Thursday, 2 June 2011

June movie update

Here are the films that Pete and I have received from and watched on TV and DVD over the past few months in reverse order, with my ratings out of ten from my movie list on the IMDB.

The Time Machine (2002) 4
Awful film - stupid story and acting.  If you want to see a better version, check out the 1960 original.

Burlesque (2010) 6
Pete's choice and I got what I expected!

(2010) 1
Insulting, lazy movie making. See my review on this previous blog entry.

Blue Valentine (2010) 4
Annoyingly bad.

I thought that this may have been overhyped, but it's actually very good indeed!

French Film (2008) 7

I do like a Harry Potter film and this was the best for a few years.  Looking forward to part 2.

Loose Cannons (2010) 8
Very good Italian gay film with some serious themes and also some funny bits too.

Great story and acting.  British movie making at its best.

Scream (1996) 7

Monsters (2010) 7
Made on a tiny budget, but that doesn't show one bit.  Well worth a view.

Le fil (2009) 7

Into the Wild (2007) 8
Depressing and surprising.  Long film, but gripping all the way through.

One of the best animations I have seen.

"It's in the trees... it's coming!"


  1. Yes, Blue Valentjne is crap!

    Kings Speech is pretty good, though I don't quite think it lived up to the hype.

  2. Right, here we go - for those films seen by me only on the cinema screen, as usual.

    Time Machine: Feel your score is somewhat too generous. Even 3/10 would be grudging.
    The 1960 film is on my All-time Top 50 list. Some of that is its being evocative of my mid-teen years on first seeing it, having around then just discovered H.G.Wells and been captivated by his science-fiction stories, of which this was my very first experience (also his own very first published novel) but I think it's also a good, exciting film with deservedly Oscar-winning special effects. (Btw Did you know that Alan Young, around this time in the 60s, was one of the world's foremost comedians? He was then VERY popular in this country. His cameo part in the later version as florist is only a very slight nod of acknowledgement to the 1960 version, and does him no favours, sadly)
    The disappointment of the recent version is compounded by it not only being directed by Wells' own great-grandson, who ought to have had more reverence for the original, but by the appearance of Guy Pierce whose film appearances have included more than a few superior films of real note. This is NOT one of them.

    Now, gliding over the pretty good 'Archipelago', we come to 'The King's Speech'. I'd wouldn't argue with your score. I too liked it rather more than I was expecting. Pretty brave to have Colin Firth playing the lead when nothing could make him look anything like George's actual physical appearance, but it worked. Thought Helena B.C. was excellent too, as were Rush and (again) Guy Pierce. Good film.

    Harry Potter & D.H. Pt 1 - I've always found the Potter films heavy-going, to the same degree as the books (I've read the first 4 or 5.) No doubt they're fine entertainment for many but I find the plethora of fantasy in the novels translated into never-ending special effects on film very wearying. My mind won't hold up to being bombarded non-stop like that and craves a bit of rest now and then. But, as I say, I know I'm in a minority. In terms of personal enjoyment I'd give this film, as I would probably all the other Potters, 5/10 max.

    Made in Dagenham: I recall the political events it purports to represent (with understandable liberties taken) but it still didn't quite gell for me. Sally Hawkins, though I love her as an actress, was so OTT
    feisty that I couldn't believe her character. And I kept wanting to sock Bob Hoskins in the mug every time he gave his irritating knowing 'twinkle' - and that's from someone who eschews all non-necessary violence! I'd give it 6/10.


  3. 'Scream': Just consulted my 'register and see that I saw it in 1997 and, like you, I also gave it 7/10. I think it was one of the first in the new wave of 'double-layered' horror which was scary on one level while you know they were taking the piss at the same time - rather like the Hammer films of the 1960s, which in the following decade unbalanced by becoming over-parodic. But this 'Scream' was pretty good.
    I still think the best of this type of series so far has been 'The Final Destination' trilogy, with obnoxious teenagers being rubbed out one by one with chuckling glee. Great fun.

    Monsters: I'd notch it up to an 8. If only because it's an object lesson in how to make an efficiently effective film with modest resources - and knocks the spots of many a blockbuster. A 'must-see'!

    Into the wild: Yes, 8. Surprising good and totally absorbing.

    And -'Shaun of the Dead' Yes, I'd agree with your 7, but felt it could have been an 8. But it does get better on each viewing I find. When I first saw it had no idea it would have developed into the cult film it has, but good on the team.
    I've always felt Simon P. to be quite the little hottie, even when before he started appearing in feature films, though he's not the type that I usually go for.

    So there you are, Stephen. Some gaps from the ones you saw - I especially wish I could have seen 'Loose Cannons' but there you are.

    Hope those comments were useful. At least this time there should be nothing here to rile you! Cheers.