The opening chapter is fantastic. But I really didn't like the second chapter. It tries to make you too complicit in the violence.
Christopher Waltz steals the show as 'The Jew Hunter' and Brad Pitt's facial expressions are quite amusing throughout.
The film shows genuine moments of maturity from Tarantino as a filmmaker that are often lost amongst all of his fan-boy antics. But even in Basterds he struggles to reign those tendencies in to the detriment of the overall picture. We really could have done without being subjected to Eli Roth.
The director clearly shows a strength in bringing the best out of his performers though, and as much as I dislike Roth, his performance is surprisingly okay. As is Diane Kruger. She could usually give a plank of wood a run for it's money. But here she's quite brilliant. Honourable mentions should also go out to Michael Fassbender and Mélanie Laurent.
Overall this is a much better film than I was expecting. I just wish it had more of what made the first chapter so great and less of what made the second chapter so distasteful.
8/10
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.
Personally, I thought the first Underworld film was absolutely terrible. It was an action film in which there was hardly any action. The dialogue was painful and the 'vampires' were an absolute joke, all whining on about rules and traditions.
I reluctantly went to see the second film. Although it practically suffered from all of the things that were wrong with the first film it was actually a minor improvement as it did raise its game considerably in the action stakes. Though Underworld 2 is a bad film, I still thought to myself that if Underworld 3 is as much of an improvement on Underworld 2 as Underworld 2 was on the first one, then we might finally have a half decent film.
Luckily, this is the case. We are still treated to fairly awful dialogue and the vampires still suck (no pun intended). But at least Michael Sheen is given a bit more meat to bite into and the story keeps things simple, allowing the action to move on quite nicely. So, quite a pleasant surprise really.
It's no classic, but it's entertaining, and if the next one is as much of an improvement on this one as this one is on the last then we might actually have an Underworld movie that I would consider buying on DVD.
6/10
I reluctantly went to see the second film. Although it practically suffered from all of the things that were wrong with the first film it was actually a minor improvement as it did raise its game considerably in the action stakes. Though Underworld 2 is a bad film, I still thought to myself that if Underworld 3 is as much of an improvement on Underworld 2 as Underworld 2 was on the first one, then we might finally have a half decent film.
Luckily, this is the case. We are still treated to fairly awful dialogue and the vampires still suck (no pun intended). But at least Michael Sheen is given a bit more meat to bite into and the story keeps things simple, allowing the action to move on quite nicely. So, quite a pleasant surprise really.
It's no classic, but it's entertaining, and if the next one is as much of an improvement on this one as this one is on the last then we might actually have an Underworld movie that I would consider buying on DVD.
6/10
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Okay, I'm not going to start having some kind of Kermodian rant about how stupid this film is. Anybody who takes a film based on kids toys too seriously clearly needs to chill out. The first film was indeed quite stupid. It lacked any kind of logic and was absolutely devoid of subtlety. But, what it did have was fun, lots of fun. The characters were likable and the explosions and mayhem came thick and fast. There were times when the forced moments of humour threatened to derail the whole thing, but luckily, they managed to reign these moments in and get back on track. None of this can be said about the second film.
Revenge of the Fallen is nowhere near as solid in the entertainment department as the first film. Many of the supposedly humorous characters are just downright annoying. The gangster rapper style twin robots are the main culprits. I just felt embarrassed every time they came on screen.
The sad fact of the matter is that most of the so-called humour seems to have a very child-like quality to it. This would not usually be a problem with a film like this. How else are they going to get the kids to buy the toys? But when it runs alongside gags that are clearly directed at adults, and have no place being in a kids film, I really start to wander if the filmmakers even know who they are making this film for. That Steven Spielberg's name is attached only adds to the disappointment. You would think that he of all people would know better.
It's not like the film makes up for it in the action stakes either. All of the action just feels like a rehash of scenes from the first film only not as good. We are told that the big bad in this film, the Fallen of the title, can only be defeated by a Prime but absolutely no reason is given as to why this is so.
Some scenes have clearly been thrown in because some clever studio execs have said 'Like, hey guys, we need to see Megan taking her kit off'. Yeah, okay, we get it, Megan Fox is hot. Get over it! Also, at times I felt that this film was simply an advertisement for the new Green Day album. I'm not too fussed about that. I like Green Day.
So far, with the exception of Watchmen and Star Trek, this has been a terrible year for blockbusters. First Wolverine. Then Terminator: Salvation. Now this! I still enjoyed many parts of this film and I think that, due to its nature, it cannot be criticised in the same light as Wolverine and T4. I expect those films to be a lot more serious and give me something to think about. In that respect they failed. Likewise, I expected this to be a non-stop roller coaster ride of fun. While it did offer some of this I couldn't help but feel I had been cheated.
Not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. But still somewhat disappointing.
5/10
Revenge of the Fallen is nowhere near as solid in the entertainment department as the first film. Many of the supposedly humorous characters are just downright annoying. The gangster rapper style twin robots are the main culprits. I just felt embarrassed every time they came on screen.
The sad fact of the matter is that most of the so-called humour seems to have a very child-like quality to it. This would not usually be a problem with a film like this. How else are they going to get the kids to buy the toys? But when it runs alongside gags that are clearly directed at adults, and have no place being in a kids film, I really start to wander if the filmmakers even know who they are making this film for. That Steven Spielberg's name is attached only adds to the disappointment. You would think that he of all people would know better.
It's not like the film makes up for it in the action stakes either. All of the action just feels like a rehash of scenes from the first film only not as good. We are told that the big bad in this film, the Fallen of the title, can only be defeated by a Prime but absolutely no reason is given as to why this is so.
Some scenes have clearly been thrown in because some clever studio execs have said 'Like, hey guys, we need to see Megan taking her kit off'. Yeah, okay, we get it, Megan Fox is hot. Get over it! Also, at times I felt that this film was simply an advertisement for the new Green Day album. I'm not too fussed about that. I like Green Day.
So far, with the exception of Watchmen and Star Trek, this has been a terrible year for blockbusters. First Wolverine. Then Terminator: Salvation. Now this! I still enjoyed many parts of this film and I think that, due to its nature, it cannot be criticised in the same light as Wolverine and T4. I expect those films to be a lot more serious and give me something to think about. In that respect they failed. Likewise, I expected this to be a non-stop roller coaster ride of fun. While it did offer some of this I couldn't help but feel I had been cheated.
Not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. But still somewhat disappointing.
5/10
The Hangover.
I saw The Hangover last night. There were a few funny bits (i.e. the Chinese gangster), but for the most part I just found the whole thing offensive. Trying to make a convicted rapist, Mike Tyson, out to be some kind of cool, misunderstood hero really leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And why do movies always make out that Vegas is the city of dreams. It's sin city. It's tacky. All surface and no substance. And since when has violence to a baby ever been funny? We are supposed to laugh at someone (admittedly by accident) bashing a car door into a baby's face.
This piece of garbage currently sits in the IMDb top 250. How the hell did that happen? Has society seriously sunk so low that a film like The Hangover can be accepted as first class entertainment?
Judd Apatow's comedies often push it close to the edge but at least his characters usually learn something and have their hearts in the right place. The four main characters in this are all completely lacking a moral compass and, quite frankly, I would be ashamed if I really knew guys like these in real life.
3/10
This piece of garbage currently sits in the IMDb top 250. How the hell did that happen? Has society seriously sunk so low that a film like The Hangover can be accepted as first class entertainment?
Judd Apatow's comedies often push it close to the edge but at least his characters usually learn something and have their hearts in the right place. The four main characters in this are all completely lacking a moral compass and, quite frankly, I would be ashamed if I really knew guys like these in real life.
3/10
The Day the Earth Stood Still.
I'm not going to write a long review for this one because, quite frankly, it really isn't worth my time. This film is terrible. I've never seen the original all the way through so I'm not looking at it through the eyes of some fanatical purist. I'm sure there will be plenty out there who will scoff at whatever changes have or have not been made. I am not one of those. I just think that as a multi-million dollar piece of cinema, this stinks!
I saw this with a few friends and one of them said that the film quite simply lacked any tension whatsoever. They hit the nail on the head. It just plods along slowly from one dull scene to the next. It is very badly acted, to the point that not even Jennifer Connelly can save it.
The not-so-special effects do not even come close to stirring any excitement within the viewer and the characters are so annoying you will wish for Klaatu and his buddies to destroy every last one of them, starting with the kid.
From start to finish this just feels monotonous. Every scene has been lifted from a thousand other (and no doubt better) science fiction films. Keep hold of your money. Do not waste it on trash like this or they will just keep churning it out. Awful!
3/10
I saw this with a few friends and one of them said that the film quite simply lacked any tension whatsoever. They hit the nail on the head. It just plods along slowly from one dull scene to the next. It is very badly acted, to the point that not even Jennifer Connelly can save it.
The not-so-special effects do not even come close to stirring any excitement within the viewer and the characters are so annoying you will wish for Klaatu and his buddies to destroy every last one of them, starting with the kid.
From start to finish this just feels monotonous. Every scene has been lifted from a thousand other (and no doubt better) science fiction films. Keep hold of your money. Do not waste it on trash like this or they will just keep churning it out. Awful!
3/10
Quantum of Solace.
I've heard a lot of nonsense reviews about this addition to the Bond series. Most of them say that QoS is very 'unBond' and too Bourne-like. Well, first of all, it was the rigid 'all bond films must follow the same template' rule that ran the series into the ground in the first place. Just take a look at Die Another Day. Quite frankly, the Bourne films are better than any Bond film anyway so the fact that Bond is emulating them (in style, not character) can only be a good thing.
Previous Bond films now just seem completely outdated. I've never been particularly interested in films that show unrealistic consequences for the violent acts of their heroes. Bourne took you right into the ferocity of a fist fight between two highly trained operatives. This has been carried over into Daniel Craig's Bond and it adds far more drama to the action. Just watch Bond's reaction after taking down a bad guy on the balcony of an apartment block. It's intense, dark, and totally believable. This modern Bond is far more realistic and anyone who suggests that it lacks emotional depth need only look at Bond's final scene with Mathis.
The relationship between Bond and M has also become much more interesting as M takes on the role of a surrogate mother, something Bond seems only too aware of. Almaric makes a great bad guy as Greene, though as with Casino Royale, he is nothing more than a henchman and so far, it is Mr White who remains the highest up the ladder. The weakest link in terms of character is Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields who is pretty much given nothing to do. Kurylenko is wonderful, and makes for a sympathetic character to root for in Camille.
The fact that this film is a direct sequel also makes you feel more invested in the characters whereas with previous bond films there was nothing carried over, making them feel somewhat detached from each other. This is one of the things that made The Dark Knight so successful. Speaking of which, anybody going into QoS expecting it to do for Bond what TDK did for Batman is an idiot. It's ridiculous to have those kind of expectations. Batman is Batman and Bond is Bond!
9/10
Previous Bond films now just seem completely outdated. I've never been particularly interested in films that show unrealistic consequences for the violent acts of their heroes. Bourne took you right into the ferocity of a fist fight between two highly trained operatives. This has been carried over into Daniel Craig's Bond and it adds far more drama to the action. Just watch Bond's reaction after taking down a bad guy on the balcony of an apartment block. It's intense, dark, and totally believable. This modern Bond is far more realistic and anyone who suggests that it lacks emotional depth need only look at Bond's final scene with Mathis.
The relationship between Bond and M has also become much more interesting as M takes on the role of a surrogate mother, something Bond seems only too aware of. Almaric makes a great bad guy as Greene, though as with Casino Royale, he is nothing more than a henchman and so far, it is Mr White who remains the highest up the ladder. The weakest link in terms of character is Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields who is pretty much given nothing to do. Kurylenko is wonderful, and makes for a sympathetic character to root for in Camille.
The fact that this film is a direct sequel also makes you feel more invested in the characters whereas with previous bond films there was nothing carried over, making them feel somewhat detached from each other. This is one of the things that made The Dark Knight so successful. Speaking of which, anybody going into QoS expecting it to do for Bond what TDK did for Batman is an idiot. It's ridiculous to have those kind of expectations. Batman is Batman and Bond is Bond!
9/10
Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix.
In the fifth film of the franchise one thing is strikingly clear from the outset; Harry Potter and friends have finally grown up. Director David Yates brings a much needed shot in the arm for the franchise both from a visual standpoint and particularly with regard to the control he has over the actors' performances. Alfonso Cauron hinted at how good this franchise could get with The Prizoner of Azkaban. Finally the seeds that he sowed have begun to flourish.
The expectations of this film for many Potter fans is undoubtedly high, but fans need not worry; it is likely these expectations will be met.
I have personally never been all that engrossed in previous entries in the series, with the possible exception of the aforementioned Azkaban, but during this film I found myself actually caring about what was going on on screen. This is helped very much by what can only be described as a vast improvement in the performances by the three leads. Daniel Radcliffe seems much more comfortable as Harry, injecting the character with a believable sense of authority that one would expect from a leader, and tapping into a darker side without it feeling forced or over the top. Rupert Grint gets the chance to show a tougher side to Ron's character as he stands up for Harry, a far cry from the simple scared little boy who provided comic relief throughout the earlier adventures. And it finally seems as though Emma Watson has managed to stop acting with her eyebrows, bringing a subtlety to her performance that has been previously lacking.
There are also some fine new additions to the series, the standout performance coming from Vera Drake actress Imelda Staunton, who chews up the scenery as Dolores Umbridge playing it both sinister yet sweetly innocent. Others include Helena Bonham Carter who relishes the chance to play it dark and sadistic as Bellatrix Lestrange, and newcomer Evanna Lynch, who is just plain strange as Luna Lovegood; but without being annoying.
The film itself is of course much darker than its predecessors, but it does not lose itself, allowing time for the occasional comedic moments. In all it shows a progression to a more mature franchise that has grown with its audience. David Yates will be back on board for all of the next instalments. A wise move by Warner Brothers. Roll on Potter 6.
9/10
The expectations of this film for many Potter fans is undoubtedly high, but fans need not worry; it is likely these expectations will be met.
I have personally never been all that engrossed in previous entries in the series, with the possible exception of the aforementioned Azkaban, but during this film I found myself actually caring about what was going on on screen. This is helped very much by what can only be described as a vast improvement in the performances by the three leads. Daniel Radcliffe seems much more comfortable as Harry, injecting the character with a believable sense of authority that one would expect from a leader, and tapping into a darker side without it feeling forced or over the top. Rupert Grint gets the chance to show a tougher side to Ron's character as he stands up for Harry, a far cry from the simple scared little boy who provided comic relief throughout the earlier adventures. And it finally seems as though Emma Watson has managed to stop acting with her eyebrows, bringing a subtlety to her performance that has been previously lacking.
There are also some fine new additions to the series, the standout performance coming from Vera Drake actress Imelda Staunton, who chews up the scenery as Dolores Umbridge playing it both sinister yet sweetly innocent. Others include Helena Bonham Carter who relishes the chance to play it dark and sadistic as Bellatrix Lestrange, and newcomer Evanna Lynch, who is just plain strange as Luna Lovegood; but without being annoying.
The film itself is of course much darker than its predecessors, but it does not lose itself, allowing time for the occasional comedic moments. In all it shows a progression to a more mature franchise that has grown with its audience. David Yates will be back on board for all of the next instalments. A wise move by Warner Brothers. Roll on Potter 6.
9/10
District 9.
A very good film but not without its flaws.
I don't like how they flit back and to from the use of documentary-style footage. If you're going to go the route of Cloverfield, then do it throughout, and stick to it!
Also, there are pretty much no likable human characters in this. It is actually the aliens that show the most humanity. I suppose that is the point. But it can get very depressing when there is this much pessimism on display. Should we really have so little faith in mankind?
Still, as an action piece, it is quite unrelenting and often surprising. And it has the most emotionally involving cgi character since Gollum. You wouldn't think you could relate so much to something that looks like a giant prawn!
8/10
I don't like how they flit back and to from the use of documentary-style footage. If you're going to go the route of Cloverfield, then do it throughout, and stick to it!
Also, there are pretty much no likable human characters in this. It is actually the aliens that show the most humanity. I suppose that is the point. But it can get very depressing when there is this much pessimism on display. Should we really have so little faith in mankind?
Still, as an action piece, it is quite unrelenting and often surprising. And it has the most emotionally involving cgi character since Gollum. You wouldn't think you could relate so much to something that looks like a giant prawn!
8/10
Appaloosa.
Appaloosa is a very old-fashioned western. It does not fit in line with the more recent flux of modern-day westerns such as Assassination of Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, and (to some extent) No Country For Old Men. The most recent comparison that I can think of is 2004's Open Range, which in my mind, was the superior of the two.
This is not to say that I did not enjoy the film. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen have great on-screen chemistry and there are plenty of humorous moments between the two characters.
The film also delivers on the expected quota of shoot-outs that any western fan would appreciate. When they happen they happen fast, a fact that is amusingly observed by the two leads during one devastating gun battle.
The problem with this film is that everything seems overly familiar. Though I cannot always pinpoint where I have seen particular scenes before, I still feel that I have seen them, and you are never in any doubt as to where the film is heading. I went in to this film not knowing that it was an adaptation of a novel. After also hearing that it is a very 'faithful' adaptation I am led to believe that any narrative familiarity is most likely the fault of the source material and not that of Ed Harris, who of course co-wrote the the screenplay. As it stands, Harris' direction is handled very nicely, and the film certainly looks beautiful enough.
The only other gripe I have is the casting of Renee Zellweger. I have nothing against her personally. She's a fine actress who has proved herself many times with the likes of Cold Mountain, Bridget Jones, and Chicago. But she does not fit in the role she is given here and I spent most of her screen time wishing someone else in the part.
Despite these grumbles Appaloosa is a well made example of the genre that probably deserves more recognition than the average Friday night pop-corn trash that Hollywood has a tendency to put out.
6/10
This is not to say that I did not enjoy the film. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen have great on-screen chemistry and there are plenty of humorous moments between the two characters.
The film also delivers on the expected quota of shoot-outs that any western fan would appreciate. When they happen they happen fast, a fact that is amusingly observed by the two leads during one devastating gun battle.
The problem with this film is that everything seems overly familiar. Though I cannot always pinpoint where I have seen particular scenes before, I still feel that I have seen them, and you are never in any doubt as to where the film is heading. I went in to this film not knowing that it was an adaptation of a novel. After also hearing that it is a very 'faithful' adaptation I am led to believe that any narrative familiarity is most likely the fault of the source material and not that of Ed Harris, who of course co-wrote the the screenplay. As it stands, Harris' direction is handled very nicely, and the film certainly looks beautiful enough.
The only other gripe I have is the casting of Renee Zellweger. I have nothing against her personally. She's a fine actress who has proved herself many times with the likes of Cold Mountain, Bridget Jones, and Chicago. But she does not fit in the role she is given here and I spent most of her screen time wishing someone else in the part.
Despite these grumbles Appaloosa is a well made example of the genre that probably deserves more recognition than the average Friday night pop-corn trash that Hollywood has a tendency to put out.
6/10
A Perfect Getaway.
This is not a good movie. It's stupid. The big twist is just dumb. It makes you lose what little empathy you may have built up towards the main characters. It does not work at all. If you back-track everything that the characters have done, then their ultimate changes in character just do not convince in the slightest.
In the Charlie Kaufman-penned Adaptation, there is a rather hilarious sub-plot, in which, Kaufman's twin brother is writing a screenplay about a serial killer who turns out to be the split personality of the detective who is hunting him. It brilliantly highlights the dumb-ass nature of some Hollywood screen writers, with their constant need to come up with ever more elaborate twists to confound the audience, no matter how ridiculously implausible they may be. Clearly, the makers of this film have not seen Adaptation, or if they have they just didn't get it.
The film isn't a total washout. There are some good performances. Steve Zahn is always great value for money, even when he's in dross like this. And I would rather sit through this than another Saw movie. But it doesn't stop me wandering why this kind of nonsense is repeatedly the best that some major Hollywood studios have to offer.
5/10
In the Charlie Kaufman-penned Adaptation, there is a rather hilarious sub-plot, in which, Kaufman's twin brother is writing a screenplay about a serial killer who turns out to be the split personality of the detective who is hunting him. It brilliantly highlights the dumb-ass nature of some Hollywood screen writers, with their constant need to come up with ever more elaborate twists to confound the audience, no matter how ridiculously implausible they may be. Clearly, the makers of this film have not seen Adaptation, or if they have they just didn't get it.
The film isn't a total washout. There are some good performances. Steve Zahn is always great value for money, even when he's in dross like this. And I would rather sit through this than another Saw movie. But it doesn't stop me wandering why this kind of nonsense is repeatedly the best that some major Hollywood studios have to offer.
5/10
Dorian Gray.
I have never read the Oscar Wylde book upon which this film is based. I'm quite sure that many fans of the book will pick this film apart for whatever liberties it may have taken with the source material. I judge it purely on its cinematic merit.
For those who are unaware Dorian Gray is the story of a man who's soul becomes trapped inside his painted portrait. As a result, he stays young and beautiful forever, while his painted self grows old and decays. The lengths that Dorian goes to in order to keep all of this a secret lead him to murder.
I was not really expecting to like this film. I had read some bad reviews for it and the trailer was not entirely inspiring. But Colin Firth is always watchable and Ben Barnes has shown a fair amount of promise with his roles in Prince Caspian and Easy Virtue. He manages to take on the title role here with enough conviction to make me believe that he is still worth watching in the future. However, the role of Dorian Gray does seem to be somewhat underwritten throughout, as the rush to move the film forward toward the darker elements of the story is all too evident.
One of the more tragic elements of the story, Sybal's suicide, does not hit quite as hard as it should. This is again due to a script that appears to want to get through her relationship with Dorian as quickly as possible so that they can get to the 'good stuff'. Dorian's fall from grace would have had a much greater impact if the relationship between him and Sybal had been treated with more care and attention.
That aside, the rest of the film is entertaining. The visuals conjure up just the right amount of atmosphere, and there are some nice uses of sound, constantly building anticipation toward a final glimpse of the decaying picture of Dorian Gray.
Though you should be warned, there is plenty of debauchery on show here, as Dorian descends into a world of desire and the pursuits of pleasure. Some of this stuff will not be to everyone's taste, mine included, but if you can get past it then you will find a story about the corrupting nature of sin. Or at least I did anyway!
This certainly won't be for everyone, and it is by no means a classic, but if you've never read the book and you are a little curious as to what all the fuss is about, then this could peak your interest. Alternatively, you could just read the book!
7/10
For those who are unaware Dorian Gray is the story of a man who's soul becomes trapped inside his painted portrait. As a result, he stays young and beautiful forever, while his painted self grows old and decays. The lengths that Dorian goes to in order to keep all of this a secret lead him to murder.
I was not really expecting to like this film. I had read some bad reviews for it and the trailer was not entirely inspiring. But Colin Firth is always watchable and Ben Barnes has shown a fair amount of promise with his roles in Prince Caspian and Easy Virtue. He manages to take on the title role here with enough conviction to make me believe that he is still worth watching in the future. However, the role of Dorian Gray does seem to be somewhat underwritten throughout, as the rush to move the film forward toward the darker elements of the story is all too evident.
One of the more tragic elements of the story, Sybal's suicide, does not hit quite as hard as it should. This is again due to a script that appears to want to get through her relationship with Dorian as quickly as possible so that they can get to the 'good stuff'. Dorian's fall from grace would have had a much greater impact if the relationship between him and Sybal had been treated with more care and attention.
That aside, the rest of the film is entertaining. The visuals conjure up just the right amount of atmosphere, and there are some nice uses of sound, constantly building anticipation toward a final glimpse of the decaying picture of Dorian Gray.
Though you should be warned, there is plenty of debauchery on show here, as Dorian descends into a world of desire and the pursuits of pleasure. Some of this stuff will not be to everyone's taste, mine included, but if you can get past it then you will find a story about the corrupting nature of sin. Or at least I did anyway!
This certainly won't be for everyone, and it is by no means a classic, but if you've never read the book and you are a little curious as to what all the fuss is about, then this could peak your interest. Alternatively, you could just read the book!
7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
