Profile for A. Whyte > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by A. Whyte
Top Reviewer Ranking: 3,996,972
Helpful Votes: 147

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
A. Whyte "charteredstreets" (Scotland)
(REAL NAME)   

Show:  
Page: 1
pixel
Sexie
Sexie
Price: £12.80

4.0 out of 5 stars Forget the video, listen to this instead, 31 Aug. 2009
This review is from: Sexie (Audio CD)
As the other reviewer says the video available of Sexie seems to be on a bit of an off night for Eddie; I listened to the CD version first, then when I Saw the video I kept waiting for the funny bits, and they kept not coming. The jokes that are in both versions are funnier in the audio version too. Some of Izzard's shows have CDs that were recorded the same night as the video (e.g. Circle) and some on different nights (Glorious, Definite Article). Experiencing both versions gives you an insight into Izzard's comedy and I think stand-up in general; it's actually quite hard to judge a show from a single night. I think it was Woody Allen who once said that the material really isn't all that important in stand-up; getting a feel for the room and the audience and the rhythm is what really makes it good or bad. I would have dismissed Sexie altogether as Izzard's weakest effort, had I not listened to the audio version first.


Mystery of the Yellow Room (Dedalus European Classics)
Mystery of the Yellow Room (Dedalus European Classics)
by Gaston Leroux
Edition: Paperback
Price: £7.39

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Murder Mystery Masterpiece, 24 Sept. 2008
I don't believe the other reviews here do this wonderful book justice. "The Mystery of the Yellow Room," which I have just finished reading for the second time, is one of the most enjoyable, intriguing and ingenious crime novels ever written. The first time I was probably slightly preoccupied with getting to the explanation of the locked-room mystery but the second time I was able to take it all in more and appreciate the way the final solution is set up but also impossible to guess. There's a rich array of characters and the book is cleverly put together, occasionally breaking away from its first person narrator to tell sections of the story via newspaper cuttings or transcripts. This is a popular entertainment novel (albeit one that's 100 years old), but if it is so then it is as the very highest point of the 'low' art of the who-dunnit - or more especially 'how-dunnit?' (a question so perplexing it may make you forget to ask the first, and be doubly surprised). Here is one of those rare entertainments, like certain Hitchcock's movies, that you find even more entertaining when you return it.


Batman Vs Dracula [DVD] [2005] [Region 1] [US Import] [NTSC]
Batman Vs Dracula [DVD] [2005] [Region 1] [US Import] [NTSC]
Dvd ~ Rino Romano
Offered by supermart_usa
Price: £4.87

17 of 19 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Better than I expected - can't beat the old series though., 22 Jan. 2006
I hadn't seen "The Batman" animated TV series before watching this, and my expectations weren't all that high as what I'd heard wasn't all that positive and, after all, how could it beat the animated series from the '90s? The feature-length cartoon is, however, good, dark (it's Batman, after all) fun.
The combination of Dracula and the Dark Knight may seem a slightly odd one, but it's not too strange, really. Consider, the appeal of both vampires and Batman is in their dark natures, and their dual existences. Both Dracula and Batman have respectable public personas, and both have a darker (and, for that matter, nocturnal) hidden side to their characters. They also both, uh, turn into bats - a point this feature makes more times than is really needed, but there you go.
The story involves, along with Bats and Dracula, reporter Vicki Vale, the Joker, and the Penguin. The Joker in this new series is quite good fun, but the character was perfected in the old series, and while the voice of Kevin Michael Richardson is good, it can't beat Mark Hamill, whose sinister coo and laugh evoked both humour and horror. The Penguin is done well, more extreme than in the old series, where his character was the only villain I found a little dull and disappointing. Here he is - in appearance - more like the "Long Halloween" Penguin: uncommonly short and with fangs. He's also the funniest character in the movie. Rino Romano is fine as Wayne/Batman, although, again, he stands in the shadow of Kevin Conroy, who voiced the character in the old series. The only relatively well-known actor whose voice is used is Peter Stormare ("Fargo," "Minority Report") as Dracula, who does a very good job, even though I am more used to seeing him playing nutjobs.
The movie is effective enough at what it does for me to recommend it, but if you're new to the world of Batman in animated form, I most highly recommend "Mask of the Phantasm," the first animated film that accompanied the old series, which has become a sort of classic to Batfans. Nevertheless, "The Batman vs. Dracula" is fun, at times eerie and thrilling, and definitely worth checking out.


Eight Legged Freaks [DVD] [2002]
Eight Legged Freaks [DVD] [2002]
Dvd ~ David Arquette
Offered by Quality Media Supplies Ltd.
Price: £17.49

11 of 15 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A silly film. Great fun, though., 30 Jan. 2003
"Eight Legged Freaks" works better than it really ought to. It goes through every cliché in the book, yet it does not work DESPITE of its overuse of clichés - it works BECAUSE of them.
There is the Geeky kid (Harry Potter look-a-like Scott Terra), and his Weird old friend (Tom Noonan). The Weird old friend has a spider fetish, and has found that if he feeds his spiders cockroaches from a specific lake they grow very big. What he doesn't know is that the lake is actually where a toxic waste spill occurred recently (toxic waste... it's always the toxic waste), and soon the spiders are out of control. The Geeky kid tries to warn the town, but he is the Geeky kid, and who is going to believe the Geeky kid?
The Geeky kid lives with his Popular sister (the ever-good Scarlett Johansson), and his Tough-cop mother (Kari Wuhrer), who left her Unfaithful husband. David Arquette plays the Former citizen, who has heard that a Greedy Mayor wants to try and sell the his father's mines to businesses that will fill them with toxic waste (yep, more toxic waste). All the while the Geeky kid is jumping up and down trying to tell the town the giant spiders are coming their way, and no one is paying any attention whatsoever.
On top of all of this, we have the Popular sister's Horny boyfriend and his Dumb friends, the Old residents, the Tough-cop mother's Dumb sidekick and, of course, the Scary monsters which are, in this case, Giant mutant spiders. There are more clichés, but if I told you them, it would feel like I was spoiling something for you.
Last month I saw "Jason X", which suffered not because it overused clichés as much as because it took the concepts that had become cliché and pretended it had come up with them first. "Eight Legged Freaks" knows damn well that these clichés have been around for decades, and is only an inch away from self mocking.
Take, for example, the scene where the Popular daughter is kissing her Horny boyfriend in the front of his truck. He comes on to her a little too much for the Popular Daughter's liking, and she says "look, I don't want to lose my virginity in the front seat of a truck." But is she saying this because she ACTUALLY does not want to lose her virginity, or because she knows that there is a rule that if you have sex in a horror movie, you get killed. Here's another one - when the Geeky boy hitches a lift into town (he is picked up, conveniently, by the Former citizen, who wants to pair up with his Tough-cop mother), the Geeky boy tries to explain to the Former citizen that the spiders have grown to mammoth proportions), then eventually says "but, of course, you don't believe me, 'cause they NEVER believe the kid!"
The movie also has a wicked sense of humour that makes it all the more enjoyable, I found myself tittering regularly (especially at the movie's closing credits song, you gotta stay for that). And it also has thrills and chills, some scenes are pretty exciting, and everyone knows that sticking your hand into a dark place is pretty creepy.
Humour, giant mutant spiders and toxic waste - what more could you ask for from a summer movie? "Eight Legged Freaks" is basically a B-movie with more impressive special effects and a bigger budget, but has no pretensions of be anything more. Its formula has been going around since the '50s, and it plays as more of a tribute to such movies than a spoof. Yes, it lacks any originality whatsoever, has hammy acting and obvious gags but, heck, if you're going to take a movie about giant mutant spiders taking over a town seriously, you don't deserve to enjoy it.


Lovely And Amazing [DVD] [2002]
Lovely And Amazing [DVD] [2002]
Dvd ~ Catherine Keener
Offered by A*BargainProducts
Price: £7.86

33 of 40 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Men might avoid this film, but it is about people, not women, 30 Jan. 2003
The characters in "Lovely & Amazing" are not terribly likeable to begin with. They just seem unfairly rude and cynical and they are certainly not perfect. I found myself worrying I would have to spend an hour and a half with these people.
Luckily, though, the characters grow on you. They grow on you because we understand why they are cynical, and why they are often rude. They follow a path, during the movie, the never feels unrealistic. When the characters make decisions we feel not that the screenplay is telling them what do to, but that the characters are choosing what to do - the writer never lets his ego stop their evolution. Soon into the movie I began to sympathise with the characters and not long after I found myself liking them, too.
The main characters in "Lovely & Amazing" are all women - but this is not a 'chick-flick', a term I would consider either sexist or a pathetic way to excuse bad writing. Anyone can sympathise with these characters, regardless of the technicalities. There is the mother, Jane Marks (Brenda Blethyn), her two daughters Michelle (Catherine Keener) and Elizabeth (Emily Mortimer) as well as her adopted African American daughter, Annie (Raven Goodwin), considerably younger than her sisters.
Other characters diffuse in and out of their lives. Michelle is married to a man who seems to have lost all interest in her. She has no job, but passes the time by making little chairs out of twigs, and attempting to sell them to uninterested shops. When her husband tells her to get a job, she does - an eight-dollar-an-hour job at a one-hour photo stand. Her 'boss' is Jordan (Jake Gyllenhaal), a teenage boy with a crush on her. They have an affair, which goes disastrously wrong.
Elizabeth is an unmarried actress (so to speak), but is in a relationship with a man. Unfortunately, she is far more interested in dogs than being married. Or being an actress. Or having a boyfriend. Jane is divorced (we never see her ex-husband) and spends most of the film in hospital, having cosmetic surgery on her gut that keeps having complications. She has a crazy dream that the doctor taking care of her will fall in love with her after the surgery (when she thinks he is flirting with her, she telephones her daughter to share the news).
Annie, still a preteen, is having difficulty coming to terms with her skin colour. She is arrogant and rebellious, but not un-likeable. She is also becoming more grown up - perhaps at too early an age - she is overweight, but tries to pretend she is attempting to lose weight: she is found in McDonald's with vast amounts of food before her and says she was not planning to eat it all, she "just couldn't decide what to choose".
If I have made this movie sound dull, it is because I have not mentioned its sense of humour. We laugh at movies when there is a victim of the comedy - someone we, the audience, can sympathise with. All of the characters in "Lovely & Amazing" are realistic and therefore when they are hurt we feel sympathy and we laugh. And I'm not just talking about the main trio of characters.
Consider, again, the relationship that forms between Michelle and Jordan. It's not even a relationship, really: more of a joke. Michelle is only doing it because she is bored with her husband and wants to try something new and exciting. Jordan, young and naïve, mistakes her lust for love. Their relationship climaxes with Michelle being arrested for statutory rape, and Jake, not trying to make excuses, claiming that they are in love and "she didn't even rape me!" In most comedies an older woman with a younger boy is comic and not taken seriously, but if you flip the genders around it is always taken very seriously - here is a movie that is not nearly as sexist.
There are many other memorable scenes, such as the one where Annie, too perceptive for her own good, points out all of the things wrongs with her too older sisters, and is surprisingly accurate in her observations. And another where Elizabeth stands nude in front of a movie star she dates, and asks him to give a full analysis of her body, including all the good and bad points. And... but I don't want to spoil it for you. See "Lovely & Amazing" if you're tired of the 'chick-flick' cliché, or if you just want to see into the lifestyles of other people, which is basically why we go to the cinema in the first place, isn't it?


No Man's Land [DVD] [2002]
No Man's Land [DVD] [2002]
Dvd ~ Branko Djuric
Offered by Springwood Media
Price: £3.80

15 of 15 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Tragic, to the point, and rather brilliant, 30 Jan. 2003
This review is from: No Man's Land [DVD] [2002] (DVD)
Last year, just before the Academy voted their choices for the Oscars, Miramax launched a campaign. The campaign was pretty simple - to have the Academy, who's vote choices included Best Foreign Language Film, to actually have SEEN the foreign language films they were voting from. The only Miramax film in this category was the hugely popular French movie Amelie, which is what most would have been voted for without the campaign as it is probably the only film most of the voters would have seen, so this was a brave and rather admirable step for Miramax to take. The campaign was launched, the films were viewed, and No Man's Land, a Bosnian film, won.
Whether it is, in fact, better than Amelie or whether the Academy followed suit from Cannes and thought it was too 'lightweight' for an Oscar is debatable but this is still a very good war film.
The story is pretty simple. In 1993, two Bosnians and a Serb are caught in a trench between enemy lines. They - eventually - call a truce as one of the Bosnians is lying on top of an unexploded mine, planted by the Serbs to fool the Bosnians when they think the soldier is dead, that would explode if he got up and kill all of them. Things start spinning out of hand when the UN and the media become involved, not least because they all seem to speak different languages.
Dani Tanovic's biting war film has satirical touches - the situation would almost be a comic set up if it were not for the threat to the soldiers' lives. The soldiers from the opposing sides (the third, on the mine, is a smaller though crucial part), through their fights and arguments learn a little about each other and both come to the conclusion that the war will solve nothing and it is the other side's fault it started. They both have opportunities to kill each other but do not, not because they become friends but because they realise that it would be a human being they were killing rather than just another enemy soldier.
Perhaps No Man's Land does not have the scope of movies such as Apocalypse Now, or the emotional depth of movies like Platoon or Schindler's List, but it still outlines how pointless war is and the effect it can have on people. It gets the message across well, as it shows us the situation from four different viewpoints - the soldiers involved; the concerned UN blue caps ("smurfs"); the nosy news reporter; and the indifferent bigwig (played by Simon Callow).
The situation in the movie has an effect on everyone's lives involved, and you will find yourself on the edge of your seat all the way up to the inevitable, and devastating, climax. At 98 minutes it is a little short but it still manages to fulfil its purpose and this is considerably better than some of the gung-ho war movies Hollywood sporadically spews out.


Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Two Disc Widescreen Edition) [DVD] [2002]
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Two Disc Widescreen Edition) [DVD] [2002]
Dvd ~ Daniel Radcliffe|Rupert Grint|Emma Watson|Kenneth Branagh
Offered by rebeccathackray
Price: £16.64

8 of 12 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Forget about the book for a moment, and admire the film, 30 Jan. 2003
He has tasted freedom, for a whole year, and he is looking forward to his next bite. Trapped inside his bedroom with only Hedwig, his owl, young Wizard-in-training Harry Potter is a prisoner in his own home, not even allowed to (would you believe it) practice magic.
He is visited by Dobby the House Elf, who you will probably like a little more than Jar-Jar Binks. He has been keeping the letters from Harry's friends from him, in an attempt to stop Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) going back to his beloved Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Why this is will not be revealed for some time.
Dobby gets Harry into trouble with his nasty relatives (the Dursleys), and he is locked in his room with bars on his windows. Not a problem, though, when you have a flying Ford Anglia and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), Harry's friend from his first year at Hogwarts, has just that. He pulls off the old stunt with the rope on the bars and the driving away (albeit in mid-air) in the opposite direction (the one that you've seen in a Western movie once). As they fly away, the rather brilliant punch line is delivered: 'By the way,' says Ron, 'Happy birthday, Harry.'
Before you can say 'muggles,' Harry is back at Hogwarts, and something strange is afoot (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a movie). Wizards who are not of 'pure blood' (i.e. not coming from wizard families) are being 'petrified,' that is frozen in shock, after seeing a monster lurking in the 'Chamber of Secrets,' a hidden chamber as yet unfound by anyone in the school. It is believed to have been built by one of the school's founders, a Mr Slytherin, the most rebellious of the four founders and the only one who wanted the school to be entirely made up of pure bloods. It is up to Harry and his friends, Ron and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) to solve the mystery of the Chamber of Secrets, and to avoid getting pulled up for breaking school rules.
That is but the bare bones of a complex story that is also easy to follow. And it's never boring because "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a brilliant fantasy movie; because "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a brilliant adventure movie; and because "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a brilliant detective movie.
What is fantasy without visuals? Here there are some stunning special effects, in action sequences that advance the story and are simultaneously stunning to look at. No three-headed dogs this time, but there is a giant snake and some pretty big spiders. These are parts of the story, not action sequences just for the sake of thrills and chills. On top of this, John William's score is, as you would expect, excellent. There are handfuls of superb sets. And, finally, Chris Columbus's direction is confident and effective.
As an adventure film, it reminded me of films such as the Indiana Jones ones, where the object is everything to the individuals, and the execution is everything to the director. Harry Potter is one of those characters who, like Indy, does not look for adventure, but is more than happy to pursue it when it comes along.
The piecing together of the puzzle - the detective film element - is not only thrilling, but clever, too. For a film intended for the family (which usually, although not here, means for kids), it, surprisingly, manages to stay one step ahead of you. There are genuine surprises here, but nothing that you can't swallow. With the knowledge of what is to come, another viewing is enhanced (I know; I have seen it twice). Notice, also, how the wands are waved threateningly between enemies just as guns would be in a detective film of yesteryear. This all works because of the fact that we are able to buy into these characters. The performances by the children are all so good (and, possibly, polished up a little after the first attempt last year) that there is no barrier between the audience and the characters. As screenwriter Steve Kloves himself said, 'If you don't care about the kids in "Harry Potter," you're not going to care about the movie, no matter how remarkable the dragon or the flying broomsticks.'
The cast, of course, does not start and end with the children. Far from it, as you will observe in the performances by Richard Harris (in one of his last roles) as the Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore; Maggie Smith as Jean Bro... sorry, Professor Minerva McGonagall and Alan Rickman as Potter-hater Professor Snape.
As for new additions to the series, the two that stand out are Kenneth Branagh's Gilderoy Lockhart and Jason Isaacs's Lucius Malfoy. Lockhart is the new Professor of Defence Against the Dark Arts, whose tall tales have made his books bestsellers. Branagh is easily the funniest character here, perfectly cast and somewhat self-mocking. Malfoy, Potter's rival Draco's father, is a bad guy before he even speaks, suggested through his clothing and use of music. Although the two never meet, there is a sort of contest to see how far they can go: both edge nearer and nearer being over-the-top without ever reaching it.
Here is a film that takes the great imagination of one person, J.K. Rowling, the excellent adaptation skills of another, Steve Kloves, the impressive realisation of another, Chris Columbus, and places all these brilliant elements in front of the camera. The world of Hogwarts seems endless; there is so much to be discovered and explored. Packed with imagination, creativity and pulled off with skill and craftsmanship, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" plays off an audience in a way that few other movies are able to. It's one of the year's best films.


Waking Life [DVD] [2002]
Waking Life [DVD] [2002]
Dvd ~ Ethan Hawke
Offered by Jasuli
Price: £4.25

32 of 35 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A brave new step for animation`, 30 Jan. 2003
This review is from: Waking Life [DVD] [2002] (DVD)
Who says animation should just be for kids? Well, according to recent evidence, not many people actually do. There have been animated adult movies for a while (and I ain't talking Fritz The Cat), but none of them really made a huge impact. So when, exactly, did animation for adults and children take-off, big time?
Anime has been around for a while, but only really has a cult following. Arguably, it was with The Simpsons that animators realised that animation could be for adults and children too. Then came South Park and Beavis & Butthead, two teenage animated series that spun off decent movies. Disney incorporated more mature jokes into Aladdin and Toy Story, and Dreamworks did the same with Antz and Shrek.
And now comes an animated film mainly for adults; one that does not play for gags; and one that not only transcends the animated label, but transcends film itself.
Richard Linklater's Waking Life was first filmed, on a pretty tight budget, with regular digital cameras, and then injected with animation via computers before being transferred to film. This gives the animators the ability to add real movement and detail to the movie. I felt, in fact, that although this does not look realistic in the way that, say, Toy Story 2 looked realistic, it is probably the most REAL animated film I have ever seen. By making the film animated it gave it a unique feel and also gave the filmmakers the ability to play with special effects without spending millions (for instance the main character flying, which he does a few times).
The main character in question is played by Wiley Wiggins, whom you may recognise from Linklater's Dazed And Confused. He remains nameless, and the film follows him on what may or may not be a lucid dream (a dream that can be controlled, for those of you who did not see Vanilla Sky), listening to and making conversations with a host of interesting characters. These are the same people that you pass every time you go anywhere; the same ones you will never see again or learn anything about. So why don't we talk to people like that? Why don't we learn their opinions and theories? Wouldn't that make humans fill their full potential, rather than just mumbling about the weather and how late the buses are? Waking Life puts this down to one of two things: either fear or laziness.
We never learn which parts of this are real and which are in the head of the nameless dreamer. Perhaps he is, as Ethan Hawke brings up in his scene, dying and the whole film is set in the few minutes between when his body dies and when his mind dies. Remember a "second of dream consciousness is infinitely longer than a waking second". Maybe this is all in his head after he is hit, near the start of the film, by a car and he has slipped into a coma. Or maybe the whole film is a dream.
It was in the same moment that I realised that it did not matter whether he is dreaming or not that another question popped into my mind: what really is the difference between dreams and reality? The Matrix touched upon this subject and I wish it went deeper into it. Often in dreams you do something irrational or something inexplicable happens which leads you to think "hey, am I dreaming?" But how often do you think that when you are actually awake?
The film plays like a dream, yes, but no more like a dream than any movie. Dreams and movies are similar, they are both escapism and in both cases we are looking on at something that is not actually happening. As an audience we are staring at a white screen with light shone onto it in such a way images are formed. When we dream we are lying asleep, with our eyes closed, yet images form in our heads.
The movie, though, is about much more than merely dreams. It is about everything Richard Linklater thought about as he wrote the screenplay. It is like sitting down next to a stranger at a bus stop and, instead of discussing how late the buses are, discussing the meaning of life. Not rushing so as you can cover everything, just moving, as conversations do, from one subject to another and taking time on the things that are interesting. Not all of the people in the movie agree entirely (which is to say, they do not exactly disagree) but they care about everyone else's opinions.
Some may call the movie pretentious. Maybe so, you could say the same about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Apocalypse Now. To call the movie "quirky" would probably be a bigger insult to Linklater, as it not only tells nothing about the movie, but it labels it when it really should not be labelled at all.
I found myself actually thinking in a different way about things as I left the cinema after seeing this movie (or perhaps "experiencing" would be a better word), and that is about the highest praise I can give a movie. The film would throw a point at me that would start me down a train of thought, and before I knew it I had missed a few minutes - I wanted to watch parts again, and I am sure I will. I feel this movie has a genuinely mind-expanding effect, and it will make you talk, think and, in some cases, change. The cinema screen becomes a window to a world that may have immediately appeared different to our world, but on closer inspection resembled ours in greater detail than many live feature films do. I walked out of the cinema feeling both refreshed and intrigued, thinking about things that had never crossed my mind before. This reminded me why I love the movies.


Miss Julie [DVD] [2000]
Miss Julie [DVD] [2000]
Dvd ~ Saffron Burrows
Offered by Discs4all
Price: £4.07

21 of 26 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Unable to grasp your interest or sell its characters, 17 Dec. 2002
This review is from: Miss Julie [DVD] [2000] (DVD)
Adapting anything to the screen is a risky business. But it is thanks to screen adaptations that we have The Godfather, Gone With The Wind, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and a hundred other great films. But we also have The Beach, Stephen King's It, Complicity and many, many more. So I will admit that taking Strindberg's play and adapting it to screen was a brave thing to do, and I respect Helen Cooper, the writer, and Mike Figgis, the director and producer, for doing so. But it, ultimately, fails.
It is Midsummer Night in the 1890s in Sweden. Two people on different sides of the class system - a Count's daughter and a footman - form a strange relationship. But can they get away with this, while the other servants seem to catch onto their wicked game? And will they be able to leave, and form a happy life on their own? As Waldorf and Statler from the Muppets put it, "the question is: who cares?"
Miss Julie is a film that borders on being a hundred things. It borders on being shocking; it borders on being interesting; it borders on being erotic; it borders on being creative in its portrayal of these characters; it borders on having interesting characters. It borders upon being good. But it is none of these things.
Firstly, the film is very stagy. I enjoy plays, but I go to the theatre to see them. I wanted to see a film. It seems to stick far too closely to the source material. Essentially, the entire film is set in a very tight area - practically one room. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we are involved enough with the characters to keep interested (Twelve Angry Men springs to mind). Here, any change of scenery at all would have been very welcome.
Secondly, Saffron Burrows was, I think, miscast in the role of the Count's daughter, I never felt at all emotionally involved with this character, and in scenes that we were supposed to feel emotionally challenged, I just felt quite awkward. Furthermore, I think that she delivered far too many of her lines in a way I did not think they should have been delivered.
But some of the dialogue is good, and Peter Mullan gives a reasonable performance, even if sometimes he too seems a little uncomfortable. And the split screen sex scene works quite well, and at least it looks different than the rest of the pretty dull stuff. The film is generally uninteresting, melodramatic and often very tedious.
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Apr 19, 2012 4:22 PM BST


Page: 1