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!)
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
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.
Friday, January 29, 2010
"Law Abiding Citizen" Review
Now after first seeing Gerard Butler in “300” (which is brilliant) as a huge warrior who likes stabbing things, and then as a dying man who leaves disgusting love notes for his wife to find after he’s gone in “P.S. I Love You” (which, in case you’re too much of a moron to realise, I hated), and then seeing him as the misogynistic wanker in “The Ugly Truth” (which I haven’t really decided on, it was good, I guess), I was both excited but sceptical to see him as a seemingly psychotic man seeking revenge for the death of his family. My scepticism was overturned however, in about 10 minutes.
In case you haven’t seen the trailer (which you should of, gosh, it’s fucking great), the story is of a man who’s wife and child get murdered in front of him. His lawyer (Jamie Foxx) makes a deal with one of the murderers to give the other a death sentence and him very little time in jail, as the lawyer doesn’t want to take it to court because he might lose and that would fuck up his stats. Now Clyde (Butler) is pretty pissed off about that, so of course decides he should kill lots of people. Well, it’s less simple than that, but that’s the gist of it.
I must say, I fucking loved this movie. Were there predictable parts? Of course there were. Was it somewhat over the top? Fuck yes it was. Was the ending a bit of a Cliché? Well, not in my opinion, but you probably think so. However, in my opinion (which is of course the most important), that’s irrelevant, because while watching it, you are excited to find out what happens next. You are intrigued to find out what this man has in store for the next person who wronged him, and how he is doing it. It’s kind of like if “Fracture” and “Saw” had a child. Well, maybe not, very little “Saw” aspects are taken into account, except the murderer being an engineer. And I think it’s just the feel of “Fracture”, not the story itself. Oh, and remove the fact that the murderers in “Fracture” and “Saw” are fucked up old men who have shit motives. Ok, maybe it’s not like them, but ya get what I mean...
Another point of this movie that I thought was done well is the fact that there is no inherent protagonist or antagonist. You never really know who you want to cheer for. Are you cheering for the psychotic man killing people? (well, I was, but that’s simply because I’m fucked in the head and probably deeply in need of psychological help) Or are you cheering for the Lawyer? In theory either one of them could be either role, it depends on the perspective.
Now as I said before, there are some absolutely ridiculous parts. I’m not going to state what they are, because they would ruin the movie. But I thought I had to warn you, there will be parts where you think to yourself “There is no fucking way that would happen” or “Wouldn’t someone notice that?” But I digress, this is a great movie. It’s a good new twist on the psychological thriller genre, which just happens to chuck in a large quantity of blood and violence. Go see it... (and if you don’t like it, don’t whinge to me, you’re probably just one of those idiots who preferred “P.S. I Love You”)
In case you haven’t seen the trailer (which you should of, gosh, it’s fucking great), the story is of a man who’s wife and child get murdered in front of him. His lawyer (Jamie Foxx) makes a deal with one of the murderers to give the other a death sentence and him very little time in jail, as the lawyer doesn’t want to take it to court because he might lose and that would fuck up his stats. Now Clyde (Butler) is pretty pissed off about that, so of course decides he should kill lots of people. Well, it’s less simple than that, but that’s the gist of it.
I must say, I fucking loved this movie. Were there predictable parts? Of course there were. Was it somewhat over the top? Fuck yes it was. Was the ending a bit of a Cliché? Well, not in my opinion, but you probably think so. However, in my opinion (which is of course the most important), that’s irrelevant, because while watching it, you are excited to find out what happens next. You are intrigued to find out what this man has in store for the next person who wronged him, and how he is doing it. It’s kind of like if “Fracture” and “Saw” had a child. Well, maybe not, very little “Saw” aspects are taken into account, except the murderer being an engineer. And I think it’s just the feel of “Fracture”, not the story itself. Oh, and remove the fact that the murderers in “Fracture” and “Saw” are fucked up old men who have shit motives. Ok, maybe it’s not like them, but ya get what I mean...
Another point of this movie that I thought was done well is the fact that there is no inherent protagonist or antagonist. You never really know who you want to cheer for. Are you cheering for the psychotic man killing people? (well, I was, but that’s simply because I’m fucked in the head and probably deeply in need of psychological help) Or are you cheering for the Lawyer? In theory either one of them could be either role, it depends on the perspective.
Now as I said before, there are some absolutely ridiculous parts. I’m not going to state what they are, because they would ruin the movie. But I thought I had to warn you, there will be parts where you think to yourself “There is no fucking way that would happen” or “Wouldn’t someone notice that?” But I digress, this is a great movie. It’s a good new twist on the psychological thriller genre, which just happens to chuck in a large quantity of blood and violence. Go see it... (and if you don’t like it, don’t whinge to me, you’re probably just one of those idiots who preferred “P.S. I Love You”)
Monday, January 4, 2010
"The Lovely Bones" Review
Now I have to start off by saying I liked "The Lovely Bones". Everyone continuously critisizes me for not liking anything, so I just thought that had to be said. Happy now? Good, now I can bitch. "The Lovely Bones" is another one of those movies that I love the story of, but it gets fucked in the face by the execution.
The story is basically this: a girls gets murdered, and her father gets very upset and obsessively attempts to try and find out who killed her. Now yes, this sounds boring and cliché, but there's other shit involved as well. (By the way, in case you were wondering, I didn't ruin anything by saying that, you find all that out in the trailer). Either way, the story pans out quite well, and its filmed fantastically. Oh, and the killer (Stanley Tucci)... Just awesome, very creepy, and he should do more roles like this instead of shit like "Julie & Julia".
This is the first time I've ever seen a Peter Jackson film, and it strangely made me feel like watching the LOTR's saga (which I've never seen and has never been particularly interested in before this). So yeah, thats what I liked about it... But then they include tonnes of pointless shit scenes in which the murdered girl's in a supposedly gateway type place between Earth and Heaven. Now it might just sound like a bitch fest about religion (and I guess in a way it is) but I just don't see the appeal of that. Now ok, the effects were good, the scenes look attractive and all that, but I just didn't see why the fuck it was necessary? Yes, I know it was based on a book and they couldn't just drop the shit scenes because the author might have a cry... well I guess the author just shouldn't have been religious, that would have worked out much better.
And I must say, the ending (which I won't give away, don't stress) was just abyssmal. I could have written about 10 better endings, they should hire me as an ending writer already for fuck sake. Either way, while I cringed a fair bit, it wasn't bad. I did enjoy it, and all the reviewers who said it didn't capture any emotion... what the fuck were you watching?...
The story is basically this: a girls gets murdered, and her father gets very upset and obsessively attempts to try and find out who killed her. Now yes, this sounds boring and cliché, but there's other shit involved as well. (By the way, in case you were wondering, I didn't ruin anything by saying that, you find all that out in the trailer). Either way, the story pans out quite well, and its filmed fantastically. Oh, and the killer (Stanley Tucci)... Just awesome, very creepy, and he should do more roles like this instead of shit like "Julie & Julia".
This is the first time I've ever seen a Peter Jackson film, and it strangely made me feel like watching the LOTR's saga (which I've never seen and has never been particularly interested in before this). So yeah, thats what I liked about it... But then they include tonnes of pointless shit scenes in which the murdered girl's in a supposedly gateway type place between Earth and Heaven. Now it might just sound like a bitch fest about religion (and I guess in a way it is) but I just don't see the appeal of that. Now ok, the effects were good, the scenes look attractive and all that, but I just didn't see why the fuck it was necessary? Yes, I know it was based on a book and they couldn't just drop the shit scenes because the author might have a cry... well I guess the author just shouldn't have been religious, that would have worked out much better.
And I must say, the ending (which I won't give away, don't stress) was just abyssmal. I could have written about 10 better endings, they should hire me as an ending writer already for fuck sake. Either way, while I cringed a fair bit, it wasn't bad. I did enjoy it, and all the reviewers who said it didn't capture any emotion... what the fuck were you watching?...
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Boxing Day Bollocks Bash
I apologise strongly for not writing any reviews for over a week, but I was waiting for Boxing day, and as it has come and passed once again, bringing with it it's normal string of movies, I now bring you 3 reviews in one. After watching this years main 3 ,“Sherlock Holmes”, “Alvin and the chipmunks: The Squeakquel”, and “Did you hear about the Morgans”, I felt like ripping my face off, which is probably not the reaction the creators were aiming for. Anyway, here are my thoughts in order of shitness.
Sherlock Holmes
Now I didn't hate Sherlock Holmes... *Pauses for shocked gasps*. Keep in mind that I love RDJ... Like, immensely. To meet him would be epically amazing (except that he's probably a wanker in real life). I love basically everything he's in (Especially Iron Man and A Scanner Darkly), and to see a movie he's in is something I look forward to. Also, Guy Ritchie, although I've only seen “Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels”, is also fantastic in my opinion.
Robert Downey Jr plays a pretty good Holmes, his accent serving him decently, and his logical monologues are filmed and created quite well. Mark Strong is a great bad guy, he plays the the creepy cultist bent on bringing death and destruction to the world and power to himself quite well. And I guess Jude Law is pretty good as Watson.
This movie to me, should be absolutely fantastically amazing. But... it's not. The main story of the movie, the attempted changing of the world by Strong, is rather small as the film spends the majority of the time setting up a sequel, which might not be a bad thing, as long as the sequel is FUCKING AMAZING! Which it better be, or I shall stab someone... probably you... Either way, out of the three boxing day releases, Sherlock Holmes was by far the best... not that it's really a competition.
Alvin 2
Yes... I saw this movie. I saw the first one too. First of all, I have to say, the first one was worst. I dont know why, but the first one had me clutching for a gun to kill everyone around me and then myself much more. The fact that the guy from one of my favourite tv shows (for the record, Chuck), lent himself to this movie made me want to vomit everywhere, along with Justin Long, and Christina Applegate (but in the long run they can basically disown this movie, because they sound like high pitched retards instead of their actual selves).
In this one there is somehow, inexplicably (as with the first) another bunch of random chipmunks who can sing... but this time... they're female OMFG!! And then both groups end up at the same school, trying to save it from bankruptcy. Now I have to ask, will kids understand any of this crap? Of course not, so why the fuck add it? Why have any story at all really... so the adults don't hang themselves in the cinema?
Of course this movie is full of high pitched HORRIBLE versions of recent songs, and will have you clutching for a knife to cut off your ears many many times, but all in all the movie isn't that bad (keep in mind I saw this movie after The Morgans so my standards for the day had dropped to a level in which a Jack Black movie might have amused me). Either way, if you're not a retarded tone deaf 5 year old, you probably won't like this movie... But its not the most painful movie I've ever seen.... that honour probably belongs to........
Did you hear about the Morgans?
AHHHHHHHH *vomits everywhere*. Sorry, I saw Sarah Jessica Parker's face... and then her acting. My fucking god this movie is dreadful. A comedy in which I laughed... once? Maybe twice? And I'm pretty sure neither of the two main characters were involved. The most predictable, boring, load of bollocks every created.
Now its an alright premise, a New York couple going through marriage troubles witnesses a murder, which gets them sent to the south (of course....). It's an old premise, but if done well it wouldn't be that bad... but it really is. It's just bollocks. Hugh Grant is usually not that bad, I quite enjoyed Notting Hill, and I've (please don't kill me) seen every episode of Sex and the City, so I probably don't hate SJP as much as I think, but in this movie, everything is worse then ever.
I can't honestly see anyone going to this movie expecting to like it, and unfortunately I'm not really arguing with anyone on this because basically every reviewer in the world said it was shit, which makes things substantially less fun. Go for it, see it, prove me wrong. But just know that I told you so...
Sherlock Holmes
Now I didn't hate Sherlock Holmes... *Pauses for shocked gasps*. Keep in mind that I love RDJ... Like, immensely. To meet him would be epically amazing (except that he's probably a wanker in real life). I love basically everything he's in (Especially Iron Man and A Scanner Darkly), and to see a movie he's in is something I look forward to. Also, Guy Ritchie, although I've only seen “Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels”, is also fantastic in my opinion.
Robert Downey Jr plays a pretty good Holmes, his accent serving him decently, and his logical monologues are filmed and created quite well. Mark Strong is a great bad guy, he plays the the creepy cultist bent on bringing death and destruction to the world and power to himself quite well. And I guess Jude Law is pretty good as Watson.
This movie to me, should be absolutely fantastically amazing. But... it's not. The main story of the movie, the attempted changing of the world by Strong, is rather small as the film spends the majority of the time setting up a sequel, which might not be a bad thing, as long as the sequel is FUCKING AMAZING! Which it better be, or I shall stab someone... probably you... Either way, out of the three boxing day releases, Sherlock Holmes was by far the best... not that it's really a competition.
Alvin 2
Yes... I saw this movie. I saw the first one too. First of all, I have to say, the first one was worst. I dont know why, but the first one had me clutching for a gun to kill everyone around me and then myself much more. The fact that the guy from one of my favourite tv shows (for the record, Chuck), lent himself to this movie made me want to vomit everywhere, along with Justin Long, and Christina Applegate (but in the long run they can basically disown this movie, because they sound like high pitched retards instead of their actual selves).
In this one there is somehow, inexplicably (as with the first) another bunch of random chipmunks who can sing... but this time... they're female OMFG!! And then both groups end up at the same school, trying to save it from bankruptcy. Now I have to ask, will kids understand any of this crap? Of course not, so why the fuck add it? Why have any story at all really... so the adults don't hang themselves in the cinema?
Of course this movie is full of high pitched HORRIBLE versions of recent songs, and will have you clutching for a knife to cut off your ears many many times, but all in all the movie isn't that bad (keep in mind I saw this movie after The Morgans so my standards for the day had dropped to a level in which a Jack Black movie might have amused me). Either way, if you're not a retarded tone deaf 5 year old, you probably won't like this movie... But its not the most painful movie I've ever seen.... that honour probably belongs to........
Did you hear about the Morgans?
AHHHHHHHH *vomits everywhere*. Sorry, I saw Sarah Jessica Parker's face... and then her acting. My fucking god this movie is dreadful. A comedy in which I laughed... once? Maybe twice? And I'm pretty sure neither of the two main characters were involved. The most predictable, boring, load of bollocks every created.
Now its an alright premise, a New York couple going through marriage troubles witnesses a murder, which gets them sent to the south (of course....). It's an old premise, but if done well it wouldn't be that bad... but it really is. It's just bollocks. Hugh Grant is usually not that bad, I quite enjoyed Notting Hill, and I've (please don't kill me) seen every episode of Sex and the City, so I probably don't hate SJP as much as I think, but in this movie, everything is worse then ever.
I can't honestly see anyone going to this movie expecting to like it, and unfortunately I'm not really arguing with anyone on this because basically every reviewer in the world said it was shit, which makes things substantially less fun. Go for it, see it, prove me wrong. But just know that I told you so...
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"Up in the Air" Review
Now as much as I hate writing positive reviews, after watching a plotless kids movie, a horrible shaky cam movie, and a movie that was about 90% special effects and 1% story, it was good to get back to a good old fashioned standard filmed movie. The fact that it starred George Clooney and was created by Jason Reitman, who wrote and directed one of my favourite movies of the last few years, “Thank you for Smoking”, (and for you people who are into that sort of thing, he made “Juno” too, which was OK I guess, except for Ellen Page's insufferable fucken dialogue) also influenced my positive interest in this movie.
I was lucky enough to see an advanced screening of “Up in the air”, which is a movie about a man named Ryan (Clooney) with a job of flying around America firing people from companies where the manager is too much of a pussy to do it themselves, and making public speaking appearances to talk about how not forming relationships with people is a good thing. Now while most people probably think this guy sounds like an absolute wanker, I can relate to him immensely. His characterisation at the start was awesome, and the dialogue in the first half of the movie is great, although often ridiculous (especially in the scene where he meets Vera Farmiga's character for the first time).
It seems like a great story of how a man who doesn't feel loneliness or guilt and who loves travelling gets his world twisted up... but then they have to go and give him emotions. Now I know there has to be some kind of conflict in a movie, and I know everyone has to go through a transition of some sorts, but for fuck sake! Go and watch “Thank you for Smoking” a few more times Reitman, Nick Naylor is basically still as much of a bastard at the end of that as he is at the start, and I loved him for that. I know, I'm just clutching at straws with that, but I had to find something to bitch about, and it did piss me off a fair bit...
Now while “Up in the Air” still has the flair and witty dialogue of his previous movies (well, only one in my opinion, but I can't really ignore the fact that everyone loved “Juno” for some reason), it still could have ended more substantially then it did. I did however enjoy the movie, I even loved it immensely for about the first hour, but I lost a lot of connection with the main character over time, and towards the end much of it became irritatingly predictable.
While it was an enjoyable film that I didn't get to swear lots about, and it'll probably get nominated for a few oscars, I wouldn't say it was Reitman's best work, but I do recommend it (but if you hate it, it's so not my fault). For all of you who aren't as cool as me and didn't get to see it half way through December, “Up in the Air” is released in Australia on January 7th (Or January 14th depending on your source. Pretty sure its the 7th though)
(Yeah, I know, it's not like a humorous review, but do you know how hard it is to write a funny review about something you enjoyed, yeh, ya don't, so stop whinging. I'm sure I'll hate “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel”, the name alone makes me want to die, so wait till then if you want to read me slag on a movie :P)
I was lucky enough to see an advanced screening of “Up in the air”, which is a movie about a man named Ryan (Clooney) with a job of flying around America firing people from companies where the manager is too much of a pussy to do it themselves, and making public speaking appearances to talk about how not forming relationships with people is a good thing. Now while most people probably think this guy sounds like an absolute wanker, I can relate to him immensely. His characterisation at the start was awesome, and the dialogue in the first half of the movie is great, although often ridiculous (especially in the scene where he meets Vera Farmiga's character for the first time).
It seems like a great story of how a man who doesn't feel loneliness or guilt and who loves travelling gets his world twisted up... but then they have to go and give him emotions. Now I know there has to be some kind of conflict in a movie, and I know everyone has to go through a transition of some sorts, but for fuck sake! Go and watch “Thank you for Smoking” a few more times Reitman, Nick Naylor is basically still as much of a bastard at the end of that as he is at the start, and I loved him for that. I know, I'm just clutching at straws with that, but I had to find something to bitch about, and it did piss me off a fair bit...
Now while “Up in the Air” still has the flair and witty dialogue of his previous movies (well, only one in my opinion, but I can't really ignore the fact that everyone loved “Juno” for some reason), it still could have ended more substantially then it did. I did however enjoy the movie, I even loved it immensely for about the first hour, but I lost a lot of connection with the main character over time, and towards the end much of it became irritatingly predictable.
While it was an enjoyable film that I didn't get to swear lots about, and it'll probably get nominated for a few oscars, I wouldn't say it was Reitman's best work, but I do recommend it (but if you hate it, it's so not my fault). For all of you who aren't as cool as me and didn't get to see it half way through December, “Up in the Air” is released in Australia on January 7th (Or January 14th depending on your source. Pretty sure its the 7th though)
(Yeah, I know, it's not like a humorous review, but do you know how hard it is to write a funny review about something you enjoyed, yeh, ya don't, so stop whinging. I'm sure I'll hate “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel”, the name alone makes me want to die, so wait till then if you want to read me slag on a movie :P)
Thursday, December 17, 2009
"Avatar" Review
Whether you like James Cameron's movies or not, its hard to resist seeing them. The first creation in a decade by the man who directed the highest grossing movie in the world formed such an immense amount of hype that it couldn't possibly live up to... and didn't, at all. Not to say that I hated it, its just that everyone is talking about it being amazing and destroying box office records, when really and truly it just isn't going to happen, and people who say this must be high on several forms of drugs. I even read one review that said “Best movie of the last 30 years”... WTF IS WITH THESE PEOPLE???
When I go to the cinemas I generally like to see a decent storyline, and while visuals can help, they aren't generally the most important thing. That said, the visuals were fucking incredible, like, just amazing. However, I still see 3D as a pointless addition to any movie, and this hasn't really sold me on the idea, but as I'll be seeing this movie again later this week in 2D I'll make my final judgment on 3D then.
Somehow a decade ago this man managed to bring thousands of people into cinemas to tell a story that they already knew the basic ending to, and still left many of them crying. Avatar is not going to leave anyone crying (Unless they're pathetic overly emotional wankers), except when they hear lines like “We are here to mine Unobtainium”. Sick play on words James, very proud. Couldn't think of anything more original? What was he thinking... “Hmm... maybe I'll throw $400 million into special effects and use the other $50 million on pot to smoke while I write the script...”. And thats not the only annoying one, there are corny annoying lines littered throughout the script, and while both Worthington and Weaver's acting is well done, some of the lines are too irritating to ignore. And trust me, by the end of the movie you'll be sick of seeing people look at each other emotionally and saying “I see you” like its a futuristic fucking game of peek-a-boo.
The underlying theme of “anti-technology” throughout the movie is a little ironic to take in while watching the most advanced computer graphics ever put on screen, it feels like the movie is mocking you, condescending to your materialistic attitude. Now I don't know about you, but I don't generally liked to be judged by my movies, I go there to be entertained. And while my eyes were entertained my brain wanted to kill itself and others. And the religion aspect also annoyed the shit out of me, why cant these kind of things just fuck off already? “I am legend” also tried to pull this bullshit, and it didn't add anything to that fucken movie either.
Now while I wasn't that excited by it, I'm definitely not telling people not to see it. If you're happy with a mediocre story and some corniness with incredible graphics, go ahead. But while I think James Cameron is an incredible storyteller, to me it seemed like he just didn't have a decent story to tell.
Edit:
Saw it in 2D today, very little difference. Still not sold on the whole 3D idea, but meh, what are ya gonna do? Still don't see how this movie is getting constant insanely good reviews, and once again wanted to vomit every time someone said "I see you" or mentioned anything about Eywa (The pandorian deity XD)
When I go to the cinemas I generally like to see a decent storyline, and while visuals can help, they aren't generally the most important thing. That said, the visuals were fucking incredible, like, just amazing. However, I still see 3D as a pointless addition to any movie, and this hasn't really sold me on the idea, but as I'll be seeing this movie again later this week in 2D I'll make my final judgment on 3D then.
Somehow a decade ago this man managed to bring thousands of people into cinemas to tell a story that they already knew the basic ending to, and still left many of them crying. Avatar is not going to leave anyone crying (Unless they're pathetic overly emotional wankers), except when they hear lines like “We are here to mine Unobtainium”. Sick play on words James, very proud. Couldn't think of anything more original? What was he thinking... “Hmm... maybe I'll throw $400 million into special effects and use the other $50 million on pot to smoke while I write the script...”. And thats not the only annoying one, there are corny annoying lines littered throughout the script, and while both Worthington and Weaver's acting is well done, some of the lines are too irritating to ignore. And trust me, by the end of the movie you'll be sick of seeing people look at each other emotionally and saying “I see you” like its a futuristic fucking game of peek-a-boo.
The underlying theme of “anti-technology” throughout the movie is a little ironic to take in while watching the most advanced computer graphics ever put on screen, it feels like the movie is mocking you, condescending to your materialistic attitude. Now I don't know about you, but I don't generally liked to be judged by my movies, I go there to be entertained. And while my eyes were entertained my brain wanted to kill itself and others. And the religion aspect also annoyed the shit out of me, why cant these kind of things just fuck off already? “I am legend” also tried to pull this bullshit, and it didn't add anything to that fucken movie either.
Now while I wasn't that excited by it, I'm definitely not telling people not to see it. If you're happy with a mediocre story and some corniness with incredible graphics, go ahead. But while I think James Cameron is an incredible storyteller, to me it seemed like he just didn't have a decent story to tell.
Edit:
Saw it in 2D today, very little difference. Still not sold on the whole 3D idea, but meh, what are ya gonna do? Still don't see how this movie is getting constant insanely good reviews, and once again wanted to vomit every time someone said "I see you" or mentioned anything about Eywa (The pandorian deity XD)
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
"Paranormal Activity" Review
What can one say about a movie like “Paranormal Activity”? The reviews on this movie positively astound me, the ridiculous praise, the incredible fear, none of which I shared or understood. I read statements such as “Scariest Film Ever” and “Don't watch alone” and watched it raise it to a level of hype that makes me want to eat my own eyeballs as opposed to watching it. The fact that I'll be watching Avatar in the coming week however, which is so ridiculously hyped as it is by the director of the highest grossing movie ever, makes me feel I should be less judgmental of overly hyped films. However, in this case I'll be as judgmental as I damn well please.
This movie to me was basically “Blair Witch Project” in a house. I guess it is slightly different, since this time we get to supposedly see the invisible demon going about its merry business opening doors and moving sheets around, how horrifying. It hasn't got as much of the shaky cam effect patented by such bollocks films as “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine”. And OK, I guess these factors give it a tiny bit more plausibility then BWP (which for the record, I hate with so much of a passion I often feel the need to arrange cult gatherings to burn several hundred copies of it). And while it causes me immense pain to admit, it was filmed well enough. The scenes looked realistic, I guess, but so did the scenes in “Star Trek”, and that didn't make that real. What I'm basically trying to say is... ITS A FUCKING MOVIE.
What you have to keep in mind is these people weren't really haunted by a demon. No matter how much they want you to believe it, this is not a documentary, or even based on a true story in any way. After watching it don't feel the need to film yourself and your girlfriend while you sleep you creepy fuckhead, nothing happens, the worst you'll probably find out is that your strange neighbour sneaks into your house and stares at you all night. It is simply a 2 hour piece of repetitive garbage with an illogical ending with the attempted true story aspect thrown onto us. Nothing scary, whatsoever.
I assume there are morons out there (you know, people who believe in demons and call up pyshics to ask about their love lives) who went home and poured flour all over their floors and then freaked out when there were footprints in it the next morning because their roommate went to the toilet. Honestly, I don't get it, but this isn't my genre... mostly because I have an IQ of above 14 and I don't piss my pants ever time someone knocks on my door.
This movie to me was basically “Blair Witch Project” in a house. I guess it is slightly different, since this time we get to supposedly see the invisible demon going about its merry business opening doors and moving sheets around, how horrifying. It hasn't got as much of the shaky cam effect patented by such bollocks films as “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine”. And OK, I guess these factors give it a tiny bit more plausibility then BWP (which for the record, I hate with so much of a passion I often feel the need to arrange cult gatherings to burn several hundred copies of it). And while it causes me immense pain to admit, it was filmed well enough. The scenes looked realistic, I guess, but so did the scenes in “Star Trek”, and that didn't make that real. What I'm basically trying to say is... ITS A FUCKING MOVIE.
What you have to keep in mind is these people weren't really haunted by a demon. No matter how much they want you to believe it, this is not a documentary, or even based on a true story in any way. After watching it don't feel the need to film yourself and your girlfriend while you sleep you creepy fuckhead, nothing happens, the worst you'll probably find out is that your strange neighbour sneaks into your house and stares at you all night. It is simply a 2 hour piece of repetitive garbage with an illogical ending with the attempted true story aspect thrown onto us. Nothing scary, whatsoever.
I assume there are morons out there (you know, people who believe in demons and call up pyshics to ask about their love lives) who went home and poured flour all over their floors and then freaked out when there were footprints in it the next morning because their roommate went to the toilet. Honestly, I don't get it, but this isn't my genre... mostly because I have an IQ of above 14 and I don't piss my pants ever time someone knocks on my door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
