There appears to be a friendly (or possibly unfriendly) rivalry that exists between animation studios Pixar and Dreamworks that especially seems to rear it's head at Oscars time, regarding who will take home the best Animation Oscar. Jack Black even sung a song about it one year, jokingly referencing the face that Pixar always win. To me the rivalry seems kinda pointless, as it's pretty clear that Pixar are the vastly superior movies.
Dreamworks MO seems to be to make 2 or so visually impressive, enjoyable but safe popcorn animated films a year On the other hand, Pixar take risks, make at least visually equal or visually superior films but put the greater emphasis on storytelling and character. They know how to lay on the pathos and poignancy, and their films are always filled with loads of human feeling, despite usually not being about human characters. In my view they have made no less than three 5 star film, and probably haven't made a film less than 4 stars which is a remarkable effort.
This summer (winter for us Aussies), Dreamworks and Pixar have released sequels, Dreamworks to one of their most popular movies, Kung Fu Panda, and Pixar to what is considered (unfairly I think) to be their worst film, Cars. I have to admit, when I heard that Pixar were releasing Cars 2 it did smell a little of a merchandising ploy, as it seems to be one of their most popular films with kids and they can merchandise the crap out the characters in this film. This seemed so unlike Pixar, a company who had previously released Up (who wants to by figurine of an old guy or a chubby kid?), but I couldn't work out why else they would release a sequel to their least critically successful film.
I was even more worried when I heard the bad reviews for Cars 2, and wondered whether Dreamworks had finally got a one up on Pixar. I held out hope, however, as the original cars was also not a critical success and I thought that was a great movie which told a very human story about a car that gained the world through his professional success, however was still empty inside for having no love ones to share it with.
Upon seeing both films, it turns out my fears were confirmed. Dreamworks did what they always do, and made an enjoyable sequel with plenty of action scenes with beautiful explosions of 3D goodness, but it went no deeper than that. Pixar, again trying to do something different (for which I respect them immensely) ditched the character driven storytelling of the first Cars film and instead tried to make a homage to spy films with the sequel. Unfortunately, the aim of the game here was to make the villains plot as convoluted as possible and to stick in as many spy cliches as possible, and making Mater the focus of the story rather than Lighting McQueen the film falls flat and is just really uninteresting. It still has it's moments, mainly the ones that focus on the relationship of Mater and McQueen, but the film was overall very disappointing. What's most disappointing is that we now need to wait another year for Pixar to come out with the goods again.
I disagree with the critics who say this was Pixar's first bad film, as I don't think the film was bad, just average. It is, however, hands down the worst film Pixar have made to date (with the possible exception of A Bugs Life, which I haven't seen). Dreamworks have won this round by doing nothing really special at all, so they shouldn't let their egos get too bloated. But they did indeed win.
Kung Fu Panda 2 - ***1/2
Cars 2 - **1/2
Thursday 21 July 2011
Friday 15 July 2011
Tranformers: Dark of the Moon & Bridesmaids
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Imagine a freshly laid cow turd. Imagine five or six young people bored out their minds come along and urinate on that cow turd. Now imagine one of them decides to eat that cow turd, vomits it up due to it's overpowering awfulness and then eats it again, this time keeping it down. That young man has just been left with a better taste in his mouth than this abysmal garbage dump of a film will.
When the first live action Transformers movie was announced I was very skeptical about how well it would work. My skepticism grew when I heard that Michael Bay, who isn't exactly known for his masterpieces, was attached to direct. But somehow, and I'm not sure how, it worked as a fun, popcorn action film. Then came the sequel, Revenge of the Fallen, which despite it's pretty visuals and ambitions to showcase some epic scale action scenes, turned out to be a bloated mess of confusion and noise. And now, with the third (and fingers crossed for the sake of humanity LAST) film in the series, Bay has outdone himself and performed a miracle by making a film even worse than Revenge of the Fallen.
This film fails in almost every area. The acting is terrible from most of the cast, especially from Rosie Huntington-Whitely, who replaced Megan Fox as the main love interest/eye candy for teenage boys. Heck even Frances Mcdormand can't even pull out a decent performance, and she appears like she's just going through the motions and wishes she was anywhere else but appearing in this movie. The characters don't invite you to care one bit about them, there are literally no scenes in the film which are indented to allow the view to empathise with the characters or give a crap if they live or die. The soundtrack is incredibly irritating and insists itself upon you, even in scenes were the characters are having a mundane conversation. And the film is way too long, at least half an hour could have been shaved from the film.
I won't even bother discussing the lack of plot, because I'm sure anyone who loves these movies would say something along the line of "It's not about the plot, it's about the awesome action scenes, explosions, and 3D visuals!" So ok, if I were to concede that those things alone make a good movie (which I'm not conceding, but if I were to) the film even fails in that regard. There's a difference between having a well shot, exciting action scene that draws you in and a series of loosely connected scenes that have no flow and exist simply to demonstrate how visually impressive a movie can be with a multi million dollar budget.
I had so much more I wanted to write about this crap (including how little sense the Deceptions plan made) but I thing I've vented my frustration enough, and I'm now going to attempt to bury it to the deepest recesses of my mind forever.This film should score nothing at all, but because the visuals are so damn impressive I guess it has to get something. Just don't watch this movie, Ever.
1/2* out of *****
Bridesmaids
As opposed to the above film I don't really have much to say about Bridesmaids. Also, as opposed to the above film I really enjoyed Bridesmaids. I can't remember the last time I've laughed so much during a movie. Kristen Wiig is very talented as a comedy actress and writer, the characters are all interesting and well crafted, and most importantly a great amount of effort was put into mixing the laughs with pathos, and I think everyone should be able to empathise with the main character. I'm sure some males will be turned off by this film because they see it as being a "Chick flick" or whatever, but they shouldn't. The idea of this film, from what I can gather, was to make a Judd Apatow style gross out film where females were the main characters, and it has certainly achieved that. Come the end of the year I can guarantee this will be remembered as one of if not the best comedy of 2011.
**** out of *****
Imagine a freshly laid cow turd. Imagine five or six young people bored out their minds come along and urinate on that cow turd. Now imagine one of them decides to eat that cow turd, vomits it up due to it's overpowering awfulness and then eats it again, this time keeping it down. That young man has just been left with a better taste in his mouth than this abysmal garbage dump of a film will.
When the first live action Transformers movie was announced I was very skeptical about how well it would work. My skepticism grew when I heard that Michael Bay, who isn't exactly known for his masterpieces, was attached to direct. But somehow, and I'm not sure how, it worked as a fun, popcorn action film. Then came the sequel, Revenge of the Fallen, which despite it's pretty visuals and ambitions to showcase some epic scale action scenes, turned out to be a bloated mess of confusion and noise. And now, with the third (and fingers crossed for the sake of humanity LAST) film in the series, Bay has outdone himself and performed a miracle by making a film even worse than Revenge of the Fallen.
This film fails in almost every area. The acting is terrible from most of the cast, especially from Rosie Huntington-Whitely, who replaced Megan Fox as the main love interest/eye candy for teenage boys. Heck even Frances Mcdormand can't even pull out a decent performance, and she appears like she's just going through the motions and wishes she was anywhere else but appearing in this movie. The characters don't invite you to care one bit about them, there are literally no scenes in the film which are indented to allow the view to empathise with the characters or give a crap if they live or die. The soundtrack is incredibly irritating and insists itself upon you, even in scenes were the characters are having a mundane conversation. And the film is way too long, at least half an hour could have been shaved from the film.
I won't even bother discussing the lack of plot, because I'm sure anyone who loves these movies would say something along the line of "It's not about the plot, it's about the awesome action scenes, explosions, and 3D visuals!" So ok, if I were to concede that those things alone make a good movie (which I'm not conceding, but if I were to) the film even fails in that regard. There's a difference between having a well shot, exciting action scene that draws you in and a series of loosely connected scenes that have no flow and exist simply to demonstrate how visually impressive a movie can be with a multi million dollar budget.
I had so much more I wanted to write about this crap (including how little sense the Deceptions plan made) but I thing I've vented my frustration enough, and I'm now going to attempt to bury it to the deepest recesses of my mind forever.This film should score nothing at all, but because the visuals are so damn impressive I guess it has to get something. Just don't watch this movie, Ever.
1/2* out of *****
Bridesmaids
As opposed to the above film I don't really have much to say about Bridesmaids. Also, as opposed to the above film I really enjoyed Bridesmaids. I can't remember the last time I've laughed so much during a movie. Kristen Wiig is very talented as a comedy actress and writer, the characters are all interesting and well crafted, and most importantly a great amount of effort was put into mixing the laughs with pathos, and I think everyone should be able to empathise with the main character. I'm sure some males will be turned off by this film because they see it as being a "Chick flick" or whatever, but they shouldn't. The idea of this film, from what I can gather, was to make a Judd Apatow style gross out film where females were the main characters, and it has certainly achieved that. Come the end of the year I can guarantee this will be remembered as one of if not the best comedy of 2011.
**** out of *****
Wednesday 6 July 2011
Aussie Rules vs Rugby League
As a change of pace from movie reviews I thought I'd talk about something that I've meaning to address for a while, and that's the whole code wars thing - Aussie Rules vs Rugby League, or AFL vs NRL. Having lived in Victoria for 20 years I obviously grew up following the AFL, as many Victorians adopt it as their second religion (or, in many cases, their first) and it's almost impossible to escape. I always thought it was a great, exciting game, and to be honest never gave NRL much thought. However, upon moving to Queensland I found it was harder to follow the AFL, especially not having Foxtel at the time, and began to be inundated with pro Rugby League sentiment. Following this, I discovered the dislike and even outright hatred a lot of League fans had for my beloved sport. I found this kind of perplexing, as from my experiences in Victoria people there seem mostly fairly indifferent to League, and it was as if League fans somehow threatened by Aussie Rules.
Well, they have good reason to, as Aussie Rules is clearly the superior sport in every way, and I can only assume that seeing it on TV leads League to realise how many hours they have wasted watching such dribble, and I imagine this must be very unsettling. There are really only two criteria I can think of to judge the merit of a sport, how much skill is involved and how entertaining it is to watch. For the criteria regarding skill this one is obviously won by Aussie Rules, so much so that I don't really know what else to say. I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to watch a full game of both sports back to back and then honestly and without bias hold onto their claim. The second criteria regarding entertainment is much more subjective, however I will say that Aussie Rules is faster, there's much more going and more variety to the game, and as it does OBJECTIVELY require more skill, then I can't see how one could prefer to watch League. But whatever.
I think the easiest way for me to drive my point home would be to address every criticism I can think of that has been directed at Aussie Rules, so here it goes;
League players are so much more buff than Aussie Rules Players
Yeah, never mind the fact that Aussie Rules players are generally fitter, can jump higher, run faster, kick further, have to think more about their plays and get paid more. The fact that League players are "More buff" is way more awesome, man!
In Aussie Rules you get a point for missing
I've got to points to make about this one. First, you don't get a point for missing, you get a point for kicking a "Behind", which if you like is a secondary goal. If you missed completely you would get no score and would most likely have kicked the ball out of bounds on the full, turning it over to the opposition. Second, I don't know how many times I've been frustrated watching sports, say for example Soccer, where a team will work tirelessly to try and get a goal, and have several shots only to keep missing, sometimes only narrowly. I think a point for a behind is a meagre concession for the hard work of getting the ball in your forward line but being unable to convert.
Aussie Rules is so scrappy, you may as well just throw some chips to a group of seagulls and watch them fight over them
I'll make a small concession here, as there is a scrappy element to the game, especially when multiple people are converging around the ball. However it takes up only a small amount of game play, and EVERY sport without exception has their less attractive, boring elements. So it's only a minor concession. Besides, I'd much rather watch seagulls fight over chips than a bunch of lobotomised baboons run into a wall for 80 minutes any day of the week.
League is much faster paced than Aussie Rules
Nope.
Aussie Rules doesn't translate well onto television
I don't know what to say to this other than I just find it to be completely untrue, although I guess it's another statement grounded in subjectivity. I will say however that how well a sport translates onto television is no measure of how good the sport is - most sports were around well before television exited.
Aussie Rules isn't violent enough
This statement makes the presupposition that a sport needs to be violent, which is patently false given the large number of non contact sports. Although I will admit that it's a shame how much this aspect of the game has been toned down in recent years.
Aussie Rules is aerial Ping Pong
I'm not even sure if this is a criticism and it definitely makes absolutely no sense, but it gets stated so often that I thought I had to look at it. Ping pong, also known as Table Tennis, is a game played between either two or four people. They stand at opposite ends of a table with a net on it, and using miniature bat hit a ball back and forth to each other, with the aim being to hit the ball past your opponent, similar to the original game of Tennis. This, in no way whatsoever, mimics the game of Aussie Rules, which is played on a large oval where the aim is to kick or hand pass a ball forward to your team mate, avoiding the opposition players in the process. If the game being played was kick to kick, which you can often see being played by juveniles in parks on suburban streets, then MAYBE there is some vague similarity to be found. Anyone who refers to Aussie Rules as aerial Ping Pong is either a complete idiot or has never seen a game of Ping Pong.
AFL, more like GAYFL
Good one. Your lack of wit is only surpassed by your unoriginality and blatant homophobia.
Need I go one. No. Also, the sport is called Australian Rules Football (Aussie Rules for short), not AFL, you dumbasses.
Well, they have good reason to, as Aussie Rules is clearly the superior sport in every way, and I can only assume that seeing it on TV leads League to realise how many hours they have wasted watching such dribble, and I imagine this must be very unsettling. There are really only two criteria I can think of to judge the merit of a sport, how much skill is involved and how entertaining it is to watch. For the criteria regarding skill this one is obviously won by Aussie Rules, so much so that I don't really know what else to say. I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to watch a full game of both sports back to back and then honestly and without bias hold onto their claim. The second criteria regarding entertainment is much more subjective, however I will say that Aussie Rules is faster, there's much more going and more variety to the game, and as it does OBJECTIVELY require more skill, then I can't see how one could prefer to watch League. But whatever.
I think the easiest way for me to drive my point home would be to address every criticism I can think of that has been directed at Aussie Rules, so here it goes;
League players are so much more buff than Aussie Rules Players
Yeah, never mind the fact that Aussie Rules players are generally fitter, can jump higher, run faster, kick further, have to think more about their plays and get paid more. The fact that League players are "More buff" is way more awesome, man!
In Aussie Rules you get a point for missing
I've got to points to make about this one. First, you don't get a point for missing, you get a point for kicking a "Behind", which if you like is a secondary goal. If you missed completely you would get no score and would most likely have kicked the ball out of bounds on the full, turning it over to the opposition. Second, I don't know how many times I've been frustrated watching sports, say for example Soccer, where a team will work tirelessly to try and get a goal, and have several shots only to keep missing, sometimes only narrowly. I think a point for a behind is a meagre concession for the hard work of getting the ball in your forward line but being unable to convert.
Aussie Rules is so scrappy, you may as well just throw some chips to a group of seagulls and watch them fight over them
I'll make a small concession here, as there is a scrappy element to the game, especially when multiple people are converging around the ball. However it takes up only a small amount of game play, and EVERY sport without exception has their less attractive, boring elements. So it's only a minor concession. Besides, I'd much rather watch seagulls fight over chips than a bunch of lobotomised baboons run into a wall for 80 minutes any day of the week.
League is much faster paced than Aussie Rules
Nope.
Aussie Rules doesn't translate well onto television
I don't know what to say to this other than I just find it to be completely untrue, although I guess it's another statement grounded in subjectivity. I will say however that how well a sport translates onto television is no measure of how good the sport is - most sports were around well before television exited.
Aussie Rules isn't violent enough
This statement makes the presupposition that a sport needs to be violent, which is patently false given the large number of non contact sports. Although I will admit that it's a shame how much this aspect of the game has been toned down in recent years.
Aussie Rules is aerial Ping Pong
I'm not even sure if this is a criticism and it definitely makes absolutely no sense, but it gets stated so often that I thought I had to look at it. Ping pong, also known as Table Tennis, is a game played between either two or four people. They stand at opposite ends of a table with a net on it, and using miniature bat hit a ball back and forth to each other, with the aim being to hit the ball past your opponent, similar to the original game of Tennis. This, in no way whatsoever, mimics the game of Aussie Rules, which is played on a large oval where the aim is to kick or hand pass a ball forward to your team mate, avoiding the opposition players in the process. If the game being played was kick to kick, which you can often see being played by juveniles in parks on suburban streets, then MAYBE there is some vague similarity to be found. Anyone who refers to Aussie Rules as aerial Ping Pong is either a complete idiot or has never seen a game of Ping Pong.
AFL, more like GAYFL
Good one. Your lack of wit is only surpassed by your unoriginality and blatant homophobia.
Need I go one. No. Also, the sport is called Australian Rules Football (Aussie Rules for short), not AFL, you dumbasses.
Tuesday 5 July 2011
Rental - Remember Me
Two things to mention upfront about this movie. First, this is an above average chick flick that any male person can watch with his significant other in the confidence that they're watching at least a semi well made movie with adequate performances. Second, I'm sure a lot of people will be instantly turned off by this movie just because it has Robert Pattinson in it. If you belong in that camp you are, quite frankly, a moron. Open your mind just a smidgen and realise he's not the worst actor in the universe just because he was in Twilight. His performance in this is just fine.
This film appears to be essentially a romantic drama, with Pattinson falling for some chick who's name I can't be bothered looking up right now. But it actually goes deeper than that, as both of them are dealing with grief, and I think the central theme on display here is how families relate to on another following tragic events. The performances are all quite fine, and the two main leads have some good chemistry, and I cared about the characters so the film has to be considered a success in that respect. However, the story didn't really draw me in the way I would have liked it to, and there are a few awkward scenes weighed down by slightly clunky dialogue.
This movie had another point of interest for me in that it was directed by Allen Coulter, who I know from directing a number of episodes of The Sopranos, one of the best TV shows ever. He's also directed episodes for a number of other TV shows, however I think this is only his second feature film. He's brought a sort of semi understated style to this film, which I'm familiar with from and enjoyed in The Sopranos, however here I felt it possibly worked against the movie a little bit, failing to draw me in as I said above. Without giving too much away the ending is very unexpected, and I'm still not sure if I like it.
You certainly won't waste your time watching this film and it's worth a rental, just don't expect anything mindblowingly amazing and you wont be disappointed.
*** out of *****
This film appears to be essentially a romantic drama, with Pattinson falling for some chick who's name I can't be bothered looking up right now. But it actually goes deeper than that, as both of them are dealing with grief, and I think the central theme on display here is how families relate to on another following tragic events. The performances are all quite fine, and the two main leads have some good chemistry, and I cared about the characters so the film has to be considered a success in that respect. However, the story didn't really draw me in the way I would have liked it to, and there are a few awkward scenes weighed down by slightly clunky dialogue.
This movie had another point of interest for me in that it was directed by Allen Coulter, who I know from directing a number of episodes of The Sopranos, one of the best TV shows ever. He's also directed episodes for a number of other TV shows, however I think this is only his second feature film. He's brought a sort of semi understated style to this film, which I'm familiar with from and enjoyed in The Sopranos, however here I felt it possibly worked against the movie a little bit, failing to draw me in as I said above. Without giving too much away the ending is very unexpected, and I'm still not sure if I like it.
You certainly won't waste your time watching this film and it's worth a rental, just don't expect anything mindblowingly amazing and you wont be disappointed.
*** out of *****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)