"I SUGGEST YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT..."

Continued from title... "And that goes for you, too!"

Basil Exposition, Austin Powers International Man Of Mystery (1997).

'What's he banging on about now?' you're probably asking yourself (except that you're not because nobody reads my blog). I'll tell you anyway.

Ever see a film where it occurred to you that what you're watching doesn’t add-up? More than once I'm guessing. Well, the following are the worst instances I can think of; some of these films I like and others not-so-much, but all have committed heinous crimes against logic and common sense. If you can think of others then feel free to add to the list.

‘Wait’ I hear you cry, ‘why don’t you get off your high horse Paul and just except films are a bit of fun, and it doesn’t really matter so long as we enjoy ourselves?’… Believe it or not, it’s a valid point, but here’s why I disagree.

These people and I’m chiefly looking at directors and screenwriters (without mentioning producers) are the individuals most responsible for the final product, are paid THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of pounds to do their job. Money the likes of which you or I will probably never see in our lives. Some scripts sell for as much as seven figures, directors always earn more.

When we’re talking sums of money this big, then I expect to see people at the top of their craft doing their best, and I’m sorry, but some of these mistakes are amateur at best and an absolute slap-in-the-face at worst. ‘I’ll take your money’ they laugh, ‘but I can’t be fucking bothered with what the film actually looks like when it’s over! I’m just here for the cash, pass me another beer!’

If I can see a mistake, and you can see a mistake, then I’m sure the ‘professionals’ know they’ve made it too! Most of the time, and this is perhaps the most irritating part about it, these things can normally be rectified with just a little bit of thought (as with Battle Royale)… Other times, we’re talking about a serious and funder mental problem with the script. In these instances, the projects should never have even been ‘green-lighted’ (like Avatar), but hey, they don’t care. Rush out any crap, get enough media attention, and wham! Money in the bank, who cares if it makes any sense?

I do. And, hopefully, you do to. Because you should. We’re paying for this shit.

Anyway, rant over.

Spoilers ahead. Lots of spoilers.

Alien Resurrection

So, in what is intended to be a fairly realistic film, a group of desperate survivors are forced to swim through a submerged corridor. Sounds intense, and ironically it's where the film looks like it's going to pick up, but wait- how long did they all hold their breath? Seriously, sit and watch it and draw a breath with the Ripley character. Even without exertion that's a pretty long breath, now imagine having to kick as hard as you can while doing it. Isn’t going to happen...

A small gripe, I know, but an irritating one. Easily remedied, just show them coming up for pockets of air, or edit the scene to be shorter. It’s not rocket science!

Avatar

 So, a heroic group of humans decide to rebel against a greedy corporation and lead the alien natives to victory. Sounds great, right? Except what happens after you win? The air isn’t breathable, and there aren’t enough Avatars to go round, so Chacon (the tough Latina chick) better have a good set of lungs on her. This woman is never going to see Earth again, none of these people will, don’t they have friends or family? Is everybody really that lonely and dead inside?

Gripe 2: Chacon disobeys a direct order to open fire on the natives during the siege on their spiritual tree. She turns her ship about-face and flies back to base. Surprising that Quaritch didn’t just order his men to blow her out the air, but even more surprising is that she didn’t even have to stand trial for court martial! Instead she’s left to roam the base and release captives! Come on, you don’t just disobey a direct order and get left to it like that, especially not by a villainous corporation light years from Earth with the financial-backing (and moral corruption) to ‘displace’ an entire alien tribe…

Remedy? None. It’s a fundamental issue with the story, go back to the drawing board.

Back To The Future

 So, Marty travels back in time only to be seduced by his mother while attempting to make his father more of a man. Uncomfortable when you think about it. Just explain to me this-When Marty returned to the present, having altered the  past, why didn’t his parents recognise him as the friend responsible for bringing them together? I mean, such an important chapter in their lives, and they can’t remember the person who had the biggest impact on their relationship? At the very least, you’d think the father would suspect the mother of infidelity…

Remedy? Nothing really to fix, aside from perhaps adding a brief comment from one of the parents? ‘Wait, he looks like… No, nevermind.’

Battle Royale

The film opens on a highly publicised ending to a previous Battle Royale contest- cameras flash, and an excited news reporter fights to remain in front of her camera-man while the crowds bustle around her. It’s like the end of the X-Factor, or Big Brother, and everyone’s heard of them. So why, when the class find themselves abducted, is the whole thing such a surprise? They don’t have a clue what Battle Royale is. It’s either a public spectacle or a secret government conspiracy, so which is it?

Remedy? Cut the opening scene, or cut the confused questions from the scene where the class wake up. Really the scriptwriter should have picked this up.

Blade

Right, so Frost was a man turned into a vampire, while most of the other Vampire leaders were born Vampires. I have a few problems with this idea. Firstly, shouldn’t the pure- blood Vampires be stronger or something, or how else are they in charge? And how does the aging thing work? Not so much a plot flaw, but just something I feel require a little more explanation, or why even mention it at all?

Gripe 2: The Vampire pure-blood leaders are gathered in the temple to act as sacrifices for the coming of the ‘Blood God’, and they’re clearly a requirement or why else go to the effort of abducting them (poor security incidentally). So why, after Frost’s girlfriend kills one of the leaders, does the magic still work?

Remedy? There is no point to the moment where the girlfriend kills one of the leaders! Why is it there? Just remove it. As for the whole ‘pure blood’ thing, that needs a re-write.

Blood Diamond

The main character Solomon is an abducted fisherman forced to work in a diamond mine, who happens across a priceless stone. During a raid on the mine, Solomon is able to bury it close to the river before escaping. Unfortunately, the villain in charge of the mine (Captain Poison- really, look it up!) knows that Solomon has stashed the stone and so he spends most of the film trying to track him down. At the films climax Solomon is bought back to the glade where he stashed the priceless stone- and there are three shallow holes in the ground! Just three! You expect me to believe that Poison knew exactly the glade where the stone was buried and dug just three fucking holes, about six inches deep, really? I’d have been there day and night digging holes everywhere, would seem like a much better use of my time than chasing Solomon across Africa. Or I could always take a handful of slaves to the glade and get them digging instead, just a thought…

Remedy? Would make more sense if Poison didn’t know the location of the exact glade where Solomon hid the diamond. Just show a scene of the guy forcing slaves to dig, but in the wrong location.

Cloverfield

So you’re a civilian recording all sorts of shit on your camcorder that the army would likely prefer didn’t go public. Makes you think they should have confiscated the camcorder at the field hospital, right?

Remedy? Hide the camera in a bag? Don’t go to the hospital? Re-write!

Ghost

 Just before the film’s climax deceased Sam is able to ‘get it on’ with his girlfriend Molly. The audience swoons, which is fine till you realise that in reality Molly is actually ‘getting it on’ with Sam’s medium ally Oda Mae (played by the famously sexy Whoopi Goldburg)- not so romantic now, is it?

Remedy? None required, just a little creepy.

In Time

 Considering most of these characters are living in border-line poverty, there’s a lot of people drinking cappuccinos and walking about with gym-bodies and salon-fresh hair. This all costs time/money currency unnecessarily, I’d be on a tap water and rice diet. Not many people looking 25 either… Gripe 2: the arm-wrestling scenario makes no sense either. It’s implied that the arm on top saps time from the arm below, so how can you win a contest from being on bottom?

Remedy. Shoot the script writer. Shoot the director. Shoot the stars. Burn the film.

Kill Bill, Vol 1

 The ‘Bride’ comes out of her coma and kills two men, one a thug and the other an orderly. Ignoring for now that the thug who had his tongue pulled out didn’t manage to run screaming from the room, but instead was found 20 mins later by the orderly, who’s entire body became strangely paralyzed after having his heels slashed open, ignoring all that- the ‘Bride’ spent thirteen hours in the a dead man’s car trying to recover from her coma. Thirteen hours. You’re telling me that two murdered corpses weren’t discovered in a hospital after thirteen hours? Most shifts are either 8 or 12 hours long, nobody got suspicious when the orderly didn’t turn up for hand-over? Or that the staff on the next shift didn’t find the bodies? They weren’t hidden. And if the corpses were discovered, you’d think the police would be all over the scene, and that includes the dead orderly’s car…

Remedy? Tricky. Change the time that passes in the ‘Pussey Wagon’ from 13 hours to 6 maybe? Or don’t give a time at all?

Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior

Most fuel goes bad after 6 months. A little longer if it’s stored correctly, or in tanks. Unfortunate but true. So whenever you watch these Mad Max-like films set in the future, with people driving about in converted cars, it’s all false. The climax of The Road Warrior would look silly on push bikes.

Remedy? There is none. The facts completely work against the concept of the film.

Prometheus

 The android David is smart. He can decipher an entire alien language and its technology by comparing ancient languages, that’s pretty smart. So, when he discovers that the ‘Engineers’ were intent on destroying the whole human race, he still considers it a wise idea to introduce them to his ‘father figure’ Weyland? Mmmm. Don’t sound so wise to me, sounds like it could go quite badly actually. Gripe 2: why does Weyland have to travel in secret? It’s his funding, his project and his fucking ship. Surely he gets to call the shots?

Remedy? What with this, and all my other gripes, I’m of the firm opinion the script needs re-writing from scratch.

Spiderman 2

 Spiderman is a man with superhuman strength. Doc Ock is a fat old man, whose only ‘super power’ is a set of robotic arms so light that they don’t tip him over when they reach outwards. Who’s going to win a fight out of these two? Spiderman can tip over a truck and halt a speeding train, what do you suppose happens if someone that strong punches a fat old man in the face? That’s going to look like a shotgun blast. Also, Spiderman has the strength to grab one of them arms and sling Doc Ock about like a rag doll.

Remedy? Again, tough. Maybe not show Spiderman actually landing a punch?

Star Trek (Reboot)

So, imagine your family (no, entire planet) is accidentally wiped out. That’d piss you off, right? Hell yeah! Now imagine you come into possession of a strange substance that lets you travel back in time! Wow. You’d go back and either save your family, or maybe warn the people responsible that their actions will destroy your planet! Right? So what does the villain in this film do? ‘I will travel back in time to have my revenge on the person responsible! Ha ha ha!’. Dick.

Remedy? In the face of logic the whole premise of the story comes crashing down. Total fail.

Terminator 2

Imagine you are a sophisticated computer intent on destroying man-kind. You send a robot back in time to kill Sarah Conner, mother of the man who is defeating you in the present day, thus eliminating your foe. The plan goes wrong; there was too much technology around capable of being used to destroy your robot. What do you do? Try sending your robot even further back in time perhaps, to kill Sarah Conner’s mother, or maybe even her mother (when weapons were even more primitive)? Or maybe send a robot back to kill her while she’s pregnant and unable to either run or fight?... Or do you do exactly the same thing again?

Remedy? How about just explaining that you can only travel back so far, that anything further back than 1980 isn’t possible yet?

Terminator Salvation

Imagine (again) you are a sophisticated computer intent on destroying man-kind. It is your goal to kill John Conner, and leave mankind leaderless and unable to oppose you. Sending robots back in time doesn’t work. Then you realise that you’ve captured Carl Reese, the man who travels back in time and father’s John Conner. That’s too perfect right? Kill him and you’ve ended the war: like Sarah Conner, no Reese- no John! Nope, instead, what you do is hold Reese as bait for a trap to kill the man who’d cease to exist if only you killed the hostage to start with. Duh!

Gripe 2: If every Terminator is created with a tiny nuclear device inside it’s skull (as used to destry the base at the end of this film), then why didn’t the last 3 blow up?

Remedy? A big rewrite. A very big rewrite.

The Chronicles Of Narnia, The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe

When Mr Tumnus is arrested by the Witches’ police, they leave a signed note on the door. That’s pretty clever considering they’re all wolves. Sure, they can talk, but they can’t write (or hammer bits of paper to the door).

Remedy? You don’t need the note, the beaver turns up to explain the plot anyway.

The Dark Knight

Just a thought, and this applies to all the Christopher Nolan Batman films: Batman has a strict ‘no kill’ policy. How can he ever be sure that any of the criminals he knocks about don’t die? He’s thrown no end of people down stairs and off ledges, and even a punch to the nose can kill you. How many car crashes has he caused? Them things spin around and flip over all the time; I’d be surprised if there hasn’t been a fatality yet- and that mostly happens to the cops! Hell, even Harvey Dent uses a car crash to kill two people. Tut-tut, Batman you hypocrite.

Gripe 2: Let’s assume that Batman is comfortable with the concept of ‘accidental death’ (as covered in the small print of his ‘no kill’ policy). That explains why he was able to morally justify leaving Ra’s Al Ghul to die at the ending of the first film. I have no issue with that… However, why does he then feel the need to save the Joker at the end of the second film? After all, that could have easily been seen as another accident, like with Harvey Dent.

Remedy? How could I do this to myself, I love these films, but fair is fair. It’s not one rule for some and another rule for others... The first gripe is a general conceit in many action movies, but the second gripe is inexcusable. How do you fix an issue like that? Perhaps you could argue that Batman only saved the Joker to prove that his theory about the ‘good people of Gotham’ was wrong? Sound’s plausible, let’s go with that…

The Lord Of The Rings, The Return Of The King

Let’s take the wise words of Family Guy’s Chris Griffin: “Erm, do you know in Lord Of The Rings, when the big eagle comes to rescue Gandalf…how come they do not just fly the eagle to Mordor and drop the ring into the volcano, instead of spending three movies walking there?” Like the man says, sometimes you have to sacrifice spectacle for a coherent plot. One of Chris’ more lucid moments, and I can’t put it any better than that myself.

Remedy? Cut the eagles from the film, perhaps let Frodo and Sam die on the mountain (makes for a shorter ending). OK, perhaps not that, but you need to loose the eagles. Maybe some of the other characters ride to the mountain, and Sam and Frodo outrun the lava?

X-Men, Last Stand

Imagine you’re a general tasked with protecting a very special child- one with a power that renders other mutants unable to use their abilities. Oh no, now an army of angry and dangerous mutants is attacking your post. What do you do? Try and fight them off bravely, even though they can deflect your bullets and claw you to death with terrifying ease?... Or, do you take that kid outside, stand him behind the first wave of your soldiers (perhaps behind a blockade for safety), and thus defusing the abilities of the oncoming mutants, and gun them down like so many jobless hippies? I know what I’d do. Plus, didn’t they have the cure in injection form? I’d issue that to each soldier as a form of close-combat side arm.

Remedy? This is getting depressing now. Another big rewrite, the climax just doesn’t work.

Finally, just as an added bonus...

Star Wars, The phantom Menace

For one thing, none of the new Star Wars films really tallies up with the original. For one thing, Jedi Masters stop fighting like ninjas on Speed and start fighting like old men. But the thing that always bugged me was; why does Darth Vader not remember building R2D2 and C3P0? He meets them again in Cloud City. AND, why don’t they remember him? AND another thing, why are there 100s of them if they were scratch built by some sprog in the arse-end of the Galaxy?

Remedy? Maybe they already covered this, I don’t know. I didn’t bother watching Attack Of The Clones or Revenge Of The Sith. That's why this is something of an 'Easter Egg' than an actual inclusion. Maybe I shouldn’t have included it in my blog at all, but what the Hell, I’m betting it’s still a loose end.

Well, there you have it. These are the films that grind my gears.

Looking forward to hearing yours…

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES; Carlisle’s Final Word.

"Theatricality and deception, powerful agents for the uninitiated. But we are initiated, aren't we Bruce?"

Bane.

 

 

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Score; 8/10

 

Final Word; Well, it’s certainly going to be the last of the Nolan Batman films, at no mistake. Powerful, thrilling, broody and epic. Like its predecessor the second act feels a little longer than necessary, but hey, no big deal. Could easily have suffered without the Joker’s up-beat mania, but Tom Hardey’s bane more than steps up as Batman’s strongest foe, offering intimidation in spades and even the odd moment of gallows’ humour. Again, the film’s more earnest moments are handled expertly by secondary characters Jim Gordon and Alfred the butler, again giving the film its heart. Look out for a scene stealing turn from a previous Batman villain as a self-appointed ’judge & jury’.

A film so good, it deserves a second quote?

 

"A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a little boy's shoulders to let him know that the world hadn't ended."

Batman

 

"THE TRICK, POTTER, IS NOT MINDING THAT IT HURTS..."

*Peter Weland, Prometheus (2012).

Oh Prometheus, you troublesome beast...

Well, maybe I should prefix this review with a little background information:

I, like many of you (I’m sure) sometimes struggle to make ends meet. My ‘better half’ is pregnant, and before the approaching due-date we decided to have one last night of freedom. We both agreed that “dinner and a movie” would be good, and I managed to convince her to see Prometheus. No mean feat, her not being big on science fiction.

Although I plan to write at length about this later, cinema costs are now close to extortion. Without the added costs of driving to-and-from, or paying for a car park, you’re looking at between £7 and £13 for a cinema ticket, depending on venue and 3D or 2D screenings. Let’s not forget snacks and a drink, that’s about another £5  to £10 a head. So for the two of us to just go see a movie we’re looking at paying around the £40 mark, travel not included. I remember when the cinema used to be a cheap night out…

I won’t beat around the bush, as you can tell by having a quick look at the scores avaliable in the 'Carlisle's Final Word' review, Prometheus failed to live up the level of hype and expectation that surrounded it. It is of course possible that the disappointment concerning my ‘last night of freedom’, as well as the expenses surrounding it, is partly to blame. The following is as even handed as I can be, and I’m nowhere near as cantankerous as I was on leaving the cinema. Counter arguments are always encouraged, but are still incorrect.

Here goes. The next section is spoiler free…

Prometheus, if nothing else, is certainly intriguing, whether you’re discussing the plot points or the circumstances around the projects traumatic birth.

As I’ve stated previously, this IS a film in the long-suffering Alien franchise, and it’s a confused entry at that. To be honest, although ‘They’ say the story started off as an Alien prequel and mutated into something different along the way, the film actually feels like a totally independent story with Alien-franchise references uncomfortably forced into it- and that may well be one of the film’s biggest problems. The content is almost entirely permissible at 12A, with some pointless low-end 15 certificate violence. For this a multitude of unnecessary and under-developed characters are introduced for the sole purpose of being killed-off in scenes that feel as if they are included only to liven the pace and reinforce the Alien content.

Perhaps the film would have kept more integrity if the Alien references were trimmed entirely, because they fail to serve the story in any way and feel laboured, as unnatural as a square peg in a round hole.

Instead of being intellectually gratifying (the aim) or torturously terrifying (as was Alien), the film is as thrilling as a carpet convention, as frightening as a leaky tap, non-cannon, and fails to deliver on its lofty (and cliché ridden) premise: seriously, directors shouldn’t indulge such overused material or theological ideas unless they have something unique, insightful or enlightening to bring to the table.

On the positive side, the film looks great and the sets are spookily atmospheric, and some of the acting is top-draw. Unfortunately, the good quality acting highlights those amongst the cast who aren’t quite up to task...

Well, that was my thoughts on the film itself. Now I’m going to address some big issues I have with the plot itself. Warning, spoilers ahead.

How can an expert geologist with mapping devices get lost coming out of a straight tunnel? Some expert.

Why would anyone approach a hostile alien-cobra, of which absolutely nothing is known, with all the fear and awe you'd associate with approaching a 3-legged puppy?

Why even consider setting fire to an ‘ill’ man when you have a perfectly functioning, state-of-the-art quarantine bay (used later)? Would seem a little excessive.

If you’re an android, programmed to protect your boss, a multiu-millionaire who is secretly in hiding onboard the ship, why run the risk of infecting one of the crew with alien slime? And why then introduce your boss to an alien creature that you know full-well has its mind set to destroying Earth? Stupid android.

Yes, the air is breathable, but why run the risk of removing your helmet? And again, why remove your helmet after you discover the Alien ship was actually a military installation working on biological weaponry?

The film Alien is set eighty years from these events. Aliens and Alien 3 fifty years after that. So why, one hundred and thirty years into the future, is there no technology to successfully remove an alien parasite without killing the host when that technology exists in Prometheus? 

If a giant ship is rolling after you (like a giant biscuit), why not run sideways? 

How did the Weyland business empire continue if Weyland himself and his only child are both killed in this film?

Note to the writers; if the shocking revelation of your story is that the ‘Engineers’ are actually human, then perhaps don’t reveal that in your opening scene? Sort of takes away from your climax.

The effect of the black jelly is too inconsistent. Don’t give me that “oh, it reacts to the mental state of the life form it comes in contact with” because it’s bollocks. I defy someone to explain that rationally.

Assuming the aliens stayed in contact with their own kind, why when their weapons base (the setting of the film) became poisoned did others not take up the task of ending life on earth 2000 years ago? The film points out that they have a home world, so they weren’t the last of their kind. Didn’t they have communications of some kind, I dun ‘no, like Facebook or something?

The music is (for the most part) too upbeat and majestic, more fitting for a cartoon adventure about lost kittens, or about a brave little toy who loses his owner.

How did the android learn the alien’s language? I mean, they do answer this; apparently by studying the similarities in ancient languages. Ahem, bullshit, ahem! And even so, understanding an alien’s language shouldn’t mean you can effortlessly activate their technology…

Nobody at any point stayed in contact with Earth. Seems a bit stupid.

Why did Weyland have to hide aboard the ship like a stowaway, it was his fucking ship! Surely if the man is paying the bills he pretty much gets to set the parameters? I mean, the scientists were hardly going to pass-up the expedition rather than take along some old codger, were they?

How could the Romans confuse the alien for Jesus? Assuming they did, which I believe is the crux of the film. The ‘Engineers’ stayed in contact with earth after creating humanity, visiting on occasion, till they eventually come visit us during the Roman Empire. This ends badly, they crucify the ‘Engineer’ and so his kin decide ‘fuck the humans’. They fly away and work on a biological weapon to destroy us / their creation.

My final thought... Jesus = average looking guy with a big beard, very mellow and peaceful, even in the face of adversity. Engineer = 8 foot tall unstoppable humanoid with no hair whatsoever and aggressive tendencies.

PROMETHEUS; Carlisle’s Final Word.

"A king has his reign, and then he dies. It's inevitable."

Meredith Vickers.

 

Script Logic; 0/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 1/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 0/2

Score; 4/10

Final Word; A nonsensical, overblown, cliché ridden and smug mess of a film. Makes the fatal mistake of revealing its ‘twist’ in the opening scene and has nothing else to keep you interested. So many plot holes and ‘what the fuck?’ moments  it makes the mind boggle. If it didn’t have Ridley Scott’s name attached no critic would give it the time of day- what was he thinking? Does Scott have Dementia now? Vicker's quote opening this review sadly illustrates both the career of Ridley Scott and the genre-defining Alien franchise.

PAN'S LABYRINTH; Carlisle's Final Word.

"You're getting older, and you'll see that life isn't like your fairy tales.
The world is a cruel place. And you'll learn that, even if it hurts."

Carmen, Pan's Labyrinth (2006).

Internal Logic: 2/2

Pace: 2/2

Acting: 2/2

Aesthetic: 2/2

Intention & Origionality: 2/2

Score: 10/10



Final Word: Both beautiful and haunting in equal measure, a must see film. Spanish and subtitled, but let that put you off and you're missing one of the best films ever made; part Schindler's List and part Chronicles of Narnia. Guillermo Del Toro's master piece, and a far superior film to it's spiritual-kindred The Devil's Bcakbone. I could go on (and on), but I wouldn't want to undermine it by overhyping- the less you know the better the experiance. Go see it.

"EXCUSE ME, MA'AM; JUST THE FACTS..."

Brett Chase. LA Confidential (1997).

So I got to thinking a while back (before the fucking computer went down and took about 5 years of writing with it) 'is it possible to have a completely unprejudiced way inwhich to measure a film?' After all, even the best critics (myself included, obviously) are never going to be impartial judges.

I knocked this thought around in the ol' noggin for a while and formulated a plan: what if all the seperate components used to judge a film were taken into consideration and given equal weight? Then a score could be allocated to each. What could be simpler than a 3 rank system; poor, average, good? Ask someone to answer a simple question, and they'll usually give a varient on these 3 replies.

This, my friends, is the result: CARLISLE'S FINAL WORD.

Fair, accurate and undeniable... Hopefully.

Here's how it works.

Choose a film. Got one? Good. Now, try to be fair with yourself or this will fall-flat.

Let's look at the script's internal logic. Did the story make sense within the confines of the world the film is set? Another way to look at that is 'was it full of stupid plot-holes?' Now we give the film a score between 0 and 2 (‘poor’, 'average' or 'good').

• Did the film make perfect sense? 2 points.
• Sort of worked, a little logic is disregarded to reach a satisfying climax? 1 point.
• The film had more holes than a net? 0 points.

Now the pacing...

• Were you on the edge of your seat the whole while? 2 points.
• Glanced at your watch a few times, getting a numb bum, drawn into a conversation? 1 point.
• Bored? 0 points.

Budget. Was it all up there on the screen for you to admire and ogle, or did the film feel a little 'made for TV'? It's a fair question, presentation matters. You may be thinking this puts small budget films at a disadvantage? Yes, it does. But bear in mind, that's only going to make a very small difference, it just won't be a perfect film, and you may even love it more for this.

• Were the sets and effects completely believable, given the constraints of the time it was made? Yes? 2 points.

• Workmanlike. They did the job, nothing more. Not a 'game changer'. 1 point.

• Laughable, distracting, lazy- even for a no-budget film. 0 points.

Alright, almost done. How about the acting?

• Was it all completely believable, did it serve the nature of the film (if it was a comedy, were the stars actually funny)? Yes? 2 points.

• Most of it held up, a few duff performances but nothing that ruined the film. 1 point.

• Bad. All bad. Transformers bad. 0 points.

This is the last question now, and it's possibly the most subversive. Did the film set out what it intended to achieve? This is the question most open to public debate. If the film was meant to be thought provoking, or funny, or exciting, or action packed, was it? I've seen too many action films that had no action, to many thrillers that didn't thrill, too many horrors that didn't scare, and too many 'thought provoking' films that just said the same bullshit over and over again (yes, war is bad. I know that). Otherwise, was it original?

• The film did exactly what it intended to do in a fresh and inventive way. 2 points.

• Yeah, but it's nothing you havn't seen a 100 times before. 1 point.

• Completely missed the mark. 0 points.

You should now be left with a total, and rather handily the total (or mark) will be out of 10- see what I did there? Looks like a lot, but it's actually idiotically simple.

A score of 0 is a total abomination.
1-3 is crap, avoid it.
4-6 is worth catching if it's on TV, or you have nothing better to do.
7-9 is excellent, worth the price of cinema admission.
A score of 10 is a perfect film, a very very rare thing.

You can't argue with the facts!

So, I'll be using this format, and on occasion a more in depth analysis (particually newer releases), to churn out reviews in a speedy fashion. Enjoy either reluctantly agreeing or disagreeing with the results, but it has to be said that at least it's more impartial than most reviews.

It's worth pointing out I'd tried and tested this theory on over 100 films, and the results weren't always obvious. Hell, some of my favourite films come off at worse than I'd hoped, but the sad truth is it's a fair (if brutal) assessment. That says something for individual tastes.

"It's much easier to win an argument when you start out by being right"

Irish wisdom.

FIGHT CLUB; Carlisle's Final Word.

"Did you know that if you mix equal parts of gasoline and frozen orange juice concentrate you can make napalm?"

Tyler Durden.

Script Logic; 2/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Score; 9/10

Final Word; Close to a perfect film, which I should have marked down for what is essentially (no matter how entertaining) a cliché ending. But that said, it's pulled off with a fresh and exciting spin, and it's exactly the experiance that David Fincher intended it to be: subversive, intriguing, seductive, edgy, and darkly funny. Again, another iconic film.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS, RETURN OF THE KING; Carlisle’s Final Word.

"A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day.

An hour of woes and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight!"

Aragorn.

 

 

 

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Score; 7/10




Final Word; The weakest in an amazing trilogy, but by no mans a bad film. A great film infact. Again, for all its strengths its let down by a plodding pace, details that don't serve the story, and an over-sentimental ending that drags (and drags, and drags). That said, expect glory, drama, warefare and heroism. Final final thought, too many elephents...

THE LORD OF THE RINGS, THE TWO TOWERS; Carlisle’s Final Word.

"There shall be no dawn for men"

Saruman.

 

 

Script Logic; 2/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Score; 8/10

Final Word; Following on from the first film was always going to be a tall order, but for the most part the film succeeds. Weakened by a very slow start, some needless subplots and irrelevant details, but comes into its own in the second half with a brilliant battle scene. Purists of the book will criticise some of the changes, and while some of these do feel like strange choices, others do serve the story arc of the film. Like its predecessor, could do with loosing 30 minutes of run-time.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS, FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING; Carlisle’s Final Word.

"One Ring to Rule Them All. One Ring to Find Them. One Ring to Bring Them All and In The Darkness Bind Them."

Gandalf.

 

Script Logic; 2/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Intention & Originality; 2/2

Score; 9/10

Final Word; A very faithful adaption of the first book, and a staggeringly detailed presentation of Tolkien’s world. Could have benefited by a little more editing, and a less slavish devotion to the source material (much of which does nothing for the story), but still a brilliant adventure, and brave enough to take itself seriously.