Hey folks,
This is the last post I will be writing on averagefilmreviews.blogspot.com. Fear not though, I'm not gone. I've just moved. I decided I wanted to expand the blog to include more info besides reviews so I have moved to my own domain. I'm keeping the name though and I think the rss feeds have been updated.... let me know if it isn't though!
Anyway, you can now find me at www.averagefilmreviews.com. I'm in need of a logo though so if there's any budding logo designers out there who'd like to help me then send me an e-mail - nicola at averagefilmreviews dot com.
Thanks for reading and hope to see you at www.averagefilmreviews.com.
Tuesday 29 December 2009
Thursday 17 December 2009
Avatar 3D (2009)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Avatar. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--
There is only one film worth seeing in the cinema this week. Avatar. Well, if we are to believe the hype anyway.
Personally, I had been rather apprehensive about this whole Avatar business. I can't remember the last time a film promised so much (well... maybe Snakes on a Plane but that was really a different kind of promise). It's been 12 years since James Cameron made a feature film... 12 years is a long time. Of course that film was the highest grossing movie of all time ($1.8 billion worldwide, just so you don't have to look it up)... but then again, not everyone looks back kindly on Titanic. I actually liked and still like Titanic, but the idea of Titanic in space with a load of blue monkeys? Uh... I just wasn't so sure about that. And of course Cameron also directed Terminator, Aliens and True Lies. All great films but I just don't know how this all fits together.. what kind of films does James Cameron do? What kind of film was Avatar going to be? And there's so much riding on Avatar - Cameron's reputation of course, but the way it's being sold, the future of 3D cinema as well. This film is supposed to push 3D out of kids films and horror and into the mainstream. It was too much, too puzzling, I just couldn't get behind this film wholehartedly.
I'm almost hesitant to tell you what I thought of it. I think you'd be better off if you go see it yourself first. Stop reading now if you haven't seen it... or read on if you've seen it, or if you prefer to hearing other people's opinions before you see a film... it's up to you, just don't say I didn't warn you, but I do think it's one that you might want to keep your ears and eyes closed about it beforehand.
If you are still reading on then I think Avatar is going to be a bit of a divisive one, particularly because I think there's a chance it'll draw in more than a few people who don't watch movies a lot... I hope it does anyway. Which is not to say that I think people who don't watch movies a lot will particularly love it or hate it. Some will and some won't. I just mean that there'll be more people talking about it than your average genre film. For example, I doubt My Bloody Valentine was particularly divisive. Not many people who don't like horror would go to see such an obvious horror/slasher film so it's not like there'd be many arguments about it. Avatar on the other hand is being sold very wide, wider than I think the genre/s fit. I'm not sure exactly what genre it is but it's definitely being sold outside it.
Mind you, the genre is irrelevent in a way... I think everyone should see this film. Not everyone will like it but I definitely think everyone should see it. There will be people out there who just aren't going to buy into the big blue aliens. There'll be other people who just don't like sci-fi. There'll be sci-fi fans who aren't happy because it's not sci-fi enough... that doesn't matter. The fact is, it looks amazing... let me say it again, AMAZING. I could go on with a few more superlative adjectives but it's not worth it, you'll just think I sound nuts. Amazing I tells ya. You just have to go see it. It is worth it.... Even if your brain hates it your eyes will enjoy the feast. I liked the 3D in it too. It was used very effectively, there were a few "coming out of the screen at you" moments but a lot of it was giving depth to scenes, just making things look more realistic. It was different from the other 3D I've seen. Then again, it's a very different film from the other 3D films out there.
Will it revolutionise cinema though? I don't know. First of all, I don't how much this kind of thing costs and let's face it, big budget film making is all about the money. But also I don't know how well it would work with other films. I can see it with the big summer blockbusters, certainly Transformers and Star Trek would benefit from it but I still don't think that it's worth it in every case. I guess it really depends on the maths...
In general though, it's not a great film, it's a good film but not a great one. Or at least I wouldn't put it up there with the rest of Cameron's work. I think in another review, I mentioned that I don't particularly watch individual films in the context of a director's overall work. And that's true. But in this case it's easier to reference his because... well... I'm just finding it difficult to find a genre to review it in. It's not really a sci-fi film. Sure, it's in space and there's aliens all over the place, but it's really just a normal drama set against the backdrop of an alien planet. But, you couldn't compared it to something like... I dunno, Almost Famous or something. I was very much reminded of The Lord of the Rings trilogy watching it. It truly is an epic film. Cameron has created a whole world for us, so I can't say it wasn't great because it was a bit of a corny love story. It's like saying The Lord of the Rings films are just three films about a very long walk. That's just bollocks.
Ok anyway, this film has really got me waffling. Let's get down to it. Avatar is a good film but it's a bit mainstream for my taste. It's not really entirely a straight up love story like Titanic but it's more than half way there. The pacing is reasonable but it's slightly long (about 2 hours 40 mins) and I found the music more than a little annoying (it's comments like that that are the reason you should watch a film before reading the reviews - now when you watch it you might be listening out for the music and this isn't a film where you should be worrying about the music... but anyway...). That said, it's not like the music spoiled it for me, it was just annoying. Characterwise, it's ok. I wouldn't say they are well developed but it's not that kind of film so it doesn't matter. Acting is fine, a bit shaky in places and the best actors probably aren't on screen for long enough - I'm pointing at Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi here - but there's nothing painful or shocking about it. The plot is predictable... but again, that's just the type of film it is. Some films are predictable, it's not a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's not awful though, it's engaging enough and generally sustains itself across the 160 minutes or so.
All these complaints aside though it's still a good film. In fact it's almost a great film. I found myself immersed in this alien world and if a film can do that then it can't be bad. It is thanks in no small part to the visual effects but also it's pretty much a full realised world. The Na'vi are a distinct culture and they are a believable culture in my eyes given the world they inhabit.
Anyway I do urge you to go and see it if you haven't already. It does look AMAZING and yes, it is worth it just for that. And do spend the money on seeing it in 3D. This kind of work deserves to be seen the way it was designed to be seen. Just don't expect too much from the story. In that respect it's competent but it's not worthy of those superlative adjectives I didn't use to describe the visual effects.
8.5/10
Share
There is only one film worth seeing in the cinema this week. Avatar. Well, if we are to believe the hype anyway.
Personally, I had been rather apprehensive about this whole Avatar business. I can't remember the last time a film promised so much (well... maybe Snakes on a Plane but that was really a different kind of promise). It's been 12 years since James Cameron made a feature film... 12 years is a long time. Of course that film was the highest grossing movie of all time ($1.8 billion worldwide, just so you don't have to look it up)... but then again, not everyone looks back kindly on Titanic. I actually liked and still like Titanic, but the idea of Titanic in space with a load of blue monkeys? Uh... I just wasn't so sure about that. And of course Cameron also directed Terminator, Aliens and True Lies. All great films but I just don't know how this all fits together.. what kind of films does James Cameron do? What kind of film was Avatar going to be? And there's so much riding on Avatar - Cameron's reputation of course, but the way it's being sold, the future of 3D cinema as well. This film is supposed to push 3D out of kids films and horror and into the mainstream. It was too much, too puzzling, I just couldn't get behind this film wholehartedly.
I'm almost hesitant to tell you what I thought of it. I think you'd be better off if you go see it yourself first. Stop reading now if you haven't seen it... or read on if you've seen it, or if you prefer to hearing other people's opinions before you see a film... it's up to you, just don't say I didn't warn you, but I do think it's one that you might want to keep your ears and eyes closed about it beforehand.
If you are still reading on then I think Avatar is going to be a bit of a divisive one, particularly because I think there's a chance it'll draw in more than a few people who don't watch movies a lot... I hope it does anyway. Which is not to say that I think people who don't watch movies a lot will particularly love it or hate it. Some will and some won't. I just mean that there'll be more people talking about it than your average genre film. For example, I doubt My Bloody Valentine was particularly divisive. Not many people who don't like horror would go to see such an obvious horror/slasher film so it's not like there'd be many arguments about it. Avatar on the other hand is being sold very wide, wider than I think the genre/s fit. I'm not sure exactly what genre it is but it's definitely being sold outside it.
Mind you, the genre is irrelevent in a way... I think everyone should see this film. Not everyone will like it but I definitely think everyone should see it. There will be people out there who just aren't going to buy into the big blue aliens. There'll be other people who just don't like sci-fi. There'll be sci-fi fans who aren't happy because it's not sci-fi enough... that doesn't matter. The fact is, it looks amazing... let me say it again, AMAZING. I could go on with a few more superlative adjectives but it's not worth it, you'll just think I sound nuts. Amazing I tells ya. You just have to go see it. It is worth it.... Even if your brain hates it your eyes will enjoy the feast. I liked the 3D in it too. It was used very effectively, there were a few "coming out of the screen at you" moments but a lot of it was giving depth to scenes, just making things look more realistic. It was different from the other 3D I've seen. Then again, it's a very different film from the other 3D films out there.
Will it revolutionise cinema though? I don't know. First of all, I don't how much this kind of thing costs and let's face it, big budget film making is all about the money. But also I don't know how well it would work with other films. I can see it with the big summer blockbusters, certainly Transformers and Star Trek would benefit from it but I still don't think that it's worth it in every case. I guess it really depends on the maths...
In general though, it's not a great film, it's a good film but not a great one. Or at least I wouldn't put it up there with the rest of Cameron's work. I think in another review, I mentioned that I don't particularly watch individual films in the context of a director's overall work. And that's true. But in this case it's easier to reference his because... well... I'm just finding it difficult to find a genre to review it in. It's not really a sci-fi film. Sure, it's in space and there's aliens all over the place, but it's really just a normal drama set against the backdrop of an alien planet. But, you couldn't compared it to something like... I dunno, Almost Famous or something. I was very much reminded of The Lord of the Rings trilogy watching it. It truly is an epic film. Cameron has created a whole world for us, so I can't say it wasn't great because it was a bit of a corny love story. It's like saying The Lord of the Rings films are just three films about a very long walk. That's just bollocks.
Ok anyway, this film has really got me waffling. Let's get down to it. Avatar is a good film but it's a bit mainstream for my taste. It's not really entirely a straight up love story like Titanic but it's more than half way there. The pacing is reasonable but it's slightly long (about 2 hours 40 mins) and I found the music more than a little annoying (it's comments like that that are the reason you should watch a film before reading the reviews - now when you watch it you might be listening out for the music and this isn't a film where you should be worrying about the music... but anyway...). That said, it's not like the music spoiled it for me, it was just annoying. Characterwise, it's ok. I wouldn't say they are well developed but it's not that kind of film so it doesn't matter. Acting is fine, a bit shaky in places and the best actors probably aren't on screen for long enough - I'm pointing at Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi here - but there's nothing painful or shocking about it. The plot is predictable... but again, that's just the type of film it is. Some films are predictable, it's not a bad thing, it's just a thing. It's not awful though, it's engaging enough and generally sustains itself across the 160 minutes or so.
All these complaints aside though it's still a good film. In fact it's almost a great film. I found myself immersed in this alien world and if a film can do that then it can't be bad. It is thanks in no small part to the visual effects but also it's pretty much a full realised world. The Na'vi are a distinct culture and they are a believable culture in my eyes given the world they inhabit.
Anyway I do urge you to go and see it if you haven't already. It does look AMAZING and yes, it is worth it just for that. And do spend the money on seeing it in 3D. This kind of work deserves to be seen the way it was designed to be seen. Just don't expect too much from the story. In that respect it's competent but it's not worthy of those superlative adjectives I didn't use to describe the visual effects.
8.5/10
Share
Wednesday 9 December 2009
Paranormal Activity (2009)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Paranormal Activity. You can, of course, continue reading this article here though. **--
Well technically Paranormal Activity came out in 2007 but it only got a cinema release in 2009, so (2009) it is. Not that it matters but anyway... better get on with this.
The force is strong with this one. Umm... the Paramount marketing force that is. This is apparently now the most profitable movie of all time. So of course, I wasn't expecting much going in to it. Actually I genuinely wasn't... I do wonder if I would have been better off carrying a bit of anticipation though, because as it was, I didn't think that much of it. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been expecting so little?
In the interest of full disclosure I should probably mention that I felt very sick for the last 30 mins or so of this film. I was only queasy for the middle 30 mins. I've always had a problem with motion sickness and the whole shaky hand held camera really gets me. I can't even watch people playing First Person Shooters and this was well beyond that. The last time I felt it this bad was at Cloverfield. It was a bit more tolerable during Cloverfield though. That might have been because the film was a bit more fun...
It's not that Paranormal Activity was a bad film, it wasn't. It was fine. As I think it through though, I realise that I can't really point at the "best bit". Because there wasn't a best bit. But then again there wasn't really a worst bit either. There was a stupidest bit, but I'll leave you to pick your own, if or when you see it. There were also some pointless bits. And yes, there were some scary bits. I guess what I'm saying here is that it was a bit bitty.
My main problem with it was that it was cheap. Not that it was cheap looking but that the scares were cheap. It was real "things that go bump in the night" scary. There was nothing that was really... ... let's just say I was expecting there to be a more insidious creepiness to it. It was all a very straight up, be scared now!, kind of thing. I would have liked to have seen a bit more thought behind it. Not that I like jump scenes but all the scares were pretty telegraphed and that was annoying.
Ah no, I'm not being entirely fair. I mean ok, I may have been watching a film starring the two least haunting aware characters I've ever seen but yer wan Katie really did have a great scream. I was well impressed with that. And I quite scared by it to a certain degree. I live alone in a two bed apartment and I've never been up to the attic so... uh... I'd rather not think about it. But it's not like I had trouble sleeping or anything, it was no Exorcist and it was certainly no Event Horizon
In the end, I was disappointed by this film. Which is not to say that I hated it. Or that I think that people shouldn't be scared by it. On the contrary, I think many people are genuinely scared by it and there's nothing wrong with that. I save my disdain for people who are into the stuff like Michael Jackson: The Live Seance. I just didn't think it was a great film.
I really think this might be one of those rare films that would be better on TV. I could imagine renting the DVD, watching it with a few friends and having a good time. Or watching it alone at home and being terrified. But in Screen 2 in The Savoy it just didn't seem up to much.
Or who knows, maybe I was just put off by the nausea; it's hard to appreciate an atmosphere when you think you might need to run to the bathroom to be sick any minute. I gotta start taking travel sickness tablets before watching these types of films...
6.5/10
NB: I am somewhat dismayed to see that there are plans for a Paranormal Activity 2... did Hollywood learn nothing from Blair Witch 2?
Also, shout out to the Paramount marketing team on this one. Great job folks.
Share
Well technically Paranormal Activity came out in 2007 but it only got a cinema release in 2009, so (2009) it is. Not that it matters but anyway... better get on with this.
The force is strong with this one. Umm... the Paramount marketing force that is. This is apparently now the most profitable movie of all time. So of course, I wasn't expecting much going in to it. Actually I genuinely wasn't... I do wonder if I would have been better off carrying a bit of anticipation though, because as it was, I didn't think that much of it. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been expecting so little?
In the interest of full disclosure I should probably mention that I felt very sick for the last 30 mins or so of this film. I was only queasy for the middle 30 mins. I've always had a problem with motion sickness and the whole shaky hand held camera really gets me. I can't even watch people playing First Person Shooters and this was well beyond that. The last time I felt it this bad was at Cloverfield. It was a bit more tolerable during Cloverfield though. That might have been because the film was a bit more fun...
It's not that Paranormal Activity was a bad film, it wasn't. It was fine. As I think it through though, I realise that I can't really point at the "best bit". Because there wasn't a best bit. But then again there wasn't really a worst bit either. There was a stupidest bit, but I'll leave you to pick your own, if or when you see it. There were also some pointless bits. And yes, there were some scary bits. I guess what I'm saying here is that it was a bit bitty.
My main problem with it was that it was cheap. Not that it was cheap looking but that the scares were cheap. It was real "things that go bump in the night" scary. There was nothing that was really... ... let's just say I was expecting there to be a more insidious creepiness to it. It was all a very straight up, be scared now!, kind of thing. I would have liked to have seen a bit more thought behind it. Not that I like jump scenes but all the scares were pretty telegraphed and that was annoying.
Ah no, I'm not being entirely fair. I mean ok, I may have been watching a film starring the two least haunting aware characters I've ever seen but yer wan Katie really did have a great scream. I was well impressed with that. And I quite scared by it to a certain degree. I live alone in a two bed apartment and I've never been up to the attic so... uh... I'd rather not think about it. But it's not like I had trouble sleeping or anything, it was no Exorcist and it was certainly no Event Horizon
In the end, I was disappointed by this film. Which is not to say that I hated it. Or that I think that people shouldn't be scared by it. On the contrary, I think many people are genuinely scared by it and there's nothing wrong with that. I save my disdain for people who are into the stuff like Michael Jackson: The Live Seance. I just didn't think it was a great film.
I really think this might be one of those rare films that would be better on TV. I could imagine renting the DVD, watching it with a few friends and having a good time. Or watching it alone at home and being terrified. But in Screen 2 in The Savoy it just didn't seem up to much.
Or who knows, maybe I was just put off by the nausea; it's hard to appreciate an atmosphere when you think you might need to run to the bathroom to be sick any minute. I gotta start taking travel sickness tablets before watching these types of films...
6.5/10
NB: I am somewhat dismayed to see that there are plans for a Paranormal Activity 2... did Hollywood learn nothing from Blair Witch 2?
Also, shout out to the Paramount marketing team on this one. Great job folks.
Share
Saturday 14 November 2009
2012 (2009)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including the one below for 2012. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--
I haven't actually seen many Roland Emmerich movies... well ok, looking through his IMDb I've seen Stargate, Independence Day and 10,000BC but I didn't know he did Stargate so... anyway... The point is I haven't seen The Day After Tomorrow. Though, I've seen bits of here and there and it looks an awful lot like 2012. I guess he has a type, he goes for a epic story... and he has a slight fondness for the epic disaster. That's cool, I like a good epic film as much as the next person. I haven't actually seen that many disaster movies though and they're not know for being great films though so I didn't want to expect to much out of this one.
Then again, I loved Armageddon; and Independence Day; and Deep Impact... So maybe I never really had anything to worry about with 2012. It's a big, silly, cheesy, funny epic disaster movie. I laughed a lot, I might even have shed a little tear or two; what more do you want! It is as cheesy as quattro formaggi pizza, but like Armageddon, you just have to go with it, this isn't high art here...
The best thing about it really are the action sequences, when things start exploding and flying through the air you kind of forget that they had just spent half an hour or so trying to tell you when and why this was going to happen. It doesn't matter anyway. Though, for what it's worth, the plot exposition at the start wasn't particularly painful. It was kind of interesting. Looking back though, I couldn't really tell you what excuse they gave for this particular armageddon... it had something to do with solar flares, mutant neutrinos and bubbling magma (I don't think they actually used the word magma though. That might involve having a character explaining what magma is). Anyway whatever, like I said, it doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that it leads to some amazing, fantastic special effects sequences. I saw this in one of the biggest cinema screens in Ireland and I wished it was bigger, and louder. I guess I should have just sat closer...
In case you don't know, 2012 actually has a great cast as well. John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover, all great actors who perform ably in this. Woody Harrelson in particular is excellent. In fact I do think that with a lesser cast this could have been awful. As it is, it gets away with it. I'm sure it wasn't a particularly taxing role for any of them but a script like that requires some skill to not make it not sound horrific...
Let me make this clear though. This is not a good film. Don't blame me if you go see it and you think it's the stupidest film you've ever seen. I never said it wasn't stupid. The stuff that happens in it is actually outrageous. Really ridiculous. But it's also an enjoyable, hilarious film and honestly, I've never seen the likes of those effects before. Well, not on that kind of scale. I mean really, they're amazing. Amazing and funny. I do recommend that if you don't mind your movies served with cheese you should go see this. See it now.
8/10
Oh actually, I do have one criticism. At 158 mins it is a bit long. I was fine because I knew it was going to be long but I know some won't be up for that. They could have shaved 15-20 mins off it easy. We don't really need the monk stuff, and the boat stuff is a bit unnecessary. Ok, it was a bit emotional and I like that but there was already plenty of space for that kind of thing with the rest of the characters. So that's the reason it's getting an 8 not a 9 or 10.
Share
I haven't actually seen many Roland Emmerich movies... well ok, looking through his IMDb I've seen Stargate, Independence Day and 10,000BC but I didn't know he did Stargate so... anyway... The point is I haven't seen The Day After Tomorrow. Though, I've seen bits of here and there and it looks an awful lot like 2012. I guess he has a type, he goes for a epic story... and he has a slight fondness for the epic disaster. That's cool, I like a good epic film as much as the next person. I haven't actually seen that many disaster movies though and they're not know for being great films though so I didn't want to expect to much out of this one.
Then again, I loved Armageddon; and Independence Day; and Deep Impact... So maybe I never really had anything to worry about with 2012. It's a big, silly, cheesy, funny epic disaster movie. I laughed a lot, I might even have shed a little tear or two; what more do you want! It is as cheesy as quattro formaggi pizza, but like Armageddon, you just have to go with it, this isn't high art here...
The best thing about it really are the action sequences, when things start exploding and flying through the air you kind of forget that they had just spent half an hour or so trying to tell you when and why this was going to happen. It doesn't matter anyway. Though, for what it's worth, the plot exposition at the start wasn't particularly painful. It was kind of interesting. Looking back though, I couldn't really tell you what excuse they gave for this particular armageddon... it had something to do with solar flares, mutant neutrinos and bubbling magma (I don't think they actually used the word magma though. That might involve having a character explaining what magma is). Anyway whatever, like I said, it doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that it leads to some amazing, fantastic special effects sequences. I saw this in one of the biggest cinema screens in Ireland and I wished it was bigger, and louder. I guess I should have just sat closer...
In case you don't know, 2012 actually has a great cast as well. John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover, all great actors who perform ably in this. Woody Harrelson in particular is excellent. In fact I do think that with a lesser cast this could have been awful. As it is, it gets away with it. I'm sure it wasn't a particularly taxing role for any of them but a script like that requires some skill to not make it not sound horrific...
Let me make this clear though. This is not a good film. Don't blame me if you go see it and you think it's the stupidest film you've ever seen. I never said it wasn't stupid. The stuff that happens in it is actually outrageous. Really ridiculous. But it's also an enjoyable, hilarious film and honestly, I've never seen the likes of those effects before. Well, not on that kind of scale. I mean really, they're amazing. Amazing and funny. I do recommend that if you don't mind your movies served with cheese you should go see this. See it now.
8/10
Oh actually, I do have one criticism. At 158 mins it is a bit long. I was fine because I knew it was going to be long but I know some won't be up for that. They could have shaved 15-20 mins off it easy. We don't really need the monk stuff, and the boat stuff is a bit unnecessary. Ok, it was a bit emotional and I like that but there was already plenty of space for that kind of thing with the rest of the characters. So that's the reason it's getting an 8 not a 9 or 10.
Share
Sunday 1 November 2009
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including the one below for The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. You can, of course, continue reading this article here though. **--
Looking over Terry Gilliam's filmography on IMDb, I notice that I've actually seen 9 of his 14 films... so you'd think I'd have an idea by now of what to expect. But the fact is that you just can't know what to expect with him. Except that it's going to be odd.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is odd. To be honest, I don't know if I liked it. It was interesting but it wasn't particularly satisfying. It looked good but I don't know... I thought it would look amazing, that it would be set in this fantastical whimsical land and it wasn't. But at the same time I don't know why I really expected that... jumping to conclusions... I guess the word Imaginarium conjures up, for me, a carnival kind of atmosphere and that's kind of backdrop we'd have on the story. But it wasn't. Which is fine, it just wasn't what I expected.
What it was, was a loose modern-day old style cautionary tale. Or at least that's the best way I can describe it. My problem with it was that the story was... clouded. Or not clouded enough, they could have gone either way and like so many films, they just didn't really decide which way to go. I suppose my opinion has to come in here as well... I like a good reveal and it kept looking like there was going to be one but in the end it was split. There was a reveal but there was a drip feed as well and I just don't know if the timing really worked. There wasn't really that convergence that you need with if you're doing both.
There is, of course, the inevitable question. How much of an effect did Heath Ledger's death have on the film? I don't think the effect is particularly apparent but how can I know? Terry Gilliam's films are such personal works that it's hard to imagine that it wasn't affected in some way. I do think the transitions are seamless though, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell can be proud of their work. They really do uphold Heath Ledger's legacy, they completed his last work while in no way treading on it. The faces changed but the character continued on.
Quick mentions as well, I thought Lily Cole was very good. I look forward to seeing her in more films. Andrew Garfield (who played Anton) on the other hand was crap, he almost spoiled the film on the me to be honest. What surprises me is that I've read other reviews where people really like him. I don't know why he was in the film at all... either get a better actor to bump up the character or write a role for him that is *ahem* better suited to his talent. Actually it's annoying me thinking about him... I'll forget him now.
So, what more can I say? It's a strange film. I would recommend it because I definitely think it's worth a watch, it's extremely imaginative... In fact the more I think about it the more I liked it, maybe I should watch it again. But the problem remains, I just didn't think it was that fulfilling... though it did remind me... if you play with fire...
7.5/10
N.B. You know what, I'm not actually sure what the Imaginarium was in the end... was it the mirror, the show or the imagining?
Share
Looking over Terry Gilliam's filmography on IMDb, I notice that I've actually seen 9 of his 14 films... so you'd think I'd have an idea by now of what to expect. But the fact is that you just can't know what to expect with him. Except that it's going to be odd.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is odd. To be honest, I don't know if I liked it. It was interesting but it wasn't particularly satisfying. It looked good but I don't know... I thought it would look amazing, that it would be set in this fantastical whimsical land and it wasn't. But at the same time I don't know why I really expected that... jumping to conclusions... I guess the word Imaginarium conjures up, for me, a carnival kind of atmosphere and that's kind of backdrop we'd have on the story. But it wasn't. Which is fine, it just wasn't what I expected.
What it was, was a loose modern-day old style cautionary tale. Or at least that's the best way I can describe it. My problem with it was that the story was... clouded. Or not clouded enough, they could have gone either way and like so many films, they just didn't really decide which way to go. I suppose my opinion has to come in here as well... I like a good reveal and it kept looking like there was going to be one but in the end it was split. There was a reveal but there was a drip feed as well and I just don't know if the timing really worked. There wasn't really that convergence that you need with if you're doing both.
There is, of course, the inevitable question. How much of an effect did Heath Ledger's death have on the film? I don't think the effect is particularly apparent but how can I know? Terry Gilliam's films are such personal works that it's hard to imagine that it wasn't affected in some way. I do think the transitions are seamless though, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell can be proud of their work. They really do uphold Heath Ledger's legacy, they completed his last work while in no way treading on it. The faces changed but the character continued on.
Quick mentions as well, I thought Lily Cole was very good. I look forward to seeing her in more films. Andrew Garfield (who played Anton) on the other hand was crap, he almost spoiled the film on the me to be honest. What surprises me is that I've read other reviews where people really like him. I don't know why he was in the film at all... either get a better actor to bump up the character or write a role for him that is *ahem* better suited to his talent. Actually it's annoying me thinking about him... I'll forget him now.
So, what more can I say? It's a strange film. I would recommend it because I definitely think it's worth a watch, it's extremely imaginative... In fact the more I think about it the more I liked it, maybe I should watch it again. But the problem remains, I just didn't think it was that fulfilling... though it did remind me... if you play with fire...
7.5/10
N.B. You know what, I'm not actually sure what the Imaginarium was in the end... was it the mirror, the show or the imagining?
Share
Monday 19 October 2009
Fantastic Mr. Fox
This is one of those situations where I can't really review this film as an average person. Fantastic Mr. Fox is Wes Anderson's new film. I love Wes Anderson's films. I can't help it, there's something about his films that just work for me. So I can only really review the film as a Wes Anderson fan, but I'll try my best to think of how other people might see it... I can't promise anything though!
To start. Fantastic Mr. Fox is based on a Roald Dahl novel, he of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Witches fame. Well, he's more than that really he's a true cult novelist and he really is one of those people whose stories have touched millions (he sold over 100 million books) and when he died in 1990 the world really lost a unique talent. That said, I don't think I've read Fantastic Mr. Fox. I'm not sure because some parts of it did seems familiar, but I really don't remember... Actually I haven't read that many of his books at all but I appreciate the ones I have read and in particular the impact he's had on our culture.
But this isn't Roald Dahl appreciation hour... back to the film. Wes Anderson's style is all over this, of course he wrote the screenplay (with Noah Baumbach, his collaborator on The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou) so it was always going to be in his voice, as it were. But they aren't his characters or his story so it's a bit different from his other films. It isn't as quietly sad as some of them, but it is touching nonetheless. There are the charming, quirky characters that you'd expect and there are the beautiful set scenes that you could frame and put on your wall. Actually I wondering if I could get one framed... hmm... will have to look into that.
When I think about it, Wes Anderson was probably a great choice to direct this film. I had been sceptical as I wasn't sure what he was going to do with a children's story. Watching it, I remembered that Roald Dahl wasn't really a children's novelist in the traditional sense of the phrase. He didn't write stories about sweetness and light, he wrote stories to scare, disguist but also delight children. They were funny but they were dark, just like Wes Anderson's films...
So if you like Wes Anderson then you should definitely go to the film. If you don't know his films but you like Roald Dahl then you should definitely go to, I think it's a worthwhile adaptation.
If you're not familiar with either then I can't be sure... it's an interesting story and it's beautifully told but it's not entirely a kids film. The palette is somewhat muted so I don't know if it will necessarily be that engaging for younger children. It would probably be better for kids who would read Roald Dahl novels in the first place - so more for 9-14 year olds.
It'll be interesting to hear what adults think of the film... rottentomatoes.com reviews have all been positive so far, however there have only been 5 of them so hard to draw conclusions there. One thing they have been saying is that it's nostalgic and elegent. I find all Wes Anderson films like that but I suppose it's worth mention if you're not familiar with him.
Another thing worth mentioning is that it's filmed in stop-motion animation. I'm very accepting I guess, I don't mind if a film is full disney style animation, photorealistic animation, cel-shaded animation, live action, stop motion, combination... whatever, I just like films and the stories they tell. I have seen some comments though, from people who don't like the animation in Fantastic Mr. Fox. I think that's a bit sad in the sense that someone would dislike a film just because of that... but then again each to their own. I don't like watching dubbed films, so I guess that's a hang up I have. Fortunately I can just watch the subtitles... Personally though, I thought the animation looked great, the detail was incredible, that's another thing you get with a Wes Anderson film ;-)
Anyway, I really liked it and I hope you will too. I'm particularly interested in hearing from anyone who's not familiar with Wes Anderson or Roald Dahl. Let me know what you think of it.
8/10
Sunday 18 October 2009
Couples Retreat (2009)
I tend to go into films with low expectations. I don't like being disappointed so it's easier to just not expect very much, that way there's a better chance of being pleasantly surprised...
With Couples Retreat I wasn't pleasantly surprised. It was pretty much as I expected. A bit of seriousness, a bit of talking and a few laughs here and there... a reasonable way to spend 2 hours or so.
I suppose you can't help but think of Favreau and Vaughn's 1996 film about relationships - Swingers. The set up for this is kind of like it could be a Swingers 2... 13 years on and those young, free and single guys are married... however their relationships are getting a bit stale, things need to be shaken up, apparently. That's kind of where it leaves Swingers though. In the end this is really just an ok romantic comedy set on an amazing looking island paradise. It really does look fantastic.
The problem with this film is really that I think a lot of critics wanted it to be, for want of a better title, Swingers 2. I wanted it to be Swingers 2. I'd love to believe that Favreau (and Vaughn) are still as sharp as they were back than. In fact I do kind believe that they are. The problem is that they could never really make Swingers 2 now. Not unless they just spend their own money and make it as a pet project. They really are too famous now. Swingers 2 would never be a big blockbuster film, and any film that these guys would star in today has to be a blockbuster... otherwise it would be considered a failure. There were a few scenes in this film that I thought were really good and that were insightful, but it just didn't seem to be what they were going for overall. That was a bit frustrating though, that there was a glimmer here or there of a better film... alas it was not to be.
I don't know if Couples Retreat is going to be a blockbuster but I certainly think it's going to take in a decent amount of cash. It's not half as bad as some are making it out to be. I mean, if you take it as just a normal romantic comedy then it does try to get a bit heavy for a while. And I do think there are too many couples in it, they could have dropped one and had more time to tell more of the stories for the remaining three, but there are some good, funny scenes in it that I think a lot of people would laugh at.
It's not a classic and no-one will be talking about it in 13 years time, but if you have nothing better to see over the weekend and you just want a bit of a date movie then you could do worse.
6/10
Sunday 11 October 2009
Zombieland (2009)
The plan, on heading to the cinema for the evening, had actually been to see Pandorum... however a scheduling miscalculation meant that I missed the 6.40pm start time so had to go to Zombieland instead. And, despite being at the theatre 20 mins before Zombieland was due to start, I still managed to miss the first minute. Turns out 20 mins is not really enough time to pop down to McDonalds and get dinner... oh well. At least I got to see a film and I had been planning on seeing this one anyway so that's cool.
If you don't want to know what kind of zombies they are, skip the rest of this paragraph. If you do, they went for the fast-running plague infected zombie. It's the modern choice I guess. Personally I'm not a zombie purist or anything, I accept all zombies as they come (film zombies of course, for real zombies I have a sword by my bed).
Zombieland is billed as a horror spoof and that's pretty much all it is. It tries to distract us for a while in the middle with other, more meaningful, stuff, but to be honest you spend most of that time wondering when they're going to kill another zombie. So you may as well ignore that bit and concentrate on the horror spoof part.
As a horror spoof it's very good. Aside from that bit in the middle where they go soft on us, it is, as some people like to say, a "rollicking romp". There's blood and guts and flying words all over the place. Everything you want from a zombie flick. Well, you probably weren't expecting the flying words (I think the last time I saw flying words in a film was Day Watch in 2006) but they looked good in the context. They also have a great cameo, so that's cool as well.
The only real problem I had with it was that somewhere along the way they tried to be something more than a horror spoof. Now there's nothing wrong with trying to be a little more than that but they didn't quite pull it off. It was a little bit like they got worried that they wouldn't be taken seriously so they tried to get a smidge serious and they slightly tried to weave a little romance into it as well. It worked for Shaun of the Dead however Shaun of the Dead was exceptional, they really worked the drama into the zombie story. My recommendation on this kind of mix is that if there's a chance somewhere that it's not going to work, then don't try it. You can't just shoehorn in a little bit and hope.
Aside from that it was strong all round. Great casting, Jesse Eisenberg and Emma Stone seem to be two excellent up and coming actors, even if I do think there's a good chance they're going to be type cast for the next while (not into horror, just into their respective geeky boy and strong girl characters). Woody Harrelson was brilliant, great comedic actor and that cowboy hat really suits him. The plot made sense, which can be oh so lacking in some horror films. Characterisation... well, it wasn't important.
All in all, Zombieland was a fun way to spend a Sunday evening and I can recommend it if you're willing to overlook a bit of a drag in the middle. I can assure that it ends on a high.
7.5/10
Wednesday 23 September 2009
The September Issue (2009)
Since this is a documentary as opposed to a feature film I thought I'd try to bash this review out quickly, no need to think about the characters or cinematography or anything... somehow I still managed to waffle on and on... oh well!
Usually I don't bother with much of a synopsis but I don't know if many people would have heard of the film so... basically, the September 2007 issue of American Vogue was the biggest ever issue of a monthly magazine. Physically biggest that is, it was 840 pages and weighed in at over 5 pounds, smallish baby but a big magazine. The September Issue is a feature length documentary looking at the making of that issue. There are a variety of bit players but the focus is really on the two big wigs - Anna Wintour, Editor-in-chief, and Grace Coddington, Creative Director. If you're wondering what makes this interesting, I really should mention... Anna Wintour is widely presumed to be the inspiration for Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada (played by Meryl Streep in the film adaptation). And if you haven't read that book or seen that film then... let's just say, she wasn't very nice.
The camera crew on this film seems to have all access to Wintour so I can only assume that everything in it passed through her hands first. It's not that I particularly believe that Ms. Wintour is the monster that her former assistant implied she was in her novel; at the very least she seems to have a sense of humour, having turned up at an advance screening of the film dressed head to toe in Prada. But even if she is a monster she's still a person and there's pride at stake here. She has been at the top of the game for that last 21 years, she's obviously doing something right so she wants people to know about it. And if she can make herself appear more human in the process, all's good.
Anyway, you could speculate that ego was the driving force behind this film but personally I think that this film was more about money and keeping the Vogue story alive... She saw an opportunity to maximise the free publicity the film created and went for it. I'd never read Vogue before The Devil Wears Prada and I'd never heard of Anna Wintour. It's not that I'm not interested in fashion, I'd know models and designers, I watched Fashion Television when I was younger and I love Project Runway now but I'd never paid much attention to the business end of it and this is obviously where the magazines come into play. Essentially, after The Devil Wears Prada, Vogue was brought to a much wider audience and people like me became a potential readers. Unfortunately for Vogue I still don't like paying for magazines but cast the net wider and you've got me with this film.
I should get on with talking about the film though. It wasn't entirely what I expected. With the view I had of Ms. Wintour I had rather thought that the film would focus on her. She's been smarter than that. Her control of the magazine and her influence on fashion in general is absolutely highlighted but it's not the overiding story. It has been tempered by Grace Coddington's involvement, a woman who Anna Wintour describes as a "genius" and possibly the only person who doesn't really care if she annoys Anna. Perhaps Ms. Wintour isn't the ice queen we have been led to believe.
It all depends on how calculated you think the film is. It does some great PR work really. It makes Ms. Wintour seem more human, it shows us a variety of interesting characters in the fashion and it makes the magazine seem more accessible. It also showcases the stunning photos that go into the magazine and firmly places Vogue at the top of the pile when it comes to fashion magazines. Where Ugly Betty talks about competing with the other magazines and spying on them, trying to find out what they are up to, The September Issue does mention them at all. Vogue would have us believe that there is only one fashion magazine worth reading. Or rather looking at, we never actually see anything about the articles.
I enjoyed it as a film but part of why I enjoyed it was that you could look at it as a PR exercise, it made it more interesting. If I leave that aside I can't help but think that there were so many stories left untold. We only really saw a quick glimpse at the making of 4 editorial narratives. I would have liked to see either more detail about those shoots or just more in general. Perhaps more about André Leon Talley, he seemed like good fun. Or more about the normal staff... or the photographers. This really would have a made a great mini-series but as it is, it is merely a quick peek into what is undoubtedly a different world altogether.
7/10
Wednesday 16 September 2009
Whiteout (2009)
Tuesday night and myself and a friend thought we'd go to the cinema. We had been trying to go the The September Issue but it was on too late and the only thing that looked good that we hadn't see was District 9... but I had promised a mate I would see that with them... so... Whiteout was the compromise.
I didn't know much about this film going in. In fact, up until the Monday I thought it was about vampires. Look, Kate Beckinsale is in it and it looked a lot like 30 Days of Night. Anyway it turns out the film has nothing to do with vampire at all. Once I got over that it was more interesting... I did not like 30 Days of Night
The premise is that Kate Beckinsale is a US Marshal who's based in a research station on the South Pole. A quiet job for a troubled cop. We pick up just before the station plans to pack up and head north for the winter. Just before they go, a murder takes place... I'm sure you get the idea.
To be honest, it's a pretty predictable film, they throw in a couple of extra plot details here and there but they really extraneous. More than a few ridiculous things happen along the way though and it can be fun to say things like "WHAT?" and "WHY??" when you're watching a film. The performances are bog standard, Ms. Beckinsale looks great as usual but no-one stands out really. You might spend a little while going "Who's that guy again?" - it's Tom Skerritt. I'm not sure where I know him from... I think it might have been Picket Fences
There really is no reason to watch this film other than the bask in the beauty of the landscape. That's not a bad reason though. I gather it was mostly filmed in Canada so I don't know how much is CGI and how much is real tundra but it doesn't really matter. It does look stunning.
Should you see? Probably not, but if you're in the mood for an almost half decent thriller and there's nothing else you want to see, then you may as well. It's harmless, there are a few good tense scenes and you shouldn't be too angry at the end as long as you're not expecting too much.
6.5/10
noSPicedhAM just reminded me about the completely random shower scene... I'd forgotten myself but for those who are interested then considered yourselves notified! That could be reason alone to go and see it...
Monday 7 September 2009
The Final Destination (2009)
If you've been reading this blog for a while (or if you know me... like most people who seem to read this) you'll know that I watch a fair number of horror films. They're not like a favourite genre of mine or anything but I like a good horror film, so I watch them in the hope of finding one. Unfortunately, like many things in life, you have to go through a lot of stinkers before you find that golden nugget (Err... actually, when am I going to find a golden nugget? must go to lotto.ie again...). The Final Destination was not one of those golden nuggets.
I may as well start by saying that I’m not actually a fan of the Final Destination. I saw the first one years ago, probably about a year after it came out and I didn’t like it. In the interests of full disclosure I have to admit… I didn’t like it because I didn’t realise it was meant to be funny… I just thought it was the stupidest film I’d ever seen. Later I watched through different eyes as it were and yes, it was good fun.
But anyway, the original Final Destination came out in 2000 and there have been a 2 and 3 between this 2009 version and the first. It isn’t a remake of the first so I don’t know why they didn’t call it 4 - beyond the fact that Final Destination 4 3D might have been a bit confusing - but surely they could have come up with something else. Anyway that’s neither here nor there. The point is that it’s quite an old franchise at this stage so they really needed to do something to keep it fresh and they didn’t.
This is a lazy lazy movie which pretty much pares back anything that was good about the Final Destination films I have seen. It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever, the deaths weren't that outrageous and I didn't even hate the characters that much. (insofar as there were characters) At least if I hated them I would have been happy to see them die. As it was I just didn't care. Didn't care at all.
Ok, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen (I save that honour only slightly unfairly for Reeker). It wasn't really offensively bad, it was just plain bad. And boring. I did actually like the opening scene though and I thought the 3D was very good, for that bit, I don't really remember much of it in most of the rest of the film.
Anyway I don't think I have anything else to say about it except that you shouldn't bother going to see it. You'd be better off watching one of the older ones, at least there are a few good deaths and a few good laughs there.
Actually, I just remembered that I saw the trailer for Pandorum before this, that looked like a bit of a laugh... kind of like Event Horizon and Aliens smooshed together. So I suppose one good thing came from watching this film.
4.5/10
I may as well start by saying that I’m not actually a fan of the Final Destination. I saw the first one years ago, probably about a year after it came out and I didn’t like it. In the interests of full disclosure I have to admit… I didn’t like it because I didn’t realise it was meant to be funny… I just thought it was the stupidest film I’d ever seen. Later I watched through different eyes as it were and yes, it was good fun.
But anyway, the original Final Destination came out in 2000 and there have been a 2 and 3 between this 2009 version and the first. It isn’t a remake of the first so I don’t know why they didn’t call it 4 - beyond the fact that Final Destination 4 3D might have been a bit confusing - but surely they could have come up with something else. Anyway that’s neither here nor there. The point is that it’s quite an old franchise at this stage so they really needed to do something to keep it fresh and they didn’t.
This is a lazy lazy movie which pretty much pares back anything that was good about the Final Destination films I have seen. It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever, the deaths weren't that outrageous and I didn't even hate the characters that much. (insofar as there were characters) At least if I hated them I would have been happy to see them die. As it was I just didn't care. Didn't care at all.
Ok, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen (I save that honour only slightly unfairly for Reeker). It wasn't really offensively bad, it was just plain bad. And boring. I did actually like the opening scene though and I thought the 3D was very good, for that bit, I don't really remember much of it in most of the rest of the film.
Anyway I don't think I have anything else to say about it except that you shouldn't bother going to see it. You'd be better off watching one of the older ones, at least there are a few good deaths and a few good laughs there.
Actually, I just remembered that I saw the trailer for Pandorum before this, that looked like a bit of a laugh... kind of like Event Horizon and Aliens smooshed together. So I suppose one good thing came from watching this film.
4.5/10
Friday 28 August 2009
(500) Days of Summer (2009)
Saw this one courtesy of Phantom 105.2 Thanks guys!
(500) Days of Summer is essentially a love story. I know it says it isn't, but it is. It may be a quirky indie love story, but it's still a love story. I wouldn't let that put you off though; that is, if you are the kind of person who is put off by love stories. Personally I'm not but off by the idea but that's because I like a good weepy film... this isn't actually one of those but it still has plenty to recommend it.
First up is Joeeph Gordon-Levitt; who I suspect will be known as "that kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun" long after the kids who've never heard of 3rd Rock from the Sun grow up. I'd like it if he were known as "that guy from Brick" but that's not going to happen. Brick, by the way, is a great film but to be honest, it's not for everyone...
Anyway... the last film I saw with Mr. Gordon-Levitt was Stop-Loss. I thought he could have done better in that one, it was ok but it was no great shakes, fortunately that isn't the case with this one. I do think he puts on a strong performance as the lead in this, he's likeable as Tom Hansen and not too whiny, which could have been a risk with another actor in this part.
Zooey Deschanel performs ably in her role as well. Summer Finn not as well-developed a character - it wouldn't be, since the story is told through Tom's eyes really - but with a weaker actress it would have been easy for the character to just hang there as a cold bitch and I don't think this was the case.
The supporting characters all worked for me too... in particular there was a line from Matthew Gray Gubler's character that I really liked. I won't quote it here but if you can guess which one is was (I think it's obvious anyway) then comment, I'm just wondering if it stood out to other people as well...
The only problem with me saying that I liked the characters is that (500) Days of Summer is undoubtedly one of those films which will be seen differently through different eyes. It's about a relationship and everyone's lives are coloured by different relationships, good, bad and indifferent. I can't imagine it will be possible for anyone to watch this without relating to it somehow, even if the feeling is a thanks that you're not anything like any of them.
Through my eyes it was a cute story about a mis-matching of emotions, an amusing look at a modern relationship. I liked how it was all told in a very genuine way, after all, it's a story that's been played out a thousand times in real life and on the silver screen and for once it was nice to see the two tellings match. Funnily enough I found myself wishing that Tom was someone I knew, just so I could give him advice like all the other characters... but then again that might just be because I'm nosy.
So, (500) Days of Summer is definitely a film worth seeing if you're in the mood for that kind of thing; but it really is a film you have to be in the mood for. If you fancy seeing The Final Destination or Inglourious Basterds then don't go see this just because they're sold out... on the other hand if you were thinking about The Time Traveller's Wife then this might be a good alternative.
8/10 - but like I said on twitter, I'd like to see it again to be sure it wasn't too clichéd. I'm not sure I was entirely focused on it and I'd like to have been, who knows? Maybe it was better than 8/10...
(500) Days of Summer is essentially a love story. I know it says it isn't, but it is. It may be a quirky indie love story, but it's still a love story. I wouldn't let that put you off though; that is, if you are the kind of person who is put off by love stories. Personally I'm not but off by the idea but that's because I like a good weepy film... this isn't actually one of those but it still has plenty to recommend it.
First up is Joeeph Gordon-Levitt; who I suspect will be known as "that kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun" long after the kids who've never heard of 3rd Rock from the Sun grow up. I'd like it if he were known as "that guy from Brick" but that's not going to happen. Brick, by the way, is a great film but to be honest, it's not for everyone...
Anyway... the last film I saw with Mr. Gordon-Levitt was Stop-Loss. I thought he could have done better in that one, it was ok but it was no great shakes, fortunately that isn't the case with this one. I do think he puts on a strong performance as the lead in this, he's likeable as Tom Hansen and not too whiny, which could have been a risk with another actor in this part.
Zooey Deschanel performs ably in her role as well. Summer Finn not as well-developed a character - it wouldn't be, since the story is told through Tom's eyes really - but with a weaker actress it would have been easy for the character to just hang there as a cold bitch and I don't think this was the case.
The supporting characters all worked for me too... in particular there was a line from Matthew Gray Gubler's character that I really liked. I won't quote it here but if you can guess which one is was (I think it's obvious anyway) then comment, I'm just wondering if it stood out to other people as well...
The only problem with me saying that I liked the characters is that (500) Days of Summer is undoubtedly one of those films which will be seen differently through different eyes. It's about a relationship and everyone's lives are coloured by different relationships, good, bad and indifferent. I can't imagine it will be possible for anyone to watch this without relating to it somehow, even if the feeling is a thanks that you're not anything like any of them.
Through my eyes it was a cute story about a mis-matching of emotions, an amusing look at a modern relationship. I liked how it was all told in a very genuine way, after all, it's a story that's been played out a thousand times in real life and on the silver screen and for once it was nice to see the two tellings match. Funnily enough I found myself wishing that Tom was someone I knew, just so I could give him advice like all the other characters... but then again that might just be because I'm nosy.
So, (500) Days of Summer is definitely a film worth seeing if you're in the mood for that kind of thing; but it really is a film you have to be in the mood for. If you fancy seeing The Final Destination or Inglourious Basterds then don't go see this just because they're sold out... on the other hand if you were thinking about The Time Traveller's Wife then this might be a good alternative.
8/10 - but like I said on twitter, I'd like to see it again to be sure it wasn't too clichéd. I'm not sure I was entirely focused on it and I'd like to have been, who knows? Maybe it was better than 8/10...
Wednesday 19 August 2009
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
There's only really two directors that I would say I'm a big fan of, Michel Gondry and Wes Anderson, in case you were wondering... but I do admire the films of Quentin Tarantino. They're always so stylish, so cool. I met him briefly once at a signing in HMV Dublin and he was just as cool as I expected, security were keeping us all moving but I'm sure if he could he would have had a chat with all of us.
But like I said, I wouldn't describe myself as a big fan. I haven't exactly enjoyed all of this films. They're all classy and they're all... cool but I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest... and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn't that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good... I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I'd heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?
Anyway, this isn't a review of QT, it's a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.
I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it's a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it's a thing that might put people off and I think that's important to know from the outset. Personally I don't mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn't; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film... not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don't complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn't even that long... so perhaps I didn't even need to mention. But now you know.
None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you're better off not know much about it. It's a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I'd forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven't seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don't go moaning at me if it doesn't have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to... digest as it were.
So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I've thought that since 1996 though... but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn't seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It's kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It's worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.
It's not really like any other movie I've seen recently so I don't know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you're a Tarantino fan you should see but if you're not... then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn't say that it's a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don't know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn't hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone... but just don't go in with any particular expectations.
The thing about QT is that I don't really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music... but the fact is, you can't have three signatures, certainly not if you don't use all of them in all your films... He's not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It's not a bad thing that he doesn't but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That's why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in - (though not Hostel, let me make that clear... not Hostel) - I'm just not sure if I love QT. This film's taken him one step closer though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a masterpiece but it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year, it's a film that I'd be happy to watch again.
Oh, also, it's not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.
8.5/10
An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don't see why some people are criticising it because it doesn't accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don't get it. It's a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn't mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It's not even particularly about the war, it's just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually....
But like I said, I wouldn't describe myself as a big fan. I haven't exactly enjoyed all of this films. They're all classy and they're all... cool but I didn't really like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill: Vol. 2 that much and to be honest... and I know this is some kind of blasphemy to some, but I wasn't that pushed on Pulp Fiction either. Parts of it were good... I should point out that I only saw it a few years ago, so long after I'd heard a lot of hype about it, and I thought the same thing as I did after I saw Taxi Driver; is that what all the fuss was about?
Anyway, this isn't a review of QT, it's a review of Inglourious Basterds, so I should really get on with it.
I knew going into Inglourious Basterds that it's a long enough film, this theatrical release is 153 minutes long. I know it's a thing that might put people off and I think that's important to know from the outset. Personally I don't mind relatively long run times, as long as I know in advance. In fact I check how long all films are before I watch them. It saves me the annoyance of thinking a film is over when it isn't; in the past this had spoiled my enjoyment of a film... not any more. I recommend this tactic. So now you know how long it is, don't complain if your bum gets sore or you have to go to the toilet. Drink less and go to a comfortable cinema. Actually, these days 153 mins isn't even that long... so perhaps I didn't even need to mention. But now you know.
None of this tells you about the film though and to be honest I think you're better off not know much about it. It's a lot more interesting plotwise than I thought it would be. I guess I'd forgotten that behind all the talking and all the style, QT always holds his films up with a strong plot. (I haven't seen Death Proof though, despite having a signed book of the script, so don't go moaning at me if it doesn't have a plot). QT keeps the action in bitesized chunks and it makes the length easier to... digest as it were.
So finally, what did I think of this one? I thought it was a good romp, great fun and it futher reinforced my belief that Brad Pitt absolutely deserves an Oscar. I've thought that since 1996 though... but he is just so funny in this, if I hadn't seen 12 Monkeys or Fight Club I would have said he should just do comedies. Not that Inglourious Basterds is a comedy. Nor is it a war movie. It's kind of a thriller, action, drama with some funny parts. QT has done a great job of melding together the different genres and balancing them so it holds your interest. It's worth mentioning Christoph Waltz too, well cast.
It's not really like any other movie I've seen recently so I don't know how to recommend it really. Obviously if you're a Tarantino fan you should see but if you're not... then I guess it really depends on the kind of films you like. I wouldn't say that it's a big crowd pleaser. I thought it was brilliant but I just don't know how other people will experience it. Course it could be one of those films that captures the imagination and everybody loves. Certainly I didn't hear anyone complaining as I was leaving the cinema and I always listen around on the way out. On balance I think I should recommend it to everyone... but just don't go in with any particular expectations.
The thing about QT is that I don't really think his films have a definite signature. I mean ok, some people say his storytelling is his signature, or his reference to pop culture, or his use of music... but the fact is, you can't have three signatures, certainly not if you don't use all of them in all your films... He's not like Wes Anderson or Michel Gondry, who both have a definite visual style. It's not a bad thing that he doesn't but it just makes it hard for me to be sure about him. That's why, even though I really loved Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and a number of other films he was involved in - (though not Hostel, let me make that clear... not Hostel) - I'm just not sure if I love QT. This film's taken him one step closer though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a masterpiece but it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year, it's a film that I'd be happy to watch again.
Oh, also, it's not particularly gruesome or violent but if you are squeamish you might need to look away once or twice. It really mainly plot and dialogue driven.
8.5/10
An afterthought: I had a look at a couple of negative reviews and I must say, I just don't see why some people are criticising it because it doesn't accurately portray WWII or the different sides of the war. I really don't get it. It's a film, a work of fiction. Ok, it takes one idea from reality, but that doesn't mean it then has some obligation to be a documentary. It's not even particularly about the war, it's just set during the war. You could have made this films about an epic struggle between cats and dogs if you wanted to. Actually....
Saturday 8 August 2009
Antichrist (2009)
At this stage any film reviewer worth their salt has seen Lars von Trier's latest film, Antichrist. The controversy that ensued after its screening at Cannes meant that it was top of my list of "must see" arthouse films this year.
I know this is a bit pretentious and all and maybe slightly disqualifies me from the monikor "average" but what can I say? I like making up my own mind about films and if I didn't see this one then I'd never know what the other reviewers were talking about. Well, ok, I don't actually have a list of "must see" arthouse films, just "must see" films, but I wanted to make it clear from the outset that Antichrist is an Arthouse film with a capital A.
As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I only read other reviews after I've seen the film and in other reviews I keep seeing mention of Saw and Hostel. I can only assume that some of these people haven't seen any of these films. First of all, they are completely different from each other and second, they are worlds away from Antichrist. Seriously I don't know where they get this stuff. And as a word of warning to horror fans, if you want to see a film like Saw or Hostel don't watch Antichrist. This is not a horror film, but it is a film about horror.
There's no point in me talking about what other people thought of it though. I hope by now you're reading because you want to know my opinion... and in my opinion, this is a really good film. Now ok, we're talking about a certain type. This is not a film to watch for a relaxing Friday night, like I said, this is Arthouse and if you're going to watch it then you have to be in the mood for it. But if you are in the mood for a good think, it's well worth a watch.
On a basic level it's an interesting exploration of the structure of a relationship, how this particular couple interacts following a tragic event. I suppose you can gather from this that it is not a plot driven film. It's driven by studying character and emotion, or lack there of. It's also a stunning piece of cinematography, it is a beautiful looking film. I did think at times it was slightly unsubtle in its use of that whole "enviroment reflecting the state of mind" device... but then again, I do think it can work so don't take that as a strong criticism. In terms of acting, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both perform ably in what I do think were very difficult roles. I'm certain that this all could have gone horribly wrong with less gifted actors. I don't know if the performances were sustained throughout the film, but still, given the focus on them (they are the only two characters in the film), it was excellent work.
I have to reference a couple of films here - Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I know I'm straying away from the "average film review" ethos here but hey, sometimes a film demands it. Also I wouldn't recommend Antichrist to anyone looking for an average film so I'm saying it's ok to talk about films that the average person may not be familiar with. You can leave me a comment if you disapprove ;-)
But anyway Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I thought of both of them while watching Antichrist. Now I hated Irréversible, I thought it was pretentious, overwrought, self absorbed crap. I really thought it showcased a lot of what makes arthouse films so inaccessible to the general public and for that reason it really galled me. I liked the idea but the execution was sh!t. The reason I was thinking about it though, was that it caused the same kind of controversy on its release and it wasn't worthy of it either. In The Bedroom, on the other hand, is excellent film. It has the same kind of undercurrent as Antichrist, they both make you feel slightly voyeuristic, like you're watching a situation that you have no right to see. If you haven't seen In The Bedroom and you like Antichrist you should definitely watch it. Though I should be clear, they're not similar at all. If anything they are contrasting ways of making a film about a similar subject.
There's been a lot of talk about misogyny and many reviews I've read seem intent on judging Antichrist on Lars von Trier's body of work rather than just looking at this one film. I suppose that's personal preference. I would never judge a directors work based on another film just because it's their film. If there's some link in the stories or if it's a sequel then that's different but personally I think every film stands on its own. Ok, there is such thing as context but I believe that when a director puts a film out there it is there to be personally interpreted by the viewer. Who directed it isn't important, it's the film itself that we watch and hopefully enjoy, why should who directed it and what films he or she has directed before play any part in our viewing? For the record, I didn't think it was particularly misogynistic. I do think it's open to be interpreted in different ways and if that's the way one chooses to interpret it well... as always, how you view a film is up to you.
I've digressed again so I'll finish off... Antichrist is a film that you can read a lot in to, or nothing in to and everything in between. It's interesting like that.
8.5/10
I know this is a bit pretentious and all and maybe slightly disqualifies me from the monikor "average" but what can I say? I like making up my own mind about films and if I didn't see this one then I'd never know what the other reviewers were talking about. Well, ok, I don't actually have a list of "must see" arthouse films, just "must see" films, but I wanted to make it clear from the outset that Antichrist is an Arthouse film with a capital A.
As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I only read other reviews after I've seen the film and in other reviews I keep seeing mention of Saw and Hostel. I can only assume that some of these people haven't seen any of these films. First of all, they are completely different from each other and second, they are worlds away from Antichrist. Seriously I don't know where they get this stuff. And as a word of warning to horror fans, if you want to see a film like Saw or Hostel don't watch Antichrist. This is not a horror film, but it is a film about horror.
There's no point in me talking about what other people thought of it though. I hope by now you're reading because you want to know my opinion... and in my opinion, this is a really good film. Now ok, we're talking about a certain type. This is not a film to watch for a relaxing Friday night, like I said, this is Arthouse and if you're going to watch it then you have to be in the mood for it. But if you are in the mood for a good think, it's well worth a watch.
On a basic level it's an interesting exploration of the structure of a relationship, how this particular couple interacts following a tragic event. I suppose you can gather from this that it is not a plot driven film. It's driven by studying character and emotion, or lack there of. It's also a stunning piece of cinematography, it is a beautiful looking film. I did think at times it was slightly unsubtle in its use of that whole "enviroment reflecting the state of mind" device... but then again, I do think it can work so don't take that as a strong criticism. In terms of acting, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both perform ably in what I do think were very difficult roles. I'm certain that this all could have gone horribly wrong with less gifted actors. I don't know if the performances were sustained throughout the film, but still, given the focus on them (they are the only two characters in the film), it was excellent work.
I have to reference a couple of films here - Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I know I'm straying away from the "average film review" ethos here but hey, sometimes a film demands it. Also I wouldn't recommend Antichrist to anyone looking for an average film so I'm saying it's ok to talk about films that the average person may not be familiar with. You can leave me a comment if you disapprove ;-)
But anyway Irréversible and In The Bedroom. I thought of both of them while watching Antichrist. Now I hated Irréversible, I thought it was pretentious, overwrought, self absorbed crap. I really thought it showcased a lot of what makes arthouse films so inaccessible to the general public and for that reason it really galled me. I liked the idea but the execution was sh!t. The reason I was thinking about it though, was that it caused the same kind of controversy on its release and it wasn't worthy of it either. In The Bedroom, on the other hand, is excellent film. It has the same kind of undercurrent as Antichrist, they both make you feel slightly voyeuristic, like you're watching a situation that you have no right to see. If you haven't seen In The Bedroom and you like Antichrist you should definitely watch it. Though I should be clear, they're not similar at all. If anything they are contrasting ways of making a film about a similar subject.
There's been a lot of talk about misogyny and many reviews I've read seem intent on judging Antichrist on Lars von Trier's body of work rather than just looking at this one film. I suppose that's personal preference. I would never judge a directors work based on another film just because it's their film. If there's some link in the stories or if it's a sequel then that's different but personally I think every film stands on its own. Ok, there is such thing as context but I believe that when a director puts a film out there it is there to be personally interpreted by the viewer. Who directed it isn't important, it's the film itself that we watch and hopefully enjoy, why should who directed it and what films he or she has directed before play any part in our viewing? For the record, I didn't think it was particularly misogynistic. I do think it's open to be interpreted in different ways and if that's the way one chooses to interpret it well... as always, how you view a film is up to you.
I've digressed again so I'll finish off... Antichrist is a film that you can read a lot in to, or nothing in to and everything in between. It's interesting like that.
8.5/10
Sunday 2 August 2009
Moon (2009)
Moon is a sci-fi film conceived and directed by Duncan Jones. It stars Sam Rockwell as the sole inhabitant of a moon base that serves as the operational centre for a team of helium-3 harvesters.
I started this review in this conventional manner as, in many ways, this is a very conventional film. I hadn't heard much about this film except that it's been widely hailed as a return to classic '70s hard sci-fi. I suppose it is classic sci-fi, but personally I don't think hard sci-fi has gone anywhere... last I checked it was alive and well in films like WALL·E, Sunshine and Children of Men. But that's not a criticism of the film, more a criticism of the publicity... and the publicity is relevant, it colours your view of a film just as much as mood or the company you see it in... I try not the let these things affect how I see a film but the fact is, it's impossible.
There was nothing particularly wrong with this film. I enjoyed it really, as I enjoy most of the films I see, especially sci-fi. But then again I didn't feel there was anything in this film that I hadn't seen before. Themes of isolation and abandonment are abound in fiction and this film reminded of quite a few other films I've seen... and I should point out that I haven't seen 2001: a space odyssey or Solaris, the two which a lot of people are referencing in the context of this film.
It was a nice, self-contained, interesting piece of sci-fi story-telling but I can't help wishing that it was a little bit more. It could have been a longer film, or it could have been a good book; I don't know, it was too removed, too tidy, I just didn't feel involved, there was no sense of introspection - which is what I would expect from classic science fiction. I expect to read or watch classic hard sci-fi and think "What would I do?" or "Could we, actually get to that situtation?", this film didn't leave me with any of that. Sure, technically you could ask yourself those questions about Moon, but it didn't bring me to that point and that's what I was looking for.
I tend to criticise then try to find some nice things to say in my reviews, so why break a tradition? This was a good film and Sam Rockwell puts on a great performance. It's an engaging enough story and it's worth seeing if you like classic sci-fi - along the lines of Issac Asimov and Philip K. Dick I mean, as opposed to say, The Terminator or Star Wars.
7/10
I started this review in this conventional manner as, in many ways, this is a very conventional film. I hadn't heard much about this film except that it's been widely hailed as a return to classic '70s hard sci-fi. I suppose it is classic sci-fi, but personally I don't think hard sci-fi has gone anywhere... last I checked it was alive and well in films like WALL·E, Sunshine and Children of Men. But that's not a criticism of the film, more a criticism of the publicity... and the publicity is relevant, it colours your view of a film just as much as mood or the company you see it in... I try not the let these things affect how I see a film but the fact is, it's impossible.
There was nothing particularly wrong with this film. I enjoyed it really, as I enjoy most of the films I see, especially sci-fi. But then again I didn't feel there was anything in this film that I hadn't seen before. Themes of isolation and abandonment are abound in fiction and this film reminded of quite a few other films I've seen... and I should point out that I haven't seen 2001: a space odyssey or Solaris, the two which a lot of people are referencing in the context of this film.
It was a nice, self-contained, interesting piece of sci-fi story-telling but I can't help wishing that it was a little bit more. It could have been a longer film, or it could have been a good book; I don't know, it was too removed, too tidy, I just didn't feel involved, there was no sense of introspection - which is what I would expect from classic science fiction. I expect to read or watch classic hard sci-fi and think "What would I do?" or "Could we
I tend to criticise then try to find some nice things to say in my reviews, so why break a tradition? This was a good film and Sam Rockwell puts on a great performance. It's an engaging enough story and it's worth seeing if you like classic sci-fi - along the lines of Issac Asimov and Philip K. Dick I mean, as opposed to say, The Terminator or Star Wars.
7/10
Monday 27 July 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
It's been said before but I'll say it again, Harry Potter is a phenomenon, both literary and cinematic. In terms of Irish box office, all of the films so far have been in the top 5 of their year... and this is a country where The Hangover is currently #1 for the year.
I actually don't know if I've seen all the films but I do know that I read 5.5 of the books. I only got about half way through this particular book. I had enjoyed them but after the behemoth that was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I just couldn't face another one. I really just thought that HPATOOTP was crying out for a good editor and I couldn't read another one thinking the same thing. That said, I did know what happens in the end of Half-Blood Prince, a wikipedia vandal spoiled that one for me!
Personally, while I do think it's a brillant story, I haven't been that pushed on going to the films. They have been so close to the books that you don't really need to see them, they are pretty much exactly as you imagine them so what's the point. I'll probably go along and see the next two though, just because I never got around to reading the last book. So it was with a certain lack of anticipation that I went along to the Savoy to see it at the Irish première...
... and about 3 hours later (there was a delay) I walked out thinking ok, that was how I imagined it. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy it but it seem a bit like... ok.
I really did enjoy it though, I thought it looked brillant and I really like how it was that bit darker. It was well balanced but if I had to criticise I'd say that it almost swept over things too quick... I'm not sure how, since it was 2 and a half hours long... but it did.
My word of warning would be that it is not a stand alone film. Harry Potter is absolutely a series and if you haven't read the books or seen all the other films, then there really is no point in going. It will not make sense. I think that's fair enough but I do wonder now if film really was the way to go... given how rushed some part of this one felt, and how they are splitting the last book into two films, perhaps they should have just made it a TV series spanning a few seasons?
Anyway I don't have that much to say by way of critque to be honest! It was exactly what it said on the tin, the actors were the same as they've always been (ok, not amazing), as were the effects (excellent), and the score (suitably dramatic) so as it was a good story well told, I gave it an 8/10 on twitter. On further reflection I'm going to downgrade that to a 7.5, I'm taking that half a point off as it felt a bit like a placeholder film really...
7.5/10
I actually don't know if I've seen all the films but I do know that I read 5.5 of the books. I only got about half way through this particular book. I had enjoyed them but after the behemoth that was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I just couldn't face another one. I really just thought that HPATOOTP was crying out for a good editor and I couldn't read another one thinking the same thing. That said, I did know what happens in the end of Half-Blood Prince, a wikipedia vandal spoiled that one for me!
Personally, while I do think it's a brillant story, I haven't been that pushed on going to the films. They have been so close to the books that you don't really need to see them, they are pretty much exactly as you imagine them so what's the point. I'll probably go along and see the next two though, just because I never got around to reading the last book. So it was with a certain lack of anticipation that I went along to the Savoy to see it at the Irish première...
... and about 3 hours later (there was a delay) I walked out thinking ok, that was how I imagined it. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy it but it seem a bit like... ok.
I really did enjoy it though, I thought it looked brillant and I really like how it was that bit darker. It was well balanced but if I had to criticise I'd say that it almost swept over things too quick... I'm not sure how, since it was 2 and a half hours long... but it did.
My word of warning would be that it is not a stand alone film. Harry Potter is absolutely a series and if you haven't read the books or seen all the other films, then there really is no point in going. It will not make sense. I think that's fair enough but I do wonder now if film really was the way to go... given how rushed some part of this one felt, and how they are splitting the last book into two films, perhaps they should have just made it a TV series spanning a few seasons?
Anyway I don't have that much to say by way of critque to be honest! It was exactly what it said on the tin, the actors were the same as they've always been (ok, not amazing), as were the effects (excellent), and the score (suitably dramatic) so as it was a good story well told, I gave it an 8/10 on twitter. On further reflection I'm going to downgrade that to a 7.5, I'm taking that half a point off as it felt a bit like a placeholder film really...
7.5/10
Thursday 18 June 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Just to be clear about things. I loved Transformers. I know there are people who didn't like the first one, to those people I say... don't bother watching this one. If, like me, you thought that the first film was the most fun you've had in the cinema in years, then read on.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is set about two years after the first Michael Bay Transformers film and, as you can gather from the trailers, our friend Sam Witwicky is off to college. I'm not going tell you any more about the plot, personally I wouldn't even watch the new trailer because I thought it looked like they might reveal too much. This made it difficult to go to other movies, luckily that trailer has hardly any talking so staring at the floor worked quite well. But I digress. I seem to do that a lot.
Ok, when I walked out of the theatre after seeing this I was hyped up, I thought it was great. And it is great. If you love giant robot fighting - and I love giant robot fighting - then this is the film for you. But today I'm wondering, how great was it... really.
Well the effect are fantastic. Really amazing. I mean I've never seen anything like it. I thought the robot fighting moved slightly too quickly in the first film and I wasn't the only one. That has been slowed down a little bit in this one. The action still moves at a frenetic pace but you can actually see if it's an arm or a leg or whatever that the robots are bashing. So that's great.
Plotwise, I've seen a lot of moaning on the internet over the last day or two. I don't really know what they're complaining about. I didn't think it was particularly complicated, but in any case it doesn't really matter anyway. In fact I still don't know how they managed to have so much of a plot at all. There didn't seem to be time between the giant robots fighting. So that's grand really.
Where the film falls over slightly is on the characterisation. In the first film we had quite a few characters roaming around and they were all given a direction and a reason to be there. In this one it's as though Michael Bay decided that we already know the various characters that are back so he didn't need to deal with them. And it introduces very few new characters so there isn't really any attempt to build scenes around any connection between any of the characters at all. So that was a bit annoying. It didn't annoy me at the time, but it annoys me now.
It's not a perfect film and it was never going to have the same effect on me as the first one. There were no expectations going into that one, we didn't have any idea of how the movie should be. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was always going to suffer from how people thought it should go, based on Transformers, and it's not exactly fair to judge it through the same eyes.
I gave the film a 9.5 on Twitter straight after but I'm going to drop that a bit to an 8.5/10. I'll round that up to a 9 on IMDb though. I had a great time watching it; the action scenes are absolutely fantastic. Could it have been better? Yes. On the other hand it could have been a lot worse and, while I have focused on merits of the action, there were some genuinely good "normal" scenes as well. In fact it's a lot funnier than the first one and I welcomed that.
I have to throw it in really as I'm sure there are people who want to know... How does it compare to J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Well... I did love Star Trek and if I recall correctly I said almost exactly the same thing about the criticisms of its plot. It's kind of hard for me to compare them. Star Trek was probably the better film, in the sense that there was better balance to it, it had all the elements you want, in satisfying quantity and quality... but I can't say I'm overly interested in seeing it in the cinema again. I might watch it on DVD with a friend (I have quite a large HD TV with blu-ray player so it's not that I'm really damning it to TV) but I don't feel a need to pay €10 to see it. I absolutely want to see Transformers: ROTF in the cinema again. On the other hand I've given it a lower rating. At the end of the day, as excellent as it was, Star Trek just wasn't as fun a film. That's how they compare for me anyway.
Course if I was comparing Chris Pine to Shia LeBeouf we would have an outright winner...
um....
...took a while to find that photo...
...what was I talking about again?
Anyway, as always, let me know your own comments!
8.5/10
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is set about two years after the first Michael Bay Transformers film and, as you can gather from the trailers, our friend Sam Witwicky is off to college. I'm not going tell you any more about the plot, personally I wouldn't even watch the new trailer because I thought it looked like they might reveal too much. This made it difficult to go to other movies, luckily that trailer has hardly any talking so staring at the floor worked quite well. But I digress. I seem to do that a lot.
Ok, when I walked out of the theatre after seeing this I was hyped up, I thought it was great. And it is great. If you love giant robot fighting - and I love giant robot fighting - then this is the film for you. But today I'm wondering, how great was it... really.
Well the effect are fantastic. Really amazing. I mean I've never seen anything like it. I thought the robot fighting moved slightly too quickly in the first film and I wasn't the only one. That has been slowed down a little bit in this one. The action still moves at a frenetic pace but you can actually see if it's an arm or a leg or whatever that the robots are bashing. So that's great.
Plotwise, I've seen a lot of moaning on the internet over the last day or two. I don't really know what they're complaining about. I didn't think it was particularly complicated, but in any case it doesn't really matter anyway. In fact I still don't know how they managed to have so much of a plot at all. There didn't seem to be time between the giant robots fighting. So that's grand really.
Where the film falls over slightly is on the characterisation. In the first film we had quite a few characters roaming around and they were all given a direction and a reason to be there. In this one it's as though Michael Bay decided that we already know the various characters that are back so he didn't need to deal with them. And it introduces very few new characters so there isn't really any attempt to build scenes around any connection between any of the characters at all. So that was a bit annoying. It didn't annoy me at the time, but it annoys me now.
It's not a perfect film and it was never going to have the same effect on me as the first one. There were no expectations going into that one, we didn't have any idea of how the movie should be. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was always going to suffer from how people thought it should go, based on Transformers, and it's not exactly fair to judge it through the same eyes.
I gave the film a 9.5 on Twitter straight after but I'm going to drop that a bit to an 8.5/10. I'll round that up to a 9 on IMDb though. I had a great time watching it; the action scenes are absolutely fantastic. Could it have been better? Yes. On the other hand it could have been a lot worse and, while I have focused on merits of the action, there were some genuinely good "normal" scenes as well. In fact it's a lot funnier than the first one and I welcomed that.
I have to throw it in really as I'm sure there are people who want to know... How does it compare to J.J. Abrams Star Trek. Well... I did love Star Trek and if I recall correctly I said almost exactly the same thing about the criticisms of its plot. It's kind of hard for me to compare them. Star Trek was probably the better film, in the sense that there was better balance to it, it had all the elements you want, in satisfying quantity and quality... but I can't say I'm overly interested in seeing it in the cinema again. I might watch it on DVD with a friend (I have quite a large HD TV with blu-ray player so it's not that I'm really damning it to TV) but I don't feel a need to pay €10 to see it. I absolutely want to see Transformers: ROTF in the cinema again. On the other hand I've given it a lower rating. At the end of the day, as excellent as it was, Star Trek just wasn't as fun a film. That's how they compare for me anyway.
Course if I was comparing Chris Pine to Shia LeBeouf we would have an outright winner...
um....
...took a while to find that photo...
...what was I talking about again?
Anyway, as always, let me know your own comments!
8.5/10
Friday 22 May 2009
Night At The Museum 2: Battle Of The Smithsonian (2009)
I saw Night At The Museum 2 at a Saturday morning preview. It was early. Well, early for me. Fortunately this meant that the theatre was not full, so I could sit in the middle of the theatre AND away from the families, but still not too close to the screen. Score.
It wasn't really worth it though.
I honestly can't remember when I saw the first Night At The Museum. I think it might have been on the plane but I really don't know. Actually I remember so little about it that I think I might have liked it, at least a bit. I mean I don't remember hating it and to do like Ben Stiller...
So, I thought I'd go see Night At The Museum 2 anyway. I thought it might jog my memory. It didn't. But I do know what I thought of this one.
Ah no, it's not that bad. It's fine. It's just not really that exciting. I can't help but think that with the cast it has it really should have been excellent... and it wasn't. Not by a long shot. Ok, Hank Azaria was great as usual, and Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson were both perfectly comfortable in their roles. Everybody else was pretty much in the background for me.
Plotwise and actionwise it just wasn't up to much... I just kept thinking that it desperately needed to be in 3D. I mean ok, if Scar 3D taught me anything it's that 3D can't save a crappy film. But I do think it could help a middling movie, and that's what this is. I don't even think there was much in it for kids. Ok, I'm not a kid, but I've seen a lot of kids films and I always got the impression that they needed to be bright and funny and action filled, they need characters that kids can relate to. There's not much of that here really.
The best thing about the film was the Smithsonian itself. Actually it was like watching a long ad for the Smithsonian... I'm definitely going to go to the Smithsonian if I ever get to the US. I really think 3D could have helped here too... the exhibits could have really come to life then!
All in all, it was a bit meh. On the other hand I did think the museum looked fantastic and I did laugh a couple of times. I wasn't bored by it so I'm giving it a half decent rating...
6.5/10
It wasn't really worth it though.
I honestly can't remember when I saw the first Night At The Museum. I think it might have been on the plane but I really don't know. Actually I remember so little about it that I think I might have liked it, at least a bit. I mean I don't remember hating it and to do like Ben Stiller...
So, I thought I'd go see Night At The Museum 2 anyway. I thought it might jog my memory. It didn't. But I do know what I thought of this one.
Ah no, it's not that bad. It's fine. It's just not really that exciting. I can't help but think that with the cast it has it really should have been excellent... and it wasn't. Not by a long shot. Ok, Hank Azaria was great as usual, and Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson were both perfectly comfortable in their roles. Everybody else was pretty much in the background for me.
Plotwise and actionwise it just wasn't up to much... I just kept thinking that it desperately needed to be in 3D. I mean ok, if Scar 3D taught me anything it's that 3D can't save a crappy film. But I do think it could help a middling movie, and that's what this is. I don't even think there was much in it for kids. Ok, I'm not a kid, but I've seen a lot of kids films and I always got the impression that they needed to be bright and funny and action filled, they need characters that kids can relate to. There's not much of that here really.
The best thing about the film was the Smithsonian itself. Actually it was like watching a long ad for the Smithsonian... I'm definitely going to go to the Smithsonian if I ever get to the US. I really think 3D could have helped here too... the exhibits could have really come to life then!
All in all, it was a bit meh. On the other hand I did think the museum looked fantastic and I did laugh a couple of times. I wasn't bored by it so I'm giving it a half decent rating...
6.5/10
Wednesday 13 May 2009
Star Trek (2009)
I saw this about a week an half before it came out... What would have been useful for people would have been if I reviewed it then. Unfortunately I'm pretty lazy... but at least you're getting it eventually, right?? On with the show.
This Star Trek is actually the 11th film in the franchise, this is of course in addition to the 5 TV series and various video games associated with it. In case you never realised, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.
Marketing types would have you believe that J.J. Abrams is kind of a big deal too. Personally I could take or leave... well, mostly leave, all of his TV ventures and I had pretty much written him off. Then I saw Cloverfield. To my surprise, I really liked Cloverfield. Even now I still think about it - no mean feat for a popcorn movie. Mind you, sometimes what I think about it is how it made me feel so terribly ill... but sure, at least I'm thinking about it. So when I heard that J.J. was doing the new Star Trek film I was... curious. I'd have watched a lot of Star Trek on TV over the years but the only ST film I really liked was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. They just never looked that interesting... but a J.J. Abrams one? Well ok.
So it was with these things in mind that I went along to the blue carpet premiere in Dublin. I mention this because one of the things I've noticed is that a movie always seems better when it's free. Also, when you see it with 700 or so other people who are also seeing it for free, that makes it better too. So anyway, sat down in the theatre, Rick O'Shea said hi and had a chat with a dressed up Trekker, they gave out some prizes. Stage set. But was this going to turn out like Indiana Jones? I mean I liked Indiana Jones but I know a lot of people were annoyed about it.
Opening scene. Awesome. And I don't use that word often. Though I will say, I did think the Romulan ship looked a bit like the Shadow ships in Babylon 5. Not that it matters, I'm just saying in case anyone else thought the same - did you? Anyway, a great start to a great film. Star Trek (11) is a success in many different ways; it has an interesting plot, it makes good use of the main characters, it's appropriately funny, there are some great action scenes, my favourite Star Trek character is well represented (and that is important - to me as it will be to many people, albeit they may have different favourites - like I said, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.), the effects are great... what more do you want?
I've heard some people saying the plot is a bit confusing, I didn't think it was but to be honest, it hardly matters at all. This film is just a great ride. Now's probably a good time to mention Chris Pine. That man is going to be all over the place soon. Right now, I would watch him in anything and I'd say I'm not the only one. Leaving Mr. Pine aside, everyone else is strong as well. I had been worried about how Simon Pegg was going to fit into a Hollywood blockbuster. It turns out he fitted in just fine. I could go on but tbh just take it that I recommend this film to anyone who's interested in eating a load of popcorn and seeing an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film. It's great.
If you don't want to eat a load of popcorn, or even see an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film, then don't go to Star Trek. I'm a great believer in people watching films that work for them. Just because I say it's a great film doesn't mean everyone should watch. Just like not everyone should watch the fantastic film, Crank. Watch films that you feel you will appreciate. If you absolutely hate sci-fi or you want a film that you can think about, don't go see Star Trek and moan about how everyone was saying it was great but you didn't like it. It wasn't made for you. If you don't mind sci-fi and you just want to be entertain then definitely, go and see it. Go and see it now.
I'm starting to realise that this is a very long review but I still feel the need to ramble a little while longer... I just wanted to make something utterly clear. While I think this was a highly entertaining film, it'll never be a cult classic for me. It's great fun, it'll make stars out of some of the cast and undoubtedly it will rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise... but at the heart of it, it's candy. There's no meat to it, there's no real emotion, there's nothing beyond the sparkle it'll put in your eye for those couple of hours. I had a great time at the premiere but after, I went home to the real world. The old Star Trek had its roots there.
9/10
This Star Trek is actually the 11th film in the franchise, this is of course in addition to the 5 TV series and various video games associated with it. In case you never realised, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.
Marketing types would have you believe that J.J. Abrams is kind of a big deal too. Personally I could take or leave... well, mostly leave, all of his TV ventures and I had pretty much written him off. Then I saw Cloverfield. To my surprise, I really liked Cloverfield. Even now I still think about it - no mean feat for a popcorn movie. Mind you, sometimes what I think about it is how it made me feel so terribly ill... but sure, at least I'm thinking about it. So when I heard that J.J. was doing the new Star Trek film I was... curious. I'd have watched a lot of Star Trek on TV over the years but the only ST film I really liked was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. They just never looked that interesting... but a J.J. Abrams one? Well ok.
So it was with these things in mind that I went along to the blue carpet premiere in Dublin. I mention this because one of the things I've noticed is that a movie always seems better when it's free. Also, when you see it with 700 or so other people who are also seeing it for free, that makes it better too. So anyway, sat down in the theatre, Rick O'Shea said hi and had a chat with a dressed up Trekker, they gave out some prizes. Stage set. But was this going to turn out like Indiana Jones? I mean I liked Indiana Jones but I know a lot of people were annoyed about it.
Opening scene. Awesome. And I don't use that word often. Though I will say, I did think the Romulan ship looked a bit like the Shadow ships in Babylon 5. Not that it matters, I'm just saying in case anyone else thought the same - did you? Anyway, a great start to a great film. Star Trek (11) is a success in many different ways; it has an interesting plot, it makes good use of the main characters, it's appropriately funny, there are some great action scenes, my favourite Star Trek character is well represented (and that is important - to me as it will be to many people, albeit they may have different favourites - like I said, Star Trek is kind of a big deal.), the effects are great... what more do you want?
I've heard some people saying the plot is a bit confusing, I didn't think it was but to be honest, it hardly matters at all. This film is just a great ride. Now's probably a good time to mention Chris Pine. That man is going to be all over the place soon. Right now, I would watch him in anything and I'd say I'm not the only one. Leaving Mr. Pine aside, everyone else is strong as well. I had been worried about how Simon Pegg was going to fit into a Hollywood blockbuster. It turns out he fitted in just fine. I could go on but tbh just take it that I recommend this film to anyone who's interested in eating a load of popcorn and seeing an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film. It's great.
If you don't want to eat a load of popcorn, or even see an excellent summer(ish) blockbuster film, then don't go to Star Trek. I'm a great believer in people watching films that work for them. Just because I say it's a great film doesn't mean everyone should watch. Just like not everyone should watch the fantastic film, Crank. Watch films that you feel you will appreciate. If you absolutely hate sci-fi or you want a film that you can think about, don't go see Star Trek and moan about how everyone was saying it was great but you didn't like it. It wasn't made for you. If you don't mind sci-fi and you just want to be entertain then definitely, go and see it. Go and see it now.
I'm starting to realise that this is a very long review but I still feel the need to ramble a little while longer... I just wanted to make something utterly clear. While I think this was a highly entertaining film, it'll never be a cult classic for me. It's great fun, it'll make stars out of some of the cast and undoubtedly it will rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise... but at the heart of it, it's candy. There's no meat to it, there's no real emotion, there's nothing beyond the sparkle it'll put in your eye for those couple of hours. I had a great time at the premiere but after, I went home to the real world. The old Star Trek had its roots there.
9/10
Saturday 9 May 2009
Crank: High Voltage (2009)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Crank: High Voltage. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--
After watching Crank the other week, I was really looking forward to Crank: High Voltage. Crank was one of the maddest films I'd ever seen... it wasn't THE maddest film; I'd have to review the IMDb list to be sure but The Spirit, which I saw earlier this year, is definitely a contender; but it was pretty mad nonethless...
The review for Crank was pretty short so I'm gonna keep this one short too. Again, it's not really worth worrying about spoilers when it comes to Crank films, so I'll tell you a little about it. If you recall, that mad day he had did not end well for our friend Chev Chelios. Luckily for us, he got better and now, a few months later, he's well up for sorting out the problems that have befallen him. There's no point in saying much more about the plot except that it is reasonably well thought out, as was the plot of the first film, but it's completely irrelevant. Basically someone has stolen Chev's heart and replaced it with a battery powered one. So obviously Chev's pissed about that and is on the rampage trying to get it back.
I would say that you should watch Crank before watching Crank: High Voltage. Most of the characters from Crank make a reappearance and there are a few flashbacks so it might be a bit confusing if you haven't seen it. That said, maybe you'd just appreciate it on a different level if you haven't. I don't know. I'm in two minds about it actually, because I didn't like Crank: High Voltage as much as Crank and I don't know if that's because I already knew pretty much what it was about.
Crank was so crazy and so different, Crank: High Voltage is crazy and different too but in the same way. They do ramp it up a bit, a lot actually, and I did appreciate that and I did really enjoy it, but at the end of the day it's the same thing. Also I think keeping the characters didn't really help it. They did bring in a couple of new ones but they seemed to try to mix all the old ones in as well. There were just too many in end. I think they could've taken out some of the scenes with the old ones and developed a couple of the new ones a bit more and it would have been better off for it. Could have made it a bit more interesting. In fact I do think they wasted Bai Ling a bit, her character could definitely have perked things up.
That said, it was still a great film and if you loved Crank you should definitely go see. If you hated Crank then there's absolutely no point in watching this one. In fact why are you even reading this review? This is not the film for you!
I'm gonna give this an 8. Maybe I'm just being a bit moan-y because it really was great fun but I thought Crank was near perfect for the kind of film it was and I was hoping that the follow up would be too.
8/10
After watching Crank the other week, I was really looking forward to Crank: High Voltage. Crank was one of the maddest films I'd ever seen... it wasn't THE maddest film; I'd have to review the IMDb list to be sure but The Spirit, which I saw earlier this year, is definitely a contender; but it was pretty mad nonethless...
The review for Crank was pretty short so I'm gonna keep this one short too. Again, it's not really worth worrying about spoilers when it comes to Crank films, so I'll tell you a little about it. If you recall, that mad day he had did not end well for our friend Chev Chelios. Luckily for us, he got better and now, a few months later, he's well up for sorting out the problems that have befallen him. There's no point in saying much more about the plot except that it is reasonably well thought out, as was the plot of the first film, but it's completely irrelevant. Basically someone has stolen Chev's heart and replaced it with a battery powered one. So obviously Chev's pissed about that and is on the rampage trying to get it back.
I would say that you should watch Crank before watching Crank: High Voltage. Most of the characters from Crank make a reappearance and there are a few flashbacks so it might be a bit confusing if you haven't seen it. That said, maybe you'd just appreciate it on a different level if you haven't. I don't know. I'm in two minds about it actually, because I didn't like Crank: High Voltage as much as Crank and I don't know if that's because I already knew pretty much what it was about.
Crank was so crazy and so different, Crank: High Voltage is crazy and different too but in the same way. They do ramp it up a bit, a lot actually, and I did appreciate that and I did really enjoy it, but at the end of the day it's the same thing. Also I think keeping the characters didn't really help it. They did bring in a couple of new ones but they seemed to try to mix all the old ones in as well. There were just too many in end. I think they could've taken out some of the scenes with the old ones and developed a couple of the new ones a bit more and it would have been better off for it. Could have made it a bit more interesting. In fact I do think they wasted Bai Ling a bit, her character could definitely have perked things up.
That said, it was still a great film and if you loved Crank you should definitely go see. If you hated Crank then there's absolutely no point in watching this one. In fact why are you even reading this review? This is not the film for you!
I'm gonna give this an 8. Maybe I'm just being a bit moan-y because it really was great fun but I thought Crank was near perfect for the kind of film it was and I was hoping that the follow up would be too.
8/10
Sunday 19 April 2009
Crank (2006)
--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including this one for Crank. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--
Saw this on DVD the other day in preparation for Crank: High Voltage. Gonna be a short review this one... ;-)
Crank is great film. It's just completely ludicrious. It's so over the top it's hilarious. I know I generally stay away from plot details but let's face it, nobody's gonna Crank for the plot. Jason Statham play Chev Chelios, a hitman who has been poisoned by his enemy. There's probably some technical way to describe how the poison is affecting - actually I seem to remember some brief explanation offered by a doctor along the way - but I don't remember really. All you need to know is that if Chev's adrenaline level drops then he'll die. That's right, it's like Speed but with our hero's heart. Cue 84 ridiculous minutes of Jason Statham tearing across town trying to find and kill his nemesis before he kills him - get it?
As an action film it's brilliant, I can't remember the last time I had as much fun watching a film... that might be just because I have a poor memory for some things though. Ok, that's not entirely true. The last time I remember having as much fun was when I saw Snakes on a Plane... a modern classic to be watched by all for years to come. Or at least I hope it will be. Crank deserves that too. I'm glad they've made a sequel and from what I've gleaned by glancing over Rotten Tomatoes it's at least as good as the first.
There isn't really much else to know about the film... if I wanted to nit pick I would point out that the fight sequences are nothing to write home about. This isn't the Jason Statham from the Transporter films. But that's ok because it's not the point of the film... it's not a beat 'em up, it's more of a "run around like a maniac" film.
Anyway I wanted to keep this short so I'll wrap up with this. I highly recommend this film if you like your movies short, snappy, slightly splattery but all fun.
Can't wait for Crank: High Voltage
9/10
Saw this on DVD the other day in preparation for Crank: High Voltage. Gonna be a short review this one... ;-)
Crank is great film. It's just completely ludicrious. It's so over the top it's hilarious. I know I generally stay away from plot details but let's face it, nobody's gonna Crank for the plot. Jason Statham play Chev Chelios, a hitman who has been poisoned by his enemy. There's probably some technical way to describe how the poison is affecting - actually I seem to remember some brief explanation offered by a doctor along the way - but I don't remember really. All you need to know is that if Chev's adrenaline level drops then he'll die. That's right, it's like Speed but with our hero's heart. Cue 84 ridiculous minutes of Jason Statham tearing across town trying to find and kill his nemesis before he kills him - get it?
As an action film it's brilliant, I can't remember the last time I had as much fun watching a film... that might be just because I have a poor memory for some things though. Ok, that's not entirely true. The last time I remember having as much fun was when I saw Snakes on a Plane... a modern classic to be watched by all for years to come. Or at least I hope it will be. Crank deserves that too. I'm glad they've made a sequel and from what I've gleaned by glancing over Rotten Tomatoes it's at least as good as the first.
There isn't really much else to know about the film... if I wanted to nit pick I would point out that the fight sequences are nothing to write home about. This isn't the Jason Statham from the Transporter films. But that's ok because it's not the point of the film... it's not a beat 'em up, it's more of a "run around like a maniac" film.
Anyway I wanted to keep this short so I'll wrap up with this. I highly recommend this film if you like your movies short, snappy, slightly splattery but all fun.
Can't wait for Crank: High Voltage
9/10
Monday 6 April 2009
The Damned United (2009)
Ok... So I actually wrote most of this review last week but somehow it's all been deleted, very upsetting. Oh well, better just get on with it.
I like watching football, but I don't know all that much about some of the history of it. All I knew about Brian Clough was that he once punched a couple of fans who were invading the pitch. Later they apologised... So obviously he was a legend.
The Damned United is based on a controversial novel by David Peace. Well it's controversial in football circles anyway. It seems to be generally accepted that the events it described didn't exactly happen the way they do in the book. In fact David Peace was sued by former Leed Utd. and Irish international player Johnny Giles. Johnny won. I have to believe however, that the film-makers left any of the controversial bits out... the screen play was written by Peter Morgan, a writer who has already proved himself with a number of historial figures with both The Queen and Frost/Nixon. I liked both those films but I wasn't blown away by either of them. Still, I was looking forward to The Damned United, Cloughie sounded like an interesting subject.
Anyway I should probably start the review.
I thought there was a great balance in this film. It was an interesting portrait of a man who seemed both charming and arrogant. There's a good bit of football in it but it wasn't excessive, it didn't become boring at any point. I think that even if you're not into football at all there is still plenty to enjoy in the film.
Strong performances by all the cast, in particular Micheal Sheen, but Colm Meaney and Timothy Spall ably supported him. I still can't believe he's the same guy who was in Underworld all those years ago. Actually he was in Underworld this year as well. Some people like variety I guess.
Plotwise, it's a biography so it's pretty straight up. I found it interesting just because it was great to learn more about a person whose name I'd heard a lot about but never really knew anything about. Obviously it was a very small slice of his life and it's an unauthorised look at it at that. Still I thought it really managed to capture his character very well, or at least a character, and I'm just going to assume that it was the right one.
So on the whole I'm giving this film a good rating - 8/10 - but to be honest it's not that I would particularly recommended it in the sense that... It's a good solid film, interesting story, great performances, but maybe it's just not the kind of film that grabs my attention. There's nothing to ponder on, it's not... meaty, if you will. I'm glad I watched it though and if you're a fan of biopics then by all means go and see it, it's a good film.
8/10
I like watching football, but I don't know all that much about some of the history of it. All I knew about Brian Clough was that he once punched a couple of fans who were invading the pitch. Later they apologised... So obviously he was a legend.
The Damned United is based on a controversial novel by David Peace. Well it's controversial in football circles anyway. It seems to be generally accepted that the events it described didn't exactly happen the way they do in the book. In fact David Peace was sued by former Leed Utd. and Irish international player Johnny Giles. Johnny won. I have to believe however, that the film-makers left any of the controversial bits out... the screen play was written by Peter Morgan, a writer who has already proved himself with a number of historial figures with both The Queen and Frost/Nixon. I liked both those films but I wasn't blown away by either of them. Still, I was looking forward to The Damned United, Cloughie sounded like an interesting subject.
Anyway I should probably start the review.
I thought there was a great balance in this film. It was an interesting portrait of a man who seemed both charming and arrogant. There's a good bit of football in it but it wasn't excessive, it didn't become boring at any point. I think that even if you're not into football at all there is still plenty to enjoy in the film.
Strong performances by all the cast, in particular Micheal Sheen, but Colm Meaney and Timothy Spall ably supported him. I still can't believe he's the same guy who was in Underworld all those years ago. Actually he was in Underworld this year as well. Some people like variety I guess.
Plotwise, it's a biography so it's pretty straight up. I found it interesting just because it was great to learn more about a person whose name I'd heard a lot about but never really knew anything about. Obviously it was a very small slice of his life and it's an unauthorised look at it at that. Still I thought it really managed to capture his character very well, or at least a character, and I'm just going to assume that it was the right one.
So on the whole I'm giving this film a good rating - 8/10 - but to be honest it's not that I would particularly recommended it in the sense that... It's a good solid film, interesting story, great performances, but maybe it's just not the kind of film that grabs my attention. There's nothing to ponder on, it's not... meaty, if you will. I'm glad I watched it though and if you're a fan of biopics then by all means go and see it, it's a good film.
8/10
Tuesday 31 March 2009
Monsters vs. Aliens 3D (2009)
I'm all about 3D... now, I can't actually see it properly... or at least I haven't sat in good seats for it in a while... but I really appreciate film-makers creating this new genre. I was off at the side of the theatre for this one so the 3D didn't look that amazing but judging by the "Wow"'s and the "Whoa"'s from the kids in the middle, it looked fantastic there.
But is Monsters vs. Aliens a good film?
Yeah. I enjoyed it.
Then again, I enjoy all films. I can say this though, while I enjoyed it at the time, it didn't stay with me at all. Two days later and I'm having trouble remember what the characters were like at all. That might have to do with the fact that I have a bit of a headache at the moment, but I doubt it. It has more to do with the fact that the characters weren't particularly well defined. It didn't bother me that much though, it's a kid's film so it was only about 94 mins long. Which is probably a bit long for a kid's film to be honest.
If I were to criticise it I would say that it was a bit glossy. Not that you want gritty in a kid's film. I guess I mean it was a bit teflon coated, it slides in through the eyes, slips through the brain and out the.... mouth I guess?... when you tell people about it later. OF kind of like B.O.B. and his ball - you'll get it if you watch.
Anyway what's good about it? Seth Rogen's character B.O.B. is very funny. It's a funny film, in a light way. Also I really appreciated the Dr. Strangelove references. I hope war rooms really do look like that.
All in all there isn't that much to say about the film. It's grand ol' romp with a few odd looking creatures and a giant woman and if you have to go see a kid's film you could see worse. I wouldn't particularly recommend it if you don't have to see a kid's film though. I'm sure there are better films out there - Watchmen, Gran Torino and Marley & Me, to name three. I'm still gonna give a decent rating though for what it is, it was better than Bolt 3D anyway.
6.5/10
I know I gave it 7/10 on twitter but that was when I was walking out of the theatre, I'm downgrading it a little now on reflection.
But is Monsters vs. Aliens a good film?
Yeah. I enjoyed it.
Then again, I enjoy all films. I can say this though, while I enjoyed it at the time, it didn't stay with me at all. Two days later and I'm having trouble remember what the characters were like at all. That might have to do with the fact that I have a bit of a headache at the moment, but I doubt it. It has more to do with the fact that the characters weren't particularly well defined. It didn't bother me that much though, it's a kid's film so it was only about 94 mins long. Which is probably a bit long for a kid's film to be honest.
If I were to criticise it I would say that it was a bit glossy. Not that you want gritty in a kid's film. I guess I mean it was a bit teflon coated, it slides in through the eyes, slips through the brain and out the.... mouth I guess?... when you tell people about it later. OF kind of like B.O.B. and his ball - you'll get it if you watch.
Anyway what's good about it? Seth Rogen's character B.O.B. is very funny. It's a funny film, in a light way. Also I really appreciated the Dr. Strangelove references. I hope war rooms really do look like that.
All in all there isn't that much to say about the film. It's grand ol' romp with a few odd looking creatures and a giant woman and if you have to go see a kid's film you could see worse. I wouldn't particularly recommend it if you don't have to see a kid's film though. I'm sure there are better films out there - Watchmen, Gran Torino and Marley & Me, to name three. I'm still gonna give a decent rating though for what it is, it was better than Bolt 3D anyway.
6.5/10
I know I gave it 7/10 on twitter but that was when I was walking out of the theatre, I'm downgrading it a little now on reflection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
