Film Review: PRIEST (2011)

Director: Scott Charles Stewart
Writers: Cory Goodman, Min-Woo Hyung (graphic novel series “Priest”)
Running time: 84 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

Genre: Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
UK Release date: 6^th May 2011

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 5^th February 2012.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This is one of those films that got slammed by the critics and didn’t do all that well at the box office. I did still want to see it though. Having never read the graphic novels I was totally open to what the film had to offer; I knew there was a sci-fi element to it (very obvious from the trailer) and I guess it is that which attracted me. Anyhow, having watched, and enjoyed, it I’m very happy to add it to my growing list of ‘guilty pleasures’. I will tell you more after this brief summary.

Set in a future where the world had been overrun by vampires and the only weapon humanity had was ‘The Priests’, a group of people with super-human abilities that match and surpass those of the vampires. When the war was won and the vampires locked away the church disbanded the Priests and took away their status. After his niece, Lucy, is kidnapped by a renegade band of vampires one of these priests disobeys his superiors and goes out into the wastelands to find her. He meets a law man, Hicks, who knows his niece and wants to come along to find her. The priest agrees and they are soon on the trail. They discover the vampires have been busy in the wastelands and they are more of a threat than they ever were. They have a new leader, a former Priest, Black Hat, who is something very different and very special. A priestess is sent out to find our priest and bring him back, but she ends up joining their fight. Will they find Lucy before it’s too late? Well, you probably guessed I can’t answer that one here or the Spoiler Police (Priest Division) will be setting their sights on me (again).

A well made film with some very nice CGI and gadgetry, a lot of care obviously went into this aspect. Performance-wise, well everyone was pretty good actually; Paul Bettany was as good as ever as Priest, Karl Urban was mean, moody and menacing as Black Hat, Cam Gigandet did a decent job as Hicks and Maggie Q was also good as the Priestess. Honourable mentions go to; Lily Collins as Lucy Pace and Christopher Plummer as Monsignor Orelas.

There is a very good animated sequence at the beginning of the film that nicely sets up the history behind the storyline. I thought it was very well done and saved a lot of time in the narrative of the film itself. Talking of time, I thought the length of the film was just right; at just under 90 minutes there’s not enough time to get bored as the action does move along at a decent pace. One thing it did suffer from though was its 12 (or 12A in cinemas) certificate, I don’t see how you can make a half-decent action movie and keep the violence down to that level. For me it tamed it down a little too much and I would have liked to have seen at least a 15 certificate version. I watched it in 2D, 3D is lost on me… I don’t see the point of it I’m afraid. I have no religious affiliations and so was not offended by references made to the church. I know some might be, so please bear this in mind if you feel inclined to watch it. Over all, despite a few niggles; I quite enjoyed this film and would happily watch it again at some point. For me, it’s recommended, but I know there are many out there who may disagree.

My score: 6.8/10.

IMDb Score: 5.7/10 (based on 39,510 votes at the time of going to press).
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0822847/

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 17/100 (based on 90 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 37/100 (based on 48,431 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009274-priest/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

FAVOURITE QUOTES:
Black Hat: [With an evil smirk] After all, if you're not committing sin... you're not having fun.

Priest: [Hicks has finally grown a pair and saves Priest's life] You would have made a good priest.
Hicks: Thanks!
Priest: [Small pause] Don't let it go to your head!

Hicks: [Priest is carving crosses into bullets] What's with all the bullets? I thought priests didn't use firearms.
Priest: We don't. They're for you.

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Official Site: http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/priest/
Official Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/PriestMovie
Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PriestMovie?sk=app_107916972622270
Trailer:

Film Review: THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING (1975)

Co-Writer (screenplay)/Director: John Huston
Running time: 129 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): PG

Genre: Action/Adventure
UK Release date: 18^th December 1975

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 15^th October 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Based on a story by Rudyard Kipling, this is one of those films that I’ve always wanted to see but never managed to, until today. The gods of time were always against me with this one… I’d always turn over when it was half way through, or there would be something else I wanted to see on the other side, but I finally bagged & tagged it today! A film of great scope with a lot of action and adventure, it keeps you guessing until the end. I enjoyed it, with a few reservations, but more of that after this brief summary.

Late one night, a shadowy figure visits reporter, Rudyard Kipling, in his office in India. The visitor is Peachy Carnehan, and he is there to tell Kipling a tale. He reminds Kipling that they had previously met three years ago when he had witnessed a contract between Peachy and his colleague, and friend, Daniel Dravot. The two men, latter-day confidence tricksters, had recently left the army in India and had decided to go and seek their fortune in the little-known land of Kafiristan. The contract stated that they would abstain from alcohol and women for the duration of their adventure… amongst other things. They set off and after a torturous journey they finally arrive. Having scared off some natives with their rifles, they are surprised to find a Ghurkha living in one of the villages. He was the only survivor of a geological expedition several years earlier. This man, known as ‘Billy Fish’ would act as interpreter for the pair. And so they begin their rise to power by persuading the leader of the village to let them train their men so they can defeat all his enemies. Things continue in a similar vein until Daniel is hit with an arrow that doesn’t kill him in a battle. Word of this gets back to the holy city of the region and the pair is summoned. I won’t say any more because what happens next is key to the whole plot & I don’t want the Spoiler Police raising an army and chasing me down.

Very well made a beautifully shot, but you wouldn’t expect anything less from the likes of John Huston. Great performances all round, particularly from Sean Connery as Daniel Dravot and Michael Caine as Peachy Carnehan, they seemed to spark off each other really well. It’s a shame they haven’t made more films together on this evidence. Also worthy of note were Christopher Plummer as Rudyard Kipling and Saeed Jaffrey as Billy Fish.

There is some great dialogue in this film and it is delivered with great aplomb by both leading actors. They are supposed to be common men; non-commissioned officers of her majesty’s army, and that’s just what they speak like. Very much an old-fashioned adventure film, it really delivers on that front. I mentioned there was a problem with it though, and it’s that it’s just too damn long, you could easily lose thirty minutes of the running time from the beginning and the film would be just as good, if not better (in my book). If it wasn’t for this I would have definitely scored it higher, but even so, it still a great film and comes with my seal of approval… Recommended.

My Score: 7.8/10.

IMDb Score: 8.0/10 (based on 20,799 votes at the time of going to press).
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0073341/

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 96/100 (based on 23 reviews counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/man_who_would_be_king/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

FAVOURITE QUOTES:

Peachy Carnehan: Home to what? A porters uniform outside a restaurant and six penny tips from belching civilians for closing cab doors on their blowzy women?
Daniel Dravot: Not for us thank you. Not after watching Afghans come howling down out of the hills and taking battlefield command when all the officers copped it.
Peachy Carnehan: Well said, brother Dravot.

Daniel Dravot: In any place where they fight, a man who knows how to drill men can always be a King. We shall go to those parts and say to any King we find - "D'you want to vanquish your foes?' and we will show him how to drill men; for that we know better than anything else. Then we will subvert that King and seize his Throne and establish a Dynasty.

Daniel Dravot: Billy Fish, do they always use such a big ball?
Billy Fish: Depend on size of man's head. Big head, big ball, small head, small ball. That Bashki man. Oh big damn head

Billy Fish: [On being offered a horse to escape a battle] Ghurkha is foot soldier, not cavalry.

LINKS:
Trailer:

Film Review: DOLORES CLAIBORNE (1995)

Director: Taylor Hackford
Novel by: Stephen King
Running time: 132 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

Genre: Drama/Mystery/Thriller
UK Release date: 8^th September 1995

Watched on Sky+ Monday 25^th July 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

As some of you may know, I am a fan of the work of Stephen King and as such I’m interested in film adaptations of his work. Unfortunately, many of them are quite bad, fortunately this isn’t one of those. I hadn’t got round to reading the book before seeing this, but I don’t think that affected my enjoyment of it. King invents such great characters and this is a case in point, some really well rounded characters and a mystery thriller to boot! Who couldn’t ask for more? Here’s a brief summary before I give you my take on it.

We begin with the death of Vera Donovan, a rich old lady who lived alone with her carer, Dolores Claiborne. We find Vera at the bottom of the stairs with Dolores standing beside her, arms raised with a heavy rolling pin in her hands. She expires before Dolores uses it, but on that evidence, it doesn’t look good for her. In New York, Dolores has a daughter, Selena, a journalist, who is faxed a copy of a local news report about the case. She arrives in the small town on an island off the coast of Maine to find her mother at the police station. Detective John Mackey, who is running the investigation is keeping here there because the house she was living in, Vera’s, is now a crime scene. Dolores decides to stay in her own house, the one she had shared with her abusive husband, Joe St. George and Selena, before he died many years before. Detective Mackey had investigated that death too, and had been suspicious that Dolores was responsible, but couldn’t prove it. There is a lot of tension between Dolores and Selena, both have secrets. Secrets that are about to be revealed… I’ll leave it there so them Spoiler Police don’t try to throw me down a well or something.

This is a very well made film that obviously had a decent budget. The sets and locations match the mood perfectly. I admit I was a little disappointed at how dull it all looked at first, but I soon realised that all of the flashback scenes, and there’s quite a few of those, are all in vivid colour. As far as performances go, well I can’t fault Kathy Bates as Dolores Claiborne, she hardly put a foot wrong, a masterful performance! Jennifer Jason Leigh also put in a good turn as Selena St. George, as did Judy Parfitt as Vera Donovan. I should also mention Christopher Plummer as Detective John Mackey and David Strathairn as Joe St. George, both also put in fine performances. John C. Reilly had a minor role as Const. Frank Stamshaw and finally a special mention for Ellen Muth, who did an excellent job as Young Selena in some of the flashback scenes.

I really enjoyed this film with its intriguing characters and a plot that always keeps you guessing. It has quite a slow pace and is quite melodramatic, but I didn’t mind that particularly, I was more interested in the characters and the plot. If I have one criticism, it is that it is a little too long and, because of this, it does seem to drag on a bit towards the end. Over all though, a film I very much enjoyed and one I can recommend to you.

My Score: 8.4/10

IMDb Score: 7.3/10 (14,832 votes when this review was written).
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 85/100 (33 reviews counted when this review was written).

LINKS:
Trailer:

Film Review: THE NEW WORLD (2005)

Writer/Director: Terrence Malick
Running time: 135 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12A

Genre: Drama/Biography/History
UK Release date: 27th January 2006

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 10th July 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This film was recommended to me and so, on good faith alone, I sat down to watch. I’ve heard many good things about Terrence Malick over the years and so was looking forward to a bit of a cinematic treat. Sometime things don’t turn out the way you expect and this was one of those occasions. I will explain more after this brief summary.

It is the early 1600’s and the eastern seaboard of America is being discovered and colonised. A group of English explorers find a place on the coast of Virginia and set up a base there. They send a group lead by Captain Smith out to trade with the natives. They capture him and are about to execute him when he is saved by the Chief’s daughter, Pocahontas. Thus begins the famous love story. Eventually, after helping the colonists more than once, she is forced to go and live with them. Captain Smith is called back to England by the King and Pocahontas is left alone. Believing he is dead she takes a husband, John Rolfe, but this is not the end of the story. There, I said it was going to be brief.

On the positive side this film is beautifully shot with some beautiful scenery and great set pieces. Performance-wise, nobody put a foot wrong, Colin Farrell did a fine job as Captain Smith, although I felt he was totally miscast (more on that later). Q'orianka Kilcher was also great as Pocahontas, as was Christopher Plummer as Captain Newport and Christian Bale as John Rolfe. It just didn’t have any energy about it. I felt so depressed by the time I got to the end of the two hours and thirty minutes.

On the casting, although I have nothing against Colin Farrell, he’s a fine actor who has appeared in some great films. I just felt he was totally wrong for this role, to have an Irish man (with an Irish accent) playing the part of an English man I find totally stupid and slightly offensive. But enough of that, back to the film, I it found quite boring and also very depressing. It’s very ‘artsy’ with the characters inner thoughts being voiced, but it just didn’t work for me. I will give it a half decent score for the visuals and the music wasn’t too bad either, but unless you’ve got a spare two hours and thirty minutes of you life you don’t want back… Not recommended.

My Score: 5.6/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0402399/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1152954-new_world/
Official Site: http://www.newline.com/properties/newworldthe.html
Trailer:

Film Review: THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS (2009)

Co-Writer/Director: Terry Gilliam
Running time: 117 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12A

Genre: Fantasy/Adventure/Drama
UK Release date: 16th October 2009

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 12th March 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This is my 50th film this year, and by coincidence I decided to watch a film that has intrigued me for some time. There was a lot of talk about this one due to the unfortunate death of Heath Ledger. I know it didn’t get a rapturous reception, but I have been keen to see it ever since. I’ll give you my thoughts later, but here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those that don’t wish to know anything about the plot please attract some punters for the show while I write the next paragraph).

Doctor Parnassus is a very old man, over a thousand years old, and he runs a travelling show, The Imaginarium. Putting himself in a trance-like state, he can make the dreams of anyone that walks through the magic mirror come to life. He is helped by his daughter, Valentina, a young man, Anton, and a man of small stature, Percy. One day they come across a man who is not in the best of situations, who they rescue. It turns out his name is Tony and he offers to help them with the show. Meanwhile, Doctor Parnassus is keeping a secret from his daughter, a secret involving the mysterious character known as Mr. Nick. Valentina will soon be sixteen and the Doctor is getting more desperate to get more people to try his show. I will leave my short summary there so as not to upset the spoiler police out there.

I always enjoy the visual spectacle of a Terry Gilliam film, he has such wonderful vision and always comes up with something both spectacular and utterly crazy at the same time. The scenes inside the Imaginarium and certain other key scenes are truly spectacular, a great feast for the eyes. Unfortunately in the real world it doesn’t work quite so well. Decent performances all round, Heath Ledger did a good job as Tony, as did Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell who all took turns with the part of Tony when he as inside the Imaginarium. Christopher Plummer was good as Doctor Parnassus and Andrew Garfield was great as Anton. Lily Cole did a fine job as Valentina and Verne Troyer was also good as Percy. Finally, a mention for Tom Waits who I thought was excellent as Mr. Nick.

I know there were problems with the production of this film, not least the loss of one of the leading men, but it did, unfortunately, fall a little short of the mark. As I’ve already said, certain parts of it are visually stunning, but this doesn’t make up for a script that was not all that great. I could follow the plot ok, but I found some of the dialogue sounded a little “off the cuff” and some of the characters were not fully developed enough. Over all though, I did quite enjoy it, and I will probably watch it again someday… Recommended for at least one viewing.

My score: 7.1/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1190561-imaginarium_of_doctor_parnassus/
Official Site: http://www.needcoffee.com/doctor-parnassus/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi944374297/