For some reason I've seen a number of really cruddy movies lately. I don't really want to devote too much time to discussing such putrid artistic endeavours, however it IS my civic duty to warn anyone reading of the visual torture they will endure if viewing said mo.nstrosities, so here we go.
The Good
Due Date
I refer to Due Date as "The Good" not because it is good, but because it's the best of a bad lot. It actually wasn't terrible, but it was bad enough to be included in this entry. Here we have an actor who has just recently gotten back in the public's good graces (Robert Downey Jr) teaming up with an actor who has recently been brought to the public's attention (Zach Galifianakis). Downey Jr plays the "straight guy", stuck in some part of America (who really cares), after an incident at the airport involving Galifianakis's "funny guy" character. They both end up road tripping together, as Downey Jr is desperate to make it home for the birth of his child. From there the movie becomes your typical road trip movie, and the "straight guy vs funny guy" routine makes up most of the laughs, which there are a few of, but less than you would expect from the two leads and the director of The Hangover. Basically, the movie has it's moments, and watching it wasn't a complete waste of time, however at the end of the day it was a very "meh" experience. The characters aren't very interesting, and there's nothing particularly memorable about the movie, but nothing really awful about it either.
**1/2 out of *****
The Bad
Red Riding Hood
I'm sure that the "From the director of Twilight" tagline put alot of people off this film, but it shouldn't off. The fact that it's a soulless, thrilless piece of nonsense that has almost nothing to do with the Red Riding Hood story, however, should. On the plus side it has Amanda Seyfried and Gary Oldman in it, who both give good performances. I also liked the setting of a fantasy/gothic snow covered world, where the people are frightened of attacks by werewolves. The storyline, however, is uninteresting and completely insane, and the attempts to inject romance into it fall flat. It was one of those movies where I couldn't even determine what the director was trying to do with it or who the target audience was supposed to be, except for perhaps the post Twilight audience who lap up anything remotely "supernatural romance" themed. Anyway, this movie was pretty pointless.
*1/2 out of *****
I Am Number Four
I remember seeing the trailer for this at the cinemas thinking it looked kinda cool. The concept of one alien race hunting down the remaining few of another alien race on earth is also not bad. However, pretty much the moment the movie started it was obvious this one was a dud. Cheesy special effects, lame dialogue, poor performances, not to mention plot devices that make no sense (why would an alien engaged in an intergalactic battle care so much about living a "normal life" to put himself at risk by being out in the open attending school, not to mention looking and acting exactly like a human) all add up to one unmistakable piece of garbage. I somewhat got sucked into the characters and some of the action scenes were ok, but this felt more like a pilot for after school teen sci fi show than film that was theatrically released. You can safely skip this clap trap.
*1/2 out of *****
Killers
Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl aren't actually known for their excellent choice of movie roles, and their appearance in this fecal matter isn't going to improve that reputation one bit. Killers attempts a merge of the romantic comedy and spy thriller genre, and needless to say Alfred Hitchcock probably could have pulled that off, but whoever directed this crap (runs to Wikipedia....), but Robert Luketic certainly couldn't. The movie gets off to a really bad start, with the romance between the two leads being introduced in a completely hap hazard fashion, and Kutcher's monologue where he tell's Heigl he's a killer are some of the most awkwardly delivered lines I've ever seen on film. Things pick up a bit once the action/spy segment of the movie starts, but the plot delves off into absurdist terriitory far to quickly for the movie to ever be redeemed. Full of cliche and contrived plot twists, you'd find more creative genius in a kindergarten finger painting class than you would here. Only recommended for hardcore rom com enthusiasts, and even then I'd say proceed with caution.
* out of *****
The Ugly
Your Highness
Your Highness has the dishonour being the worst film in my "bad films" entry, so err, congratulations? The only reason I rented this abomination was because the movie I went to store to borrow was all rented out, and I guess in my frustration I turned to the first film that looked slightly appealing. With cast including Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman and Zooey Deschanel, you'd expect something at least half decent. An hour and a half later and I was proven wrong. I guess you'd describe this movie as a fantasy comedy, and it's not a movie that expects you to care about the characters or the storyline, but instead proposes to entertain by taking you along for the ride and making you laugh. Which would be fine, if the ride it was taking you on was an even remotely fun one or if the jokes were funny. Instead we're bombarded with lame special effects, unexciting action scenes which come out of nowhere and serve no purpose, and a sense of humor that thinks dropping the F bomb after every sentence makes it automatically funny, and numerous jokes about oral sex never get tired. I'm especially embarrassed for Franco and Portman - Franco follows his Oscar nominated performance for 127 Hours with a role that requires him to act like a buffoon, and Portman follows her Oscar winning role for Black Swan with a performance so obviously phoned in I can't help but wonder if she was contractually obliged to appear in this debacle. Every element on display here feels so amateurish that if it wasn't for the cast you'd be forgiven for thinking this was some straight to DVD B-grade tosh. A movie with no redeeming qualities that completes none of the goals it set out to achieve can only receive one rating. Avoid this stinker like the plague.
No Stars
I've also recently seen some obsure Phillipino B grade movie called the One Armed Exicutioner. It's not a movie you would assign a rating to, however needless to say it was rubbish. It didn't even have the usual elements that make B grade movies entertaining, aside the usual campiness and poorly delivered lines. Just flat out boredoom. Nuff said. Now I've gotten all that out of my system I'll be back soon with some decent films.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Meh
I've become so slack with updating this that it may seem like I've given up. But I haven't, I'm just that stubborn. Lets have a look see at what I've viewed at the cinema as of late.
The Guard
Terms like "It works on so many levels" and "It's got something for everyone" get thrown around alot when promoting films, however this is one of the few times I'd be inclined to agree with those claims (although I haven't heard anyone claim that about this film.) It works as a laugh out loud (or LOL) black comedy, it works as police action/thriller, and it also works as a serious character study/drama revolving around Brendan Gleeson's cop Irish cop character Boyle. The only thing it's really missing is a love story, but that's only going to disappoint the rom com die hards.
Gleeson's character is introduced to us as an apathetic, lazy, foul mouthed racist cop who could care less about his job, or anything for that matter. When some drug traffickers come to his neck of the woods he gets wound up in the operation to track them down, spearheaded by an FBI over from the States played by Don Cheadle. As the investigation progresses and we see all sides of Boyle's character we slowly begin to like and sympathise with him. And I don't mean in the Hollywood "He's a bad boy with a heard of gold" vein of stupidity, I mean actual character development, and I think Brendan Gleeson does a brilliant job here.
With a great script including a plethora (thesaurus?) of genuinely funny jokes, a crime based storyline that moves along at just the right pace, enough action to keep fans of the genre happy, and a beautifully developed, sympathetic protagonist, I can't fault this film too much. I have feeling it will make my top 10 of 2011.
****1/2 out of *****
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Seriously what were they thinking with that title? Too many "ofs" and "thes" make it sound like a joke. If that wasn't enough to turn people off, the ridiculous looking trailer probably was. Yet it's turned out to be probably the biggest surprise of the year so far. Embarrassingly I've never seen the original Planet of the Apes. Less embarrassingly I've also never seen the Tim Burton remake. Never mind that though, as this movie follows that new trend commonly referred to as rebooting, with sequels planned, and is meant to be a new series all of it's own.
I can't think of any other movie that gives away the ending in the title of the film, but considering that most people are familiar with the concept of Planet of the Apes, and given this is set chronologically before the events of that movie, spoiler warnings aren't really needed. During the setup stage of the movie (the setup being of course to the apes running amok and taking over the world, in case I hadn't made that clear) James Franco's character is working on a cure for Alzheimer's, which his father, played by John Lithgow, has. The cure is tested on apes, which of course our morally upstanding protagonist is uneasy about (goodness me, what WOULD out viewers think of a protagonist that abides animal cruelty.) Our protagonist ends up having to care for the baby of one of the test subjects, and becomes super smart due to his mum having passed on the benefits of the drug to him. The heartwarming bonding between the two (I actually mean that to come across almost 100% sarcasm free) then sufficiently makes up the non apes-destroying-everything-in-sight portion of the film.
But apes destroying things is what the audience wants, and after our ape friend ends up in an ape sanctuary, is mistreated, becomes smarter still and forms an ape army, apes smashing stuff is what the audience gets. Action plus storyline minus Michael Bay is an equation that equals one of the best offerings of the summer blockbuster season. Plus the CGI apes look really cool. This film was definitely a big surprise and I'm looking forward to the sequels.
**** out of *****
Horrible Bosses
Bah, I can hardly be bothered writing about this movie. Not that it wasn't good. It wasn't GREAT, but it was decent. I think I enjoy writing about really good films and really bad films, but ones that are somewhere in the middle are tricky. Let's try and wrap it all up in the proceeding paragraph.
The movie is about three friends, none of whom are particularly interesting characters, who hate their bosses. Due to this, they decide to do what any reasonable person would, and have their bosses killed. Never mind looking for another job, that would make extremely dull cinema. This is one of those comedies about a group of guy friends who get themselves into a ridiculous situation and keep digging themselves deeper and deeper, in the same vein as The Hangover. It sufficiently brought the funny, although I think alot of the best jokes were given away in the trailer. The performances were all really good, and Kevin Spacey and Colin Farrell play jerk off bosses well. However, the absurdity of the plot plus the fact that the main three characters weren't as interesting as their bosses let the film down.
*** out of *****
The Guard
Terms like "It works on so many levels" and "It's got something for everyone" get thrown around alot when promoting films, however this is one of the few times I'd be inclined to agree with those claims (although I haven't heard anyone claim that about this film.) It works as a laugh out loud (or LOL) black comedy, it works as police action/thriller, and it also works as a serious character study/drama revolving around Brendan Gleeson's cop Irish cop character Boyle. The only thing it's really missing is a love story, but that's only going to disappoint the rom com die hards.
Gleeson's character is introduced to us as an apathetic, lazy, foul mouthed racist cop who could care less about his job, or anything for that matter. When some drug traffickers come to his neck of the woods he gets wound up in the operation to track them down, spearheaded by an FBI over from the States played by Don Cheadle. As the investigation progresses and we see all sides of Boyle's character we slowly begin to like and sympathise with him. And I don't mean in the Hollywood "He's a bad boy with a heard of gold" vein of stupidity, I mean actual character development, and I think Brendan Gleeson does a brilliant job here.
With a great script including a plethora (thesaurus?) of genuinely funny jokes, a crime based storyline that moves along at just the right pace, enough action to keep fans of the genre happy, and a beautifully developed, sympathetic protagonist, I can't fault this film too much. I have feeling it will make my top 10 of 2011.
****1/2 out of *****
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Seriously what were they thinking with that title? Too many "ofs" and "thes" make it sound like a joke. If that wasn't enough to turn people off, the ridiculous looking trailer probably was. Yet it's turned out to be probably the biggest surprise of the year so far. Embarrassingly I've never seen the original Planet of the Apes. Less embarrassingly I've also never seen the Tim Burton remake. Never mind that though, as this movie follows that new trend commonly referred to as rebooting, with sequels planned, and is meant to be a new series all of it's own.
I can't think of any other movie that gives away the ending in the title of the film, but considering that most people are familiar with the concept of Planet of the Apes, and given this is set chronologically before the events of that movie, spoiler warnings aren't really needed. During the setup stage of the movie (the setup being of course to the apes running amok and taking over the world, in case I hadn't made that clear) James Franco's character is working on a cure for Alzheimer's, which his father, played by John Lithgow, has. The cure is tested on apes, which of course our morally upstanding protagonist is uneasy about (goodness me, what WOULD out viewers think of a protagonist that abides animal cruelty.) Our protagonist ends up having to care for the baby of one of the test subjects, and becomes super smart due to his mum having passed on the benefits of the drug to him. The heartwarming bonding between the two (I actually mean that to come across almost 100% sarcasm free) then sufficiently makes up the non apes-destroying-everything-in-sight portion of the film.
But apes destroying things is what the audience wants, and after our ape friend ends up in an ape sanctuary, is mistreated, becomes smarter still and forms an ape army, apes smashing stuff is what the audience gets. Action plus storyline minus Michael Bay is an equation that equals one of the best offerings of the summer blockbuster season. Plus the CGI apes look really cool. This film was definitely a big surprise and I'm looking forward to the sequels.
**** out of *****
Horrible Bosses
Bah, I can hardly be bothered writing about this movie. Not that it wasn't good. It wasn't GREAT, but it was decent. I think I enjoy writing about really good films and really bad films, but ones that are somewhere in the middle are tricky. Let's try and wrap it all up in the proceeding paragraph.
The movie is about three friends, none of whom are particularly interesting characters, who hate their bosses. Due to this, they decide to do what any reasonable person would, and have their bosses killed. Never mind looking for another job, that would make extremely dull cinema. This is one of those comedies about a group of guy friends who get themselves into a ridiculous situation and keep digging themselves deeper and deeper, in the same vein as The Hangover. It sufficiently brought the funny, although I think alot of the best jokes were given away in the trailer. The performances were all really good, and Kevin Spacey and Colin Farrell play jerk off bosses well. However, the absurdity of the plot plus the fact that the main three characters weren't as interesting as their bosses let the film down.
*** out of *****
Friday, 19 August 2011
Procrastination & Some Films
Wow I've been slack in updating this. Possibly because my brother damaged my fragile ego in criticising my grammar (I'll probably develop a complex now you jerk). I'm still not going to proof read these entries though. Got a few to write about. They'll probably be a bit short because I watched these films a little while ago now and can't remember enough to go into detail. Oh well.
Captain America: The First Avenger
This is the last movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe before The Avengers movie next year (so far we have Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2 and Thor). Unlike the others, which are set in present day, this one is set in the 40's during World War 2, and the Americans are looking for a candidate for their experiment to turn someone into a super solider. Enter Steve Rogers, a weak, skinny bloke who can't pass the medicals to get enrolled in the army, however has enormous amounts of courage and a selfless attitude which fits the criteria the scientist dude, played by Stanley Tucci, is looking for to turn into, wait for it, CAPTAIN AMERICA.
So ah, yeah, dweeby Steve Rogers becomes the unstoppable CAPTAIN AMERICA (I'll stop that now) by going through some kind of procedure, the danger of which is well highlighted with dramatic music and such, and stars kicking Nazi arse. I've never read a Captain America comic book in my life but it seems like the character was either introduced as a WWII propaganda tool or to satirise WWII propaganda tools. Either way, it's the satirical nature of the situation that's on display here, as Rogers is used to promote war bonds and becomes the poster boy of the American Army, especially after liberating a bunch of POWs single handedly (remember, he had the procedure, so it's believable.)
I really enjoyed this movie, mainly due to the well developed sympathetic character of Rogers and numerous over the top but relevant-and-draw-you-in-with-one-scene-logically-following-the-other-take-note-Michael-Bay action scenes. Alot of it is very silly of course, but the serious approach to Rogers character, not to mention the good performance from Chris Evans, grounds the silliness. It's probably the best of these Marvel Cinematic whatever you call it movies since Hulk, and I've got high hopes for Avengers next year.
**** out of *****
Hanna
I think a movie is a lot like a house. No wait, that makes no sense, I'll start again. There are some movies which are like a home cooked meal. They're warm, inviting, don't require much of you, and depending upon the quality of the food can be satisfying or leave you wishing you'd eaten KFC instead. Then there are some movies which are like house work. They require attention to details, can be an effort to get through, and depending on the quality of the er, house (no, I couldn't think of a better analogy, shut up) can be either either very rewarding or just leave you exhausted an annoyed.
In the case of these two action movies, Captain America is the meal, Hanna is the housework. Directed by Joe Wright, whose previous films include Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, Hanna is something of an artsy action drama the feels like a cross between the Born Identity and Lost in Translation (stylistically, there's no implied adultery on display here.) Hanna tells the story of Hanna, surprise surprise, a 16 year old girl who has been raised in the wilderness by her father since she was little, and trained to become a resilient fighter as the government is after her for "some reason" (spoiler free zone here).
Like Captain America there's plenty of action and the character of Hanna is well developed, however in this case I actually preferred the more warm, inviting approach to storytelling of Captain America over the somewhat detached approached here. The film is beautifully shot, however at times the artistic nature of the film bordered on pretentious. I read a quote from Joe Wright regarding his film making style where he said something along the lines of "Basically, I'm showing off." Whether he meant that as a joke or not, it really feels like he is at times.
***1/2 out of *****
Foxtel Box Office - Hall Pass
As the title says, I got this as one of my free Foxtel Box office films, as I figured it probably wasn't worth the rental fee, yet I was still curious to check it out. The premise of this comedy, being the wives of two friends give them a week off marriage to do whatever they want, feels like it's borrowing from one of those old frat house or American Pie films. However, what actually eventuates from this is a little unexpected and somewhat funny. In fact I'd call the whole movie "somewhat funny", and despite being incredibly stupid I found the storyline oddly engaging. Like most gross out comedies the jokes sometimes work, and are sometimes just gross for the sake of gross. I don't want to spend much time talking about this movie as there's not much to say other than Hall Pass gets a pass (HA!), however only just.
**1/2 out of *****
Captain America: The First Avenger
This is the last movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe before The Avengers movie next year (so far we have Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2 and Thor). Unlike the others, which are set in present day, this one is set in the 40's during World War 2, and the Americans are looking for a candidate for their experiment to turn someone into a super solider. Enter Steve Rogers, a weak, skinny bloke who can't pass the medicals to get enrolled in the army, however has enormous amounts of courage and a selfless attitude which fits the criteria the scientist dude, played by Stanley Tucci, is looking for to turn into, wait for it, CAPTAIN AMERICA.
So ah, yeah, dweeby Steve Rogers becomes the unstoppable CAPTAIN AMERICA (I'll stop that now) by going through some kind of procedure, the danger of which is well highlighted with dramatic music and such, and stars kicking Nazi arse. I've never read a Captain America comic book in my life but it seems like the character was either introduced as a WWII propaganda tool or to satirise WWII propaganda tools. Either way, it's the satirical nature of the situation that's on display here, as Rogers is used to promote war bonds and becomes the poster boy of the American Army, especially after liberating a bunch of POWs single handedly (remember, he had the procedure, so it's believable.)
I really enjoyed this movie, mainly due to the well developed sympathetic character of Rogers and numerous over the top but relevant-and-draw-you-in-with-one-scene-logically-following-the-other-take-note-Michael-Bay action scenes. Alot of it is very silly of course, but the serious approach to Rogers character, not to mention the good performance from Chris Evans, grounds the silliness. It's probably the best of these Marvel Cinematic whatever you call it movies since Hulk, and I've got high hopes for Avengers next year.
**** out of *****
Hanna
I think a movie is a lot like a house. No wait, that makes no sense, I'll start again. There are some movies which are like a home cooked meal. They're warm, inviting, don't require much of you, and depending upon the quality of the food can be satisfying or leave you wishing you'd eaten KFC instead. Then there are some movies which are like house work. They require attention to details, can be an effort to get through, and depending on the quality of the er, house (no, I couldn't think of a better analogy, shut up) can be either either very rewarding or just leave you exhausted an annoyed.
In the case of these two action movies, Captain America is the meal, Hanna is the housework. Directed by Joe Wright, whose previous films include Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, Hanna is something of an artsy action drama the feels like a cross between the Born Identity and Lost in Translation (stylistically, there's no implied adultery on display here.) Hanna tells the story of Hanna, surprise surprise, a 16 year old girl who has been raised in the wilderness by her father since she was little, and trained to become a resilient fighter as the government is after her for "some reason" (spoiler free zone here).
Like Captain America there's plenty of action and the character of Hanna is well developed, however in this case I actually preferred the more warm, inviting approach to storytelling of Captain America over the somewhat detached approached here. The film is beautifully shot, however at times the artistic nature of the film bordered on pretentious. I read a quote from Joe Wright regarding his film making style where he said something along the lines of "Basically, I'm showing off." Whether he meant that as a joke or not, it really feels like he is at times.
***1/2 out of *****
Foxtel Box Office - Hall Pass
As the title says, I got this as one of my free Foxtel Box office films, as I figured it probably wasn't worth the rental fee, yet I was still curious to check it out. The premise of this comedy, being the wives of two friends give them a week off marriage to do whatever they want, feels like it's borrowing from one of those old frat house or American Pie films. However, what actually eventuates from this is a little unexpected and somewhat funny. In fact I'd call the whole movie "somewhat funny", and despite being incredibly stupid I found the storyline oddly engaging. Like most gross out comedies the jokes sometimes work, and are sometimes just gross for the sake of gross. I don't want to spend much time talking about this movie as there's not much to say other than Hall Pass gets a pass (HA!), however only just.
**1/2 out of *****
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
The Tree of Life
It's way too early to be calling this but I'm doing it anyway, The Tree of Life is the best film of 2011. If a better movie comes out I'll happily eat my words, but I just cannot see it happening. That being said, this isn't a movie for everyone. If you were excited about seeing the new Transformers film then this most likely isn't for you. If you found Black Swan to be too weird or "Arsty" then this isn't for you. If you want to see this film because it has Brad Pitt in it then this DEFINITELY isn't for you. I don't say this for the sake of sounding arrogant or pretentious, but rather to ram home the point that The Tree of Life wasn't made with the general movie going public in mind, and alot of people will hate it with a passion. And that's fine.
It appears that many people who dislike this movie have been quick to praise the film for it's visuals and artistic merits (as who can deny the amazing cinematography? If it doesn't win the Oscar in that field then we may as well declare the whole ceremony a sham) but have also heavily criticised the storytelling devices used or, more specifically, the lack of a storyline. Usually I will be first in line to slam a film for lacking a good narrative, however it wasn't director Terrence Malick's intention to tell a well crafted story. He had something much more ambitious in mind.
Beginning with an amazing sequence showing the formation of the universe and early life developing on Earth, and ending with a sequence that could only be interpreted as the afterlife, Malick attempts to, in a way, explore the whole human journey in one 130 something minute film. The bulk of the film in between focuses on a typical American middle class family in the 50's, with father (Brad Pitt) mother (Jessica Chastain) and three young boys. The oldest boy is shown in the future, played by Sean Penn, looking back over his childhood whilst trying to make sense of the death of one of his brothers.
It's here that we see Malick explore through this family as many elements of life that mankind deal with that was humanly possible to fit in under 2 and a half hours. Birth, death, marriage, growing up, loss of innocence, lost dreams, greed and ambition, search for meaning, search for and relationship with God, parents relationships with their children and the effect this had. It's all covered.
Viewing this film wasn't just a regular trip to the cinema for me, it was an almost transcendent otherworldly experience. As a Christian I saw this film as being a 130+ minute appreciation of God and life. I came out thinking that you would have to be at least agnostic to enjoy this film, however that was just what I took out of it, the film is open to interpretation and I'm sure atheists can enjoy it immensely based on their own take on it. I've already seen the film twice, and if I heard of anyone wanting to see it I'd jump at the chance to see it again in the cinema. If you immerse yourself in the experience instead of driving yourself crazy trying to figure out every single symbolic element of the film, this is a very moving and powerful film for those open to it.
***** out of *****
It appears that many people who dislike this movie have been quick to praise the film for it's visuals and artistic merits (as who can deny the amazing cinematography? If it doesn't win the Oscar in that field then we may as well declare the whole ceremony a sham) but have also heavily criticised the storytelling devices used or, more specifically, the lack of a storyline. Usually I will be first in line to slam a film for lacking a good narrative, however it wasn't director Terrence Malick's intention to tell a well crafted story. He had something much more ambitious in mind.
Beginning with an amazing sequence showing the formation of the universe and early life developing on Earth, and ending with a sequence that could only be interpreted as the afterlife, Malick attempts to, in a way, explore the whole human journey in one 130 something minute film. The bulk of the film in between focuses on a typical American middle class family in the 50's, with father (Brad Pitt) mother (Jessica Chastain) and three young boys. The oldest boy is shown in the future, played by Sean Penn, looking back over his childhood whilst trying to make sense of the death of one of his brothers.
It's here that we see Malick explore through this family as many elements of life that mankind deal with that was humanly possible to fit in under 2 and a half hours. Birth, death, marriage, growing up, loss of innocence, lost dreams, greed and ambition, search for meaning, search for and relationship with God, parents relationships with their children and the effect this had. It's all covered.
Viewing this film wasn't just a regular trip to the cinema for me, it was an almost transcendent otherworldly experience. As a Christian I saw this film as being a 130+ minute appreciation of God and life. I came out thinking that you would have to be at least agnostic to enjoy this film, however that was just what I took out of it, the film is open to interpretation and I'm sure atheists can enjoy it immensely based on their own take on it. I've already seen the film twice, and if I heard of anyone wanting to see it I'd jump at the chance to see it again in the cinema. If you immerse yourself in the experience instead of driving yourself crazy trying to figure out every single symbolic element of the film, this is a very moving and powerful film for those open to it.
***** out of *****
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Pixar vs Dreamworks
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)