Now movies with large intertwining casts are not a new thing, and are not always a bad thing. I’m not a huge fan, but I think “Love Actually” was a triumph in that particular field. However, in recent years there have been some fairly bollocks ones. “He’s just not that into you” was shit, “The boat that rocked” was pointlessly long, and even action based one “Vantage Point” was irritating. “Valentine’s Day” is part of the latter category.
Now this movie had one more feature the others large casted movies didn’t… MORE CHARACTERS! While I was watching “He’s just not that into you” all I could think was… Wow, this movie has too many fucking characters… and then I watched “Valentine’s Day”. There are about 20 main characters, all with about 5 minutes of screen time. These characters all go through heaps of plot twists, romantic clichés, and pure predictability. Half the characters add absolutely nothing to the story at all. For example, after watching it, can anyone tell me what the fuck was the point of Julia Roberts’ and Bradley Cooper’s characters? There are so many twists and turns that half the time you are thinking “But that wouldn’t fucking happen”, and so many plot holes it will make your brain melt (well, if you’re an obsessive observant freak like me).
I admit, there will be morons out there who just sit being all happy about the love between the people in the movie, but as a heartless emotionless wanker I just didn’t feel it. Either way, it was a sickening love fest that made no sense. “Ignorant of reality” as it states in the movie.
Oh, and did I mention the acting? It’s… dreadful. I think Taylor Swift should stick to what she knows (even though her music is awful…), and I think Taylor Lautner should just die. There are some decent actors in it, Eric Dane was quite good, and Patrick Dempsey was basically the same as he is in Grey’s Anatomy, and Jessica Biel was kind of amusing. But overall, it was just a difficult movie to sit through
.
Since that’s all I have to say about that movie, just think I should make some short comments on several other movies I’ve seen lately. “Shutter Island” was predictable, but thoroughly enjoyable and well made. “Percy Jackson” was crap, with terrible dialogue and horrid acting. “The Wolfman” was great, go and watch it. I’m serious, do it!
Oh and over the next few days I shall be watching the last few Oscar nominated movies, and shall tell you who I think should win (And trust me, “Avatar” (the favourite) will not be my choice, and anyone who thinks it deserves best picture is an IDIOT!)
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
"Daybreakers" Review
Now I admit, I went into “Daybreakers” with ridiculous expectations. I saw the trailer to this movie many months ago, and thought it looked like it could possibly be one of the greatest movies ever. Finally a vampire movie in which the vampires actually like drinking human blood, and burn in the sun. After utter shit such as “Twilight” filling cinemas with moron teenage girls who want Robert Pattinson to bite them (or drink their menstrual blood as I read one fan asked him to do.... what the fuck is wrong with these people?), a REAL vampire movie sounded highly appealing. Either way, my basic thoughts on “Daybreakers” was that it was good, but not fantastic.
In case you haven’t seen the trailer (Which you should immediately because in my opinion it is actually better than the movie itself), “Daybreakers” is based in the year 2019, in which the majority of the population has been turned into vampires. Due to this, blood supplies are running low, and the main character is working on creating either a blood substitute, or a cure for vampirism. Yes, I know, it’s basically political propaganda on a stick, just replacing either ‘water’, ‘oil’, ‘timber’, or ‘any other unrenewable resource’ with blood.
All that aside it originally appears to be a highly intelligent movie. The opening scene (in my opinion) is fantastic. I won’t ruin it of course, as it needs to be watched. It puts a twist on vampirism that I would assume very few people would have thought about, and it increased my hopes of the movie being incredible. But as it goes on, the intelligence wavers, and eventually it becomes an overly gory blood bath. Now for the record, sometimes I don’t mind those, I quite enjoy the final destination movies for example. But at no time when you watch them do you think they are going to be intelligent, you watch them for blood. I wasn’t watching “Daybreakers” for blood, hence the annoyance.
I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Sam Neill as a creepy soulless corporate vampire. And after her the dreadful character she played in Transformers 2 (which was a fucking travesty), Isabel Lucas has redeemed herself in my eyes with this role. Ethan Hawke is great as the lead, and Willem Dafoe amused me immensely with some really random, often fucked up, dialogue.
I’m not sure if my expectations were too high, or if it really wasn’t as exciting as it should have been, but either way, “Daybreakers” disappointed me. It tried so hard for the first half to sell itself as an intelligent movie, and then filled itself with a tonne of violence in the second half. By all means go and watch it, especially if your brain has been raped by “Twilight” and needs a decent reminder of what a vampire is as opposed to a sparkly stalkerish fucktard. But don’t, as I did, expect it to be a masterpiece.
In case you haven’t seen the trailer (Which you should immediately because in my opinion it is actually better than the movie itself), “Daybreakers” is based in the year 2019, in which the majority of the population has been turned into vampires. Due to this, blood supplies are running low, and the main character is working on creating either a blood substitute, or a cure for vampirism. Yes, I know, it’s basically political propaganda on a stick, just replacing either ‘water’, ‘oil’, ‘timber’, or ‘any other unrenewable resource’ with blood.
All that aside it originally appears to be a highly intelligent movie. The opening scene (in my opinion) is fantastic. I won’t ruin it of course, as it needs to be watched. It puts a twist on vampirism that I would assume very few people would have thought about, and it increased my hopes of the movie being incredible. But as it goes on, the intelligence wavers, and eventually it becomes an overly gory blood bath. Now for the record, sometimes I don’t mind those, I quite enjoy the final destination movies for example. But at no time when you watch them do you think they are going to be intelligent, you watch them for blood. I wasn’t watching “Daybreakers” for blood, hence the annoyance.
I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Sam Neill as a creepy soulless corporate vampire. And after her the dreadful character she played in Transformers 2 (which was a fucking travesty), Isabel Lucas has redeemed herself in my eyes with this role. Ethan Hawke is great as the lead, and Willem Dafoe amused me immensely with some really random, often fucked up, dialogue.
I’m not sure if my expectations were too high, or if it really wasn’t as exciting as it should have been, but either way, “Daybreakers” disappointed me. It tried so hard for the first half to sell itself as an intelligent movie, and then filled itself with a tonne of violence in the second half. By all means go and watch it, especially if your brain has been raped by “Twilight” and needs a decent reminder of what a vampire is as opposed to a sparkly stalkerish fucktard. But don’t, as I did, expect it to be a masterpiece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
