Last night I went to see the latest Jurassic Park film. I travelled to the Cineworld Cinema in Rochester. The tide was low, I could see the whole mud back. The place looked quite picturesque in the dimming sun. As is my custom I rated this film on the IMDB site and you should read the rating system within this communcation.
Do you know what? I just tried to settle down and watch this film and enjoy it. Yes, it was terrible. The plot was shocking. The script was poor and everyone can outrun a volcano. They did get Jeff Goldbloom in for a couple of shots in the studio but they left the action to the younger actors. I just tried to enojy it as an action film and not be too picky.
There must be some form a rule that indicates that sequels are really bad, except for the Godfather and I haven’t seen those movies. This is film number 5 is the series and it was as you would expect for the fifth film in a series when there is only one plot.
Was it film four when they designed a new type of dinosaur? It wasn’t long before the capitialist pigs would take that dinosaur and then try to create an army with them. There was a lot wrong with this film. But I suspended an awful lot of disbelief and managed my best to enjoy the experience.
I remember seeing the first film in Harlow and it was an utter rush. Spielberg did an amazing job creating a world where dinosaurs exist. The original film made me so excited and scared I loved it. Unfortunately for kids these days they get to follow it up with tripe.
Oh, why were there kids under the age of 10 in the cinema when it’s a film that finished at 21:45?
Foremost, be warned I am struggling with this one. I have spent the last 18 hours wondering what rating to give it. I’m concerned I’m in a bad mood but don’t think so, I’m just puzzled by this film. But first, there are routines to get through.
I went, on a glorious sunny day, to sit in the dark at the Cineworld cinema in [not] Rochester. I now comment on the tide, as the river is tidal, at this point. The tide was in and I took a pretty picture to confirm that. If you look carefully you can see the historic Rochester castle and cathedral.
High Tide Rochester
I rated this film on IMDB and you should read this communication about the scoring system. This is where the controversy starts I think:
So, I should now go ahead and explain my rating and thoughts.
Bad Thing
This film started by playing “Jump” by Van Halen. This is a good song, it’s iconic, but I was instantly reminded that a good soundtrack does not make the film. Suicide Squad was a shit film but had a great soundtrack of classic 80s songs that everyone knows. So, let’s ignore the music.
Bad Thing
I don’t think the voice over was necessary. Films are made better without exposition. Build your explanations into the film, release the details slowly. Make the audience earn the story. Let’s ignore that.
Good/Bad Thing
There were so many 80s cultural references, along with a glaring one from 1991 and Terminator 2, that these were unsubtle. They were rammed into your retina. I guess I missed many as I’m not a massive 80s whore, but my mate Pom would get more. I think he’d like that part of the film. This film is like a greatest hits of popular culture.
An Aside
If pop-culture is the stuff that is popular does culture mean all that upper class shit that critics like? The stuff that isn’t popular? Should that be called culture?
Impressive Thing
The CGI was hugely impressive. We have been at the point of photo-realism for years now and there are many parts of films that are CGI but I don’t think people realise. It’s a cheap way to lend credibility to a film by adding small details. So, the virtual world looked and felt fantastic. Well done [although it’s not outside the realms of technology or new].
Annoying Thing
The avatars of the characters were remarkably like their IRL characters. Their facial features were quite Cameron’s Avatar like. This is probably to avoid the uncanny valley. The oriental characters were played in-game by oriental builds. The large kid chose to be an over-modded large character and the lead turned out to be white kid. They all played their own gender and they all kept their real life features. This was bollocks. It was Hollywood.
More Annoying Thing
All the clan in the game came from pretty much the same area of the USA?? What utter rubbish. The idea that online players in this game would be anywhere near each other was appalling.
While We Are At It
The girl didn’t think she was “pretty” in real life. She didn’t want to meet the lead character. Well, it turns out she IS pretty. All she has is a birth mark that covers here eye. IT’S NOT EVEN A BAD BIRTHMARK. What bollocks, this was very annoying.
Slums
The futuristic slum area was essentially just a trailer park made futuristic. Do you know what? I’m happy with that. I liked it.
VR
There has to be a point where developers decide whether to include force feedback into suits and movement or not. I suspect it will go ahead because: porn. So, the IRL people have walkways so that their movements are mimicked in the game. But, how does the flying and dancing work? What about INERTIA? Why are people in the streets playing the game? Are they walking form one place to another? Can they see the real world while they are in the game? I don’t understand.
Being in a computer game doesn’t give you superhuman reactions. You just can’t run, race, fight, fly, drive at those speeds and still react as a human. It might be that the apologetic is that the game avatars have extra modifications that allow them to react within the game to threats. This I guess is a good explanation but the speed of the gaming and fight scenes along with the driving section was implausible.
Beating The Game
When you are facing a bigger opponent in a game and you are going to lose all your coin why don’t you just quit and leave the game. That makes sense to me.
Story Arc [SPOILERS]
White american kid takes on a corporation with his friends. He gets the girl. Wins riches beyond his dreams and frees the world. Such bullshit.
It was nice to see Hannah John-Kamen again.
Now, I’ve been writing this stuff down I can see that I just wasn’t impressed. Yes, there are great songs and brilliant references to other films but once you remove that stuff the overall story and ideas are just pretty poor.
I’m trying to realign my IMDB scores with the initial intention rather than score higher than where the films should be. I have been concerned with ratings-inflation for a while now and feel I am getting back to where it should be. There is a chance this one is going to be quite controversial but message me if you are bothered.
I went to see Peter Rabbit. The tide was halfway in the river and on the way in I guess as it was fully in on the way home. I rated this film on IMDB and you should probably see this communication which goes someway to explain how the grading system works.
I didn’t really like this film. I will admit that I found it funny at times, but humour doesn’t make a good film. I will also admit that I have never read any Beatrix Potter and have no emotional attachment to Peter Rabbit or any of the rest of the folks.
This is likely to descend into a discussion about the role that film plays within our society and for that I apologise in advance. There is a argument that this is a kids movie, it’s meant to be entertaining, the deeper lessons from this movie don’t need to be analysed because it’s meant for entertainment and we love these sorts of stories.
After the opening credits I was quite distressed as four birds flew across the sky singing and my thoughts were “Oh, shit. No one told me this was a musical, I will hate it”. The singing didn’t last long and that went on to become a running joke.
If I was being generous then I would say this is a cute family film with some slap-stick violence. I’m not in the mood for being generous though. I want to look at this film through the lens of social change in influence.
The messages from this film are mostly about the acceptance of illegality, violence and lies. The two human characters fall in love even though the male lies constantly for ninety percent of the film. The female is unaware of how obvious these lies are and yet she fully accepts this man at the end of the film. The rabbits in this film are vermin, much to their consternation. They invade and steal property consistently throughout the film, it’s ok to steal if what you take is “definitely yours” by a thought process of seeing things and so wanting things.
The bullying by Peter on his family is pretty bad. He’s a tearaway character, acting on impulses with little regard for the welfare of those he drags through his capers. He only stops to think once the damage has been done and even then he self-justifies his actions as the proper course. He is an horrible character. He gets away with these things in the eyes of the audience because he is cheeky and winks at times.
This film showed it’s OK to fight and to electrocute people to get what you want. It’s perfectly OK and even justified to harm humans if you are an anthropomorphised rabbit. You actions are deserving of praise because you are stealing the food that grows in someone else’s property. They live in the luscious countryside of the Lake District and yet these rabbits couldn’t find food? I don’t want to defend property ownership entirely. I have massive issues with the few who own the majority of everything. But, I’m just looking at the messages in this film.
In the end the woman still falls in love with the liar even though she knows he’s a liar. The violence of the rabbits gains them acceptance in the human world and the man changes. Perhaps in some ways this narrative is about the struggle of the small and weak to gain recognition. But, I’m not convinced. The ambitious toff keeps control in the end, restoring the natural order of things where the british love being subservient to the higher born.
It’s curious the level of violence that is normalised in TV and film. It starts early with Tom and Jerry. Then it moves to the Tom and Jerry satire which was the Itchy and Scratchy Show. Stop and have a look at cartoons and superhero films and examine the motives behind them. Do they teach fighting is OK? Do they teach about a natural order of human behaviour with hereditary leaders making decisions for the rest of us? Do they reinforce the current standing of your class?
Perhaps it will always end up with a few families controlling this planet not matter where we start. Maybe it’s because humans are nasty, violent creatures who need to have a sense of order and place-in-society to function. The issue is that it’s always the little man who gets crushed by this.
Maybe this film is just a fun-filled family caper but I do suspect it’s more sinister than that.
I went to watch Red Sparrow at the cinema in Rochester. I definitely did check the state of the tide and it was neither fully in nor fully out. I have no idea which way it was travelling. I rate the films I see at the cinema on IMDB and there’s a guide to the scoring system in this communication. With the current score I believe I am shifting the scores I give back to a proper system. I’ve been worried that my scores have been creeping.
So, clearly I didn’t like it. I am going to sneak over to some reputable websites and read a few reviews of this movie because I found it mostly poor. I’m probably going to end up with spoilers in the following text so you may want to not read on.
The premise that Russia is using sex and honey-traps to entice people into betraying their country isn’t new or exciting. In fact the whole “training” section of this movie had absolutely zero effect on the rest of the movie. You could remove that entire section and the movie would still make sense. This means it was pointless. It wasn’t even insightful. It encouraged spies to be rape and get raped. It was pretty shit. All it did was set up the idea that our heroine wouldn’t sleep with just anyone. Oh, that and allow a gratuitous nude shot of the lead.
I got about 75% through this movie and ended up confused about who was going where to do what and I stopped caring. It seemed remarkable that the Russian spy agency wasn’t watching their own spy as she travelled around screwing them over. She was a famous person being a spy. This is utter rubbish. We all know spies blend in. They don’t stand out.
Who can open a bank account in another person’s name with just their passport number? Really?
This movie contained violence, torture porn, blood, and overall was a bit shit. I don’t recommend it.
I went to Rochester Cineworld to see the latest Lego movie. I’ve seen a few of them before. I reviewed the Batman one in this communication. The tide was quite low and the mudflats were exposed. I wondered about dredging for a while and whether there is a natural deepwater channel in the centre of the Medway. I rated this film on IMDB and the discussion about the ratings system is in this communication although I may have to change the system.
I just didn’t really think this film was very good. It suffered with quite a bit of “too much in it” which I first noticed with the Transformers movie where the CGI is so fast and too much it’s hard to really see what’s happening on the screen. This problem could also be a side effect of me getting old, hence I loved Blade Runner because of its lingering shots.
The plot of this film was rudimentary and certainly wasn’t anything new. Largely it bored me. While I understand the Lego are on a massive expansion programme with loads of new sets being created and sales increasing I think that sometimes it’s OK for a company to say “You know what? We are doing OK. There’s no need for massive expansion, we can concentrate on doing what we do and do it well”.
Travelled to see Captain Underpants this morning. I went to Rochester and then after the film I rated it on IMDB. You can read my rules for the rating system in this communication. I posted the rating on Twitter.
I found this film to be very enjoyable. I’d possibly even watch it again if it was on TV and I’d definitely go and see any sequels. The story was silly and stupid but the friendship and humour displayed was truly affectionate. It’s a story about friendship more than anything else and I really liked it.
There’s not really a great deal more for me to say about it. I enjoyed it.
It’s been a while and so I thought I’d better catch up with some films. There are a few I want to see and Dunkirk is the first of them. It’s going to take a couple of weeks because of prior engagements.
I went to the Cineworld cinema at Rochester along the banks of the river Medway. I rated this film on IMDB and you should read this communication regarding the scores.
Normally when I watch a film I think about what I’m going to write on this website. Certain sentences and ideas strike me and I hope to remember them before I commit pen to paper [in a sense]. I have very little for you from this film.
It was very enjoyable. It was also a reminder of the terrible cost of war.
I liked all of the sequences but I especially liked the aircraft and the flying scenes. It was all very realistic.
The last moment with Churchill’s “Fight Them On The Beaches” speech was chilling and emotional. I also liked the lack of dialogue in this film, it added to the overall feel and emotion.
I went to the cinema to see a Planet of the Apes film. It is usual for me to travel to Rochester and I did the same thing for this film. I rated it on the IMDB website and you can read a discussion of how I grade films in this communication.
I wasn’t really sure whether to make this a 4 or a 6. I only went for a six because I thought it better than everything I recorded as a four, but I wasn’t that impressed. I wrote about the previous film here.
This film looked bloody gorgeous. It was beautiful. It was computerised. It was 3D which does fuck all for me. The apes looked great.
Now for the story. It was pretty shit. Maybe I missed loads of deep ape-becomes-man subtext with all the staring shots into Caesar’s eyes and face but I’m not sure. If the director was making large philosophical statements then I missed them. I’m really one for deep and thoughtful metaphors.
This was a slow war. The middle 7/8 of this film was slow and boring. Stuff happened but it didn’t really matter. There’s a virus somewhere. There are humans killing each other and apes because if there’s one thing we do really well it’s killing each other. There’s a prison break out and some stupid comedy. Mostly though, this film didn’t really matter. There wasn’t a meaning in there.
A later afternoon jaunt to the cinema at Rochester revealed the inner workings of Gansta rap. My customary rating on IMDB follows, but only once you’ve read this communication about the rating system.
I’m quite happy to listen to rap music, or most kinds of music. So, I was curious as to what this film would be like and how much it would tell me about Tupac and his music. I learnt some of what his music was about and how he wanted his sound. I got a little of what his work meant to him and the story he wanted to tell.
The biggest part of this story seemed to be that even if you make it big you don’t get all the money and the record companies will screw you over.
Having just spent quite a while ranting to all who know me and in this communication about my ideas of politics then watching a film showing the inequalities of being black in the USA [or probably most countries] did not result in my mood becoming happier. However, there wasn’t really any activism in this movie.
All the scenes were shot from a Tupac point of view and I don’t know what really happened or the stories behind them. Perhaps with was whitewashing the history or perhaps it was accurate. I doubt he was an angel.
I am not going to change music style and I enjoyed listening to the tracks within the film. I would claim that the lyric disturb me, but they don’t. I have and do listen to lyrics far worse/better depending on your view.
Last night I celebrated my first night of freedom from exam marking with a trip to the cinema. I chose to go and see My Cousin Rachel largely because all the other films looked terrible. I don’t want to see the Mummy reboot or the latest Pirates film. I didn’t know a great deal about My Cousin Rachel. I went to the Cienworld Cinema at Rochester, the tide wasn’t in or out.
As is custom on this site I rate films out of 10 on the IMDB website but there are rules and reasons and perhaps you could kindly read this communication.
I’m not that fussed by period dramas. I’m not that fussed by book adaptations. I don’t like films which reinforce the failed concept of a Lord Of The Manor doing good for his people and looking after them, it perpetuates the concept of government FOR the people and that doesn’t seem to exist. I do like Cornwall though.
The short version of this review would be “men and their dicks, eh?”.
The longer version is that I actually enjoys this film. I spend some time worrying about candles and fire, the soot and cleanliness of houses and also wondering what you do once it’s dark outside. Did I say that Cornwall looks bloody lovely, such a beautiful county and filmed wonderfully.
“I say Jeeves, make me a picnic for two, now”. “Fuck you Sir”.
How my response would render me dead or in jail.
Anyway, my current anger at politicians and government is creeping into this review subtly.
So, a young man grows up in a privileged position within society and his uncle goes away and dies after marrying. When the widow turns up young man falls in love with her. But he falls ill. Is she killing him?
I enjoyed this film. It was good looking, sensitive and fun. I thought Rachel Weisz acted the bollocks out of it.
