Change Your Image
Strider_1978
Reviews
Skyfall (2012)
Yes you should,
Doing this primarily to balance the negative reviews. This one requires patience and the will to follow *it* without making assumptions. There are rewards for patient, and it will not satisfy those who wish to sit wide eyed while one hand stuffs the face with popcorn. Daniel Craig brings *his* Bond forward with a firm grasp on the reins, and while he isn't Sean Connery he *is* James Bond. Go and see this in IMAX for full effect, but be prepared to sit and follow without fireworks every five seconds, and keep an open mind. The cast are very strong, those who aren't don't matter. This film is for the discerning Bond fan and not someone satisfied with lesser flick, as we got in previous installments. I'm still thinking about it 24 hours after watching it, and I for one want more.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Just about enjoyable
Once the ref flags appear, it's hard for them to stop. There are several things happening in 'Rises', and to be perfectly honest I lost track of them, and most of the characters. Starting with Banes insane Sean Connery in a Darth Vader intro and a mid air hostile takeover. I can only assume that this was Nolans attempt to wow the audience after the utterly magnificent bank heist intro of TDK. If I understood what was happening and the reasons behind it, and I didn't think the aircraft was torn apart like a chocolate bar wrapper I might have been more impressed. There is Selina Kyles impeccable introduction, the opportunity to showcase her deft spot on hit the nail on the head acting prowess with this role. Anyone familiar with Batman 'The long Halloween' will drink in the homage with a smile. There is Waynes tracking down of this jewel thief and a ballroom dance which gave the film huge potential. Then there is the side plot of John Blake, a rookie cop who subsequently after poking his nose ahead of police protocol takes a swift rise to Detective. There is Batmans initial battle with Bane which pins the cinema audience to the screen. And then there is the slow spiral to Batmans downfall and potential destruction. After Wayne is thrown in Banes prison we are forced to deal with three plot lines. Banes continued anarchistic plans for Gotham, Selina Kyle's personal agenda to be freed from the clutches of the authorities by gaining a new slate and finally Blakes personal battle for justice. Add to that several scenes involving actors, seemingly to give the actors themselves screen time, almost like people wanted to appear in it and were given pointless roles. It is almost possible to hear Nolan cry 'action'- Q wall street motorbike chase and oh there goes the obvious stunt woman. Q Police vehicles, those extras over there and those prisoners waving guns and attempting to look angry. Oh, there is a nuclear device.. That can't possibly mean the possible end of Gotham as we know it if it gets into the wrong hands... Where is 007? I write with intended sarcasm because most of the film is completely lacking in the things we have grown to love about Nolans work. His films have never been shallow, always had depth and layered complexity. Here it seems like the whole thing was put together simply to tell a messy, unconvincing story without a regard for the intelligence of the viewer because we are all expected to understand that Batman escaped within 5 seconds from a nuclear device unscathed and that Gotham endured no subsequent fallout etc etc. There are saving graces. Anne Hathaway, I could watch the film again just for her. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are fabulous as always. Gordon Levitt is *ok*. I feel his scenes suffered because of the rushed production and the lack of time taken to put things together. Bale is fine, but there is little strength of Batman here, it's simple like he steps out of his cave to take a beating, saves the day to leave us again. I got no sense of inner fulfillment from an ending I won't spoil. Hans Zimmers score saves this from getting a much lower score, his music defines these pictures, as it does Inception. Recommended at this time, until another viewing simply for the pleasure of out dear Cat burglar. The Dark Knight Rises, but fails to make a real impression.
Game of Thrones (2011)
Truly remarkable
Someone cared...
This series is an onion, the layers peel away with each viewing. I am fortunate to have viewed the blu-ray version. What a treat I had. I won't go into technical detail, I 'will' attempt to convey some thoughts and feelings on this remarkable piece of television. A Game of Thrones is not best described as 'epic'. It will not entertain those looking for another Lord of the Rings. Being of the TV variety, 'Thrones' does not thrill with wide screen scenery. The camera is closer, yet not too close to be unmindful of the need to 'sell' the rich setting that is Westeros. For those who like myself, are enamored of the characters, and who caught our own hearts in our mouths at various stages of the novel- 'Thrones' excels. Judicious is the trimming, yet clever and thoughtful are the presented scenes. The characters are given their literary dimensions, and in some cases, namely minor characters- much more so. Thus we can forgive when certain scenes and well remembered slices of dialog are handled somewhat differently in order to portray a living vision, and version of literary events. My personal indulgence is in *details*. Details are *everything* in the geek world. Thus there are pleasant surprises in store for those prepared to sacrifice epic for clever writing and budget handling. There is a particular scene I will not spoil. but one that the knowing will acknowledge. It reads roughly-
'Jaime's sword was ripped from its sheathe.'- That particular segment was handled a little differently, yet that tiny detail was not neglected :) For the affiliated a greater majority of the characters can be seen and named. Most deliver solid to outstanding performances, some are only realised towards the end of the series. In the novel my favourite is Tyrion Lanniser, in the TV series I'll say that although Tyrion is indeed brilliantly portrayed, stands outs include 'Arya', 'Robert Baratheon' and Cat's sister 'Lysa'. These actors I feel really projected their talent. If I am to be objective and critical I would say that in my personal opinion the weakest link is Catelyn Stark. The performance is good, but at times I was a little unconvinced, as though I could see the effort, but I was not completely sold. Sean Bean does 'Eddard' proud, I just have to switch off a little to see him has a Lord of the North when he opens his mouth, the lines spoken in his native dialect. At times I had to suspend disbelief when father spoke to daughters, who spoke as high born princesses without that distinct northern tongue. Regarding the nudity. 'Thrones' is, as I believe I stated above a very clever accomplishment. It lives and breathes with honesty. There is nudity, and sex aplenty. It should not however be considered pornography. These were times without the luxury of technology, where serf and Lord alike took pleasures of the flesh. Within every scene there is character growth and rounding, regardless of the content or activity. George R R Martin did not shy away from 'whoring' and partnered sex- neither did the makers of 'Thrones' :)
Looking forward to season 2.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
You MUST see this......
I can't say anything. I can't give anything away. Go and watch this film knowing as little as possible. I'm in love. I have not seen a film of this caliber for the genre in I don't know how long. It has restored my faith in cinema, that a creative and technical team can pull this off because there are so many pitfalls and mines where a film can go wrong. Joss Whedon is a genius, if this film is as good as it is the mind boggles with The Avengers. Films like this don't come round very often. I'm not sure what else I can possible say. I highly endorse this movie. Ten stars are not enough. It's hard to write ten lines of text and say absolutely nothing about this film, because anything I talk about would potentially spoil the experience. That is all :)
The Muppets (2011)
I was actually offended
I can't call myself a Muppet fan, but I appreciate them and doesn't everyone love Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy. So I took my wife to see this, her sort of thing and I sat through it. The first red flag appeared with the atrociously sycophantic acting from the very beginning- smiles and facial expressions that made me feel like I was living on a Disney set. This is supposed to be a family orientated film? Anyone?? Why then do we have violence, toilet humour and 'comedy' shows titled 'punch teacher'? The writing was sickly, dull, so ridiculously stereotypical that I can't help but wonder if the execs were under the influence of something when they signed off on this. My wife enjoyed it, or parts of it but admits that some of the humour was dumb- and it really was. Jason Segel (however you spell his surname) wrote and starred in this, I can't help wondering what his intentions were. His co-star, an actress I both like and respect Amy Adams looked like she was standing by for 'Q' facial expressions and scripted vocals. All I can do is shake my head and understand that perhaps it was a fun idea besides a gig for an actor. I think the highlight of the whole film was seeing Whoopie Goldberg and Jack Black who I think saved this waste of a cinema ticket. This should have gone straight to media release because it truly does not deserve screen time. Rant over- avoid.
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)
The perfection in the puzzle
Indeed, I wasn't sure what this film was going to do for me after watching the TV series and wondering what happened to the happy ending I was waiting for. But then again I didn't fully *understand*. People who watch this should not *expect* and should simply *enjoy*. I'm not going to go into any story of plot because I don't have time, but I don't really need to because if you are looking to watch this you are familiar with the TV series- and that's enough. Lynch is a genius. It is important to note that it doesn't matter if Dale Cooper gets 5 or 55 minutes. People choosing to watch this should expect to be interested in and compelled by the new ones. Once again I emphasize- don't *look* for answers.. it's like looking for answers in a Stephen King book and reading another one to find those answers. Nothing is specifically *revealed*, but there are direct associations if your brain has the recollection and the understanding to put things together. Twin Peaks is a lateral film. it is not 'straight forward' and should be observed cryptically. As for the dark and disturbing side of things, yes it is exactly that, but I would not run away from it for that reason. I've seen reviews stating that the violence shocks. I'd disagree. What actually shocks us is SPOILER the nature of evil that motivates a father to rape his own daughter and the effect that has on her personality. There is nudity in the 'bang bang' bar, but I find none of this nudity remotely sexy or sensual, it is like descending into a nightmare when you consider that is the alter self that Laura created. Damaged goods looking to score for drugs.. perhaps an inner rebellion of the severed tie of father and daughter by the unspeakable. Anyway, you get the idea. Highly recommended for the patient and the affiliated- not a casual popcorn flick.
Twin Peaks (1990)
I won't rate it with stars
Until the very last episode I was raving about what was one of the greatest works in the history of TV. I compulsively watched episodes back to back on Netflix. I'm glad I never made the purchase because the last episode was.... I feel as though I followed the whole thing to a dead end. There are no real answers and room for more. I understand it got canceled but I quite honestly have never been more absorbed in TV. I felt like I was a part of a living breathing thing as crazy as it sounds.. a show with real heart. But what could have been a great finale was 15 minutes of what the heck??? And then Cooper emerges.. only it isn't Cooper and credits. No happy ending, crazy weird ambiguous and 'nothing'. I feel vacant inside. Perhaps I should watch the film.. it might clear some things up. Darn it.
Antichrist (2009)
I still feel it days after viewing
I can't give this a score.. it's just not possible. I'm not going into the plot, it's complex and it's all been said before. This review is really to express my thoughts on things I saw which I never thought I would ever see on film.
Wife and therapist go out to 'Eden' where crazy and chaotic events ensue. Lordy.. adults only this one.. even the adults will bear scars. I was doing fine, primarily appreciating the warped but beautiful visuals until it got to the stuff in the cabin where genitalia is barbarised.. and then I went to the bathroom and threw up. You have to understand that that is something I don't to in film.. I've only ever come close watching Peter Jacksons 'Brain Dead'. I've heard things about 'I spit on your grave' but I'm sure this must be worse than watching a penis cut off in the bath because I'm sure when that happens it must look fake. Here I could only watch in subdued horror and then turn away as something happened with the woman.... and I think I might have gone a little green or pale.
Let this review serve to deter those who like me were curious because you absolutely get more than you pay for. It's best to stay away from this and that's not something I say lightly. Anyone think that a naked or half naked is erotic or hot? This film completely puts you off it.
Serious film people only, and even then be prepared.
Conan the Barbarian (2011)
sigh
I saw the trailer, I like Jason Momoa, it looked like a winner. Red flag- the director. But.. in testing times it didn't hurt to go to a bloodcoaster with flashes of steel. To heck with the acting and plot I thought, just go and watch Jason slay and maim. The mothers death on the battlefield presented the first red flag, the acting is sub-standard. Watching young Conan fighting and training was good, it gave us an early insight into a well conveyed Barbarian rage and fighting prowess. After that it took a dramatic downward spiral. Jason and Steven Lang and Jasons pirate comrade hold this together, but they could not help it any more than hold together what isn't there. Even if you, like I go for the fighting you will find it uninspiring and unimaginative. It's a made-for-TV film with action scenes that fail to show epic cinematic magic. The camera pulls in tight far too often and only pulls back when cheap action thrills fail to wow or the audience is treated to painted on grandeur that look out of place given the standard prosaic canvas of the film. It's a shame, really it is because there is real potential for a franchaise here, only Jason won't go far if he continues to go under the direction of someone who should stick to music videos. All in all, it's not even matinée quality, the trailer deceives.
Irréversible (2002)
The Horror
There are films out there that attempt notoriety with a big 'unrated' stamp on the front of the sleeve. There are films with infamous reps such as the 'Saw' and 'Hostel' franchise. There are critics who view these films of notorious infamy and rattle on about obscenity and controversy and all things nasty. When those films have had milk and cookies and gone out for some winks, Irriversable comes out to play. The difference between Irriversable and other theatrical films is quite simply that it has an utterly 'real' feel. As dizzying and mind bending as it is through Director Gasper Noe's miraculous camera work as it is, this feature length picture does not clean, polish, tweak or enhance. What we have, is a gritty, nasty, dark, sweaty, vile, and yet utterly authentic work of art. Lee Daniels 'Precious' taps into a similar aesthetic, not compromising or holding back, not shying away from what we all like to pretend does not exist. After the rape and beating of his woman - Belluci, Marcus- Cassell goes on the rampage. There is no over acting, suspension of disbelief or melodrama. The pulse is pounding as chaos and insanity rain down upon the viewer. The camera rotates and turns, sometimes mercifully blurring the screen, sometimes exposing closed door debauchery. I have seen few films out there that expose, but not exploit this level of violence and human madness. The first twenty minutes are grim and terrible, also nauseating and horrifying, yet they bear a significance that can only be realised as the film takes us back in time, quite literally as the story unfolds from end to beginning. In truth I cannot recommend Irriversable to anyone, as I would 'Precious' that uplifts in between grueling intervals of domestic abuse. One thing is certain and IMPORTANT. We all consider revenge and retribution in return for acts of disrespect, large and small and in our minds eye we act out these dark fantasies. Irriversable is here to tell us, and in fact show us just how acts of vengeance can tear the soul apart.
Be warned. Unlike Kubric's masterful 'Clockwork' Orange that knows when to stop, or take us away from the 'ultra violence', Noe's 'Irriversable' keeps us there. In the dark red room where developing photographs appear before us in the liquid, shocking and terrible.. and keeps them in that water, taking them away only to give us the next one.
One of the most important films in cinematic history.
The Social Network (2010)
The Brilliant Bastards- with flaws
Final edit- sorry IMDb.
For those interested in the plot, SN follows the birth of 'Facebook', it's pathway to what millions knows and use, and the lies, deceit, betrayal and exploitation which may fall into the category of 'business'.
There are three key drivers with SN. The director, none other than David Fincher 'Se7en'. Aaron Sorkin, writer 'The West Wing', and musician/artist Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. Put these three together and what we have is one of the best looking - and sounding- pieces of cinema to date. From the first line of script we are pulled into an intellectual crossfire in the perfect ambiance of a nameless Harvard Club. A scene, which in fact sets the ball in motion for future events. Everything is in near perfect proportion, and this is the trend for most of the duration of the film. There are issues and weaknesses. Though enveloped in glorious, delicious cinematography that radiates class, even in the 'party scene' in Ivy League Harvard, the seams begin to burst about an hour into the film. The script carries the weight and compensates for the acting only so long. Fire three rapid lines at the camera and the ear, more so than the eye is acutely focused. The script diminishes as the plot thins out and despite how good certain actors look, they cannot be saved from sub-standard performances. Fincher, perhaps due to budget and or time constraints has not gained the most from his choice of actors, *or* maybe it is simply a younger target audience. Jesse Eisenberg is spot on, despite certain consistency issues. Andrew Garfield who seems to have received critical acclaim for his role as Edwardo Saverin comes across as a soft, yet loyal 'friend' with as much screen presence as a wet rag. "I'll take you for everything!" He exclaims.. only I don't quite believe him. Timberlake as Sean Parker makes his mark, but does nothing to inspire a raised brow. The overlooked star of this film, though perhaps not so is Rooney Mara, Eisenbergs scorned love interest. Mara delivers with emotional precision. In her brief screen time the steals her scenes. The rest serve their purpose, none are 'glowing'. The Social Network has a constant up-beat vibe, and this helps dig the short-comings out of the trench when actors with insufficient gravity fail to uphold some of the more awkward scenes. The film suffers from self-indulgence and a tendency to be over zealous, something that rears it's head towards the second and latter part. We know that 'Facebook' is becoming popular, perhaps a social phenomenon. Rather than sink to cheap gimmicks like a 'Facebook' sign on a drinks machine and Zuckerbergs personal 'Facebook' cup, the audience might have been best served with a newspaper or periodical covering the 'business' and its prosperity. Less is far more. Bruce Wayne is Gothams Millionaire playboy. Atop the skyscraper we see the family slogan- that is it.. that is all. All that said, Social Network is a delicious piece of cinema. Relatively solid, that carries with it an important message, not so much of friendship and betrayal, but how modern day society and social status can be and is paramount in the lives of many. 350 friends.. dude that's nothing. Nothing eh, well let's consider how many of those 'friends' want you as friends, or merely as a means to an end.
It can't go to the Oscars for me, it has the ingredients, but it is an entertaining speed ball romp and missing that essential inspired quality to qualify. It *does* stay with you, and as I type, I know that I will never see 'Facebook' the same way again. One connection connects us to many.
Worth watching, perhaps owning. There will certainly be more viewings for me.
Inception (2010)
Everything you want in a movie, and more
It doesn't go any higher than a 10, or I would have gone higher.
I'm not going to go into this because other people who have already presented views will probably say it better. I cannot say that I really 'understood' the story or sub story or spiderweb, but that did not really matter. What we have is a fantastic piece of art/entertainment but together by a master. This is a film for those that desire more than popcorn in a film. It is a film for those who want to watch a 'good' film.. no an 'excellent' film and have their intellect stroked. It is a technical eye popper, and most likely an academy award winner in several aspects. If I have to pick and flaws, I have say that DiCaprio needs to stop elevating his voice because it takes away from his performance. There is a difference between showing emotion and shouting. I saw this on IMAX, and I can tell you it is absolutely worth the admission with several scenes.
It would be an injustice not to go and see it, so what are you waiting for? :)
Avatar (2009)
A living, breathing testimony to why we love cinema.
Avatar gets a 10 because of its visuals and some of the natural soul satisfying themes therein. The rest of the film does not matter; I'll explain why.
The plot is as standard and as conventional as they come. The whole film is a collective of clichés and things we have all seen before on screen. A Marine without the use of his legs becomes part of a program on Pandora. Selected individuals become the 'avatars' that have been specifically engineered for them and go out into the alien world of Pandora. The objective: to study the natives, indigenous 'beasts,' life forms and layout of terrain in the interests of military tactical advantage. The Marine is given the incentive of government-approved working legs if he is successful in completing the objective. Marine, assisted by ever so cheesy, clichéd, cartoonish two-dimensional characters enters world, meets girl, meets tribe, learns ways, gets accepted, falls in love, and ultimately decides in all predictability that Pandora is more valuable to him than the 'real' world. That's about ten or so films that we can all list covered so far. And so 'jarhead' ultimately becomes protagonist, protector and defender when the 'good' guys who are fighting the 'savages' decide it's time to eradicate and show them just who is boss. Don't you love the mentality :)
So, back to the reason of sitting in the theater with 3-D glasses. It takes a little while, but the reason for every Effects house, department, and agency working on a 400-million dollar film becomes oh so very apparent. So I am a gamer, very much accustomed to playing pretty games on high-end tech. I am also a film geek, details, details, details. So, you will understand that when the lights go down a little and I'm looking at 'other worldly' vegetation full of sap or rain water, and I sit there shaking my head because my brain can't seem to compute that specially created/generated foliage defies that very concept. When the lights go down on Pandora I might as well be looking out of my own window. Indeed, I was also dubious when I heard a similar statement. Avatar, when you get past - but can't really get past - because you are looking at animation that looks so real that you can instantly (pretty much) tell who the actor is behind the 'mask' - the phenomenal visuals. You are allowed to smile, and perhaps to have your eyes well up a little, with Jake's first encounter as a 'Dragon' rider. Here perhaps is a nod to Anne McCaffrey's 'Pern.' The rider chooses the Dragon and the Dragon the rider. When the bond is made, they become one.
I want to get back to the characters again. Remember when I said details, details, details: The skin, the eyes, the flakes of dust that land on the skin after an explosion, the ears that move and stretch. the physical motions and motor skills. What is the expression I am looking for.. 'more human than human'. OK, time to close. The weakest link, in my opinion, and I truly hate to say this out of my respect for one of the mothers of sci-fi, is Sigourney Weaver's character. Rather than playing a secure, natural maternal scientist we have a re-hashed Ripley after 23 years, only it only serves to weaken the experience. As soon as Sigourney opens her mouth, I want her to close it. It's not big, it's not clever; and I don't care if it's a military 'thing' in a PG-13 film. The mild swearing is out of place. Some of the audience cheered and clapped when Michelle (signature frown and growl) Rodriguez says: "You're not the only one with a gun, bitch!" Why do women need to grow balls in these flicks.. You don't need to compete with the alpha male who is doing a fine job of cheapening the human race. It sounds great coming from Sigourney Weaver, in full control of a robot walker facing off against mother Alien, but it's not 'Aliens', it's Rodriguez with a pair who should stay in films that go straight to video shelf. I perceive that there is a reason behind the far too obviously staged overacting. It contrasts with the wonderful soothing, soul enriching acting from the Naa'ri. It also serves to exploit the human race for what they are: Takers, antagonists, butchers, and barbarians. Avatar is the current apotheosis of the reason we enjoy cinema. Anyone who is anyone can enjoy it, though preferably not younger children. Kids and adults alike who don't understand (or care about) the plot can get lost in the amazing world of Pandora.
Highly recommended, not something that should be missed on the biggest, most technically capable theater you can find. Can't be described, needs to be seen to be believed.
Paranormal Activity (2007)
Ever wondered what goes bump in the night?
Paranormal.
–adjective of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.
Activity.
–noun, plural -ties. A use of energy or force; an active movement or operation.
Fear. -noun. A distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid. Concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
Paranormal Activity (PA) is a low budget 'indie' film following the trend of The Blair Wtich Project. It rose to fame on public demand and word of mouth, some of that word of mouth disparagingly referred to as hype. With a shoe string budget, a handful of unknown actors and a reputation of being the next best thing since The Exorcist, it blew Saw IV or VI out of the water. Those expecting a flash, entertaining flick with great cinematography and bells and whistles will be bitterly disappointed. Those understanding and accepting of films like TBWP, seeking the film for what it is, and not what it isn't, will be affected by what it presents. PA is a reality show with a box of tricks. These tricks are not necessarily intended to precipitate mass screaming, but to create the effect of an authentic haunting. The characters are very natural and believable, and thus it becomes easier to suspend disbelief when nightly occurrences, increasing in tension and emotional impact affect the lives of Kate and Micah. PA plays on and exploits the fear that exists in the safe haven of our own home. 'That' creaky floorboard, 'that' thump on the stairs or in the attic. This film is for anyone who has ever thrown a blanket over themselves in the darkness because the blanket protects and shields from the eyes of the unknown entity. PA breaks that rule.
The plot is simply the haunting of two characters, Kate and Micah, in their home in California. There is a division of night and day. Day time gives us the characters and their exploration into what is occurring in the house. Night time gives us what the camera shows during the period of slumber - or not. The occurrences start simply and build gradually toward the inevitable. Most of the time the audience can believe what is happening. What we see looks authentic and is well done, simplicity over blatant theatricality. Once or twice I found it hard to breath. Not because I could not breathe, but my breath in the dead silence of the theater was magnified in my ears which were straining for the slightest sound as my eyes scanned the darkness. Where PA suffers is the with the occasional spell of overacting. The tension builds slowly throughout until most of the viewers are pinned to the screen. Then overacting disintegrates the effect. These spells are few and far between, but significant enough that my wife laughed on more than one occasion where the viewer was intended to stare in horror. The real power of PA is actually felt, at least in my case, after leaving the theater. Since we believe the characters, we feel and empathise with what is affecting them. It hurts us to see them sleep-deprived, with a dividing line between them due to tensions arising from the invasion of the entity into their personal lives. There is something that gets under the skin. Evil in this world does not have to be the crimes that are reported in the media. Evil exists on a very basic and fundamental level and does not always see the light of day in tabloid or camera. The ending is, well slightly typical of Hollwood. Apparently Spielberg had the ending changed which makes me shake my head. They could have, and more than likely should have, left it alone; but politics being politics, it did get a nationwide release.
In a nutshell, perhaps one of 'the' most authentic films of its genre. With the correct mindset and a little patience the discerning viewer is rewarded.
B-
The Devil's Rejects (2005)
The discerning mind is rewarded
The wrong people are reviewing the right films
There are people that have reviewed this picture and branded it pornographic, brutal, depraved- etc etc. I would disagree with those individuals.
As Rob Zombie quite rightly stated that there are far worse films to be viewed- if the desire arises. I would personally refer people to 'Irriversable' and 'Baise Moir'.
The plot is very simple, I'll sum it up so I can cover the more significant points. Law enforcement infiltrate and penetrate the home of the Firefly family known as the infamous 'Devils Rejectes' (TDR). Mar Firefly is captured, another is killed and two escape. One murder during the credits ensures a stolen vehicle and a hole up in a motel. Hostages are taken and humiliation/murder/sexual molestation and nastiness ensue. Mar Firefly is interrogated by questionable means and the Sheriff goes on the trail of these odious no gooders. TDR meet up with the clown Captain Spaulding and TDR leave the motel with none alive and go to an associates residence for further assistance, and there they are captured through betrayal and the assistance of two mercs. Torture and murder leads to a finale that well and truly changes everything. There, it's as simple as that.
So what makes this film stand out? Well that can only be explained by a viewing. It is not possible to convey what rewards the viewer on a journey into the lives of three degenerates. The beginning shootout gets us going, and then there is a lapse where we are not quite sure what the movie is asking of us. There are comedic moments and lots of trashy humour, lewd crude profane content that takes us down Tarantinos highway. The terrible power of the film is how TDR are given a form of humanity. Note I did not say crazy fruit cake killers or psychos. These individuals are not crazy, it is as though nastiness is simply part of their trade. Mrs. Zombie has lost a few screws but is far from crazy. You want crazy, watch the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It is the music that is key. At no point did I feel any form of sympathy for the devil, save perhaps Captain Spaulding who has some serious personality, which pun intended goes a long way.
The question we have to ask ourselves is where does the line end with ethics and morals. We see some truly odious deeds, but can those deeds be avenged and justified with further acts of vengeance? Here is where Zombie gets us. Where does good end and evil begin? What if *your* loved one or close friend/relative was tortured and killed, what would *you* do? Have *you* ever in your darkest thoughts considered inflicting pain and violence upon an individual you observed on the news for a murder or rape or wronged you? Who is now the monster? :)
Everything that is shown, the content whether sexual or violent and profane or all of the above is done within a given context. The lives of TDR are not pretty. Zombie does not shy away from this, nor is he afraid to show us things that are going to offend. Real life is not pretty, and those of us that live in safety can be ignorant of this, but that will never change the darkness of human nature. I was inspired whilst watching this film. Funny eh? Not really when you consider that it made me ponder a trip to the local gun shop. I never want to own a fire arm, but neither do I want to be subjected to the tendencies of the degenerates that exist in society that relish in the pain and suffering of others. Food for thought?
The finale of the film is worth the viewing. It can and will change the way we think about people and things. It will leave you, oh yes it will, thinking and thinking and thinking. I won't spoil it, just watch it and see.
TDR needs to be viewed from start to finish before labeled or branded. Turn away from it prematurely and the vision is lost. After watching it, love it or hate it, much like Clockwork Orange you are left with a myriad of thoughts. No, it is certainly not for everyone, and this is a film I can only recommend to 'film fans' out there and not those looking for something to enjoy with a bucket of popcorn.
Final thoughts- Rob Zombie directs unabashedly and without fear. This is not sesame street, nor is it tamed down for a teen audience. A must for the discerning palette.
District 9 (2009)
Wow
OK.
Assembling thoughts here.
This is very much an adult film. This is very much an intelligent film. This is very much an original film.
At first I smiled, then I laughed, then my eyes opened to the intelligence presented and my thoughts were duly provoked. Then I was amazed, then I was enthralled. I smiled, shook my head at how once in a while somebody pulls a gem out of the dust, much like the alien craft as it rises from the dust in the South African slum.
They get down and dirty here. They don't pull any punches, though it isn't disgusting, and we don't have time to wonder how disgusting it is because we are far too enthralled.
30 million budget? I laugh. . laugh heartily when I consider what gets coughed out at thrice that sum.
I'm not going to say anything about the plot, just go and watch it. Go and watch this on the big screen. Shame you can't get it on IMAX really.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
A different kind of very good
This is brief, I have lots to do.
If you said to me: "This film sucked, it dragged on for over two hours with ten minutes of action." I would smile at you and say: (You silly American) "There is a strong chance that you missed the point, in fact, several of them. This is a very strong chance that you missed or dismissed the concept. This particular film is geared, or engineered not to the popcorn audience, but to those who might appreciate the fact that the makers finally gave us the darker, more authentic side of the books." It's been quite a while since I read the books. I can safely say that, regardless of how the plot according to the purists has been butchered or mish mashed, it gave me as with the previous film by David Yates, what I needed to know. Many reviews have commented on the heavy romantic issues and how they take away from other essential plot elements. I say that without something to break the ice the film would be one long walk in a darkly woven tale that does not *entertain* in the literal sense of things.
Half Blood Prince presents the story with authenticity. No bright colours, no over the top theatricality just to win the family vote. The special effects have come on a milestone since the first film. The quidditch (however you spell it) matches now look like actual games rather than something generated on a computer. The characters are far more believable and 'real', even Hermoine's emotions, though there won't be an Oscar nod, can be taken far more seriously.
The only negatives, if I can call them so are the somewhat ridiculous beginning with the Death Eaters trashing greater London and Hogsmeade, that and the somewhat disappointing but not completely butchered scene in the castle towards the very end. The viewer, in my opinion does not feel any negative emotions towards Severus come *that* act. The book I felt in that scene left us with a truly un-relenting lust for Snapes head on a stick.
Ah well, can't have everything. A film for the discerning eye, and not the popcorn. Blu-ray is looking good to me.
Star Trek (2009)
Interstellar gets a true inter-generation treatment.
I want to give it a ten, I truly do. I'll keep this short, or as short as I can keep it Jim.
It's a truly mesmerizing, accomplished piece of cinema. There are just a couple of things that mean it doesn't strike the bullseye this time around. No doubt this will be revised, but here is version 1.
From start to finish ST entertains. In the 'downtime' the visuals and homages make it impossible to tear our eyes from the screen let alone take a bathroom break. We went to the IMAX, and it is there that good heavens, I've almost flown in space.
I'm not a 'Trekkie' or 'Trekker', I'm merely a geek who likes and appreciates the show but did not grow up on it. This does not matter. For once, somehow they manage to make a film that has something for everyone .. for everyone without being distasteful with the usual obligatory adult humour. They bring ST into the millenia without any real compromise to the spirit. It's like they took the series and gave it a completely new gloss without changing or barbarising the characters. There is evident care and attention to detail, it's plain to see. All the actors are strong. The only really niggle, if I had to have one would be that Zachary Quinto. If you don't know his name you soon will, it will be a fluent household name soon- is 98 percent on par with 'Spock'. He has the character, he's put work in, there is just a very narrow margin between theatrical acting and the complete embodiment of 'Spock'. I'm not asking for Spock Spock, it's just that he appears to be swimming in the waters of the character without being completely confident to surf the waves seamlessly. This will come in time, it's not an easy role to take on. The favourites, it would appear besides J Tiberius himself (and Spock) are Dr. McCoy and Nimoy himself. Karl Urban has never sounded so good. What an actor, Eomer then Bourne 2 assassin and now a character I feel he was almost born to play. Scotty doesn't appear until a good two thirds into the film, but his is an instantly applauded crowd pleaser. They could not have selected a better actor. Simon Pegg is to films and sci-fi what Gordon Ramsey is to food. The rest of the cast are very enjoyable, strength where there is room for weakness and gaping potholes just waiting for the wrong kind of laughter. It's 11:30 at night and I need to wrap this up. One last minor gripe that robs it of the ten (at least on my first viewing) is some of the camera work. On two occasions where there is fighting, it becomes hard to tell what is happening. It's not quite Bourne shaky, but it is sufficient for the viewer to lose sight of who is kicking who's butt. Those technicalities asside- IMAX ladies and gentlemen. Some of the most incredible special effects. Space panoramas and ship battles you are likely to behold for a long long time. This is a thrill ride that will leave the viewing thinking for some time. The plot, ah yes I almost forgot, as far as I am concerned is irrelevant and something that serves purely to stick the characters together. People don't really care about the plot, they just sit back and set phasers to WOW!
What's next, blu ray baby.
9 and a half out of ten.
Dirty Harry (1971)
A hard film.
I'm not grading this one.
Dirty Harry is not a film for everyone, and I would recommend it to few.
I believe Dirty Harry to be as much as an exploitation/political statement as much as it is a feature film. It's the dirty, hard gritty grimy slummy nasty scum riddled streets of San Francisco. The film se7en is also all of the above (bar the setting), but se7en raises the bar in terms of violence, and so it falls out of the category that Dirty Harry has created for itself and stands alone in.
Clint Eastwood portrays Harry Callahan, a tough, un-compromising homicide cop whose first case is the murder of a woman in the scope of the infamous Scorpio killer. The plot is very straight forward and requires no hard thinking whatsoever. The plot is in fact as far as I am concerned secondary. It is the 'tour' we are taken on shot in a very basic documentarian fashion. It's eye though highly polished cannot hide its grain, even on Blu Ray disk. It is that which perhaps holds the most significance.
There are no fancy camera angles, no special effects, no sunshine and flowers. This is a hard 70's cop film that pulls no punches whatsoever. The violence though strong is not stylalised. The images we see are dark and cold and the music that accompanies is of sadness when not picking up that famous 70's pace.
The story takes us down the alleys and backstreets, into peoples lives where vice and homosexuality and cop hate are rampant. Everything is sordid and there is little in the way of humour or romance. That said, it contains the very famous monologue in the beginning that is mirrored in the end and in my opinion, part of what elevates this piece of cinema to it's status.
In the beginning Callahan is mocking, being smart with the crook who's bank heist he foiled with the 44 magnum. In the end, his expression and actions complete a full circle. Yet there is no happy music and victory. He has stopped (by playing against the rules) the truly infamous bastard of a homicidal maniac. Andrew Robinson is Oscar worthy. I don't know if he received an accolade for this. I'm guessing that upon release the film had to surf an onslaught of political outrage. Harry does not save the girl, her limp naked body is pulled from the drainage and the evils of mankind are realised.
To summarise, it's an important film. It is hard cinema, but for the discerning palette it is a must watch must own if only on the principle of being a film fan.
Hancock (2008)
Is it a bird, is it a plane, no it's another bad representation
This is not a *good* film review, it's my thoughts and it won't get me a job at Empire magazine.
There are not too many Black super hero icons out there, unless of course you count Blade.
The warning lights came on (as they do with what I consider to be bad films) in the first scene with Will Smith and a boy. Now, I'm not knocking Will Smiths performance, he does a great job in every role he portrays. It's the situation and subsequent events made me shake my head.
Hancock is a black man who has super powers. He is a bum with a drinking problem and the first thing we see him do is take off into the air and fly around the city with an open liquor bottle from which he is partaking whilst flying (don't try this at home kids) neat liquor.. The 'special effects' look like- I'm not sure what they look like, only I knew this was surely the point of no return. This is before (oh yes let's not forget the rap music) he catches some bad guys in a vehicle and then picks up their vehicle and throws them around a few city blocks whilst damaging public and private property.
So OK, we have a bum black man with an attitude and a habit of keeping city construction workers in business, but it gets better. The script is abominable and this film is not far short of an R with it's in frequent but explicit language.
Now I'm insulted in a way, not because I was offended by this. I was bitterly amused for at least half of the movie. I am offended that they had to make a film that would appeal to a given demographic because of its portrayal of how certain classes of people act, and apparently there is comedy in this.
"Well you should sue McDonalds because they (cuss word) you up." I wonder which demographic actually laughed at this? There is a plot in Hancock and in fact a significance. People *can* change it would seem. Hancock saves the life of a public figure who decides to change his image and do give him better appeal where the public (who think he is an asshole) are concerned. Yes of course, we shall use the word asshole because it's perfectly acceptable for kids to use it, as indeed they do. It's OK honey they will hear worse at school. Oh don't give me that look, I'm on this soap box for a reason.
Well Hancock agrees to go to jail to clean up his act and turn himself around. During this time he flies out of the compound to grab a basketball and then after some hesitation flies back in. Oh boy do they have him locked up good and proper.
I didn't start laughing at this until Nancy Grace appeared on TV. It was only then that I could no longer hold my composure.
In truth Hancock does have some redeeming qualities, the credits are fun to watch. Oh seriously? Oh OK. There is a genuine story arc whereby we are introduced to Charleze Theron who is another of 'his' kind. They have some kind of relationship but I wanted the film to be over so I didn't really pay a great deal off attention. OK cynicism aside we do see a very human side to Hancock and an effort to reform. His character is both reprehensible and endearing and he does clean up his heroic act. It's just not strong enough when we consider the full equation. All of this is at the expense of certain factions of people who are trying very hard to prove that they are more than how much of society perceives them.
Well, at least now they have a super hero flick to show the world it's simply not true.
Watchmen (2009)
Complex and political but certainly worth a 'Watch'
It is hard for me to review this film. I am not a fan of the graphic novel and as such I have nothing by which to compare. All I can do here is sit and type thoughts based upon my viewing as a non affiliate.
I'm not going to bother with the story because it's already been explained and to be quite frank, politics aside I am still not entirely sure of the purpose or motivations of the group of Watchmen for which this film is so named.
What I do have to emphasise is that contrary to what the trailer might suggest, non affiliates can be forgiven for assuming that this is another super hero flick. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Manhatten aside, this is a group of costumed masked 'vigilantes' that exist to perhaps crime fight, perhaps fulfill their own political motives.
The interesting concept here is that Zack Snyder has given these individual enhanced 'Batman' esq abilities. They all seem to frequent the gym, each sporting respective black belts from which speedy and bone shattering skills emerge. Actually I'm lying, the most interesting concept is that none of these 'good guys?' are good. All seem to possess jaded and or selfish character traits. I might say that by far the most prominent character and scene stealer Rorshach is the exemption to this rule, but even him I would not care to meet in a dark alley.
In the first five minutes and opening credits we can see just what we are getting ourselves into. There is comic book brutality and adult, political themes that border on the satirical. This is a good thing, because this is the 'Q' for all the children in the theater who's parents assumed were sitting through an exciting super hero flick- to leave.
So now we know, or have an idea of things. Now, moving on to the next point I'd like to make. This film is not for the politically sensitive. There are images that might have open mouths and balled fists jabbing at the darkness. A graphic Kennedy assassination is one of these scenes that might serve up upset.
The film opens with the death of 'The Comedian' and then picks up with the resulting investigation and events that lead up to the eventual re-grouping of The Watchmen. Now I understand as a non affiliate how an intricate and complex graphic novel has been 'modulated' to the big screen here. Surely pages and character portrayals have been trimmed down and altered to fit a motion picture running time. That's OK, because though I found the plot to be heavy, I could discern sufficient within the given context presented how the world of The Watchmen was over and the political eighties climate was heated and somewhat revolutionary.
I believe where the film shines and perhaps entertains where lack of action or 'easy reading' keeps the popcorn munching is the art and cinematography. Sometimes we have to sit back and understand that much of it is theatrical satire and the somewhat 'forced' acting is in that very context. Nonethless I am happy that in place of a 'no brainer' we have a somewhat original dark sometimes noir adult film with strong characters that will intrigue if not 'entertain'. Not everything has to be understood completely. Here the characters and plot are defined enough that we can follow if we choose to. Somewhere along the lines Blade Runner meets 300 meets American Psycho with smatterings of something else that I can't put my finger on. To get to the point, I felt like I was viewing a movie in it's era without it being too theatrically obvious. I was able to suspend dis belief and live in that world for the duration of the film, and that is very important.
The adult nature is ever present, but I personally feel like it has been overly hyped as is always the case. Messaging boards were alive with 'blue penis' and pregnant lady getting shot. Well yes, it's all there but it's not as if it is all 'in your face'. The blue phallus is not an ever swinging 'horse' pendulum, it is present as part of the well sculptured statuesque Demi-God that is Dr. Manhattan. The pregnant woman is not executed with bloody violence. We see and hear the gunshot and we see her fall, but it's no Tarantino Kill Bill Bride. The 'porn' sequence is nothing more than what we see in '300', though perhaps a little out of place. It's two naked consenting adults, not an extreme close up of genitalia. Snyder is using these images to show us the weak and damaged and imperfect nature of the characters, specifically 'The Comedian'.
Essentially, I'll tie this up in a bow. First time viewers will not necessarily understand but will and might certainly appreciate and perhaps enjoy. It is aimed at a mature audience that are able to think, and not demand the blatant entertainment. Do yourself and others a favour, leave the kids at home.
There Will Be Blood (2007)
An acquired oil painting
I doubt this film did well at the box office. I say this because this isn't the sort of film I would choose to watch on the big screen.
I think it is important to express the following. In order to fully appreciate this motion picture you must like art. It is imperative that you enjoy art. It is imperative that you enjoy acting. It is imperative that you do not look to explosions and special effects for entertainment. If you enjoyed No Country for old men and Ammadeus you may well very much enjoy this picture.
This film does not 'entertain'. It is a long walk on a journey of the mind. It's hard to describe it and since others have no doubt done a better job I won't try.
Daniel Fairview is an 'oil man' with a grande strategy for making his work come to fruition whilst reaping large financial benefits. That's about as much as you really need to know, that and throughout the film all you are really aware of is his greed, anger, hatred and quiet benign of everything and everyone in the world around him. That's about as much as you really need to know, the rest follows swiftly behind.
It's very hard to grade this film because as much as I enjoyed it and come close to giving it a 9 or a ten, it's very difficult because I don't think I would watch it again.
*spoiler* It is worth the entire duration of the film to view the final act. Then it hits you like the finale of a stage play. I won't give it away, it needs to be seen. I recommend getting it from the library for free, that's what we did.
10,000 BC (2008)
So bad that it is actually interesting
OK. . .
Where do we begin with this. Which cliché or ripped off piece of source material do we begin with.
There is a village somewhere in time. It's 10,000 bc so we should not have to think very hard about it. There are hills and snow, and fog and. . hold on- for every other shot the scenery has changed? OK, village elder and young boy, young girl and there is evidently going to be some destiny to follow or subplot romance? Ah yes, it's a coming of age and one of them has to kill a woolly Mammak? Yes, they do this by the most amazing strategy. They chase them down a landscape. They herd them like sheep, a band of tribal men on foot managing not to get killed in the process and they are actually scary enough to herd them into a narrow area where they capture one of them.
OK blah- So there is a typical Conan style village raid and the girl gets captured along with a few others that we don't care about.
So they go over mountains where we see several screen shots ripped directly from Lord of the Rings and leave the snow plains and enter into a 'its hot in here' rain forrest that looks so green that the fake grass rain forrest and giant buzzards? That inhabit it are hostile and- OK. .
Now, it's worth noting that none of the actors in this bar Cliff Burton are worthy of our attention. None of them have any on screen charisma, and Cliff Burton who has some considerable talent cannot save this. So, in the 'down time' I'm trying to concentrate on what's going on because it's more interesting watching a pot of water boil, and so it requires more concentration but that's OK because the costumes are interesting as is the ludicrous scripting and I'm wondering if this might be the first picture where I fall asleep.
The entertainment value of this- I'll cut a long story short because the plot really doesn't matter- when I'm not noting very obvious film rip offs and a mish mash of wardrobe that garbs characters that act worse than the script that somehow got approved by Hollywood that doesn't care because they know the trailer is enough to sell tickets- Oh yes, before I summarise I have to mention the scene where tribal folk that have come together with one or two Zulu tribes are looking at a fleet of slaver ships. I know they didn't steal it from Return of the King. I know they never thought of the black ships. . Ah, and and and, towards the very end when stoic hero slays demi god of Pyramid ala 300, which then turns into a Spartan battle.
10,000 BC is amusing to me. It's amusing because they throw money at projects like this and allow this material to hit the big screens so that wide eyed movie goers can eat popcorn before they fall asleep.
I ask rhetorically, is this truly what entertains people? If this is so, then the apple has fallen from a great height, it hit the snow plains before rolling into the rain forest before falling into the river and winding up by the pyramids where it gained a better sun tan.
Wild Hogs (2007)
An enjoyable flick where four talented actors pull out a few laughs.
We got this from the library because my wife wanted to watch it. THe story of four guys that choose to get away from their somewhat dysfunctional lives and hit the open road together as 'wild hogs'.
I'll keep this brief. It's one of those films that you watch not because its very entertaining or very funny, but because it's a time out from life to enjoy four talented actors in a fun movie.
It's clear that the intention was purely to get together and make a film that doesn't take itself too seriously, but has a few genuine laughs here and there without resorting (most of the time) to offensive humour. It proves that fun movies still exist and that the more mature generation still has it; and that natural talent can and does trump a forced expression and a cheesy line.
Wild Hogs go for a ride, Wild Hogs get involved in questionable activity, wild hogs in-inadvertently make a few enemies. Q minor conflict and a happy ending.
Mild warning here- this is not a family film. It an 'easy reading' film that does not have a complex story and its been made just for fun, but nonetheless it contains some mild language that I would not want a pre-teen or child to be exposed to. Regardless of what they hear in school: SOB, the four letter s and b word and three letter a words are all present. I don't know if this is a 'cool' American thing or not but I don't think it's necessary to have any swearing or foul language in period. Why can't they say 'son of a gun' 'suckers' or another variety of word.
The comedy is 'fun' comedy ranging mostly from typical to amusing physical comedy. I think I laughed heartily two or three times towards the end of the film. Physical slapstick is OK, but in order for it to be really affective it needs to be done by professionals who know how to use it. I draw your attention to the original pink panther.
It's sad that the 'black' humour has daughters looking like 'Eskimo hookers' after they have used the S word twice. I like Martin Lawrence, I believe that he can sell a joke without crudity.
All that said, it's a fun movie that will draw a few giggles. For me it is Tim Allen that wins the day, along with Ray Liotta who really excels at playing a Psycho. Observant viewers will notice two of the actors from the TV series 'Lost' as well as small parts by other named and acclaimed actors.
Conclusion: fun movie, restricted audience.
Max Payne (2008)
It's Max Payne but not as we know it Jim.
My opinion has changed after viewing this film again, I view it periodically.
The problems started, though I could not perceive them when Fox got a hold of it. The problems continued when John Moore and his production company received it. The nails were in the coffin when the Pg-13 cert emerged.
In all fairness it was never supposed to be the computer game, but a film based upon it. The result of a six week shoot, a low budget, a team with bad production values and a director who would be more suited to production is very clear.
Its not strictly Wahlbergs fault. I appreciate him taking the role and putting forth the effort. I do criticise him for not looking at the source material and relying on 'couching' rather than a direct link to the role. When I see Mark I don't see Payne, I see a character that dresses and moves similar to Max whose profession is a cop. WHen Mark looks serious I can buy it, when he tries to look emotional, putting himself in that dark place that he sent himself for the role the illusion dissipates. The acting is at best mediocre and at worst atrocious. The action that there is is heavily restricted by the pg 13 cert which dictates how much blood can be shown. So we get a very obviously staged series of runs through a pyro field and actors dressed as characters taking bullets and going down quickly. The film is mystery and not action, and so Moore lays on the visuals thickly. We can't have the Max Payne plot because the material is higher than a pg-13 and so we get a snail paced 'investigation' where the characters come and go. It is impossible to suspend disbelief because of how ridiculous and obvious characters and situations are. The only saving grace for the film is that the production company nailed the mood, tone and feel of the game. Max Payne has no kinetics, no oomph and there is nothing to chew on. By the time Max gets to Aeser we no longer care. At least there is Mila Kunis, though young and somewhat petulant in character, her chops manage to carry the film a little. A terribly miscast Bravura manages to hold his own as the ghetto IA man, the sizzling Olga really has some potential as an actress and her short role does give the film something more than eye candy. A glaring, glaring irony is that a completely insignificant character, the head of a Jamaican mafia that has absolutely no place in the MP world steals his scene, his role no more than five minutes- then we don't see him again. What the film desperately needed was some decent shootouts a la John Woo, or at least something akin to a bad Steven Seagal flick. Have Payne take out Boris Dime in the holds of a ship, fight his way past 20 thugs and then jump ship. Have Mona report to a man behind a desk that we don't see but hear. a man with a familiar Russian accent that might suggest a possibility for the next flick if they ever dare to make one. The best part of Payne, no, not the ending credits is the easter egg after them. It's a scene where I can actually see Max and Mona, mostly because there is little scripting. IT leaves room for the second film, only if they don't make it an R I have no idea how they will Pursue Horne (who I forgot to mention is one of the real highlights of the film) unless they intend to go after her with tranq darts.
It's a bad film, punishment for gluttons like me who enjoy being thrown into the MP world, even if there is no cake beneath the icing.