Crappy Movie Reviews - Bond, James Bond

5 Worst James Bond Films

Alright, with the release of the new Bond film, Skyfall, I have hopped back into the bad reviews and ready to critic some of the films from my favourite franchise. Bond, James Bond.  Now it’s been a few years since I have watch some of the most appalling of the lot, so I bringing back some of the darker moments of my life. I was going to pick the worst, but, in fact there is some appallingness from many films that would be very wrong of me to miss. So, here are my worst 5 James Bonds films, no particular order, they have their own reasons for being there.

For anyone not familiar with the history of Bond in film check out Wiki

 

A View to a Kill – 1985

Preview:

 

This was the last of Roger Moore’s films before handing it over to Timothy Dalton. After Sean Connery had retired the 007 status in 1971, Bond writers had wanted someone who could keep up with the legend that was Connery. They found it in Moore, a semi famous English actor at the time. He went on to do several fantastic Bond films, including Live and Let Die, Man with the Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me. More humorous and light hearted than Connery he was well received... .until this film.     

Filmed in the US it pits James Bond up against a microchip manufacturer hell bent on destroying the Silicon Valley. Now, the best part of this film is that the villain is Max Zorin, played by a young looking Christopher Walken and his velvet voice. Now, being 1985 we should be expecting a film which is on par with Die Heard (1987) or Lethal Weapon (1988), but its not. This feels like a 1960s film. 

Firstly, Bond looks OLD. Really OLD. Moore was almost 60 at the time and his face and hair look it. Moore runs around tired and exhausted until his stunt double takes over. Most of his scenes he doesn’t DO anything. Lots of staring, slight hair turning and raising eyebrows. 

The next thing is that for a Bond to be good you need some wicked action scenes. Think Craig Daniel’s Parkour running, Brosnan’s Soviet Dam scene or Connery’s “No, I expect you to die!”. This has nothing. The best is some weird horse riding scene where Zorin changes the show jumps heights to get rid of Bond or where a fat US cop is chasing Bond in a firetruck or the worst where Grace Jones as one of Zoran’s henchmen fly fishes one of Bond’s informant in the face.... to Moore’s responce “There is a fly in his soup!” BOOOOOOO!!!!!!

The last thing is Grace Jones. Now, for those who don’t know her she was a singer in the 80’s from Studio 54. Tall, dark and well a hair style that was well... cartoonish. While she maybe a singer, she clearly can’t act. She stumbles through most of her lines and clearly looks out of place. The one interesting thing about this was that at the time she was going out with Dolph Lundgren another B Grade actor at the time. He ended up doing a small part in the films, his first part ever. 

Oh, and the clip was done by Duran Duran, which basically sums up film.

Licence to Kill - 1989

Preview:

This 1989 film was the 2^nd and last Bond for Timothy Dalton. This was the film that put to rest the bond series for a 6 year siesta. Now, I remember this as being a pretty pitiful film, but in hind sight it’s not actually as bad as I remember. But, it does have some definite pitifullness which keeps it on the list. 

The films basic premise is that Bond is on a revenge mission after his friend and CIA Felix Leiter is seriously injured and Leiters wife murdered while on their honeymoon. The revenge mission is no sanction by M15 and acts as a rouge agent for the story. 

Now to start. Dalton is a terrible Bond. Just putting it out there. He sits on the bottom of many people’s list as the worst. He is just a little weak and not much fun. The point about Bond is that you want to be him, you want to be as cool as him. This man is a little well.... meh. All the other Bonds have a fun streak and had a bit of a reputation as a cool actor before doing Bond. Dalton was a Shakespeare and period drama actor. There is nothing wrong with that, but the thing is you don’t want to grow up to be him. He wanders through a bit out of place, like if Kenneth Branagh was in Die Hard.

The first thing I noticed about this film that I remember from my original watching is that it is violent. Really violent. There is nothing subtle about someone being decompressed and exploding or a henchmen being cut up through a shredder (The henchmen is a young Benicio Del Toro, playing is 2^nd on screen role). I remember this as a kid, feeling kinda awkward, this was not like the older Bonds. This is probably tame compared to today’s movies, but even today’s Bonds don’t have this kind of gore level. It’s not needed, I want to have fun, not be grossed out.

The other stark this is the weird one liners. In Bond movies they are very commonplace puns, with a fun but subtle expectation that they happen. In Licence to Kill, it feels like they forgot to write them in and the re-filmed the puns months later and placed them in. One example is the someone running a forklift into a wall. Dalton on the other side of the wall, says “Must of run into a dead end” almost like an eternity later, like he woke up later that night and thought of something cool to say. It wasn’t even a good line. 

The last thing is that main bad guy doesn’t die well. He just gets shot. How boring, not underwater drill to the face (Tomorrow never dies) or golden pistol duel in mirrored mansion (Man with the Golden Gun). YAWN!

Die Another Day - 2002

Preview:

Similar to Licence To Kill, this movie was so bad it sent the Bond series into a hiatus. This time 4 years and a swap to Daniel Craig. This was the last of the Peirce Bronson’s 4 movies, which peaked at Goldeneye and had gone downhill since. 

The premise to this film is stupid. Just stupid. Starts off a some North Korean infiltration, then some weird torture scene, then Richard Branson lookalike bad guy, diamond face guy... Halle Berry.... more stupid then a satelittle whatever. I hate it. This is probably my most hated film, it’s stupid and makes me angry. The thing that makes me so angry was that it was my first film that I got to see when it first came out, I was finally old enough to see an M-Rated Film and I left feeling dirty. Really dirty. Why?

Well firstly it doesn’t make any sense. The film was done as a tribute to the previous 20 EON films’ taking much of the classic last 20 years, tributes include a laser satellite from Goldeneye, jet pack from You Only Live Twice, C130 from The Living Daylights and the laser table from Goldfinger. These were crudely cuts them and make a montage and mockery of everything this I love. The lack of plot is the dispersed with really poor CGI, crappy action shots and feral early 2000s dance music. 

The casting in this is also terrible. Apart from M, there is a serious lack of decent roles in this. The bad guy is (spoilers) is played by two actors who changes his looks half way through. The second half is Gustav Graves (Toby Stephens, son of Maggie Smith) a billionaire playboy with more toys that well ... a toy store. He is a really poxy, kind of whiny pom who is really kind of weak. Halle Berry as Jinx is also really awful. After Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough they should have learnt to not have Americans in it. There is a weird unsubtlety about both these actors. Most of Berry’s lines are corny one liner and by the last “I have got the THRUST of it” you want to give in. 

This was also the first Bond movie to use CGI. This may let you forgive it for looking bad because the technology was so new. But, this was out AFTER the Matrix, but looks like an early B Grade film. The ski scenes look really awful. In conjunction with the awful sets anything half decent to come of the film is quickly forgotten. The invisible car chase scene, with it John Woo fast forward scenes, is particularly terrible. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w6FV8P7HXg

The last thing. Madonna is in it. She sings and “acts”. That is all.

Moonraker - 1979

Preview:

 

The first Bond in space. Now, I’ll admit that this is terrible. Really terrible. But, I REALLY love this film. This is classic Bond, but done so ridiculously that it is basically terrible. If this starred Mick Myers rather than Roger Moore we would laugh through it. 

This movie was an original Ian Fleming novel. The book written in 1954 is intended to be a film even before the movies were started. It was held off to be movie until 1979 basically due to the Star Wars films being so popular. This film lasted as one of the highest grossing Bond films for near 30 years, basically until Goldeneye came out. 

The premise is that a philanthropist Hugo Drax starts a space race, builds a space station and wants to rid the world of ‘normal’ humans and start a super human race, all completely unknown to the rest of the world. Now, does this sound ridiculous? It only gets better. 

Lets list a few, the girl in this film is called something hideously misogynist...  Holly Goodhead TICK. A gondola that turns into a hovercraft TICK. Pigeons that do double takes TICK. Bond wrestling a snake TICK. Mass space fight between US Marines Astronauts verses rebel Drax Astronauts TICK. Finally...  the ultimate henchman JAWS.... TICK.

Lets start with Jaws. First seen in The Spy Who Loved Me. He was meant to have died in that but changed because he was so popular. He is probably the most famous of henchmen behind Odd Job (Goldfinger, he throws a hat) and Nick Nack (Man with a Golden Gun). This giant man teeth have been replaced by metal which means he can bite through anything. In the original he was a monstrous unstoppable force. This is similar, but here is the ridiculous bit. He falls in love with a pigtailed blonde call Dolly. This redeems him, making him Bonds ally, helping him leave the space station. Pure brilliance. 

One really good thing about this is Hugo Drax. His bad guy is fantastic. Evil, scary and bearded. His pure race involves sexy woman and it looks like he has banned bras. He has some great lines, “I will leave you in your own private crematorium”. The ridiculous part is he does the pure bad guy thing. Captures Bond, shows him his base, tells him his plans then, in his wisdom leave Bond in a highly escapable situation without checking if his dead.

Never Say Never Again - 1983

Preview:

The last on my list is an odd one. Never Say Never Again is not really considered a Bond film. Due to some legal wrangling, a man named Kevin McClory held the rights to the Thunderball story. This was because he helped Ian Fleming write the original story. After the original Thunderball movie was written in 1965 he was contracted to not write another Thunderball movie for ten years. But, in 1975 when the contract was up he wrote another calling it Never Say Never Again. This is not sanctioned by EON productions, so not really considered a Bond film, but because it has the Bond character, Sean Connery is in it and it is awful, so I am considering it.

The reason it is awful is because of the above mentioned. Firstly, because the book didn’t have certain rights, a few things are left out of the movie, including Q (known in this movie as Alfy), the gun barrel scene, the opening music scene, “shaken not stirred” and the traditional Bond theme.  The other main bit is that Sean Connery was used. Now this sounds offensive, buts it true. 

Before this Sean Connery’s last Bond film was Diamonds Are Forever in 1971, during which he was 41. Bordering on old for a secret agent. In Never Say Never Again he was 53. Really pushing it. He had sworn never to do a Bond film again, but was persuaded with a $3 million paycheck plus a slice of the profits. In interviews he stated that he wanted to use the money to fund a school program in Scotland. This was a huge amount of money for a role at the time, but it paid off making a killing even though it was released in the same year as Octopussy.

Now, the film. Well, its forgettably bland. Little happens in it that doesn’t happen in Thunderball. It doesn’t really stand up well against the original, just looks older. Connerry looks old and tired of it all, his toupee or wig is dreadful. Rowan Atkinson’s cameo is pretty awful. The awkward sex scene with Kim Bassanger at the end is really awkward. She also does some weird swimming scene which is criminally wrong.

Notable Crappy –

While these are the worst, there are a two more, which I would tell people not to bother with. 

Die Another Day – Denise Richards as Christmas Jones is truly bad

The Living Daylights – More Dalton

Atlas and P-Body getting some more work

Why Christopher Nolan’s Batman is like Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice. A critical essay.

 

After now seeing the Nolan Batman Trilogy (Twice) and a brief discussion with a well known Professor in film, literature and bulllshittery it came to us that there is a clear distinction between Nolan’s Gotham and Austin’s Meryton. This is a distinction that we could not ignore and must discuss. 

*I will avoid writing spoilers about Dark Knight Rises, but if something comes out, I do apologise. There are definite spoilers from the first two and Pride and Prejudice, but statute of limitations apply.

Relationship between Protagonist and Love Interest

This is probably the most clearest of distinctions between the two novels. I do not want to say that there was some kind of plagiarism between the two, but you would have to question whether Austin had used the plot lines seen in the highly successful Batman series. In Batman Begins we see Bruce Wayne as two different personas, firstly as Bruce Wayne, a billionaire playboy who uses his power and his wealth to manipulate his surrounds. His other, Batman, a masked man who uses this anonymity to punish criminals and bring good to Gotham. His love interest, Rachel Dawes, can only see his Wayne persona and hates his for it. Not until she finds out the good he has done anonymously did she really love him. It was the willingness of the protagonist to do these good things without expecting reward that let Dawes to really love him.

This is similar to the Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennet only saw Mr Darcy for his arrogance. His wealth and power manipulated his surrounds. He stopped Mr Bingley from marrying Jane Bennet due to his distaste for the family. This provided Elizabeth with a dislike for Darcy similar to Dawes when she saw Wayne buying restaurants and swimming with models in restaurant pools. 

Various Antagonists

Within both universes there are various antagonists. Each antagonist has a different role to play and a different level of evilness. The parallels between the universes are distinct. George Wickham, who starts off as a good person slowly becomes evil. His love for Elizabeth is shown early on, much to the dislike of Darcy, maybe through jealousy. He then becomes evil eloping with Lydia Bennet. His true colours are shown, he could almost be told he is a bit two-faced (see what I did there). This parallels with the Harvey Dent character and his relationship with Wayne.

William Collins, the sole heir of the Bennet fortune, while not as evil as Doctor Crane (Scarecrow) has some similarities. Knowing his power due to his inheritance/role as Arkham Asylum he uses this to get what he wants. Also why he has some a set back (being rejected/getting his own poison to the face) he still lingers and does play a small menace throughout. He also benefits from a major benefactor (Lady Catherine de Bourgh/Ra’s ul Ghul).

Lady Catherine de Bourgh is a larger than life powerful figure that plays as a central figure throughout the book. Her power and influence plays a major part in the Pride and Prejudice universe. While she is seen as an unlikeable character at the start she is seen as harmless. It is not until the end when a major confrontation halts her power. This is the same as Ra’s ul Ghul.

Fictional Settings

Gotham is probably the most well known of fictional settings, probably the reason why Austin decided to steal the ideal from Nolan. Meryton is too fictional. Both Gotham and Meryton both are well known for their large wealthy homes, there is a level of poverty explained in each. While these town exist fictionally, they exsist in real place. Gotham in the US and Meryton in England. Both the major characters, Bennet and Wayne, travel outside these fictional places to real world locations. Bennet to London and Wayne to Hong Kong.

Darcy has a Batmoblie

While not explicitly stated in the novel at the start it is clear that Austin wanted to imply that Darcy had a Batmobile. While the Bennets, Bingley, de Bough and the Gardiner’s all had carriages, Darcy does not. At no point in the novel are Darcy’s carriages talked about. It can only be assumed that he doesn’t have on, instead he has a Batmobile. It is not until later in the novel, in Chapter 10, when the quote “.... does it come in black?” is it more explicitly stated. The whole thing is given away in Chapter 12 when Darcy turns to Elizabeth and says “Get in my Batmobile, I’ll drive you from Netherfield to Longbourne”.

Conclusion

To summarise there is many similarities between the two stories. Probably considered one of the best written, well loved, the Batman Trilogy will go down in history as the greatest romance stories ever told. Pride and Prejudice has been rocketed from almost relatively unknown to popularity off the back of Nolan’s Batman success. Similar to the way Twilight and Hunger Games have fed off Harry Potter and Tolstoy’s War and Peace.

Crappy Movie Review - Batman and Robin

Batman and Robin

1997

Participants: Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Clooney, Chris O'Donnell, Uma Thurman, Alicia Silverstone

Directlessor: Joel Schumacher

Links: IMDB

Trailer:

Reviewing Crappy Movie So You Don’t Have To

In celebration of The Dark Knight Rises coming out tomorrow (19th of August 2012) and that I have got a ticket to it I thought I would do a review of the worst Batman Films, Batman and Robin. 

Quick history. This is the only film to not involve Tim Burton (Director - Batman (1989), Batman Returns (1992), Producer - Batman Forever (1995) or Christopher Nolan - Batman Begins (2005), Dark Knight (2008) and Dark Knight Rises (2012). And it shows. While the original Batman (1989) doesn't not hold up well Batman and Robin was the only one to be critically panned when it came out. 

The director was Joel Schumacher who directed and Batman Forever (1995) but had no Burton to look over it. The result is an unmitigated mess and the Batman franchise left alone for 10 years. 

So what when wrong. Well, there's much to hate about this film. So much.

Batman and Robin was basically green lighted straight after the success of Batman Forever. Tim Burton didn't want to direct it again and Schumacher was given the seat. He has been quoted to say he want to pay tribute to the 1960s starring Adam West. If anyone has seen this, you will know that it would not need any tributing... AT ALL. The shark repellant scene can explain it.

So Schumacher wanted to basically pay tribute to corny one liners, crappy plots, poor costumes and appalling acting. So he did.

The whole film is basically corny one liners. I do not think that one line in this film contains anything that could be considered plot device or story telling just a set up towards another awful joke. Mr Freeze (Schwarzenegger) every line revolves around a ice joke. "Ice to see you" or "It's time to cool down". GRRROOOAAANNNN. All that Robin (Chris O'Donnell) and Batwoman (Alicia Silverstone) do is flirt but in a way that would make you think that the lines were written by a computer, certainly not someone who is ever had any interaction with a real person. I cant imagine why anyone told Uma to talk the way she does. Overacting at its best.

(Fun few others "Adam and Ev-il",  "Lets kick some Ice",

The worst has to be the Bat Card....... OH YEAH.

Moving onto what would you consider the plot. As you can imagine there is not much here in the way of plot. I can't really blame Schumacher for this. Very rarely in 80s or 90s films do you see a convincing plot line in an action film. We are spoilt with Nolan's Batmans with in depth background and well told stories. All Batmans in this era are basic origin stories with action scenes and gaps between action scenes.

But, something about this movie has some brilliance in appallingness. Most action scenes revolve around one of the main characters beating up some minions of some sort. Mr Freeze's Ice Skaters, unsuspecting police officers, neon paint covered squatters or even each other. 

The other plot device used is the orphan device. Basically to provide drive for all of good guys is that their parents are dead. Batman, Robin and Batgirl have no parents. Mr Freeze has lost his wife. You would think that in Gotham that you have at least a 50% chance of losing your parents or that there are some seriously lazy writers. I tend to go with the later.

The other term to use for the plot is Toyic.

One thing that is seriously appalling is the deception of Bane. Now, Bane in the comics is probably one of Batman's biggest adversary. An intelligent, well organised and strong leader. He is probably well known for breaking the Batman's back making him a paraplegic in the Knightfall storyline. In this he is a mindless bodygaurd for Poison Ivy (Thurman), in fact he doesn't even look like the character in the comics, more of a B-Grade wrestler. It make you wonder what in Harvey Dents name Schumacher was thinking. You have to be thankful that the writers of new superhero movies are more faithful to comic books.

In fact the only believable plot line was Elle McPherson as Batman girlfriend and not being able to comit. I mean Clooney... going out with a gorgeous women ...... and not being marrying her..... that is basically... what? ... real life.

On thing about the 90s movies was the the freedom to spend a lot more money on costumes and sets and the invention of plastic. Instead of relying on old studio sets and what costumes were out the back, movies made extravagant sets, custom made costumes and modest computer graphics. This went into overdrive in Batman and Robin.

The costumes in this film are fantastic. Whole one piece plastic suits. I mean the movie starts with one close up of George Clooney in his suit with his spectaular firm....... nipples???

OOOHHHHH YEAHHHHHHHHHHH

The 90s also invented neon. Noen gear, neon paint and especially neon lights. In 1995 there was a chronic shortage of neon due to the Warner Brother buying all of the worlds neon for this film. Freezes costume is neon, Bane's veins are neon, Poison Ivy hangouts are neon......... the whole film has this slight neon haze over it. Dark Blue for Batman, Light Blue for Freeze, Red for Robin, Green for Poison Ivy and Crap for Batwoman. Schumacher must have enjoyed his acid.

But the worst is the acting. I cannot fathom why these actors decided to do this film. The script is monumentally appalling. There must have been massive amount of cash in it. Clooney admits that this is his worst film, Uma Thurman must have watched a lot of William Shatners Capitan Kirk because that is how she talks through the film. Arnie is well Arnie, but has lines worse than any other film he has ever done, worse that "Its not a tumour". O'Donnell and Silverstone, well, they are stuck in the 90s. In fact I am sure that if you ever see them nowadays, they are still in the 90s. Along with boy bands, pedal pushers and a successful Labor Party.

So much of it is hammed up, over acting and poor dialogue.

George Clooney is the strangest out of the lot. You have to remember, he was not the star he is now. He had done ER and a few successful films. He must have done it for the money, but he is particularly appalling. He looks uncomfortable throughout the whole film. He does alright Bruce Wayne, but when it comes to Batman its strange. He flights weirdly, blank and unconvincingly. In interview he has stated that the Batman costume was stiff and awful, maybe was that. He stumbles through oneliners, he must have hated them. I am not sure why Val Kilmer was removed, he was ok. Wiki says that Schumacher didn't get along with him, but I can imagine if Kilmer turned it down.

In fact the good thing to come out of this film is the soundtrack, which is hideously embarrassing. Songs like Smashing Pumpkins "The End Is the Beginning Is the End" which won a Grammy and contributions by R.E.M, R. Kelly and Jewel.

All in all a fabulously appalling film. One to be missed if you can. But, if you do want to see it, you will giggle though the lines, poor sexual innuendo and neon. Enjoy the last of a Batman era full of corny lines, pathetic action and terrible eye masks. Enjoy the thought, that not matter how hard it tries Dark Knight Rises cannot be this bad.

I give it 4 out of 5 steaming wet turds.

Preview: Sydney vs Geelong

Preview: Sydney vs Geelong

Where: SCG

When: Friday 22^nd of July, 7:50pm local time

Friday night games are a rare breed in Sydney. Before last year’s Royal Wedding fixture against Carlton the last friday night home and away game was 2003. Whether this has any sway is unlikely, but it does mean that all eyes are on the Harbour City tomorrow night. The Swans won the last encounter beating the Cats at Kardinia, but before that the cats had won the last 9 games. Both teams are coming off a bye from last week and should be set to make their mark on the run home to the finals. 

Sydney

The Swans are sitting pretty in fourth at the last round of byes. With some good wins over some more fancied opponents (Hawks and Essendon) they have once again slipped under the radar. Their Round 11 match saw them steamroll Essendon until ¾ time when a flurry of goals see the final margin reduced to 4 points. Sydney will happily take the win, when really it was Essendon game to lose. The Bombers awful kicking and Dempsey’s play on after the siren giving the game away. Credit to Sydney though, they took opportunities and went to the bye with a win.

The two shining lights for the Swans this year are Josh Kennedy and Lewis Jetta. Kennedy is in sublime form, rightly becoming one of the most damaging players in the AFL. His strength and goal kicking ability make him the prime midfielder in the Sydney lineup. Along with Hannebery, Bolton, Jack and McVeigh there is a tough strong midfield to rely on. They also smashed the Bombers with lots of uncontested outside running which they will try to do again against the Cats.

The other is Lewis Jetta. Leading the goal kicking for the Swans at the half way mark, his pace and goal kicking are exciting things to watch. The Swans have a league of talls, most of which are still young and are not reaching their potential (Reid, Everett and White). They are though still stretching backlines and making a contest. The small forward in Lewis and McGlynn are loving the amount of ball coming down. 

This is where they can exploit the Cats. The cats key position backmen are formidable and won’t allow the Sydney talls to get away. But, the weakness is on ground level. Hunt is slowing down a lot and Mackie can be beaten. The one thing that the Swans are not allow to do is let Scarlett, Lonergan or Taylor to play off their man. The Swan’s talls must be on their defensive game and make them accountable.

Geelong

The cats are not the team of old. At 7 – 4 they have dropped games they normally don’t (North, Freo) and have not put teams away like they used to (Blues, Tigers). Never write the cats off though. They still have a lot of class and do not lose easily. The round 11 game vs Carlton is a strange on to read. The cats were efficient all night and won without too much fight. Their opponents though haven’t been in great form, but were gallant on the night. Sydney will be a great opponent to gauge their form. 

The cats are relying on the old crew for the engine room. Bartell, Corey, Chapman and Kelly have been the class that you should expect from them. While good, they have missed the extra 10% or so from these players that made the cats from previous years so formidable. In saying that it’s Joel Selwood that has had a stellar year. Classy and strong he has really shone for the cats. This will be an interesting mid field contest tomorrow.

The other standout is Tom Hawkins. He is now the go to guy for the Cats. Previously it has been Johnson, Mooney or even Podsiadly. He is a great mark, has a huge tank and is willing to smash through a pack for a mark. Although he was well held last match, I doubt that will happen much and could probably be put down to his surgery the week before. He will be the key for the Cats.

In fact Hawkins, Podsiadly and Johnson will be the key for the Cats, they could stretch the Swans backline. The swans lineup of Ted Richards, Heath Grundy, Matin Mattner and Rhyce Shaw do not strike fear into hearts of men, but are a tight and are responsible for the Swans being the lowest scored team against in the comp. 

Ins and Outs

A lot will be made of the ins and outs for this week’s game. This is slightly expected due to the bye, but there are some notable outs for other reason. I don't want to get into the politics of it all, so I won't.

For Sydney, the champion Goodes is back in. This will make a world of difference. They have been travelling so well without him, but he is such a good player it will improve the team. This will probably a straight swap and allow a reprieve for Pyke or Everitt. McGlynn will be in too after a week off, so this will probably see Malceski or Dennis-Lane out on form.

For the Cats, its Podsiadly in. This will give them another avenue to goal and will be welcomed. Alan Christensen is also meant to be match fit.  Jesse Stringer will also miss the last half of the season due to club suspension and Stokes maybe out with a hamstring. If the cats don’t mind a swapping a tall with a small, then it should be it. Otherwise Orren Stephenson seems to be the one that misses.

Prediction

I expect a tight fought mid field event that can go either way. It will come down to if the Cats ruck or the Sydney outside running. The SCG may allow the Swans to flood back well enough or the Cats to lock in the midfield. Tip sways to Sydney in a close fought match.

Swans by 6

Crappy Movie Review - Dune

Dune

1984

Participants: Kyle MacLachlan, Virginia Madsen, Sting and Patrick Stewart

Directlessor: David Lynch

Links: IMDB

Trailer:

Reviewing Crappy Movie So You Don’t Have To

Welcome to the first of hopefully many review of crappy movies. The inaugural movie is the spectacularly awful Dune.

Filmed in 1984 this was an adaptation of the successful sci-fi Dune book series. The book series was written in 1965 and spawned 5 sequels. It is regarded as one of the greatest sci-fi series ever written, winning a Hugo Award for best sci-fi or fantasy novel. The movie has no ability to claim any such recognition and would only be able to win an award if it was called “1984 Fred’s Award for Sustained Reticule”

When researching this I found that there have been many attempts to write a movie for this. Turns out that they are all equally up for ridicule. My favourite is the 1974 attempt by Alejandro Jodorowsky who is an avant-garde director. This is an early warning system for anyone not wanting to make a flop, do not use anyone who films are described as avant-garde.

His basic idea was to use the book to make a 10 hour feature film starring surrealist painter Salvador Dali, Orson Welles, Mick Jagger and David Carradine with soundtrack from Pink Floyd. The movie was started with a budget of $9m and many of the designs of the sets completed. The film pre-production ended due to many reason, but some of the best reasons are that Salvador Dali requested that he be paid at $100,000 an hour and that any other scenes with him a puppet would be used, the first script was so big that it would result in a 14 hour film and that nearly a quarter (about $2m) of the budget had been spent before filming had begun. Yeah, no....

So, who’s to blame for the 1984 attempt? My blame is with David Lynch. For those who don’t know him, he’s renowned for guff like Twin Peaks, Mulhullond Drive and Blue Velvet. Now, many trendies will tell you that he’s an amazing director and that he is visionary and durpy durp. To me, I don’t understand him. Visually his stuff is great, but in the end much of his films are basically incomprehensible. Most start promising then lead into a mess of extra characters, pointless mysticism and total lack of conclusive story telling. Dune is the same.

Now, Lynch has told many that it’s not his fault, that he did not have control over the final cut, therefore its horrendousness. But, I doubt this. It’s got his little grubby, revolting confusion all over it. This is where the best info of this films crapness comes in, it’s not actually credited to Lynch, but to Alan Smithee. Smithee is a pseudonym used for directors if do not like their film. The other thing to note is that it is written by a Judas Booth, another pseudonym made up by Lynch to explain his so-felt deception.

Now to be brutally honest, I really struggled with the plot. I don’t know if it’s because I am dumb or that it’s that confusing. Ill try to summarize. The film is based around Paul Atreides (Kyle MacLachlan, Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet, The creepy husband in Sex in the City). He is part of the Atreides family on one planet. The universe is ruled by Padishah Emperor Shaddam Corrino IV (Jose Ferrer, he hasnt done anything else) who mines a spice called.... well .... spice, which gives the user psychic abilities and long life. Now, he mines if for a consortium called ‘The Guild’, which are all humans, except for a giant sperm creature with a vagina mouth that live in a fish tank.

The spice is mined on Dune a desert planet uninhibited except for giant worms that eat space ships. ow, this is where it gets confusing. I think that because the Guild felt threatened by the Atreides family so go out to kill him. They are unsuccessful and end up banishing Paul (Yep, that name is still popular after 10,000 years) to Dune. This is where the film turns into a “The One” story.  It turns out that there are people living in the desert in Dune and Paul is “The One” and can control these giant worms. He rises up, trains his newly found army, trains them in a day or so and attacks the people who have been in charge in for 10,000 years.

So, why is it so bad? Well for starters it is UTTERLY CONFUSING. Imagine a complex storyline from giant novel, condense it into 3 hours (yes, three fucking hours) and then put it through an industry strength washing machine. There are about three bad guys, no of which seem to have any control or major role in the film. One guy is in the first scene, but the ends up disappearing for the rest of the film. One bad guy (Sting, yep that Sting) doesn’t speak at all. It seems like he’s going to be big, then doesn’t do anything until he fights Paul at the end. I have no idea where the sperm with the vagina mouth went.

The production staff must have realised this so to help they put in these voiceovers all throughout the movie. Someone narrates it parts of it, mostly at the start then some random parts during the film as if it try to make things less confusing. This seems, if anything, to try to fill in gaps where scenes have gone missing. At one point the narrator say “Two years later, Paul trained his army”. WHAT? WHY? TWO YEARS AND NOT EVEN A DECENT MONTAGE!

But, this isn’t the worst voiceovers, for some bizarre reason, there are voiceovers of the cast explaining what they are thinking. It does help in some parts because otherwise you would have literally NO idea of what was happening. At one point Paul is standing in a room and a syringe appears from the wall and floats around the room. This goes for a little bit, until Paul says something like “It’s here to kill me”. OH, good, thanks Paul, I thought you had missed your measles, mumps, rubella shot. There are other scenes where characters stare at each other and think things like “Why is she worried?” or “She’s using that voice”. Then they stand around looking at each other without talking. It looks likes two people who hate each other meeting after not seeing each other for10 years and have nothing to talk about.

One other thing is that it looks like it has been filmed in the 1960s. This would be good but it wasn’t, it was filmed in 1984. This is about the same time as Blade Runner (82) or Return of the Jedi (83). They are much, MUCH better put together and look less dated. It also looks like that they ran out of special effects budget in final production. At one point during a battle scene, there are people running down a dune with (I think) weapons of some sort. They are yelling these weird chants and pointing these guns like you would do as a kid with a stick. Nothing comes out of the gun, no noise, no colours then something explodes in the next frame. It looks hysterical, I was giggling when watching this. Grown men, all serious, yell “Pwwow”, “Byoing” pointing something that looks like a jigsaw puzzle piece. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

There are some other funny things. Patrick Stewart plays his character from American Dad and just yells. He actually has a mullet. Sting does well, but just sort of prances around showing his little skinny body off. One bad guy can fly, no one else in the film can. Just him.. for no apparent reason.

*Note*

After some research I found that this flying bad guy in the book is gay, which I don’t think is necessary offensive it’s not like his sexual preference made him bad..... BUT.... here’s the kicker.... in the film adaptation he has these welting sores on his face. So ... Lynch? In 1984 during the height of the AIDS being a gay disease hysteria you want to put the only gay man with welts all over his face and give him an ability to fly. 

Needless to say this was pretty controversial.

There are also these great scenes where Paul is trying to train. He basically darts around a Dalek kind of machine chopping off screwdrivers around the edge. He takes this technology to his new army and they train the same way. Its blisteringly funny watching them dancing around shooting at these screwdrivers. Oh, one thing I forgot. There is a scene where McLachlan and Stewart have a training session. For some bizarre reason they are now in these faux glass shields which look weird. Needless to say they didn't appear again. 

I don’t really want to poke fun at the storyline too much, mainly because it is interpreted from a novel that I haven’t read cannot say how much is from the novel or Lynch fantasy. But there are glaring plot holes:

-          Why is it miners can’t control the giant worms with all their superior technology but some nomadic people can?

-          Why can the worms eat space craft, but won’t touch the people riding them on their backs?

-          Why do people change their voice and they are immediately able to throw people over the room?

Ugg...

Anyway. Enough. It was a painful experience.

The film ends with a rainfall in Dune which has never seen rain. Which besides all the meteorological inaccuracies would play havoc on their drains. This was a metaphor for my tears when I sat at the end. A truely deplorable effort and not enough was done to stop it from happening. As a inaugural review I need to rate it.

I give it 4 out of 5 steaming wet turds.