Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews137
Crap_Connoisseur's rating
John Guillermin's interpretation of "King Kong" was unnecessarily written off by most critics as a monumental misstep upon its 1976 release and has been pretty much ignored ever since. This is the Jan Brady of Kong films. Nestled between the iconic 1933 original and Peter Jackson's hugely acclaimed recent remake Guillermin's version somehow got lost in the mix, which is unfortunate because this is my favourite of the three. King Kong circa 1976 has an edge the others are lacking. It's bloodier, gorier and sexier than the other two versions put together.
One of the main criticisms levelled at the film is that it takes unnecessary liberties with the original plot. This is an entire re-imagining. Unlike Peter Jackson's faithful remake, Guillermin's Kong is set in the then modern day 1970s and features a plot about a greedy oil company rather than a film crew. The male star is now a stowaway Science Professor, while the female lead is a wannabe starlet found adrift in a life raft. Personally, I think the changes make the film. The hunger for oil regardless of the cost is thematically more relevant than ever and the film's surprisingly strong environmental message is refreshing.
As the leads, Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange make a strikingly attractive pair. Jeff was at the height of his career and delivers a typically solid performance. This was Jessica's big break and I think she does a good job with a difficult role. Jessica looks every inch the movie star and brings her own unique sense of frailty to the role but her character is somewhat undermined by the writing. I'm sure Fay Wray and Naomi Watts would have struggled just as much with the seedier elements of the film.
The undisputed star of the film, however, is Kong. The thing I love most about this film is its reliance on animatronics (and a couple of monkey suits) instead of CGI. Carlo Rambaldi's life sized mechanical Kong is the thing of legend. The detail in Kong's giant hand alone is magnificent. The computer generated special effects, on the other hand, haven't aged well at all. The best thing about this version is the producers' willingness to make Kong a killer. I love the bloody battle with the giant rubber snake and Kong's memorable tantrum involving a giant log. My favourite part is when Kong tramples innocent bystanders in New York. It's 70s exploitation at its best – as are the decidedly disturbing scenes where Kong washes and dried Dwan (Jessica Lange) and the infamous moment when he exposes her breasts. It's wonderfully tasteless and so of its time. Just like Dwan's story of being rescued by "Deep Throat"! Another interesting aspect of the film is using the World Trade Center instead of the Empire State Building for the finale. It is a bit disturbing to see the Twin Towers feature so prominently but it's also touching to see them in all their former majestic glory. Their use makes the film a true historical document. The finale itself is utterly brilliant. In fact, the entire New York sequence is tense and spectacular. Guillermin's "King Kong" has its flaws but it has the balls to be different and offers a whole new spin on the Kong legend. The film is definitely undervalued and under-appreciated. Watch it for Kong's horny eyes alone!
One of the main criticisms levelled at the film is that it takes unnecessary liberties with the original plot. This is an entire re-imagining. Unlike Peter Jackson's faithful remake, Guillermin's Kong is set in the then modern day 1970s and features a plot about a greedy oil company rather than a film crew. The male star is now a stowaway Science Professor, while the female lead is a wannabe starlet found adrift in a life raft. Personally, I think the changes make the film. The hunger for oil regardless of the cost is thematically more relevant than ever and the film's surprisingly strong environmental message is refreshing.
As the leads, Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange make a strikingly attractive pair. Jeff was at the height of his career and delivers a typically solid performance. This was Jessica's big break and I think she does a good job with a difficult role. Jessica looks every inch the movie star and brings her own unique sense of frailty to the role but her character is somewhat undermined by the writing. I'm sure Fay Wray and Naomi Watts would have struggled just as much with the seedier elements of the film.
The undisputed star of the film, however, is Kong. The thing I love most about this film is its reliance on animatronics (and a couple of monkey suits) instead of CGI. Carlo Rambaldi's life sized mechanical Kong is the thing of legend. The detail in Kong's giant hand alone is magnificent. The computer generated special effects, on the other hand, haven't aged well at all. The best thing about this version is the producers' willingness to make Kong a killer. I love the bloody battle with the giant rubber snake and Kong's memorable tantrum involving a giant log. My favourite part is when Kong tramples innocent bystanders in New York. It's 70s exploitation at its best – as are the decidedly disturbing scenes where Kong washes and dried Dwan (Jessica Lange) and the infamous moment when he exposes her breasts. It's wonderfully tasteless and so of its time. Just like Dwan's story of being rescued by "Deep Throat"! Another interesting aspect of the film is using the World Trade Center instead of the Empire State Building for the finale. It is a bit disturbing to see the Twin Towers feature so prominently but it's also touching to see them in all their former majestic glory. Their use makes the film a true historical document. The finale itself is utterly brilliant. In fact, the entire New York sequence is tense and spectacular. Guillermin's "King Kong" has its flaws but it has the balls to be different and offers a whole new spin on the Kong legend. The film is definitely undervalued and under-appreciated. Watch it for Kong's horny eyes alone!
"Silent Hill" is an excellent example of a computer game that has been adapted with great attention to detail by an obvious fan. The tone, the plot and even the musical score remain faithful to the game, which results in a visual world that instantly feels familiar. However, the same could be said for Uwe Boll's glorious computer game adaptations. The difference between "Silent Hill" and "House Of The Dead", for example, is this film's ability to stand alone without prior knowledge of the game.
Christophe Gans begins his film with an ominous sequence that shows Rose frantically chase her sleepwalking daughter, Sharon, to the side of a cliff. Sharon wakes up and says "Silent Hill", the name of an abandoned town. Such is the simplicity of the film's premise - a mother decides to take her daughter to a town that she has mentioned in her sleep. This seemingly innocuous set-up belies the twists and turns that occur when Rose and Sharon finally arrive in Silent Hill. In fact, the film begins much like an Asian horror movie, deriving suspense from random creepy events and an ominous tone. "Silent Hill" works very well on this level, due to the stylish cinematography and creative art design.
The first half of the film moves slowly enough for the audience to learn more about the characters and appreciate the depth of Rose's maternal instinct for Sharon. Australian actress, Radha Mitchell delivers her best performance since moving to Hollywood as Rose. There is something wonderfully ordinary about Radha, which in turn makes Rose sympathetic and credible, despite the incredible scenarios in which she finds herself. This part of the film also introduces Officer Cybil, played with flair by Laurie Holden. Cybil is initially suspicious of Rose but turns out to be her only ally in the world's least friendly town. The supporting cast is bursting with gifted character actors like Sean Bean, Alice Krige and Deborah Kara Unger but their roles are too small to make a significant impact on the film.
"Silent Hill" transforms from an eerie thriller into a fast-paced, supernatural horror movie when Rose loses Sharon to the Silent Hill locals. The second half of the film plays like a demented cross between "Aliens" and "The Village", only with more violence and gore. The segments, when the alarm sounds and the world literally turns to hell, contain some excellent special effects and editing. There are a couple of examples of poorly realised computer graphics but as a whole the visuals are stunning. The scene where Rose crawls past light sensitive drones in the basement is brilliant. The gore is surprisingly plentiful with victims being ripped apart and a mattress enacting a particularly painful revenge on one of the faithful.
There is much for gore hounds and gamers to enjoy in "Silent Hill". The majority of the film holds up very well for casual viewers; however the ending is destined to leave some people scratching their heads in confusion. Christophe Gans has displayed enough originality and flair to announce himself as a talent to watch. Bring on the sequel!
Christophe Gans begins his film with an ominous sequence that shows Rose frantically chase her sleepwalking daughter, Sharon, to the side of a cliff. Sharon wakes up and says "Silent Hill", the name of an abandoned town. Such is the simplicity of the film's premise - a mother decides to take her daughter to a town that she has mentioned in her sleep. This seemingly innocuous set-up belies the twists and turns that occur when Rose and Sharon finally arrive in Silent Hill. In fact, the film begins much like an Asian horror movie, deriving suspense from random creepy events and an ominous tone. "Silent Hill" works very well on this level, due to the stylish cinematography and creative art design.
The first half of the film moves slowly enough for the audience to learn more about the characters and appreciate the depth of Rose's maternal instinct for Sharon. Australian actress, Radha Mitchell delivers her best performance since moving to Hollywood as Rose. There is something wonderfully ordinary about Radha, which in turn makes Rose sympathetic and credible, despite the incredible scenarios in which she finds herself. This part of the film also introduces Officer Cybil, played with flair by Laurie Holden. Cybil is initially suspicious of Rose but turns out to be her only ally in the world's least friendly town. The supporting cast is bursting with gifted character actors like Sean Bean, Alice Krige and Deborah Kara Unger but their roles are too small to make a significant impact on the film.
"Silent Hill" transforms from an eerie thriller into a fast-paced, supernatural horror movie when Rose loses Sharon to the Silent Hill locals. The second half of the film plays like a demented cross between "Aliens" and "The Village", only with more violence and gore. The segments, when the alarm sounds and the world literally turns to hell, contain some excellent special effects and editing. There are a couple of examples of poorly realised computer graphics but as a whole the visuals are stunning. The scene where Rose crawls past light sensitive drones in the basement is brilliant. The gore is surprisingly plentiful with victims being ripped apart and a mattress enacting a particularly painful revenge on one of the faithful.
There is much for gore hounds and gamers to enjoy in "Silent Hill". The majority of the film holds up very well for casual viewers; however the ending is destined to leave some people scratching their heads in confusion. Christophe Gans has displayed enough originality and flair to announce himself as a talent to watch. Bring on the sequel!
Mirror is a disconcerting film. There is no plot, at least in the traditional sense of the word, and much of what happens is steeped in heavy symbolism. And yet, Andrei Tarkovsky weaves the hard truths and brutal realities of everyday life into Mirror's surrealist tapestry with an effortlessness that makes the film utterly compelling. Not only do the real and surreal collide; time shifts randomly and the natural world becomes a character in its own right. I hate to think how unbearably pretentious this film could have been in the wrong hands. Tarkovsky, however, walks the fine line between art and facade with supreme skill. Mirror is an experience to be savoured.
Few films are as open to interpretation as this one. The beauty of Mirror is that allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions without being intentionally baffling or obtuse. The film is told in a non-linear fashion with events occurring in the present, past and quite possibly the future - depending on your interpretation. Pieces of a central narrative slowly begin to emerge and take shape. Mirror casts light upon the various stages of Alexei's life. However, this film is about more than one man. Alexei is a representation of humanity itself - at least, that is how I interpret the film. Tarkovsky uses Alexei's story as a vehicle for exploring the transcendent nature of human relationships. This may sound heavy going but it's not. Mirror has a dreamlike quality that washes over, rather than overwhelms, the viewer.
Tarkovsky was one of cinema's true originals. Many directors have played around with colour changes and time shifts but very few of them did it with Tarkovsky's sense of purpose. Small details in Mirror take on symbolic meanings, which further the story - this is not an exercise in empty symbolism. For example, Tarkovsky uses the natural world to link scenes and depict the passing of time. The startling use of rain and wind also contributes to the film's surreal tone. One of the most impressive aspects of the film is the director's ability to marry the real with the surreal. For every fire burning in the rain, there is the bleak image of a child sleeping in a box. Tarkovsky takes excerpts from one person's life and builds a commentary on humanity itself.
Volumes could be and possibly have been written about Mirror's multitude of layers and meanings. This film is so incredibly rich in ideas and artistry that it is almost impossible to process everything in one viewing. However, after the first viewing, you will know if Mirror is for you. The film, if nothing else, is a polarising experience. I expected to hate it given my general aversion to "arthouse" movies but was overcome by the film's humility. Unlike the majority of his colleagues, I never get the feeling that Tarkovsky is grandstanding or trying to show off his mastery. He films Alexei's story in a straightforward manner with simple angles and long shots. For a film that incorporates documentary footage of atomic explosions, bullfighting and Chinese demonstrations, Mirror remains masterfully subtle.
Tarkovsky's striking eye for composition and his ability to combine eclectic elements is without comparison. However, the film offers more than a series of captivating and confounding images. Mirror's greatest achievement is to capture a sense of what it is to be human, in a manner that is neither pompous nor pretentious. This is a hauntingly beautiful film.
Few films are as open to interpretation as this one. The beauty of Mirror is that allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions without being intentionally baffling or obtuse. The film is told in a non-linear fashion with events occurring in the present, past and quite possibly the future - depending on your interpretation. Pieces of a central narrative slowly begin to emerge and take shape. Mirror casts light upon the various stages of Alexei's life. However, this film is about more than one man. Alexei is a representation of humanity itself - at least, that is how I interpret the film. Tarkovsky uses Alexei's story as a vehicle for exploring the transcendent nature of human relationships. This may sound heavy going but it's not. Mirror has a dreamlike quality that washes over, rather than overwhelms, the viewer.
Tarkovsky was one of cinema's true originals. Many directors have played around with colour changes and time shifts but very few of them did it with Tarkovsky's sense of purpose. Small details in Mirror take on symbolic meanings, which further the story - this is not an exercise in empty symbolism. For example, Tarkovsky uses the natural world to link scenes and depict the passing of time. The startling use of rain and wind also contributes to the film's surreal tone. One of the most impressive aspects of the film is the director's ability to marry the real with the surreal. For every fire burning in the rain, there is the bleak image of a child sleeping in a box. Tarkovsky takes excerpts from one person's life and builds a commentary on humanity itself.
Volumes could be and possibly have been written about Mirror's multitude of layers and meanings. This film is so incredibly rich in ideas and artistry that it is almost impossible to process everything in one viewing. However, after the first viewing, you will know if Mirror is for you. The film, if nothing else, is a polarising experience. I expected to hate it given my general aversion to "arthouse" movies but was overcome by the film's humility. Unlike the majority of his colleagues, I never get the feeling that Tarkovsky is grandstanding or trying to show off his mastery. He films Alexei's story in a straightforward manner with simple angles and long shots. For a film that incorporates documentary footage of atomic explosions, bullfighting and Chinese demonstrations, Mirror remains masterfully subtle.
Tarkovsky's striking eye for composition and his ability to combine eclectic elements is without comparison. However, the film offers more than a series of captivating and confounding images. Mirror's greatest achievement is to capture a sense of what it is to be human, in a manner that is neither pompous nor pretentious. This is a hauntingly beautiful film.