Actually I think Scar was released in 2007 but this was the 3D version that was re-released into cinemas in 2008. Though... I have no idea if the original "flat" version of Scar was ever released in cinemas here... I hope not. As far as I can make out, Scar is not a good film. Scar 3D certainly wasn't.
As I'm sure I've mentioned a few times in the blog, I like my horror films. I don't scare particularly easily and I've no problem watching buckets of fake blood so it's all good. The problem with liking horror films is that you end up feeling like you have to try them all out... So many people don't like horror films that you kind of feel like you have to stick up for the genre sometimes. It was this particular feeling that led me to Scar 3D recently. That and the fact that it had 3D in the title. I've only seen one 3D feature film before (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and it looked great so I was interested to see what 3D could do for a horror film.
I should mention that I had been under the impression that Scar was made for 3D, I hadn't realised that that it was just normal film that was turned into 3D.
The story is fairly standard fare. A women, who had been held prisoner in her teens by a serial killer but managed to escape, returns to her home town many years later. Next thing you know, young good-looking people who happen to be friends with her good-looking niece start turning up dead. There's really not much point in talking about the plot. It's unbelievably predictable. In fact if anyone wants to guess then write and comment and I'll let you know if you're right.
The blood and violence is nothing over the top - I mean it's not particularly pleasant but it's nothing more or less than you'd expect from your average horror/slasher film. Normally you'd expect a thriller element to a film like this... there isn't really anything thrilling about it. And actually... the good-looking people aren't that good-looking. So on the whole this is really a nothing film. There's just nothing going on with it.
So what about the 3D? I hear you ask. Well... to be honest it wasn't great. While watching the film I thought it was just me. I have a lazy eye and I did find in The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D that when things were particularly far away or close up then they looked a bit double. However I asked my two mates with normal vision afterwards and they said the same thing, there was a good bit of doubling in the picture and for some reason some parts of the picture looked reflective or something. It was really very strange. It did work a bit though in that it was 3D however the best 3D effects were in the title sequence... and that should hardly be the highlight of a night in the cinema.
I learned two things that night at Scar 3D...
1) Don't be tempted by any old horror film.
2) 3D does not make a crap film interesting.
3/10
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Saw V (2008)
Another year, another Saw film. It's all good. Saw IV was in my top 5 for last year so I was really looking forward to this next installment in the franchise.
Saw V is the um... fifth film in the Saw series and I, for one, am glad that they didn't bother with all that messing around naming all the films in the series - there's no :Cruise Control here - that kind of thing has a tendency to turn your series into a joke. Of course, making terrible sequels also tends to turn your series into a joke. Fortunately the people behind the Saw franchise have also avoided that.
Saw V picks up approximately where Saw IV ends and in common with all the Saw films, we have a person waking up, trapped. I was intrigued to see which way they were going to go with this film since Jigsaw died in the third one. What I'm realising now is that these films aren't about Jigsaw, and no - they're not about the gore either. They're about the story and that's what sets them apart from all those other dodgy horror films out there.
Tobin Bell has stated that he is signed up for five sequels so looks like next year's Saw VI will be the last... which, to be honest, was the problem with the Saw V.
The thing about this film is that it felt like a place holder. Ok, we did learn a bit more about what's going on, however there were also a lot of flashbacks that were explaining about some of the victims from the other films. I don't care about those victims. They're dead and gone and unless finding more about them moves the story along I just don't see the point. Needless to say, I didn't see the point. My hope is that they have so much to put in Saw VI that they needed this film to tell us a few things before it, and what happened with this film is that they just didn't quite have enough to make a whole film, so they fleshed it out a bit.
For Saw fans who are wondering if it's worth seeing the film. Sure, why not? You'll have to see this film anyway because chances are the next one won't make sense if you don't. Also it has some interesting traps, blood all over the place and that great visceral look that you expect of a Saw film. If you're a horror fan but not a Saw fan then this film really won't change your mind. If anything it'll make you hate Saw even more, it's really not that good. If you don't like horror films and you can't bear the thought of blood everywhere and seeing horrible things happening to people then.... I don't know why you're reading this review. Read this one instead.
Overall it was still a reasonable addition to the franchise however it really is the weakest out of all of them. It's the first time I've been properly disappointed by Saw and I really hope that it's just a blip on the way to the ending this story deserves.
5/10
Saw V is the um... fifth film in the Saw series and I, for one, am glad that they didn't bother with all that messing around naming all the films in the series - there's no :Cruise Control here - that kind of thing has a tendency to turn your series into a joke. Of course, making terrible sequels also tends to turn your series into a joke. Fortunately the people behind the Saw franchise have also avoided that.
Saw V picks up approximately where Saw IV ends and in common with all the Saw films, we have a person waking up, trapped. I was intrigued to see which way they were going to go with this film since Jigsaw died in the third one. What I'm realising now is that these films aren't about Jigsaw, and no - they're not about the gore either. They're about the story and that's what sets them apart from all those other dodgy horror films out there.
Tobin Bell has stated that he is signed up for five sequels so looks like next year's Saw VI will be the last... which, to be honest, was the problem with the Saw V.
The thing about this film is that it felt like a place holder. Ok, we did learn a bit more about what's going on, however there were also a lot of flashbacks that were explaining about some of the victims from the other films. I don't care about those victims. They're dead and gone and unless finding more about them moves the story along I just don't see the point. Needless to say, I didn't see the point. My hope is that they have so much to put in Saw VI that they needed this film to tell us a few things before it, and what happened with this film is that they just didn't quite have enough to make a whole film, so they fleshed it out a bit.
For Saw fans who are wondering if it's worth seeing the film. Sure, why not? You'll have to see this film anyway because chances are the next one won't make sense if you don't. Also it has some interesting traps, blood all over the place and that great visceral look that you expect of a Saw film. If you're a horror fan but not a Saw fan then this film really won't change your mind. If anything it'll make you hate Saw even more, it's really not that good. If you don't like horror films and you can't bear the thought of blood everywhere and seeing horrible things happening to people then.... I don't know why you're reading this review. Read this one instead.
Overall it was still a reasonable addition to the franchise however it really is the weakest out of all of them. It's the first time I've been properly disappointed by Saw and I really hope that it's just a blip on the way to the ending this story deserves.
5/10
Friday, 31 October 2008
Quantum of Solace (2008)
In case you were wondering about the... odd title. Quantum of Solace takes it's name from the title of a short story from a collection of James Bond stories called For Your Eyes Only written by Ian Fleming. So now you know.
We'll start at the start. It was great to see the familiar style of opening titles, the posing sillhouttes and trademark gunshaft and the swell of the great new Bond theme tune. Hmm... not a great start. Actually, I like the music in the song, it's quite grandiose - just like you want from a Bond theme tune - however Jack White and Alicia Keys... vocally it just doesn't work. You really start to notice how long the opening titles are, that's just not what you want at the outset...
The film itself starts promisingly though, great opening sequence, more action than you can shake a stick at. From then on it gets a little disappointing though... It's not that I didn't enjoy it. It was an enjoyable film; there were some great action scenes and Daniel Craig looks great in those white pants but let's put it this way... if I wanted to see Bourne 4 I'd have waited to go see Bourne 4.
I also feel I should mention the plot, there isn't really one. Other people I know have complained about this but to be honest that's not what bothered me about the film. Does anyone ever remember the plot of a Bond film? The main thing you remember are the locations, and there are some great locations in this... Though I have to ask anyone who's reading this - Mathis's house looks a lot like a house that's in one of the Transporter films... does anyone know if it's the same house??
Anyway, what I didn't like about it is that Quantum of Solace just doesn't seem like a Bond film. And I know that everyone goes on about how this Bond is "closer to the books" (which I haven't read). And that it's grittier, more realistic, there are less "accoutrements" - like the crazy gadgets and invisible car, and the villians are just on the other side. But you know what? I like the gadgets, I want to see super villans, James Bond should fight his way though a mob and emerge without a hair out of place. It's that stuff that makes a Bond film a Bond film... without that it's just another action film with an amazing budget.
I'm just not sold on the new Daniel Craig Bond at all. I'm not a mad James Bond fan but I've seen a lot of Bond films and I like the old James Bond. Bring back the old James Bond!
6/10
But I will admit, I thought the invisible car was a step too far...
We'll start at the start. It was great to see the familiar style of opening titles, the posing sillhouttes and trademark gunshaft and the swell of the great new Bond theme tune. Hmm... not a great start. Actually, I like the music in the song, it's quite grandiose - just like you want from a Bond theme tune - however Jack White and Alicia Keys... vocally it just doesn't work. You really start to notice how long the opening titles are, that's just not what you want at the outset...
The film itself starts promisingly though, great opening sequence, more action than you can shake a stick at. From then on it gets a little disappointing though... It's not that I didn't enjoy it. It was an enjoyable film; there were some great action scenes and Daniel Craig looks great in those white pants but let's put it this way... if I wanted to see Bourne 4 I'd have waited to go see Bourne 4.
I also feel I should mention the plot, there isn't really one. Other people I know have complained about this but to be honest that's not what bothered me about the film. Does anyone ever remember the plot of a Bond film? The main thing you remember are the locations, and there are some great locations in this... Though I have to ask anyone who's reading this - Mathis's house looks a lot like a house that's in one of the Transporter films... does anyone know if it's the same house??
Anyway, what I didn't like about it is that Quantum of Solace just doesn't seem like a Bond film. And I know that everyone goes on about how this Bond is "closer to the books" (which I haven't read). And that it's grittier, more realistic, there are less "accoutrements" - like the crazy gadgets and invisible car, and the villians are just on the other side. But you know what? I like the gadgets, I want to see super villans, James Bond should fight his way though a mob and emerge without a hair out of place. It's that stuff that makes a Bond film a Bond film... without that it's just another action film with an amazing budget.
I'm just not sold on the new Daniel Craig Bond at all. I'm not a mad James Bond fan but I've seen a lot of Bond films and I like the old James Bond. Bring back the old James Bond!
6/10
But I will admit, I thought the invisible car was a step too far...
Monday, 4 August 2008
You Don't Mess With The Zohan (2008)
I was in a good mood watching this film. I saw it at its Irish red carpet premiere in the Savoy in Dublin with a load of cheering competition winning fans. Also Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider were there, so that was pretty cool. Being in a good mood always helps with film watching. I think if I had seen this on DVD on my own I wouldn't have thought much of it at all... then again it'd be very rare that I'd watch a DVD on my own...
Anyway, on to the film... You Don't Mess With The Zohan is a weird blend; it's a completely crass comedy, combined with a commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In case you haven't heard, I have to mention the premise. It's about an Israeli super agent who fakes his own death to move to New York and follow his love. Of hair-dressing. I don't know quite how they got it made and I'm still not sure how they managed to pull it off, but it works. No really!
I just don't know what else to say about the film; it was just a stunning experience. Maybe I just haven't seen enough Adam Sandler films (though it is the 7th or so Adam Sandler film I've seen) but I really just didn't expect what I saw going on on the screen. There's something just so bizarre about the whole film that when Mariah Carey turns up, it seems perfectly normal. Why wouldn't she be there?
On the other hand I can hardly get away with writing a review without saying something about the film, so here goes. Basically, the whole thing is a mish-mash of all kinds of crude gags about sex (and terrorism somehow), racial stereotypes, random characters, hacky sacks and smiles. I honestly believe that while it seems like a dumb comedy, it's actually one of the smarter comedies I've seen recently. It all could have come a cropper but instead it somehow all manages to hang together by the skin of its teeth.
I really recommend everyone go see it... not that I particularly think everyone will like it. Not at all, I think lots of people will think it's unbelievably stupid but honestly, you should go see it. I'm purely only recommending it because I'd love to know what other people think of it. I for one, loved it. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Stupid as hell? Yes. Confusing? Sure. Just plain wrong a lot of the time? Probably. But in some strange way, genius.
So go along to this film, I mean why not? Come on! You might even laugh.* And after you do go and see it, tell me, what the hell is Fizzy Bubblech meant to be??
8/10
* Actually, if you hate Adam Sandler you probably shouldn't go to this film. Personally I don't see how anyone can hate Adam Sandler though, he was Happy Gilmore! And Robbie the Wedding Singer! Go on, watch it!
Anyway, on to the film... You Don't Mess With The Zohan is a weird blend; it's a completely crass comedy, combined with a commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In case you haven't heard, I have to mention the premise. It's about an Israeli super agent who fakes his own death to move to New York and follow his love. Of hair-dressing. I don't know quite how they got it made and I'm still not sure how they managed to pull it off, but it works. No really!
I just don't know what else to say about the film; it was just a stunning experience. Maybe I just haven't seen enough Adam Sandler films (though it is the 7th or so Adam Sandler film I've seen) but I really just didn't expect what I saw going on on the screen. There's something just so bizarre about the whole film that when Mariah Carey turns up, it seems perfectly normal. Why wouldn't she be there?
On the other hand I can hardly get away with writing a review without saying something about the film, so here goes. Basically, the whole thing is a mish-mash of all kinds of crude gags about sex (and terrorism somehow), racial stereotypes, random characters, hacky sacks and smiles. I honestly believe that while it seems like a dumb comedy, it's actually one of the smarter comedies I've seen recently. It all could have come a cropper but instead it somehow all manages to hang together by the skin of its teeth.
I really recommend everyone go see it... not that I particularly think everyone will like it. Not at all, I think lots of people will think it's unbelievably stupid but honestly, you should go see it. I'm purely only recommending it because I'd love to know what other people think of it. I for one, loved it. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Stupid as hell? Yes. Confusing? Sure. Just plain wrong a lot of the time? Probably. But in some strange way, genius.
So go along to this film, I mean why not? Come on! You might even laugh.* And after you do go and see it, tell me, what the hell is Fizzy Bubblech meant to be??
8/10
* Actually, if you hate Adam Sandler you probably shouldn't go to this film. Personally I don't see how anyone can hate Adam Sandler though, he was Happy Gilmore! And Robbie the Wedding Singer! Go on, watch it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
