Directed by: Peter Sohn
Written by: Bob Peterson, Peter Sohn, Erik Benson, Meg LeFauve, Kelsey Mann
Starring: Jeffrey Wright, Frances McDormand, Maleah Nipay-Padilla
Pixar has been known in recent years for some of the best animated movies of all time. While The Good Dinosaur is a new pinnacle from a visual perspective, its story leaves much to be desired when compared to some of their previous animated classics.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
We're introduced to a world where the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs missed the planet completely, never allowing humans to develop into the dominant species. A family of Apatosaurus run a farm together. The father of the family, Poppa (Wright), is killed and the youngest child, Arlo (Raymond Ochoa) is taken by a river and gets separated from his family. Arlo also meets a human child named Spot, and together they make their way back to Arlo's farm.
This is truly Pixar's weirdest movie.
The pacing is uneven. They rush the first act, killing Poppa within twenty minutes and separating Arlo five minutes after that. However, they then meander though the second act with a series of events that don't add anything to the story; Arlo and Spot encounter some small furry animals and blow into their burrows to have them pop out comically, they go for a swim and Arlo gets covered in leeches, and they both eat some fruit that turns out to be hallucinogenic. These scenes don't matter though; sure, they're cute and show the growing bond between Arlo and Spot, but the movie has scenes that do that while also progressing the story.
The story itself is a lot of interesting ideas that don't really develop. The way they create a situation for dinosaurs and humans to co-exist is compelling, and the dynamic between Arlo and Spot is a nice reversal of the usual 'boy and his pet' dynamics seen in films like How to Train Your Dragon, but the movie doesn't do a whole lot with these ideas. The dinosaur characters are just all human stereotypes, and Spot being human doesn't do anything other than solidify the reversal of the dynamic, because there's no benefit to him being human, as he just behaves like a dog.
Visually, however, the movie is absolutely incredible. Seriously, the environments look real, and it's truly amazing to look at. The dinosaurs are designed with a cartoon look in mind. Unfortunately, this creates a disconnect between the dinosaurs and the world they live in. It's just another aspect of this film that's bizarre; either design choice is fine on its own, but when they're laid over each other it's unattractive.
The Verdict: The Good Dinosaur is by no means perfect in its storytelling; it poses an interesting idea, but never quite makes the leap to interesting movie. However, the visual appeal of the movie is undeniable. Its photorealistic landscapes are truly breathtaking to behold, which regrettably makes the to cartoon look of the dinosaurs off-putting. It's well and truly a kid's movie, and it's inoffensive, so I can generally recommend this to people; kids will like it because the movie's made for them, but others will find appeal in the film for its visuals or its more heartfelt moments.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published July 29th, 2016
Friday, 29 July 2016
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
Film 41: Zoolander 2 (2016)
Directed by: Ben Stiller
Written by: Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux, Nick Stoller, John Hamburg
Starring: Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Penelope Cruz
I really love Zoolander; it was an absurd comedy that had a lot of clever jokes and something relevant to say about the fashion industry at the time. Unfortunately, Zoolander 2 doubles down on the absurd factor, with considerably less funny jokes and nothing discernibly pertinent to say.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Derek lost his son to child services and never realised that he could get the kid back. Hansel has an orgy of men, women and one goat as a spouse, and all of them fall pregnant, leading Hansel to leave them so he can find himself. This leads them both to Rome to appear in a fashion show, before quickly being taken in by Interpol in order to solve a series of murders committed against pop stars, who all die wearing one of Zoolander's signature expressions. There's a prophecy about a chosen one and the Fountain of Youth, and some stuff involving Mugatu (Will Ferrell) from the first movie. It's ridiculous, and it tries so very hard to be.
Unfortunately, this doesn't always make it funny. While there are a few jokes that got an audible chuckle out of me now and then, most of the movie resorts to trying to get a laugh out of lazy celebrity cameos; Kiefer Sutherland is a member of Hansel's orgy, Sting turns out to be Hansel's father, Neil DeGrasse Tyson shows up for no other reason than that he seems to do that in just about every movie nowadays. There's a sort of forced humour that comes from characters loudly shouting their emotions. I'm sure it's supposed to be funny, but it's literally just characters hammering home how they feel; Mugatu shouting "Yeah! Prison changed me!" isn't funny, it's unpleasant.
The plot is clunky; there aren't really any build ups or pay offs, and a lot of plot points are delivered through expositional dialogue and don't make a lot of sense. Derek gets a message from his dead wife warning him to protect his son and be wary of another character as Derek stares into some water. There's no reason for it to happen, it's just a callback to the first movie that also gets way more ridiculous than what the first movie attempted. The whole 'chosen one' plot line isn't introduced until about half way through the movie, and literally all happens through a massive dump of exposition.
It's kind of fun to see Stiller and Wilson reprise their vapid, idiotic roles again, but their characters are clouded by the rest of the movie.
The Verdict: This is a harmless and forgettable cash grab of a comedy sequel. It's more ridiculous, more obnoxious, and has way more cameos, but there really isn't more to laugh at. I can't say I'd recommend it to anyone, but I wouldn't recommend against it if you were in need of a movie that's easy to have on in the background and comfortable because of its familiar characters
Rating: 4/10
July 28th, 2016
Written by: Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux, Nick Stoller, John Hamburg
Starring: Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Penelope Cruz
I really love Zoolander; it was an absurd comedy that had a lot of clever jokes and something relevant to say about the fashion industry at the time. Unfortunately, Zoolander 2 doubles down on the absurd factor, with considerably less funny jokes and nothing discernibly pertinent to say.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Derek lost his son to child services and never realised that he could get the kid back. Hansel has an orgy of men, women and one goat as a spouse, and all of them fall pregnant, leading Hansel to leave them so he can find himself. This leads them both to Rome to appear in a fashion show, before quickly being taken in by Interpol in order to solve a series of murders committed against pop stars, who all die wearing one of Zoolander's signature expressions. There's a prophecy about a chosen one and the Fountain of Youth, and some stuff involving Mugatu (Will Ferrell) from the first movie. It's ridiculous, and it tries so very hard to be.
Unfortunately, this doesn't always make it funny. While there are a few jokes that got an audible chuckle out of me now and then, most of the movie resorts to trying to get a laugh out of lazy celebrity cameos; Kiefer Sutherland is a member of Hansel's orgy, Sting turns out to be Hansel's father, Neil DeGrasse Tyson shows up for no other reason than that he seems to do that in just about every movie nowadays. There's a sort of forced humour that comes from characters loudly shouting their emotions. I'm sure it's supposed to be funny, but it's literally just characters hammering home how they feel; Mugatu shouting "Yeah! Prison changed me!" isn't funny, it's unpleasant.
The plot is clunky; there aren't really any build ups or pay offs, and a lot of plot points are delivered through expositional dialogue and don't make a lot of sense. Derek gets a message from his dead wife warning him to protect his son and be wary of another character as Derek stares into some water. There's no reason for it to happen, it's just a callback to the first movie that also gets way more ridiculous than what the first movie attempted. The whole 'chosen one' plot line isn't introduced until about half way through the movie, and literally all happens through a massive dump of exposition.
It's kind of fun to see Stiller and Wilson reprise their vapid, idiotic roles again, but their characters are clouded by the rest of the movie.
The Verdict: This is a harmless and forgettable cash grab of a comedy sequel. It's more ridiculous, more obnoxious, and has way more cameos, but there really isn't more to laugh at. I can't say I'd recommend it to anyone, but I wouldn't recommend against it if you were in need of a movie that's easy to have on in the background and comfortable because of its familiar characters
Rating: 4/10
July 28th, 2016
Film 40: The Mist (2007)
Directed by: Frank Darabont
Written by: Frank Darabont
Starring: Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Laurie Holden
After The Thing (2011) I felt the need to watch another modern horror with somewhat moderate reception. The Mist was the first thing that came to mind.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
A small band of people hide out in a supermarket after an anomalous storm blankets a whole town in mist. The film depicts the struggles of these people; against the monsters that plague them, and against each other as a cult attitude develops among the majority.
Honestly, this movie is good, but whenever I hear people talk about it, they always discuss how the ending is one of the most mind-blowing they've ever seen. I'll say a little on it, but I feel the need to address the film as a whole.
The ending of the film is definitely powerful, whether you love it or hate it. For those who haven't seen it, I won't spoil the details, though even saying that the ending has impact is a bit of a spoiler in itself. I definitely appreciated the way it solidified the films's bleak tone, and gave more than the original Stephen King ending from the book the film is based on.
The rest of the film's tone is depressing and infuriating. The way the people behave towards one another because of their fear is at the best of times annoying; people disagree or talk down to others because of their own insecurities. At the worst of times the characters are truly terrifying, with the character or Mrs. Carmody (played with satanic glee by Marcia Gay Harden), who manages to use her religious beliefs to cultivate this idea that the mist is the result of the end times discussed in the Book of Revelation. Carmody is the scariest thing about this film, conniving and malicious, preying on the weak and exploiting their fear, all under the misguided belief that bringing people to God this way will earn her extra points with Him.
That's not to discount the horror of the monsters, however. While the CGI may look a little fake at times, the designs of the monsters are excellently detailed; their biblical look only reinforces Carmody's message, even as it is revealed that the creatures may be extradimensional rather than supernatural.
The cinematography is effective here at creating a sense of claustrophobia. There's a lot of tight close ups, and shots from behind shoulders, it really gives the impression that there's very little space and that the people are growing to distrust one another.
The acting isn't great most of the time. I like Thomas Jane, but he doesn't deliver a strong performance; he's mostly flat with little personality, so when he gets shout-y it just feels inconsistent. Andre Braugher's character is so very one-note, but so are most of the characters, and he performs this role well even if it isn't likable. Like I've said, Harden gives the strongest performance here. There is, however, one other, much smaller role I'd like to highlight. Sam Witwer as Private Jessup, who some may know from the Smallville TV series or Star Wars: The Force Unleashed video games. His character isn't developed past 'well-meaning army guy', but Witwer gives it his all during his death scene, which is almost as haunting as the film's ending; his screams echoed and his expression was depressingly hopeless, it's truly one of the film's most memorable moments.
The Verdict: It's pretty good, all things considered. The acting and characterisation is variable in quality, thought the film does far more to humanise its characters than most modern horrors. The plot is intriguing, even if the message is awfully heavy-handed, and of course the ending, like it or not, will leave a pit in your stomach. I recommend the film if you don't mind your messages a little drawn out and on the nose, because the whole set up is really interesting to watch unfold. The horror elements definitely make this film inappropriate for kids.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published July 27th, 2016
Written by: Frank Darabont
Starring: Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Laurie Holden
After The Thing (2011) I felt the need to watch another modern horror with somewhat moderate reception. The Mist was the first thing that came to mind.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
A small band of people hide out in a supermarket after an anomalous storm blankets a whole town in mist. The film depicts the struggles of these people; against the monsters that plague them, and against each other as a cult attitude develops among the majority.
Honestly, this movie is good, but whenever I hear people talk about it, they always discuss how the ending is one of the most mind-blowing they've ever seen. I'll say a little on it, but I feel the need to address the film as a whole.
The ending of the film is definitely powerful, whether you love it or hate it. For those who haven't seen it, I won't spoil the details, though even saying that the ending has impact is a bit of a spoiler in itself. I definitely appreciated the way it solidified the films's bleak tone, and gave more than the original Stephen King ending from the book the film is based on.
The rest of the film's tone is depressing and infuriating. The way the people behave towards one another because of their fear is at the best of times annoying; people disagree or talk down to others because of their own insecurities. At the worst of times the characters are truly terrifying, with the character or Mrs. Carmody (played with satanic glee by Marcia Gay Harden), who manages to use her religious beliefs to cultivate this idea that the mist is the result of the end times discussed in the Book of Revelation. Carmody is the scariest thing about this film, conniving and malicious, preying on the weak and exploiting their fear, all under the misguided belief that bringing people to God this way will earn her extra points with Him.
That's not to discount the horror of the monsters, however. While the CGI may look a little fake at times, the designs of the monsters are excellently detailed; their biblical look only reinforces Carmody's message, even as it is revealed that the creatures may be extradimensional rather than supernatural.
The cinematography is effective here at creating a sense of claustrophobia. There's a lot of tight close ups, and shots from behind shoulders, it really gives the impression that there's very little space and that the people are growing to distrust one another.
The acting isn't great most of the time. I like Thomas Jane, but he doesn't deliver a strong performance; he's mostly flat with little personality, so when he gets shout-y it just feels inconsistent. Andre Braugher's character is so very one-note, but so are most of the characters, and he performs this role well even if it isn't likable. Like I've said, Harden gives the strongest performance here. There is, however, one other, much smaller role I'd like to highlight. Sam Witwer as Private Jessup, who some may know from the Smallville TV series or Star Wars: The Force Unleashed video games. His character isn't developed past 'well-meaning army guy', but Witwer gives it his all during his death scene, which is almost as haunting as the film's ending; his screams echoed and his expression was depressingly hopeless, it's truly one of the film's most memorable moments.
The Verdict: It's pretty good, all things considered. The acting and characterisation is variable in quality, thought the film does far more to humanise its characters than most modern horrors. The plot is intriguing, even if the message is awfully heavy-handed, and of course the ending, like it or not, will leave a pit in your stomach. I recommend the film if you don't mind your messages a little drawn out and on the nose, because the whole set up is really interesting to watch unfold. The horror elements definitely make this film inappropriate for kids.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published July 27th, 2016
Monday, 25 July 2016
Film 39: The Thing (2011)
Directed by: Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.
Written by: Eric Heiserrer
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen
I am a massive fan of John Carpenter's 1982 film The Thing. It's one of my favourite horror movies of all time, so I can't deny that I have a bias that may lead me to be overly critical of this film.
The Thing (2011) is a serviceable horror movie that's better than a lot of modern horror, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the quality of its predecessor.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
For the uninitiated, this isn't a remake of the 1982 film as I had first thought; it's actually a direct prequel that tells the story of the Norwegian camp that encounters the Thing before the Americans.
In this regard, this movie actually has a moment of brilliance in the way it connects the two films. The ending of this movie is set up so that two men in a helicopter end up chasing after a husky across the snow, transitioning perfectly into the 1982 film.
The plot involves the crew who initially discovered the alien craft, frozen under Antarctic snow. They extract the Thing, which wakes up from its slumber and begins assimilating people at the site. It's essentially the same plot as the first film, but with a slightly different set up, as the characters here discover the Thing, rather than getting the Thing set upon them.
This is what I want to focus on first, because the plot is where some of the best and worst of the film come out. The best involves a clever new way of identifying the Thing: because it can only assimilate organic material, people are ruled out as the Thing if they have tooth fillings. It's one of the only aspects of the film that's original, compared to the rest of the film's ideas which are generally derived from the 1982 film. The worst is the lack of the Thing's consistency; it's supposed to attack people when they're alone, and behave entirely human until then, but at a critical moment in the film the Thing has an opportunity to assimilate someone, and for no apparent reason it chooses not to. In addition to this, the Thing is supposed to hide in plain sight with its abilities, but more than one scene in the movie involves the creature lumbering about in full monster form.
This is where we meet another of the film's weaknesses: The CGI. The monster looks fake, which contrasts greatly with the previous film's entirely practical effects, and in general just don't look all that impressive. Outside of the CGI, this film borrows heavily from the 1982 version for its aesthetic; the sets are mostly the same, except for the areas which they made to look exactly the same as they did in 1982. In this regard, the look of the film is impressive, but obviously derivative. This extends the characters, too. Joel Edgerton's Carter is the spitting image of Kurt Russells' MacReady, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's Jameson has a similar look and attitude to Keith David's Childs. It's uncanny how similar these films look.
The Verdict: The Thing (2011) borrows a lot from The Thing (1982) in order to work; not just in concept but also aesthetically, as the sets, characters and soundtrack all feel familiar. Unfortunately, the few original ideas that it tries to bring to the table in order to differentiate itself from the 1982 version generally fall flat, other than the unique new idea for how they determine which people are Things. That said, outside of it paling in comparison to the original, it's a not a bad film, considerably better than most modern horror movies. If you're looking for a decent horror with a modern aesthetic, I recommend it. If you're a fan of the 1982 version, I recommend it purely so that you can see for yourself how similar the two films are. If you're a child, I definitely do not recommend this.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published July 25th, 2016
Written by: Eric Heiserrer
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen
I am a massive fan of John Carpenter's 1982 film The Thing. It's one of my favourite horror movies of all time, so I can't deny that I have a bias that may lead me to be overly critical of this film.
The Thing (2011) is a serviceable horror movie that's better than a lot of modern horror, but unfortunately doesn't live up to the quality of its predecessor.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
For the uninitiated, this isn't a remake of the 1982 film as I had first thought; it's actually a direct prequel that tells the story of the Norwegian camp that encounters the Thing before the Americans.
In this regard, this movie actually has a moment of brilliance in the way it connects the two films. The ending of this movie is set up so that two men in a helicopter end up chasing after a husky across the snow, transitioning perfectly into the 1982 film.
The plot involves the crew who initially discovered the alien craft, frozen under Antarctic snow. They extract the Thing, which wakes up from its slumber and begins assimilating people at the site. It's essentially the same plot as the first film, but with a slightly different set up, as the characters here discover the Thing, rather than getting the Thing set upon them.
This is what I want to focus on first, because the plot is where some of the best and worst of the film come out. The best involves a clever new way of identifying the Thing: because it can only assimilate organic material, people are ruled out as the Thing if they have tooth fillings. It's one of the only aspects of the film that's original, compared to the rest of the film's ideas which are generally derived from the 1982 film. The worst is the lack of the Thing's consistency; it's supposed to attack people when they're alone, and behave entirely human until then, but at a critical moment in the film the Thing has an opportunity to assimilate someone, and for no apparent reason it chooses not to. In addition to this, the Thing is supposed to hide in plain sight with its abilities, but more than one scene in the movie involves the creature lumbering about in full monster form.
This is where we meet another of the film's weaknesses: The CGI. The monster looks fake, which contrasts greatly with the previous film's entirely practical effects, and in general just don't look all that impressive. Outside of the CGI, this film borrows heavily from the 1982 version for its aesthetic; the sets are mostly the same, except for the areas which they made to look exactly the same as they did in 1982. In this regard, the look of the film is impressive, but obviously derivative. This extends the characters, too. Joel Edgerton's Carter is the spitting image of Kurt Russells' MacReady, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's Jameson has a similar look and attitude to Keith David's Childs. It's uncanny how similar these films look.
The acting
is fairly standard; not much stands out but there weren't any laughably bad
moments. Winstead is strong as the lead, capable, smart, essentially everything
a horror character usually isn't. Edgerton may have MacCready's look, but
Winstead inherited his attitude.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published July 25th, 2016
Sunday, 24 July 2016
Film 38: Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)
Directed by: Mel Brooks
Written by: Mel Brooks, Evan Chandler, J. D. Shapiro
Starring: Cary Elwes, Richard Lewis, Roger Rees
I mentioned in my last review that I love Cary Elwes, which is precisely why I was motivated to watch another movie with him after seeing him in Saw 3D. It helps that I also love Mel Brooks. While they don't make a perfect combination here, this movie certainly worth a laugh or two.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The story is the same basic tale of Robin Hood, but played entirely as a spoof. Robin of Loxley has returned from the crusades to find his family estate has been re-possessed by the evil Prince John, so he becomes a thief, etc.
The jokes are hit or miss here, sometimes so niche that I wasn't sure who the jokes were for. Usually even if I don't something funny, I can see why someone would laugh at it, but some of the humour used here had me asking myself "who is this for?" without being able to come up with an answer. The story getting told before it happens in the form of five black men mixing hip-hop and folk music just ends up feeling random. The film has plenty of anachronistic moments used to make a joke, such as bike locks on horses, but this one in particular seemed pointless. There's also an unfortunate number of jokes that act as nothing more than a reference to another film, and they mix even those; a Dirty Harry character reference and a Godfather reference together, yet neither of them actually play off each other, they just appear in the same shot for simple recognition.
That said, there's a broad variety here. Some light cleverness that only adds a little to the films' farcical nature, such as Prince John's mole changing place on his face in every scene. Plenty of 4th-wall breaks and jabs at other Robin Hood films, including Cary Elwes' Robin looking straight at the camera and saying 'unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent', as a dig at Kevin Costner's portrayal of the character in the 1991 film. My personal favourite joke is when Robin loses the archery contest, and calls upon the writers to hand him a script so that he can check, because he's sure he's supposed to win.
Elwes is silly and charming, just as you'd expect if you've seen him in The Princess Bride (which you should; seriously, go watch it now if you haven't already). He's certainly what kept me enjoying the movie even when the jokes fell flat. Lewis and Rees are also excellent in their roles as Prince John and the Sheriff of Rottingham; the scenes involving both of them are some of the funniest in the film.
The Verdict: Men in Tights has its fair share of hysterical moments, though it's never quite as consistently funny as other Brooks works such as Blazing Saddles or Spaceballs. I'd recommend it to fans of Brooks comedies, but some of the humour is considerably niche here, so other audiences may not get the same enjoyment out of it.
Rating: 6/10
Published July 25th, 2016
Written by: Mel Brooks, Evan Chandler, J. D. Shapiro
Starring: Cary Elwes, Richard Lewis, Roger Rees
I mentioned in my last review that I love Cary Elwes, which is precisely why I was motivated to watch another movie with him after seeing him in Saw 3D. It helps that I also love Mel Brooks. While they don't make a perfect combination here, this movie certainly worth a laugh or two.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The story is the same basic tale of Robin Hood, but played entirely as a spoof. Robin of Loxley has returned from the crusades to find his family estate has been re-possessed by the evil Prince John, so he becomes a thief, etc.
The jokes are hit or miss here, sometimes so niche that I wasn't sure who the jokes were for. Usually even if I don't something funny, I can see why someone would laugh at it, but some of the humour used here had me asking myself "who is this for?" without being able to come up with an answer. The story getting told before it happens in the form of five black men mixing hip-hop and folk music just ends up feeling random. The film has plenty of anachronistic moments used to make a joke, such as bike locks on horses, but this one in particular seemed pointless. There's also an unfortunate number of jokes that act as nothing more than a reference to another film, and they mix even those; a Dirty Harry character reference and a Godfather reference together, yet neither of them actually play off each other, they just appear in the same shot for simple recognition.
That said, there's a broad variety here. Some light cleverness that only adds a little to the films' farcical nature, such as Prince John's mole changing place on his face in every scene. Plenty of 4th-wall breaks and jabs at other Robin Hood films, including Cary Elwes' Robin looking straight at the camera and saying 'unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent', as a dig at Kevin Costner's portrayal of the character in the 1991 film. My personal favourite joke is when Robin loses the archery contest, and calls upon the writers to hand him a script so that he can check, because he's sure he's supposed to win.
Elwes is silly and charming, just as you'd expect if you've seen him in The Princess Bride (which you should; seriously, go watch it now if you haven't already). He's certainly what kept me enjoying the movie even when the jokes fell flat. Lewis and Rees are also excellent in their roles as Prince John and the Sheriff of Rottingham; the scenes involving both of them are some of the funniest in the film.
The Verdict: Men in Tights has its fair share of hysterical moments, though it's never quite as consistently funny as other Brooks works such as Blazing Saddles or Spaceballs. I'd recommend it to fans of Brooks comedies, but some of the humour is considerably niche here, so other audiences may not get the same enjoyment out of it.
Rating: 6/10
Published July 25th, 2016
Saturday, 23 July 2016
Film 37: Saw 3D: The Final Chapter (2010)
Directed by: Kevin Greutert
Written by: Patrick Melton, Marcus Dunstan
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell
I watched all of the other Saw a few times movies years ago, but for some reason I never got around to this one.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
This movie is a far cry from the first.
The conflict between Hoffman (Mandylor) and Jill (Russell) left unresolved at the end of the sixth movie continues. Most of their story involves Jill going to new character detective Gibson (Chad Donella), and then hiding in a safe house while the rest of the movie happens. Hoffman continues as Jigsaw, now known as such to the police. Most of the story, however, focuses on another new character Bobby (Sean Patrick Flanery), a supposed Jigsaw survivor who is now milking the experience with press talks and TV spots.
As it turns out, Bobby faked the experience in order to make a lot of money, and he and his cohorts who were complicit in this deception get set up in a complex game of their own.
Let's start with what it did well. This is definitely one of the most horrifying entries in the series, with plenty of truly cringe-inducing torture. The new traps are certainly inventive and complex; the most noteworthy of these involves a car that crushes one woman under tire, rips a man's arms and jaw out with chains, crushes another man as it drives through a garage door, and throws a fourth man out the front windshield after that man has tore himself away from a super-glued seat. The films may not be what they once were, but at least they never let up in this regard.
Unfortunately, there's nothing else good to say about the film.
The traps may be well-made, but the motivations have gone completely out the window. Jigsaw's killings aren't built on the self-righteous idea that people are learning to be grateful to be alive, and a lot of them aren't set up so that their victims can escape, they simply ensure the death of at least one person.
The character of Gibson is given development for no apparent reason; he's given a history with Hoffman that never does anything for the movie, because he's killed off within minutes of this revelation. The whole plot involving Bobby also feels completely manufactured, like they didn't have enough material with Jill and Hoffman to make a full movie so they invented characters that hazily fit in with the story. Speaking of which, they also re-introduce Cary Elwes' Dr. Gordon, unseen since the first movie. While I love seeing him on screen, the eventual reveal that he's actually the one to continue Jigsaw's legacy, not Hoffman, is not only obvious given his pronounced return which serves no purpose up until the reveal itself, it's also truly forced. It goes against the last three movies, and is essentially the same twist from the end of the second and fourth movies.
The Verdict: Saw 3D is easily the weakest entry in the series. The gore isn't enhanced by the 3D, and while the traps continue to be interesting in design, the motivations and set ups for these traps have become so ridiculous that it hardly balances out. The new characters are paper thin, and the old characters have been effectively drained of any interest. I love Cary Elwes, but even he can't save this one. Watch it if you're a fan of the torture horror subgenre, or you've seen the other six and need closure like I did, but otherwise this movie won't be for you.
Rating: 3/10
Published July 23rd, 2016
Written by: Patrick Melton, Marcus Dunstan
Starring: Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell
I watched all of the other Saw a few times movies years ago, but for some reason I never got around to this one.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
This movie is a far cry from the first.
The conflict between Hoffman (Mandylor) and Jill (Russell) left unresolved at the end of the sixth movie continues. Most of their story involves Jill going to new character detective Gibson (Chad Donella), and then hiding in a safe house while the rest of the movie happens. Hoffman continues as Jigsaw, now known as such to the police. Most of the story, however, focuses on another new character Bobby (Sean Patrick Flanery), a supposed Jigsaw survivor who is now milking the experience with press talks and TV spots.
As it turns out, Bobby faked the experience in order to make a lot of money, and he and his cohorts who were complicit in this deception get set up in a complex game of their own.
Let's start with what it did well. This is definitely one of the most horrifying entries in the series, with plenty of truly cringe-inducing torture. The new traps are certainly inventive and complex; the most noteworthy of these involves a car that crushes one woman under tire, rips a man's arms and jaw out with chains, crushes another man as it drives through a garage door, and throws a fourth man out the front windshield after that man has tore himself away from a super-glued seat. The films may not be what they once were, but at least they never let up in this regard.
Unfortunately, there's nothing else good to say about the film.
The traps may be well-made, but the motivations have gone completely out the window. Jigsaw's killings aren't built on the self-righteous idea that people are learning to be grateful to be alive, and a lot of them aren't set up so that their victims can escape, they simply ensure the death of at least one person.
The character of Gibson is given development for no apparent reason; he's given a history with Hoffman that never does anything for the movie, because he's killed off within minutes of this revelation. The whole plot involving Bobby also feels completely manufactured, like they didn't have enough material with Jill and Hoffman to make a full movie so they invented characters that hazily fit in with the story. Speaking of which, they also re-introduce Cary Elwes' Dr. Gordon, unseen since the first movie. While I love seeing him on screen, the eventual reveal that he's actually the one to continue Jigsaw's legacy, not Hoffman, is not only obvious given his pronounced return which serves no purpose up until the reveal itself, it's also truly forced. It goes against the last three movies, and is essentially the same twist from the end of the second and fourth movies.
The Verdict: Saw 3D is easily the weakest entry in the series. The gore isn't enhanced by the 3D, and while the traps continue to be interesting in design, the motivations and set ups for these traps have become so ridiculous that it hardly balances out. The new characters are paper thin, and the old characters have been effectively drained of any interest. I love Cary Elwes, but even he can't save this one. Watch it if you're a fan of the torture horror subgenre, or you've seen the other six and need closure like I did, but otherwise this movie won't be for you.
Rating: 3/10
Published July 23rd, 2016
Friday, 22 July 2016
Film 36: Escape From New York (1981)
Directed by: John Carpenter
Written by: John Carpenter, Nick Castle
Starring: Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine
Sorry for the late post, been having a break for a couple days.
On paper, this film seems like it was made for me. Directed by John Carpenter, starring Kurt Russell, interesting premise, a synth soundtrack and dystopian aesthetic, this movie had a lot going for it as I sat down to watch it.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The year is 1997. The entire island of Manhattan, New York City has been turned into one massive prison as the United States has turned into a police state. The president's (Donald Pleasence) plane is hijacked, and he lands an escape pod in Manhattan before being kidnapped by some of the locals.
Snake Plissken (Russell) is a decorated soldier who is being sent to Manhattan for attempting to rob the Federal Reserve. Police Commission Bob Hauk offers him the chance to rescue the president in exchange for being acquitted. Once Snake accepts, he's forced into it anyway as a set of timed explosives are injected into his neck, set to go off if he fails to save the president.
It's a long set up, taking the entire first act to actually get Snake into Manhattan, This unfortunately throws off the early pacing of the film, because we're subjected to a lot of expositional dialogue just so that we completely understand the stakes: Snake is a badass, he's going to die if he doesn't save the president from a place so horrible the outside world pretends that it doesn't exist.
Russell is perfect as the bitter soldier fed up with a world filled with people only looking out for their own interests. While the early scenes talk about his history, once we're in Manhattan we see what that adds up to. He's ruthless in his approach, the perfect picture of an anti-hero, and he carries the film the whole way.
Like I said, the soundtrack is perfect 80s synth, changing between slow and pulsing depending on the action on screen. It's a little one note, and cliche at this point, but it's great to see a film use it in a time before it got overused.
Truly though, the biggest aspect of the film is the city itself, which is almost its own character. The set design and the side characters really build this idea of a tough and unforgiving wasteland, ruled by the self-proclaimed 'Duke of New York', who maintains control in the anarchy by way of arbitrary cruelty. The disheveled remains of the city add to the film's desolate tone and atmosphere.
The Verdict: Escape From New York is a very good movie, with a strong sense of the themes it wants to convey and a rough style that aids the bleak world it's set in. Kurt Russell is a champion as Snake, brooding and showing a lot of contempt for pretty much everyone else, like a more cynical Clint Eastwood. The film has a slow and clunky start that hinders the initial pacing of the movie, as it tries to solidify the uncaring and selfish nature of the world, but its brutal and dark tone become fully realised as we enter the heart of Manhattan. I recommend this to any fan of Carpenter's work, because while this may not be his best, it is still quintessentially his.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 22nd, 2016
Written by: John Carpenter, Nick Castle
Starring: Kurt Russell, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine
Sorry for the late post, been having a break for a couple days.
On paper, this film seems like it was made for me. Directed by John Carpenter, starring Kurt Russell, interesting premise, a synth soundtrack and dystopian aesthetic, this movie had a lot going for it as I sat down to watch it.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The year is 1997. The entire island of Manhattan, New York City has been turned into one massive prison as the United States has turned into a police state. The president's (Donald Pleasence) plane is hijacked, and he lands an escape pod in Manhattan before being kidnapped by some of the locals.
Snake Plissken (Russell) is a decorated soldier who is being sent to Manhattan for attempting to rob the Federal Reserve. Police Commission Bob Hauk offers him the chance to rescue the president in exchange for being acquitted. Once Snake accepts, he's forced into it anyway as a set of timed explosives are injected into his neck, set to go off if he fails to save the president.
It's a long set up, taking the entire first act to actually get Snake into Manhattan, This unfortunately throws off the early pacing of the film, because we're subjected to a lot of expositional dialogue just so that we completely understand the stakes: Snake is a badass, he's going to die if he doesn't save the president from a place so horrible the outside world pretends that it doesn't exist.
Russell is perfect as the bitter soldier fed up with a world filled with people only looking out for their own interests. While the early scenes talk about his history, once we're in Manhattan we see what that adds up to. He's ruthless in his approach, the perfect picture of an anti-hero, and he carries the film the whole way.
Like I said, the soundtrack is perfect 80s synth, changing between slow and pulsing depending on the action on screen. It's a little one note, and cliche at this point, but it's great to see a film use it in a time before it got overused.
Truly though, the biggest aspect of the film is the city itself, which is almost its own character. The set design and the side characters really build this idea of a tough and unforgiving wasteland, ruled by the self-proclaimed 'Duke of New York', who maintains control in the anarchy by way of arbitrary cruelty. The disheveled remains of the city add to the film's desolate tone and atmosphere.
The Verdict: Escape From New York is a very good movie, with a strong sense of the themes it wants to convey and a rough style that aids the bleak world it's set in. Kurt Russell is a champion as Snake, brooding and showing a lot of contempt for pretty much everyone else, like a more cynical Clint Eastwood. The film has a slow and clunky start that hinders the initial pacing of the movie, as it tries to solidify the uncaring and selfish nature of the world, but its brutal and dark tone become fully realised as we enter the heart of Manhattan. I recommend this to any fan of Carpenter's work, because while this may not be his best, it is still quintessentially his.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 22nd, 2016
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
Film 35: Black Dynamite (2009)
Directed by: Scott Sanders
Written by: Michael Jai White, Byron Minns, Scott Sanders
Starring: Michael Jai White, Salli Richardson-Whitfield, Arsenio Hall
I love homages to eras of film, and I love parody. Black Dynamite manages to do both of these things very well.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Black Dynamite (White) is a one man army; the world's greatest Vietnam veteran and former CIA officer, and he's after The Man for killing his only brother and pumping drugs into his community. The film is deliberate in its effort to make every plot point seem silly yet sincere. There's recognition of the ridiculous nature of the film as it continues, but there's also a respect for the tropes that the film is built upon.
The movie's soundtrack and aesthetic suit the style the film is going for perfectly. It looks and sounds straight out of the 70s, with the film grain and constant over-saturated shades of yellow and brown for a sepia look, and a single trumpet, flute or synth running off dulcet or energetic tones as required. The costumes and hair are also completely period-accurate; flared pants and gigantic afros abound.
The comedy is mostly well done deadpan humour. Black Dynamite is actually his name, and nobody blinks an eye. Nor does the film pause even for a second at names like Honey Bee and Cream Corn. The film maintains a straight face even as the plot evolves into a conspiracy about the CIA marketing malt liquor to black men in order to shrink their dicks. It's a little one note in this style, so much so that it manages to meander a little during its second act. It's strange that a movie manages to feel a little slow in pace despite being very short at 84 minutes. However, as it approaches its finale the film peaks in its ridiculousness, and therefore its entertainment value.
The Verdict: Black Dynamite is a hilarious homage to 70's blaxploitation film. Its music and look fit perfectly, and the slower moments of the film are made more than worthwhile by the final act. Every ridiculous moment is delivered with deadpan humour, in a style similar to The Naked Gun or Airplane! I recommend this to people who want a good laugh that's over quickly, but this movie's content is inappropriate for children.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 19th, 2016
Written by: Michael Jai White, Byron Minns, Scott Sanders
Starring: Michael Jai White, Salli Richardson-Whitfield, Arsenio Hall
I love homages to eras of film, and I love parody. Black Dynamite manages to do both of these things very well.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Black Dynamite (White) is a one man army; the world's greatest Vietnam veteran and former CIA officer, and he's after The Man for killing his only brother and pumping drugs into his community. The film is deliberate in its effort to make every plot point seem silly yet sincere. There's recognition of the ridiculous nature of the film as it continues, but there's also a respect for the tropes that the film is built upon.
The movie's soundtrack and aesthetic suit the style the film is going for perfectly. It looks and sounds straight out of the 70s, with the film grain and constant over-saturated shades of yellow and brown for a sepia look, and a single trumpet, flute or synth running off dulcet or energetic tones as required. The costumes and hair are also completely period-accurate; flared pants and gigantic afros abound.
The comedy is mostly well done deadpan humour. Black Dynamite is actually his name, and nobody blinks an eye. Nor does the film pause even for a second at names like Honey Bee and Cream Corn. The film maintains a straight face even as the plot evolves into a conspiracy about the CIA marketing malt liquor to black men in order to shrink their dicks. It's a little one note in this style, so much so that it manages to meander a little during its second act. It's strange that a movie manages to feel a little slow in pace despite being very short at 84 minutes. However, as it approaches its finale the film peaks in its ridiculousness, and therefore its entertainment value.
The Verdict: Black Dynamite is a hilarious homage to 70's blaxploitation film. Its music and look fit perfectly, and the slower moments of the film are made more than worthwhile by the final act. Every ridiculous moment is delivered with deadpan humour, in a style similar to The Naked Gun or Airplane! I recommend this to people who want a good laugh that's over quickly, but this movie's content is inappropriate for children.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 19th, 2016
Film 34: Sharktopus (2010)
Directed by: Declan O'Brien
Written by: Mike Maclean
Starring: Eric Roberts, Kerem Bursin, Sara Malakul Lane
Alright, full disclosure, I love these types of movies, no matter how bad they are. I've seen Piranhaconda and Dinocroc vs. Supergator, and a whole lot of other cheap and terrible Roger Corman flicks. I know going into any of these movies that they're terrible, but there's just something so mind-numbingly entertaining about watching a thoughtless movie about a monster terrorising a bunch of idiotic government and military types while the filmmakers find as many excuses as possible to include scantily clad women that can be eaten alive at any moment for the sake of cheap entertainment. They're so obviously bad that's it's simply easy to pick at them and rip them to pieces.
The plot is simple (i.e. stupid): scientists have created a Sharktopus, a half-shark half-octopus designed to be used as a super weapon. The Sharktopus breaks free from the scientists' control, and begins attacking people up and down the coastline, so the scientists have to go and get it back. Alive, of course, because it's too valuable an asset to be killed.
The movie's an uninspired take on the tired shark and monster genres. There's not much to talk about here. The acting's wooden, with Lane being a particularly bad stand-out with hardly a believable line uttered and multiple instances of her struggling with her fake accent. The script is full of awkwardness, and it isn't helped by the poor directing, which has no real rhythm or sense to it; dialogue is cut in such a way that it doesn't actually seem like characters are talking to one another, they're repeating words they were just told to say. The effects are embarrassingly hard to look at, never believable and so low effort it's a wonder that they even bothered to try.
There's some moments that draw a good laugh. A woman afraid of heights going bungee jumping for the first time getting picked off by the shark is completely obvious but still got a chuckle out of me. Unfortunately, there's also a lot of scenes that just seem to drag; we cut away from what little story there is to some scene involving a radio show host and his bikini-clad co-worker talking about the reports of sharktopus attacks. It doesn't add anything to the movie and has no real purpose other than to throw shade at the sort of audience that would watch this kind of movie. We get it, the movie's bad and you're not even trying, that doesn't make the film any more entertaining. I love to laugh at these kinds of movies, but so much of this is just boring and hard to look at.
The Verdict: Sharktopus is a really bad movie; it's clearly trying to be, but the moments of humour don't redeem the many more moments of sheer boredom. It isn't really worth anyone's time unless they're looking for quick 'so bad it's good' entertainment.
Rating: 2/10
Published July 19th, 2016
Written by: Mike Maclean
Starring: Eric Roberts, Kerem Bursin, Sara Malakul Lane
Alright, full disclosure, I love these types of movies, no matter how bad they are. I've seen Piranhaconda and Dinocroc vs. Supergator, and a whole lot of other cheap and terrible Roger Corman flicks. I know going into any of these movies that they're terrible, but there's just something so mind-numbingly entertaining about watching a thoughtless movie about a monster terrorising a bunch of idiotic government and military types while the filmmakers find as many excuses as possible to include scantily clad women that can be eaten alive at any moment for the sake of cheap entertainment. They're so obviously bad that's it's simply easy to pick at them and rip them to pieces.
The plot is simple (i.e. stupid): scientists have created a Sharktopus, a half-shark half-octopus designed to be used as a super weapon. The Sharktopus breaks free from the scientists' control, and begins attacking people up and down the coastline, so the scientists have to go and get it back. Alive, of course, because it's too valuable an asset to be killed.
The movie's an uninspired take on the tired shark and monster genres. There's not much to talk about here. The acting's wooden, with Lane being a particularly bad stand-out with hardly a believable line uttered and multiple instances of her struggling with her fake accent. The script is full of awkwardness, and it isn't helped by the poor directing, which has no real rhythm or sense to it; dialogue is cut in such a way that it doesn't actually seem like characters are talking to one another, they're repeating words they were just told to say. The effects are embarrassingly hard to look at, never believable and so low effort it's a wonder that they even bothered to try.
There's some moments that draw a good laugh. A woman afraid of heights going bungee jumping for the first time getting picked off by the shark is completely obvious but still got a chuckle out of me. Unfortunately, there's also a lot of scenes that just seem to drag; we cut away from what little story there is to some scene involving a radio show host and his bikini-clad co-worker talking about the reports of sharktopus attacks. It doesn't add anything to the movie and has no real purpose other than to throw shade at the sort of audience that would watch this kind of movie. We get it, the movie's bad and you're not even trying, that doesn't make the film any more entertaining. I love to laugh at these kinds of movies, but so much of this is just boring and hard to look at.
The Verdict: Sharktopus is a really bad movie; it's clearly trying to be, but the moments of humour don't redeem the many more moments of sheer boredom. It isn't really worth anyone's time unless they're looking for quick 'so bad it's good' entertainment.
Rating: 2/10
Published July 19th, 2016
Monday, 18 July 2016
Film 33: Don Verdean (2015)
Directed by: Jared Hess
Written by: Jared Hess, Jerusha Hess
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Amy Ryan, Jemaine Clement
I love Sam Rockwell, he's one of my favourite actors working today. Unfortunately, I don't often find him in a movie that's as entertaining as he is.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Don Verdean (Rockwell) is as self-professing biblical archaeologist. Church leader Tony Lazarus (Danny McBride) offers to fund Don in exchange for giving his finds back to the church in order to give the church more publicity.
Half the time I'm not sure if the movie is trying to be funny or not. This comes from the makers of Napoleon Dynamite, so that may indeed be the intention, but it doesn't make the film more enjoyable. There's a definite air of satire in the film's attitude towards McBride's Lazarus; he hires Verdean because he's losing followers to a church started by former satanist Pastor Fontain (Will Forte). The exaggerated ways in which Fontain and Lazarus try to outdo each other in order to gain followers are pretty entertaining, poking general fun at christian sensibilities without being hateful.
Rockwell is not as good as his usual self, but it's partly because his character seems to be written as unlikable. There seems to be a real possible conflict to work with within his character, but the movie never pursues it far, which can be said for most of the film's ideas. The real highlight goes to Clement as Israeli Boaz; he creates most of the movie's laughs, and is easily the most consistently entertaining aspect of the film.
The Verdict: Uneven in tone and lacking a little in focus, Don Verdean is disappointing despite the stellar cast. It may be worth a watch if you like a few satirical bites at disingenuous religious attitudes, but even then it's eccentric rather than vicious.
Rating: 4.5/10
Published July 18th, 2016
Written by: Jared Hess, Jerusha Hess
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Amy Ryan, Jemaine Clement
I love Sam Rockwell, he's one of my favourite actors working today. Unfortunately, I don't often find him in a movie that's as entertaining as he is.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Don Verdean (Rockwell) is as self-professing biblical archaeologist. Church leader Tony Lazarus (Danny McBride) offers to fund Don in exchange for giving his finds back to the church in order to give the church more publicity.
Half the time I'm not sure if the movie is trying to be funny or not. This comes from the makers of Napoleon Dynamite, so that may indeed be the intention, but it doesn't make the film more enjoyable. There's a definite air of satire in the film's attitude towards McBride's Lazarus; he hires Verdean because he's losing followers to a church started by former satanist Pastor Fontain (Will Forte). The exaggerated ways in which Fontain and Lazarus try to outdo each other in order to gain followers are pretty entertaining, poking general fun at christian sensibilities without being hateful.
Rockwell is not as good as his usual self, but it's partly because his character seems to be written as unlikable. There seems to be a real possible conflict to work with within his character, but the movie never pursues it far, which can be said for most of the film's ideas. The real highlight goes to Clement as Israeli Boaz; he creates most of the movie's laughs, and is easily the most consistently entertaining aspect of the film.
The Verdict: Uneven in tone and lacking a little in focus, Don Verdean is disappointing despite the stellar cast. It may be worth a watch if you like a few satirical bites at disingenuous religious attitudes, but even then it's eccentric rather than vicious.
Rating: 4.5/10
Published July 18th, 2016
Sunday, 17 July 2016
Film 32: Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
Directed by: Jay Roach
Written by: Mike Myers
Starring: Mike Myers, Elizabeth Hurley, Michael York.
Well, January is out of the way, let's move onto February. this time I get to start the month with something I actually enjoyed.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
1960s Super Secret Agent Austin Powers (Myers) is taken out of cryo-sleep in order to face his old arch-nemesis, Dr. Evil (also Myers).
The film's a parody of the classic James Bond films. A lot of the film's jokes are based on satirising old Bond tropes and his 60s social sensibilities; sex pun-based names such as Alotta Fagina, but also poor card-playing skills and a respect for women, rather than taking advantage of them. It's occasionally a little crude, but always fleeting and in good fun. It's actually pretty entertaining considering the sheer number of references the film makes.
There's also some silly and absurdist comedy. Some of these kinds of jokes carry on a bit, unfortunately. There's only so many times Austin interrupting an announcer with his peeing is going to get even a slight snicker, and the joke manages to carry on another 30 seconds after that.
Myers does a good job as both Powers and Evil. He takes to each role with glee, clearly having a lot of fun playing on the old ideas of both hero and villain, hilariously exaggerated. His screen presence is where most of the film's comedic appeal comes from, and he's what keeps the film worth watching when you might not find a joke funny.
The Verdict: Austin Powers is a hilarious spoof of the classic James Bond films, light and a little lowbrow; it won't leave a lasting impression, but it's definitely worth the watch.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published July 17th, 2016
Written by: Mike Myers
Starring: Mike Myers, Elizabeth Hurley, Michael York.
Well, January is out of the way, let's move onto February. this time I get to start the month with something I actually enjoyed.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
1960s Super Secret Agent Austin Powers (Myers) is taken out of cryo-sleep in order to face his old arch-nemesis, Dr. Evil (also Myers).
The film's a parody of the classic James Bond films. A lot of the film's jokes are based on satirising old Bond tropes and his 60s social sensibilities; sex pun-based names such as Alotta Fagina, but also poor card-playing skills and a respect for women, rather than taking advantage of them. It's occasionally a little crude, but always fleeting and in good fun. It's actually pretty entertaining considering the sheer number of references the film makes.
There's also some silly and absurdist comedy. Some of these kinds of jokes carry on a bit, unfortunately. There's only so many times Austin interrupting an announcer with his peeing is going to get even a slight snicker, and the joke manages to carry on another 30 seconds after that.
Myers does a good job as both Powers and Evil. He takes to each role with glee, clearly having a lot of fun playing on the old ideas of both hero and villain, hilariously exaggerated. His screen presence is where most of the film's comedic appeal comes from, and he's what keeps the film worth watching when you might not find a joke funny.
The Verdict: Austin Powers is a hilarious spoof of the classic James Bond films, light and a little lowbrow; it won't leave a lasting impression, but it's definitely worth the watch.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published July 17th, 2016
January Numbers
The ratings for all of the films I watched for the first time in January of 2016:
1. The Ridiculous 6 - 2.5/10
2. Her - 9/10
3. John Dies at the End - 5.5/10
4. Nightcrawler - 7.5/10
5. Knock Knock - 5/10
6. The Naked Gun 2 1/2 - 7/10
7. In Bruges - 7.5/10
8. The Descendants - 8/10
9. The Naked Gun 33 1/3 - 6.5/10
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower - 7/10
11. Trainwreck - 6/10
12. The Revenant - 8/10
13. Super Mario Bros. - 2/10
14. Men in Black 3 - 6/10
15. Airplane! - 8/10
16. Minions - 5.5/10
17. Twelve Monkeys - 8/10
18. Eden Lake - 6/10
19. Love Actually - 7/10
20. The 5th Wave - 3.5/10
21. Goosebumps - 6/10
22. Clouds of Sils Maria - 7/10
23. Alone in the Dark - 1/10
24. Dragonball Z: Resurrection 'F' - 6.5/10
25. The Girl Next Door - 5.5/10
26. The Big Short - 8/10
27. Death Proof - 7/10
28. Planet Terror - 7/10
29. The Godfather - 10/10
30. Lazer Team - 5/10
31. Life of Pi - 8.5/10
Published July 17th, 2016
1. The Ridiculous 6 - 2.5/10
2. Her - 9/10
3. John Dies at the End - 5.5/10
4. Nightcrawler - 7.5/10
5. Knock Knock - 5/10
6. The Naked Gun 2 1/2 - 7/10
7. In Bruges - 7.5/10
8. The Descendants - 8/10
9. The Naked Gun 33 1/3 - 6.5/10
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower - 7/10
11. Trainwreck - 6/10
12. The Revenant - 8/10
13. Super Mario Bros. - 2/10
14. Men in Black 3 - 6/10
15. Airplane! - 8/10
16. Minions - 5.5/10
17. Twelve Monkeys - 8/10
18. Eden Lake - 6/10
19. Love Actually - 7/10
20. The 5th Wave - 3.5/10
21. Goosebumps - 6/10
22. Clouds of Sils Maria - 7/10
23. Alone in the Dark - 1/10
24. Dragonball Z: Resurrection 'F' - 6.5/10
25. The Girl Next Door - 5.5/10
26. The Big Short - 8/10
27. Death Proof - 7/10
28. Planet Terror - 7/10
29. The Godfather - 10/10
30. Lazer Team - 5/10
31. Life of Pi - 8.5/10
Published July 17th, 2016
Film 31: Life of Pi (2012)
Directed by: Ang Lee
Written by: David Magee (screenplay), Yann Martel (novel)
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Adil Hussain
Alright, I had no honest idea what to expect from this movie, which is exactly how I like to watch a movie for the first time, so let's get right into it.
I'm going to gush a little here and say hot damn, what an amazing movie. This may not be the best movie new movie I have watched so far, but it is easily my favourite. This is a movie that reminds you that films are art, because every frame looks like something worth hanging in a gallery. I cannot overstate how good this movie is to look at, but it's also got such an incredibly moving story to tell, a spiritual journey that brought a tear to my eye on more than one occasion.
Alright, let me compose myself.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
The film portrays the story of Piscine Molitor Patel, who creates the nickname 'Pi' for himself, as he recounts it to a writer who was told Pi had a story for him that would make him believe in God (Sharma is in the story, Khan recounts it). At first Pi recounts his early life, the story of how he earned his nickname, his family and the zoo they own, and his encounters with God as he learns of the Hindu, Christian, and Islamic religions. This section of the film colours the whole story with happiness, and it makes what happens next so much more challenging to watch.
The zoo goes broke, so Pi's father insist that the family must move their animals to Canada. They embark on a ship, and en route, a storm hits, and Pi is the only person to survive on a lifeboat, along with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and a tiger. From here, we are shown a harrowing trial to live, as Pi struggles to survive, and in turn struggles with his faith in God.
The tale may sound strange, but I urge anyone who reads this to go watch this movie, and if you have, to go watch it again. The story is one of that builds hope slowly, and even when that hope comes crashing down, never diminishes entirely. It's meaningful and heartfelt, as Pi's battle with his beliefs reflects his struggle to survive in the same way the ocean mirrors the sky above.
All of this is depicted dazzlingly by fanciful visuals. The film's artistic style creates these deep images that you could just lose yourself in. I was awestruck by the way Lee manages to create shots that contained the lifeboat, the sky above it and the sea below it, this vast emptiness for Pi that still contained life all around him. I really am not sure how to describe it much more with words, it really is something that deserves to be seen.
That said, one of the movie's only jarring points is the few moments where the aspect ratio changes. It seems to be for the sake of a better shot, but it's so suddenly implemented that I couldn't help but be momentarily thrown by the temporary changes.
The Verdict: Life of Pi is a truly beautiful experience of a movie. Its visuals are astounding, and its themes of hope, God and what we choose to believe are explored beautifully in Pi's effort to exist. I recommend this movie to anyone looking to be moved by a powerful and fantastic story; even if you aren't, watch it just to take in the view. I even think this is suitable for younger audiences, though they might find some of the scenes with the tiger a little frightening. For the sake of your own experience, try and see it in 3-D.
Rating: 8.5/10
Published July 17th, 2016
Written by: David Magee (screenplay), Yann Martel (novel)
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Adil Hussain
Alright, I had no honest idea what to expect from this movie, which is exactly how I like to watch a movie for the first time, so let's get right into it.
I'm going to gush a little here and say hot damn, what an amazing movie. This may not be the best movie new movie I have watched so far, but it is easily my favourite. This is a movie that reminds you that films are art, because every frame looks like something worth hanging in a gallery. I cannot overstate how good this movie is to look at, but it's also got such an incredibly moving story to tell, a spiritual journey that brought a tear to my eye on more than one occasion.
Alright, let me compose myself.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
The film portrays the story of Piscine Molitor Patel, who creates the nickname 'Pi' for himself, as he recounts it to a writer who was told Pi had a story for him that would make him believe in God (Sharma is in the story, Khan recounts it). At first Pi recounts his early life, the story of how he earned his nickname, his family and the zoo they own, and his encounters with God as he learns of the Hindu, Christian, and Islamic religions. This section of the film colours the whole story with happiness, and it makes what happens next so much more challenging to watch.
The zoo goes broke, so Pi's father insist that the family must move their animals to Canada. They embark on a ship, and en route, a storm hits, and Pi is the only person to survive on a lifeboat, along with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and a tiger. From here, we are shown a harrowing trial to live, as Pi struggles to survive, and in turn struggles with his faith in God.
The tale may sound strange, but I urge anyone who reads this to go watch this movie, and if you have, to go watch it again. The story is one of that builds hope slowly, and even when that hope comes crashing down, never diminishes entirely. It's meaningful and heartfelt, as Pi's battle with his beliefs reflects his struggle to survive in the same way the ocean mirrors the sky above.
All of this is depicted dazzlingly by fanciful visuals. The film's artistic style creates these deep images that you could just lose yourself in. I was awestruck by the way Lee manages to create shots that contained the lifeboat, the sky above it and the sea below it, this vast emptiness for Pi that still contained life all around him. I really am not sure how to describe it much more with words, it really is something that deserves to be seen.
That said, one of the movie's only jarring points is the few moments where the aspect ratio changes. It seems to be for the sake of a better shot, but it's so suddenly implemented that I couldn't help but be momentarily thrown by the temporary changes.
The Verdict: Life of Pi is a truly beautiful experience of a movie. Its visuals are astounding, and its themes of hope, God and what we choose to believe are explored beautifully in Pi's effort to exist. I recommend this movie to anyone looking to be moved by a powerful and fantastic story; even if you aren't, watch it just to take in the view. I even think this is suitable for younger audiences, though they might find some of the scenes with the tiger a little frightening. For the sake of your own experience, try and see it in 3-D.
Rating: 8.5/10
Published July 17th, 2016
Saturday, 16 July 2016
Film 30: Lazer Team (2015)
Directed by: Matt Hullum
Written by: Burnie Burns, Chris Demarais, Josh Flanagan, Matt Hullum
Starring: Burnie Burns, Gavin Free, Michael Jones
I have been a fan of Roosterteeth for years, ever since I found their web series Red vs. Blue, somewhere between seasons 4 and 5. I enjoy a good chunk of their content, and when they announced that they would be making their own full-fledged feature film, I was, to put it mildly, extremely excited.
It's a shame, then, that Lazer Team is so mediocre. I certainly enjoyed my experience; the special screening was packed with Roosterteeth fans, and they made my time that much more fun, but I couldn't get away from the fact that the movie was disappointingly average.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The U.S. Goverment has been secretly preparing for the arrival of a suit of extraterrestrial armour, to be worn by a specially chosen champion so that he might fight an alien force coming to attack earth. When the suit is en route, it is accidentally stopped by four losers (Burns, Free, Jones and Colton Dunn), who each put on a piece of the suit, which irrevocably attach themselves, forcing the four to have to prepare as quickly as possible for the upcoming battle.
The story is original at least, and part of me loves the fact that this movie isn't a direct sequel, reboot or remake to any existing IP. There's also a lot of interesting if under-developed ideas at play here; the way the main characters learn to work together to produce new effects from the suit is a good example of this. To be honest, it manages to give just enough to be intriguing, but little enough that I would probably see a sequel just to see how they develop the team's suit abilities, because the few times that they work on this are some of the best parts of the movie.
The comedy is constant, but inconsistent. For every laugh-out-loud joke, there's one that falls flat. The tone of the comedy varies wildly, ranging from subtle to straight-up obnoxious, and the good stuff gets bogged down by the way the film explains everything through dialogue. Commentators referring to Zach as a 'six-year senior' is hilarious, pointing out his stupidity and humourously accounting for the fact that Jones in no way looks high-school age, but the effect of the joke is later dulled as he's referred to again and again as stupid; we've been told once, but the movie feels the need to tell us multiple times in case we didn't get it. It's odd, because the movie has plenty of easter eggs for Roosterteeth fans which are implemented much more effectively (read: subtle), so it's not as if they're incapable, it just seems that they're trying as much as they possibly can in their first movie in order to see what works.
There's also a certain amount of self-awareness to the film, but it has difficulty striking a balance between this and the film's more serious moments.
The effects are also surprisingly worthwhile. Roosterteeth have a style that produce some fantastic scenes, with colourful action and liberal use of slow-motion that give the movie a great look despite the low budget. I'd also like to give a special mention to the film's soundtrack, which matches the film's tone at every moment perfectly.
The Verdict: The movie isn't ground-breaking, but it is extremely energetic and by the end it is s very charming. Some of it works excellently, and some pretty terribly, but overall it's an enjoyable experience that at least outshines most of todays' reboots, sequels and blockbusters at a fraction of the price. There's a definite need to avoid taking the film seriously, because a lot of the movie's plot points are self-aware silliness. It's definitely worth the watch if you're already a fan of Roosterteeth, but others may not enjoy the experience.
Rating: 5/10
Published July 16th, 2016
Written by: Burnie Burns, Chris Demarais, Josh Flanagan, Matt Hullum
Starring: Burnie Burns, Gavin Free, Michael Jones
I have been a fan of Roosterteeth for years, ever since I found their web series Red vs. Blue, somewhere between seasons 4 and 5. I enjoy a good chunk of their content, and when they announced that they would be making their own full-fledged feature film, I was, to put it mildly, extremely excited.
It's a shame, then, that Lazer Team is so mediocre. I certainly enjoyed my experience; the special screening was packed with Roosterteeth fans, and they made my time that much more fun, but I couldn't get away from the fact that the movie was disappointingly average.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The U.S. Goverment has been secretly preparing for the arrival of a suit of extraterrestrial armour, to be worn by a specially chosen champion so that he might fight an alien force coming to attack earth. When the suit is en route, it is accidentally stopped by four losers (Burns, Free, Jones and Colton Dunn), who each put on a piece of the suit, which irrevocably attach themselves, forcing the four to have to prepare as quickly as possible for the upcoming battle.
The story is original at least, and part of me loves the fact that this movie isn't a direct sequel, reboot or remake to any existing IP. There's also a lot of interesting if under-developed ideas at play here; the way the main characters learn to work together to produce new effects from the suit is a good example of this. To be honest, it manages to give just enough to be intriguing, but little enough that I would probably see a sequel just to see how they develop the team's suit abilities, because the few times that they work on this are some of the best parts of the movie.
The comedy is constant, but inconsistent. For every laugh-out-loud joke, there's one that falls flat. The tone of the comedy varies wildly, ranging from subtle to straight-up obnoxious, and the good stuff gets bogged down by the way the film explains everything through dialogue. Commentators referring to Zach as a 'six-year senior' is hilarious, pointing out his stupidity and humourously accounting for the fact that Jones in no way looks high-school age, but the effect of the joke is later dulled as he's referred to again and again as stupid; we've been told once, but the movie feels the need to tell us multiple times in case we didn't get it. It's odd, because the movie has plenty of easter eggs for Roosterteeth fans which are implemented much more effectively (read: subtle), so it's not as if they're incapable, it just seems that they're trying as much as they possibly can in their first movie in order to see what works.
There's also a certain amount of self-awareness to the film, but it has difficulty striking a balance between this and the film's more serious moments.
The effects are also surprisingly worthwhile. Roosterteeth have a style that produce some fantastic scenes, with colourful action and liberal use of slow-motion that give the movie a great look despite the low budget. I'd also like to give a special mention to the film's soundtrack, which matches the film's tone at every moment perfectly.
The Verdict: The movie isn't ground-breaking, but it is extremely energetic and by the end it is s very charming. Some of it works excellently, and some pretty terribly, but overall it's an enjoyable experience that at least outshines most of todays' reboots, sequels and blockbusters at a fraction of the price. There's a definite need to avoid taking the film seriously, because a lot of the movie's plot points are self-aware silliness. It's definitely worth the watch if you're already a fan of Roosterteeth, but others may not enjoy the experience.
Rating: 5/10
Published July 16th, 2016
Friday, 15 July 2016
Film 29: The Godfather (1972)
Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Written by: Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan
Oh man, here we go. I've heard hundreds of times that The Godfather is one of the best, and I know, it's despicable that I've gone all these years with such an interest in movies and never taken the time to sit down and watch this piece of cinematic history. At the same time, I've seen so many discussion about it, so many homages to it, I've seen so many scenes from it used as examples of great film making, that I've felt like I was already familiar with it.
However, watching the film is an altogether other experience. You are told that the film is one of the greatest of all time, but seeing the film allows the film to show you that it is one of the greatest of all time. With the movie being so acclaimed and so discussed, where and how do I even begin to review it?
I guess, really, I could start anywhere and say the same thing about any aspect of this movie: it's incredible. The whole film is so meticulously and skillfully crafted, from the acting and dialogue to the story structure and direction, the soundtrack and the cinematography, the editing, all of it is impeccable.
That said, I want to focus first on the story. It's broad and intricate, covering the many of the character arcs of the Corleone family.
The character arc of Michael (Pacino) is particularly fantastic. At the start of the film, we are led to the idea that he would never be Don Corleone; yet, at the end of the film that is exactly what he becomes, and at no point does this change in Michael feel unbelievable, because the film takes small steps to make it happen. Some people have greatness thrust upon them, and this is absolutely the case for Michael, but in a time of necessity he becomes what his family requires in order to survive, he takes to his role with such methodical capability you would think he was born for the role. The same could be said for Pacino himself in his performance as Michael; for the duration of the film, he is Michael.
While I'm discussing actors, everyone does a great job in their roles. Brando won an Academy Award for his role as Don Vito Corleone, and he absolutely deserved it, unrecognisable as anyone but Vito, in part due to the excellent make-up at work. I really could go on here; Caan as Sonny, Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, John Cazale as Fredo, Talia Shire as Connie, they're all pushed to their best, and it clearly pays off fantastically here.
I could talk about this movie for days, but to keep this review from going on too long, I wanna talk about only a couple more things: the film's editing, and its excellent use of visual storytelling.
So much of this film takes advantage of the visual medium. A scene could have no dialogue for a full minute, and yet tension will rise exponentially because of what we see. The dialogue and music are obviously integral to the film as well, but Coppola and Puzo know exactly when to use it, and when to let the experience be silent but for the background noise. There are many scenes that showcase this, including a scene involving Michael getting revenge for the attempted murder on his father; when he kills the men who set the attempt up, very few words are actually exchanged, yet the whole scene is fraught with tension because we know that whatever happens, it will have massive repercussions for the rest of the movie. It's a true turning point of the film that demonstrates how knowing when not to do something can create the most effective moment.
The editing is beautiful all through the experience, but it's shown at its best towards the end of the film, where we witness one of the most well edited sequences in film. As the film comes to a close, Michael has been made Don, and we see him at the baptism of his sister's child. At the same time, he stages a coup and wipes out all of the leaders of the other families at the same time. The way the film juxtaposes the beautiful religious iconography with gritty and brutal deaths is truly incredible, and it's perfected in the moment Michael renounces Satan as the film cuts to bloody murder after bloody murder.
The Verdict: Literally one of the best, if not the best, of the movies I have ever seen. I really cannot overstate how good this movie is. It's flawless as a film, with excellent visual storytelling as tension film ebbs and flows, performances that exemplify people truly becoming their characters, and editing that perfectly accentuates the tone of the film in every scene. That said, the movie is deep with content and requires engagement to get the most out of it, you really have to be ready to sit down and absorb a three-hour magnum opus if you want to watch this film.
I am happy to say without a shadow of a doubt that The Godfather is the first film this year to earn this rating.
Rating: 10/10
Published July 16th, 2016
Written by: Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan
Oh man, here we go. I've heard hundreds of times that The Godfather is one of the best, and I know, it's despicable that I've gone all these years with such an interest in movies and never taken the time to sit down and watch this piece of cinematic history. At the same time, I've seen so many discussion about it, so many homages to it, I've seen so many scenes from it used as examples of great film making, that I've felt like I was already familiar with it.
However, watching the film is an altogether other experience. You are told that the film is one of the greatest of all time, but seeing the film allows the film to show you that it is one of the greatest of all time. With the movie being so acclaimed and so discussed, where and how do I even begin to review it?
I guess, really, I could start anywhere and say the same thing about any aspect of this movie: it's incredible. The whole film is so meticulously and skillfully crafted, from the acting and dialogue to the story structure and direction, the soundtrack and the cinematography, the editing, all of it is impeccable.
That said, I want to focus first on the story. It's broad and intricate, covering the many of the character arcs of the Corleone family.
The character arc of Michael (Pacino) is particularly fantastic. At the start of the film, we are led to the idea that he would never be Don Corleone; yet, at the end of the film that is exactly what he becomes, and at no point does this change in Michael feel unbelievable, because the film takes small steps to make it happen. Some people have greatness thrust upon them, and this is absolutely the case for Michael, but in a time of necessity he becomes what his family requires in order to survive, he takes to his role with such methodical capability you would think he was born for the role. The same could be said for Pacino himself in his performance as Michael; for the duration of the film, he is Michael.
While I'm discussing actors, everyone does a great job in their roles. Brando won an Academy Award for his role as Don Vito Corleone, and he absolutely deserved it, unrecognisable as anyone but Vito, in part due to the excellent make-up at work. I really could go on here; Caan as Sonny, Robert Duvall as Tom Hagen, John Cazale as Fredo, Talia Shire as Connie, they're all pushed to their best, and it clearly pays off fantastically here.
I could talk about this movie for days, but to keep this review from going on too long, I wanna talk about only a couple more things: the film's editing, and its excellent use of visual storytelling.
So much of this film takes advantage of the visual medium. A scene could have no dialogue for a full minute, and yet tension will rise exponentially because of what we see. The dialogue and music are obviously integral to the film as well, but Coppola and Puzo know exactly when to use it, and when to let the experience be silent but for the background noise. There are many scenes that showcase this, including a scene involving Michael getting revenge for the attempted murder on his father; when he kills the men who set the attempt up, very few words are actually exchanged, yet the whole scene is fraught with tension because we know that whatever happens, it will have massive repercussions for the rest of the movie. It's a true turning point of the film that demonstrates how knowing when not to do something can create the most effective moment.
The editing is beautiful all through the experience, but it's shown at its best towards the end of the film, where we witness one of the most well edited sequences in film. As the film comes to a close, Michael has been made Don, and we see him at the baptism of his sister's child. At the same time, he stages a coup and wipes out all of the leaders of the other families at the same time. The way the film juxtaposes the beautiful religious iconography with gritty and brutal deaths is truly incredible, and it's perfected in the moment Michael renounces Satan as the film cuts to bloody murder after bloody murder.
The Verdict: Literally one of the best, if not the best, of the movies I have ever seen. I really cannot overstate how good this movie is. It's flawless as a film, with excellent visual storytelling as tension film ebbs and flows, performances that exemplify people truly becoming their characters, and editing that perfectly accentuates the tone of the film in every scene. That said, the movie is deep with content and requires engagement to get the most out of it, you really have to be ready to sit down and absorb a three-hour magnum opus if you want to watch this film.
I am happy to say without a shadow of a doubt that The Godfather is the first film this year to earn this rating.
Rating: 10/10
Published July 16th, 2016
Films 27 & 28: Death Proof & Planet Terror [Grindhouse] (2007)
Deathproof
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Kurt Russell, Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson
Planet Terror
Directed by: Robert Rodriguez
Written by: Robert Rodriguez
Starring: Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodriguez, Josh Brolin
In 2007, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez released a homage to 1960s Grindhouse exploitation movies with their own double-billing, Grindhouse. They each wrote and directed their own film in the Grindhouse style of B-grade schlock and put them back-to-back. These two films were released together, I watched them together, so it's only fitting that I review them together.
Both films are absurd schlock, yet very distinct from each other in terms of style. They both contain stylistic choices that try to hammer home that 60s/70s Grindhouse theatre feel; there's intentional film grain and a few cuts where they pretend a film reel is missing, and both films do their absolute best to exploit and overkill their respective experiences.
Rodriguez is right at home with Planet Terror, making the most violent and silly zombie movie he possibly can. The plot is filled with so many points that only make sense exactly because they make no sense. A bad guy has a propensity for keeping his victims' testicles? Of course he does! A main character replaces her lost leg with a gun? Yeah, may as well. It's pure and true in the way it stoops down to imitate the types of films it's paying tribute to. The ultra-violence is bloody and disgusting, with plenty of skin melting, puss popping and flesh chewing to go around. The plot is intentionally overdone, with turns that are as hilariously dramatic and necessarily unnecessary as the rest of the movie. It's so very stupid, and the film's intent in this makes the ride so very enjoyable.
Death Proof is Tarantino unplugged, a film that combines his detailed dialogue and charismatic characters with a paper-thin plot and plenty of violent and sexual exploitation. The film is bizarrely paced, and takes a while to get going, with only dialogue and voluptuous women until one of the characters, Stuntman Mike (Russell) is revealed to be a murderer. Why he murders isn't explained, it's just an excuse to have some awesome car chase and car crash scenes that involve gratuitous violence. The movie is slow until Mike's true intentions are revealed, but once they are the movie gets so much better. In particular I'm a sucker for a good ending, and Death Proof has an ending so cheap and pointless yet so satisfying in the way it captures the style Tarantino is trying to emulate that I cannot help but love it.
The Verdict: Grindhouse is an absolute exploitation schlock-fest, and that's exactly what it aspires to be. Planet Terror is a hilariously over-the-top and nonsensical zombie romp with a literal ton of blood and guts, and Death Proof is a movie of beautiful women, fast cars, great thrills, and little else. If you're intrigued by the films, I recommend you watch them together, though with an intermission that's about 4 hours so make sure to plan ahead. I definitely would recommend against this being shown together, unless my descriptions of the films didn't make that clear enough. While each film is imperfect, the experience of watching them together improves the viewing of both, so I give each film their own rating, but I also rate the experience of watching them together.
Rating (Death Proof): 7/10
Rating (Planet Terror): 7/10
Rating (Grindhouse): 8/10
Published July 15th, 2016
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Kurt Russell, Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson
Planet Terror
Directed by: Robert Rodriguez
Written by: Robert Rodriguez
Starring: Rose McGowan, Freddy Rodriguez, Josh Brolin
In 2007, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez released a homage to 1960s Grindhouse exploitation movies with their own double-billing, Grindhouse. They each wrote and directed their own film in the Grindhouse style of B-grade schlock and put them back-to-back. These two films were released together, I watched them together, so it's only fitting that I review them together.
Both films are absurd schlock, yet very distinct from each other in terms of style. They both contain stylistic choices that try to hammer home that 60s/70s Grindhouse theatre feel; there's intentional film grain and a few cuts where they pretend a film reel is missing, and both films do their absolute best to exploit and overkill their respective experiences.
Rodriguez is right at home with Planet Terror, making the most violent and silly zombie movie he possibly can. The plot is filled with so many points that only make sense exactly because they make no sense. A bad guy has a propensity for keeping his victims' testicles? Of course he does! A main character replaces her lost leg with a gun? Yeah, may as well. It's pure and true in the way it stoops down to imitate the types of films it's paying tribute to. The ultra-violence is bloody and disgusting, with plenty of skin melting, puss popping and flesh chewing to go around. The plot is intentionally overdone, with turns that are as hilariously dramatic and necessarily unnecessary as the rest of the movie. It's so very stupid, and the film's intent in this makes the ride so very enjoyable.
Death Proof is Tarantino unplugged, a film that combines his detailed dialogue and charismatic characters with a paper-thin plot and plenty of violent and sexual exploitation. The film is bizarrely paced, and takes a while to get going, with only dialogue and voluptuous women until one of the characters, Stuntman Mike (Russell) is revealed to be a murderer. Why he murders isn't explained, it's just an excuse to have some awesome car chase and car crash scenes that involve gratuitous violence. The movie is slow until Mike's true intentions are revealed, but once they are the movie gets so much better. In particular I'm a sucker for a good ending, and Death Proof has an ending so cheap and pointless yet so satisfying in the way it captures the style Tarantino is trying to emulate that I cannot help but love it.
The Verdict: Grindhouse is an absolute exploitation schlock-fest, and that's exactly what it aspires to be. Planet Terror is a hilariously over-the-top and nonsensical zombie romp with a literal ton of blood and guts, and Death Proof is a movie of beautiful women, fast cars, great thrills, and little else. If you're intrigued by the films, I recommend you watch them together, though with an intermission that's about 4 hours so make sure to plan ahead. I definitely would recommend against this being shown together, unless my descriptions of the films didn't make that clear enough. While each film is imperfect, the experience of watching them together improves the viewing of both, so I give each film their own rating, but I also rate the experience of watching them together.
Rating (Death Proof): 7/10
Rating (Planet Terror): 7/10
Rating (Grindhouse): 8/10
Published July 15th, 2016
Film 26: The Big Short (2015)
Directed By: Adam McKay
Written By: Charles Randolph, Adam McKay
Starring: Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling
Here my goal to see every Best Picture nominee continued. I imagine some people were surprised that the Director of Anchorman and The Other Guys had a created a film worthy of a Best Picture nomination. I know I was.
Well, surprise or not, The Big Short is in excellent movie. The film's re-telling of the United States housing bubble collapse based on Michael Lewis' book is witty, clever, and tries extremely hard to be understood.
The movie pushes very hard to make sure it's as clear as possible in its agenda; McKay understands that the subject matter is boring to most people, and at every possible moment livens the whole experience up, throwing in 4th-wall breaks to simplify and explain situations, and editing associative visuals in order to make sure the film is as accessible as possible. The film looks and sounds like a documentary, even down to its cinematography, which plays with a lot of handheld camera work in order to affect that documentary look. The tone of the film is comedic, an exasperated scoff at people's behaviour. McKay recognises everything that happened, but shows that he does not quite believe it because of how ridiculous it is.
The surreal yet natural tone of the movie is improved by the excellent performances, especially from Bale and Carell, whose people the movie takes the time to give full backstory to and develop, which enhances their performances further. The rest of the cast is strong here, behaving as their characters or as the voice of the filmmakers as needed.
The film on the whole has a little difficulty hitting the darker moments of the movie with real weight because of the film's overall comedic tone, but it's a small trade-off in the order to make the less exciting subject matter much more widely interesting and accessible.
The Verdict: Adam McKay's venture to tell the story of the economic collapse of the 2000s is smartly edited, excellently acted, and all things considered, effectively told. There's an agenda here, as McKay tries desperately to get people to understand exactly what happened, but even as the film breaks the 4th wall and begins to condescend to its audience, it's never insulting because it's all in the earnest effort to help people understand. I recommend people watch it, because the film infuriates and educates people on an important subject in recent history.
Rating: 8/10
Published July 15th, 2016
Published July 15th, 2016
Thursday, 14 July 2016
Film 25: The Girl Next Door (2004)
Directed by: Luke Greenfield
Written by: David Wagner, Brent Goldberg, Stuart Blumberg
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Elisha Cuthbert, Timothy Olyphant
I honestly can't remember how I ended up watching this movie. I kind of expected to be a horny, immature teen comedy, and I guess that's the idea, because the movie does a good job of subverting a lot of the expectations associated with those sorts of movies.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
The movie starts with Matthew Kidman (Hirsch), a senior in high school, class president, a studious worker, and a bit of a social outcast. Towards the end of the school year, a girl moves in next door, surprisingly; Danielle (Cuthbert), a beautiful woman becomes Matthew's new neighbour. The two quickly build a relationship, and for a while things are good, but then the relationship changes when Matthew discovers Danielle used to be a porn star.
Rather than have some juvenile fantasy where Matthew has 24-hour sex with Danielle after this revelation, he actually struggles with the idea. Danielle also doesn't behave like a porn star just because Matthew finds out; she liked Matthew because he didn't look at her as if she were a piece of meat. The movie does this a few times, suggesting that it will behave like a sex-comedy and instead acting more as a commentary on our expectations of sex-comedies.
The film is jarringly edited in its first act, giving you just enough as it quickly jumps up the first few steps of the story. A lot of the first few scenes simply end with a fade to black before moving to an unspecified time later, and there's multiple montages to quickly imply character and relationship development for Matthew and Danielle, before breaking them up and introducing Kelly.
Timothy Olyphant is a real highlight here as Kelly, Danielle's ex-producer and ex-boyfriend; he's creepy and yet charismatic, a total piece of slime that manipulates people to his own benefit as he sees fit, Over the top without being ridiculous, Olyphant is the best part of this movie.
The Verdict: The Girl Next Door is an ok film that goes against the expectations of a sex-oriented comedy but never completely removes itself from their tropes, and has a little bit of social commentary that doesn't feel entirely forced, if unbelievable as it comes to a close. Timothy Olyphant is surprisingly great, completely creepy in his role and definitely makes the second-half of the movie more enjoyable. I don't think I would straight-up recommend this, but if you're bored and have a couple of hours, it wouldn't be a waste to spend them watching this. Inappropriate for children, in case that wasn't already clear.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published July 14th, 2016
Written by: David Wagner, Brent Goldberg, Stuart Blumberg
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Elisha Cuthbert, Timothy Olyphant
I honestly can't remember how I ended up watching this movie. I kind of expected to be a horny, immature teen comedy, and I guess that's the idea, because the movie does a good job of subverting a lot of the expectations associated with those sorts of movies.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
The movie starts with Matthew Kidman (Hirsch), a senior in high school, class president, a studious worker, and a bit of a social outcast. Towards the end of the school year, a girl moves in next door, surprisingly; Danielle (Cuthbert), a beautiful woman becomes Matthew's new neighbour. The two quickly build a relationship, and for a while things are good, but then the relationship changes when Matthew discovers Danielle used to be a porn star.
Rather than have some juvenile fantasy where Matthew has 24-hour sex with Danielle after this revelation, he actually struggles with the idea. Danielle also doesn't behave like a porn star just because Matthew finds out; she liked Matthew because he didn't look at her as if she were a piece of meat. The movie does this a few times, suggesting that it will behave like a sex-comedy and instead acting more as a commentary on our expectations of sex-comedies.
The film is jarringly edited in its first act, giving you just enough as it quickly jumps up the first few steps of the story. A lot of the first few scenes simply end with a fade to black before moving to an unspecified time later, and there's multiple montages to quickly imply character and relationship development for Matthew and Danielle, before breaking them up and introducing Kelly.
Timothy Olyphant is a real highlight here as Kelly, Danielle's ex-producer and ex-boyfriend; he's creepy and yet charismatic, a total piece of slime that manipulates people to his own benefit as he sees fit, Over the top without being ridiculous, Olyphant is the best part of this movie.
The Verdict: The Girl Next Door is an ok film that goes against the expectations of a sex-oriented comedy but never completely removes itself from their tropes, and has a little bit of social commentary that doesn't feel entirely forced, if unbelievable as it comes to a close. Timothy Olyphant is surprisingly great, completely creepy in his role and definitely makes the second-half of the movie more enjoyable. I don't think I would straight-up recommend this, but if you're bored and have a couple of hours, it wouldn't be a waste to spend them watching this. Inappropriate for children, in case that wasn't already clear.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published July 14th, 2016
Film 24: Dragonball Z: Resurrection 'F' (2015)
Full disclosure, I loved Dragonball Z as a kid.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Following on from 2013's Battle of the Gods, Resurrection 'F' continues Akira Toriyama's sci-fi saga surrounding Super Saiyans Goku and Vegeta.
The Saiyans have been training with Whis, mentor of Beerus, the villain from Battle of the Gods. Their training has given them a new form called Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan*.
In addition to this, Frieza, one of Dragonball Z's primary villains, has been revived by the Dragon Balls and is ready to return to Earth in order to enact revenge on the Saiyans for killing him.
The whole experience is definitely an enjoyable one. The animation looks better than ever, with beautiful moments of fluid motion and some classic Dragonball Z -style action (you know, screaming, powering up, energy blasts, punching and kicking, etc.). What's more, there's plenty of laughs to go around; a personal favourite line for me was from Vegeta to Goku: "Oh shut your face, you're only thinking less because you're an idiot." As a fan of the show, there's plenty to like here.
That said, there's a problem with the movie from a writing perspective. When it's time for Frieza to have his fight with Goku, there's no tension. It's never a mystery who's going to win, and it's not because this is Dragonball and the good guys always win. It's because from the very start of the action, there are four people stronger than Frieza present, including Goku himself. The protagonists aren't scrappy underdogs fighting an unspeakably powerful villain, they're more powerful than the bad guys and have no real problem dealing with them, so the action is pretty, but ultimately fails to be more than people hitting each other for an hour and some new special forms.
The Verdict: Resurrection 'F' is definitely a worthwhile experience for fans of the show, with beautiful animation, excellent action and some great humour, but the whole thing comes off a little like hollow fanservice. There's no real stakes, so all moments where action might seem epic end up feeling constructed. In addition, it's unlikely that people who aren't fans of the show are gonna get much enjoyment here.
Rating: 6.5/10
*Thankfully Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan was changed to Super Saiyan Blue in the new Dragonball Super series.
Published July 14th, 2016
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Following on from 2013's Battle of the Gods, Resurrection 'F' continues Akira Toriyama's sci-fi saga surrounding Super Saiyans Goku and Vegeta.
The Saiyans have been training with Whis, mentor of Beerus, the villain from Battle of the Gods. Their training has given them a new form called Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan*.
In addition to this, Frieza, one of Dragonball Z's primary villains, has been revived by the Dragon Balls and is ready to return to Earth in order to enact revenge on the Saiyans for killing him.
The whole experience is definitely an enjoyable one. The animation looks better than ever, with beautiful moments of fluid motion and some classic Dragonball Z -style action (you know, screaming, powering up, energy blasts, punching and kicking, etc.). What's more, there's plenty of laughs to go around; a personal favourite line for me was from Vegeta to Goku: "Oh shut your face, you're only thinking less because you're an idiot." As a fan of the show, there's plenty to like here.
That said, there's a problem with the movie from a writing perspective. When it's time for Frieza to have his fight with Goku, there's no tension. It's never a mystery who's going to win, and it's not because this is Dragonball and the good guys always win. It's because from the very start of the action, there are four people stronger than Frieza present, including Goku himself. The protagonists aren't scrappy underdogs fighting an unspeakably powerful villain, they're more powerful than the bad guys and have no real problem dealing with them, so the action is pretty, but ultimately fails to be more than people hitting each other for an hour and some new special forms.
The Verdict: Resurrection 'F' is definitely a worthwhile experience for fans of the show, with beautiful animation, excellent action and some great humour, but the whole thing comes off a little like hollow fanservice. There's no real stakes, so all moments where action might seem epic end up feeling constructed. In addition, it's unlikely that people who aren't fans of the show are gonna get much enjoyment here.
Rating: 6.5/10
*Thankfully Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan was changed to Super Saiyan Blue in the new Dragonball Super series.
Published July 14th, 2016
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
Film 23: Alone in the Dark (2005)
Up until now, I haven't reviewed any truly terrible movies. I've done some bad movies like The Ridiculous 6 and Super Mario Bros., but as bad as they were, movies have gone so much worse.
Enter Alone in the Dark. 'Based on the video game' is a sentence that rarely inspires confidence. 'Directed by Uwe Boll' is another. put the two together, and in this case you end up with a movie that is an unmitigated disaster of storytelling.
The 'plot' if you can call it that, is centered around paranormal detective Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), who unravels mysteries with supernatural phenomena.
This movie manages to find every movie-making pitfall and dive right in. Heck, right from the start, we get a slow crawl of text, with someone narrating the very text we are reading, then it cuts to a piece of story that only matters about half-way into the movie, then cuts to Carnby on a plane, and then it's Carnby who starts narrating. That's five minutes of movie and it's already horrendous. Then we have the camera work, which is so blurry any action fails to register. Even when it slows down we realise that it's better that we didn't see it, because the acting is so fake that a scene where Carnby is getting 'strangled' drew a laugh out of me. The acting is terrible all-round; people singled out Tara Reid when the film was first released, but everyone here is incredibly stiff, and it isn't helped by the fact that every piece of dialogue is forced and unnatural. They used the opening text crawl to explain about some ancient civilisation, but then they go ahead and awkwardly insert dialogue about it into a scene that renders the opening crawl completely unnecessary. Every plot point is complete nonsense, and half the time manage to weigh down the movie until a 90-minute feature feels three hours long. This movie is an absolute trial to get through.
The Verdict: Don't watch it. If you want to watch it because you love 'so bad it's good' movies, I challenge you to try. I doubt there's anyone who could legitimately enjoy this movie, because everything from the acting to the story to the editing to the, well, everything, is just plain bad.
Rating: 1/10. I'd go lower if my rating system allowed for it.
Published July 13th, 2016
Enter Alone in the Dark. 'Based on the video game' is a sentence that rarely inspires confidence. 'Directed by Uwe Boll' is another. put the two together, and in this case you end up with a movie that is an unmitigated disaster of storytelling.
The 'plot' if you can call it that, is centered around paranormal detective Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), who unravels mysteries with supernatural phenomena.
This movie manages to find every movie-making pitfall and dive right in. Heck, right from the start, we get a slow crawl of text, with someone narrating the very text we are reading, then it cuts to a piece of story that only matters about half-way into the movie, then cuts to Carnby on a plane, and then it's Carnby who starts narrating. That's five minutes of movie and it's already horrendous. Then we have the camera work, which is so blurry any action fails to register. Even when it slows down we realise that it's better that we didn't see it, because the acting is so fake that a scene where Carnby is getting 'strangled' drew a laugh out of me. The acting is terrible all-round; people singled out Tara Reid when the film was first released, but everyone here is incredibly stiff, and it isn't helped by the fact that every piece of dialogue is forced and unnatural. They used the opening text crawl to explain about some ancient civilisation, but then they go ahead and awkwardly insert dialogue about it into a scene that renders the opening crawl completely unnecessary. Every plot point is complete nonsense, and half the time manage to weigh down the movie until a 90-minute feature feels three hours long. This movie is an absolute trial to get through.
The Verdict: Don't watch it. If you want to watch it because you love 'so bad it's good' movies, I challenge you to try. I doubt there's anyone who could legitimately enjoy this movie, because everything from the acting to the story to the editing to the, well, everything, is just plain bad.
Rating: 1/10. I'd go lower if my rating system allowed for it.
Published July 13th, 2016
Film 22: Clouds of Sils Maria (2014)
Well, it took three weeks of movies, but I finally branch out a little with my first French film. Well, I say it's French, it is primarily English-spoken, but I call it French because it received six Cesar Award nominations (the French equivalent of the Academy Awards), including a win for Kristen Stewart for Best Supporting Actress.
The film primarily focuses on Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche), an actress made famous years ago by her role as the young Sigrid, in the play Maloja Snake. She is asked now as a middle-aged woman to return to the play as the older Helena, the woman that Sigrid has a romantic entanglement with. Stewart plays Maria's assistant, Valentine.
In addition to Stewart's fantastic performance, every actor brings their A-game in this melancholy mid-life crisis piece. The truly impressive aspect of this film is definitely the performances, the ways in which the actors play as actors off of one another, the ways in which the character dynamics grow and change. The whole experience has a meta-narrative running through it that allows the actors to find their characters easier to relate to and therefore believable. It's very similar in this way to Birdman, both lead characters trying to fight irrelevancy while everyone around them is telling them to stop and let someone younger take over.
Actually, just to run with idea for a moment, it actually has a few more similarities with Birdman. Maria has a relationship with Valentine like Riggan had with his daughter Sam; In both cases, the latter acts as a foil, pointing out the weaknesses of the former's viewpoints, sharing in the few moments where they behave like real people, and embracing social media where the other despises it. There's also some similarity between Birdman's Mike and Sils Maria's Jo-Ann Ellis (Chloe Moretz); both behave as the new blood still reveling in relevancy, looking down upon their respective main character.
But I digress, the acting and character dynamic in this movie are what I'm here to praise. Binoche and Stewart are incredible here, both so natural in their roles that you can hardly believe they're playing characters, each as awesome as the other in the ways in which they share dialogue. It's layered, with Maria's arc leading her to realisations about who she is as a person, and what that means for the dynamic between Helena and Sigrid in the play, and Valentine struggling to affect the views of Maria, as Maria tries ever so stringently to stick to her views of the characters that she had when she first played Sigrid.
The Verdict: It's a little dour in the way it talks about death, getting older and becoming irrelevant, but Clouds of Sils Maria never ceases to be an effective movie, held up by amazing performances from everyone involved. I recommend people give this one a look, especially those who've had their idea about Stewart's acting ability sullied by the Twilight series. Adult themes and conversations makes this both inappropriate and uninteresting to children.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 13th, 2016
The film primarily focuses on Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche), an actress made famous years ago by her role as the young Sigrid, in the play Maloja Snake. She is asked now as a middle-aged woman to return to the play as the older Helena, the woman that Sigrid has a romantic entanglement with. Stewart plays Maria's assistant, Valentine.
In addition to Stewart's fantastic performance, every actor brings their A-game in this melancholy mid-life crisis piece. The truly impressive aspect of this film is definitely the performances, the ways in which the actors play as actors off of one another, the ways in which the character dynamics grow and change. The whole experience has a meta-narrative running through it that allows the actors to find their characters easier to relate to and therefore believable. It's very similar in this way to Birdman, both lead characters trying to fight irrelevancy while everyone around them is telling them to stop and let someone younger take over.
Actually, just to run with idea for a moment, it actually has a few more similarities with Birdman. Maria has a relationship with Valentine like Riggan had with his daughter Sam; In both cases, the latter acts as a foil, pointing out the weaknesses of the former's viewpoints, sharing in the few moments where they behave like real people, and embracing social media where the other despises it. There's also some similarity between Birdman's Mike and Sils Maria's Jo-Ann Ellis (Chloe Moretz); both behave as the new blood still reveling in relevancy, looking down upon their respective main character.
But I digress, the acting and character dynamic in this movie are what I'm here to praise. Binoche and Stewart are incredible here, both so natural in their roles that you can hardly believe they're playing characters, each as awesome as the other in the ways in which they share dialogue. It's layered, with Maria's arc leading her to realisations about who she is as a person, and what that means for the dynamic between Helena and Sigrid in the play, and Valentine struggling to affect the views of Maria, as Maria tries ever so stringently to stick to her views of the characters that she had when she first played Sigrid.
The Verdict: It's a little dour in the way it talks about death, getting older and becoming irrelevant, but Clouds of Sils Maria never ceases to be an effective movie, held up by amazing performances from everyone involved. I recommend people give this one a look, especially those who've had their idea about Stewart's acting ability sullied by the Twilight series. Adult themes and conversations makes this both inappropriate and uninteresting to children.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 13th, 2016
Tuesday, 12 July 2016
Film 21: Goosebumps (2015)
Full disclosure, I was a big fan of the Goosebumps books as a kid, but I knew going in that this movie wasn't an adaptation of any specific book and was its own adventure, so I had no set expectations.
There are a lot of good things to say about Goosebumps; it's silly, with some hilarious dialogue and plenty of self-aware commentary, and it never feels like it's dragging.
*Warning: Possible Spoilers Ahead*
Teenager Zach (Dylan Minnette) has moved to the town of Madison, Delaware with his mum for his mum's new job as Vice Principal of the area's school. After connecting with girl next door Hannah (Odeya Rush), a series of events reveals that Hannah is the daughter of Goosebumps author R.L. Stine (Jack Black), and they manage to accidentally release a bunch of monsters from Stine's books. Turns out all of Stine's books are real, and now they have a situation on their hands that's sure to create a few spooky situations.
How do the monsters become real? The movie doesn't answer, and it doesn't care to answer either, it just uses the concept as a set-up for some silly action sequences involving Stine's creations.
The dialogue has a lot of good jokes, and quite a few forced ones. Jokes calling Stine a Stephen King wannabe might go over a few children's heads, but they land much better than most of the jokes involving Zach's aunt. Speaking of Stine, Jack Black is great here, perfectly kooky and over the top without resorting to his usual style and overuse of the word 'awesome'.
The relationship between Zach and Hannah is also a nice point; it's never forced
The movie has a few weak points past some of the jokes, mainly to do with the story and a lot of the questions it leaves unanswered. You can try to ignore these, and the movie is enjoyable despite them, but it is still a weakness in the narrative. It also rarely feels like the characters are in actual danger, so the moments where the film tries to be spooky don't really add anything to the film.
Everything else is serviceable. Other than Jack Black doing a great job as Stine, the other actors are all fine in their roles. There may be a few unexplained plot points, but at least this allows the film to never get weighed down and keep its pacing on point.
The Verdict: Goosebumps is worth the watch if you're familiar with the books that inspired it. Jack Black is cast perfectly as Stine, and despite the moments where it tries too hard to be funny, the movie has a lot of laughs. I also recommend this for younger audiences; some jokes will go over their heads, but this movie is well and truly directed at children a lot of the time.
Rating: 6/10
Published July 12th, 2016
There are a lot of good things to say about Goosebumps; it's silly, with some hilarious dialogue and plenty of self-aware commentary, and it never feels like it's dragging.
*Warning: Possible Spoilers Ahead*
Teenager Zach (Dylan Minnette) has moved to the town of Madison, Delaware with his mum for his mum's new job as Vice Principal of the area's school. After connecting with girl next door Hannah (Odeya Rush), a series of events reveals that Hannah is the daughter of Goosebumps author R.L. Stine (Jack Black), and they manage to accidentally release a bunch of monsters from Stine's books. Turns out all of Stine's books are real, and now they have a situation on their hands that's sure to create a few spooky situations.
How do the monsters become real? The movie doesn't answer, and it doesn't care to answer either, it just uses the concept as a set-up for some silly action sequences involving Stine's creations.
The dialogue has a lot of good jokes, and quite a few forced ones. Jokes calling Stine a Stephen King wannabe might go over a few children's heads, but they land much better than most of the jokes involving Zach's aunt. Speaking of Stine, Jack Black is great here, perfectly kooky and over the top without resorting to his usual style and overuse of the word 'awesome'.
The relationship between Zach and Hannah is also a nice point; it's never forced
The movie has a few weak points past some of the jokes, mainly to do with the story and a lot of the questions it leaves unanswered. You can try to ignore these, and the movie is enjoyable despite them, but it is still a weakness in the narrative. It also rarely feels like the characters are in actual danger, so the moments where the film tries to be spooky don't really add anything to the film.
Everything else is serviceable. Other than Jack Black doing a great job as Stine, the other actors are all fine in their roles. There may be a few unexplained plot points, but at least this allows the film to never get weighed down and keep its pacing on point.
The Verdict: Goosebumps is worth the watch if you're familiar with the books that inspired it. Jack Black is cast perfectly as Stine, and despite the moments where it tries too hard to be funny, the movie has a lot of laughs. I also recommend this for younger audiences; some jokes will go over their heads, but this movie is well and truly directed at children a lot of the time.
Rating: 6/10
Published July 12th, 2016
Monday, 11 July 2016
Film 20: The 5th Wave (2016)
This was the second movie I watched at the cinema this year. The only thing I knew about it going into it was that it was based on a book.
The 5th Wave is a movie that could have been good. It has an intriguing premise, but the whole experience is let down by a mix of weak dialogue, bad pacing and a poor use of cliches.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Like I said, the premise is interesting. Aliens known only as "The Others" arrive on earth, and slowly roll out waves of disasters meant to break down humanity; first they cut global power, second they cause massive tsunamis, and third they use birds to spread a disease and wipe out as many of the remaining people as possible. Unfortunately, we are presented this information through a montage and some voice-over from our main character, Cassie Sullivan (Chloe Moretz). We are overloaded with information in the first fifteen minutes because the movie decides to have a cold open to somewhere about a quarter of the way into the movie, and then play catch-up with itself. There could have been more time spent on the early waves, but those were of course just set up, the movie only wants to spend the opening few minutes on them because this is a movie about the fourth wave.
Yes, despite the name of the movie, it actually focuses primarily on the fourth wave, and only builds up to the idea of the fifth wave around two thirds of the way in. The army has apparently survived the waves, and comes to a camp of survivors where Cass and her father and brother have taken up residence. They take the children and explain to the adults that aliens can now inhabit and control human bodies. A series of circumstances leaves all the adults dead, Cass' brother in the hands of the army, and Cass herself on her own out in the woods. We finally get back to where we started about 39 minutes into the movie, so we finally have enough information to actually get the movie going.
Unfortunately, this is also where the movie begins to mimic other young adult-targeted movies and become a pile of tired cliches. We get a new male character (played by Alex Roe) who rescues Cass, and of course ends up as her romantic interest. Not only that, turns out he's actually a human-alien hybrid, sent to Earth by the aliens to behave as a sleeper agent of sorts, but of course he goes rogue because he's fallen for Cass (literally, she causes him to believe in love). The army makes soldiers out of the children, and part of the movie follows another character, Ben Parish (Nick Robinson) and his squad. Here we get the plot twist that the army is controlled by the aliens (surprise, surprise).
The plot twists are bad enough, but most egregious of all is the third act. It's more tired cliches and boring action sequences, but on top of that the movie makes the aliens look completely incompetent. We find out that the military was training the child soldiers in order to kill the last civilians; their goal is apparently to wipe out humanity, but they do so in the least efficient way possible. They're supposed to be all-powerful and intent on taking over the planet, but their military base is destroyed by a couple of teenagers. It just takes what little intrigue there was left in the movie and does away with it for some illogical action scenes.
The Verdict: In a world with Maze Runner, Hunger Games and Divergent -style young adult films, The 5th Wave manages to be the weakest I've seen yet. It's not worth a watch; it's plot is nonsense mixed with forced romance, its dialogue and characterisation are both laughable.
Rating: 3.5/10
The 5th Wave is a movie that could have been good. It has an intriguing premise, but the whole experience is let down by a mix of weak dialogue, bad pacing and a poor use of cliches.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Like I said, the premise is interesting. Aliens known only as "The Others" arrive on earth, and slowly roll out waves of disasters meant to break down humanity; first they cut global power, second they cause massive tsunamis, and third they use birds to spread a disease and wipe out as many of the remaining people as possible. Unfortunately, we are presented this information through a montage and some voice-over from our main character, Cassie Sullivan (Chloe Moretz). We are overloaded with information in the first fifteen minutes because the movie decides to have a cold open to somewhere about a quarter of the way into the movie, and then play catch-up with itself. There could have been more time spent on the early waves, but those were of course just set up, the movie only wants to spend the opening few minutes on them because this is a movie about the fourth wave.
Yes, despite the name of the movie, it actually focuses primarily on the fourth wave, and only builds up to the idea of the fifth wave around two thirds of the way in. The army has apparently survived the waves, and comes to a camp of survivors where Cass and her father and brother have taken up residence. They take the children and explain to the adults that aliens can now inhabit and control human bodies. A series of circumstances leaves all the adults dead, Cass' brother in the hands of the army, and Cass herself on her own out in the woods. We finally get back to where we started about 39 minutes into the movie, so we finally have enough information to actually get the movie going.
Unfortunately, this is also where the movie begins to mimic other young adult-targeted movies and become a pile of tired cliches. We get a new male character (played by Alex Roe) who rescues Cass, and of course ends up as her romantic interest. Not only that, turns out he's actually a human-alien hybrid, sent to Earth by the aliens to behave as a sleeper agent of sorts, but of course he goes rogue because he's fallen for Cass (literally, she causes him to believe in love). The army makes soldiers out of the children, and part of the movie follows another character, Ben Parish (Nick Robinson) and his squad. Here we get the plot twist that the army is controlled by the aliens (surprise, surprise).
The plot twists are bad enough, but most egregious of all is the third act. It's more tired cliches and boring action sequences, but on top of that the movie makes the aliens look completely incompetent. We find out that the military was training the child soldiers in order to kill the last civilians; their goal is apparently to wipe out humanity, but they do so in the least efficient way possible. They're supposed to be all-powerful and intent on taking over the planet, but their military base is destroyed by a couple of teenagers. It just takes what little intrigue there was left in the movie and does away with it for some illogical action scenes.
The Verdict: In a world with Maze Runner, Hunger Games and Divergent -style young adult films, The 5th Wave manages to be the weakest I've seen yet. It's not worth a watch; it's plot is nonsense mixed with forced romance, its dialogue and characterisation are both laughable.
Rating: 3.5/10
Sunday, 10 July 2016
Film 19: Love Actually (2003)
I'll be honest, I have a little bit of a bias against romance movies in the same way that I have a bit of a bias against horror movies. It's not that I inherently dislike them, it's just that there's a lot of tropes in both genres that get overused, so when I see these tropes used I find myself viewing these films through a tougher lens. However, I saw a considerable amount of high praise for this movie, so I was determined to at least give this a chance.
In giving it a chance, I was not disappointed. Love Actually is a delightful if absurd movie, with a massive cast, brilliant dialogue, good performances and a lot of stories to tell. It's through telling so many stories that the film finds its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness.
Seriously, there are nine different story threads that are all in some way interconnected and all need to be built up and then resolved in the space of 2 hours. What's more, they all have to somehow sync up around Christmas. Each thread is entertaining in its own way, containing name actors having fun in their roles and basically working with their own innate charisma, because with so many stories there's not enough time to actually build character, leaving the general feel of the characters to be portrayed by the actors rather than the story itself.
There's the story of Julie (Keira Knightley), Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and Mark (Andrew Lincoln). Peter and Mark are best friends, and Julie and Peter are newlyweds. Mark fancies Julie, so he's kept his distance, but Julie discovers his secret. This one's a bit annoying, and contains some of the issues that I have with romantic movies. The key problem in this case is the fact that a lot of gestures that seem romantic because the movie says they are romantic are actually really creepy, and such is the case with Mark's gesture to Julie at the resolution of their arc. Mark silently professes his love for Julie, and it's both creepy and unbelievable, because according to their conversations post-reveal, the two have basically never spoken beforehand.
The same problem can be seen in the story of Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lucia Moniz). This one features Jamie withdrawing to his cottage after he discovers his girlfriend cheating on him with his brother (oof, sad things seem even sadder when it happens to Colin Firth). It's there that he meets Aurelia, his new housekeeper who only speaks Portuguese. Despite the language barrier, the two manage to connect, and eventually Jamie learns enough Portuguese to ask for her hand in marriage, to which she says yes. This is far less creepy, and actually kind of sweet, but again ridiculous when you consider this all happens over a period of a few weeks. Have them end up together? sure. Have them get engaged? That's a bit much.
There are a couple of excellent stories, however. The story of Sarah (Laura Linney) is bittersweet, but ultimately real because she chooses to assist her mentally ill brother instead of pursuing a potential relationship. It isn't necessary for these two things to be mutually exclusive, but in this moment, it is for her.
The story that follows married couple Harry (Alan Rickman) and Karen (Emma Thompson) and Harry's temptations with Mia (Heike Makatsch) is a bit more tragic, and isn't entirely unbelievable, just a little rushed and underdeveloped, which is to be expected with so many stories happening at once.
To avoid going on much longer, I'll just say that the stories that follow Liam Neeson's Daniel and Hugh Grant's David are both sweet and end happily, and the other story threads are predictable and silly but mostly played for comedy, so they're not without their charm.
Each actor pulls their weight and the dialogue is tremendous, which makes up for the weak characterisation that survives on pre-built characters.
The Verdict: Love Actually is light movie that doesn't profess to take itself seriously; it's fluffy and tender, with a lot of laughs from its hilarious dialogue, and it's sin is trying to tell too many love stories at once and ultimately stretching credulity with its sheer number of coincidences. I can comfortably recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't mind their films a little heavy on the romantic side.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 10th, 2016
In giving it a chance, I was not disappointed. Love Actually is a delightful if absurd movie, with a massive cast, brilliant dialogue, good performances and a lot of stories to tell. It's through telling so many stories that the film finds its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness.
Seriously, there are nine different story threads that are all in some way interconnected and all need to be built up and then resolved in the space of 2 hours. What's more, they all have to somehow sync up around Christmas. Each thread is entertaining in its own way, containing name actors having fun in their roles and basically working with their own innate charisma, because with so many stories there's not enough time to actually build character, leaving the general feel of the characters to be portrayed by the actors rather than the story itself.
There's the story of Julie (Keira Knightley), Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and Mark (Andrew Lincoln). Peter and Mark are best friends, and Julie and Peter are newlyweds. Mark fancies Julie, so he's kept his distance, but Julie discovers his secret. This one's a bit annoying, and contains some of the issues that I have with romantic movies. The key problem in this case is the fact that a lot of gestures that seem romantic because the movie says they are romantic are actually really creepy, and such is the case with Mark's gesture to Julie at the resolution of their arc. Mark silently professes his love for Julie, and it's both creepy and unbelievable, because according to their conversations post-reveal, the two have basically never spoken beforehand.
The same problem can be seen in the story of Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lucia Moniz). This one features Jamie withdrawing to his cottage after he discovers his girlfriend cheating on him with his brother (oof, sad things seem even sadder when it happens to Colin Firth). It's there that he meets Aurelia, his new housekeeper who only speaks Portuguese. Despite the language barrier, the two manage to connect, and eventually Jamie learns enough Portuguese to ask for her hand in marriage, to which she says yes. This is far less creepy, and actually kind of sweet, but again ridiculous when you consider this all happens over a period of a few weeks. Have them end up together? sure. Have them get engaged? That's a bit much.
There are a couple of excellent stories, however. The story of Sarah (Laura Linney) is bittersweet, but ultimately real because she chooses to assist her mentally ill brother instead of pursuing a potential relationship. It isn't necessary for these two things to be mutually exclusive, but in this moment, it is for her.
The story that follows married couple Harry (Alan Rickman) and Karen (Emma Thompson) and Harry's temptations with Mia (Heike Makatsch) is a bit more tragic, and isn't entirely unbelievable, just a little rushed and underdeveloped, which is to be expected with so many stories happening at once.
To avoid going on much longer, I'll just say that the stories that follow Liam Neeson's Daniel and Hugh Grant's David are both sweet and end happily, and the other story threads are predictable and silly but mostly played for comedy, so they're not without their charm.
Each actor pulls their weight and the dialogue is tremendous, which makes up for the weak characterisation that survives on pre-built characters.
The Verdict: Love Actually is light movie that doesn't profess to take itself seriously; it's fluffy and tender, with a lot of laughs from its hilarious dialogue, and it's sin is trying to tell too many love stories at once and ultimately stretching credulity with its sheer number of coincidences. I can comfortably recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't mind their films a little heavy on the romantic side.
Rating: 7/10
Published July 10th, 2016
Film 18: Eden Lake (2008)
The night I watched The Revenant, I had a quick conversation with a close friend of mine about movies, and he ended up recommending this film, among a few other low-key horror movies. When I first watched the movie I couldn't help make fun of the accents of some of the characters, effectively ruining any tension for myself, and the friends who sat down to watch it with me. I guess it's a good thing I re-watch these movies as I review them.
Eden Lake is a bleak and sadistic movie that borrows its style from a few other horror films and favours an audience that enjoys punishment. When I say this, I don't mean that it's bad (it's actually quite good), but it makes an effort to exploit any moment where we might feel hope and dashes that hope with more pain.
The film follows Kelly Reilly and Michael Fassbender as Jenny and Steve, a couple that embark on a romantic getaway to a place called Eden Lake. They're insistent on having a good weekend, and it would seem that everyone in the universe is intent on stopping them. Seriously, these guys must've committed a series a mass murders in a past life or something, because they never have a bright moment from the time they begin their journey. They try to turn on to a road, they get cut off by a bunch of hooligans on bicycles. They're presented with a nice parking spot, then someone rudely snatches the spot first. They book a room at a bed and breakfast, people are yelling and screaming on the street outside all night. It just keeps getting worse; eventually they confront the group of hooligans from the start, who have now stolen their car, and try to get the keys to their car back. Of course, this goes poorly too, as the a commotion builds that results in the death of the group's dog. It's an accident, so of course the hooligans react in a tempered and moderate way; their dog was killed because they decided it was their right to steal someone else's car, so they decide to torture the couple when they capture them. Who says people can't behave rationally, right?
The first thing I noticed about the movie is how similar it is to other British horror movies. There's the soundtrack, which is very reminiscent of the Descent horror movies. In fact, a lot of this movie's style and aesthetic owe to The Descent, even if their plots are completely different. There's constant fake-outs of the idea that the characters are going to get out of this situation alive. The whole movie is characters in a struggle for their lives, and a regular punishment of their attempts to stay alive, the dark nature of the movie's content contrasting with the bright and beautiful forest around them. There's regular switching between moments of genuine tension and moments that revel in the gore of the situation. A scene involving Steve getting into somewhere he shouldn't is worth a few seconds of seat-gripping, and a scene involving Steve and Jenny examining the massive stab wounds in Steve's side is something you definitely want to avert your eyes from.
There are, however, a few annoyances that seem to remain ever-prevalent in horror. The first is the seemingly irrational actions from every character involved. Steve walks deep into a house in which he's not invited, and he knows that the hooligans live there. Jenny tries to Bluetooth connect to Steve's phone to call the police, rather than using her own phone to call, which is what alerts the hooligans to her presence.
There's also the movie's choice to focus on sadism more often than it does actual tension. In one scene, Jenny accidentally steps on a spike as she is running, which would be fine if it added an opportunity for the hooligans to catch up, but all it does is add a few moments where we squirm as she writhes on the ground in pain. There's also a scene where the hooligans burn a child alive, and it's a moment where the film goes from bleak to gratuitous and pointless. It fits the nihilistic tone of the movie, but it adds nothing to the characters or the story.
The Verdict: Eden Lake is a good horror movie with some genuine moments of tension. There's some character stupidity required to movie the story along, and it's constantly depressing; even in the moments where start to feel like it might get easier, that feeling gets snatched away. I recommend this to fans of horror movies, because it is decent, but the violence and gore, combined with its incredibly dark tone make it hard to pick anyone else who might enjoy it.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published July 10th, 2016
Eden Lake is a bleak and sadistic movie that borrows its style from a few other horror films and favours an audience that enjoys punishment. When I say this, I don't mean that it's bad (it's actually quite good), but it makes an effort to exploit any moment where we might feel hope and dashes that hope with more pain.
The film follows Kelly Reilly and Michael Fassbender as Jenny and Steve, a couple that embark on a romantic getaway to a place called Eden Lake. They're insistent on having a good weekend, and it would seem that everyone in the universe is intent on stopping them. Seriously, these guys must've committed a series a mass murders in a past life or something, because they never have a bright moment from the time they begin their journey. They try to turn on to a road, they get cut off by a bunch of hooligans on bicycles. They're presented with a nice parking spot, then someone rudely snatches the spot first. They book a room at a bed and breakfast, people are yelling and screaming on the street outside all night. It just keeps getting worse; eventually they confront the group of hooligans from the start, who have now stolen their car, and try to get the keys to their car back. Of course, this goes poorly too, as the a commotion builds that results in the death of the group's dog. It's an accident, so of course the hooligans react in a tempered and moderate way; their dog was killed because they decided it was their right to steal someone else's car, so they decide to torture the couple when they capture them. Who says people can't behave rationally, right?
The first thing I noticed about the movie is how similar it is to other British horror movies. There's the soundtrack, which is very reminiscent of the Descent horror movies. In fact, a lot of this movie's style and aesthetic owe to The Descent, even if their plots are completely different. There's constant fake-outs of the idea that the characters are going to get out of this situation alive. The whole movie is characters in a struggle for their lives, and a regular punishment of their attempts to stay alive, the dark nature of the movie's content contrasting with the bright and beautiful forest around them. There's regular switching between moments of genuine tension and moments that revel in the gore of the situation. A scene involving Steve getting into somewhere he shouldn't is worth a few seconds of seat-gripping, and a scene involving Steve and Jenny examining the massive stab wounds in Steve's side is something you definitely want to avert your eyes from.
There are, however, a few annoyances that seem to remain ever-prevalent in horror. The first is the seemingly irrational actions from every character involved. Steve walks deep into a house in which he's not invited, and he knows that the hooligans live there. Jenny tries to Bluetooth connect to Steve's phone to call the police, rather than using her own phone to call, which is what alerts the hooligans to her presence.
There's also the movie's choice to focus on sadism more often than it does actual tension. In one scene, Jenny accidentally steps on a spike as she is running, which would be fine if it added an opportunity for the hooligans to catch up, but all it does is add a few moments where we squirm as she writhes on the ground in pain. There's also a scene where the hooligans burn a child alive, and it's a moment where the film goes from bleak to gratuitous and pointless. It fits the nihilistic tone of the movie, but it adds nothing to the characters or the story.
The Verdict: Eden Lake is a good horror movie with some genuine moments of tension. There's some character stupidity required to movie the story along, and it's constantly depressing; even in the moments where start to feel like it might get easier, that feeling gets snatched away. I recommend this to fans of horror movies, because it is decent, but the violence and gore, combined with its incredibly dark tone make it hard to pick anyone else who might enjoy it.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published July 10th, 2016
Saturday, 9 July 2016
Film 17: Twelve Monkeys (1995)
I don't have much experience with Terry Gilliam films; the only other movie I've seen directed by him is Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I figured before sitting down to watch Twelve Monkeys that it probably wasn't going to be anything like that.
Twelve Monkeys is an interesting and complex movie, filled with fantastic imagery and design.
Humanity is almost wiped out in 1997 by a terrible disease. in the world left behind, the remaining humans migrate underground. Bruce Willis plays James Cole, a man selected by the subterranean society, first to go outside and investigate possible causes of the virus, and then to travel back to 1996 to figure out the original virus strain so that they might be able to fight it.
The mechanics of time travel are interesting here; they don't explain how humanity became capable of time travel, you just accept it. They do, however, make the time travel internally consistent, using a fixed timeline. When Cole travels back, he doesn't try to change anything because it already happened; he's here to find out more about the virus so that humanity is able to fight it in his time.
There's a lot of conflict on Cole's journey, the first of which is when he is sent back to 1990 instead by mistake. The process of time travel also apparently takes its toll on a person, because Cole is found, drooling and keeled over, before being taken to a mental hospital after taking out several police officers. This is where he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt).
Pitt is a particular highlight in the acting department, unhinged, crooked-eye, and monologuing about consumerism and moral relativism. If you took Tyler Durden and put him in a mental hospital, you'd get Jeffrey Goines, which is interesting because this movie actually came out years before Fight Club.
I won't spoil any more of the plot, because it's complex and interesting, and I want people who haven't seen this movie to see it, so I'll just talk about some of the other great parts of the movie.
The cinematography is bizarre, choosing to use Dutch angles in every other shot, but in this particular case it works; it adds to the sense of disorientation that the time travel offers, and the way the movie instills doubt in the viewer about Cole's state of mind.
Best of all, though, is the set design. The look of the subterranean dystopia is really awesome to behold. There's a lot of rust, pipes, and clockwork machinery. It looks like something out of Metro 2033, which is reinforced by the fact that the world above is covered in snow and people can only go up there in odd, plastic, self-contained suits. The destroyed world is tragically beautiful, truly something to behold.
The Verdict: Weird and wacky, Twelve Monkeys is an excellent movie, with incredible vision of a rusty, subterranean future world and a complicated plot that deals with causality and draws strong performances from its principal cast. It's definitely a movie worth a watch, unless time paradoxes happen to be some sort of deal-breaker for you.
Rating: 8/10
Published July 10th, 2016
Twelve Monkeys is an interesting and complex movie, filled with fantastic imagery and design.
Humanity is almost wiped out in 1997 by a terrible disease. in the world left behind, the remaining humans migrate underground. Bruce Willis plays James Cole, a man selected by the subterranean society, first to go outside and investigate possible causes of the virus, and then to travel back to 1996 to figure out the original virus strain so that they might be able to fight it.
The mechanics of time travel are interesting here; they don't explain how humanity became capable of time travel, you just accept it. They do, however, make the time travel internally consistent, using a fixed timeline. When Cole travels back, he doesn't try to change anything because it already happened; he's here to find out more about the virus so that humanity is able to fight it in his time.
There's a lot of conflict on Cole's journey, the first of which is when he is sent back to 1990 instead by mistake. The process of time travel also apparently takes its toll on a person, because Cole is found, drooling and keeled over, before being taken to a mental hospital after taking out several police officers. This is where he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt).
Pitt is a particular highlight in the acting department, unhinged, crooked-eye, and monologuing about consumerism and moral relativism. If you took Tyler Durden and put him in a mental hospital, you'd get Jeffrey Goines, which is interesting because this movie actually came out years before Fight Club.
I won't spoil any more of the plot, because it's complex and interesting, and I want people who haven't seen this movie to see it, so I'll just talk about some of the other great parts of the movie.
The cinematography is bizarre, choosing to use Dutch angles in every other shot, but in this particular case it works; it adds to the sense of disorientation that the time travel offers, and the way the movie instills doubt in the viewer about Cole's state of mind.
Best of all, though, is the set design. The look of the subterranean dystopia is really awesome to behold. There's a lot of rust, pipes, and clockwork machinery. It looks like something out of Metro 2033, which is reinforced by the fact that the world above is covered in snow and people can only go up there in odd, plastic, self-contained suits. The destroyed world is tragically beautiful, truly something to behold.
The Verdict: Weird and wacky, Twelve Monkeys is an excellent movie, with incredible vision of a rusty, subterranean future world and a complicated plot that deals with causality and draws strong performances from its principal cast. It's definitely a movie worth a watch, unless time paradoxes happen to be some sort of deal-breaker for you.
Rating: 8/10
Published July 10th, 2016
Film 16: Minions (2015)
Some days I choose to watch a movie because it is considered one of the best; other days because it is one of the worst. Sometimes I'll pick a movie based on the assumption that it will be my kind of movie, and other days I go with a strong recommendation from a friend. However, there are some days where I don't feel like watching a movie, even though I know I must, so I end up throwing on a movie that I can simply take at face value and never pay any mind to again. This is how I ended up watching Minions.
For reference, I enjoyed the Despicable Me movies. I think that they both do an excellent job of characterising Gru and the girls, and end up being well-made and wholesome movies that are fun for the whole family. I also like the minions as a side character that drops in a cheap joke now and then.
I also don't think every film has to be Citizen Kane, which I just happened to watch right before re-watching this movie and starting this review (review pending; Kane is my 193rd new movie this year, so I have a few to get through first).
However, I am conflicted about this movie; how I feel about the movie is at odds with how good I think it is. I don't think the movie is bad, but at the same time putting the Minions front and center is so insipid to me that I can't like it either. So from here on out, I will try to remain objective as I discuss the movie, but don't hate me too much if I slip a little, ok?
The plot is simple, and basically just an excuse for the Minions to do minion things. We get the origin of the Minions and their existence through time. Apparently they aren't a creation of Gru, but evolved from a primordial state into their current form around about the same time the first creatures crawled up onto dry land. They also apparently need a Big Evil Boss in order to have purpose, and after a few years without one, a few finally decide to go find one. These few (Kevin, Stuart and Bob) find Scarlett Overkill (Sandra Bullock), a supervillain with aspirations of the British Crown. Through failing the heist, Bob manages to get himself crowned by drawing King Arthur's sword.
Like I've been saying, the movie is so light on plot and character that there's not much more worth commenting on, but I will say that the animation is excellent; there's a well-animated cartoon-y aesthetic to the whole film, which makes the whole thing considerably more entertaining to watch. There's also quite a few off-beat humour moments that got a chuckle out of me, such as the British police officers in high pursuit drinking and pouring tea from delicate porcelain.
The Verdict: Minions is a movie directed squarely at kids. The humour is child-like, the story light and inconsequential, the animation is gorgous, and the whole experience was a little pointless for me. Even after re-watching it for this review, I probably won't ever think on it again. Kids (and kids at heart) will love it, but I don't think I would recommend this film to anyone else. (Hey, at least I have another movie on my list that kids can watch, right?)
Rating: 5.5/10
Published July 9, 2016
Published July 9, 2016
Friday, 8 July 2016
Film 15: Airplane! (1980)
Well, with all three Naked Gun movies under my belt, I figured it was time I sat down and watched another comedy from Directors Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker. I remember when I was younger my dad tried to show me this film, but he accidentally showed me the sequel instead.
Anyway, Airplane!, or Flying High as it is otherwise known, is absolutely hilarious. The film is a parody of airplane disaster movies loaded with jokes; clever, stupid, crass, politically incorrect, and constant jokes.
The plot is an over-dramatised satire. Former Air Force pilot Ted Striker (Robert Hays) is afraid of flying after awful experiences in the war. However, when his relationship with his flight attendant girlfriend Elaine (Julie Hagerty) falls apart, he boards the plane she's working on in order to try and win her back. Of course, one this flight a series of circumstances forces Ted into a situation wherein he must conquer his fear and land the plane safely.
Everything here is played for laughs; the relationship between Elaine and Ted's relationship is over-acted and told time and again to fellow passengers in a way that's so trite it bores them to suicide. There's a special kind of style here that manages to take every moment that would be tense and instead get a joke out of it.
It's a bit more shocking than the Naked Gun movies; some of these jokes would never fly in today's comedies. An interaction where a little boy approaches a little girl ends with her saying "no thanks, I take my coffee black... like my men". When a young boy gets to go into the cockpit for his first time, the pilot ends up making suggestive remarks. It's jokes that take something seemingly innocent and innocuous moments and unexpectedly make them super dark. That said, a lot of the humour's delivery is the same, quick and consistent jokes that never need to make an impression for more than a moment because there's another always to follow.
There's also plenty of harmless jokes. Pilots Clarence, Roger and Victor have a quick dialogue with the punch line: "We have clearance, Clarence." "Roger, Roger, what's our vector, Victor?".
The Verdict: When a movie's basically 90 minutes of pure jokes and parody, all you really have to talk about is how good the film is at both of these things. In these ways, Airplane! is a complete success. This film is a riot from start to finish, and absolutely worth a watch, unless you happen to be a child because much of this humour is either inappropriate for younger audiences.
Rating: 8/10
Watched January 15th, 2016, Published July 9th, 2016
Anyway, Airplane!, or Flying High as it is otherwise known, is absolutely hilarious. The film is a parody of airplane disaster movies loaded with jokes; clever, stupid, crass, politically incorrect, and constant jokes.
The plot is an over-dramatised satire. Former Air Force pilot Ted Striker (Robert Hays) is afraid of flying after awful experiences in the war. However, when his relationship with his flight attendant girlfriend Elaine (Julie Hagerty) falls apart, he boards the plane she's working on in order to try and win her back. Of course, one this flight a series of circumstances forces Ted into a situation wherein he must conquer his fear and land the plane safely.
Everything here is played for laughs; the relationship between Elaine and Ted's relationship is over-acted and told time and again to fellow passengers in a way that's so trite it bores them to suicide. There's a special kind of style here that manages to take every moment that would be tense and instead get a joke out of it.
It's a bit more shocking than the Naked Gun movies; some of these jokes would never fly in today's comedies. An interaction where a little boy approaches a little girl ends with her saying "no thanks, I take my coffee black... like my men". When a young boy gets to go into the cockpit for his first time, the pilot ends up making suggestive remarks. It's jokes that take something seemingly innocent and innocuous moments and unexpectedly make them super dark. That said, a lot of the humour's delivery is the same, quick and consistent jokes that never need to make an impression for more than a moment because there's another always to follow.
There's also plenty of harmless jokes. Pilots Clarence, Roger and Victor have a quick dialogue with the punch line: "We have clearance, Clarence." "Roger, Roger, what's our vector, Victor?".
The Verdict: When a movie's basically 90 minutes of pure jokes and parody, all you really have to talk about is how good the film is at both of these things. In these ways, Airplane! is a complete success. This film is a riot from start to finish, and absolutely worth a watch, unless you happen to be a child because much of this humour is either inappropriate for younger audiences.
Rating: 8/10
Watched January 15th, 2016, Published July 9th, 2016
Film 14: Men in Black 3 (2013)
There's not much of a backstory to why I ended up picking this movie next. I really enjoyed the first MiB movie, sort of liked the second one, and I simply hadn't got around to seeing the third, so here we are.
Men in Black 3 is a pretty good movie, not as good as the first, but better than the second, with the same style and tone of both. The film offers a fun new plot involving time travel, some cool new alien designs, and an excellent turn from Josh Brolin as a young Agent K.
The film once again follows Men in Black agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones). Both of them slip comfortably back into their roles, this time however with their relationship at a tense point. Shortly after the escape of Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), an old evil arch-nemesis of K, K disappears from existence. As it turns out, Boris used a time travel device to go back over 40 years to the point where K defeated him and change a few things, namely killing K and changing the outcome of their battle so that Earth doesn't have a planetary defense system and therefore no way to stop Boris' species from taking over the planet (phew, try saying that in one breath). J must now go back as well in order to stop Boris.
The plot is about as silly as it sounds, which seems intentional given the similarities in tone the film has to the previous two. The alien designs are also really interesting and inventive, especially in the case of Boris, who just seems to be full of surprises. The highlight, though, comes when J manages to get back to 1969, and meets a young K, played by Josh Brolin. Brolin manages to imitate many of Jones' mannerisms and speaking style, but his character is also lighter, more fun and less burdened by years of soul-hardening challenges. This is what makes the movie, really; we see how K is changed by what is one of the most impactful experiences of his life, and the time travel ultimately ties his fate to J's. It's touching, even if it is a bit of a forced revelation for J.
The plot is about as silly as it sounds, which seems intentional given the similarities in tone the film has to the previous two. The alien designs are also really interesting and inventive, especially in the case of Boris, who just seems to be full of surprises. The highlight, though, comes when J manages to get back to 1969, and meets a young K, played by Josh Brolin. Brolin manages to imitate many of Jones' mannerisms and speaking style, but his character is also lighter, more fun and less burdened by years of soul-hardening challenges. This is what makes the movie, really; we see how K is changed by what is one of the most impactful experiences of his life, and the time travel ultimately ties his fate to J's. It's touching, even if it is a bit of a forced revelation for J.
The Verdict: The third Men in Black movie is decent follow-up to the first two that has an interesting plot which further intertwines the characters of J and K. Due to a tone and style consistent with its predecessors, I can easily recommend this film to anyone who enjoyed the first two and hasn't seen this movie yet, and the movie is light enough that it's the first movie I've watched this year that might be somewhat appropriate for kids.
Rating: 6/10
Watched January 14th, 2016, Published July 8th, 2016
Thursday, 7 July 2016
Film 13: Super Mario Bros. (1993)
Oh boy, I have been waiting for this. I'd heard so many terrible things about Super Mario Bros. before I started it, I just couldn't wait to see how awful it is.
Super Mario Bros. is a movie that is best described as "so bad it's actually enjoyable to watch." The movie is such a fever dream of nonsense I felt like I should've taken mushrooms before I started (see what I did there?).
Let's talk about the premise, because it's so stupid that I didn't believe it was real even as the movie was narrating it to me through Bob Hoskin's fake Brooklyn accent. The meteor that struck the earth and killed the dinosaurs didn't actually kill the dinosaurs, it created a parallel dimension where dinosaurs continued to evolve a become more intelligent life that look just like humans.
That's just how it starts. Apparently the ruler of the dinosaur dimension, King Koopa (Dennis Hopper, yes really) wants to fuse the two dimensions so that he can rule our dimension as well (this is starting to sound more like Mortal Kombat than a Mario story), but is thwarted when Princess Daisy (Samantha Mathis) is sent into our dimension as a baby(hatchling, she literally is a human who hatches from an egg but apparently evolved from mushrooms) with a piece of the meteorite, which apparently is what fuses the two dimensions.
Heck, that's still just set up, and they manage to deliver most of that information within five minutes. We haven't even gotten to the Mario brothers yet. They're a pair of poor plumbers, Mario played by Bob Hoskins, and Luigi played by a young John Leguizamo. They meet Daisy as an adult, and Luigi falls for her immediately. After a double date between, Luigi, Daisy, Mario, and Mario's girlfriend Daniella (Dana Kaminski), Daisy is kidnapped by two of Koopa's minions, Iggy and Spike (Fisher Stevens and Richard Edson), and dragged back into the dinosaur dimension, but not before Luigi gets a hold of the meteorite piece. Soon after, Mario and Luigi go after Daisy into the dinosaur dimension.
I could seriously go on for hours about this movie's plot, because it just fails to make sense at every possible turn. They never explain how the dinosaur dimension is aware of ours when we have no idea that theirs exists. For some reason, Daisy is the only one who can merge the dimensions, but that's never explained either. Then there's the de-evolution machine, which makes about as much sense as Pokemon evolution; it just turns people into goombas because they apparently evolved from goombas. Why a movie that originated from a game about a plumber jumping on platforms and eating mushrooms needs a de-evolution machine, I don't know, you just have to go with it. Well, you just have to go with a lot of it.
I really should stop focusing on the plot, because there's so many more terrible aspects of the film that I can talk about. The acting and dialogue are both horrible, and the awfulness of each makes the other that much more noticeable. Lines like "Oh, I was abandoned" just come off as unintentionally hilarious when they're delivered in a completely and totally casual manner. It all just feels so forced and unnatural.
There's next to nothing to suggest that this was based on the beloved video game series. The only identifiable similarities are the names, and every character does have to be named so that you know who they are, because there is seriously no visible relation. We have to be told that Toad is Toad, or Yoshi is Yoshi.
I really don't want this to become much longer than it already is, so I will say that the movie isn't without a little appeal. The film is interesting to look at, with a cool dystopian set design, so there is some legitimate visual enjoyment. The rest of the entertainment, however, comes from picking at every little moment of the film that makes the whole experience that much more awful.
The Verdict: I can't believe that Super Mario Bros. exists. It's a legitimately baffling experience of a film that manages to fail on a storytelling level at every turn. I cannot in good conscious recommend this to anybody unless they're willing to sacrifice an hour and a half of their life just to laugh at a bad movie (though I always am, so I won't blame anybody if they are).
Rating: 2/10
Watched January 13th, 2016, Published July 8th, 2016
Super Mario Bros. is a movie that is best described as "so bad it's actually enjoyable to watch." The movie is such a fever dream of nonsense I felt like I should've taken mushrooms before I started (see what I did there?).
Let's talk about the premise, because it's so stupid that I didn't believe it was real even as the movie was narrating it to me through Bob Hoskin's fake Brooklyn accent. The meteor that struck the earth and killed the dinosaurs didn't actually kill the dinosaurs, it created a parallel dimension where dinosaurs continued to evolve a become more intelligent life that look just like humans.
That's just how it starts. Apparently the ruler of the dinosaur dimension, King Koopa (Dennis Hopper, yes really) wants to fuse the two dimensions so that he can rule our dimension as well (this is starting to sound more like Mortal Kombat than a Mario story), but is thwarted when Princess Daisy (Samantha Mathis) is sent into our dimension as a baby(hatchling, she literally is a human who hatches from an egg but apparently evolved from mushrooms) with a piece of the meteorite, which apparently is what fuses the two dimensions.
Heck, that's still just set up, and they manage to deliver most of that information within five minutes. We haven't even gotten to the Mario brothers yet. They're a pair of poor plumbers, Mario played by Bob Hoskins, and Luigi played by a young John Leguizamo. They meet Daisy as an adult, and Luigi falls for her immediately. After a double date between, Luigi, Daisy, Mario, and Mario's girlfriend Daniella (Dana Kaminski), Daisy is kidnapped by two of Koopa's minions, Iggy and Spike (Fisher Stevens and Richard Edson), and dragged back into the dinosaur dimension, but not before Luigi gets a hold of the meteorite piece. Soon after, Mario and Luigi go after Daisy into the dinosaur dimension.
I could seriously go on for hours about this movie's plot, because it just fails to make sense at every possible turn. They never explain how the dinosaur dimension is aware of ours when we have no idea that theirs exists. For some reason, Daisy is the only one who can merge the dimensions, but that's never explained either. Then there's the de-evolution machine, which makes about as much sense as Pokemon evolution; it just turns people into goombas because they apparently evolved from goombas. Why a movie that originated from a game about a plumber jumping on platforms and eating mushrooms needs a de-evolution machine, I don't know, you just have to go with it. Well, you just have to go with a lot of it.
I really should stop focusing on the plot, because there's so many more terrible aspects of the film that I can talk about. The acting and dialogue are both horrible, and the awfulness of each makes the other that much more noticeable. Lines like "Oh, I was abandoned" just come off as unintentionally hilarious when they're delivered in a completely and totally casual manner. It all just feels so forced and unnatural.
There's next to nothing to suggest that this was based on the beloved video game series. The only identifiable similarities are the names, and every character does have to be named so that you know who they are, because there is seriously no visible relation. We have to be told that Toad is Toad, or Yoshi is Yoshi.
I really don't want this to become much longer than it already is, so I will say that the movie isn't without a little appeal. The film is interesting to look at, with a cool dystopian set design, so there is some legitimate visual enjoyment. The rest of the entertainment, however, comes from picking at every little moment of the film that makes the whole experience that much more awful.
The Verdict: I can't believe that Super Mario Bros. exists. It's a legitimately baffling experience of a film that manages to fail on a storytelling level at every turn. I cannot in good conscious recommend this to anybody unless they're willing to sacrifice an hour and a half of their life just to laugh at a bad movie (though I always am, so I won't blame anybody if they are).
Rating: 2/10
Watched January 13th, 2016, Published July 8th, 2016
Film 12: The Revenant (2015)
This was the first movie I watched this year that I actually went to the cinema for. I'd only seen one Inarritu film before this one: Birdman, which just happened to be one of the greatest I have ever watched. I had another goal in mind as well this year: see every Best Picture nominee before the night of the Academy Awards. So I had two very strong reasons to see this movie, to expect great things from it, and to be excited for it.
With all that in mind, I can comfortably say that The Revenant does not disappoint.
The plot is simple: Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), a fur trader on the American frontier, is brutally mauled by a bear. Glass is left by his expedition group in the hands of John Fiztgerald (Tom Hardy), a man who ultimately kills Glass' son and leaves him for dead. Glass must now somehow survive on his own, still severely wounded, and ultimately get revenge on Fitzgerald.
On a purely cinematographic level, it is a masterpiece. Every shot is magnificent; every frame captures the excruciatingly visceral violence and the sheer cold the setting suggests. Seriously, I cannot overstate the beauty and savagery contained within the visuals of this movie. As per Inarritu's style, there are many long takes, which really benefit the film overall, allowing the audience to take in the scenery in great detail.
The film is also extremely immersive; the long takes and visceral nature of what happens on screen helps with this, but so do a lot of little things. The bear attack scene in particular shows a lot of this. The film never cuts during the attack, instead drawing the audience in to what is happening and maintaining a close view the entire time. The clincher, though, is when the bear's sniffing fogs up the camera screen as it approaches; it makes the bear seem more real, simply adding to the immersion the film offers.
The acting in the film is also top notch all-round. Leo got an Academy Award for best actor for this piece, though it may not seem obvious at first as to why. The truth is, he carries this movie through its middle third with barely a word spoken, simply struggling to survive each step of the way. If you can forget for a moment that you're watching movie you realise that Leo is believable the entire way, that he really does seem to be going through every struggle that he has to deal with. Tom Hardy is also excellent; giving an unhinged performance as Fitzgerald, stealing the show in a few choice scenes, such as a humourously bleak monologue about the existence of God.
For all its virtues, The Revenant isn't without its weak points. I know that this is based on a true story, but I also know that they added a son character to be killed by Fitzgerald purely for an additional motivational reason for Glass to seek vengeance, as if being left for dead by someone who has voiced his hatred of you isn't enough. There's a secondary story involving a kidnapped Native American girl, which seems ultimately to exist purely to add a heroic act to Hugh Glass' list of trials and tribulations. Finally, there's several dream sequence scenes involving Glass' dead wife. It all seems to be in aid of an effort to make Glass a character we can sympathise with, and put a few breathing points in between each moment Glass is put into a live or die situation. Unfortunately, it also seems to do nothing to change Glass as a character. This would probably be fine if the movie didn't run for over two and a half hours, which makes a lot of the additional scenes feel like fluff.
The Verdict: The Revenant is a truly beautiful and immersive movie, one that's really worth looking at, even if just to literally look at. The story is thin on character development and bloated on plot threads; making the film longer than it seems it should be given how little change occurs in Glass during his journey. I would recommend this to anyone who wants simply to marvel at amazing cinematography and can stomach the sometimes ludicrous brutality. Anyone with a weak stomach or looking for a less arduous experience probably isn't looking for this.
Rating: 8/10
Watched January 12th, 2016, Published July 7th, 2016
With all that in mind, I can comfortably say that The Revenant does not disappoint.
The plot is simple: Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), a fur trader on the American frontier, is brutally mauled by a bear. Glass is left by his expedition group in the hands of John Fiztgerald (Tom Hardy), a man who ultimately kills Glass' son and leaves him for dead. Glass must now somehow survive on his own, still severely wounded, and ultimately get revenge on Fitzgerald.
On a purely cinematographic level, it is a masterpiece. Every shot is magnificent; every frame captures the excruciatingly visceral violence and the sheer cold the setting suggests. Seriously, I cannot overstate the beauty and savagery contained within the visuals of this movie. As per Inarritu's style, there are many long takes, which really benefit the film overall, allowing the audience to take in the scenery in great detail.
The film is also extremely immersive; the long takes and visceral nature of what happens on screen helps with this, but so do a lot of little things. The bear attack scene in particular shows a lot of this. The film never cuts during the attack, instead drawing the audience in to what is happening and maintaining a close view the entire time. The clincher, though, is when the bear's sniffing fogs up the camera screen as it approaches; it makes the bear seem more real, simply adding to the immersion the film offers.
The acting in the film is also top notch all-round. Leo got an Academy Award for best actor for this piece, though it may not seem obvious at first as to why. The truth is, he carries this movie through its middle third with barely a word spoken, simply struggling to survive each step of the way. If you can forget for a moment that you're watching movie you realise that Leo is believable the entire way, that he really does seem to be going through every struggle that he has to deal with. Tom Hardy is also excellent; giving an unhinged performance as Fitzgerald, stealing the show in a few choice scenes, such as a humourously bleak monologue about the existence of God.
For all its virtues, The Revenant isn't without its weak points. I know that this is based on a true story, but I also know that they added a son character to be killed by Fitzgerald purely for an additional motivational reason for Glass to seek vengeance, as if being left for dead by someone who has voiced his hatred of you isn't enough. There's a secondary story involving a kidnapped Native American girl, which seems ultimately to exist purely to add a heroic act to Hugh Glass' list of trials and tribulations. Finally, there's several dream sequence scenes involving Glass' dead wife. It all seems to be in aid of an effort to make Glass a character we can sympathise with, and put a few breathing points in between each moment Glass is put into a live or die situation. Unfortunately, it also seems to do nothing to change Glass as a character. This would probably be fine if the movie didn't run for over two and a half hours, which makes a lot of the additional scenes feel like fluff.
The Verdict: The Revenant is a truly beautiful and immersive movie, one that's really worth looking at, even if just to literally look at. The story is thin on character development and bloated on plot threads; making the film longer than it seems it should be given how little change occurs in Glass during his journey. I would recommend this to anyone who wants simply to marvel at amazing cinematography and can stomach the sometimes ludicrous brutality. Anyone with a weak stomach or looking for a less arduous experience probably isn't looking for this.
Rating: 8/10
Watched January 12th, 2016, Published July 7th, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)