Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Cynical Evaluations of Cinema: Movie Reviews « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Cynical Evaluations of Cinema: Movie Reviews  (Read 25134 times)
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 [19] 20 Print
Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #720 on: 01-25-2012 00:39 »

Call the Ghostbusters! Somethings fishy... laff
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #721 on: 01-26-2012 11:19 »


   [b]It should look something like this.[/b]


There's always the good old [nobbc] tag.

i.e. [nobbc][b]It should look something like this.[/b][/nobbc]

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
TheAnvil

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #722 on: 01-26-2012 15:57 »

The Wicker Man

Some idiots would have you believe that all that went before was golden, that you should never revisit the past, learn from or even acknowledge the work of our forefathers. People always bitch about remakes, which they decry as some perverse and craven attempt by shadowy, rapey, big studio types to desecrate their childhood memories while at the same time wringing every last penny out of the self same hypocrites who'll end up watching it anyway just say they can bitch about it on internet forums.

Thankfully, Nicolas Cage doesn't buy into all that. Loved the film! Love films that send chills down your spine. Great acting and directing, Nicholas Cage's acting was especially captivating in every way and he gives credibility to every scene as you can identify with him on every level. Its sad that this movie is so unappreciated, I guess people don't know how to accept a movie that doesn't have blood and people dying all the time or ott CGI. Its a sin that Cage didn't win an Oscar for this.

9.5/10

I don't get the hate this film (or Nic Cage) gets. Unfortinately people don't form their own opinions, and are afraid to disagree with the majority, which is why Nic Cage gets such a bad rep. I commend you for your opinion.

It's also why that stupid arrow in the knee meme got so big.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #723 on: 01-26-2012 16:29 »

Are you serious? I thought it was pretty much a closed-book case of one of the worst films ever made.

Firstly, the original is a masterpiece, so it had more to live up to.

Secondly, every aspect of the film sucks on a technical level. It's written abhorrently. The lighting is abysmal. It's bright as day during the night scenes, but whatever, there's a blue filter on the light so who cares? The locations are ridiculous and look nothing like the sort of place they're trying to create.

Thirdly, the amount of parts of the film that make no sense. Like when the women are carrying that sack with God know's what in it. It never comes back into play, it feels like some bizarre leftover moment where most of the follow up scenes were deleted. It makes no sense.

Fourthly, Nic Cage is awful in it. I'm genuinely a big fan of him and in all honesty, I'd say this (and maybe 'Ghost Rider') are the only films of his that I've seen where his performance is actively bad. He clearly didn't care about the film. In fact, it was quite amusing how much he was just there to amuse himself. He had the cop changed to a bike-rider because he wanted to ride a bike. He had it added to the contract that he'd be allowed to wear a suit in every scene, hence why his character is always running around in an imaculate suit despite how ridiculous that is for much of the running time.

Finally, it doesn't work to the point that it's fucking hilarious. Are you honestly telling me that you didn't laugh when he put on a bear costume, ran over to the nearest woman and punched her in the face? And what about when he screams what is perhaps my favourite line of dialogue in a film ever: "You bitches! Killing me won't bring back your God-damn honey!"?

It's got a reputation for being an appalling film because that's precisely what it is.
And seriously, you were able to take this film completely seriously?
Do yourself a favour and watch the original - just to give you an idea of how good films can actually be.
TheAnvil

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #724 on: 01-26-2012 17:31 »

Actually I thought Cage's performance in the film was perfectly fine, it wasn't until the end of the film I realised that it was the same film everyone hated ("No not the bees").

I wouldn't say the film was incredible, but it is far better than people give credit for. People praise the original star wars films when in theory the acting is beyond a joke (especially Mark Hammill) and then they heavily criticise Hayden Christensen's acting in the prequel films.

Did it not occur to you that the women carrying the sack, had the guy inside that brought him to the island? The one that he later found dead on the beach?

When I'm watching a film I don't actively watch it to criticise it to pieces (I watch it with the intention to enjoy what I'm going to watch). I watch it for the storytelling and frequently think "what I would do in this situation", if I was in Nic Cage's situation in this film, I would have disguised myself. And I would have punched those bitches in the face.

If you want a terrible film look no further Terminator 3.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #725 on: 01-26-2012 17:54 »

'Terminator 3' shits all over the remake of 'The Wicker Man' - and that's not to say that 'Terminator 3' isn't a terrible film.

Cage is completely wooden in 'The Wicker Man' (there's got to be some sort of wicker/wooden man pun in there somewhere). But yes, he's utterly bland and fails to sell the material he's given and in all honesty I don't think he was trying to. I think he saw that the film was going to be utter crap and thought he'd just have a laugh and enjoy his paycheque.

When I watch a film, I watch it with the intention of enjoying it but that doesn't mean that I'm going to happily accept any old tripe thrown in my face and kid myself into believing it's a good bit of work just because I want to enjoy it.

If I was in Nic Cage's position in the film, I would have hidden and looked for a way off the island without giving myself away by punching people in the face. I'd probably stand a better chance of survival that the two of you.

Have you seen the original film out of interest?
TheAnvil

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #726 on: 01-26-2012 18:04 »

Nah I havn't seen the original, nor do I really care to, I've seen what happens with the twist at the end so I really don't need to see it again.

At the point he disguised himself he didn't have his kid, so he wasn't going to leave without her.

Seriously speaking, T3 was by far the worst film I've ever seen, even worse than Seed of Chucky and Cat In The Hat. They basically tried to remake the second one and failed in every single way.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #727 on: 01-26-2012 18:19 »

Nah I havn't seen the original, nor do I really care to, I've seen what happens with the twist at the end so I really don't need to see it again.
You're an idiot.
TheAnvil

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #728 on: 01-26-2012 18:31 »

 cry cry cry

LOL as if I care what some guy thinks whose too afraid to form his own opinions.
zozer

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #729 on: 01-26-2012 18:49 »

I thought T3 was decent but when you compare it to the its 2 previous films it does pale in comparison. I wouldn't call it a terrible film though.

I haven't seen the Wicker Man, but I have seen the YouTube highlights of it. From what I gather its just about Nicholas Cage terrorizing a small village, beating up their women and just generally being a pain until the villagers have finally had enough of his shenanigans and decide to teach him a lesson. Is it worth checking out?
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #730 on: 01-26-2012 19:11 »

cry cry cry

LOL as if I care what some guy thinks whose too afraid to form his own opinions.

If you could be bothered to read through this thread, you'd see I'm quite opinionated and I'm not afraid to go against the grain.

Here's an example of one of my own opinions: you're an idiot.
TheAnvil

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #731 on: 01-26-2012 19:19 »

I thought T3 was decent but when you compare it to the its 2 previous films it does pale in comparison. I wouldn't call it a terrible film though.

I haven't seen the Wicker Man, but I have seen the YouTube highlights of it. From what I gather its just about Nicholas Cage terrorizing a small village, beating up their women and just generally being a pain until the villagers have finally had enough of his shenanigans and decide to teach him a lesson. Is it worth checking out?

Yeah it's worth checking out, it's a pretty solid film.
Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #732 on: 01-26-2012 21:22 »

I hated T3. The ending just pissed me off...
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #733 on: 01-26-2012 21:41 »

Say what you will about T3, I remember it being considerably better than T4. That said, I probably need to see T3 again before I can fully commit to that opinion because I barely remember it. But I remember it well enough to know that I can't be bothered watching it again.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #734 on: 01-26-2012 22:20 »

T3 is awful, and it's still better than T4.

Both of those are better than the remake of The Wicker Man.

As somebody who has seen both of them (and I saw the remake first), let me tell you right now that it is not worth watching the remake, and it's maybe only worth watching the original if you've read the synopsis and still want to see it.

The original is a very well crafted piece of cinema, but failed to engage me. So it's not something I'll watch again.

The remake is absolutely shit, and I agree with almost everything that cyber_turnip has said about it. I'm also not going to waste my time coming up with a more detailed opinion than "absolutely shit", because anybody who wastes their time coming up with detailed and critically-analysed reviews of something that bad deserves to watch things that are that bad.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #735 on: 01-26-2012 22:29 »

The Tortured

Cringed. Felt sick. Disturbed.

But besides that, an okay-ish plot, but a bit silly. Basically, this guy kidnaps this kid and tortures him to death. They arrest him, go to court, etc, but he is only sentenced to like 10 years or something, and the parents are pissed. So then, they decide to capture this guy while he is being transported to prison, and torture him so he knows what their son went through.


4/10
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #736 on: 01-27-2012 00:57 »

T3 wasn't really so bad.
If you overlook the lengths it goes to in order to disguise Arnie's turkey neck. The action sequences were fantastic. Clare Daines was annoying, yeah... but still.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #737 on: 01-27-2012 02:04 »

I think I'm the only person who actually liked Terminator Salvation. I liked it a lot. What's with the hate?
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #738 on: 01-27-2012 02:47 »

It was horribly cheesy with awful dialogue and the acting varied from good to awful depending on the actor. I actually thought Christian Bale was pretty good in it (considering the material he had to work with) although I didn't understand why he never bothered to squeeze that spot next to his eye throughout filming.
The special effects, art design and everything all looked incredible too, but a film needs more than visuals to work.

The storyline was horribly bland for the most part. A few good parts existed but they were just parts that were lifted from what we knew from the previous films.

And going back to how cheesy it was. It just felt like it was trying too hard most of the time. The lines lifted from the earlier films were crow-barred in horribly. Arnie's face digitally stuck onto one of the robots near the end was just plain dumb. And the story is very lazy - most of the plans made little sense.

But to be fair to it, the action sequences were brilliant. If you like your films with nothing resembling depth, I could understand how you might enjoy it.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #739 on: 01-27-2012 03:39 »

To be fair, one does not watch a Terminator film for its depth.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #740 on: 01-27-2012 03:43 »

Yes, but there's a difference between a film having nothing more than pretty visuals to offer and having an engaging storyline to back it up.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #741 on: 01-27-2012 04:07 »

I still liked it way more than Terminator 3. I guess that's what I don't get, why do people say that 3 is better than 4? 3 was a rehash with rather dull characters and added absolutely nothing to the plot. Salvation at least clearly establishes that this isn't about saving John Conner in the past, it's about the present and how fucked everyone is. Seriously it is one of the better sci-fi blockbusters that I have seen. I would watch it every day for the rest of my life if I could erase all the Transformer movies from my head.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #742 on: 01-27-2012 22:30 »

Birdemic: Shock And Terror

Who the hell directed this? Tommy Oiseau?

Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #743 on: 01-27-2012 22:48 »

Depends. Should I be ashamed if I get it?
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #744 on: 01-28-2012 01:15 »

That's...a hard question to answer.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #745 on: 01-29-2012 07:52 »

I got the pleasure to see not one movie I didn't really want to go see tonight, but two!

The Iron Lady
Yes Meryl Streep is amazing, she can never do no wrong. I'm not saying she wasn't good, but if she beats out Rooney Mara or Viola Davis at the Oscars for playing frumpy British lady, I'm gonna be pissed. I like biographies, and I liked this movie, I just was not seeking this movie out but I'm glad I saw it. And we snuck in to see it so I didn't have to pay.

The Grey (I had a lot of time during Iron Lady to think about this).
The big reason I didn't like it (unfortunately) was because of the use of wolves as violent antagonists, thus resulting in a lot of violence against the wolves. To be fair, the reason why I didn't approve of this is because when thinking about the movie as a whole (death being a major theme in the movie, I don't think that's a spoiler), the wolves were actually not necessary at all. The best parts of the movies were without any of the wolves; this film is good because of it's characters and their personalities and backgrounds that ultimately make you want to see them survive. But even as the movie progressed it wasn't a film about man vs. animal it was man vs. nature and on a greater scale the universe/God in a way. Watching the parts with the wolves was like watching another kind of scenario seen in The Thing and the Alien movies, just one by one these characters are dying and you don't know that much about them and you kind of want them to die just to see some violence. But once you get to know them, it becomes a character piece and not just some survival thriller. And while the killing of the wolves was necessary for the characters to not die themselves, I didn't like the gratuitous violence shown. I also think the film exaggerated how aggressive these animals are, of course it's understood that the humans are on the wolves territory, but these wolves didn't act like wolves. They were like wolves on steroids. So you know, sharing my thoughts on that.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #746 on: 01-29-2012 09:13 »

I think Meryl's performance was better than Rooney Mara's and Viola Davis' personally. That's in spite of 'The Iron Lady' being a pretty poor and unintentionally, quite hilarious film.
Professor Zoidy

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #747 on: 01-29-2012 09:49 »

Happy Feet

Got this on sale for $8 today after watching a string of clips over and over again on YouTube. I remember seeing it when it first came to DVD or thereabouts because I sorta half-watched it in one of my classes years back and didn't care for it then. I'm happy to say my opinion has changed. It was a cute movie and had some good songs in it. Is it the greatest film of all time? No. Is it cute? Yes. Is it worth a watch? Yes, I think so, at least if you love animated films.

8/10 dancing penguins
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #748 on: 01-29-2012 16:28 »

Kung Fu Panda 2
Some of the action scenes were kinda too fast to see what was happening and they kinda dragged out the "big reveal" at the end (for stupid kids, kids are stupid...) but it was a worthy distracting thing.
Gary Oldman as an evil kung fu peacock warlord though =
Needs moar kung fu rhinos, they were cool in the first one.
B-
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #749 on: 02-04-2012 19:21 »

*bump*
Quick Change
Bill Murray, Geena Davis and Randy Quaid pull off a good bank robbery but run into problems trying to leave the city.
Bill Murray is great as usual and Davis and Quaid are ok, and there's a few good cameos (Stanley Tucci, Phil Hartman and Tony Shalhoub as a hilarious foreign cab driver)
C+

The Rum Diary
Johnny Depp puts on his Hunter S. Thompson movie voice again and makes his funny faces at things and drinks a lot.
The story is based on the book which I haven't read, about a writer who moves to Peurto Rico and gets a job for the local newspaper, and then gets tangled up in local shady real estate business shenanigans and also a love triangle with one of the crooked land buyers wife.
My god Amber Heard looks freakin' hot in this, like stunningly so.. eek
Kept my interest and quite funny and stylish at times.
C+
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #750 on: 02-06-2012 00:13 »

Primer

Really well done, didn't understand a whole lot of it though... frown
B+
x.Bianca.x

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #751 on: 02-06-2012 01:55 »

Movies I watched last week:

Red Dog

It is a very Australian movie, it has a dog in it, as the title suggests. It is based on a true story which is also cute. I liked it but it got boring at some parts.

7.5/10

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I really loved the book, but this movie actually was kind of disappointing. I did like it, but there was some truly horrible acting in it which threw me off.

7.9/10
Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #752 on: 02-06-2012 05:26 »

I loved Hitchhikers, so I decided to not read the book so my opinion of the movie wouldn't change...
x.Bianca.x

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #753 on: 02-06-2012 06:37 »

You.....are an idiot. The books are so hilarious and fun, even my 13 year old sister was more inclined to read the books after watching and liking the movie, I have just given her the first one to read.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #754 on: 02-06-2012 17:46 »

She's right...that's a pretty dumb attitude to have. Why shouldn't you read the book? If you don't end up liking it, then you still have the movie that you did like. And if you do end up liking it so much that you lose your appreciation for the movie, who cares when you just gained an even bigger appreciation for the book?
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #755 on: 02-06-2012 18:12 »

SGB - HGttG is a great set of books and written with more cleverness than the movie was able to portray. To be succinct: The books are better than the movie.

In addition, I encourage reading. It makes you smarter! Studying well-edited and engaging books is a great way to improve one's usage of language.
Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #756 on: 02-07-2012 00:44 »

My brother wanted me to read them when he was done, but I didn't want to at the time, as I was read The House of the Scorpion. What a great book! big grin
hopie4ever

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #757 on: 02-07-2012 01:33 »

If you like Hitchhikers guide seek out the original radio series and the tv show, a whole universe better than the crappy film
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #758 on: 02-08-2012 05:37 »
« Last Edit on: 02-08-2012 05:39 »

War Horse

Excluding the few odds and ends that I'm yet to see of Spielberg's, I'd say that this is probably his worst film. It's certainly worse than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In fact, it's probably Richard Curtis' worst film too.

It's a film that the more I think about it, the more I hate it. I mean, why the fuck did
It makes literally no sense.
And the horse is the protagonist despite having next to zero in the way of characterisation. But it does, bizarrely, seem to have human-level intelligence to the point that at times I felt as if they should have called the film Rise of the Planet of the Equine.
It's ridiculous. Horses aren't smart. They're fucking stupid animals. They're scared of shadows. Hell, they're scared of leaves. And I say this as someone who has quite a lot of experience with them.

The film treats the horse much in the same way that a kids' film might. In fact, the first half hour is basically a kids' film which was quite bizarre to watch. I have no idea who the film was made for because whenever it could, it behaved like a family film - complete with a comedy goose. But then, when it got the chance, it went all Saving Private Ryan (albeit on a 12 certificate). Perhaps they intended for a contrast between the two to highlight the horrors of war. If they did, they failed.

I also hated the way the Germans all spoke English with a German accent. Fair enough, they're obviously intended to be speaking German and we're just having it translated for us through the magic of cinema. That's fine in a film like Captain America, but it removes all of the gravitas from a film like this that's trying to be harrowing, grounded and to say something.

The film doesn't really have a story. It's just a meandering series of episodes with the horse running from story to story. At least two of these segments could have been lifted out of the film without making any real difference to anything except the running time.
I don't really know what the film was trying to say. At times, it felt like it was trying to make points about war but it was all undermined because who the fuck cares about a horse when there are people dying?

And as I've already said, the writing was shit, too. The dialogue was all really forced and I mean... put it this way. At one point, a girl is talking to her grandfather about her dead parents - he says some bollocks about courage and then it cuts to her face. She cries one perfect tear and that's that. Because that's what people do when they're sad, they cry one single tear down their face and move on. Not a cliche in the slightest.

Even from a directorial stand-point, it wasn't great. A lot of the shots were gorgeous, but I often found myself wondering why on Earth Spielberg had chosen to use them. Some shots looked like they should be in a horror film - and this wasn't during the war sequences, but the mundane, home-before-the-war stuff.

Tom Hiddleston was great but he only had 5 minutes of screentime. I honestly don't think this film would be getting any attention at all if Spielberg's name wasn't on it. Lord knows how it's managed to pull the wool over so many eyes, but rest assured, it's terrible.

5/10



The Iron Lady

One of the strangest films I've ever seen. It felt like it was written by someone who loves Thatcher and then handed to a director who hates her and wanted nothing more than to take the piss by subverting everything. It was really funny, but I'm pretty sure it was all unintentional. I know she has Alzheimer's and everything but they portrayed it in the most hilariously, Norman Bates-esque way imaginable. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be touching or what but it was just plain, bloody weird.

It didn't really portray a character or tell a story, it just felt like a series of bizarre sketches and moments thrown together, like a collage of Thatcher-bites. One moment she'd be going all Thelma & Louise and nearly killing a cyclist whilst in the car with Sophie from Peep Show, the next she'd be serving up phallic, but inadequate ice-creams and then she'd jump back to the present to have another chat with her husband's ghost.

Ultimately, it felt more akin to what Futurama is to Richard Nixon than, you know... a biopic or a legitimate character-study.

4/10



The Descendants

The Descendants is a film that pretty much just exists. It feels like Oscar bait and essentially just goes through the motions. Nothing about it is bad, but nothing about it is particularly noteworthy either. I'm a big fan of George Clooney and whilst he's one of this film's biggest assets, his performance is somewhat bland. It's certainly one of the least interesting that I've seen.

Now... the thing that makes this annoying is that the film is full of flashes of absolute genius. Moments feel torn from the pages of dementedly dark scripts I've been writing in my head for years. A handful of one-liners and a point where two characters kiss are things of cinematic beauty... but overall it's lost in a sea of blandness.
But then, it's bland in the same way that mayonaise or milk is bland. Just because it's bland doesn't mean it's not nice.

7/10



We Need to Talk About Kevin

A fantastic little character piece that explores some very interesting and unique places with a cast made up of the ever-brilliant John C. Reilly and more importantly in this one, Tilda Swinton - a woman whose acting ability is so good that you soon forget how much she looks like a terminally ill 80s-era David Bowie.

Whilst the film is cartoonishly under-developed in areas, none of these are really part of the film's focus so it's all forgivable in the grand scheme of things. What matters, works. And Tilda Swinton is bloody excellent. It's a crime that she wasn't nominated for this year's Oscars.

7/10




A Dangerous Method

I adore David Cronenberg. I also rather like Michael Fassbender. I'm interested in the work of Freud. And it's incredibly obvious from his body of sexually-driven work that David Cronenberg is very interested in the work of Freud.

This film somewhat distills what happened down into a series of facts that don't really resemble a story, but with a soap-opera romance on top of it. But its biggest folly is without doubt Keira Knightley. Her performance in this film is just incredible in the most negative sense. She completely Nicolas Cages everything she does, but this isn't a film where you can sit back and enjoy Nicolas being hilariously over-the-top. The "chewing the scenery" acting style just doesn't work within a film of this context. Plus, Cage actually has some talent. And the less said about Knightley's abysmal Russian accent, the better.

Overall, it's not a bad film by any means but it is a messy film that serves as a gigantic waste of what was a brilliant opportunity to make a great film. Hopefully Cronenberg will be back to form on his next job.

6/10



The Artist

The Artist is a frustrating film in that there's not really any point or purpose to it being silent beyond gimmickry. There is a lot of dialogue throughout the film (using dialogue-cards as silent films of the 20s often did) and they basically just serve to make the entire film feel like something of a waste of time. I've been a fan of the neo-silent film for a while and I've been wanting to see one in its purest form for a while too. I thought this might be that film, but to me that'd mean no dialogue as opposed to a film full ot talking that uses dialogue-cards and happens to be in black & white and 4:3.
I want something like Mr. Bean but with the same degree of intelligence and choreography as silent Chaplin but The Artist is more of an elaborate spoof than a legitimate use of the silent area of film.

The problem with this shallow use of the "genre" is that it is essentially just a gimmick and after 20 minutes, the gimmick gets old. That all said, it's a decent enough film with a likable cast of characters (and some surprisingly big-name actors including the tragic waste of Malcolm McDowell's voice) as well as a handful of moments that were absolutely beautiful (and rather surprisingly so). The direction is certainly the film's strong-point with many scenes showcasing film-making at its absolute best.

Whilst the story is nice-enough, it feels a bit too simplistic to fill 100 minutes. The film felt like it should have been about 60 minutes which would have been more in-tune with silent films from that era, anyway.
It's undeniably a good film but it's not a hugely special one and I don't understand why it's this year's frontrunner at the Oscars. But I suppose that's logical seeing as I didn't understand why The King's Speech or The Hurt Locker were so beloved, either.

7/10



Take Shelter

This is far from a perfect film but it's a brave and ambitious film and that alone is worthy of praise. Not to mention its remarkable performance from Michael Shannon and the inclusion of Jessica Chastain who I fell in love with based on her output this last year, alone.
The film is powerful and hits quite hard at times as well as being constantly gripping from the opening shot despite very little actually happening.

The one major complaint that I have with the film is its ending. Whilst I think that the basic concept behind the ending - or at least how I think we're supposed to read it is wonderful and quite beautiful in its own way, the way that it plays on-screen heavily suggests something else is happening and, like I said, I'm pretty sure this is unintentional - especially based on comments I've read from the director since watching it.

So yes, a good effort and a cut above average certainly, but also far from perfect.

8/10



Carnage

Something of a disappointment for people like myself who were hoping for a film in the vein of 12 Angry Men and Sleuth. I suppose that this film plays like something of a weak sibling of theirs - one that plays like something of a failed abortion.
The cast are all on good form, but then how can you watch people like John C. Reilly, Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet and not enjoy what you see? It's just a shame that the film goes nowhere. There's nothing in the way of an ending or closure and it's not like this contributes to an artistic purpose or anything of that nature. The film just plays as a real-time incident where four people argue for a bit. No character changes happen, nothing resembling a story unfolds... at its most basic level it's a total failiure of a film. It just gets by somewhat on its wonderful cast and the fun in seeing them interact.

So yes, a disappointment and a wasted opportunity but there are worse ways to kill an hour and a half.

6/10



Chronicle

After seeing the trailer, I expected to hate this film. First and foremost, I expected to hate it because I hated the characters... or at least what you see of them in the trailers.

Now, having seen the film, I've changed my mind about the two friend-characters, but I maintain that I hate the protagonist. He is a stupid little douche and he annoys me. BUT... the film is more of a supervillain origin story than a superhero origin story and it's because of this that if anything, hating the main character still allows the film to work.

Nothing about the storyline is new or innovative but the found-footage gimmick works well here for some reason. It helps to ground the fantastical events in reality which gives everything about it a sense of awe - as if these tired old feats of special-effects that you've seen a million times before in other films are genuinely happening before your eyes. And this combined with how it put quite a dark-spin on the usual proceedings as well as a spectacular final sequence in which the found-footage is made up from countless different camera-sources (CCTV, onlookers' phones, police-car-cameras, etc) helps to keep things lively. It plays like something of a deconstruction of the superhero genre - similarly to Unbreakable.

All in all, it's a pleasant surprise. It's not an incredible film but it's one that's far better than it had any real right to be. It's certainly good fun and one of the best found-footage films going (pretty much only coming behind The Blair Witch Project and the [Rec] franchise).

7/10



Young Adult

The concept of a film about a fairly abhorrent person trying to do something as despicable as steal a newly married father from his wife just screams out to me. It's the sort of thing I could very easily love. In fact, it's the sort of thing I'd write, myself. It's a shame, then, that Young Adult never comes close to reaching its full potential but at the same time, it has some very funny moments, some wonderful observations and a fairly powerful emotional core. And as much as I know I shouldn't, I saw a great deal of both my life in the events portrayed and even worse, myself in the character portrayed.
As it stands, it's quite easily my favourite Diablo Cody and my favourite Ivan Reitman film, but objectively, it's probably not as good as Juno. But then, Juno didn't want to go to anywhere near to this interesting with its content. I respect a film like this that dares to be different.

8/10



Grown Ups

My friend made me watch this, insisting that it was enjoyable because it was essentially a bunch of likable actors just having fun together and you got a real sense of their friendship. He's wrong. It's just a piece of shit like all the other reviews would suggest.

There's nothing resembling a plot. The film is just a series of sketches... well, less than that even because sketches implies that there's a degree of structure and humour to it all.

But even worse, there's nothing resembling humour. Kevin James falls over a couple of times, I suppose. Steve Buscemi shows up for a cameo and he looks funny. But that really is about it.

It's an abysmal film, but I'm sure you already knew that and I'm preaching to the choir.

2/10



Moneyball

I couldn't give less of a shit about baseball so I suppose that it's impressive that even I can't deny that this is a decent film that's very well put together. It's far from incredible, but it's a strong all-rounder, featuring good writing, direction and acting. It even manages to tell a real-life story without pandering to people or being horribly structured. It's basically a very solid film and there's little more to be said about it than that.

7/10



Midnight in Paris

You should probably go into this review knowing that I'm not one of Woody Allen's legion of arse-lickers that worships the ground that he walks on. Prior to this, I'd only seen Manhattan and it was okay-ish, I guess. Nothing special.
This film is mediocre at best. I don't understand the love for it or for Woody. It's incredibly self-indulgent and I suppose if you share Woody's taste, that probably does it for you.

What I found bizarre is that the acting is so off, throughout the film. Owen Wilson is the only actor who turns in a good performance (Owen Wilson?!) whereas usually fantastic actors such as Michael Sheen, Rachel McAdams and Tom Hiddleston are actually somewhat uncomfortable to watch. Everybody performs in a very strange, stilted way that can only be down to Woody Allen's direction. It felt as if things were highly improvised and Woody didn't like doing more than one-take. And this isn't helped by how Owen Wilson is the only character with any semblance of depth.

Still, it has some nice ideas and themes - even if they are structured as the ramblings of an old man close to death - which I suppose is what the film essentially is at the end of the day. It's just let down by the lack of any real feeling of purpose and the ending so bad that it's genuinely quite incredible. Oh and the constant awful accents from anybody not speaking in their usual voice.

The film is very watchable but... well, it's not great. I feel that this score is a bit overly generous in all honesty, but like I said, it was easy to sit through:

6/10
Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #759 on: 02-08-2012 05:42 »

Do you remember when I said my grandma wrote the anatomy book? Well, when the NaNa was studying, that was the book! :P (Grown Ups)

It was a horrible movie though. You summed up everything that I think about it, so I don't know what to say...
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 [19] 20 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.214 seconds with 18 queries.