10/10
I wondered for ages, rather pointlessly, what score to give this movie out of 10. Who cares if I gave the movie an 8 or a 9 or a 10? It's my blog dammit!
I watched the film on Monday night, it's now Wednesday afternoon of the same week. My score immediately after seeing the film was a straight 10/10. How do I feel now the initial excitement has worn away with 2 days of extra perspective? Has my view changed? NO! This is a flat-out 10/10 film! Is it perfect? I don't know, what's perfect? Who cares!
This is the best film I have seen this year and the most enjoyable film I have seen (probably since Kick-Ass).
I was a MASSIVE fan of 2000AD as a teenager and, in particular of Judge Dredd. This film perfectly captures the feel of Mega City One and the low-life perps that populate it's seedy slums and towers.
I loved everything about the movie. The soundtrack is great with superb break-beats over the credits and beat-drops gearing up as the action kicks in, the script is tight and surprisingly funny (in a blackly comic way), the casting is superb, the 3D effects spot-on, and the pacing of the film also immaculate.
The film is explosively violent - with slo-mo viscera and body-detritus flying BUT the film also manages some emotional depth through the character of rookie-Anderson (fantastically portrayed by Olivia Thirlby - by turns vulnerable but tough). I don't naturally like violent films, but I found the violence in Dredd was quite refreshing given the 12A rating chasing efforts such as Dark Knight Rises and Hunger Games. What do you think happens when someone gets shot or stabbed or thrown out of a window? People bleed. In this case, stylishly and in 3D slow-mo!
Every penny of the $40million filming budget has been well spent! I understand the film launches in the US next week and that if it makes more than $50million, the 2nd and 3rd films of the trilogy Alex Garland has planned may get the green-light. Come on America, go see Dredd!
Karl Urban even manages to bring charisma to his Dredd, even though we only ever see his down-turned mouth (as per the comic). Dredd is a character of our times - what do you do when your city is overtaken by gangs of violent youths who shoot each other, smash up your neighbourhood, steal your stuff in order to buy drugs? What would you LIKE to do, assuming you're NOT one of those violent youths? Send in Dredd? You'd like to wouldn't you - admit it.
Go and see the film - it's utterly fantastic.
Wednesday 12 September 2012
Wednesday 5 September 2012
The Dark Knight Rises - Tuesday 5 Sept 2012
9/10
This film is about as epic as 'super hero' films can get. Firstly it's got a long running time of 165 minutes and, from a lot of other reviews I've read, this hasn't appeared to have a been a problem for many - a sure sign of a film that grips the attention. Everything about the movie is BIG and I was hooked from the first minute! Chris Nolan juggles multiple characters, plot lines and big set-pieces whilst creating something meaningful and emotionally engaging. I enjoyed the film more than the first 2 films of the trilogy (although I haven't seen them in a while!), principally because of Bane and the whole Batman/Catwoman love interest (which I found believeable and quite touching). The film needed the love interest because other than that, it's a fairly bleak affair; Bane wants to give Gotham back to the people; to create anarchy and crush the oppressors (i.e. all forms of law and order). He also happens to have a nuke travelling around the city ticking down to detonation....
The film introduces Joseph Gordon-Levitt who provides excellent support along with Gary Oldman, Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine (providing some emotional depth).
Personally, I think the film would have been enhanced by having a bit more 'blood-shed' but it's a 12A for commercial reasons and who can argue when the film has just surpassed the $1billion mark?! I'll be going to see Dredd for my 'skull-crushing' fix anyway!
It's a great film with a perfectly judged ending! I can't wait to see the film again and to see what come's next!!
This film is about as epic as 'super hero' films can get. Firstly it's got a long running time of 165 minutes and, from a lot of other reviews I've read, this hasn't appeared to have a been a problem for many - a sure sign of a film that grips the attention. Everything about the movie is BIG and I was hooked from the first minute! Chris Nolan juggles multiple characters, plot lines and big set-pieces whilst creating something meaningful and emotionally engaging. I enjoyed the film more than the first 2 films of the trilogy (although I haven't seen them in a while!), principally because of Bane and the whole Batman/Catwoman love interest (which I found believeable and quite touching). The film needed the love interest because other than that, it's a fairly bleak affair; Bane wants to give Gotham back to the people; to create anarchy and crush the oppressors (i.e. all forms of law and order). He also happens to have a nuke travelling around the city ticking down to detonation....
The film introduces Joseph Gordon-Levitt who provides excellent support along with Gary Oldman, Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine (providing some emotional depth).
Personally, I think the film would have been enhanced by having a bit more 'blood-shed' but it's a 12A for commercial reasons and who can argue when the film has just surpassed the $1billion mark?! I'll be going to see Dredd for my 'skull-crushing' fix anyway!
It's a great film with a perfectly judged ending! I can't wait to see the film again and to see what come's next!!
Wednesday 11 July 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man - Tues 11 July 2012
8/10
This is a re-boot of the Spider-Man franchise that goes back to the beginning of Peter Parker's tale (from his childhood days) and the genesis of his alter-ego.
First-up, I loved the casting; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were believable, smart, thoughtful, sweet and clearly well cast. What I liked BEST about the scripting of their relationship (and the film in general) is that there are no secrets between them; she know's he's Spider-Man fairly on in the film and this helps give the film a fresh feel that separates it from the Tobey Maguire franchise.
I wasn't too convinced by Rhys Ifans' portrayal of Dr. Curt Connors - I understand he is meant to feel ambivalent about Parker, but surely he's meant to feel something for (against) him? The Lizard is much more entertaining - he's big (twice the size of Spidey!), bad and nasty to boot. I can't believe that some parents had taken their small children to see this! If I had taken my 5 year-old boy I don't think he would have slept for week...
The film improves as it proceeds and we become more comfortable with the new set-up. The effects are excellent, the fight scenes are superb - it's great to see Spidey enjoying his fights like he does in the comics! - and there's a particularly entertaining fight scene containing a cameo from Stan Lee.
Excellent film and hopefully the start of a successful franchise! I didn't see the film in 3D but I understand that it's superb.
This is a re-boot of the Spider-Man franchise that goes back to the beginning of Peter Parker's tale (from his childhood days) and the genesis of his alter-ego.
First-up, I loved the casting; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were believable, smart, thoughtful, sweet and clearly well cast. What I liked BEST about the scripting of their relationship (and the film in general) is that there are no secrets between them; she know's he's Spider-Man fairly on in the film and this helps give the film a fresh feel that separates it from the Tobey Maguire franchise.
I wasn't too convinced by Rhys Ifans' portrayal of Dr. Curt Connors - I understand he is meant to feel ambivalent about Parker, but surely he's meant to feel something for (against) him? The Lizard is much more entertaining - he's big (twice the size of Spidey!), bad and nasty to boot. I can't believe that some parents had taken their small children to see this! If I had taken my 5 year-old boy I don't think he would have slept for week...
The film improves as it proceeds and we become more comfortable with the new set-up. The effects are excellent, the fight scenes are superb - it's great to see Spidey enjoying his fights like he does in the comics! - and there's a particularly entertaining fight scene containing a cameo from Stan Lee.
Excellent film and hopefully the start of a successful franchise! I didn't see the film in 3D but I understand that it's superb.
Thursday 7 June 2012
Prometheus - Weds 6th June 2012
8/10
First up, I would recommend seeing this film knowing as little about it as possible! There may be spoilers ahead...
The film is set in 2093 and is therefore a prequel to the Alien movie (which was set in 2122). There is one direct link between the films which, once shown, is genuinely exciting; you understand the back story to the strange space craft and the alien creature which the Nostromo crew discover at the start of Alien....
Whilst Prometheus and Alien share the same universe; Prometheus stands on it's own in terms of mythology and subject matter. It asks (and answers) a few of the BIG questions; where did the human race come from? Is there a God/who is the creator? Is there a difference between our creator and us and the relationships we have with OUR creations; i.e. Androids?
For a film of this type and a Director with the commercial reputation of Ridley Scott, the film was given a reasonably modest production budget of $120-$130million. Scott has worked visual wonders with the budget and you wouldn't know from the visuals. Everything looks great; the sweeping vista's of planet Earth at the start, the space-ship and space-suit designs (in particular) are uniformly fantastic.
I'm a huge fan of the Alien Franchise movies (even the slightly shoddy 'vs Predaor' films), and I enjoyed the movie a lot. BUT, I feel the movie could have been better....
The cast is excellent (particularly the fragile/strong lead of Elizabeth Shaw played by Noomi Rapace) BUT characterisation was not particularly strong. 'Character arcs' felt too rushed which made otherwise sensible, intelligent characters come across as unhinged and individual motivations confused. This is most apparent with the character of Charlie Holloway (played ably enough by Logan Marshall-Green). He goes from energetic, life affirming alien-hunter in one scene to introspective drunk the next. Personally, I'd like to see a Director's cut of the movie with an extended running time giving characters the room to develop.The film is about humans after all! I also wasn't that blown away by the sound-track which, to me, felt out of place. Music for the action scenes was fine, but opening/closing credits didn't work for me.
Despite my minor gripes, the film is great - it's thought provoking and I hope we get the chance to see a sequel (which apparently Scott and script writer, Damon Lindelof, already have the outline for).
Recommended! Just one last thing, I saw the film in 2D (I'm not convinced about 3D yet) but I understand the film was shot using 3D cameras and that this version is excellent...
First up, I would recommend seeing this film knowing as little about it as possible! There may be spoilers ahead...
The film is set in 2093 and is therefore a prequel to the Alien movie (which was set in 2122). There is one direct link between the films which, once shown, is genuinely exciting; you understand the back story to the strange space craft and the alien creature which the Nostromo crew discover at the start of Alien....
Whilst Prometheus and Alien share the same universe; Prometheus stands on it's own in terms of mythology and subject matter. It asks (and answers) a few of the BIG questions; where did the human race come from? Is there a God/who is the creator? Is there a difference between our creator and us and the relationships we have with OUR creations; i.e. Androids?
For a film of this type and a Director with the commercial reputation of Ridley Scott, the film was given a reasonably modest production budget of $120-$130million. Scott has worked visual wonders with the budget and you wouldn't know from the visuals. Everything looks great; the sweeping vista's of planet Earth at the start, the space-ship and space-suit designs (in particular) are uniformly fantastic.
I'm a huge fan of the Alien Franchise movies (even the slightly shoddy 'vs Predaor' films), and I enjoyed the movie a lot. BUT, I feel the movie could have been better....
The cast is excellent (particularly the fragile/strong lead of Elizabeth Shaw played by Noomi Rapace) BUT characterisation was not particularly strong. 'Character arcs' felt too rushed which made otherwise sensible, intelligent characters come across as unhinged and individual motivations confused. This is most apparent with the character of Charlie Holloway (played ably enough by Logan Marshall-Green). He goes from energetic, life affirming alien-hunter in one scene to introspective drunk the next. Personally, I'd like to see a Director's cut of the movie with an extended running time giving characters the room to develop.The film is about humans after all! I also wasn't that blown away by the sound-track which, to me, felt out of place. Music for the action scenes was fine, but opening/closing credits didn't work for me.
Despite my minor gripes, the film is great - it's thought provoking and I hope we get the chance to see a sequel (which apparently Scott and script writer, Damon Lindelof, already have the outline for).
Recommended! Just one last thing, I saw the film in 2D (I'm not convinced about 3D yet) but I understand the film was shot using 3D cameras and that this version is excellent...
Thursday 3 May 2012
Avengers Assemble - Weds 2 May 2012
Sorry I haven't reviewed for a while, I've been too busy to get to the cinema!
8/10
I really enjoyed this movie - FUN, FUN, FUN! Joss Whedon's approach to scripting and shooting the movie is absolutely spot on. He'll keep the geeks happy by sticking to the mythology of Marvel's original Ultimates and Avengers story lines, as well as to individual super-hero storylines. More importantly, perhaps from a commercial point of view, is that he'll entertain a wider audience!!
For me, the most impressive thing about the movie, is the script. It's sharp, funny, quick-paced and allows each of the characters enough screen time for us to care about what happens to them. All this without ever out-staying a welcome or wasting screen time. This is not easy in ensemble pieces and Whedon pulls it off brilliantly.
The cast is terrific and they're so obviously having a great time making the film. Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man probably steals the show by a fraction, but it's also great to see The Hulk in a film that's actually enjoyable. Mark Ruffalo brings a real sense of David Banner's frightened/excited relationship with his green alter-ego.
The vast majority of people that see this film and going to love-it - it's a cracking super-hero movie and will be hard to beat as we enter the 2012 summer blockbuster period.
8/10
I really enjoyed this movie - FUN, FUN, FUN! Joss Whedon's approach to scripting and shooting the movie is absolutely spot on. He'll keep the geeks happy by sticking to the mythology of Marvel's original Ultimates and Avengers story lines, as well as to individual super-hero storylines. More importantly, perhaps from a commercial point of view, is that he'll entertain a wider audience!!
For me, the most impressive thing about the movie, is the script. It's sharp, funny, quick-paced and allows each of the characters enough screen time for us to care about what happens to them. All this without ever out-staying a welcome or wasting screen time. This is not easy in ensemble pieces and Whedon pulls it off brilliantly.
The cast is terrific and they're so obviously having a great time making the film. Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man probably steals the show by a fraction, but it's also great to see The Hulk in a film that's actually enjoyable. Mark Ruffalo brings a real sense of David Banner's frightened/excited relationship with his green alter-ego.
The vast majority of people that see this film and going to love-it - it's a cracking super-hero movie and will be hard to beat as we enter the 2012 summer blockbuster period.
Wednesday 28 March 2012
The Hunger Games - Tuesday 27 March 2012
6/10
I haven't read the book, but I was increasingly excited about seeing this movie. I liked the concept, liked the trailers and I really enjoyed Jennifer Lawrence's performance in Winters Bone.
The Hunger Games is set in a world (North Amercica/Earth) that has had an 'event' of some description (not explained in the film). The event has led to a world where the rich live lavish lifestyles in the Capitol and the workers are situated in 12 different districts. The rich use 'The Hunger Games' as a yearly event to help keep the poor subjugated and in their place (i.e.just enough hope to keep them going but not enough to lead to rebellion). 2 children/teenagers from each of the 12 districts (1 boy and 1 girl) fight to the death in a man-made environment.
Think Truman Show meets Battle Royale.
Firstly, let me say that Jennifer Lawrence is excellent in the film. Make no mistake, she is a star. She's defiant, capable, vulnerable and is the essence of 'girl power'!
The film is worth seeing for Jennifer alone, but I wasn't that convinced by the rest of it. Gary Ross' direction of the film is too choppy (and the editing was really quite poor and devalued the sory telling process from a visual point of view) - it's doesn't help any of the emotional scenes hit the target. In addition, juggling the demands of a 12A film rating and creating a film about young people brutally murdering one another is always going to be a tough ask. Despite the swords, knives, arrows, explosions etc. there is no blood. For me, this took away the sense of real threat from the movie and I lost any sense of fear I might have had for the protagonists.
Perhaps, at 39 years old, I'm too old for this movie? I think that teenage boys and girls will love it (as was the case in the cinema when I watched it!). Perhaps I was looking forward to seeing the film too much after the hype? Whatever the reason, it didn't leave me hungry for more.
I haven't read the book, but I was increasingly excited about seeing this movie. I liked the concept, liked the trailers and I really enjoyed Jennifer Lawrence's performance in Winters Bone.
The Hunger Games is set in a world (North Amercica/Earth) that has had an 'event' of some description (not explained in the film). The event has led to a world where the rich live lavish lifestyles in the Capitol and the workers are situated in 12 different districts. The rich use 'The Hunger Games' as a yearly event to help keep the poor subjugated and in their place (i.e.just enough hope to keep them going but not enough to lead to rebellion). 2 children/teenagers from each of the 12 districts (1 boy and 1 girl) fight to the death in a man-made environment.
Think Truman Show meets Battle Royale.
Firstly, let me say that Jennifer Lawrence is excellent in the film. Make no mistake, she is a star. She's defiant, capable, vulnerable and is the essence of 'girl power'!
The film is worth seeing for Jennifer alone, but I wasn't that convinced by the rest of it. Gary Ross' direction of the film is too choppy (and the editing was really quite poor and devalued the sory telling process from a visual point of view) - it's doesn't help any of the emotional scenes hit the target. In addition, juggling the demands of a 12A film rating and creating a film about young people brutally murdering one another is always going to be a tough ask. Despite the swords, knives, arrows, explosions etc. there is no blood. For me, this took away the sense of real threat from the movie and I lost any sense of fear I might have had for the protagonists.
Perhaps, at 39 years old, I'm too old for this movie? I think that teenage boys and girls will love it (as was the case in the cinema when I watched it!). Perhaps I was looking forward to seeing the film too much after the hype? Whatever the reason, it didn't leave me hungry for more.
Wednesday 21 March 2012
Contraband - Tuesday 20th March 2012
6.5/10
Mark Wahlberg plays Chris Farraday, an ex-smuggler of contraband goods via the shipping lanes of New Orleans. He's left the life of crime behind him and settled down with his wife Kate (played by Kate Beckinsale) and their 2 sons. When Kate's younger brother get's in trouble during a failed smuggling attempt, he attracts the wrath of the local crime boss, Tim Briggs (played by Giovanni Ribisi). Chris is forced back into the smuggling game to attempt to cover the losses and call Tim off.
It's a solid affair - Mark Wahlberg plays the blue-collar 'everyman' very well, and he's a very likeable on-screen actor. Kate Beckinsale plays the pretty, caring wife well enough and you do care for the wellbeing of the couple. This is fairly essential to the telling of the story, because Giovanni Ribisi commits to his villain character 100%; he's a nasty piece of work - the antithesis of Kate's sweet, family-loving charater. He's really fun to watch and is probably the best thing about the film.
Apart from Ribisi, there's nothing really exceptionally good or new about Contraband, but the characters are solid, the set-up is just believeable enough to care, and there's a good degree of tension.
There's a dissapointing lack of 'denoument' but, overall, I thought is was pretty good.
Mark Wahlberg plays Chris Farraday, an ex-smuggler of contraband goods via the shipping lanes of New Orleans. He's left the life of crime behind him and settled down with his wife Kate (played by Kate Beckinsale) and their 2 sons. When Kate's younger brother get's in trouble during a failed smuggling attempt, he attracts the wrath of the local crime boss, Tim Briggs (played by Giovanni Ribisi). Chris is forced back into the smuggling game to attempt to cover the losses and call Tim off.
It's a solid affair - Mark Wahlberg plays the blue-collar 'everyman' very well, and he's a very likeable on-screen actor. Kate Beckinsale plays the pretty, caring wife well enough and you do care for the wellbeing of the couple. This is fairly essential to the telling of the story, because Giovanni Ribisi commits to his villain character 100%; he's a nasty piece of work - the antithesis of Kate's sweet, family-loving charater. He's really fun to watch and is probably the best thing about the film.
Apart from Ribisi, there's nothing really exceptionally good or new about Contraband, but the characters are solid, the set-up is just believeable enough to care, and there's a good degree of tension.
There's a dissapointing lack of 'denoument' but, overall, I thought is was pretty good.
Wednesday 14 March 2012
The Raven - Tuesday 13 March 2012
7/10
The film aggregator site, Rotten Tomatoes, currently scores The Raven at 26% based on various 'critic' scores. I like Rotten Tomatoes and normally think that the scores are pretty accurate, but I think they've got this one wrong.
If you, like the critics, want an insight into the life, times and literarary works of Edgar Allen Poe, then you might be dissapointed. If you want a solid, creepy, sometimes gory, gothic, cop-chase-serial killer movie, then you'll find plenty to enjoy.
John Cusack plays Poe, during the last week of his life in 1840's Baltimore. This is a good role for Cusack and it's good to see him play a 'showy' role, rather than his usual 'cool/calm' character roles.
Poe is struggling to make a living as a writer and is filling his spare time by drinking. He's got no money and is desperate for his newspaper to publish some of his latest works - but the editor is not convinced it's what his readers want. They want 'blood and gore' like his earlier works...
Meanwhile, some murders start happening that take cues from some of Poe's stories (there's one particularly grisly death in true pit and pendulum style). Poe is, of course, implicated and is interviewed by the local Detective Emmett Fields, played excellently by Brit-actor Luke Evans. Fields and Poe work togther to unravel the clues left on each murder victim to ultimately, catch the killer and save the life of Poe's kidnapped girlfriend.
The film is a little unevenly directed by James McTeigue, but the story is well told, both in script and visual terms. The denoument is quite nicely set-up and filmed, with logic behind both the finding of the killer and the motives behind it.
All-in-all, it's a solid and entertaining affair.
The film aggregator site, Rotten Tomatoes, currently scores The Raven at 26% based on various 'critic' scores. I like Rotten Tomatoes and normally think that the scores are pretty accurate, but I think they've got this one wrong.
If you, like the critics, want an insight into the life, times and literarary works of Edgar Allen Poe, then you might be dissapointed. If you want a solid, creepy, sometimes gory, gothic, cop-chase-serial killer movie, then you'll find plenty to enjoy.
John Cusack plays Poe, during the last week of his life in 1840's Baltimore. This is a good role for Cusack and it's good to see him play a 'showy' role, rather than his usual 'cool/calm' character roles.
Poe is struggling to make a living as a writer and is filling his spare time by drinking. He's got no money and is desperate for his newspaper to publish some of his latest works - but the editor is not convinced it's what his readers want. They want 'blood and gore' like his earlier works...
Meanwhile, some murders start happening that take cues from some of Poe's stories (there's one particularly grisly death in true pit and pendulum style). Poe is, of course, implicated and is interviewed by the local Detective Emmett Fields, played excellently by Brit-actor Luke Evans. Fields and Poe work togther to unravel the clues left on each murder victim to ultimately, catch the killer and save the life of Poe's kidnapped girlfriend.
The film is a little unevenly directed by James McTeigue, but the story is well told, both in script and visual terms. The denoument is quite nicely set-up and filmed, with logic behind both the finding of the killer and the motives behind it.
All-in-all, it's a solid and entertaining affair.
Thursday 8 March 2012
Wanderlust - Weds 7th March 2012
6/10
Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston play Linda and George, a couple trying to get-by in NYC. They buy a flat that's too small and too expensive, and then George loses his job. This forces them to travel to George's brothers house to sort themeslves out. On the way, they come across a hippy commune founded in 1971 by Carvin (played by Alan Alda). A process of enlightenment ensues and it's all hunky-dory in the end.
It's not hard to like both Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston as leading actors - they're like your best friends on screen - but it's harder to like the film as a whole. The main problem is that's it's very formulaic - you will have seen this film many, many times before and you know exactly what will happen. Many of the gags are a little flat and I only really laughed when some out-takes were shown at the beginning of the credits. The cast appeared to have a great time making the film but Director, Paul Wain, doesn't translate this onto the screen as he should have done (unlike other 'Apatow' films such as Knocked Up or Stuck on You - both of which I much preferred).
I'm probably being a bit mean-spirited! This film is nice enough and most people will leave the cinema entertained even if their sides hadn't split.
Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston play Linda and George, a couple trying to get-by in NYC. They buy a flat that's too small and too expensive, and then George loses his job. This forces them to travel to George's brothers house to sort themeslves out. On the way, they come across a hippy commune founded in 1971 by Carvin (played by Alan Alda). A process of enlightenment ensues and it's all hunky-dory in the end.
It's not hard to like both Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston as leading actors - they're like your best friends on screen - but it's harder to like the film as a whole. The main problem is that's it's very formulaic - you will have seen this film many, many times before and you know exactly what will happen. Many of the gags are a little flat and I only really laughed when some out-takes were shown at the beginning of the credits. The cast appeared to have a great time making the film but Director, Paul Wain, doesn't translate this onto the screen as he should have done (unlike other 'Apatow' films such as Knocked Up or Stuck on You - both of which I much preferred).
I'm probably being a bit mean-spirited! This film is nice enough and most people will leave the cinema entertained even if their sides hadn't split.
Friday 17 February 2012
Chronicle - Thursday 16th February 2012
7/10.
What happens if you give a troubled teenager near limitless power? Chronicle is a metaphor about growing up; learning about how to use new found powers of adulthood or, in this case, the ability to move things with your mind and discovering you can fly.
The whole film is shot by an in-film camera of some description; from the wonky-hand held video camera of one of our protagonists to fixed CCTV or police cameras.
3 boys find a hole in the ground with a mysterious 'alien' ship or artifact inside (this is never explained). The boys find they can start moving things with their minds; things start off slowly but they (quite resonably) start to have some fun; such as when they take to the stage as magicians in a school talent compeition.
Director, Josh Trank, ups the ante as one of the boys reaches breaking point as his violent father, dying mother, and his increasing power comes togther.
I'm sure there were budgetary constraints, but the special effects are really quite good. I'm a big fan of integrating effects into hand-held camera (such as Cloverfield) and this works really well (don't worry, all that motion won't make you feel sick like Cloverfield).
The action ramps up to the rather ineveitable conclusion, but I enjoyed this movie and will look forward to Trank's future work.
What happens if you give a troubled teenager near limitless power? Chronicle is a metaphor about growing up; learning about how to use new found powers of adulthood or, in this case, the ability to move things with your mind and discovering you can fly.
The whole film is shot by an in-film camera of some description; from the wonky-hand held video camera of one of our protagonists to fixed CCTV or police cameras.
3 boys find a hole in the ground with a mysterious 'alien' ship or artifact inside (this is never explained). The boys find they can start moving things with their minds; things start off slowly but they (quite resonably) start to have some fun; such as when they take to the stage as magicians in a school talent compeition.
Director, Josh Trank, ups the ante as one of the boys reaches breaking point as his violent father, dying mother, and his increasing power comes togther.
I'm sure there were budgetary constraints, but the special effects are really quite good. I'm a big fan of integrating effects into hand-held camera (such as Cloverfield) and this works really well (don't worry, all that motion won't make you feel sick like Cloverfield).
The action ramps up to the rather ineveitable conclusion, but I enjoyed this movie and will look forward to Trank's future work.
Wednesday 8 February 2012
The Descendants - Tuesday 7 February 2012
9/10
Where has Alexander Payne been since he made the excellent Sideways? I hope we don't have have to wait another 7 years until his next movie! The Descendants is superb - if you liked any of Payne's previous films such as Election, Sideways or About Schmidt, you will love this film - in fact, I think it's Payne's best work. On the surface, the film seems to look a bit bleak; George Clooney trying to re-engage with his 2 daughters following an accident that puts his wife into a coma. The film itself does have some wrenching scenes BUT overall the feel is typical Payne; quirky, off-kilter, and sometimes very funny (good scenes with Robert Forster). Acting is uniformly superb; Clooney gives a nuanced, minimalist masterclass performance - he has the super ability to lead a film whilst keeping part of the whole ensemble- I believe he's what's called a 'generous actor'. Supporting cast is excellent with special mention to his elder daughter player by relative newcomer Shailene Woodley. Payne turns down the sun in Hawaii and it's neigbouring islands - turning the backdrop from sunshine paradise, into a slightly grey, windier place BUT there's a ray on sunshine at the end giving hope to all the characters involved. I left the cinema very satisfied - very recommended.
Where has Alexander Payne been since he made the excellent Sideways? I hope we don't have have to wait another 7 years until his next movie! The Descendants is superb - if you liked any of Payne's previous films such as Election, Sideways or About Schmidt, you will love this film - in fact, I think it's Payne's best work. On the surface, the film seems to look a bit bleak; George Clooney trying to re-engage with his 2 daughters following an accident that puts his wife into a coma. The film itself does have some wrenching scenes BUT overall the feel is typical Payne; quirky, off-kilter, and sometimes very funny (good scenes with Robert Forster). Acting is uniformly superb; Clooney gives a nuanced, minimalist masterclass performance - he has the super ability to lead a film whilst keeping part of the whole ensemble- I believe he's what's called a 'generous actor'. Supporting cast is excellent with special mention to his elder daughter player by relative newcomer Shailene Woodley. Payne turns down the sun in Hawaii and it's neigbouring islands - turning the backdrop from sunshine paradise, into a slightly grey, windier place BUT there's a ray on sunshine at the end giving hope to all the characters involved. I left the cinema very satisfied - very recommended.
Thursday 19 January 2012
Haywire - Weds 18th Jan 2012
8/10 (if you're a Steven Soderbergh fan and like his visual style)
7/10 (if you're not a particular fan but just want an action thriller)
There's more style than substance in Haywire, BUT if you like Soderburgh's style then you'll love it. There are some great lingering camera shots of Gina Carano running, reversing cars etc.
There's also a hint of Tarantino in some of the 'up the tension' scenes, particularly between Carano and Michael Fassbender on the way back to a hotel room, which also work very well.
Gina Carano's, ex-Marine, character 'Mallory Kane' is the main focus of the film, but supporting actors are uniformly excellent and well cast (although Bill Paxton is not given an awful lot to do as Kane's father except look worried). It's also always good to see Michael Douglas!
I am a Soderburgh fan, so I'm happy to overlook the fact that it's all a bit predictable and lacking in originality. I guess if I weren't such a big fan of his, I might feel a little let down at the slow pace of some of the film.
Gina Carano is great in the lead role - dangerously hot.
Go and see it - it works well on the big screen!
7/10 (if you're not a particular fan but just want an action thriller)
There's more style than substance in Haywire, BUT if you like Soderburgh's style then you'll love it. There are some great lingering camera shots of Gina Carano running, reversing cars etc.
There's also a hint of Tarantino in some of the 'up the tension' scenes, particularly between Carano and Michael Fassbender on the way back to a hotel room, which also work very well.
Gina Carano's, ex-Marine, character 'Mallory Kane' is the main focus of the film, but supporting actors are uniformly excellent and well cast (although Bill Paxton is not given an awful lot to do as Kane's father except look worried). It's also always good to see Michael Douglas!
I am a Soderburgh fan, so I'm happy to overlook the fact that it's all a bit predictable and lacking in originality. I guess if I weren't such a big fan of his, I might feel a little let down at the slow pace of some of the film.
Gina Carano is great in the lead role - dangerously hot.
Go and see it - it works well on the big screen!
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol - Tuesday 10th January 2012
8/10.
I didn't much like Mission Impossible 1, and cared even less for Mission Impossible 2, BUT I really liked JJ Abrams Mission Impossible 3 and I also really liked this film.
Brad Bird brings a lighter touch to proceedings and Simon Pegg works in his larger role of 'nerd turned agent'.
There are some nice heart-stopping moments and it features all the usual elements; cars (nice and sporty electric BMW), gadgets, eye candy, nukes, and globe-trotting loccations.
You won't remember it 5 minutes after leaving the cinema but you'd probably watch it again on DVD a week later...
The franchise is truly alive and with Jeremy Renner seemingly onboard as an agent, you can expect another film at some point in the next 2-3 years.
BTW, Tom Cruise looks amazing at 50 years of age. Must be all that moisturiser and scientology.
I didn't much like Mission Impossible 1, and cared even less for Mission Impossible 2, BUT I really liked JJ Abrams Mission Impossible 3 and I also really liked this film.
Brad Bird brings a lighter touch to proceedings and Simon Pegg works in his larger role of 'nerd turned agent'.
There are some nice heart-stopping moments and it features all the usual elements; cars (nice and sporty electric BMW), gadgets, eye candy, nukes, and globe-trotting loccations.
You won't remember it 5 minutes after leaving the cinema but you'd probably watch it again on DVD a week later...
The franchise is truly alive and with Jeremy Renner seemingly onboard as an agent, you can expect another film at some point in the next 2-3 years.
BTW, Tom Cruise looks amazing at 50 years of age. Must be all that moisturiser and scientology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)