liked that he used one of my favourite songs – Ain’t No Grave, by Johnny Cash.
• IMDB Rating – 8.7

Should You Go To See Django Unchained

It’s a fun film that provides laughs, decent acting and gratuitous violence. And people will go to see it because of the director.

But what stops it from being a great film and makes it merely good – to me at least – is that it slowed down in the middle so much that I was begging for it to speed up.

It failed my ‘Checking the Watch’ test as a result.

If it had been a half hour or even 45 minutes shorter, I think I would have given it my highest recommendation.

But like most films these days, it seems to want to last almost three hours, and that’s not something I like.

It is still good though, and if you’ve got no problem with films as long as that, it’s worth your time.