Change Your Image
Dark Raven
Reviews
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
HFR is horrible!!
Yuck! First of all, the high frame rate (my first time seeing it) is truly horrible. Felt like I was watching a cheap TV period drama from 20 years ago. Is this progression or regression? I felt like I could almost see where the set ended at times. Everyone I saw it with felt the same. They found is distracting and cheap / behind the scenes feeling to it. Jackson, please stop with this. Film is dream, making it more life like loses that veil of illusion.
The over reliance on CGI didn't help matters. Gone are the real locations used in LOTR and instead it's mostly studio sets with greenscreen backing. This is lazy and it looks fake and without grit. The odd shot that was definitely outdoors felt alive and truly epic.
All this would be a little more tolerable if the script was engaging but it's boring. The stakes are not high and I couldn't give a toss whether they get to the mountain or not. Should have been one film not three. Either way I won't be watching part 3 next year.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Devoid of tension. Boring and over long.
Poorly structured and devoid of tension - This was a huge disappointment. I enjoyed about 20 mins of inventive set pieces near the end but I was surprised I was still awake by the time I got there.
I love the LOTR trilogy. The Fellowship was my favorite. It made me laugh and cry and smile with excitement among other things when i saw it.
The Hobbit however, made me; Fidget with irritation in my seat. Yawn. Feel nothing at the lack of tension. Sneer at the over reliance of CGI. Wonder when the story would start. Wonder why I should care. Wonder why they need 3 movies to tell this story. Wonder isn't it obvious...?
Super 8 (2011)
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.
I loved the trailer for this movie. The way it was put together, the mystery, the music... What a let down the actual film was! It seemed to me like one giant ego stroke for Spielberg with Abrams trying to replicate what made Spielberg's Amblin films so unique back in the day. Even his camera shots were trying to be Spielberg but without the panache or iconic creativity the former had in his prime.
It's like trying to trace the Mona Lisa – it'll always be second rate. And everything here is. The kids, while good, are pale imitations of the kids in the Goonies and not quite as believable and real as the kids in E.T. The music tries to echo John Williams but Giacchino cannot even touch the master. Even the music from Cocoon used in the trailer exuded a magical awe that Giacchino fails to echo. His music even tries to give the military the same sound and feel as the military is given in Close Encounters but again it just feels pastiche and not homage. Speaking of the military, they couldn't have been more cartoonish if the filmmakers tried. At least the military and officials felt real is E.T. There the officials are an unspeaking presence as our characters try make sense of what is going on.
All in all it felt overly conscious. Even moments like a little kid slamming the table was a direct take from a moment in Close Encounters, as one of the children of Richard Dreyfuss character was doing the same thing with a doll. Abrams uses it as background stuff not realizing it served a thematic function in Close Encounters.
This is my main problem with it, it seems too focused on jerking off on Spielberg that it fails to become a unique and memorable film onto itself. Spielberg was a contemporary filmmaker who made contemporary set films back in the late 70s and early 80s. He wasn't making 'nostalgic' films set in the 50s and jerking off about a director he admired. That's what Abrams should have done. The super 8 was a pure Mcguffin and did nothing more than show the characters something they would see for real 5 minutes later and I feel that there is no reason why, with a bit of thought, this film could not have been set now and made into a movie kids today could make their own the way kids of my generation owned and connected to E.T, Goonies etc.
It's sad in one sense. I applaud anything that is new (like Inception) in a movie land that saturated with sequels and remakes and reboots. But is this really new? Isn't it just another form of reboot? We need new stuff for these times. Come on Hollywood, get the finger out!
The A-Team (2010)
Awful film with a twisted theme
Carnahan has fallen hard in my view - from the heights that were Narc to the lows that are a poor looking CGI tank 'flying' by using it's canon. It least most OTT 80's action flicks involved stunts that were physically possible (even if not probable) at the very least. Carnahans action in A-Team had no rules. B.A running through some terrible looking weightless CGI storage vessels, reminded me more of a Looney tunes cartoon.
Carnahan also had a cameo in it (he didn't do that in narc) and his ego seems to have contracted Michael Bay-itis in his casting of female extras that look more like centerfold models / high class escorts wearing glasses. Nice to look at but destroy the credibility of the world thus pulling me out of the film. It's not a music video. Sure, OK, make a love interest or a female lead hot, but every second extra? Just so Carnahan can direct one handed? Silly.
The plot was filled with coincidences that boggle the mind, the physics made no sense and were no rules, the acting was one noted, the comedy fell short, and the CGI was really bad. The film even had a really weird and twisted theme with B.A wanting to reject violence and then realizing Ghandi actually said some contradicting things so it's OK to kill people. I'm sorry but WTF? I really hated it, it had nothing going for it and had I never seen the TV show (and therefore not having a shred of nostalgia for the characters) it would have been even worse. Fail.
District 9 (2009)
Over-hyped. Over-blown.
Over-hyped film for the year. Quality starved Sci-Fi audiences will latch onto anything these days. OK so, The GOOD the BAD and the UGLY...
THE GOOD---
Different. Not a sequel, prequel or a remake. Great to see gore back in Sci-Fi (harks back to the Verhoven days of yore - though Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are vastly more entertaining). Special effects put the big boys to shame.
THE BAD---
Plot holes galore. So-so acting. Main character both unlikeable and a bumbling buffoon. Would have worked so much better if he was more real. Could still be a nerdy guy but without the OTT 'Braindead' comic feel. Same goes for the 'bad guys' and cliché "Nigerian" gangsters. Could have felt much more gritty and real in a Paul Greengrass sense, instead it feels amateur. Humans understand aliens 'click and gurgles' after 20 years? Hmmm.
THE UGLY---
The alien design did not work for me in context. They are meant to feel vulnerable and yet are physically much more stronger looking than humans. If they had been more vulnerable looking and perhaps more relatable, they may have been a more emotional reaction to what was happening to them. Instead they felt like giant versions of the termite creatures from Attack of the Clones (even same sounding dialogue).
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
A snuffy mess
You know you're in for a royal mess of a script when the scene which kicks the whole story off is the main character conveniently 'just so happens' to find a piece of 'the all spark' in his jacket!? Followed by a totally unnecessary gremlin-transformers blow up the house scene. We find Bumblebee is being kept in the garage like a bloody dog... Toilet humor... Very quickly the smile on my face from the opening Shanghai sequence (which looked great, along with a forest fight later on) quickly started to fade.
From here to got worse. Shias crazy roommate (who serves what purpose?) Shia caught cheating with a TX from Terminator 3 (yes, I'm not kidding). Annoying 'stuck in there' scenes with Shias parents. Where there wasn't stupid, loud, humour, there was explosions.
The constant noise and explosions and grey messes of metal fighting wore thin on me very quickly. Action needs breathers, set up, anticipation. And give the robots some colour for Christ's sake! The movie did not need the comic relief of what people are calling the racist 'jar-jar twins' but I enjoyed the seeing some primary colours I have to say. All in all though, this movie was the pornographic equivalent of a 2 hour close up of a knob ramming an a'hole. Maybe some people want that but I don't want to see it. Show us a little foreplay, a little tease, change position, anything!
Speaking of porn, that's also the reason Megan Fox didn't work. She looks like she's in the wrong business. She also has zero charisma or personality (though the writers could be to blame here). You see makaela would have worked if she was smoking hot in a pretty sense and a touch down to earth (attainable) so an audience could dream their were Sam. We would of related to her more and therefore cared about her. It also would have made the T-X 'seductress' work in the film work. But she's less hot than the ott megan! Talk about the girlfriend experience. How much is Sam paying for the privilege? And the story spoke of being faithful? Come on, how could you trust Fox? Seriously. In skimpy shorts and low tops hanging around motorcycle grease monkeys all day? Add this to dogs dry humping, robot radio control cars dry humping... Who is this movie aimed at?
I mostly enjoyed the first film. It worked for the most part and felt like the story had been worked and then shot, as opposed to being shot while they worked it out. I think the transformers franchise could of worked brilliantly. It needed more 'Berg less Bay though. Given us a touch of wonder and magic...
Star Trek still makes the summer a success. That was so enjoyable it counts for two movies. Same writers, yeah, but Bay would have turned the dark knight into a noisy snuffy mess.
Primer (2004)
Over hyped student film.
Yes I get it. No I still don't like it.
What boggles the mind more than the convoluted plot, is the fact that this movie won the prize for drama at Sundance. How? It has to be one of the most ugly, amateurishly made films I've ever had to sit through this side of college. Sundance should award film excellence. Not just a hip idea but all levels of production - performance, script, camera, sound etc. I have family holiday videos that sounded better than this for goodness sake.
The talk was extremely technical so it allows for those who understand it to watch the movie with a smug grin on their faces as they raise a condescending eyebrow at those who are merely trying to follow it's 'gist'. I hate that snobbery in movies. You know, when some one feels the need to chuckle out loud, just to show others that they 'get the in-joke'. Great movies can have a court room scene where only those with a knowledge of legal terms might fully understand, or a hospital scene or a scene where somebody is cooking and it might sound ultra authentic and technical, but it doesn't leave out 80% of the audience who are trying to keep up. I'm not talking about the cliché line like "Hey, English please doc", but great writers know how to involve everyone. And that's the key - involvement, engagement. Primer = none.
Some people have said it's different. Really? Take away the horrible docudrama feel, add cheesy music and make the dialog understandable and you basically have an episode of The Outer Limits. Primer is 'an idea' encased in a lot of waffle and bargain basement production values (did they have a focus puller?) and that doesn't make a good movie. I don't give a hoot that the movie cost a dollar or whatever, I'm just annoyed that I can't go back in time and stop myself from renting this rubbish.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Been there, done that.
After Casino Royale the Bond franchise seemed to be getting back on track but after watching QOS one wonders if it hasn't tripped and broken it's leg.
All I kept thinking while watching was how better they do it in the Bourne movies and how Marc Forester cannot direct action. In fact it was a combination of the direction and editing of the action scenes that was the first thing to start annoying me as I watched (or a least tried to watch) the opening car chase and roof top chase. It's shot and cut in such a way that it's impossible to engage with it in any emotional or visceral way. You have no idea of the geography, how close one guy is from the other, what's at stake etc. There are no pauses as the character considers his next move. It's just shake, shake, cut, cut, cut, and then when things settle we see who won. Same with the hanging on the ropes scene and the boat chase.
Sometimes people complain about the overuse of shaky cam in the Bourne films but I could always tell what was going on and was emotionally invested in Jason Bourne.
The plot was muddled and there was nothing about the film I hadn't seen before and seen before done better in countless action films. It offered nothing new. Nothing. Craig makes a good if unemotional agent and Dench makes a good M but this franchise is dead.
The Happening (2008)
Wahlberg Versus The Wind!!!
I have a problem when people excuse a boring film by saying it has a noble message or its subject matter is admirable. This all well and good but at the end of the day a movie should engage and be entertaining (not necessarily 'entertainment'). The Happening does neither. Not only that but on this example you can also throw in big bucks and high salaries. For all those reasons I do not apologise for any punches thrown at this farce of a film.
This film is tensionless and flat. In fact it is downright awful and feels like a bad daytime TV movie you'd find on the Sci-fi channel. The acting 'style' made everyone seem like they were retarded. I don't by the 'that was the point' argument. At the theatre where I saw the film it induced laughter from a perplexed audience. Totally perplexed. I felt no connection with any character and they bit players were so bad they felt like they were cast straight from the crew.
Usually Shyamalan has some inventive camera blocking. This film felt like it was made by a recent film school graduate. There was no cinema craft on display here, camera choices were poor and did not serve the 'drama'. This would be laughable even from an amateur filmmaker, not to mention from the man who gave us The Sixth Sense.
I was very angry I had spent my hard earned money on this crap. I used to be a huge Shyamalan fan. I forgave his one hiccup before this (Lady in the Water) by putting it down to "an off day" for M Night. However after this I'm not so sure anymore. This is strike two in my book. For many it's strike 3 after The Village. And for others still, it's strike 4 or 5! Perhaps on reflection I'm being too optimistic! .
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Who wrote this rubbish?
Like all intelligent movie loving people who have decent standards and did not like this movie, I too have to flag my review with the proviso that I am one of the biggest fans of the original trilogy.
This film is empty, periless, tensionless, laughable (in some good ways but many bad ways too) light on action and heavy on green screen. All in all that to me ain't the ingredients for an Indiana Jones movie.
The 'bad guy'. The antagonist in any of these films is usually a big threat to Indy. Either through cunning or power. Not here. Blanchet does her best with the poor material but we never get a true sense of how menacing she could be. Ray Winston's character is just a lazy cliché of the genre.
Peril. There is little sense of true peril. There was always a moment in each Jones film where the audience thinks "How are they going to get out of this pickle?" Not here. Much of the action reminded me of the coincidental nonsense that was in The Lost World. Falling through this, bouncing of that, and landing "Ok let's go".
Action. Every Jones film has an action scene that you remember. Not one in this film. Spielberg commented recently that since the Indiana Jones trilogy there have been many inventive action sequences in event movies, but that this has left, as he put it, "very little meat on the bone" for people like him to formulate new action sequences. I dare say that's lazy and a little sad to hear such a master of the craft to admit. To me there will always be cool action sequences as things can always be swapped, changed, reinvented, etc etc - just like Indiana Jones didn't invent action. Buster Keaton was doing things that are still unbelievable to this day. The best action this film comes up with is a tensionless jungle chase with CGI monkeys and the most fake looking sword fight seen this side of a green screen. Poor.
The Music. Every Indiana Jones film has a very memorable musical theme (or themes) besides the main march. I was flabbergasted to hear regurgitated themes from The Last Crusade. Especially in one of the final scenes. Another bit sounded exactly like the scene where the tripod comes up in War of the Worlds. What the hell is that? Surely Williams could have come up with some new stuff considering the amount of money gone into this.
Finally, and most importantly, the story. At any point in any of the previous Jones films you can tell what is going on and what's at stake and what needs to be done. Here I either didn't care or couldn't tell. And the way Indy takes on the mission was lazy and made the scene where Ian Malcolm takes on the mission in The Lost World seem well developed and gripping.
I could go on and many reviewers have pointed out the CGI Gophers, CGI monkeys and an alien worse looking than Brian De Palmas Mission to Mars, so I won't go there. To me I am saddened so deeply by this.
The last film ended with Father and son riding off into the sunset. This one ended with Shia combing his hair. Nuff said.
Speed Racer (2008)
Ill conceived experiment
I love the Wachowskis, but this should have been Speed Racer: The Movie! Cartoons work because the people populating the world are cartoons just the same. Here you have real people against sub-playstation backgrounds. You could almost see the green screen. It's hard to engage with that, and to add insult to injury they kept the backgrounds in focus because, what, this is the way it was in the cartoon? The word 'adaptation' exists for a reason. This should have been "a live action Speed Racer film". You could still of had the production design as colorful psychedelic, the action as high speed, the narrative the same - but it wouldn't have had the disengaging feel of a cheap TV ad for a headache tablet At the screening I was at, which was mostly empty to begin with, the kids were bored silly. As I say I'm not a Wachowski basher (I personally love every movie they have made, sequels included, and consider them visionaries) but I was dismayed they had produced this cheap feeling turd. Critics can often be wrong, and in the past they have sometimes unjustly given the Wachowskis a rough time, but it seems that critics aside, the general public around the world has spoken on this one. I'm just thankful it means the Wachowskis can go back to making "live action movies" and not a sequel to this!
Atonement (2007)
Is everyone mad?
I am truly baffled at the media salivating over this movie. Sure it is well shot (the Dunkirk continuous shot at magic hour was amazing and conveyed a great sense of madness), well acted, and well designed and scored. It had a nice old fashioned, almost Leanesque feel to it. However, for a movie, it is not well written.
Taking forever to get going it requires a bit of patience at the start. However my main gripe with the film is something else. When the one character that goes through the greatest amount of change remains off screen for most of the movie it doesn't leave room for engaging character development. In addition to this, to have the only actions on the part of that character turn out to be false results in us feeling that no change occurred whatsoever. "But that is the point she never had the courage"
I don't buy that and am certainly not impressed by the fact that I was told a lie. I felt cheated and let down as a viewer. I imagine this overrated film will be forgotten about in a year or so. It is certainly no classic.
Ils (2006)
YAWN... You've seen it a million times before.
"Them". The title alone should give you some impression of the levels of originality this yawn fest portends to engage you with. There is nothing here that we have not seen a million times before a house invasion, a run through the woods, a subterranean labyrinth. I can think of countless horrors that did each of the above far more successfully. The Blair Witch Project (stylistically its closest relative) had intrigue in spades where as this movie had me bored half way through.
There was no plot to speak of, I didn't get to know the characters and there actions told me nothing about them. There was a constant air of awaiting the next "bump" (a cheap trick many crappy horrors are over using as of late Cut to a close up of Sarah Michelle Geller, Soundtrack begins to dies down.... BUMP! It's lazy) This meant you had your guard up as an audience and didn't trust the filmmakers and ironically as a result were not scared. In my mind the two ways you scare an audience or create tension is 1) Via characters we actually care about and desperately want to survive and 2) By way of building the tension and releasing it, making us feel that we're safe for a moment before surprising us again.
Surprise is the key. Hitchcock would say this. Give us something we don't expect. With "Them" I expected everything that unfolded. It was predictable and dull. There were no surprises. Who is terrorizing the couple? There is no reveal because you get the idea about half way through so when the "reveal" arrives who end up thinking "Yeah I kind of guessed that...". And even if you don't guess it, you'll end up thinking "Yeah so what?". Don't waste your money on "Them".
Children of Men (2006)
Best Film of 2006
The best film of 2006 in my book. I just watched it again on DVD and its power has not diminished one bit. My girlfriend watched it with me and she knew nothing about the plot which in a way made the movie even more interesting for her. So if you know little about the story, don't read any reviews here on IMDb that might give it away - just watch the movie, you won't regret it. Cuarons direction and Lubezkis cinematography are a match made in heaven. The world feels so real it's scary. It doesn't take too much of a leap of the imagination to imagine things going this way. Clive Owen is just brilliant as a man without hope. He is the Deckard of a new generation. The Production Design is outstanding and has created a world grounded in realism and subtlety. The Effects are fantastic. Just reading about how they did the "long takes" on the IMDb links makes me realise that it's an amazing slight of hand. The effects (100s of them) are all pretty much invisible and in my book the best of 2006 also. The sound compliments the look and the music takes the risk of being almost operatic in a very subtle and gentle sort of way. There is no sweeping orchestra here. But even watching the crappy 7 minute featureete on the DVD (extras to be left for a special edition no doubt) it is very clear to see that Cuaron driving the bus. He is the guy pushing these departments for his vision and he is very much in control. I'm in awe of what he accomplished here.
Some people feel Cuaron was snubbed by the Oscar nominations. Yeah so what? Since when did the Oscars ever get it all right? Never. Hitchcock died never having held his own and I gave up back in the mid 90s after one of my favourite films "Heat" never received a single nomination.
Between Cuaron, Inarritu, and Greengrass I can almost feel a new wave starting to appear. Directors who inject a level of the hyper real into their movies. They don't feel or sound "glossy", and I think this raw realism is refreshing and exciting especially within the realms of genre.
Babel (2006)
Inarritu does it again.
A career best from Brad Pitt in this multi layered drama spread over three continents. In fact all the cast give great performances from the children to the non actors - which says a lot about Inarritu as a director. As with his previous work this all feels incredibly real and gritty and there is barely a scene that didn't have something to say. Each story had its own interests and the cinematography was beautiful, keeping it feeling immediate and raw without the need for gratuitous zooms and re focus wracks in shot an effect some directors are using today to try to create the "documentary feel". The music was also great and there is a great use of a track that was originally in the film "The Insider". I immediately recognised the track but in a weird way in suited this film more given the fact that the music has a very Middle Eastern feel to it.
The only thing I'd say against the film is that the Japanese story felt superfluous to the rest of the movie. Not in terms of theme but in terms of a physical link that the other stories had. We are given one very weak and mild link but there is no direct one which weakens the overall connection of the story. Nevertheless it is well worth seeing.
The Last King of Scotland (2006)
Boring, uninteresting, flat
Besides Forrest Whitakers performance there is little else to recommend this very average film. The script lacked a focus and was devoid of any real tension and so the scenes felt flat and uninteresting. Also there is nothing new here that I haven't seen a million times before. The cinematography and camera direction was dull and distracting (camera following Whitakers hand as he talks, despite the fact he Whitakers face is drawing you in with a great performance, the flow gets broken because the camera now decides to follow his hand in close up? wtf?). The music was another thing that didn't fit with the tone. I thought the music in the final scene was going to break into the James Bond theme at one point.
I never really felt anything watching it. To be perfectly honest I was bored most of the time. The main character Garrigan was so unlikeable, with so many of his decisions making him even less likable, that it was hard to route or care for him. Instead Whitaker, playing a man who in real life was an utter monster, came across far more likable and charming in a very weird way. Perhaps this is because we were denied the chance to see and truly feel the atrocities that he was responsible for (save only a few black and white photos) But while one could argue that this was the point of view that Garrigan would have had of Amin, it doesn't help the situation when Garrigan comes across as such a stupid and unlikeable hero.
King Kong (2005)
What a let down.
What a let down. I'm baffled how this incarnation of King Kong has such a high rating on IMDb, yet the individual reviews are somewhat mixed - the majority it would seem leaning upon those who were disappointed by it. Even within my own circle of friends the overall feeling seems to be one of disappointment how then does this film continually receive 5 stars and various praise in all manner of mainstream media? The general public seems to cry "Nice try, but not good enough", while the media shout "Genius. Masterpiece". My own thoughts echo the former. My own thoughts are harsh. But why right such a long and harsh review? Because I know Jackson is better that this. What's not good enough? 4 main things in my opinion.
NUMBER 1 - the pace. There's easily an hour and half that could have been cut out of this movie, and not only would no one have noticed, it would have strengthened and focused the story. Look at the 30s version. Opening scene their talking about the boat expedition. First time we see Ann Darrow it's the scene where she tries to steal an apple. That's cutting to the chase. For those familiar with script lay out, plot point one is where they encounter the island and crash land. Normally (and as in the 30s version) this should be about the half an hour in. In Jacksons version it's one hour in! My nephew (11) was bored at this stage.
NUMBER 2. Some ridiculous characters. All the scenes between Jimmy and ** should have found their home on the cutting room floor. Not only was the dialogue laughable between them "This ain't an adventure story is it?" "No Jimmy, it's not", but they were totally unnecessary as characters. Andy Serkis as the cook felt like he was in the wrong movie (maybe Pirates of the Caribbean would have suited him better). It's not that there was anything wrong with his performance, it just felt out of tone next to the rest of the cast (as did those phallic monster things that eventually kill him. Great design, but it felt like the wrong movie). I never really connected with any character significantly to care whether any of them should be trampled on or ate by yet another prehistoric beast.
NUMBER 3. Less is more. The sheer amount of CGI and the way they appeared on screen on Skull Island felt like overkill to me. Where has the tease gone? . The stampede in particular was a joke. I could almost see the actors running in front of the bluescreen. I could only help thinking two things while watching it 1. How I feel I've scene all this before, three Jurassic Park movies later, and 2. How much better Spielberg does it. Spielberg teases the audience, gives the creatures an entrance and creates a feeling of wonder and awe (and Jackson can do that. There are many examples in the LOTR trilogy where he creates just those emotions). Here they're just
well there right in front of you - run! (on a side note I really wanted to see some black and white footage of the dinosaurs from what was being captured by the old camera).
NUMBER 4. Jackson's camera. Why was their such an over-reliance on close ups throughout this movie? It felt like most of it must have been shot as pick ups. Actors didn't move across the space and draw you in here and there. No, it was just close up, close up, close up. And as for that slow motion staccato camera effect thing I'm sick of it. Not only is it over used but it wasn't used in the right places. When Tom Hanks' hearing goes in Saving Private Ryan and he stares in shock around the beach it works. The final scenes of the opening battle in Gladiator, when it felt like an impressionistic painting works. Even the odd scenes in LOTR where it is used are put to good effect. But when a character is merely typing Skull Island (a name he is just after inventing) and we cut to that effect you can't help but fell dragged out of the story and think why's he doing that? Using it in unnecessary times such as this only lessens the effect when it needs to be used.
Other things that bother me were little things like I would have preferred the island to feel more real as a place. The 1970s remake even got that right. The lighting was at times over exposed and bleached out. In general the lighting was not up to scratch. No character significantly changed enough to merit being called the protagonist. I wanted Ann Darrow to say more. She seemed to shut up forever once she encounters Kong. And was it just me or did anyone else miss the wide shot from the 30s version where Kong fell from the Empire State building? In the 30s version he fell and hit various parts of the building like a lifeless doll. I would take that shot over a "Die Hard" slow motion POV fall any day.
On the good side of things the SFX are mostly great. Kong is particularly well done and New York looks fantastic. Everything from when Kong is brought back to New York to the end rockets along and is great entertainment. It's just a shame it comes so late.
Jackson plans to release an extended cut at some time in the near future. Sigh. Why not release reduced cut for non die hard fans, so we can enjoy a two hour, more likely to be rewatched, version of King Kong.
Land of the Dead (2005)
Land of the dead indeed.
It's a sad, sad day for film-making in general when such a pile of trite is put on a pedestal.
Have films really become so mediocre that we are hailing rubbish as the new classics? Maybe it's not everyone, I'm being unfair. I can only surmise that those who felt this film to be a) a masterpiece or b) an good film by an stretch of the imagination are just extreme zombie aficionados who would wet their over sized pants upon the mentioning of anything to do with the genre of the walking dead. Romero is their hero after all. To me Night of the Living Dead is a classic; in many ways so is the original Dawn of the dead, but this film is just...well sad. Why? It's like finding out that a great singer songwriter from the seventies as now lost his voice and is unable to perform his own numbers anymore. Romero invented this genre and he should have quit while he still had respect. I had to walk out of this film after an excruciating hour waiting to see if it got better. Sadly I waited 60mins too long.
Someone here mentioned that the acting was great all round. Huh? I don't know where these reviewers are from but I hope that they enjoy their visit to earth. The acting was terrible. The tension, suspense less. And the plot, boring. Only the gore was good (but so what).
Avoid this like the plague!
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
"Noooooooo..."
I wish, oh how I wish, that Lucas stuck to what he is best at - Producing, visual effects, being the overall visionary - and had given the movies to other directors to realise.
He ain't a director in my book. His efforts to over saturate the screen with
well everything (just because he can?), leads to a kind of desensitisation for the audience to his visions of grandeur. A lack of tension, suspense and build up leads to a feeling of flatness to the epic nature of things.
**MINOR Spoilers AHEAD**
As seen in the trailer, we go to the Wookie planet. It's suggested that this will be the arena of a major action sequence or at the very least something of story significance. I can see no reason after watching the movie why we go here other than to show off the wookie planet and to introduce us (?) to Chewbacca.
I hated the lizard thing Obi Wan rides on. It looks stupid, felt pointless, and the sound it 'shrieked' was annoying.
"Noooooooo..." cries Vader. Why George, why? Watch out for this line in a scene near the end. Try not to laugh with it's delivery as visions of Principal Skinner in 'The Simpsons' flash to mind. This was so wrong and I never, ever, want to see that scene as long as I live.
Alas the trilogy (the saga) has come to an end. I could have been worse, but it pains me to think how much better it could have been. You see, the basic story works well; the arc of the three films is great. The visions are great too. It's just that its execution was...well, weak.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Changed my life
It has been said of Shakespeare that one of the reasons he was such a genius story teller was that his plays were multi-layered and appealed to many. Back in those times educational standards were far more polarised between classes who could afford education and those who could not. You would have had a theatre packed with both rowdy fairly unintelligent folk who stood near the stage, those in between, as well as intelligent upper class who sat above them. They all came to see Shakespeare's work. This was unusual for a playwright to have such a wide appeal among the classes. The reason it worked was because there was something for everyone action, romance, philosophy, wit, intelligence etc.
I believe the matrix trilogy to have a similar trait. Why? Well because they truly changed my life. I was not someone who would ever consider going to see a movie about philosophy (much a less read a book on it), or a movie that asks us to question reality, systems of control, choice, love, purpose etc. I would have been ignorant of a work that drew upon such 'nerdy' questions. I was drawn to the Matrix by the action like a moth to light, and once I was there I was zapped by its themes. Soon, I wanted to know more. What did such a scene mean? I wanted to know more about things in my own life my work, my blind religious faith, my ignorant acceptance of the world around me. I woke up I guess. No other movie trilogy has had such a profound impact on my day to day life than the Matrix saga.
I think that's amazing. Such ideas bred by a popular entertainment piece. I was once an action movie sci-fi freak and would have never wanted to read or talk about such notions. I'm changed due to these movies and for the better. I can only speak for myself but I thank the wachowskis for waking me up and showing me a different view of reality.
Neo I can't go back can I? Morpheus - No. And if you could, would you really want to?
Cowboys & Angels (2003)
Terrible.
I'm somewhat suspicious of long winded raving reviews that make excessive reference to the actors or crew. It always makes me think that either the person worked on the film, or were asked to write the review as a favour.
I have no connection to this film and I thought it was terrible. I felt nothing watching it. It was not engaging, nor was it ambitious. Normally one has a certain allowance for an amateur film like this, you tend forgive certain things due to budget reasons etc. and most of those type of films have a certain spirit or drive to them that you admire. Not here. This film is in love with itself, and I certainly found it to have no spirit or drive to it.
I found the films concept of the OTT 'gay character', who will change the indifferent 'straight character' to be less of a square and more in touch with himself; to be unbelievably cliché and outdated. A gay friend of mine commented that he found the portrayal insulting, I can see his point.
Some things that occurred to me: The direction is pedestrian at best and the lighting is bad. The film did nothing new, nor did it have the notion or spirit to try. The acting of the two main leads goes from OK to almost good, but everyone else is poor. The cartoon 'gangsters' are laughable, and for all the wrong reasons. Is this meant to be a 'real' setting or 'magical realism' for Limerick? I couldn't seem to grasp the tone.
I'm tired of seeing 'join the dot' movies receive plaudits at "Festival Wherever", and rave 'favour reviews' by provincial critics. Really, how does something like this get funded? I really feel that if some filmmakers careers depended on putting bums on seats in a cinema, they would soon find themselves having to change jobs. This is just not good enough.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
A very modern classic.
If your reading this review for Revolutions then it's probable that you have seen both of the previous movies. They are all one story and are most certainly misunderstood.
A clever mix of powerful themes and pop spectacle, the movies raise intelligent questions that most of us never think about.
In my view the matrix (sequels / animatrix included) is a total classic of modern times. And much like what happened to 2001 and Bladerunner - I believe the movies will be held in higher regard in the years to come.
In a word - wow.
Cabin Fever (2002)
Rubbish
It absolutely boggles the mind that this film got worldwide theatrical distribution. This was straight to video rubbish right up there with 'Silent Warnings' and should never have been on a big screen. Neither funny (the best of B movie horror has at least this quality) nor scary, this movie was a disjointed, illogical, gratuitous mess. Don't waste your money, and when it does come out on video, and you have a free Friday evening, friends over and a pizza...don't waste your time. There is far better material on the shelves.
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
Over-hyped, over-rated
Why? Why do so many people hold this very average film on such a high pedestal? Being quite a big fan of Anime I'm not new to the genre. This was a serious head f***. I will say the production design, use of color and music score were amazing. However, in terms of plot, story structure, catharsis, plant and pay off...it's all over the place. I felt the world had no rules to it and therefore lacked any real tension. I felt the story lacked any logic to it and therefore had no reason behind the motivation for characters. Why did she do that? What is that supposed to be? What was that all about? When will this end or start making sense? With so many positive reviews and awards I'm confused. Perhaps I just didn't get what others got from it... All I have to back me up is the crowd of friends with whom I went to see the film with. And I'm the one who had the most positive words to say about it.
Daredevil (2003)
Rubbish!
This was one of those painful experiences I'd put up there next to Tomb Raider or Darkman. Don't get me wrong, I love 'comic book movies'. I am not the intellectual snob many film critics seem to be regarding the genre. But this was a lifeless, plotless, seen it before but better, mess. The dialogue and acting was as embarrassing as the self indulgent, OTT direction. This is how NOT to adapt a comic book. Yes comic books have a certain dialogue and are by nature OTT, but that is what they are as an art form onto themselves. Just as a novel is a novel. In transition to the screen things need to change - costumes, dialogue, presentation. Hence the word 'adaptation'. Batman, X-Men and Spiderman got it right, and I have the utmost fate in Ang Lee to deliver this summer for 'Hulk'. Anyway, Git just goes to show you the power of advertising and hype that people paid to see this rubbish.