Three films that get on my chebs

Warning: The post contains a minor rant (it is intended to be a critical review but wanders a little). I've written it partly because I have the time, but mostly because I really really hate these movies. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Pish. I cannot claim to be the brightest projector bulb in the pack when it comes to spotting continuity errors, plot holes or general mistakes about mirror images in films. My friend Mark on the other hand....also cannot claim this. But his wife Leigh-Ann.... Well, let's put it this way: she didn't need to buy the issue of Empire with the Star Wars booklet that detailed all the errors. In fact, she could probably quit her job and become a continuity checker for a film studio with little effort. Probably comes from her being in the insurance business and needing to spot inconsistencies in people's claims. That's just the background to explain that when even I can spot (on first viewing) dozens of errors in this film, without even trying; it's saying something about the film, and what it's saying is not good. Dorian may be invulnerable to damage, but why are his clothes? Bullet holes heal in the cotton instantly. Strings pulling furniture aside on the Nautilus are quite obvious. Wooden chairs on the Nautilus deck vanish before it submerges. The damn thing changes scale three times in the film! And while the spelling of Quatermain is changed in the source material a bit, changing it repeatedly in a film, while being poignant for fans, just looks sloppy to everyone else. Hairstyles changing between shots! OK, one of them's a vampire and maybe that's a cool power they have. But since you never see this power manifest itself on screen, I'm calling it an error. Dozens of temporal continuity errors. And shot after shot after shot reversed (mirrored)! I'm not saying that other films haven't made bigger errors. It's just that this film took great pains to place clues and hidden gems and references in plain sight. For it then to make this many continuity/visible film equipment errors is just unforgivable. And although I know the film is set in an alternate universe, where technology is more advanced in 1899, I find it hard to understand why the laws of physics are so radically different. Quatermain jumping from a car doing 60mph, only to land square on his feet without even a small stumble forward. Steel vests that stop bullets are apparently susceptible to rhino horn 1. And there's wormholes! Honest to god, wormholes. How do I know? Well there's this suitcase that jumps from M's left hand to right hand to left hand without appearing to pass through the space in between. The director, Stephen Norrington (the man who brought us the brilliant Blade) vowed never to direct another film after the reception this film received. Good! (and to date he hasn't) Catwoman scale: 8/10 How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days The less said about this film, the better. However that sentence won't really cut it in a critical review, so here goes. Political Correctness Gone Mad! Is a phrase that the Daily Mail often uses. It can also be used to describe this film. I often play a game after watching a movie. I think back on the film and see how I could make it better. After seeing V for Vendetta, I couldn't think of anything. After seeing Hitch, I'd have changed a couple of scenes with some editing work to change their mood. I couldn't play that game with this film without re-writing the whole damned thing. The two lead characters are both equally unlikeable, so it's impossible to side or emote with either of them. The plot is so wafer thin to start with, I'm guessing it was hastily scribbled on a napkin so that the author could show copyright. But it's the political correctness that leaches out of this like the fat from a fish supper that really irkes me. The idea that Kate Hudson is trying to win and then lose a guy in 10 days is wrong. That's the only word. It's wrong on so many levels. It's wrong as a way to break up with a guy, wrong as a plot device and wrong as a credible way to gain acceptance as a writer. The idea that Matthew McConaughey needs to get a girl to fall for him as a bet seems to exist solely because: there's no other reason he's stick around Kate Hudson so long while she's being so repellant otherwise. It's this whole balancing act that goes on in the plot. Each character has to be seen to be in the relationship for alterior motives. Now, OK other romantic comedies have done similar stories, Down With Love springs to mind. But that film doesn't get my scathing for two reasons. One, it's ending is brilliant and two it's actually funny. It does however also have the obligatory happy ending. Why? Why is Hollywood so afraid of making films with sad endings?!? I love films with sad endings, if for no other reason: we don't see them a lot 2. Have they no memory of their own history? Casablanca, possibly one of the best films ever made, certainly one of the most famous. Someone remind me; happy ending or sad ending? The tagline for this movie was: One of them is lying. So is the other. I'd replace the word "lying" with "hideously unpleasant and unlikeable" Catwoman scale: 4/10 Donnie Darko I must have been the last person on the planet to watch this. Everyone kept going on about how stylised it was, how much of a change from the usual hum-drum Hollywood movies, how inspired it was. My spidey-sense was tingling and I should have listened to it. But no, I watched it. I sensed a disturbance in the force, the likes of which I'd not felt since watching The Core against the advice of a good friend. Again, like a fool, I ignored it. This film is the textbook definition of style over substance. Yes, it looks amazing. Yes, there's some fantastic direction and acting in there. No, there's no apparent plot. The film ends pretty much as it began and the whole purpose of the characters' journeys are rendered obsolete, unless you subscribe to the multiple universe theory, which would be a fine except for (a) there's no mention of that in the film, (b) we'd already seen that in Sliding Doors and (c) Sliding Doors made sense. Literally, after I watched the film I asked myself out loud "What was the point of that?" All that seemed to happen was that bloody big bunny jerked Donnie's chain for about for 90 minutes. Honestly, I've watched films of a genre Jackie (and probably the company) won't let me review here that are in a foreign language, dialogue and plot heavy with no subtitles that have made more sense than this. After a good bellyache to a friend, he suggested I watch it again as it made more sense on repeat viewings. I gave him A Look 3. Catwoman scale: 6/10 1 In roleplay games, we call this an armour weakness but it's usually specific, like vulnerable to acid. 2 Incidentally Just Friends original ending was a sad ending, but it was changed. See the DVD extras, it's fab! 3 You know the one chaps. It's the one you get after spending all day up a ladder fixing the roof tiles while your wife holds the base still and freezes in the January wind, then you step on her fingers coming down, burn the meal you made to say sorry for said crushed digits, watch an extra long, into overtime football match, then realised you've fudged recording Desperate Housewives for her on the other channel, while simultaneously recording over last week's episode which she has yet to see with some biography of David Beckham, and then, at the end of the day, when you're both in bed and you're stroking her arm in that way you do, ask her "So hon, how about it?" That look.