Sometimes I wonder if Seth Rogen sleeps... he seems to be in everything these days...
Anyway, Zack and Miri Make a Porno is the new film from Kevin Smith, director of such films as Clerks, Dogma and Chasing Amy. I've mentioned before that I'm not mad about Kevin Smith. It's not that I think he's a bad director or anything though, he's just never... set my mind alight as it were. Still, I thought the film sounded interesting so I was eager to go along and see it. I mean, it's called Zack and Miri Make a Porno!
In case you haven't heard or guessed what Zack and Miri Make a Porno is about yet, it's about a couple of best platonic friends from high school, Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks), who finds themselves broke and desperate and, due to an extremely funny chance encounter, decide that the best way to get rich quick is to make a porno. Did you guess right?
Zack and Miri is one of those films that they're calling "a romantic comedy for guys". Forgetting Sarah Marshall was another one and I had a good laugh at that too. Zack and Miri was better than FSM though. What I'm always looking for in a film is heart and there are some really great moments in Zack and Miri. What works for it is the relationship between Miri and Zack, it's believable. Sure, she's a good looking girl and he looks like an ape but they both seem like normal people who could just be friends. In fact that's what's great about the film. Sure, a couple of mates making a porno sounds mad and some of the things that happen are a bit mad but the essence of the film is real. Everything that happens between them seems real, there's none of this overly dramatic romantic crap that you see in some romantic comedies. It's just about two people and how they realise they're in love on the set of a porno film.
But anyway, I feel like I should mention some other stuff... I thought it was very funny, but yeah, it's toilet humour really. Also almost all the reviews I've read of the film so far make mention of the language. So I guess I should too. From an Irish perspective it's not that bad, it sounded natural enough so it was grand. What I hate is when people are swearing in a film and it sounds like they've never sworn in their lives, ridiculous.
The other thing I want to mention is the soundtrack. The music in it is brilliant and there's particularly excellent use of Hey by The Pixies. It's a great song in a great scene. I'd actually never heard it before... had to go for a hunt for it when I got home.
So all in all I recommend this film.
8/10
Sunday 23 November 2008
Thursday 20 November 2008
Body of Lies (2008)
I was pleasantly surprised by Body of Lies. I really didn't expect to like it, it's just not my kind of film. I think I've mentioned before in the blog (actually just had a look and it was in the No Country For Old Men) - I like films that have to be a film. I want a film to be a story that I have to be shown rather than told. Body of Lies is not that kind of visual film. It's a story... and it's a war story, another genre I'm not particularly interested in... they always seem a little too worthy for me. Also I'm not a Russell Crowe fan at all... actually I'm fairly indifferent on Leonardo DiCaprio too. However, despite all this, I liked it.
Body of Lies is about a CIA operative in the Middle East and his boss back in the US. A major terrorism campaign is being carried out Europe and the operative (DiCaprio) is on a mission to find the man who's ordered it. That's pretty much the gist of it really. Various things happen along the way and now that I come to write about it there's little that stands out, not that I would - don't want to spoil it or anything.
One of the things I liked about this film was the ease in watching it. There were quite a few strands running through it, not in a Crash kind of way - just that there are a few different parties involved in Ferris's (DiCaprio) search, but it wasn't difficult to follow. Now it's not often I'd praise the fact that a film wasn't too taxing on the brain but too often I watch films similar to this and I get the feeling that director or whoever has removed scenes to make it a bit more mysterious. It's as though they sit down, watch a film through and think, "Oh no, if the audience isn't constantly confused they're not gonna think it's a smart film. Let's take some bits out and make it more of a puzzle!". What ends up happening is that you get a film where some scenes are missing their context. It's very annoying. Or maybe that's just a pet hate of mine. Anyway, Body of Lies is not like this, it all makes sense. Well... story-wise, I'm not gonna start making political statements here.
I also liked the look of the film, it had an interesting colour palette, good lighting. But it wasn't over-done, there's weren't too many arty shots (as I call them) that can sometimes get in the way of a story. And! and this is a big and now. AND, I didn't find Russell Crowe particularly irritating at all... while Leonardo DiCaprio was very good...
Overall I'd have to say that what I liked about this film what that there was a certain balance to it. Now I'm sure someone else might watch it and think that it's another wishy washy liberal anti-American rant. I didn't see it like that at all. I just watched it as a film and not a political commentary - you can read whatever you want into Body of Lies but I think that's more a reflection of oneself than the film. As far as I'm concerned, there were good performances, an interesting plot, it looked good and it was all wrapped up in a nice big bow in the end. It's an easy film but I enjoyed it anyway.
I should possibly mention though that on the negative side, some fairly unlikely things do happen and a lot of it does seem slightly exaggerated. Only slightly though and that's what I mean about the balance. Everyone's a bit exaggerated for effect but it doesn't really cause any harm. Also I wanted to mention that Mark Strong and his character were very good, the bit of levity was nice. Course I wonder if my saying that says more about me than the film...
7/10
Body of Lies is about a CIA operative in the Middle East and his boss back in the US. A major terrorism campaign is being carried out Europe and the operative (DiCaprio) is on a mission to find the man who's ordered it. That's pretty much the gist of it really. Various things happen along the way and now that I come to write about it there's little that stands out, not that I would - don't want to spoil it or anything.
One of the things I liked about this film was the ease in watching it. There were quite a few strands running through it, not in a Crash kind of way - just that there are a few different parties involved in Ferris's (DiCaprio) search, but it wasn't difficult to follow. Now it's not often I'd praise the fact that a film wasn't too taxing on the brain but too often I watch films similar to this and I get the feeling that director or whoever has removed scenes to make it a bit more mysterious. It's as though they sit down, watch a film through and think, "Oh no, if the audience isn't constantly confused they're not gonna think it's a smart film. Let's take some bits out and make it more of a puzzle!". What ends up happening is that you get a film where some scenes are missing their context. It's very annoying. Or maybe that's just a pet hate of mine. Anyway, Body of Lies is not like this, it all makes sense. Well... story-wise, I'm not gonna start making political statements here.
I also liked the look of the film, it had an interesting colour palette, good lighting. But it wasn't over-done, there's weren't too many arty shots (as I call them) that can sometimes get in the way of a story. And! and this is a big and now. AND, I didn't find Russell Crowe particularly irritating at all... while Leonardo DiCaprio was very good...
Overall I'd have to say that what I liked about this film what that there was a certain balance to it. Now I'm sure someone else might watch it and think that it's another wishy washy liberal anti-American rant. I didn't see it like that at all. I just watched it as a film and not a political commentary - you can read whatever you want into Body of Lies but I think that's more a reflection of oneself than the film. As far as I'm concerned, there were good performances, an interesting plot, it looked good and it was all wrapped up in a nice big bow in the end. It's an easy film but I enjoyed it anyway.
I should possibly mention though that on the negative side, some fairly unlikely things do happen and a lot of it does seem slightly exaggerated. Only slightly though and that's what I mean about the balance. Everyone's a bit exaggerated for effect but it doesn't really cause any harm. Also I wanted to mention that Mark Strong and his character were very good, the bit of levity was nice. Course I wonder if my saying that says more about me than the film...
7/10
Saturday 15 November 2008
Hunger (2008)
I didn't grow up in Ireland during "the troubles", I grew up in Asia but I am Irish... so I don't what you'll make of that but it's just to put the review in a bit of context.
I thought Hunger was an interesting film. I know very little about Bobby Sands, I know very little about Ireland in the '80s in general except that it wasn't a great time and that my family left here for a reason.
I have read all sorts of views on this film though, that's it's romanticising Sands, that it isn't, that it doesn't tell you anything about what was going on, that it's anti-British.... etc. At the end of the day Hunger is a film like any other. A film-maker makes a film then every Tom, Dick and Harry reviewer tries to tell you what the guy meant to say.... this being a review, I'm gonna tell you what I took from the film about what he was trying to say.
I don't think Steve McQueen was trying to say anything about the IRA or the British or the views of the hunger strikers. He was just trying to make what he felt was an accurate film about what happened when Bobby Sands starved himself to death. He showed us all sides of what went on - a prison guard just doing his job, a young member of the armed police force who couldn't face up to stress of what he had to do, a new prisoner who falls in line with what everyone else is doing, an assassin taking revenge for what he felt were good reason and yes... a young man called Bobby Sands who starves himself to death.
What he didn't show us is why any of these people are doing what they are doing or what they think of Bobby Sands. We don't know why the prison guard goes to work every day. We don't why that young police officer has been sent out to the prison to help with the cavity searches. We don't know why that assassin decides to take revenge, was he ordered to? Did he just do because he thought it was right? And we aren't told why Bobby Sands decided to starve himself. He discusses his choice with the priest but the priest is there to provide the alternative view to what Bobby is claiming and we don't know that the priest isn't right.
The title of the film is Hunger and that's what we see. It's not called Bobby Sands or The Hunger Strikers or The Troubles and it's not trying to tell us what to think of Maggie Thatcher or Bobby Sands or the IRA or Unionists. It just telling us that this is what happened. Make of it what you will.
8/10
I thought Hunger was an interesting film. I know very little about Bobby Sands, I know very little about Ireland in the '80s in general except that it wasn't a great time and that my family left here for a reason.
I have read all sorts of views on this film though, that's it's romanticising Sands, that it isn't, that it doesn't tell you anything about what was going on, that it's anti-British.... etc. At the end of the day Hunger is a film like any other. A film-maker makes a film then every Tom, Dick and Harry reviewer tries to tell you what the guy meant to say.... this being a review, I'm gonna tell you what I took from the film about what he was trying to say.
I don't think Steve McQueen was trying to say anything about the IRA or the British or the views of the hunger strikers. He was just trying to make what he felt was an accurate film about what happened when Bobby Sands starved himself to death. He showed us all sides of what went on - a prison guard just doing his job, a young member of the armed police force who couldn't face up to stress of what he had to do, a new prisoner who falls in line with what everyone else is doing, an assassin taking revenge for what he felt were good reason and yes... a young man called Bobby Sands who starves himself to death.
What he didn't show us is why any of these people are doing what they are doing or what they think of Bobby Sands. We don't know why the prison guard goes to work every day. We don't why that young police officer has been sent out to the prison to help with the cavity searches. We don't know why that assassin decides to take revenge, was he ordered to? Did he just do because he thought it was right? And we aren't told why Bobby Sands decided to starve himself. He discusses his choice with the priest but the priest is there to provide the alternative view to what Bobby is claiming and we don't know that the priest isn't right.
The title of the film is Hunger and that's what we see. It's not called Bobby Sands or The Hunger Strikers or The Troubles and it's not trying to tell us what to think of Maggie Thatcher or Bobby Sands or the IRA or Unionists. It just telling us that this is what happened. Make of it what you will.
8/10
Scar 3D (2008)
Actually I think Scar was released in 2007 but this was the 3D version that was re-released into cinemas in 2008. Though... I have no idea if the original "flat" version of Scar was ever released in cinemas here... I hope not. As far as I can make out, Scar is not a good film. Scar 3D certainly wasn't.
As I'm sure I've mentioned a few times in the blog, I like my horror films. I don't scare particularly easily and I've no problem watching buckets of fake blood so it's all good. The problem with liking horror films is that you end up feeling like you have to try them all out... So many people don't like horror films that you kind of feel like you have to stick up for the genre sometimes. It was this particular feeling that led me to Scar 3D recently. That and the fact that it had 3D in the title. I've only seen one 3D feature film before (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and it looked great so I was interested to see what 3D could do for a horror film.
I should mention that I had been under the impression that Scar was made for 3D, I hadn't realised that that it was just normal film that was turned into 3D.
The story is fairly standard fare. A women, who had been held prisoner in her teens by a serial killer but managed to escape, returns to her home town many years later. Next thing you know, young good-looking people who happen to be friends with her good-looking niece start turning up dead. There's really not much point in talking about the plot. It's unbelievably predictable. In fact if anyone wants to guess then write and comment and I'll let you know if you're right.
The blood and violence is nothing over the top - I mean it's not particularly pleasant but it's nothing more or less than you'd expect from your average horror/slasher film. Normally you'd expect a thriller element to a film like this... there isn't really anything thrilling about it. And actually... the good-looking people aren't that good-looking. So on the whole this is really a nothing film. There's just nothing going on with it.
So what about the 3D? I hear you ask. Well... to be honest it wasn't great. While watching the film I thought it was just me. I have a lazy eye and I did find in The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D that when things were particularly far away or close up then they looked a bit double. However I asked my two mates with normal vision afterwards and they said the same thing, there was a good bit of doubling in the picture and for some reason some parts of the picture looked reflective or something. It was really very strange. It did work a bit though in that it was 3D however the best 3D effects were in the title sequence... and that should hardly be the highlight of a night in the cinema.
I learned two things that night at Scar 3D...
1) Don't be tempted by any old horror film.
2) 3D does not make a crap film interesting.
3/10
As I'm sure I've mentioned a few times in the blog, I like my horror films. I don't scare particularly easily and I've no problem watching buckets of fake blood so it's all good. The problem with liking horror films is that you end up feeling like you have to try them all out... So many people don't like horror films that you kind of feel like you have to stick up for the genre sometimes. It was this particular feeling that led me to Scar 3D recently. That and the fact that it had 3D in the title. I've only seen one 3D feature film before (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and it looked great so I was interested to see what 3D could do for a horror film.
I should mention that I had been under the impression that Scar was made for 3D, I hadn't realised that that it was just normal film that was turned into 3D.
The story is fairly standard fare. A women, who had been held prisoner in her teens by a serial killer but managed to escape, returns to her home town many years later. Next thing you know, young good-looking people who happen to be friends with her good-looking niece start turning up dead. There's really not much point in talking about the plot. It's unbelievably predictable. In fact if anyone wants to guess then write and comment and I'll let you know if you're right.
The blood and violence is nothing over the top - I mean it's not particularly pleasant but it's nothing more or less than you'd expect from your average horror/slasher film. Normally you'd expect a thriller element to a film like this... there isn't really anything thrilling about it. And actually... the good-looking people aren't that good-looking. So on the whole this is really a nothing film. There's just nothing going on with it.
So what about the 3D? I hear you ask. Well... to be honest it wasn't great. While watching the film I thought it was just me. I have a lazy eye and I did find in The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D that when things were particularly far away or close up then they looked a bit double. However I asked my two mates with normal vision afterwards and they said the same thing, there was a good bit of doubling in the picture and for some reason some parts of the picture looked reflective or something. It was really very strange. It did work a bit though in that it was 3D however the best 3D effects were in the title sequence... and that should hardly be the highlight of a night in the cinema.
I learned two things that night at Scar 3D...
1) Don't be tempted by any old horror film.
2) 3D does not make a crap film interesting.
3/10
Sunday 9 November 2008
Saw V (2008)
Another year, another Saw film. It's all good. Saw IV was in my top 5 for last year so I was really looking forward to this next installment in the franchise.
Saw V is the um... fifth film in the Saw series and I, for one, am glad that they didn't bother with all that messing around naming all the films in the series - there's no :Cruise Control here - that kind of thing has a tendency to turn your series into a joke. Of course, making terrible sequels also tends to turn your series into a joke. Fortunately the people behind the Saw franchise have also avoided that.
Saw V picks up approximately where Saw IV ends and in common with all the Saw films, we have a person waking up, trapped. I was intrigued to see which way they were going to go with this film since Jigsaw died in the third one. What I'm realising now is that these films aren't about Jigsaw, and no - they're not about the gore either. They're about the story and that's what sets them apart from all those other dodgy horror films out there.
Tobin Bell has stated that he is signed up for five sequels so looks like next year's Saw VI will be the last... which, to be honest, was the problem with the Saw V.
The thing about this film is that it felt like a place holder. Ok, we did learn a bit more about what's going on, however there were also a lot of flashbacks that were explaining about some of the victims from the other films. I don't care about those victims. They're dead and gone and unless finding more about them moves the story along I just don't see the point. Needless to say, I didn't see the point. My hope is that they have so much to put in Saw VI that they needed this film to tell us a few things before it, and what happened with this film is that they just didn't quite have enough to make a whole film, so they fleshed it out a bit.
For Saw fans who are wondering if it's worth seeing the film. Sure, why not? You'll have to see this film anyway because chances are the next one won't make sense if you don't. Also it has some interesting traps, blood all over the place and that great visceral look that you expect of a Saw film. If you're a horror fan but not a Saw fan then this film really won't change your mind. If anything it'll make you hate Saw even more, it's really not that good. If you don't like horror films and you can't bear the thought of blood everywhere and seeing horrible things happening to people then.... I don't know why you're reading this review. Read this one instead.
Overall it was still a reasonable addition to the franchise however it really is the weakest out of all of them. It's the first time I've been properly disappointed by Saw and I really hope that it's just a blip on the way to the ending this story deserves.
5/10
Saw V is the um... fifth film in the Saw series and I, for one, am glad that they didn't bother with all that messing around naming all the films in the series - there's no :Cruise Control here - that kind of thing has a tendency to turn your series into a joke. Of course, making terrible sequels also tends to turn your series into a joke. Fortunately the people behind the Saw franchise have also avoided that.
Saw V picks up approximately where Saw IV ends and in common with all the Saw films, we have a person waking up, trapped. I was intrigued to see which way they were going to go with this film since Jigsaw died in the third one. What I'm realising now is that these films aren't about Jigsaw, and no - they're not about the gore either. They're about the story and that's what sets them apart from all those other dodgy horror films out there.
Tobin Bell has stated that he is signed up for five sequels so looks like next year's Saw VI will be the last... which, to be honest, was the problem with the Saw V.
The thing about this film is that it felt like a place holder. Ok, we did learn a bit more about what's going on, however there were also a lot of flashbacks that were explaining about some of the victims from the other films. I don't care about those victims. They're dead and gone and unless finding more about them moves the story along I just don't see the point. Needless to say, I didn't see the point. My hope is that they have so much to put in Saw VI that they needed this film to tell us a few things before it, and what happened with this film is that they just didn't quite have enough to make a whole film, so they fleshed it out a bit.
For Saw fans who are wondering if it's worth seeing the film. Sure, why not? You'll have to see this film anyway because chances are the next one won't make sense if you don't. Also it has some interesting traps, blood all over the place and that great visceral look that you expect of a Saw film. If you're a horror fan but not a Saw fan then this film really won't change your mind. If anything it'll make you hate Saw even more, it's really not that good. If you don't like horror films and you can't bear the thought of blood everywhere and seeing horrible things happening to people then.... I don't know why you're reading this review. Read this one instead.
Overall it was still a reasonable addition to the franchise however it really is the weakest out of all of them. It's the first time I've been properly disappointed by Saw and I really hope that it's just a blip on the way to the ending this story deserves.
5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
