Starry Eyes - Nice idea

‘Starry Eyes’ could almost be considered a ‘satire’ on today’s ‘celebrity-obsessed’ culture.  It could be… if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s blatantly marketed as a ‘horror.’ And it is pretty horrific.  Even if much of the horror is derived from one young girl’s desperation to make it to stardom in Hollywood and the lengths she’ll go to.

Bored of waitressing in a seedy café (primarily frequented by men – if you know what I mean), Sarah feels she gets the break she’s been waiting for when a well-to-do producer offers to make her the star of an upcoming movie.  Naturally, this is too good to be true and there’s more than a few catches attached to such an enticing offer.  And that’s where the ‘fun’ really starts.
Without going into too much detail regarding the ‘catches’ there is a strong supernatural (and also horror) element to them.  The film charts her downfall as she wrestles with the desperation to be famous and get the life she desires and the new downside she’s facing from the deal that she’s struck.

Like I said in my title, it’s a ‘nice idea’ and it’s well done for the most part.  If you’ve ever watched anything by David Lynch or David Cronenberg you may spot a few parallels in style here and there as it deals with the dark side of Hollywood and fame.  But it is a bit slow.  I like to think that I appreciate dark, brooding movies (especially as I’m a huge fan of the afford-mentioned Davids).  However, I did find myself wanting something to happen.  Once you know what the film is about you can sort of see what’s going to happen a mile off and write the rest yourself.  That isn’t to say that there aren’t some nice touches (and even quite violent gore later on in the movie).  There’s even some quite black humour thrown in with the satire.

However, I can’t help think that this would have worked better as some sort of ‘half hour short.’ It does tend to go on for long periods of time.  Granted, these are designed to ‘build tension’ etc, but it just seemed like it was going on for too long.

‘Starry Eyes’ does work as what it is, but the way it’s done just won’t appeal to the masses.  I enjoyed it as I like the overall satire effect, plus there was just about enough gore and black humour in it to make it watchable.  However, I’m just not too sure I’d ever be bothered to watch it again.  The nice touches just don’t come quickly enough to maintain my enjoyment.  It’s a nice idea and there are more than a few nice touches.  Pity it just couldn’t have maintained those elements all the way through to avoid my mind wandering.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Stardust - A classic modern fairytale

There’s really little I can find that is negative about ‘Stardust.’ For what it is, it’s possibly as perfect as a film could be.  It’s a fairytale – pure and simple.  It has everything you’d probably expect to see in a ‘classic Disney’ cartoon – dashing princes, beautiful princesses, evil witches and more magic than you could shake a wand at.  There really is nothing new regarding the plot.  If you’ve seen one fairytale then, technically, you’ve seen this story and nothing will come as much of a surprise when it comes to the plot.  However, ‘Stardust’ isn’t your average fairytale.

If you check out the tagline on the marketing, you’ll see it says something like, ‘The fairytale that won’t behave.’ I can see where they’re coming from.  It’s a cheeky little number that accomplishes what few films can – it’s very watchable for both adults and children.  Kids will love the simple ‘boy meets girl’ story.  Characters are very easily identifiable as either ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ But the film’s really bonus is its much darker undertones.  There are simply dozens of visual and scripted gags which will probably go way over children’s head and be picked up by adults.

But, it’s not just the script that’s fun – every cast member is a recognisable face in their own right.  Whether it’s the narrator – Sir Ian McKellen, or the dodgy seller of lightning in a bottle (and other magical goods), Ricky Gervais.  Naturally, the film likes to highlight its two ‘trump cards’ – none other than Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro.  Of course they turn in as excellent performances as you’d expect (I won’t go into DeNiro’s performance for fear of spoiling it for people who don’t know what he gets up to on board his flying lightning-harvesting ship when his crew aren’t watching and Pfeiffer smoulders as the evil witch, ruthlessly hunting our young couple).  But it’s the film’s two leads that really have to carry the film.  Clare Danes is more recognisable than her heroic counterpart, Charlie Cox, but their chemistry is just perfect.

All in all, you’ll be guaranteed a good time with this film whether you’re young or old.  You’ll have to have a heart of stone not to be enchanted by its simple tale of princes and princesses, told to perfection for a modern audience.

And, is it just me, or is the soundtrack one of the most uplifting ever in recent times?

10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this

Star Crash - I have many powers

Did you ever watch the episode of ‘South Park’ where the four central boys are playing ninjas?  In it Eric Cartman frequently annoyed his friends by inventing new ‘super powers’ which got him out of any given (play) situation in their game. ‘Star Crash’ basically does that.

If ‘Hawk the Slayer’ is the best ’bad movie’ ever made which is set in the land of ‘sword and sorcery,’ then ‘Star Crash’ is the best ‘bad movie’ ever set in space (the two do tend to go hand in hand on many levels).  It’s hard to believe that Star Crash was made only a year after – arguably – one of the greatest films ever made – Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope.

Star Crash not so much plays homage to, but completely rips off George Lucas’ seminal work of art.  Only Star Crash has the budget of a pensioner’s weekly shop at Aldi.

It’s at this point that I should say, ‘Don’t watch Star Crash!’ You’ll hate it.  Largely, because it’s awful.  Like Hawk the Slayer, you’ll only enjoy it if you have an appreciation for so-bad-they’re-good movies, or you watched in on TV in the eighties and actually were too young to realise just how bad it was.

If you excuse the wooden acting and lousy special effects (space ships that you can see the ‘rails’ they’re running on) you’re still left with the nonsensical plot, involving a benevolent space Emperor (who appears doped up on Prozac most of the time) charging two random smugglers to go and destroy the evil space Count and his entire planet/space station/army.  Of course our kindly Emperor could have just sent his entire space fleet to do that, but never mind.

And, as the ‘story’ (and I use that term lightly) progresses, each scene gets more ludicrous than the last.  Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it ALWAYS does.  I’ve mentioned how all the characters invent new (and never previously mentioned) super powers every time they need them.  Well, that minor plot point just pales in comparison to how bizarre the total failure to adhere to basic physics.  Example... soldiers fire themselves inside torpedoes through space which smash through a space station’s windows (yes, windows) only for a gunfight to ensue.  Of course, as most people know, smashing a window in space creates a vacuum which will suck everyone out.  It doesn’t.  Never mind.  This is Star Crash.  Realism is not its strong point.

Like I’ve said, Star Crash is awful.  I love it.  I’m a sucker for rubbish films.  And I watched it on TV in the eighties.  If you can’t appreciate bad film, steer well clear.  I wouldn’t recommend this film to anyone I didn’t know well.  Know what you’re in for before you dare to brave this wonderful travesty of film-making.

Then again... if you’ve seen the outfits Caroline Munro wears, you may not care about anything else that happens in the film (lads only).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Stand Up Guys - Strangely only average

Before I wrote this, I checked out some of the other reviews and, based on what I read, you're probably not going to agree with me. Apparently, from what I've seen, the majority of people who watched `Stand Up Guys' really enjoyed it.

I'm not saying that it wasn't an okay film, but, based on having two of the greatest actors in the leading roles, I thought it was going to be better than it was.

Christopher Walken plays a hitman who's charged with the task of `offing' Al Pacino who has been released from prison after 28 years. The only trouble is... they're friends and so Walken takes Pacino on one last night of hell-raising.

It's a good premise and it is at its best when it's sentimental. However, it was also billed as a `comedy' and I didn't find that much to laugh at (primary some smutty jokes about the problems elderly men have between the sheets and that's about it).

Pacino overacts and Walken underacts. And, no matter how great the actors are (and they are great!), the somewhat average script makes little more than an average movie.

I didn't hate it. It passed an hour and a half. It's just I was expecting better, but, like I say, there are a lot of very positive 4 and 5 star reviews, so what do I know?

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Stand by Me - Stephen King’s ‘odd one out’

Anyone who’s into their horror films cannot have heard of Stephen King.  He’s written countless creepy books, most of which have been transferred (not always successfully) to film.  So, your basic Stephen King film normally has one unseen evil entity making the lives of some sleepy American town a living hell.

Then we have ‘Stand By Me.’ It really doesn’t fit in with any of his other work.  Yes, we have the small American town as a setting, but that’s where the similarities end.  In fact... the film is pretty hard to describe to someone.  It’s about four boys who go off to find a dead body they have heard is lying somewhere in the woods.  That’s about it really.  And it’s hard for someone who hasn’t heard much about it to really get excited by that miniscule plot synopsis.

But, believe it or not, it’s actually pretty good.  Yes, there isn’t too much in the way of ‘threat.’ Not like King’s other tales of demons, monsters or the supernatural, always hot on his heroes’ heels.  Here, much of the charm of the tale is told simply by watching the four boys interact.  As any man will know, looking back on his childhood, the temptation to go and see a ‘real life’ dead body would almost be too tempting to resist.  Therefore I for one can identify with their simple motives. 

Then you have the characters themselves – a stoic River Phoenix, a bowl-cut haired Will Wheaton, an almost unrecognisably fat Jerry O’Connel and a completely insane Corey Feldman.  Every one is completely unique and quite relatable in their own way, so it’s hard to pick out a stand out performance.

Someone online described it as a ‘quiet classic.’ I can’t really top that description.  Just because it probably doesn’t sound the most thrilling of adventures, don’t let it put you off.  It’s only an hour and a half long and, packed into its average runtime, is more touching, heartfelt and poignant moments than you’ll get in King’s entire body of work put together.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Stalled -Nice little zombie film

Okay, so, if you haven’t got much of a budget and you want to make a picture, where do you set it?  The answer: a toilet.  I had to watch this film to believe it – an entire (zombie) film set inside a toilet (and, most importantly, a toilet cubicle).  But, amazingly, they pulled it off – just.

At a Christmas party the dead rise (why... who cares!) and a janitor gets trapped in the women’s toilets by a horde of flesh-eating ghouls.  There he must sit and wait it out, or try to escape (or maybe both).  Apart from the zombies (who don’t really talk, as you can imagine), this is pretty much a one man show, as the janitor does what we might do in such a situation – which is pretty much nothing, as the circumstances don’t really allow it.

And the janitor does a pretty good job of holding the film together.  But he’s not alone.  There’s someone else in the other cubicle, but we never really see her.  All we get is her voice and they speak through the wood throughout the film.  Unfortunately, I felt this ‘mystery’ character was the film’s sticking point.  I don’t know why, but I never really believed there was anyone in the other stall.  It was like she had recorded her lines in a separate studio and the production team were just playing them at the appropriate times.

There isn’t that much gore (as the budget probably wouldn’t allow it), but there is enough humour to keep most ‘zom-com’ fans would like (and even a few quite touching moments here and there).  It’s no Shaun of the Dead, but it’s not a bad entry into the increasingly saturated zombie genre.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Stalker - Find the positive? 

Stalker is a film about a writer - yes, another one - everyone in films seems to be a writer. And they move to a big house - yes, another one - to overcome their writer's block and end up in a tricky situation - yes, another one.

There really isn't much to say about Stalker, only that the main enjoyment and debate you can get out of it is if you really try to find something positive to say about it. The actors look bored. The characters are unlikeable stereotypes. What little plot there is you can probably guess by about half an hour. And you won't really care what happens to anyone.

However, perhaps the only positive is that it's short. You can get it over with pretty quickly - assuming you've lasted until the end.

Avoid. 

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film