Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6321  
Old 01-06-2013, 09:57 PM
Frankenweenie (2012)

I'm not too sure what I think with this remake. On one hand Mr Burton is back on form with some classic Burton visuals and atmosphere yet on the other hand it feels like a rehash of all of his films quashed together. I do find myself thinking the same thing everytime I see a new Burton film.

Now don't get me wrong I'm a HUGE Burton fan and have been since 'Beetlejuice', but I can't deny that Burton has lost his touch recently and his last few films have failed to inspire. The reason for this being his unique quirky imagination has become somewhat stale and over used.

The original short film of 'Frankenweenie' was pretty neat because it was a curious cutesy homage to the classic monster film but wasn't dripping in Burton's typical trademarks. This new remake is gorgeous to look at and is indeed a wet dream for all gothic fans such as myself but as I review this I just can't help but think there is nothing new here.

OK its a remake so of course its not original but everything in this film has been hijacked from all his previous work. The suburban setting for the 'Frankenstein' family is the same typical Californian identikit urban sprawl that we've seen in many of Burton's films like 'Edward Scissorhands'. Some of the creatures in this film are literately ripped from his other films, the cat/bat creature and the werewolf-like rodent creature are both virtually the same creatures used in 'The Nightmare Before Christmas', and whilst watching the film you can see many little ideas dotted throughout from his other films.

The sequence where 'Victor' (Burton loves the names Victor and Vincent doesn't he) tries to bring 'Sparky' back to life has many little nods to previous films. Well I say nods but are they? I get the idea Burton simply can't resist putting these little kooky creations in his films ever since most of them appeared in 'Nightmare'.

The main character of 'Victor' is pretty much the same guy from 'Corpse Bride' with a dash of 'Vincent' and many of the child characters look familiar to Burton's 'Oyster Boy' stories. Now I'm not complaining because this is a lovely film which has a good heart and its fabulous to see Burton championing stop motion claymation in this day and age. You can appreciate the skill and craftsmanship involved creating these films, Burton and his team certainly deserve much credit and kudos for that.

There are some really nice touches throughout the film. The few characters that have a certain resemblance to classic character or actors of the horror genre, the 'Godzilla' homage was nice and this whole movie concept does work much better in this format. The old live action film felt a bit too silly but the whole idea fits the animation world just fine.

Anyway all I'm saying is despite the film being a nice return to 'classic Burton' of the 90's when his style (dare I say kink) was fresh and new. At the same time it is still a large rerun of his dark imagination all over again. I really can't help but wonder how long he can keep regurgitating his own ideas.

A beautiful visual halloween feast with lots of soul that will definitely warm the cockles of your heart. I just think Mr Burton really needs to broaden his horizons a tad as the constant use of certain styles, designs and cast is really getting thin. Other than that it is pleasing to see the digging up of that classic retro Burton of yore, just don't rely on that for your next projects Mr Burton. You can only make so many claymation films like this.
  #6322  
Old 01-06-2013, 11:17 PM
Jiro Dreams of Sushi - 9/10

An inspiring watch even if you're not a foodie (I am), as its matters of work, care, family, and posterity encompass us all.
  #6323  
Old 01-07-2013, 12:27 AM
Chawz

8.5/10

I was really surprised at how funny this movie is. I was also pleasantly surprised with how real the killer boar looked.

I almost enjoyed it as much The Host

It says it's like Jaws, but I also found it similar to Predator

Last edited by silentasylum; 01-07-2013 at 12:36 AM..
  #6324  
Old 01-07-2013, 01:59 AM
Killing Them Softly

SPOILER WARNING!

With a cast of stars including Pitt, Gandolfini and Liotta and based on a crime novel involving the mafia, hits and heists you would expect this to be excellent, so is it? yes! well no, hmmm...errr yeeaah...kinda.

The plot in this film is really very simple and pretty thin. Ray Liotta's character sets up his own poker ring operation for the loot and gets away with it scot free. Sometime later two losers do the same thing to Liotta's poker ring and they get away with all the loot...putting Liotta's character under suspicion. Pitt's hitman character is then brought in to sort out the whole situation and find out who stuck up the poker ring for a second time. Which I might add he manages quite easily it seems.

That's the game in a nutshell and like Pitt's acting its basic. This film is semi decent yet flawed, flawed in the sense that the plot is stretched out to 1h 37min with lots of pointless dialog. Most of which bares no relation to the actual plot but just drones on. The main sequences guilty of this are the dialogs between Pitt and Gandolfini, the latter of which just goes on and on about screwing hookers whilst drinking and not much else.

To be honest the plot is half way complete early into the film, Pitt has his job to do and it doesn't need this long to watch him do it. Don't get me wrong though the acting is terrific throughout from almost all players involved...well the stars, accept Pitt. Liotta is turned from tough guy to punch bag in this mobster story and he does it well. Gandolfini looks every bit like a real mafioso head honcho year by year and does what he does best despite the meaningless rambling dialog he has and Jenkins is solid n stoic as ever.

For me this film does highlight how very average an actor Pitt is surrounded by some serious acting stalwarts. Again don't get me wrong, Pitt does OK in his role and in any less of a film he would be fine but this is a grown up mobster flick and he just doesn't match up. I'm not really too sure why they would cast the guy in this type of film really.

One sequence I don't get with Pitt's character is when he whacks one guy...but using a shotgun?!. Not only that but he does it from a distance!, surely shotguns aren't that effective from a distance and surely carrying out a hit this way would attract a lot of attention from say...the noise?!. Not to mention the mess and damage, ah what do I know.

The other thing that bugged me was Scoot McNairy and his annoying tone of voice, the guy sounded like 'Shaggy' outta 'Scooby Doo' for pete's sake!! geeeez!. Didn't think much of Ben Mendelsohn either really. He's an Aussie actor and plays an Aussie in the film, the guy just didn't fit in the story a tall, typical US hoods and an Aussie, nah.

The profanity count is high and the violence is brutal, it may make you wince, possibly even jump at times but there isn't lots of it. As this takes place in 2008 there is also snippets from the real event of President Obama's election campaign and victory, why? I'm not so sure as it has no real relevance to the plot or its outcomes. There is a political message in here as Pitt's character states 'America's not a country, its just a business', its all about $$$.

The film is well directed whilst visually it looks slick and gritty, but its trying to hard to be a Scorsese product or trying to hard to be something unique and different. Either way it doesn't really make it mainly down to the fact there isn't much of a plot to speak of.
  #6325  
Old 01-07-2013, 02:08 AM
Django Unchained



This was a solid ride, worthy to be up there with epics that clearly inspired QT - Once Upon a Time in the West, and TGTB&TU. Straight up Tarantino stamp all over too. This film once again proves why he's one of the greats.

I appreciated how QT sprinkled the last quarter with cameos. Besides the obvious Michael Parks and Savini, I spotted Jon Jarrat, Zoe Bell, Michael Bowen.

9/10

Last edited by Digifruitella; 01-07-2013 at 02:11 AM..
  #6326  
Old 01-07-2013, 05:59 AM

Great performances by everyone, best movie DeNiro has been in in a long time. 8.5/10


Definite tearjerker, great child actors, seemed very realistic. 9/10

Last edited by Canto; 01-07-2013 at 08:40 AM..
  #6327  
Old 01-07-2013, 09:25 AM
Killer Joe



Depending on your sensibilities, you’ll either think the ending is disturbing… or fucking hilarious. I fall more in the latter camp, but before that, you have Matthew McConaughey at his drawling best in the coldblooded and volatile nutcase Joe Cooper. It’s one of 2012’s most shockingly memorable performances, and it’s a shame it won’t be nominated for anything, because it’s something you don’t see every day (from McConaughey or anyone, really). The film itself is a flawed masterpiece of pitch-black comedy and southern thrills, where the main problem it faces is having a cast of characters so uniformly reprehensible that it’s hard to get a bearing. Maybe others would see it as the movie’s greatest strength, that it has the subversive mettle to be utterly devoid of sympathy, but making one of these reprobates even approach relateable may have helped me get into the proceedings more. As it is, it’s a collection of fantastic performances led by McConaughey, with a strikingly original execution of a familiar story that combines a bit of Coen with a bit of Texas Chainsaw Massacre… … And that wasn’t a Return of TCM dig on Matt, I swear.

-> 7/10
  #6328  
Old 01-07-2013, 10:13 AM


Wacky, violent, and unfortunately a bit unfinished in places; Don Conscarelli’s adaptation of Cracked writer David Wong’s novel definitely has its heart in the right places, adapting the scary and hilarity that the book brings in spades. Yeah, the story feels a little undercooked and rushed for the most part, but Conscarelli truly gets what makes John Dies at the End work, even if he’s more inclined in take the truly creepy moments in a more lighthearted manner.

Director of films like the horror film Phantasm, Conscarelli definitely has the directorial skills in making the world of a person’s nightmare come to life on the big screen. If those scenarios are weird, out of place, and doesn’t make much sense, then Conscarelli looks to be up to the task in adapting such a David Lynch-type atmosphere. This is what he certainly feels up to in John Dies at the End, a story following two friends who discover a drug that open their senses to other dimensions and monsters that other people can’t see, pulling the two unfortunate souls into a task of saving the world from a Lovecraft-Ian creature.

Conscarelli goes head first with the material, never stopping to take a breath with these characters going from one weird scenario to the very next. At a brisk 99 minutes, the film feels like half that length with the amount of subversive moments that never stop to feel boring or uninteresting. Chase Williamson and Rob Mayes are great as the two guys, Dave and John, who come across the drug known as Soy Sauce. While Mayes has a more minor role than Williamson, Williamson’s Dave is the perfect character to take on this weird journey. Completely oblivious, unimpressed, or just plain losing it with what is going on, Williamson brings the low-key, “do we really have to deal with this?” personality of Dave perfectly. Mayes as Dave, on the other hand, is the friend that’s more willing to go head first with what is going on regardless of the danger.

The rest is amicable enough, with Clancy Brown as a badass psychic who joins the duo throughout the film, and Glynn Turman is a hoot as a detective, who gets involved with the “Soy Sauce” business and starts his own bloody vendetta against whatever is about to attack his world. Even Paul Giamatti shows up as a reporter who wants to documents David’s sotry with the sauce, perfectly encapsulating the character in the book. The rest of the cast is fine, if only a bit underwritten for the most part (Fabianne Therese’s Amy is the biggest victim to the lack of exposition).

Therein lies the problem with John Dies at the End, this is a film that deserves more than what is given. There is a certainty that Conscarelli has a decent budget and does everything well in regards in bringing this book to life to the big screen. But, the film still feels rushed for the most part, feeling more like an hour-long book adaptation than a true film adaptation.

This may be a problem for big fans of David Wong’s book, but newcomers and fans of Don Conscarelli’s work will have a hoot with the amount of insanity that the director brings to John Dies at the End. This is a film that subverts horror fans’ expectations of what to expect in the genre, going simply all out with a concept without any need to stop, or think that the plot is getting a little too out of sorts. Check out this if you’re down for a ride that wants to surprise you at every corner.

7/10
  #6329  
Old 01-07-2013, 12:00 PM
Zero Dark Thirty


While The Hurt Locker was gripping by it's "a day like everybody else" approach . ZDH is more twisted in its message.

Actually the movie is not the message , it is all explained in the final minute when Jessica Chastain ( awesome role & performance btw ) gets her own military carrier to get back home and there's a close-up of her face when she sheds a tear.

I know the tagline says it is what accurately happened but i don't believe it for 1 second .... True story are never true anyway.

Actually , the story about Bin Laden is irrelevant ... it is the "pursuit of intelligence and what can we do about it" that is the real dilemna. And even with the focus on the CIA , any dimwit can tell it's a global problem and not really america-specific ( every goverment does it .... except Canada because after a beating , we will say WE ARE SORRY and offer you a Tim Hortons coffee ).

Kathryn Bigelow strikes again but i fear she will be typecasted as a war filmmaker now ( Strange Days was AWESOME ! )

8.5/10
  #6330  
Old 01-07-2013, 12:38 PM


8/10
  #6331  
Old 01-07-2013, 01:46 PM

7/10
  #6332  
Old 01-07-2013, 01:51 PM


“Delusions of Grandeur” is a very apt comparison towards the Jason Reitman directed/Diablo Cody written film. A complete 180 from their upbeat, indie comedy Juno, their 2011 film goes head first into black comedy territory, revolving around a morally reprehensible, yet still engaging character who decides to go back to her hometown, high school roots in hopes of following some insane “love conquers all” mentality in her life.

These types of “black comedy” films have some sort of predictable edge to their screenplays that some viewers could be turned off too. They know where this story could be heading, so why even bother with it? That answer is simply Charlize Theron. Her role as the delusional ghost writer of Young Adult books who wants to get back with her high school crush (Patrick Wilson), whose married and just had a kid, is simply excellent. This is the type of story where awkwardness and completely depressing scenes just go hand in hand, and Theron, Reitman and Cody do not even flinch in laying these scenes out in Young Adult. Theron herself is very game to produce such a completely delusional character in Mavis Gray, a woman who lives an adult life, but more or less is stuck in this high school, superiority mentality. But, while Theron’s character is pretty much a completely awful human being throughout, she still manages to garner sympathy through her eye-rolling plight.

The rest of the cast fit in line perfectly with Diablo Cody’s story as well. Patton Oswalt is great as Matt, the high school loser whom Mavis ignored back in the day, but soon bonds with as he’s the only person in her hometown who will listen to her crazy plan. Patrick Wilson is suitable enough as Mavis’s old school flame Buddy Slade, an everyday man who’s quite content with where he is in his professional and married life, and certainly seems to have no reason to run away with Mavis. That’s the great contrasting point between Mavis’s lavish lifestyle and the quiet lifestyle of her hometown. Everyone is suited to be content in where they live (apart from one or two people), while Mavis is utterly filled with contempt in how people are allowing themselves to be settled in, what she believes is utter mediocrity.

Director Jason Reitman doesn’t give much directional flourishes to Diablo Cody’s script, apart from one or two montages involving Mavis’s makeovers. He’s more content in letting the story go on screen, and having the great actors command their roles on camera. He seems much more confident that Diablo Cody’s scenes will work like gangbusters, allowing the dialogue to flow and the direction to follow suit.

Overall, Young Adult is an uncomfortable film about a character that is hopelessly trying to make something of her life by completely ruining others. But, the script is so tight and uncompromising, as well as Theron and the rest of the cast just being so damn good that Young Adult definitely warrants a viewing, if only to see how to make a depressing, somewhat predictable character piece feel absolutely engaging.

8.5/10
  #6333  
Old 01-07-2013, 04:59 PM

Zero Dark Thirty(2012)-9/10
  #6334  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:23 PM


8/10
  #6335  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:53 PM

6/10
  #6336  
Old 01-07-2013, 10:13 PM
The Crowd - This silent film actually dealt with real problems of the day unlike many escapist films of the time. The story wasn't terribly complicated but King Vidor did a great job making the audience care about the characters. 8/10

The Prisoner with Alec Guinness - A priest is wrongfully arrested for treason and the police try to force a confession out of him. Guinness was definitely the highlight but Jack Hawkins also did a fine job as the interrogator. The ending is haunting as well. 7/10

Beyond Tomorrow - A minor 1940's fantasy film in which three old men die in a plane crash and their ghosts try to get a young couple together. It was pretty sappy at times but still entertaining. 5/10
  #6337  
Old 01-07-2013, 10:35 PM


8/10
  #6338  
Old 01-08-2013, 01:22 AM
Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale

9.5/10

this movie has some amazing scenes. I am curious to see the four hour version
  #6339  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:15 AM
Zero Dark Thirty



If Homeland was a movie.

Solid piece, tough to watch and pretty somber.

8/10
  #6340  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
Zero Dark Thirty



If Homeland was a movie.
It's funny you mentioned Homeland. I always thought the movie looked and sounded like a more realistic, less sensationalized version of 24. Especially with the torture.

I'm sure the movie is much different than 24, of course. But it's kind of just been in the back of my head. It's not like I'm expecting this to be action packed like 24. I know that there is probably little action until the raid in Pakistan at the end.
  #6341  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
It's funny you mentioned Homeland. I always thought the movie looked and sounded like a more realistic, less sensationalized version of 24. Especially with the torture.

I'm sure the movie is much different than 24, of course. But it's kind of just been in the back of my head. It's not like I'm expecting this to be action packed like 24. I know that there is probably little action until the raid in Pakistan at the end.
I've never really watched 24, other than an episode or two when it was on the air. This was more closer to Homeland to me, especially the second season. Even Desplat's score mimicked that of Homeland's.
  #6342  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
I've never really watched 24, other than an episode or two when it was on the air. This was more closer to Homeland to me, especially the second season. Even Desplat's score mimicked that of Homeland's.
Well a lot of people have been comparing Homeland to 24 this past season, what with the whole hunt for Abu Nazir and all.
  #6343  
Old 01-08-2013, 04:06 AM
DREDD - 5/10

A take-it-or-leave it no-brainer that delivers mediocre gunfighting action with plenty of CGI-laced blood and guts, but lacks originality or the ability to grab any kind of emotion by the balls and threaten to rip them off.
The action wasn't that gripping, and the storyline is kind of a "been there, done that" reference to many 80s actioners like "Cobra", with the violent flair of "The Punisher" (the most recent remake/boot), Karl Urban doing a great Sly Stallone impression with the voice of a rough and tumble short leashed anti-hero.

The worst of the movie for me, I guess, was the overuse of the "slo-mo" drug and the extremely high contrast/color boosted/super extreme slow motion POV shots. It was excessive and we really didn't need to see it more than once. Worst of all as that near the end, there is a full two minute super slow motion sequence in which literally NOTHING happens and I started to wonder why the fuck I was still watching the movie.

With all that said, it is serviceable enough for those looking for brainless action, decent set design and know that their brains will not be engaged when digesting this malnutritious fluff.
If you don't see it, I doubt you'd miss much.
  #6344  
Old 01-08-2013, 03:23 PM
Ran (8/10)
Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (4/10)
  #6345  
Old 01-08-2013, 03:31 PM


8/10
  #6346  
Old 01-08-2013, 04:15 PM


I wouldn't call it a film worthy of the Best Picture award, but I would say it's a great film nonetheless that I preferred more than The Hurt Locker.

9/10
  #6347  
Old 01-08-2013, 05:38 PM

The Impossible(2012)-8/10
  #6348  
Old 01-08-2013, 08:14 PM


9/10
  #6349  
Old 01-08-2013, 08:50 PM
Come to the Stable with Loretta Young and Celeste Holm - A couple of nuns try to get the land and funds to build a children's hospital in a rural community. It's really a heartwarming tale with many fine performances. It doesn't sound like it would be a good film at first but it really is a fun watch. 8/10

Rear Window - I think this is Hitchcock's best movie. James Stewart is great in the lead and Grace Kelly and Thelma Ritter are wonderful in the supporting roles with Raymond Burr rounding out the excellent cast in his villainous role. The film looks wonderful too. 10/10
  #6350  
Old 01-08-2013, 08:54 PM
This Is 40



The pseudo-sequel to Knocked Up that continues Judd Apatow’s tradition of walking a fine line between comedy and drama, and nailing both liberally with a lot of solid crowd-pleasing laughs and a fistful of heart. Judd’s last, Funny People, overstayed its welcome by about a half hour and was spotty on the tonal mix, but this was a noted improvement. A worthy followup to Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann’s memorable side act from Knocked Up. It helps that Pete is a more relateable shmuck to root for, where George Simmons (Sandler in FP) was just a miserable jagoff. There’s a lot here to resonate with people beyond the obligatory jokes and creative dialogue that Apatow’s stable of performers dole out plentifully and often (Jason Segel again being a standout as the unnaturally relaxed fitness guru). My favorite running theme, though, was the hilarious (but probably true) theory put forth by Pete and Debbie that their marital strife and burgeoning midlife crises are entirely brought on by the generational gap to either side of them - their inattentive and/or mooching parents on one side (Albert Brooks and John Lithgow, both game, both great), and their constantly bickering daughters on the other (Apatow and Mann’s real life daughters Iris and Maude, also pretty damn funny for child actors). Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right, indeed.

-> 8/10
  #6351  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:50 PM
Beasts of the Southern Wild - 5/10

. . . the 'beasts' being the foul and ignorant dwellers of 'Bathtub', right? I was insulted when it was asking for my sentiments at the end after that poor girls love was ridiculed by her father. Her wild imaginations upset me; no doubt sparked by a shortfall and yearning for love. And the love she receives, when she is truly at her most contented in the film, is a scene wherein a strange hooker who bears likeness to her deceased mother fries her up a plate of calamari and embraces her for a few moments. It struck me the wrong way.

A fierce little lady and a wonder-struck performance, but the film and its social logic confused me.

Last edited by viceus; 01-08-2013 at 10:08 PM..
  #6352  
Old 01-08-2013, 09:58 PM


8/10
  #6353  
Old 01-08-2013, 11:25 PM


9/10
  #6354  
Old 01-09-2013, 01:07 AM


9/10
  #6355  
Old 01-09-2013, 04:21 AM
The Forty First



Once again I am convinced that Urusevsky was a God behind a camera. Nobody revolutionized cinematography like the Soviets did. It all stemmed from them.

9/10

Jiro Dreams of Sushi



If you've always wondered what defines true success.

8/10
  #6356  
Old 01-09-2013, 11:52 AM
The High Cost of Living (2010)


I love Isabelle , she is not known outside Quebec but she does drama like a queen . And then , there's Zach Braff , mostly known for his role as JD in Scrubs.

A pregnant women (Blais) gets run over by a low-level drug trafficking bum (Braff ) and loses her child but he tries to turn his life around by becoming her protector.

Just thinking about it brings a tear to my eyes

9/10

i should do a full review of this movie
  #6357  
Old 01-09-2013, 12:11 PM


If The Lord of the Rings are the perfect film trilogy to introduce a teenager into the fantasy world of J.R.R. Tolkien’s, then The Hobbit trilogy, the film adaptation of the prequel book to the Rings lore, could very well be a great film to introduce the younger crowds. While the former trilogy is certainly in a more adult-oriented fantasy (with some cute moments for the kids as well), The Hobbit attains a more whimsical, light-hearted affair that kids and adults could be sure to enjoy for the most part. Unfortunately, with this first outing from returning director Peter Jackson, there seems to be much bloat in this first film of the trilogy that entertains, as well as aggravates.

The Lord of the Rings films were films that seem to understand and work with their bloat, as these epic books that were adapted to film were full of detailed settings, characters, and plot. But, Jackson had a fairly tight rein with his three films of the book series, creating films that had the weight of the book’s mythology, but never feeling overbearing for the audience at hand. For The Hobbit, however, a 320-page book stretched into three films like a bit of a stretch (pun intended) for Peter Jackson. Do we need that much detail in a fairly simple book about the past adventure of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman as the younger self/ Ian Holm as his older self), joining with Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) to help a band of dwarfs take back their kingdom from a terrible dragon?

This is the inherent problem with The Hobbit itself; as Jackson wants to tell the original story, while also connect this trilogy entirely to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, mostly through appendices that Tolkien wrote to complete a bridge between Hobbit and the Rings trilogy. This brings scenes that are engaging for fans of the films and books, while also a bit cluttered for main plot concerning the dwarves. It’s just a mixed bag sadly, and sort of undercuts the main arc that revolves with Bilbo Baggins being an introvert hobbit, to the adventurer that he wanted to be when he was young.

But, the returning character from the original trilogy definitely brings back the joy that was mustered from years ago. Scenes with the motion-captured Gollum (Andy Serkis) are a great high point in the film, straddling the line between child-like and adult, much like the PG films in the 80s. A cool scene, even if it does stop the main story in its track, involving Gandalf, Saruman (Christopher Lee), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), and Elrond (Hugo Weaving) that gives more personality and emotional connection between two of the four characters that felt fun and refreshing.

But, while there are mistakes in juggling between appendices and The Hobbit, Freeman is certainly a perfect, younger Bilbo. He exudes the overwhelmed and frustrated younger version so well, while also bringing the quick wittedness when he is backed into a corner involving Gollum, trolls, or goblins. Richard Armtiage as Thorin, the dwarf that leads the crusade to take back his homeland, exudes the gruff stubbornness that all the dwarves in Middle Earth have yield, and even gets some great backstory to further accompany his staunch and domineering stature. As for the rest of the dwarves, they are interchangeable for the most part, but they have enough personality that they bring humor and heart to the story.

As for the direction under Peter Jackson, he still knows how to make the world of Middle Earth feel epic and alive. From the sweeping shots of the New Zealand landscape to magnificent CGI structures of the goblin mines and caverns, Jackson still has a keen eye for how to bring Tolkien’s world to life on the big screen. The only one minor nagging issue is that Jackson seems keener on utilizing fully CGI world, rather than complimenting prosthetics and the computer generated. Nothing that’s detrimental to the film, but it gave more physicality to the actors’ interacting with the world around them.

All in all, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, while a bit dodgy in places for the first outing, feels like the perfect introduction for a parent that is a huge fan of Tolkien’s work to introduce his younger son/daughter to the world of Middle Earth. Structurally, the film doesn’t feel as cohesive as it could be and certain action scenes unfortunately feel like retreads to ones in the Rings trilogy, but perhaps that’s something the next two films could make up for.

7/10
  #6358  
Old 01-09-2013, 03:21 PM


8/10
  #6359  
Old 01-09-2013, 05:03 PM


7/10
  #6360  
Old 01-09-2013, 05:25 PM
Dredd

Take two for this adaptation of the classic British dystopian sci-fi comic book character. Not that I disliked the first Stallone attempt, I think that has been given a harsh time personally. Sure it wasn't adult enough and had Rob Schneider in it but they captured the look and feel I thought.

I liked the plot idea for this film, the two Judges trapped within this enormous tower block and having to take down all the perps. Not exactly original but a good recipe for action, a slight nudge towards 'Die Hard' perhaps, mixed with 'The Raid'. Its also neat that 'Mega City One' has loads of these massive towers, so theoretically each tower may have the same criminal problem as this one. This gives you an idea of how big/vast the cities criminal problems are and the genesis for lots of stories within this universe, it gives a nice depth to this universe too.

First thoughts for this new film and I was slightly disappointed to be honest. As the movie opens up and we get narration about the worlds current climate I felt myself thinking this world doesn't actually look very futuristic. Now I didn't expect robots, laser guns and other typical sci-fi cheese but I guess I did expect a kind of...without trying to sound too cliched, 'Blade Runner' type world/environment. 'Mega City One' didn't really look very eye blisteringly cool, just looked like a massive urban sprawl, realistic yes, exciting no, perhaps a bit too realistic?.

I liked that they tried to keep things more grounded and in a possible near future which isn't too far fetched (I'm guessing), but it didn't really feel overly futuristic. This also goes for all the druggies and bad guys holed up in the massive tower block that Dredd takes on. Most of them dressed and looked like your average hoodie youths I see on the street today, bright coloured t-shirts, polo shirts, tracksuits, gold chains etc...Again I realize its a real take and we don't want them dressed in luminous spandex, but I just expected a bit more I suppose.

As for Dredd and his partner its all good, I loved the way they brought Dredd's suit down to earth, made it look functional and yet kept it recogniseable for the fans. Urban was also top notch as Dredd with his gravely voice (not as stupid as Bale's 'Batman', about on par with Eastwood) and trademark sneer, my only criticism would be he didn't look very big. I was impressed with Thirlby as 'Anderson' and the way her psychic abilities were handled, could so easily of been corny. Thirlby did a really good job as the wet behind the ears rookie, she conveyed that nicely whilst also being really cute at the same time. As her confidence grows surrounded by violence so does her appeal to you the viewer.

The main head villain is played by a woman here which is a nice turn but ultimately ends being rather mundane. Lena Headey plays the role well and she does comes across as a real bitch that you just wanna see get blown away, but she never really does much apart from one scene. Her comeuppance*is also pretty weak and slightly anti climatic.

The film is as violent as I expected, it goes from being a bit too ridiculous with skinning people (bit odd and sick that), to gut splitting, face piercing, head shattering shoot outs. Gotta love that gun Dredd uses eh, its right up there with 'Robocop's' hand cannon. I also liked that the film looms towards a Verhoeven style for gunning people down but I gotta say I didn't like all the slow motion. Yes I know that's the whole point with this drug but I just hate that kind of crap, I just wanna see the action, the slow motion just stops it dead, very frustrating.

Most definitely a success with this reboot mainly because it was done for the adult audience, I wonder if Hollywood has clicked on that yet?. Its no 'Die Hard' beater and its not the best action film I've seen recently but its a solid gritty film. Would like to see more futuristic shine in any sequel though, just a touch.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump