‘Warlords of Atlantis’ is a 1978 science-fiction adventure film directed by Kevin Connor and starring Doug McClure. This movie marked the fourth collaboration between both actor and director – as well as producer John Dark – with their most successful film up to this point being 1974’s ‘The Land That Time Forgot.’
The American actor McClure – perhaps best known for the 1960’s TV series ‘The Virginian’ – was considered to be a bit of an action man back in the day, and it’s interesting to note that they were really using his reputation to promote ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ – for his name is printed almost as large as the film’s title on the poster!
But it wasn’t McClure’s machismo that first drew my attention to this movie, but rather the above photo that was featured in a science-fiction book that I owned as a child. Funnily enough, I only recently managed to get hold of a copy of the same book and then – around fifty years after first laying eyes on this image – I sat down and actually watched ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ for the very first time!
The movie gets right down to business, and takes us onboard the good ship Texas Rose somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. There, our two main characters Greg Collinson (Doug McClure) and Charles Aitken (Peter Gilmore) man a specially-designed diving bell and are lowered into the depths; hoping to discover the lost city of Atlantis.
But it was never going to be that easy…
Having fought off a sea monster that stuck its head inside the bell, Collinson and Aitken then discover a gold statue at the bottom of the ocean. Taking this as evidence of finding Atlantis, they have their priceless bounty hauled up to the ship – only to create a nasty eight-tentacled problem!
And yes! The deckhand in the above screenshot is none other than John Ratzenberger – who later became famous playing Cliff Clavin in ‘Cheers!’
The giant octopus proceeds to capture four crew members and take them all the way to Atlantis where they are reunited with Collinson and Aitken. Either that octopus was an extremely fast swimmer, or those men could hold their breaths for a very long time!
From here, ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ moves along at a brisk pace and introduces us to the various kingdoms of Atlantis, and throws in a Martian backstory just to add a little spice to proceedings, while the characters from the surface are trying to outsmart their captors and escape back to their ship.
For the remainder of its running time, the film delivers everything it promised and more; serving up aliens, sea monsters, bad haircuts and is never short of a good action sequence! There is a lot to appreciate here, for the sets and matte paintings are incredible – and I think the best way to highlight this is to let the screenshots below speak for themselves.
And now, for the slightly weird…
Forgive me for going off on a slight tangent here, but did you know that ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ has a little something for James Bond aficionados.
Let’s dive into this, shall we?
I was kicking myself when this actor first appeared on screen for I knew I’d seen him in something else – a film or TV show that I’d watched many times – and it took me some time to figure it out.
The actor’s name is Michael Gothard – who sadly died in 1992 at the age of 53 – and was best known for playing the villainous Emile Locque in 1981’s ‘For Your Eyes Only.’
The other James Bond connection is the man in the above photo playing Briggs; the captain of the ill-fated Mary Celeste and now a prisoner in Atlantis.
The actor is Robert Brown, who played ‘M’ in four films – from ‘Octopussy’ in 1983 to ‘Licence to Kill’ in 1989. Brown passed away in 2003 – aged 82.
Now, back to ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ and how the story ends.
So, our heroes manage to escape Atlantis and scramble their way back to their ship – but they are followed by the giant octopus who returns for a final fight!
While the monster is tearing the Texas Rose to pieces – and killing some of the crew members who tried to steal the gold statue for themselves – the good guys manage to slip away from the carnage in a small dinghy, giving us a happy ending!
So, here is my final assessment.
I’m a bit of a sucker for these cheesy science-fiction adventures, and have a great appreciation for the craftsmanship and imagination that goes into making these movies. As I get older, I find myself connecting more with the over-the-hill and slightly out-of-shape leading men headlining projects such as these, so it’s hard for me not to give a decent review.
Look, I found this film to be quite enjoyable. It’s an honest, easy-to-follow adventure story with enough imagination and excitement to keep the audience engaged throughout.
As I mentioned before, I have a soft spot for these types of movies – but I don’t think I’m being overly-biased in giving ‘Warlords of Atlantis’ a solid seven out of ten!
‘Warlords of Atlantis’ screenshots and photos courtesy of EMI Productions.
‘For Your Eyes Only’, ‘Octopussy’ and ‘Licence to Kill’ screenshots courtesy of Eon Productions and MGM/United Artists.
‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ is the second feature film from writer/director Andrew Patterson, and stars Matthew McConaughey as the titular character, with a solid supporting cast featuring Kurt Russell, Jake Horowitz and newcomer Angelina LookingGlass.
I’ve been looking forward to watching this film – ever since it was announced a couple of years back – as I really enjoyed Patterson’s debut movie ‘The Vast of Night’, which was a small budget production that was cleverly-written and masterfully shot. After a lengthy production process hindered by strikes and some creative issues, ‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ was finally given a theatrical release earlier this month, much to my great delight.
But here’s the thing: I suspect that this movie won’t go gangbusters in cinemas, but instead will find most of its audience on a streaming service between now and the end of the year. Therefore I am happy to offer an honest review of this film, but I will keep things short and sweet as I don’t want to give too much of the story away.
I will start by saying that Matthew McConaughey is on top of his game with his portrayal of Amziah King, who is a man best described as the pillar of his rural Oklahoma town. Not long into the film we are introduced to young Kateri – played by Angelina LookingGlass – who by chance stumbles her way back into Amziah’s life, having once been under his foster care when she was a younger girl. Here I will point out that the father-and-daughter chemistry between these two actors is incredible.
Whilst the film places a heavy focus on Amziah and Kateri, it also manages to expand seamlessly to bring the entire community into the fold; and through the townsfolk’s love of bluegrass music and ‘potlucks’ the audience is able to connect with these people and the manner in which they go about their daily lives. From the opening musical jam at the drive-in burger joint, to an outrageously weird accident scene in the honey factory, and then onto Amziah’s mentoring of Kateri and his way of welcoming her into the community – the first half of this movie is truly something special.
But then the main focus of the film shifts dramatically at the halfway mark, and having presented such a feel-good and inspirational story up to that point, it was always going to be difficult to maintain those high standards after turning everything upside-down. To be fair, the movie does play out quite well through to the end, with some eye-catching sequences and a real sense of the community all coming together for the greater good, but there is a feeling of lopsidedness to the story-telling that I just could not shake. Don’t get me wrong: it’s still a great film.
To date, ‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ has received very good reviews, and for the most part I don’t disagree there. It is a very enjoyable movie, but it is not the classic that some people are claiming it to be. However, this film is certainly unique and gives us an amazing snapshot of rural America, and is a real stand out for the way it presents the characters and connects the audience to them.
Again, I apologise for being so vague in this review, but I honestly don’t want to tarnish anyone’s enjoyment of this film by giving spoilers away. I don’t know what else to say other than I am still thinking about this movie a couple of days after watching it – and I can’t get some of the catchy bluegrass tunes out of my head! High praise indeed.
I would certainly recommend ‘The Rivals of Amziah King’ – happily giving it a score of eight out of ten – and I also suggest that you check out Andrew Patterson’s other movie ‘The Vast of Night.’
Screenshots and photos courtesy of Black Bear Pictures, Heyday Films and GED Media
‘The End of Oak Street’ was released in cinemas last week and is a survival horror film written and directed by David Robert Mitchell. It stars Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor as married couple Denise and Greg Platt who, along with their two teenage children Audrey and Brian, are transported back in time to the Jurassic Period after a freak atmospheric event swallows up their entire suburb.
At the time of writing, ‘The End of Oak Street’ has received mostly positive reviews, and box office sales are okay but not knocking it out of the park – perhaps this is understandable as both ‘Spiderman: Brand New Day’ and ‘The Odyssey’ have not yet finished their cinema runs.
I should also point out that this film is co-produced by Bad Robot, and therefore I suspect that J J Abrams would have played a major role in getting this project off the ground. Fifteen years ago, if I saw the Bad Robot brand or J J Abrams’ name attached to a movie or TV show – I would have been all over it! With a CV that included ‘Lost’, ‘Fringe’, ‘Mission: Impossible III’ and ‘Cloverfield’ to name just a few – it was understandable back in those days to get excited over anything produced by these guys. But this is definitely not the case anymore, with Abrams’ work in recent years dropping away considerably – and hitting rock bottom with the diabolical ‘The Rise of Skywalker.’
So, with David Robert Mitchell at the helm having only directed three films previously – the last of which was eight years ago – and with J J Abrams chiming in with some lens flare and ‘mystery boxes’, will ‘The End of Oak Street’ turn out to be alright?
Well, the short answer is yes.
‘The End of Oak Street’ pretty much delivers on what it has set out to achieve: – presenting a family-oriented science-fiction survival adventure, with a solid cast helped along by some crafty cinematography and a suspenseful soundtrack. The film is reasonably well-written, and the character development and background is set up neatly within the first ten minutes, which allows the story to quickly get to where it needs to go.
There are some clever visuals used in the early setup, such as an old Polaroid camera in one of the opening scenes that informs the audience of roughly when the story is set – and this is later confirmed to be nineteen-eighty-two. The timestamp is also further established by the playing of catchy pop songs from this era – which was a nice hit of nostalgia. It is also revealed that there is some marital trouble between Greg and Denise, which remains a constant undertone during the film – yet despite this added drama, the pacing remains smooth and consistent and does not get bogged down to any worrying degree. In fact, ‘The End of Oak Street’ cruises along and is fairly coherent: – giving the audience a solid story that runs its course all the way to a satisfying conclusion.
As far as the action is concerned, the dinosaurs were a constant threat and menace, and attacked anything that moved with ruthless savagery. Feathered velociraptor-type creatures and flying pterodactyls created the most havoc throughout the film, but the biggest villain was a larger spinosaurus monster that was constantly trying to eat the main characters. Not only would the Platt family have to survive against these aggressive foes, but also stay alive long enough to figure out a way back to their own time – and this is the basic premise of the movie.
To that end, ‘The End of Oak Street’ does all this very well.
However, there are a few weaker elements within that hinder what is a fairly good movie, making it fall short of becoming a top-shelf entry into the horror/adventure genre. In saying this, I accept that the film is a bit of escapism and in that sense it works very well, but there are a few scenes that spring up suddenly throughout that are nonsensical, and perhaps didn’t need to be there at all.
The first I will mention is when the neighbourhood bully literally jumps out of nowhere to settle a score with young Brian – deciding to beat him up even though dangerous dinosaurs were running rampant through the streets and tearing people to shreds. Surely the guy would have had more important things on his mind – such as staying alive? The sequence was pointless and illogical, and should have been left on the cutting room floor.
This point leads into another criticism I have of the story, where none of the neighbours even attempted to join forces in an effort to improve their chances of survival. I say this because the opening scene of the film showed the entire street getting together for a barbecue which established that everyone was close friends and got along very well. There was the initial panic with people trying to escape – which is granted – but surely there would have been a moment a day or two into this ordeal when the folks would have tried to reach out to their fellow residents.
Another moment that I found jarring was the dinosaur mating scene. No doubt this was put there to create a little levity, and might have worked as a ‘flash gag’ but it lingered on for a few minutes and showed the brontosaurus’ going at it from multiple angles. There was nothing lewd about it, for it comes across as a joke, but this did not work for me at all.
I have read other reviews that were a little more critical of ‘The End of Oak Street’, and these articles directed most of their angst toward the ‘girl-bossing.’ Look, we see this a lot these days and whilst some of the female bravado on show in this film was a little excessive, this did not bother me too much – and I’ve seen far worse in other movies. Personally, I thought that Ewan McGregor’s fake accent was more ridiculous and out-of-place than chicks kicking dinosaur butt!
I mentioned before that the film reached a satisfying conclusion, but in order to achieve this there was a ‘questionable’ time jump involved that I know many folks would describe as a plot hole. However, I did not see an issue here – and the paradox is consistent with J J Abrams and Bad Robot, as it is similar to the Spock/Kelvin time travel they used in ‘Star Trek‘ – and the co-existence of Spock Prime and the younger version of himself within the same dimension. Regardless of the theories and the science involved, I believe that some leeway can be given if it results in a happy ending and the good guys winning!
On a final note, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on other people’s observations of this film – for it had a ‘Cloverfield Universe’ feel to it, and perhaps there were a few clues within that I failed to notice. All the elements are there: – J J Abrams, time jumps and strange-looking creatures.
‘The End of Oak Street’ is a decent film that I enjoyed watching. Yes, I had a few gripes here and there, but it doesn’t take much away from the entertainment value – and I think most people who would go to watch this film would walk away reasonably satisfied.
I have not yet forgiven J J Abrams for his Star Wars debacle, and I don’t find Anne Hathaway physically intimidating and Ewan McGregor – despite working in Hollywood for decades – really needs to work on his American accent – but other than that, I’m giving this film a solid 7 out of 10!
‘The End of Oak Street’ is showing in cinemas now.
Screenshots and posters are courtesy of Bad Robot, Warner Bros Pictures and Jackson Pictures.
Having previously written a review for the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy – a series of independent horror/documentary films by British actor and director Carl Medland – I was given the opportunity to share my thoughts on his latest supernatural entry: – ‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting.’
‘Hollywood Haunting’ has only just been released on Amazon Prime Video, but at the time of writing is not yet available in the UK, so I will keep this article spoiler-free as best I can – but will put a warning in places where I may delve into plot areas and potential giveaways.
So, let’s get into it…
From the opening shot panning alongside the Hollywood Reservoir with the city skyline in the distance, complemented by haunting theme music – I knew immediately that this was a major step-up in presentation when compared to the previous films.
Medland then wastes little time in setting up the story and introducing us to married couple Arthur and Daniel – who are experiencing some paranormal issues in and around their spacious home, and have reached out to Carl to help them with their otherworldly troubles. Of course, this challenge is accepted and Carl – along with cameraman Taz – fly to Los Angeles to hopefully sort things out.
Side note: I can’t get my head around the fact that Arthur – on the left in the screenshot above – is ninety-two years old! The guy looks great and is both nimble and mentally sharp. What a legend!
One of the things that impressed me about the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy – particularly the first film – was Medland’s talent in making the location come alive and become a real part of the movie. That creepy farm and the way it was captured and presented on screen was a credit to the film-makers, but on this occasion we have almost the opposite as far as the setting is concerned: – a multi-million dollar house in the Hollywood Hills.
So does this dynamic work?
The short answer is ‘yes’ – for this amazing home plays a huge part in the film – but in a very different way to how the farm was used in the previous entries. I will go into this in a little more detail later, as it involves the plot and tone of the movie, but without spoiling anything I would say that this incredible location is embraced and shown-off to its fullest here; immersing the audience into every scene that was filmed within.
The main positive that stood out for me with ‘Hollywood Haunting’ was the writing – in particular the tightness of the script – which to be honest I found surprising, for I was expecting some inconsistencies here and there. A huge effort has been made by Medland to make this film as credible and serious as possible, and this comes across evidently with both the plot and pacing of the movie.
Of course, the downside of this is that a lot of the goofiness and quirkiness of the first three films are gone or have been reduced significantly – as well as the cheap jump scares – all of which I enjoyed personally, but I completely understand the direction in which this film has taken.
It’s not just the storyline and creative elements that have improved so dramatically, for the camerawork has also stepped up a level or two – and perhaps more importantly so too has the editing – for this film looked good and the transitions were slick. What we end up with is a well-paced movie that does not fall into some of the traps that its predecessors did – but in order to explore this a little deeper, there may be mild spoilers ahead…
Here is an example of good pacing: – there is a sequence in the film where Carl is given a tour of Hollywood by his hosts, and they visit the filming locations for ‘Halloween’ and ‘A Nightmare On Elm Street’ – which was an interesting and relatable tangent. What impressed me here was that we did not linger for long at these iconic places, and the focus of the film quickly shifted back onto the paranormal investigation at the house. I felt there was a concerted effort when it came to editing the film to not allow these scenes – as good as they were – to drag and take the audience’s attention away from the main plot.
Further to this point, ‘Hollywood Haunting’ has a smooth running time of eighty-five minutes, and pretty much does everything it needs to do within this time frame. I will mention the pacing again here, and say that the plot purred along nicely and there were no moments of lag nor the story being bogged down in dialogue-heavy scenes. In fact, the improvements in these areas are so great that this feels like a standalone film when compared to the farm trilogy.
*** POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD ***
Going by what I have already written, it can be safely ascertained that I enjoyed ‘Hollywood Haunting’, and considered it to be technically superior to the ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy. The step-up in quality and execution is evident – and I’m going to give this film a very good score.
But that being said, this is a very different movie to what we experienced with the farm trilogy. Medland has clearly moved away from in-your-face horror and cheesy stunts to instead present a very mature and grounded story where the supernatural elements exist alongside the emotional tale of the main characters – particularly the younger partner Daniel. We still get to see Carl doing his clairvoyant things, and Taz is back behind the camera – and the documentary style of filming is consistent with their previous work, but a drastic change in scenery has no doubt brought about a new approach.
I’ll be honest here and say that I enjoyed the first ‘Paranormal Farm’ movie more. This is of course my own personal view, and I base this solely on the fact that I had a lot more fun with it. However, when I take a step back and compare both projects from a film-making perspective, it is clear that ‘Hollywood Haunting’ is a far more polished product.
As I mentioned earlier, the strength and consistency of the writing is to be commended, and the screenplay managed to avoid plot holes and incoherent narratives – which is a rare feat these days. For instance, the crawlspace in the mansion was mentioned very early in the film as a potential hotspot for the paranormal activity – and the film continued on for some time without referring back to it. However, this creepy part of the house was eventually addressed – and not conveniently forgotten like a J J Abrams plot device – when Carl and Taz returned to check it out later on and didn’t really find anything there. This may sound like a minor or insignificant observation – but I assure you it is not – for how many Hollywood and Netflix movies are riddled with lazy writing when setting up an early hook only to never mention it again?
I also thought the references to the water were a clever touch; forming a connection between the reservoir lake and the house – and it therefore made sense that the most ‘violent’ supernatural attacks took place in the swimming pool. This is logical writing.
But I can’t write a proper review of ‘Hollywood Haunting’ without mentioning the strong LGBTQ themes throughout the movie. Clearly these are talking points that are very near and dear to Carl Medland – and the message he incorporates into his script is both valid and relevant. For what it is worth, these issues and ideas are presented very well in the finished product; it’s just that they don’t always resonate as strongly with some people as they do with others – and if you play your hand too hard you risk isolating part of your audience.
There was only one moment in the film when I thought it came close to doing just that: – during the discussion around the table near the end of the movie – right after the mystery was solved. To me, this exchange felt forced and out of place – with the dialogue a little jarring and it was the only part of the film that struck me this way, but to be fair – just when I thought it was about to get a little preachy and continue for a while longer, the scene did cut and move on.
But this is a film driven by raw human emotions, with the paranormal and spiritual elements serving as a lesser theme – but still an important part of the storytelling. There is a lot of dramatic weight here; from the tragic tale of the restless entity, to the great losses and difficulties suffered over the years by the couple living in the house. This is heavy stuff – a long way from watching a guy being chased by clowns on a farm – which is perhaps the best way of describing just how far Carl Medland has come as a film maker.
Before I give ‘Hollywood Haunting’ a final score, I must take into consideration that Medland and his team were working with a small budget – with very little equipment and no special effects department or a team of writers to fall back on. There are no ‘professional’ actors on show either – but everyone who starred in the film really stepped up to the plate, and this is important to note.
As I’ve already mentioned, the solid writing and sharp editing are two of this film’s greatest strengths – but in some ways it is the location that steals the show. The house on top of the hill overlooking the reservoir was an inspired choice, and the interior scenes were executed so well – particularly the many continuous shots gliding through from one luxurious room to the next. The expensive decor of the home leans in to the serious tones of the movie, and gives the story a grounded base – and the small library where a few scenes were filmed looked amazing.
And I must point out that I loved seeing Bill O’Reilly’s book ‘Confronting The Presidents’ featuring prominently on one of the bookshelves. I bet it belonged to Arthur.
‘Hollywood Haunting’ is a good, solid film – and those who can connect personally with the issues and messages within would definitely say it was a great film. Carl Medland has shelved the outrageous antics of the farm trilogy and deftly shifted the supernatural tones and themes into a more serious and firmly-based presentation. The emotional undercurrents that were crafted into the film – relationships, identity, acceptance, love and loss – will resonate deeply with a lot of people.
But for me personally – being a typical Aussie bloke looking for some crazy action and a few laughs – I did miss some of the mucking about and diabolical storylines seen in the farm movies. However, I watched ‘Hollywood Haunting’ all the way through and enjoyed it – and hopefully this will lead in to future installments of the ‘Paranormal’ series!
‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting’ gets four stars out of five from me!
‘Paranormal: Hollywood Haunting’ is available to rent or buy on Amazon Prime Video.
Photos and screenshots are courtesy of MY Production Limited and MY Spotlight Independent.
This film was an interesting one for me personally, as I fondly recall the boxing career of Prince Naseem Hamed from almost thirty years ago – often buying his fights on pay-per-view and loving his extravagant ring entrances, sharp wit and outrageous antics.
This was always going to be a difficult movie to get right, as Hamed was a larger-than-life character whose one-liners and Ali-like cockiness would be near-impossible to replicate. However, the filmmakers gave it their best shot – but did they pull it off?
But before I answer that question, let’s take a quick look at the real Prince Naseem Hamed…
Hamed hails from Sheffield in the UK and is the son of Yemeni migrants. He took up boxing at a very young age, and as a teenager began plowing his way through the British flyweight ranks before moving up to bantamweight and claiming the European title at the age of twenty.
He won the WBO world featherweight title from Steve Robinson in 1995 – putting on one of the most entertaining displays ever seen in a boxing ring – and would successfully defend the title fifteen times over the next five years. Hamed would also claim both the WBC and IBF belts during this winning run, and by the late nineteen-nineties had well and truly cracked the US market.
So, let’s move on to the film and break down what worked and what did not.
Let’s start with the main premise of ‘Giant’ – that being the relationship between Hamed and his mentor and long-time trainer Brendan Ingle. In the film, Ingle is played by Pierce Brosnan whilst Amir El-Masry is given the difficult job of bringing ‘The Prince’ to the big screen – and both actors do a pretty good job.
For me, there are no complaints about any of the performances throughout the movie; and El-Masry had a lot of Hamed’s quirks and mannerisms spot on – but physically I don’t think he was quite there – he was close, though.
Another great casting choice was Toby Stephens as boxing promoter Frank Warren – and James Bond aficionados like myself had a field day with this one; seeing him and Brosnan together again on-screen more than twenty years after ‘Die Another Day.‘
Pacing-wise, ‘Giant’ does a reasonable job; beginning with Hamed as a seven-year-old joining Ingle’s gym and within a short period taking us to when ‘Naz’ becomes world champion in his early twenties. None of the essential character-building was skimmed over in the earlier parts of the film, but I felt that a lot of great moments throughout Hamed’s career were overlooked as the story progressed. Perhaps a mid-movie montage – like the one at the beginning of ‘Rocky III’ – may have worked better in highlighting just how many good fighters Hamed knocked out on his journey.
For instance, I remember the Tom ‘Boom Boom’ Johnson fight being a huge event but it was not mentioned in the film, and most of Hamed’s later contests – such as Vasquez, McCullough, Ingle and Sanchez – were also passed over. I felt this was a missed opportunity as Hamed was becoming sloppier in these bouts leading up to the infamous defeat to Marco Antonio Barrera, which ultimately ended Naz’s career. Again, could there have been a montage inserted at this point hinting that Hamed’s performances were dropping?
There were moments in this film that I did not like, perhaps because I was such a fan of Hamed back in the day. Whilst I was not privy to what happened behind the scenes in real life, I found the many moments of disrespect and rudeness – even belittlement at times – directed at Ingle by both Naseem and his brother Riath during the film to be hard to swallow. Maybe it’s true – who knows? But from what I remember seeing in dozens of Naz’s fights and watching countless interviews and documentaries involving all parties – I’m happy to write this off as a little creative screenwriting.
I still didn’t like it, as I thought it was overplayed – and this was a major bummer for me.
Despite some good performances and decent fight sequences, ‘Giant’ failed to live up to the great movie it could have been. In saying that – and to be fair – I think that bringing Naseem Hamed’s story to the big screen was always going to be a challenge; and a near-impossible task to impress those who followed Naz’s amazing career all those years ago.
Perhaps this was why the film zeroed in on the relationship between Hamed and Ingle – amplifying the tension and drama – before taking us into the falling out between the pair and Naz’s loss to Barrera. Personally, I think the movie would have worked better focusing more on the highs, with a lot more action inside the ring, than to be as Brendan Ingle-centric as it was; especially toward the end of the film. To be honest, things did get a bit depressing during the final half hour, but the backstage scene between the main characters was a nice touch.
It still should have been a lot more upbeat and fun though.
‘Giant’ has its moments – and there are some really good things happening in the film. But ultimately this movie suffers from taking a true underdog story – that a lot of people my age still have fond memories toward – and dumping a bucket of ice over it.
It’s a decent movie that could have been a classic – and in my view would have worked better as an out-and-out sports comedy rather than a light drama.
‘Giant’ just did enough to get a pass mark from me, so I give it six out of ten.
Photos and screenshots are from various online sources; including Balboa Productions, AGC Studios, Tea Shop Productions and White Star Productions.
‘Die Another Day’ screenshot courtesy of Eon Productions.
To be fair, I went into this film already aware of the poor reviews and was hoping to find some positive aspects to write about, but alas there is very little to report here – but I will try my best. Considering that ‘Supergirl’ has only been out for a few days, I will carefully break down what I liked and disliked without giving any spoilers away.
Let’s start with Milly Alcock who was alright as the main character Supergirl/Kara Zor-El, considering all she could do was work with the script she was given. I suppose Jason Momoa was fine as Lobo – a character who was thrown in for good measure – and was having fun just being himself as he does in almost every film he stars in.
But the negative aspects of this movie far outweigh the positive.
On top of the list by a country mile is the writing. There is no excuse here as the screenplay was supposed to be adapted from an existing work – in this case ‘Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow‘ – so there should be plenty of source material available to play with. But the studio handing the writing responsibilities for a multi-million dollar film to someone (Ana Nogueira) with little to no previous credits is utter lunacy – and the end result is the basic slop that was served up on screen.
I will elaborate a little: – ‘Supergirl’ suffers primarily from bad writing, which is more careless and lazy than anything else. There is a working plot here; enough for the audience to understand what the characters are doing and why – but within the progression of the story you will find short cuts, loose ends and minor plot holes – and anyone who takes pride in their work would not allow such errors to remain in the final screenplay. I’m not sure the writer nor the producers actually know any better – and that in itself is unacceptable.
I will give two examples of plot weaknesses – but note **mild spoilers ahead**.
Point One: – Supergirl’s dog Krypto is shot with a poison dart by the main villain Krem, and given three days to live. As Krypto has the same powers as Supergirl, then surely the best option would be to take him to a yellow sun to be healed – as the story goes on to reveal that such a sun exists only a short bus ride away. This obvious solution is ignored because having to obtain the antidote within three days is what’s driving the main plot.
Point Two: – Supergirl’s colleague Ruthye is captured and locked up, and the prisoner in the adjoining cell is Lobo. How? The only explanation we are given by Lobo is that he was trapped. Again – how? Where and when? The contrived script made it so an all-powerful God-like immortal is somehow imprisoned – which was used as a setup for four-foot-tall Ruthye to beat up a hulking guard and then help Lobo escape. Yay! Mary Sue girl power!
And then there is the dialogue which is terrible! How are these scripts getting passed? They all sound the same: – trash-talking, ‘wannabe edgy and cool’ with adolescent humour and irreverent remarks being churned out through the entire film. I’m sick of it – in fact, you could take conversations or exchanges from any James Gunn production and insert them into another and it would probably match up!
I will also touch on the colours and tones used as an overall aesthetic. Whoever was in charge of the finished product really went over the top with the saturation, and it looked like someone had stuck some yellow or orange cellophane to the camera lens. This was clearly an artistic decision, but some brighter and sharper imagery – and less lens flare – might have helped the visuals a little bit.
With plans for a larger DC Universe, Superman himself pops up in a few scenes – enabling this film to connect into future projects. You know, I thought David Corenswet was pretty good as Superman – but why do they keep belittling him and taking the piss every time he appears on screen? That being said, Superman/Clark Kent was used sparingly – mostly to help set up the Kara backstory from Krypton to Argo City and then to Earth. These sequences actually played out alright – and were about the only thing the writers did reasonably well.
Of course I couldn’t write a ‘Supergirl’ review without adding the now-iconic screenshot above, before wrapping things up with my overall thoughts and final score.
I’m not a big comic book fan, but I enjoy the odd superhero movie – which sadly we have had a saturation of over the past twenty years. ‘Supergirl’ does not suffer from ‘superhero fatigue’, because this is just a poorly-made movie, with very few moments of passable enjoyment to take from the cinema. It’s grimy and unfunny – and some would argue that it is depressing – with no real jeopardy nor uplifting highlights for any of the main characters.
It’s just a boring, flat mess that never gets out of second gear – with tired special effects and a bizarre colour palette that made my eyes go funny. The final battle scene presented in slow-motion and freeze-frames was a total embarrassment – and who thought it was a good idea to show Supergirl sitting on the toilet earlier in the film? Real gnarly stuff, guys!
Honestly, how much longer is this crap going to go on for? Films like this should be bright and inspiring – not a degenerate and abrasive drunken mess. Is there anyone out there who can make a decent superhero movie, and not this recalcitrant slop that hacks like James Gunn keep serving up? If so, hand them the keys to the studio – right now!
I’m giving ‘Supergirl’ a three out of ten – with one of those points going to Milly Alcock because she’s a fellow Aussie. But even then, I’m being generous!
All posters and screenshots are courtesy of DC Studios and Warner Bros Pictures.
What can I say? I enjoyed this movie a lot more than I thought I would, but all the numbers are pointing toward ‘Masters of the Universe’ being a box office disaster – and that’s a real shame! This is not a perfect movie, but it was a ton of fun! In fact, the good far outweighs the bad in this film – so what has happened here?
The 2026 re-imagining of ‘Masters of the Universe’ is better than the 1987 version, but could it be that this is a long-forgotten franchise that either no one has heard of before, or very few people bother to remember? I think these factors played some part in this film’s less-than-favourable reception; not helped by the unexpected hits ‘Obsession’ and ‘Backrooms’ being released at the same time.
Personally, I enjoyed ‘Masters of the Universe’ all the way through – I was glued to the screen and there were many moments when I burst out laughing at some of the wacky scenes, which was in stark contrast to watching ‘The Mandalorian and Grogu’ a week or so ago, for I almost nodded off a couple of times during that fizzer of a show.
But the box office doesn’t lie and on a budget of $170-200 million dollars, this He-Man reboot/adventure has crawled its way to only $60 million worldwide! The Mando movie on the other hand has been criticised for its underwhelming performance yet has managed to rake in $300 million – but this is still pretty bad for Star Wars.
I’m not going to do a full review here, but rather share a few thoughts as to why I liked ‘Masters of the Universe’ so much.
I’ll start by saying that this movie ticked a lot of boxes for me; the special effects were bright and sharp, the writing was a lot better than I expected – and above all it was just a rollicking two hours of entertainment. I thought the performances were pretty good too; especially Idris Elba as Man-at-Arms and (I can’t believe I’m about to write this) Jared Leto was awesome as Skeletor.
I do have to touch on some of the jokes and gags, as they constantly hit the mark throughout – some surprisingly so! There were times when the humour pushed the boundaries of a supposed family film; and I laughed aloud whenever the various nicknames Adam/He-Man had given to certain characters were brought up. The Dolph Lundgren cameo was priceless as well!
While I don’t have too many gripes with the movie overall, I do think there was a missed opportunity when the Queen song ‘Princes of the Universe’ was introduced during the final battle – the way it was cut and edited was strange as it omitted the iconic heavy guitar riff that would have been perfect for this pivotal moment.
There are no Oscars on the line here – which is maybe not a bad thing – so one needs to accept this movie for what it is and what it is intended to be: – just a loud, colourful, mindless-at-times thrill ride and charming dose of escapism that people of all ages can enjoy.
I walked out of the cinema with a smile on my face and was satisfied that I had got my money’s worth – which is something I rarely experience these days.
To that end, ‘Masters of the Universe’ exceeded my expectations, and I score it eight out of ten!
Posters and screenshots courtesy of Amazon MGM Studios and Sony Pictures
It’s fair to say that monster movies have been well-represented in recent times, with Warner Bros’ ‘Monsterverse’ leading the way; supported by notable projects such as Apple TV’s ‘Monarch: Legacy of Monsters’ and the Japanese-made ‘Godzilla: Minus One.’
But back in 1976 we were given a blockbuster version of ‘King Kong’ that didn’t quite hit the heights it was expected to, and is rarely mentioned in terms of classic monster flicks. However, the film was remastered and released on Blu-ray a couple of years ago, which is more than enough incentive for me to go back and re-watch it for the first time in over two decades.
There was a lot of money thrown at this project back in the day, with a budget of around $US 24 million – and ‘King Kong’ would at least prove to be a commercial success by grossing just over $US 90 million at the box office. With Dino De Laurentiis producing and ‘The Towering Inferno’ director John Guillermin at the helm, hopes were high for this movie to be well-received critically, but things did not quite work out that way.
The cast was solid without featuring any major drawcards from that era, such as Charlton Heston or Robert Redford, preferring instead to have Charles Grodin, a young Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange (in her film debut) playing the lead characters. Bridges and Lange would go on to become established and award-winning actors over the following decades, so those who made the casting decisions for ‘King Kong’ might have been onto something.
Interestingly, the actor standing behind Jeff Bridges in the photo above is none other than John Lone, who like Jessica Lange was also making his screen debut. Unfortunately, we don’t see a lot of Lone in this film as he plays a small role as the cook on the exploration vessel.
Before getting into the plot and themes of the movie, I should take a moment to mention the musical score composed by the legendary John Barry. This should have been a slam dunk, however Barry’s compositions in this film are little more than serviceable – and well below his usual high standards. Any movie wanting to reach classic status must have a memorable score and powerful theme music – but ‘King Kong’ falls short in these disciplines.
On a positive note, ‘King Kong’ remains fairly true to the storyline of the 1933 original, and is at its best during the scenes on Kong’s Island. In fact, the sets and scale of this spectacle are worthy of high praise, with the native village and defensive wall perhaps at the top of the list. The special effects used for the fog were also of a high standard, and looked quite convincing.
When Kong eventually turns up, some of the effects start to show signs of faltering, but I suppose they would have stood up to scrutiny back in the mid-seventies. Most of the action sequences still look alright though, but I wasn’t entirely sold on the Kong costume during facial close-ups – while the larger mechanical hand prop used to pick up Dwan (Yes – Jessica Lange’s character is named ‘Dwan’ and not ‘Dawn’) looked authentic more often than not.
Of course, there is the infamous scene where Kong gets a little frisky with his female captive…and the look on the big guy’s face says it all!
Two-thirds of the way through the film and it’s shaping up fairly well. The early scenes on the boat setting up the plot are solid, and the movie wastes little time arriving at the uncharted island and the introduction of Kong is neither too soon nor too late. Where the action falls short is not having enough monsters on the island for Kong to fight – except for a giant snake – and these elements were prominent in both the 1933 version and Peter Jackson’s 2005 movie.
Which brings us to the final act: – King Kong in New York City.
Who thought wheeling out Kong inside a petrol bowser was a good idea?
I can understand the argument that the film-makers were highlighting commercialism and corporate greed, but it comes across as a little cheesy and over-the-top for me. However, the humiliation ritual that followed was very well executed – the juxtaposition of Kong wearing a crown whilst imprisoned in a cage is clever and effective.
Of course, we all know what happens next – and I think the final act of the film suffers from the contemporary setting; especially the replacement of the iconic Empire State Building with the World Trade Center – which unfortunately has not aged well.
There was a sequence within this final act that I could not get my head around, when the main characters were on the run from a rampaging Kong and Dwan (Jessica Lange) insists on stopping at a bar for a drink. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for moments of levity – but the timing of this was diabolical!
And the shot of Kong looking through the window when he finds them is just as outrageous! What a shocker! At this point, I was having fits of laughter.
But it’s not all bad, because some of the sequences with miniatures only moments earlier were quite impressive!
The film is struggling to hold it together at this point, but it is still an enjoyable spectacle. Unfortunately, the special effects throughout Kong’s battle with helicopters atop the World Trade Center are pushed well beyond their limits, and the scaling and perspective are terribly askew – see screenshot below.
In the lead-up to the rooftop showdown, there were a number of shots that appear to have been filmed inside one of the World Trade Center buildings, which now come across as sombre and haunting. I am also certain that the plaza where Kong falls to his death was filmed at the now-extinct complex.
Overall, I enjoyed the 1976 version of ‘King Kong’ having watched it through older and more critical eyes. I found it to be well-directed, neatly-paced and above all entertaining – not to mention keeping fairly true to the original story.
On the flip side, I don’t think the modern setting works; especially during the New York finale, but plays out reasonably well throughout most of the film. Some of the special effects shots were a little ordinary – and I’m still giggling over that window shot – but it worked most of the time, and I must keep in mind that the film was made in the nineteen-seventies.
‘King Kong’ certainly aimed high, and delivered on most of its promises, but ultimately fell short of being the classic movie the producers intended it to be. That being said, this film impressed me enough to give it seven out of ten!
All screenshots are courtesy of Dino De Laurentiis Corporation and Paramount Pictures.
‘Paranormal Farm’ is a found footage horror film released back in 2017, and is the brainchild of independent filmmaker Carl Medland. I recall watching this on Amazon Prime Video a few years ago, and finding the show quite entertaining, especially as Medland was using little more than the camera on his mobile phone to bring this story to life.
Having recently learned that there was a trilogy of ‘Paranormal Farm’ movies, I took it upon myself to watch all three films over consecutive nights – and to say I was amazed and enthralled would be an understatement!
Before I continue any further with my glowing appraisal, I should point out that there are a few contentious plot issues – some wide enough to drive a truck through – and I am of the view that these were created deliberately. In fact, I am certain that Carl Medland is taking the mickey out of us – especially throughout both sequels – and the outrageous scenes featuring some truly bizarre behaviour from off-beat secondary characters would ultimately help his films gain cult status.
Therefore, this is not going to be one of my usual reviews and I will not deep-dive too much into the pros and cons of each episode. The simple fact that Medland has gone out and created something unique and original – putting a lot of time, money and effort into it – should be respected and admired.
While I am throwing compliments about, a special mention must go out to the actors who played Lucy and Darren – the farming couple whose property is the setting for the paranormal investigation – as they both have a natural screen presence, with weird mannerisms that keep the audience guessing as to their true intentions. This is countered by the performance of Medland, who spends most of the film recording himself on his phone while attempting to solve the spooky mystery, and doing so in a ‘big city’ manner that often rubs the country folks the wrong way. This is a strong dynamic.
There are a few well-crafted moments where nefarious villains creep up on Medland while he is recording – especially throughout the first film – and these movies are at their strongest during these scenes. However, when the main character’s reaction is to simply squeal and jog away, often turning around and moving back in the direction of where the threat was coming from, it does take away from what was a brilliantly-executed and genuinely frightening encounter.
Is this done on purpose? I think so – and this brings me back to using the term ‘campy’ in the heading, for at times I thought I was watching George Michael running about being chased by monsters and goons. What an absolute masterclass!
As far as the story is concerned, the mystery is solved at the end of the third film where an overly drawn out – and diabolical – scene plays out between the major characters. In many ways, it was a fitting end to the series and I was sitting on my sofa in total bewilderment whilst all was being revealed.
Despite its flaws and shortcomings, I cannot really fault the ‘Paranormal Farm’ series as it delivered an entertaining and eye-opening experience across all three films. The rural location featured was an inspired choice, with the clever use of disturbing mannequins and quirky storage sheds filled with junk adding to the eerie vibes and complementing Medland’s sharp direction.
I must say, for a guy who put an entire project together using only his mobile phone and editing software, Carl Medland has proven himself to be a talented filmmaker. Although Medland brought his colleague Mumtaz into the second and third films, along with a larger camera, I would say the original ‘Paranormal Farm’ is by far the superior product.
The ‘Paranormal Farm’ trilogy is available to watch on YouTube, but note that age restrictions apply in some countries. In any case, I have attached the link below.
Screenshots and posters are courtesy of Myspotlight Independent and MY Production Ltd.
James Gunn’s ‘Superman’ was released in cinemas last week to mixed – yet in some ways consistent – reviews and has been vigorously broken down and analysed on numerous online channels and podcasts over the past few days.
I managed to catch a session of this movie yesterday and approached it with an open mind – not wanting to be overly-critical, but also not setting my expectations too high.
This is not a great movie; nor is it a disaster. In fact, a lot of the praise that this film has received can be justified, and likewise so can the flaws and weaknesses pointed out in some of the negative reviews. But overall – and this is my own verdict here – I would describe this reboot of Superman as being all over the place and a bit of a mess, yet it turned out to be a fun movie that I found quite likeable.
Without giving any elements of the plot away, I will tread carefully and provide an honest appraisal of what I experienced from this movie. Toward the end of this article, I will put up a spoiler warning and then offer a few more detailed remarks.
I will start positively by saying that David Corenswet was excellent as Superman. He looked and acted the part, but I think the way the film was written meant that his charm and charisma took a little while to shine through. But eventually it did.
Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane was also well-cast, as was Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor – but I don’t think the super villain’s part was penned as sharply as it could have been. The ideas were alright and some of Luthor’s schemes were decent, but the fast-paced screenplay often didn’t allow his moments of evil genius to settle before moving on to the next scenes.
In fact, this a common criticism of James Gunn, mainly around moments of gravitas or emotionally-heavy exchanges in his films, in which he overuses levity – often in the form of a weak joke or some type of slapstick – to underline the scene. To be fair, this style can often work well in a film and it’s great to make the audience laugh – but it is not as effective as often as Gunn thinks it is and many times in this movie he fails to let these character-building scenes slow down a little and run their course.
You may have read similar criticisms in other reviews, and these are legitimate gripes. But to me these issues were a minor disappointment and fit nicely into my ‘it could have been better’ overview of this film. Whilst I think that Gunn overplayed the use of jokes in this movie, it was not a deal-breaker for me – for it was clear that his vision for Superman was aimed at a younger audience.
There has also been a lot of negative talk about how bloated and overflowing this film is with other meta human characters, such as the ‘Justice Gang’ and Luthor’s goon squad featuring Ultraman and The Engineer, not to mention the mysterious ‘Hammer of Boravia’ – but I’ll have more to say about this chap later. The main criticism that has been echoed around the internet is that it is hard for Superman to be the star of his own show with all these other powered-up folks running around, which is a fair call.
This all boils down to Gunn’s decision to start the movie right in the middle of a shit storm – which it is revealed was partly Superman’s fault – and simply pile all these characters into the story at breakneck speed and allow the audience to figure it out as it plays along. Sometimes jumping into the deep end works (note: ‘Pacific Rim’) and sometimes it doesn’t, but I am of the view that James Gunn set things up satisfactorily and there was ‘just’ enough continuity and reasoning to explain each rapidly-moving jump to the next.
Would I have preferred a little more time for the characters to develop, a touch of plot clarity, and perhaps some moments to build a solid platform in which to propel the film forward? Yes, of course – but I was somehow able to overlook these basic storytelling flaws and ended up enjoying the film. I guess if I was to offer up an explanation for my leniency, then it would be that the overall charm of this movie had somehow won me over.
The visuals and aesthetics were bright and colourful, the jokes – when on point – were good, the performances all around were convincing, and the overall story was serviceable.
Therefore, I’m going to be a little generous here and give ‘Superman’ a six out of ten. I found it to be a very likeable movie; a risky take on a well-known and established superhero – one that I don’t think James Gunn was able to pull off completely.
However, I can’t go any deeper into my assessment of this film and offer a more detailed critique without mentioning spoilers, so consider this a fair warning for those who are yet to watch ‘Superman.’
**** SPOILER ALERT ****
Judging by what I wrote above the warning notice, it is safe to assume that I enjoyed the movie and was quite fair towards James Gunn’s treatment of such an iconic IP such as Superman. But it’s important to note that I described my final score as being a ‘generous’ six out of ten – when in truth if I was marking this correctly should have given it a five.
Again, I must underline that I liked this film, but it lost some serious marks over a number of issues – with the treatment of Superman’s true parents Jor-El and Lara topping the list. That entire scene regarding their damaged message, and it being interpreted in such a diabolical manner may have worked as a plot mechanism, but to not be debunked as a Luthor hoax at the end of the film and allowed to stand as fact was a serious own goal and a betrayal of Superman’s origin story.
The ‘Justice Gang’ worked okay for me, and I liked Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner. Mister Terrific was a cool superhero and I don’t think he was bigger than Superman in this movie as other critics suggest. I couldn’t get my head around Hawk Girl, though – and if one of these extra superheroes could have had a spell on the sidelines to help ease the clutter then I would have nominated her.
The ‘Hammer of Boravia’ came and went in an instant, yet was able to beat up Superman twice in the first ten minutes of the film before never seeing him again. I was hoping for a rematch at the end of the movie, but a scene inside Luthor’s control room clearly showed Ultraman being the man underneath this mysterious villain’s mask.
Now onto the humour, where – like much of the film’s content – it felt like it was thrown against a wall in the hope that some of it might stick. That does sound a little harsh, but that was exactly how hit and miss some of the gags were in this film. For example, I laughed aloud when Luthor’s guys released the baby Kaiju out of its box and made an offbeat remark as the tiny creature scurried away – along the lines of “Don’t worry. It will get bigger.” I thought Green Lantern knocking out the Boravian tanks with a giant middle finger was also pretty good. On the flip side, Superman’s robots were unfunny and the monkeys tapping away on the keyboards were a wide miss. I’m neither here nor there with Krypto, but the appearance of a drunken Supergirl at the end of the film to collect her dog was totally dumb.
Another scene that I would describe as ‘misplaced Gunn wit’ was the bizarre sequence where Superman and Lois are having a deep discussion in her apartment whilst the ‘Justice Gang’ are battling a giant alien outside the window. Seriously, would Superman sit there talking to his girlfriend instead of helping the other heroes fight the creature? I think you know the answer.
This film easily could have been a seven or an eight out of ten, had James Gunn toned down his style of movie-making and his trademark quirks – if only as a mark of respect for such a famous character as Superman. I think he could have satisfied both the younger and older demographics had he tightened things up a little and showed some more restraint with his liberal splashing of attempted comedy in almost every scene.
So, I’ve had my say – and I must admit that this was a very difficult film to review, but I hope that I have done so fairly and in an objective manner.
Again, ‘Superman’ gets a six out of ten from me – despite its flaws.
And as an end note, if I was to compare it to the other blockbuster film released this month – ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’, then James Gunn’s ‘Superman’ wins hands down!
All photos and screenshots are courtesy of DC, Warner Bros and various online sources.
Sean Carslake 