The Garfield Movie (2024)

 

What's this? Another Garfield movie?? Oh geez, well I guess this should be better seeing as it's an animated flick. Oh wait it's CGI, so that's a no then. Yep, if you're looking for a generic kid's movie to simply plop your little spawns in front of for a few hours then voila! This will definitely do the job, and if you're up for some torture you could watch it with them.

So in the most generic move you could possibly make Garfield discovers his lost long dad (Vic, Vic?? what kind of name is that for a cat?) and has to work with him in order to steal some milk for another fat female cat (Jinx) who is trying to blackmail Garfield's dad. You see long ago, Garfield's dad accidentally got Jinx locked up in the cat pound so she wants revenge (ugh!). So Garfield, Odie, Vic, and another generic animal character (a bull), must break into a farm/factory to steal a load of milk blah blah blah who cares.

Seriously, how generic can something be? This was the most genericy generic waste of time and money I've seen in years, and I only watched it because I do like Garfield as a character. Yes the CGI is fine, it's nothing special but it absolutely does the generic job. They did try to emulate the style of Jim Davis but it isn't really overly obvious and merely comes across as bog standard CGI toon guff. They also crowbarred in a small section showcasing some classic Davis comic strip antics but unless you've read the actual comic strip you wouldn't know and it isn't important to the movie anyway.

The whole 'Mission: Impossible' spy aspect is also such a tired genre to spin these days. Writer 1: What can we do in the middle of this movie to make it more exciting? Espionage spin? Everyone likes that right? Writer 2: Perfect! Writer 1: Hey, we could get Ving Rhames and make him a character that's just like his character from the actual M:I movies? Writer 2: Genius!! 

All the non-Davis universe characters created solely for this movie are bland and boring, although the other cat designs did fit in nicely with the Davis style. But why not include or base the story around Nermal? Or Binky? Or Liz? Or Jon's family? And the voice-casting decisions were atrocious! Have these Hollywood types not heard of shows like 'The Simpsons'? The best voice actors for gigs like this are NOT big Hollywood stars. The casting of people like Samuel L. Jackson and Snoop Dog etc...just makes me wanna roll my eyes out of my head. Don't even get me started on the casting of Chris Pratt, this guy is in the dictionary under generic Hollywood star. So Garfield and Mario sound like Chris Pratt, who would have thought it (UGH!!!!).

And here's another thing that bugs me about certain flicks like this, off-the-wall absurdity. Take a classic CGI animated flick like 'Toy Story'. Yes the characters are unrealistic and yes the idea is fantastical, but the situations, or moments of adventure, are generally relatively grounded or potentially possible in terms of physics. When Woody and Buzz chase Andy's car on the back of RC (a battery operated buggy), yes of course its all high fantasy but the actual idea behind it works. Action figure toys riding on the back of a remote control buggy at speed? You could actually do that with real toys. Folks of a certain age could probably relate to doing things like that with their toys. But in this Garfield movie, all the action is just insane nonsense.

We already know how awesome animated Garfield projects can be from the classic TV specials, so it amazes me that in the present day they just can't get anything right. Yeah the kids will probably like it and that's the main objective I guess. But to any older folk who might be curious because they grew up with Garfield, watch out! This couldn't be more safe and generic if they tried. The only way they could have achieved that would be making the plot about Garfield losing Pooky and going off on some over-the-top adventure to find him (there's your sequel).

3/10

Moby Dick (1956)

 

One of the greatest American novels written? A tale about whale hunting, more specifically hunting down a fabled white whale because it took the leg off a well-known sea Captain? So a revenge tale against a humble whale? Heck even on the film poster it showcases the whale with piercing red eyes and mentions sharks as if whales are potentially just as dangerous. Yeah it's not the best angle is it?

The plot is really quite simple, I've already laid it out. The story is told, in part with narration, from the point of view of Ishmael. A middle-aged man (in the film) looking for work in whaling on the Eastern coast of America. Why whaling? In the 1800's it was solid rewarding work, oil was essential for everything, and the crude oil industry didn't exist yet. Ishmael finds work aboard the Pequod under the command of one Captain Ahab. Ahab lost his lower leg to a white whale in a previous hunt and is now hell-bent on hunting it down because he's a petty crazy man. So off they go sailing into the blue yonder hunting whales and the legendary white whale of Ahab's nightmares.

And hereby lies the problem with this, now, classic Gregory Peck film. The story is weak, it's completely absent and nothing happens for virtually the entire runtime. Heck, it takes a good 40 minutes before the ship actually sets sail for heaven's sake. Don't get me wrong, the build-up is good, the religious themes, the historical accuracy, the sense of dread and pending doom (all to go whale hunting?), but in the end it's all a bit anticlimactic really. We get lots of spiel and exposition about how various crew members, how eerie Ahab acts, and then eventually how insanely obsessed Ahab is about catching the white whale. To the point that he offers a solid gold coin to the man who spots the whale. It feels like there's a lot of padding truth be told, because essentially the only thing that happens before the big finale is the crew actually finding other whales and killing them.

I've never read the book so I cannot compare the two but am I aware of the story to the point that I do know that this film was surprisingly faithful to the original source material (despite being a heavily abridged version). The overall look of the picture is very accurate highlighted in scenes like inside the church at the start with the pulpit made out of a ship's stern and all the memorials to sailors lost at sea adorning the walls. Then there are lots of nice accurate details such as the Pequod being half made out of whalebone and the extremely well-crafted tattoos on Pacific Islander Queequeg's face (both awkwardly and well portrayed by German actor Friedrich von Ledebur).

Yes, the entire film is very nice looking, in a strange drab sort of way that is. I believe this was deliberate though for atmospheric purposes, to enhance the sea vibe, the cold, the wet and wind etc...This certainly wouldn't look as good if it were in bright glossy technicolour. No, the muted colours and dark almost ghostly appearance of the film certainly does engage you and brings a decent amount of realism to the whole picture. It also compliments the strong religious themes running through this film. Everything really does feel quite ancient, biblical, and dare I say...somewhat regressive. Nonetheless this all adds to the tone of the film that's for sure.

Effects wise that's another story. The various shots of the white whale leaping and manoeuvring in and out of the sea, attacking the sailors, are reasonable, but the various shots of the Pequod are really obvious models with oversized water effects crashing against it. A full-sized replica ship was used (the same from Disney's 1950 'Treasure Island') which does look fantastic but alas more adventurous shots, such as the final sinking of the Pequod, are really quite dated. Funnily enough it's the unpleasant whaling sequences that do look the most impressive with actual footage cut in with the actors along with the odd full-size model (I'm guessing) and smaller manned boat model miniatures.

So yes, production values were high, everything looked good, and the cast was beyond solid. Whilst it's admittedly hard to picture Peck as the hardened seadog Ahab he certainly does a worthy job and definitely looks the part with some tremendous makeup. I can't deny watching him belt out his passion-fuelled anti-whale indoctrinating sermons to his innocent wide-eyed crew is worth the entrance fee alone, if I was paying one. 

Final thoughts? Whilst the whole whale hunting angle is a deeply unpleasant one that does admittedly taint this entire affair, I cannot deny this film is enjoyable...at least in parts. The story in my opinion is just plain stupid frankly, I don't understand how and why it became an American classic. I guess the first of its kind, the style and themes etc...But this is evident in the fact that not a lot happens in the film. Apparently the book is filled with lots of information about actual whale hunting as if to pad it out or inform would-be hunters of the time. Watching Peck is captivating, the visuals are admirable, the dialog is hypnotic, and the effects are dated but charming. Despite all this the film is admittedly somewhat dull for the most part with a reasonable finale.

7/10

Class of 1999 (1990)

 

The second movie in the 'Class of' trilogy, the first being the 1982 flick 'Class of 1984'. None of these movies share much continuity despite having the same director (Mark Lester) and are loosely tied together, which is somewhat surprising really.

This time around in the distant hellscape of 1999 schools have become warzones full of violent uncontrollable gangs. In a highly obvious nod (or knock-off) to John Carpenter's 'Escape from New York' these schools, and the surrounding areas, have been cordoned off and there is no law. The police do not enter these zones. This is explained in a sequence virtually copied from said Carpenter flick. How they got away with that I don't know. So what to do? Well it's the future so they draft in humanoid super androids to deal with the kids. Unfortunately it seems the androids grow to enjoy their job and start killing the kids. What this part of the plan?

Man where to start! So apart from the obvious 'Escape from New York' plot vibes this movie also decides to take ideas from another sci-fi classic in 'The Terminator'. The android teachers look like your typical mid-80s high school educators on the outside for sure, but as they start to tear off their outer layers of skin we see a familiar sight. Obviously it's not all the same, these androids have limbs that are weapons and they bleed lots of thick green goo. But hot damn do some sequences look almost identical to the finale in said Cameron classic. Again I dunno how they got away with it.

The delinquents in question are naturally your stereotypical archetypal 80's/90's punks. Just look at those threads man! Wow! These guys dunno what decade they're in. You've got bandanas, skinny jeans, studded belts, chains, huge earrings, battle jackets, band-styled jackets, makeup, top hats, quarter-length coats, leather jackets, neck scarfs, flowing hip sashs etc...And everything is in an array of colours as if it's just come off the set of 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air'. I'm still not sure if this was all deliberate because they genuinely thought it was cool and edgy, or they were just mocking the street punk genre.

These street punks are so over the top it's cringeworthy at times. It is also worth noting that these sewer urchins never appear to change their clothes, eww! I also love how these hooligans don't seem to learn with the teachers. Some of them mouth-off and get beaten by one teacher, then straight into the next class some other fools do the same thing again! Let's not forget their modes of transport, various souped-up muscle cars all decked out in classic 'Mad Max' styled armour and weaponry, because cliche!

Yeah you can't deny this movie is a quirky looker that's for sure. Taking all manner of classic imagery and sticking it together in a not-very-original plot. If it wasn't for the pretty solid effects and casting this would have been dreadful. Yes the effects are actually good. Blood, gore, guns, explosions, squibs, killer androids etc...all look pretty good in that low-budget straight-to-video shop kinda way. The bleak industrial locations also set the mood pretty well helped by that Pacific North West cloud and drizzle.

But it's the key casting that really helps this unoriginal sci-fi hokum. The love child of Corey Feldman and Stephen Dorff, Bradley Gregg, is the main badass Corey Culp (the Yanks love that name Corey, and how about that second name!). In my opinion this guy is underrated and was underused back in the day. This movie clearly shows that he could hold his own as an antihero type, and villain if needs be. What the hell is he wearing around his neck the whole time?? I also wasn't sure about this guys age here. He starts out in prison but still has to go to high school? I mean he literally gets out of jail and goes straight to school (laugh out loud).

The rest of the cast is a mishmash of well-known character actors that we've all seen in many cult movies including the short and odd-looking Joshua Miller. Blaxploitation action star Pam Grier. Stacy Keach whose character seems to have some kind of bionic eyes or something? This is never explained, but hey it's the future! There is also the always evil-looking Patrick Kilpatrick being evil as usual, and Malcolm McDowell who this time plays a good guy.

Boy oh boy this movie. Yes it's completely 100% a rip-off from so many other movies and it's totally predictable from start to finish, but it's also lightning in a bottle. The casting, the cheesy good special effects, the ridiculous action, the ridiculous costumes, never-ending numbers of gang members that appear outta nowhere just to get wiped out. And then on top of all that you've got a pretty solid creepy killer android finale to boot! This movie is literally the definition of a cult classic and if you're a certain age it's impossible not to like it, or at least respect its sheer audacity.

8/10

Napoleon (2023)

 

Well well what have we here? Another historical epic from top director Ridley Scott charting the life of French military commander Napoleon Bonaparte; or a close approximation.

I find it very difficult to try and review some historical films for the very simple reason that I don't know anything about the history of whatever it may be. I don't want to come across as ignorant but that's just the way it is, some things you know about, some things you know a bit, some things you know nothing. Obviously I have heard of Napoleon and his antics but what I know is extremely limited as I am not in any way an expert on French military or revolutionary history. I am also willing to bet that this will be the same situation for the majority of regular moviegoers the world over, and in some cases even worse.

So when it comes to watching a film like this I have to rely on certain things such as Wikipedia and various other bits of information (often YouTube videos) to delve deeper into the history and learn what was accurate, what wasn't, and what else occurred that may not have been shown. There is no shame in this in my opinion, I am simply researching and learning more about the period. It's no different from doing homework, which in my day would have been 100% reliant on books. This is the only way to learn and discover more, it's just a shame some directors couldn't do the same.

So when it comes to this epic biographical offering there is alas a hyper tonne of history to dig into involving lots of historical people, battles, wars, skirmishes, political theatre etc...To the point that it would take you potentially years to digest and understand everything that occurred during Napoleon's lifespan. Reading about one small aspect of his life will inevitably link to a specific event, which in turn will inevitably link to a multitude of people and other events surrounding them, in turn linking to more battles and more people, often covering multiple countries etc...So bottom line, I'm putting a lot of faith in Ridley Scott to deliver something that I can get to grips with and give me the basics to get me through. A condensed two and a half hour history lesson of the French revolution, give or take.

Did Scott deliver on this? Yes and no. As expected with Scott the film looks tremendous with high detail both in the foreground and background. Virtually every aspect of the era has been carefully recreated to the best of everyone's ability. Again I'm no expert but what I saw on the screen, to me, looked amazingly realistic and presumably accurate. From the basic cast iron heating system steaming away in the corner of a room; to the huge array of outfits, the hairdos, the food, the landscapes, weaponry,  the various methods of transportation etc...it all looks very impressive. The only tiny quibble would be the lack of most actors going for a French twang in their dialect. 

Naturally it's the battles everyone came for (all the various politics in between are interesting of course but let's be real here) and naturally these don't fail to deliver. The vast stonking scenes of war porn we get in the finale at Waterloo is what I was waiting for. Granted it is not as good or as detailed as the classic Rod Steiger epic of 1970 but I can't deny it was solid. I know nothing about actual French Napoleonic warfare and how it may have actually gone down real-time so to me it was exciting and thrilling, oh yes. Scott can certainly deliver a rousing war and this was definitely worth the wait. Charging cavalry, screaming troops, unthinkable suicidal marches straight into gunfire, thundering cannon fire, blood, thick mud, and stoic British officer types glaring at the enemy through steely eyes.

So whilst Scott is able to deliver much visual spectacle across the board, alas he doesn't often seem to deliver much historical accuracy as proven here. Stating once again I know very little about this time period but even I had to question the moment Napoleon fired his cannons at the ancient Pyramids of Giza. This was easily the most offensive of the historical inaccuracies simply because it was so blatantly false. We know there aren't large cannonball-sized holes in the Pyramids for Pete's sake. I simply cannot understand why Scott would make such a horrifically false sequence. Everyone expects there to be inaccuracies in historical films but usually not this glaring, geez!!

Other than some stand-out moments of pure inaccurate nonsense, quite frankly it's all good! I didn't expect every inch of Napoleon's life to get covered and it wasn't. After some reading there were obviously more battles, political guff, and whatnot but you can't expect everything to be crammed into a film, it's just not possible. Nor did I think more battles would have made it any better as this is supposed to be essentially a bit of a history lesson, not war porn, so we need the other less exciting stuff. The acting, much like most Scott epics, is pretty much flawless across the board really. Everyone looked and felt right in their respective roles. What else can I say here? It's a modern day historical epic, we don't get too many of those, I do enjoy them and this satisfied me. I was engaged right to the bitter end. I can't deny I'm surprised that Scott is apparently still able and allowed to make these sprawling flicks considering most of his flicks have a tendency to fail at the box office but there you go.

Not as good or action-packed as 'Gladiator', but this is a different type of animal. Not as good as 'The Last Duel' which is a HIGHLY underrated medieval epic. But 'Napoleon' is much better than 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'. Very much recommended if you can overlook the inaccuracies. 

7/10

Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)

 

A long time ago in an era far far removed from the present-day shenanigans of Dr. Who there were two movies. Two movies that have been long forgotten about despite them starring the mighty Peter Cushing as the Doctor and the feverish devotion you get with modern fanbases.

At first glance I found this hard to believe, I am not a fan of Dr. Who in any way but I was surprised to find out that these two movies were kinda ignored by the fanbase. I just assumed they fit into the lore or timeline at some point back in the early days. Upon further reading I discovered that both movies are actually entirely separate from the TV series and are simply stand-alone remakes (of early series) that are not very popular with the fanbase.

Why are these movies not very popular? Well it seems parts of the Dr. Who canon has been changed. They don't fit into the TV series timeline and unfortunately they aren't seen as being very good. I can understand this as this first adventure is pretty basic. The plot centres around Dr. Who and co accidentally getting transported to another planet somewhere, accidentally getting captured by Daleks, and having to defeat them with the help of friendlier aliens.

Right from the get-go, despite my lack of Whovian knowledge, I could tell this wasn't the same as the famous BBC show. As already mentioned Peter Cushing is the Doctor here, which is inspired casting no doubt, but you don't really get the quirky eccentric Doctor we are all used to. What we get is essentially Peter Cushing doing his usual polite and charming kooky scientist/inventor routine which doesn't really fit the bill and plays out more like a Doug McClure adventure. The plot also puts the Doctor at a point where he's just invented the Tardis so everything, again, feels closer to any manner of classic adventure flicks involving crazy machines going to outlandish places like the moon, centre of the Earth, bottom of the sea etc...Loved the huge red lever to activate the Tardis.

Another huge problem for this movie is the lack of scope (probably down to budget). I'm sure back in the day this may have looked impressive but looking back...not so much. The main issue being the sets, the obvious sets. Everything looks so confined with no depth or scale. This feels like a very small planet and limited adventure. All the props look flimsy and horribly fake. The costumes are typically dated and very drab-looking. The action is hokey as hell, and the Humanoid alien race known as 'Thals' look like the worst type of original Star Trek alien ever. And what was that big frozen dinosaur type thing that appeared to be frozen in place? That went nowhere.

The highlight (other than Roy Castle's hilariously cringeworthy performance) is of course the Daleks themselves. These extremely popular robotic trolleys have somehow become feared and loved by children and adults for as far back as I can remember, and I just don't know why. I can't deny they are a unique and original design and I have always liked the idea of a small alien creature having to exist inside its own little tank, but in this they are bad (not in a good way). What we really have are ropey-looking bumper cars trundling around very slowly firing bursts of fire extinguisher foam at actors that are trying to escape slowly to give the Daleks an impression of some speed, aggression, and intimidation. The result is often a giggle-inducing scene where a Dalek will attack and go after someone very very slowly whilst trying not to bump into props and scenery.

I think the real crime here is the movie is boring, nothing really exciting happens, nothing keeps you on the edge of your seat. Another glaring crime is the fact the Daleks aren't threatening at all. Sure they may have been back in the day but now? Forget about it. There is never any real peril because everything looks like a Blue Peter set with the odd nice prop and one nice matte painting. Heck they even chuck in some lava lamps as set decor for flip's sake. And lastly, the main man, the Doctor, doesn't really do anything either. Cushing certainly looks the part but they give him nothing to do! Criminal! I think anyone who is unaware of Dr. Who and likes old hammy sci-fi will get a kick outta this, but in all honesty, who is in that boat being unaware of Dr. Who? 

4/10