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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
