Outrageous Prices For Food and Entertainment! (The Movie Reviews Thread)

[Reply #280 on:]

Ted

The first 5 mins were good but it got really bad really fast. I saw it for free and I could only make it 15 mins in. I hope Seth never makes another non-animated thing again.

[Reply #281 on:]

I wish people were using more spoilers in this thread about specific TDKR twists...I know in TV show threads things that have happened don't need to be spoilered, but considering this is a thread where people might come in to get opinions about movies they haven't seen yet to decide whether or not they should see them, major twists should probably be in spoilers.

I agree only because I've skimmed and mildly spoiled TDKR for myself. My bad for wanting opinions I suppose.

[Reply #282 on:]

The Dark Knight Rises -

*MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

To keep it spoiler free I can't say too much in depth.. but know it was okay.

Starting with the bad; a lot of old tropes were used and it had a "Transformers 3" vibe to the only real action scenes (towards the ending).. besides when Bane and Batman fight hand to hand (briefly two times).

Then the way Bane went out... was just stupid after buliding him up for two hours.
It was funny.. but was stupid.. I was surprized when he didn't come back at the last second the way the tropes were flying out left and right.

And why in the fuck didn't Batman even try using any gadgets or punching Bane's face in the first fight... did he forget he has bat razor blades on his arms.

Also I wanted Batman to rip that damn mask off and see Bane scream like a bitch.. but that never happened.

Honestly it was good... but felt kinda hackneyed overall.

Doesn't quite touch "TDK" in my opinion in terms of sheer fun to watch.

And should have probably been called... Bruce Wayne Rises... or just RISE!

Honestly, how many times do the say the word rise in the film?

Anyway Catwoman stole the show, she was pretty fun to watch through the whole film... and I don't believe they once actually refer to her as "Catwoman" although I could be wrong.

Also Bane's voice is either still unclear in spots and/or over clear (meaning the audio coming from the speakers sounds ghostly matched to the frames and much to clear and loud to be coming from anyone in a mask) at certain points Bane is painfully clearer sounding then everyone else in the scene.

But to clarify I understood him at least 90% of the time.. it was mostly his voice didn't match the celluloid, either to loud or unclear.

But with all this in mind... I really liked the sadness and dark tone the film is wrapped in... Bruce and Gordon are doing pretty crappy as the film opens... and Bane was pretty cool until a certain point in the film... his villianous voice is a bit cartoony at times for my taste.. but so was the whole movie.

By far the most fantastical film in the Nolan trilogy.. really makes you suspend your disbelief in this one whilst trying to make the characters (mostly Bruce Wayne) more realistic and sympathetic.

Which rarely works.. but... hey, they tried something different.

In the end.. you'll see the main villian is actually Bruce Wayne's inner demons.

I think UK audiences will love the brooding tones and finality the climax provides, but the USA audience will focus on what didn't work and trash the film.. which is a shame.

B/c it's good.. just not the greatness I thought we deserved.

The ending is so corny you'll either love it or hate it...but I actualy liked it.

Ignoring the one hundred major and monor plot-holes...

An 7/10 overall.

[Reply #283 on:]

I think UK audiences will love the brooding tones and finality the climax provides, but the USA audience will focus on what didn't work and trash the film.. which is a shame.

I can't even begin to fathom what you're basing that off of. We're as obsessed with the dark tone of the Nolan films as anybody else, and everybody I've heard here who's seen it thinks it's somewhere between "fucking amazing" and "the best movie ever (after TDK)!" If anything the film could have been a total turd and the USA audience would have probably still eaten it up.

[Reply #284 on:]

Show spoiler

TDKR in 5 mins or less: http://charismagic.tumblr.com/day/2012/07/23

[Reply #285 on:]

I can't even begin to fathom what you're basing that off of. We're as obsessed with the dark tone of the Nolan films as anybody else, and everybody I've heard here who's seen it thinks it's somewhere between "fucking amazing" and "the best movie ever (after TDK)!" If anything the film could have been a total turd and the USA audience would have probably still eaten it up.

Clearly you've just read my review and as I count as "everyone", obviously not everyone you've heard from liked it.. b/c you just heard from me... and I thought it was just simply "GOOD".

Firstly, nobody cheered or applauded like at the end of "Transformers" or "Transformers 3" or "The Avengers" ... everyone got up and left silently.

Then as most people walked out after the end they'd be talking about how crappy the movie was... most UK reviews (I've read) are hitting all the real main points and enjoying the film for what it is.

Some of the things people said.. actually pissed me off b/c they made no sense b/c they obviously never saw 'BMB' .. so I'll leave those out.

But people we're walking out saying: "What kind of ending was that?" or "That was a waste of my time." or even "That was gay, the way they made that Robin dude the new Batman.. what, for another three films?"

I've heard people even have walked out during the film here in the USA, not just from my friends in D.C, but now even my cousin in C.A. can confirm one couple walked out the exit at the theatre he went to.

And I'm seeing more and more (USA) reviews complaining that there is so little Batman in the film and it's so full of plot-holes (which it is) they can't help but pick it apart and tear it down.

That's where I'm getting that from... not thin air... as the computer jockeys love to pretend.

Show spoiler

TDKR in 5 mins or less: http://charismagic.tumblr.com/day/2012/07/23

Sounds mostly right... although it pokes holes at things that are explanied... if only the writer of that article payed more attention.

[Reply #286 on:]

Firstly, nobody cheered or applauded like at the end of "Transformers" or "Transformers 3" or "The Avengers" ... everyone got up and left silently.

But people we're walking out saying: "What kind of ending was that?" or "That was a waste of my time." or even "That was gay, the way they made that Robin dude the new Batman.. what, for another three films?"

I went to see TDKR, The Avengers, and Transformers at the same cinema. All three were packed out. The audience weren't cheering and whooping (we tend to have a little more self-restraint in civilised countries), but were clearly excited, buzzed by the film that they'd just seen, and talking animatedly about how awesome this part or that part was.

As for Transformers 3, I can only assume that people cheered at the end of that one because it was over. Transformers was forgivable, since it was the first outing for the franchise in a while. It wasn't perfect, but it was good enough. The sequels were a shitpile mixed with a trainwreck. I'm going to call them a shitwreck.

TDKR was a brilliant ending for Nolan's take on the franchise, and nobody who knows the Batman universe will disagree with that. Sure, there were little touches that could have made it better. There were a couple of major fails in the realms of physics and possibility. There was a major trick missed with not having Talia at least seem to have survived. But it's all forgivable. It's something that fits the flavour of the universe that Nolan has established - which I still contend is not quite as Batman as the universe that Tim Burton established in 1989. The one where the sequels that were made completely trashed. If you take the 1989 Batman as a standalone movie, it's still as good now as it was then (and it was fucking awesome then).

But I digress. Nolan's Batverse is different than previous interpretations, and the way that he told his story... it's consistent. It all fits quite neatly together. The film has its flaws, but people are quite forgiving of that sort of thing, providing that it works as a whole. Which it does. I've not heard any complaints about TDKR - minor grumblings about little things, but nobody saying they hated the film (even the ending) or that it was a waste of their time.

Incidentally, your posts on this topic contain quite a few contradictory statements. They don't have a consistent internal quality, leading me to believe that you're just looking for a reaction. In which case, calling one of the longtime members (Frisco) a troll is simply laughable hypocrisy. Perhaps you should go back to General Discussion for a few more months? The reason you don't see Frisco and others in there is the same reason that you don't see adults in the ball pit at family restaurants.

You'll see me in there occasionally. For the same reason that you'll occasionally see adults being escorted off the premises of those places.

[Reply #287 on:]

Sounds to me like you guys can't take my opinion, call me a troll or baby... which is great to me, you wouldn't put me down if I didn't piss you off.

I said it was just "GOOD" and you fanboys can't handle it.

If eveything I said made no sense... why not just ignore me... why roll with it?

Why don't you list and compare all my contradictory statements, if I'm so terrible.. instead of simply stating lies???

Plus don't forget, if your reading this sentence you are gay... haha!

Anyone who feels so strongly.. would just take the high road and ignore me, yet no one does.. interesting.

TDK - 9/10

TDKR - 7/10

Get over it.

[Reply #288 on:]

If eveything I said made no sense... why not just ignore me... why roll with it?

I believe that sometimes it can be worth pointing out to somebody that they are making themselves look like an idiot. Sometimes they'll take note and stop.

Clearly, that's not going to happen here.

Why don't you list and compare all my contradictory statements, if I'm so terrible.. instead of simply stating lies???

That really isn't the point of this thread, and I'm lazy. It would basically be me dissecting what you wrote, line by line. Nobody wants to read that, apart from maybe you. I mean, you'd feel like you were getting special attention and I guess that it would make you feel like a happy puppy. I think that I'd prefer it if you weren't happy in general.

I said it was just "GOOD" and you fanboys can't handle it.

Get over it.

Oh, I've no issue with that. Personally I think it was very good, but you're entitled to your opinion. Even if it's as ill-conceived and half-baked as you are yourself. I'm not saying that this particular opinion is intrinsically bad, by the way. I'm just taking the opportunity to insult you because I think that you deserve it.

I've accomplished what I wanted to in this thread - defended TDKR, called you derogatory things, and pointed out that you're stupid. Oh, and I made sure to mention that the 1989 Batman movie was, for me, the best interpretation of the franchise overall. I'm happy with that, so I won't be participating in further argument on the subject as it would be pointless de-railment and I'm sure everybody else either has other films to review or an opinion on TDKR to share.

[Reply #289 on:]

Sounds to me like you guys can't take my opinion, call me a troll or baby... which is great to me, you wouldn't put me down if I didn't piss you off.

I say old chap! How's about we focus on these new "moving" pictures rather than antagonizing our fellow gentlemen and ladies, wot wot?

* Xanfor smokes flamboyant pipe.

[Reply #290 on:]

Me thinks perhaps the Vicar addresses the wrong individual.

[Reply #291 on:]

Saw Batman, and I must confess: I did not like it at all.

It bore some "Casino Royale" Vibe for me:

A rather pathetic hero, who got his a.. kicked throughout the movie, needed to be rescued himself at the end, leaving the audience wonder "Okay...erm..and what did this person actually accomlish?"

There is a line between "dark/sad setting, fate strikes, etc..." and a "pathetic victim protagonist", and "Dark Knight rises" crossed that line for me. The Dark Knight did not really rise, he went down slowly piece by piece during that movie.

"The Dark Knight" was also not really kind to the protagonist, yet, I really liked that movie. It worked brillantly for me regarding that matter.

[Reply #292 on:]

A rather pathetic hero, who got his a.. kicked throughout the movie, needed to be rescued himself at the end, leaving the audience wonder "Okay...erm..and what did this person actually accomlish?"

He rose from being physically and mentally broken by someone stronger and smarter, and saved a few lives.
Plenty of influence from some of the comics, and Batman has always been a pathetic hero, always! ("My parents are deaaa..." etc.)

[Reply #293 on:]

Well..he didn't rise enough to actually finish the showdown himself, but STILL needed his ass to be saved
Old Batman was not really pathetic, but rather a hypocrite: A psychopath on a revenge trip not wishing to realise he was in fact much closer to the villains he pursued than to law and justice.

Well...but everyone is entitled his/her own taste. Should someone consider the new Batman movie the greatest thing since sliced bread...sure, I don't mind

[Reply #294 on:]

Pirates! An Adventure With Scientists (going by the books name)
It was enjoyable the way Aardman ones usually are, but not as good as Curse of the Were-Rabbit, which is the pinnacle of stop motion cinema!
I had a few chuckles at the sillyness.
C+

[Reply #295 on:]

Finally saw The Amazing Spider-Man today.

I know I'm late reviewing this but why do "fans" of Spider-Man have a problem with this film. Apart from the lack of JJJ I just don't see an issue.

Fan knowledge addendum: I'm completely ignorant of the Marvel comic reboot back whenever it was; my knowledge of Spidey is basically from the orginal ASM, SSM and WoSM runs up to approx when Aunt May died in ASM 400 - I'd say I have ~40% of those comics (the really old ones are just too damn expensive).

Edited side argument:

EDIT: TNUK speaks the truth: 89 Batman > Nolan films.

Yet 89 Joker <<< Dark Knight Joker

And I also disagree with the overall sentiment.

[Reply #296 on:]

Yeah I know me and TNUK are in the minority, but...who cares? I do think that the Nolan films are overrated but they are also very good movies. Like I told TNUK in our brief conversation I am a fan of older movies not because I think they're better but because there isn't any way we could have gotten these great films we had today without the old films that lay down the foundation. Realize that before the Tim Burton Batman film this was what people knew Batman as:



I will concede that the Joker is the only thing worth paying attention to in The Dark Knight.

[Reply #297 on:]

WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME IF I SHOUTED IT IN A HARSH GRAVELLY VOICE!!!!???!!!!

(possibly my only issue with the new vision of Batman)

Have you ever watched the black and white stuff from the 50s before Adam West btw?

I loved Tim Burton's vision of Gotham and everything, but I always felt Jack Nicholson was too old to play the Joker and even though he was far more chilling than Cesar Romero he just never seemed to get away from that characterisation enough to make him truly menacing (I guess I was one of the few 11 year olds who'd read The Killing Joke before going to the cinema to watch the movie).

[Reply #298 on:]

You know what I haven't watch the old Batman serials. Only seen clips mentioned in reviews I've watched.

I love Batman but it is silly. One of my favorite lines ever is when the Joker screams, "HE STOLE MY BALLOONS!". Nicholson could have been a little more menacing and less just zany but I still love him. The Joker of Tim Burton works fine in his universe (and I love his Batman universe) and Heath Ledger's Joker works for Nolan's universe.

[Reply #299 on:]

I don't like the Batman movies, and Nolan is very overrated except for Memento and the Prestige, those ruled

[Reply #300 on:]

I loved Tim Burton's vision of Gotham and everything, but I always felt Jack Nicholson was too old to play the Joker

Nicholson's Joker fits well into the Tim Burton Gotham, I think. Of course, it wasn't until a few years after seeing the 1989 Batman movie that I read The Killing Joke, and I probably wouldn't have found Nicholson's Joker quite as fitting if I had read it beforehand.

But either way, he fits well into that particular version of Gotham, and makes an absolutely marvellous foe and foil for Batman. Ledger's Joker was a different sort of villain, for a different sort of Batman.

Ultimately, both Jokers are great. But I prefer Tim Burton's overall vision. For Batman, at least. Batman Returns was a little different, and although it's still pretty good in places, I'm not nearly as fond of it.

You know what I haven't watch the old Batman serials. Only seen clips mentioned in reviews I've watched.

I love Batman but it is silly. One of my favorite lines ever is when the Joker screams, "HE STOLE MY BALLOONS!".

My favourite line by the Joker is when Batman grabs Vicki from him at the museum.

"Get me those wonderful toys..."

But the balloons line is one of the really good ones, too.

[Reply #301 on:]

"Where does he get those wonderful toys?"

[Reply #302 on:]

Dark Knight Rises

Damn that was long. But it didn't really feel too long. Maybe a few spots seemed to drag on, but others felt rushed. A few teensy parts had cheesy acting in them, mostly when people died. Half the time I couldn't understand the dialogue because the music was a tad loud at the important parts of the film. Mostly Bane, but I basically understood what he was saying. Catwoman/Batman interaction was alright, but to me wasn't "oh my god best thing ever". I was disappointed in how they handled the ending of Bane and Batman's first fight. I wanted to SEE that agony all on camera. Not just sorta get a glimpse. I felt like Batman could've handled that fight slightly differently, and he could've handled the second round better too. Rip off Bane's mask, damn you! Make him scream in pain! It's like... you get the sob story and Batman's all "pfft, won't touch Bane anymore. PEACE, MY BROTHAHS." I felt the prison bit was kinda blown over in some aspects. I mean, one minute we're here and the next we've skipped a load of time? And maybe I'm just confused but if Bruce was there for so long, wouldn't the bomb have gone off by then? It sorta felt like all that was unclear. I know it was probably taking place in the same time as every non-prison scene and so it'd match up but I digress. I'm easily confused it seems.

Wasn't nearly as excited coming outta this one as I was Avengers. Might've been my slightly sour mood.


7/10

[Reply #303 on:]

Death scenes for both of the villains were anti-climactic and neither were really defeated by Batman.

[Reply #304 on:]

Finally got around to seeing The Amazing Spider-Man (minus a few minutes: I lost my virginity had to pee during the film, so I went to the bathroom during the first Peter/Connors showdown on the bridge; I'm a girl, and big action scenes like that tend to bore me anyway, so it was no loss). I have no strong attachment to the comics (having read maybe, like, two or three of them in my life); I liked the Raimi movies well enough, but they weren't such masterpieces that a reboot like this was unwarranted.

My point here is that I am only casually acquainted with, and invested in, the Spider-Man mythos or whatever--and, as such, I can't really complain about anything this new movie may have gotten right or wrong about the source material. All I can say is that I liked it a lot better than the Raimi trilogy: like others in this thread have already said, the darker, less campy tone works a lot better; also, this movie's a lot funnier (and, like, in a more grounded and mature way) than the Raimi ones.

I laughed out loud plenty of times, both at humorous bits of dialogue (oh my, do I love me some Emma Stone) and at silly visuals (Stan Lee's cameo was perfect). Likewise, I was genuinely moved by the quieter, more emotional scenes; for example, though it was a little too, uh, on-the-nose, I was quite fond of that moment where Connors was standing in the mirror staring dejectedly at his stump of an arm.

Also, everything with Peter and Gwen was delightful. I actually turned to my friend at one point--after the scene in Gwen's bedroom, post-sewer battle--and said, "Those two are fucking adorable." Because they are. They have such great chemistry, and their relationship just felt so real and relatable and such.

I love what was done with Peter's character--he's awkward and dorky as hell, but in this very real and believable way. He's cute and sincere and sweet, and charmingly socially inept; he's not a total outcast, but he's certainly a loner, and the movie does a nice, subtle job of establishing who exactly our hero is. (Gwen, meanwhile, is essentially just Emma Stone playing the same character she always plays: smart and witty and a wee bit awkward. But, like, she rocks it really hard, so I can't exactly complain there.)

I can, however, complain about this: The pacing of this thing was kind of shitty, and I felt like characters kept dropping in and out of the story abruptly (I noticed it most with Gwen and Aunt May). I also thought some of the coincidences of plot (particularly involving the crane operator who happened to be the father of the kid Peter saved on the bridge) were a bit too lazy and convenient.

Whatever structural or plot-related problems the movie might have, though, it's still so damn well-acted and emotionally-compelling and visually-intriguing (some of the Spiderman POV shots were lame and nausea-inducing, but a few were pretty neat)--and, actually, despite my skipping out on one so that I could take a bathroom break, the big action scenes did work for me.

So, yeah, I really enjoyed this movie. I'd say it's a solid B+. Methinks I will be buying this when it comes out on DVD...which is more than I can say for most movies I see in theaters.

[Reply #305 on:]

I didn't have any problem with the mild coincidence of the crane-operator. Wasn't even really that much of a coincidence. He saw the guy who saved his kid in trouble on TV.

Here are some far worse coincidences from the previous films:

*Peter gains superpowers and after which the only other people who gain super-powers are those whom he knows in his personal life or have some connection to him. (At least in the new film, the Lizard's origin is connected to his own, so there's no coincidence there).

*A meteorite carrying an extraterrestrial symbiote just randomly happens to land right next to Spider-man.    Uhhh... that's like, the most lazy plot point in film history. Even the version of the symbiote story in the old animated series was more believable than that. And while the original comicbook story was very different, there's always been a logical reason for Spider-man to come into contact with the symbiote during the course of him being Spider-man. But having it just fall down next to him?!

[Reply #306 on:]

@Coldy: Hit the nail on the head for TDKR. Perhaps that's the reason I left feeling a tad cheated. Batman got his own ass kicked more than he dished it out. He's outta touch with his former skills because of his time being, more or less, the equivalent of an anti-social teenager (partially, I suppose you could argue, out of necessity), I get that, but he's not a quadraplegic or anything. He has fully functioning arms and legs and has some muscle. He could've at least taken out one villain by the film's ending, considering he regained his strength more or less to the level (or at least in the ballpark) it was prior to his going under the radar.

[Reply #307 on:]

The Hunger Games
What?! This isn't about hungry hungry hippos!

It was ok, J-Law was good and it held my attention, I'm curious what technology the crazy dogs at the end were supposed to be though.
C

[Reply #308 on:]

In THG universe they have hybrid/mutation animals called muttations. The dog muttations at the end were actually not just supposed to be big random dogs but they were supposed to represent all of the previous tributes who had died in the battle as told from the coloration and their eyes. It was better handled in the book and actually the kid who is ripped apart by them has a much longer and slower death as he is mauled by them only to finally be given a mercy shot by Katniss.

[Reply #309 on:]

The Long Kiss Goodnight
Geena Davis is a housewife with amnesia... oh no wait, she's a deadly CIA assassin and some 80s style badguys want her dead.
Written by Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Lethal Weapons) so it has some witty dialogue, but there's some cringeworthy stuff in there too, and a hilariously cheesy line:
"Niagara Falls? Operation Honeypot! Bingo."
Samuel L Jackson is cool though, natch.
C-

Also watched Batman: Under The Red Hood again, great animated Batman.

[Reply #310 on:]

Ichimei (aka Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai)
Takashi Miike directs a remake of a greek tragedy in the Edo period, a poor young Samurai goes to his local lords house to feign seppuku, hoping the lord will give him money to pay for a doctor for his sick wife and baby.
Unfortunately the lords men don't fall for it and force him to commit seppuku, the young samurais father in law learns of this and goes to the lords house to confront him.
Miike builds up the tragedy and the tension to the showdown nicely.
B+

[Reply #311 on:]

Double post fazeshift! BANNED! :laugh:

[Reply #312 on:]

24 hour rule mofo!

[Reply #313 on:]

I thought that only applied to food being dropped on the floor. Don't judge me.

Also: I watched Margot at the Wedding on Netflix the other day, mostly because I was bored. It was an okay movie, I guess; it was a little depressing and aimless, and all the characters were assholes, but I understand that that's what passes for High Art in most cinematic circles, so I'm okay with it. The writing was decent enough, I suppose--by which I mean, the dialogue didn't seem too affected; the story itself was kind of ill-conceived--and I was amused by some of what was happening. All in all, it wasn't an awful way to spend ninety minutes of my life.

[Reply #314 on:]

Brewsters Millions
A washed up baseball pitcher, Richard Pryor, inherits $300 million... BUT!... he has to spend $30 million within 30 days (without giving to charity or telling anyone why) and have nothing left at the end in order to get the $300m!
I know, right?
It was pretty good, but I think Pryor and Gene Wilder make a better duo than with John candy who plays his friend in this.
C+

[Reply #315 on:]

Another 24 hour rule bump!
The Descendants
George Clooney lives on Hawaii and his wife was in a boating accident, goes into a coma and isn't going to make it, so he has to take care of his daughters and also organise the sale of some valuable Hawaiian land his family has... BUT! he's not good with his daughters, and he finds out his wife was cheating on him, so there's all sorts of discoveries and emotions happening.
I enjoyed it, had some good moments.
Props to Jim Rash!
C+

[Reply #316 on:]

surprised he didn't call it the Deanscedants

[Reply #317 on:]

C+? I loved the Descendants

[Reply #318 on:]

If Dean Pelton was in it I would have loved it.

[Reply #319 on:]

Big Man Japan

A charming, wonderful premise; Big Man Japan is a man who, in a long line of "Big Man Japan"s, grows to a gigantic size and defends Japan against other giant monsters, in true Godzilla fashion. The film's handled as a mockumentary which, perhaps, doesn't allow it to reach the premise's full potential, instead leaving it as nothing more than a series of "humourous" chunks of dialogue allowing character development interspliced with a series of skits where Big Man Japan has a fight with something. That said, there are some nice ideas at work here and the last 7 minutes or so of the film rank up amongst the funniest things I've ever seen. It's just a shame that the rest of the film wasn't as well-crafted. There appears to be an American remake in development and I look forwards to it as this is a film where you could actually make serious improvements and wind up with something special.

6/10


The Amazing Spider-Man

A hugely unnecessary affair. The film alternates between being a carbon-copy of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man and going out of its way to be different, but tripping up and being shit every time it does so. It takes away Raimi's means of streamlining things such as giving Parker organic web-shooters, so whilst it's closer to the comics, it doesn't work as well as a film. It's also painfully close to Raimi's film when it has no need to be. The Lizard might as well be The Green Goblin. There's even a scene in which he struggles with his own internal monologue telling him to go out and be evil that does nothing but remind you of how fantastic that scene was where Willem Dafoe argued with himself in the first Spider-Man film. The film's tone is also all over the place. It jumps from bloated, brooding to slapstick comedy to teen romance and back without blending the elements together at all. I keep hearing praise of its dark tone, but nothing about the tone struck me as particularly dark or gritty. If anything, the bullshit science in this film holds even less water than the bullshit science of the first trilogy. And, worst of all, the film's overall level of writing is just awful. Characters such as Captain Stacey are horrendous, two-dimensional cut-outs whose actions exist purely to serve the plot in spite of making little sense or being out of character. I think the film's level of writing was summed up best in the scene where the lizard discovers Spider-Man's identity as Peter Parker. Peter sets his camera up to take pictures of the fight, then narrowly escapes with his life, having under-estimated things. The lizard then finds his camera, turns it over and there's a sticker on it that says "Property of Peter Parker". This is one of the laziest, crappiest plot-turns I've ever seen and this is pretty much exactly how this film is written. Bear in mind, too, that Kurt Connors (the lizard) is quite close to Peter Parker at this point, too, so all they needed was for the lizard to slash at him, tear his mask a bit and reveal his face or something of that nature. Anyway, yes. If it wasn't for Raimi's films, I'd probably be calling this a solid, enjoyable film, but nothing hugely special. But the fact of the matter is that it does come hot on the heels of Raimi's films and it's just so stupidly excessive and arbitrary that it has no right to being judged on its own terms. The only thing that this film improves on over Raimi's films (and this includes special effects) is the core cast. Andrew Garfield is wonderful as Spider-Man and, even as a fan of McGuire, I found him to be an improvement. And the same goes again for Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey. Martin Sheen isn't bad as Uncle Ben, either. That's pretty much it, though. The odd scene stands out as working very well, but it's lost in a bloated mess of everything wrong with Hollywood.

6/10


Juan of the Dead

I've seen close to 100 zombie films, now, and as much as I love the subgenre, it has to be said that the vast majority of entries into zombie cinema are awful. Sadly, this joins the masses of crap zombie films. There are perhaps 2 or 3 minutes of worthwhile screentime spent on legitimate humour or original concepts, but for the most part, this films suggests to me that the Cubans aren't very up to date with Hollywood films because all of the humour contained in this film is about 20 years out of date (or more so when it heads into homophobic territory). It's a shame because I'm sure that there's potential to make a legitimately funny and meaningful allegory for the problems in Cuba through the means of zombie apocalypse, but this film just plods along, never really establishing much of a storyline and following some rather unlikable protagonists. It also falls into a trap that zombie media often does whereby the threat of the zombies is soon made to feel minimal. They essentially continue life as normal amongst the zombies, initially, setting up something of a zombie-killing business. If life can continue to that degree of normality, then the zombies aren't enough of a threat. They never seem to be scared of the things until they're being eaten by them. That's not how to make a zombie film. But... there's much worse out there, if that counts for anything.

4/10


Iron Sky

A great concept allowing for tongue-in-cheek, exploitation-cinema-parodying fun. Moon Nazis? Wonderful. Sadly, this sort of film tends to be awful in spite of its humourous intentions. Iron Sky is actually quite a lot better than I expected. It featured some good gags and nice, funny plot-developments. Sadly, it is mostly what I expected and therefore not great. It's not a bad film to sit through, but it had potential to be a lot more - not that anybody ever expected them to reach that potential. What's worth noting is that it's not particularly offensive unless you're an idiot, so don't let that hold you back from watching it.

5/10


Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

I hated Ghost Rider but I figured I'd check this out seeing as it's a product of the guys who made Crank and the idea of them making something with my beloved Nicolas "insanity" Cage is just wonderful. Sadly, despite being marginally better than the first film, this is an abysmal piece of shit - although, there were countless moments of utter insanity that genuinely had me absolutely stunned with confusion. At one point, Ghost Rider lifts off of the ground and awkwardly starts floating around in a circle. For no reason. I can only assume that the CGI animator encountered a bug in the rigging half-way through his job that caused the character to float awkwardly in a circle and the directors walked in, saw it, found it funny and told him to leave it that way. Honestly, it's bizarre. But a good film? No. Just make Crank 3, already.

3/10


Ernest Rides Again

Ernest has never been good, exactly. But this is clearly the film that defines the moment that they just stopped caring. There's no clear story or theme, unlike the other Ernest efforts and it's particularly unfunny, poorly acted and shot - even by Ernest's standards.

3/10


God Bless America

Bobcat Goldthwaite grows hugely as a film-maker (or, at least, a screenwriter) with each film. This is the first of his efforts that I'd say is actually good rather than just containing hints of talent lost in a mess. It's far from perfect, but it's very enjoyable and I respect it for being ambitious and having conviction in itself. As it stands, it's one of the best films from 2012 that I've seen so far, but that's more of a poor reflection on the year's quality as a whole than anything else. Still, well worth a watch, even if you don't make it past the baby being shot in the opening minutes.

7/10


The Dark Knight Rises

I re-watched Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the night before watching this, just to refresh my memory. Batman Begins wasn't as good as I remembered; it's a bloated, messy affair that takes 40 minutes for anything to happen and doesn't offer much in the way of things like character development, but for all its flaws, it's still a decent film. The Dark Knight was just exceptional - if anything, better than I remembered it. It's got its flaws, but it's so phenomenal across the board that you just don't care. I expected The Dark Knight Rises to fall in-between these films in terms of quality. Obviously, they weren't going to top The Dark Knight, if purely for the fact that The Dark Knight had The Joker to work with, but it wouldn't be too difficult to continue to top Batman Begins. Sadly, The Dark Knight Rises is a fucking mess and worse than that, it's boring. It marks Christopher Nolan's first bad film. Well, perhaps "bad" is too strong. It's mediocre, but following on from those other two films and given the talent involved, mediocre isn't good enough. The film's major flaws are as follows: 1. There are about 5 unique plotholes presented in every single shot. Honestly, nothing about the film makes any sense if you think about it for more than a minute. Why didn't Bruce climb up the rope that was tied around his waist? How did he get from that hole to Gotham despite having no gadgets, money or passport at his disposal and Gotham's perimeter being closely guarded? Where did those motorbikes that Bane et al make their escape from the stock market on appear from? Believe me when I say I could go on. 2. None of the film feels like it gets going. I've heard it put best by someone who said the whole thing felt like a trailer for the film. You get a few choice snippets of dialogue and information, but it never gels into a fully formed narrative with characters that you care about and even the action sequences feel like flashes of an incomplete whole rather than the Christopher Nolan extravaganza I was expecting. Seriously, almost all of the action sequences feel really flat. One exception that springs to mind is Batman's first fight with Bane which was wonderfully raw. Other than that, I can barely remember anything from the film. 3. Even ignoring the plot holes and nitpicks, the writing is just shit. The characters don't behave like characters, they just behave like a means to an end and the dialogue is truly awful at times. And don't even get me started on the cop out of an ending. That all said and done, the film isn't without merit. A few scenes do work wonderfully and whilst Bane doesn't really work as a character, properly, he is quite menacing initially and he's quite unique in his portrayal at least. Throw in a great cameo that I shalln't spoil and a wonderful score from Hans Zimmer and it's even sadder that the end result is so... lame. And at 2 and 3/4 hours, the mediocre nature of the film really begins to drag. Honestly, I got so bored. Fuck the fanboys proclaiming this as brilliant because they can't bring themselves to not live in denial. It's a poor effort and The Avengers shat all over it.

6/10


Teen Wolf

I expected Teen Wolf to be a camp, tongue-in-cheek teen-comedy about a werewolf. It all sounds silly, but it seems like a premise that'd make for good fun, especially given its place in pop culture and Michael J. Fox's presence. It's a surprise then, that Teen Wolf is really, really bad. It feels like a teen comedy in which all of the jokes have been surgically removed, leaving awkward comedy montages in which people just do normal, unfunny things. The dialogue is awful, the story is obvious, cliche and dull, it's just really shit. I mean, it's the sort of shit that's easy to sit through, but it's really shit.

4/10


The Adventures of Pluto Nash

I honestly can't think of another film that I've found as utterly confusing as this. It feels like an unused Paul Verhoeven film script that was sitting on the shelf for 20 years until it got poorly turned into an Eddie Murphy family comedy with the producers presumably thinking that casting Eddie Murphy would turn it into a comedy like it did with Beverly Hills Cop. The film is baffling. I have no idea who it's meant for. It's not funny and it rarely feels like it's even trying to be, but then it's far too stupid to work on any other level. Nothing about the film is right. It's an appalling mess and I don't know how it happened. And a special mention goes out to Randy Quaid for one of the worst performances I've ever seen (in what should have been an incredibly easy role to do competently).

2/10


Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

A lovely, simple, if somewhat uninspired premise and Steve Carell - everything was in place for a great film. Sadly, the film's take on a world in which everyone knows the end is nigh drifts from funny and well obvserved to unbelievably cartoonish. This lack of consistency as well as Keira Knightey's presence and certain cheesy, Hollywood turns undermine an otherwise sweet, loveable film and one that I have a huge deal of respect for for having the courage to follow through with its convictions. It's certainly worthy of a rental, say.

6/10


They Live

The film has a ridiculous premise, but it's high concept and I'm willing to give anything the benefit of the doubt if it chooses to handle seemingly comedy-fodder seriously. Sadly, John Carpenter's child-minded direction makes the whole thing unintentionally hilarious, spare for a handful of chilling shots the first couple of times that we see the alien beings through the sunglasses. Seriously, from the overbearing and ridiculously unsubtle attempts at having a message to the punch up between two characters that literally runs for about 5 minutes of screentime, it's just really, really funny. The story is shit in that it's just tacky and shoddily assembled and the famous "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum" line makes even less sense in context. Poor effort, but typical of John Carpenter - a man who bizarrely created cinematic masterpiece The Thing in spite of all of his other films being laughable.

5/10


Ted

Unsurprisingly, this film feels something like a live-action Family Guy movie. This makes sense given it starring half the voice-cast, having the same composer and, of course, the same writers, but it's odd in so far as it sometimes has a fairly well-established comedic tone of its own, but sometimes it falls into a more cartoonish way of doing things with characters outright standing their subconscious desires for the purposes of a joke, that sort of thing. The end result is very similar to Family Guy in-between its wonder years and it's complete lack of quality nowadays. The film is funny, varying from gags falling flat to being absolutely hilarious, but enough of the jokes hit for it to work. The story is very standard with a Marky Mark's two-dimensional girlfriend being a ridiculous bitch that he hwas to bend over backwards to please because women, am I right? But in spite of its shortcomings, it hits some nice emotional notes here and there and, you know, it's Ted, it doesn't need to have the most wonderful or complex storyline in the world. Overall, it's a huge way away from the likes of, for instance, Trey Parker's films, but it's not a bad effort and I look forwards to what Seth MacFarlane gives us next.

7/10


Trespass

Home-invasion thrillers are a peculiar sub-genre of horror and/or thrillers. In my experience, they're usually either foreign or low-budget affairs, but certainly not films that'll break out of the horror-festival / straight-to-DVD markets. This film, feels like an attempt to create a film in that genre that's acceptable for mainstream Hollywood audiences to lap up. As a result, it's only about a 5th as brutal and mean-spirited as these films tend to be and none of it is thrilling because you know that the bad guys aren't going to blow a big star like Nicole Kidman or Nicolas Cage's face off with a shotgun. Now, I hate most of the home-invasion films that I've seen - I think that they're unnecessarily malicious and sick without the artistic justification for being so, but at least they do tend to be genuinely thrilling and capable of getting an emotional response from me. This film waters down everything about the genre so that it doesn't even have that going for it. The end result is unoriginal, uninteresting and still artless.

4/10


10 Things I Hate About You

An archetypal teen rom-com that essentially works in spite of its lack of originality and some very convenient, cheap plot-turns and 11th hour character development. It has a handful of gags that aren't bad and the whole thing is quite watchable - hugely thanks to its likable cast. It's not exactly good, but if this is your sort of thing, then you ought to enjoy it.

6/10


Brave   (Yes, I originally put Tangled, this is an edit. It was a Freudian slip brought about by my mention of Tangled at the end of the review).

Deary me, Pixar. What's happening? Cars 2 was bad - not bad by Pixar's standards, just bad. Monsters University looks poor and this recent news of Finding Nemo 2? Really? Seems like my concerns that Pixar is on its way out of being a mark of quality have been pretty much confirmed, given that whilst far from being a bad film, Brave is very unremarkable. I need to re-watch A Bug's Life before committing to this opinion, but I'd say it's quite easily Pixar's 2nd worst film to date. It just feels like it never gets going and the whole thing feels largely uncinematic. It's also an example of a film where in almost every scene, I was thinking of tiny little things I would have done subtley different that would have made it better. Films shouldn't be such transparently missed opportunities, especially not coming from Pixar. It began to get a bit boring, too. The whole thing was just rather underwhelming. To put this into perspective, it's inferior to both Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon and Disney-minus-Pixar's Tangled.

7/10