HEFILM
Joined Jan 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings2.7K
HEFILM's rating
Reviews324
HEFILM's rating
This is a boring filmed stage play, to call it adapted to be a film means they turned some cameras on while the actors talked.
Time has perhaps not been kind, the basic sort of Twilight Zone premise would be more interesting back then than it is now, the ultimate message is interesting, but this is barely a movie. It's mostly dull medium shots of people talking and talking, enough talk for three films and it quickly becomes boring. There is just very little visual story telling here. Interesting set just like the subject matter is dully photographed with no creative staging for the camera. Understand I'm a fan of Basil Dearden, the director, I think he's under appreciated, so I expected to like this or find it interesting, but it failed. J. B. Priestley is also an interesting writer, but the allegory here is pretty obvious and heavy handed. There seems to be too many characters to keep track of or care much about, the one comic relief character comes off best. A general low budget feel to the whole thing also holds it back, characters tell you about the wonderful things you are seeing but you never see any of them. It's a chore to get through this film.
Time has perhaps not been kind, the basic sort of Twilight Zone premise would be more interesting back then than it is now, the ultimate message is interesting, but this is barely a movie. It's mostly dull medium shots of people talking and talking, enough talk for three films and it quickly becomes boring. There is just very little visual story telling here. Interesting set just like the subject matter is dully photographed with no creative staging for the camera. Understand I'm a fan of Basil Dearden, the director, I think he's under appreciated, so I expected to like this or find it interesting, but it failed. J. B. Priestley is also an interesting writer, but the allegory here is pretty obvious and heavy handed. There seems to be too many characters to keep track of or care much about, the one comic relief character comes off best. A general low budget feel to the whole thing also holds it back, characters tell you about the wonderful things you are seeing but you never see any of them. It's a chore to get through this film.
SyFy channel, at this point, no longer cranks out crappy films with crappy CGI and taking place all during the day. I see people reviewing this saying it's typical, well it's not good, but it has very few fx, what Fx there are, are actually for the most part well done.
The 1960's movie was loaded with monsters this has only one sort of, and a volcano--the volcano fx are the weakest, but really very little happens.
Yes it's cheap, too cheap to even have any horses in the civil war scenes. Civil War, scenes, they are just a few more actors walking around.
The problem is this is more a lot budget version of the LOST tv show than Mysterious Island, only without much better writing and much better acting. Though the writing is the main villain here. The character conflict are very obvious, Black Soldier and Confederate Soldier. Two sisters one spoiled the other not. All done in not-too-confrontational style.
Only the music score seems to try for the Bernard Herrmman sound from the 60's version, and it just drones on and on, but what does it have to really score anyway?
The first killing on the island is pretty well done, or is the "action" highlight of the film, the rest of the few actor scenes are poorly done.
Occasionally Mark Shepard as director moves the camera in an attempt to add some interest, but the whole thing is dragged down but the group walking and walking and talking and talking about nothing.
The 1960's movie was loaded with monsters this has only one sort of, and a volcano--the volcano fx are the weakest, but really very little happens.
Yes it's cheap, too cheap to even have any horses in the civil war scenes. Civil War, scenes, they are just a few more actors walking around.
The problem is this is more a lot budget version of the LOST tv show than Mysterious Island, only without much better writing and much better acting. Though the writing is the main villain here. The character conflict are very obvious, Black Soldier and Confederate Soldier. Two sisters one spoiled the other not. All done in not-too-confrontational style.
Only the music score seems to try for the Bernard Herrmman sound from the 60's version, and it just drones on and on, but what does it have to really score anyway?
The first killing on the island is pretty well done, or is the "action" highlight of the film, the rest of the few actor scenes are poorly done.
Occasionally Mark Shepard as director moves the camera in an attempt to add some interest, but the whole thing is dragged down but the group walking and walking and talking and talking about nothing.
Really went into this believing it was an erotic thriller but most of it is just light submissive stuff with an overlay of female empowerment--or it would seem anti empowerment as it's the woman who secretly wants to be "told what to do." There is no thriller here, just a drama about someone cheating, and cheating and cheating, only because of fantasies that run counter to their mainstream life.
The director, be she gay or not, is, among other things, a therapist, which is probably why the acting is first rate but there is also a lot of talk and role playing. The only nudity is from Kidman that seems rather strange and the whole thing has a sell out twist that makes it all very safe. By that I mean that Kidman's character runs a corporation yet is sexually unfufilled despite what seems a happy marriage and kids--one of whom is either gay or trans--possibly. So the story concept seems to be teasing the idea of does this powerful woman secretly want to be helpless in order to be sexually happy? An edgy topic for sure.
The bulk of the movie, too much, are the sex scenes though mostly it's about her being told to do things, like drink milk from a cat bowl. The movie wallows in this stuff, perhaps fan of submission will enjoy it on that level, why not? But the story, especially the ending, doesn't come off in any kind of supportive or sympathetic way. As can be the case this movie settles for a women good, men bad ending, leaving behind some interesting and challenging elements along the way. And it's a long way, there is little plot and the ending when it finally comes is rather rushed.
Kidman is well cast and all the actors make the material more interesting, if ultimately not compelling, for longer than would be possible. Banderas as her husbands role should realy be larger.
Another thing is a fair amount of wealth porn, both Kidman and Bandaras are super rich. This fights against some connection the audience could have for them, but instead you'll find yourself saying, "Wow, nice Pool. Wow, nice office. Wow, he's a broadway play director. Wow nice wardrobe!
Interesting use of music and songs which is very loud and starts and stops abruptly. A lot of shallow focus, the opening shot is effective and unusual, but this lack of focus is distracting as it goes on, having things pull in and out of focus, there are moments where one eye is in focus and not the other, it's just not very well shot and feels a bit like video. Kidman sometimes looks great and sometimes aging, which if controlled could fit into the story very neatly, but it seems more an accident of how it was lit and shot, not intent.
So again, this is NOT A THRILLER. It's slightly highminded arthouse sexploitation film, if that's what you're looking for you'll find this most satisfying.
The director, be she gay or not, is, among other things, a therapist, which is probably why the acting is first rate but there is also a lot of talk and role playing. The only nudity is from Kidman that seems rather strange and the whole thing has a sell out twist that makes it all very safe. By that I mean that Kidman's character runs a corporation yet is sexually unfufilled despite what seems a happy marriage and kids--one of whom is either gay or trans--possibly. So the story concept seems to be teasing the idea of does this powerful woman secretly want to be helpless in order to be sexually happy? An edgy topic for sure.
The bulk of the movie, too much, are the sex scenes though mostly it's about her being told to do things, like drink milk from a cat bowl. The movie wallows in this stuff, perhaps fan of submission will enjoy it on that level, why not? But the story, especially the ending, doesn't come off in any kind of supportive or sympathetic way. As can be the case this movie settles for a women good, men bad ending, leaving behind some interesting and challenging elements along the way. And it's a long way, there is little plot and the ending when it finally comes is rather rushed.
Kidman is well cast and all the actors make the material more interesting, if ultimately not compelling, for longer than would be possible. Banderas as her husbands role should realy be larger.
Another thing is a fair amount of wealth porn, both Kidman and Bandaras are super rich. This fights against some connection the audience could have for them, but instead you'll find yourself saying, "Wow, nice Pool. Wow, nice office. Wow, he's a broadway play director. Wow nice wardrobe!
Interesting use of music and songs which is very loud and starts and stops abruptly. A lot of shallow focus, the opening shot is effective and unusual, but this lack of focus is distracting as it goes on, having things pull in and out of focus, there are moments where one eye is in focus and not the other, it's just not very well shot and feels a bit like video. Kidman sometimes looks great and sometimes aging, which if controlled could fit into the story very neatly, but it seems more an accident of how it was lit and shot, not intent.
So again, this is NOT A THRILLER. It's slightly highminded arthouse sexploitation film, if that's what you're looking for you'll find this most satisfying.