Monday, November 17, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Awesome!
Hiro's Dad is in the next series of I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!
Wait. That isn't a good thing.
Nevermind. At least it'll stop the Shatner/Takei blood feud for a while.
Wait. That isn't a good thing.
Nevermind. At least it'll stop the Shatner/Takei blood feud for a while.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Film review: Kung Fu Panda
Kung Fu Panda @ IMDB
Sometimes ideas just sound great. As soon as you say them, you can't help but just say "yep, that works". It's like Kit Kat Chunkys with Cookie Dough, it just works.
So in this film we have a Panda doing Kung Fu. Simple, to the point, great idea.
It's a wonder there hasn't been that many kid versions of kung fu films considering the popularity of things like Power Rangers. After all, kung fu films are essentially plot light with a simple story that moves from A to B with minimum fuss and maximum action.
The plot for this film can easily be summed up in that it's about Po, a lowly panda working in his father's Noodle Restaurant who dreams of becoming a kung fu master with his idols The Furious Five. But then the deadly Tai Lung escapes and only the Dragon Warrior can stop him.
Guess who's picked to become the Dragon Warrior?
The film goes exactly as you'd expect but this isn't a problem because it's so much fun. Jack Black as Po is always good value for money, even when it's just his voice. We get all the usual Kung Fu cliches but they're wrapped up in such a great looking package it becomes a great homage rather than a lazy parody.
And it does look great. The kung fu action is seamless and fluid with a superb weight to it. Good bad guy, great set pieces and nicely paced. Whilst it's not a great piece of cinema like Wall-E, it's the second best kids film I've seen this year.
Frankly, the film is worth the entrance price for the opening Samurai Jack-inspired sequence.
In a word? Hiyah!
Sometimes ideas just sound great. As soon as you say them, you can't help but just say "yep, that works". It's like Kit Kat Chunkys with Cookie Dough, it just works.
So in this film we have a Panda doing Kung Fu. Simple, to the point, great idea.
It's a wonder there hasn't been that many kid versions of kung fu films considering the popularity of things like Power Rangers. After all, kung fu films are essentially plot light with a simple story that moves from A to B with minimum fuss and maximum action.
The plot for this film can easily be summed up in that it's about Po, a lowly panda working in his father's Noodle Restaurant who dreams of becoming a kung fu master with his idols The Furious Five. But then the deadly Tai Lung escapes and only the Dragon Warrior can stop him.
Guess who's picked to become the Dragon Warrior?
The film goes exactly as you'd expect but this isn't a problem because it's so much fun. Jack Black as Po is always good value for money, even when it's just his voice. We get all the usual Kung Fu cliches but they're wrapped up in such a great looking package it becomes a great homage rather than a lazy parody.
And it does look great. The kung fu action is seamless and fluid with a superb weight to it. Good bad guy, great set pieces and nicely paced. Whilst it's not a great piece of cinema like Wall-E, it's the second best kids film I've seen this year.
Frankly, the film is worth the entrance price for the opening Samurai Jack-inspired sequence.
In a word? Hiyah!
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Boo!
No one has died but the game I'm most looking forward to has been delayed, only by a week or so but it's enough goddamnit.
I managed to get into the Beta which was very fun. It looks on the surface to be a pretty straight forward 2D platformer. Which is pretty much is. But the imagination and the craft in the game is immense and really draws you in.
The main character, Sackboy, should conquer the world. When you controlling him, if you press Up on the D-pad he'll smile, press it again and he'll smile more. Press it a third time and he does a huge goofy grin and his tongue flops out. I only mention this becuase it made my 4 year old son laugh hysterically when he saw it. Now he loves Sackboy.
Thank God you can get these in time for Christmas.
I got into the Beta quite late so I didn't get too deep in the level creator. This is absurdly powerful, enabling you to create pretty much anything in the game. One particular user created level I played was a Ninja Warrior level. I love Ninja Warrior.
But this doesn't matter as the Beta has finished and the game has been delayed so I can't play it anymore which makes me sad.
Boo!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
It's all going off!
Normally around this time of the year it's football players being sacked, now it seems to be celebrities divorcing.
Place your bets on who is going to be next. I reckon it's going to be Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston next.
What?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
To be expected
I didn't think Rocknrolla was that bad. Bit harsh.
That's probably why she wore those shoes, so she could finish him off afterwards.
That's probably why she wore those shoes, so she could finish him off afterwards.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Busy couple of weeks
Why? Been to Weymouth, not been to the cinema at all and got into the LittleBigPlanet Beta.
So not busy in a real sense, just not been at a computer. Even though the Haven holiday park I was at had Wi-Fi over the whole park.
£5 an hour though. Hence why I didn't use it.
So not busy in a real sense, just not been at a computer. Even though the Haven holiday park I was at had Wi-Fi over the whole park.
£5 an hour though. Hence why I didn't use it.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Film review: Tropic Thunder
Tropic Thunder @ IMDB
It's kinda weird to think how long Ben Stiller has been around now. It must be at least 10 years since There's Something About Mary and still he's around. As he's come up he's been followed by the Frat Pack, people like Will Ferrell, Jack Black, Owen Wilson and arguably the Judd Apatow stable.
He's also a director, the last film being Zoolander. Now, Zoolander was alright. I liked it but quite a few people I know didn't. It was fun.
His next film in the Director's chair is this, Tropic Thunder. And it's all kinds of good and no-one has argued with me yet.
The film is a (sort of) mocumentary following the filming of Tropic Thunder, a Vietnam film starring a has been action here (Stiller himself), an award winning actor (Robert Downey Jr) and a low brow comedian looking to broaden his range (Jack Black). Soon the filming falls apart and the Director decides to dump the actors in the jungle and secretly film them to enhance the realism. But isn't that a real gang of armed drug dealers about to cross their path? Uh-oh!
Satire wise, it's not that biting and only goes for easy targets. It nails those targets but they're still easy. Plot, whatever. The main point is this: is it funny?
Yes.
Downey Jr, as an Australian method actor who undergoes 'pigmentation alteration' in order to play a black character, is immense. He very nearly gets all the best lines and turns the normal lines into good lines. He casts a shadow over the other roles which does mean that some others get pushed to one side, mainly Jack Black's character. There is, however, someone who can stand up to Downey Jr in this film. His name?
Tom Cruise.
No matter what The Cruiser has done before, no matter what Scientology nonsensehe spouts, I will now always forgive him because of this film.
I have no problems with this film whatsoever: the pace is good, the jokes are funny and it has the best end credits ever. Seriously, best end credits ever. Just try to argue with me. You can't. Best ever.
In a word? Thunderous.
It's kinda weird to think how long Ben Stiller has been around now. It must be at least 10 years since There's Something About Mary and still he's around. As he's come up he's been followed by the Frat Pack, people like Will Ferrell, Jack Black, Owen Wilson and arguably the Judd Apatow stable.
He's also a director, the last film being Zoolander. Now, Zoolander was alright. I liked it but quite a few people I know didn't. It was fun.
His next film in the Director's chair is this, Tropic Thunder. And it's all kinds of good and no-one has argued with me yet.
The film is a (sort of) mocumentary following the filming of Tropic Thunder, a Vietnam film starring a has been action here (Stiller himself), an award winning actor (Robert Downey Jr) and a low brow comedian looking to broaden his range (Jack Black). Soon the filming falls apart and the Director decides to dump the actors in the jungle and secretly film them to enhance the realism. But isn't that a real gang of armed drug dealers about to cross their path? Uh-oh!
Satire wise, it's not that biting and only goes for easy targets. It nails those targets but they're still easy. Plot, whatever. The main point is this: is it funny?
Yes.
Downey Jr, as an Australian method actor who undergoes 'pigmentation alteration' in order to play a black character, is immense. He very nearly gets all the best lines and turns the normal lines into good lines. He casts a shadow over the other roles which does mean that some others get pushed to one side, mainly Jack Black's character. There is, however, someone who can stand up to Downey Jr in this film. His name?
Tom Cruise.
No matter what The Cruiser has done before, no matter what Scientology nonsensehe spouts, I will now always forgive him because of this film.
I have no problems with this film whatsoever: the pace is good, the jokes are funny and it has the best end credits ever. Seriously, best end credits ever. Just try to argue with me. You can't. Best ever.
In a word? Thunderous.
Woah
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I mean, iTunes is one of those things that really saved Apple and brought them back to relevance in a PC dominated world. Or is this a way for Apple to get out now while they're still making money before competition for digital music gets too fierce?
Either way, those new iPod Nanos look well sweet.
Either way, those new iPod Nanos look well sweet.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Film review: Bee Movie
Bee Movie @ IMDB
You can see why the big name Actors and what not have been crawling over themselves to do voices for animated films. It's a few weeks work, keeps the kids happy and if you can get a slice of the merchandising pretty lucrative.
You don't get many creating their own animated CG kids film, which is what we have here from Jerry Seinfeld.
Seinfeld, of course, was the star of his eponymous sitcom. This was a huge success blah blah blah and after it finished he could have done anything. And he did this.
What we have is the tale of a Bee suing the human race for stealing honey from all the bees. How quirky.
Is it in the watered down style of a Seinfeld episode? Yes. It's not quite a film about nothing but the influences on the style of the film are obvious. It looks great, as most animated CG films do these days.
The problem, really, is Seinfeld.
Whilst you do get some nice jokes* I'm not sure if most of it is pitched at the right audience. It's also not as engaging as other kids films, the characters all have the same kind of smug tone to their dialogue that comes off as annoying.
The worst culprit is Seinfeld as you can't take anything he says seriously. He's supposed to be the emotional centre of the film. But he hasn't the range to really make you believe in his character, he's essentially the sitcom character dressed as a bee. The jokes don't flow either, everything seems self conscious.
Perhaps I'm being harsh.
Whilst not the greatest story ever, it is better than most kids films. It doesn't take any risks like Surf's Up but it does the job that it's trying to do.
In a word? Smug.
* Generally in animated CG kids films there is always a rollercoaster type sequence. This is the main character flying through some ludicrously complex series of roads or waterways or whatever. There's one in Surf's Up, Happy Feet, Robots, Ice Age, even Finding Nemo. And also Bee Movie. But when you get to the end of the sequence in Bee Movie one of the characters says something like "Isn't it great they combined our roads with the amusement parks" which was a great little reference.
You can see why the big name Actors and what not have been crawling over themselves to do voices for animated films. It's a few weeks work, keeps the kids happy and if you can get a slice of the merchandising pretty lucrative.
You don't get many creating their own animated CG kids film, which is what we have here from Jerry Seinfeld.
Seinfeld, of course, was the star of his eponymous sitcom. This was a huge success blah blah blah and after it finished he could have done anything. And he did this.
What we have is the tale of a Bee suing the human race for stealing honey from all the bees. How quirky.
Is it in the watered down style of a Seinfeld episode? Yes. It's not quite a film about nothing but the influences on the style of the film are obvious. It looks great, as most animated CG films do these days.
The problem, really, is Seinfeld.
Whilst you do get some nice jokes* I'm not sure if most of it is pitched at the right audience. It's also not as engaging as other kids films, the characters all have the same kind of smug tone to their dialogue that comes off as annoying.
The worst culprit is Seinfeld as you can't take anything he says seriously. He's supposed to be the emotional centre of the film. But he hasn't the range to really make you believe in his character, he's essentially the sitcom character dressed as a bee. The jokes don't flow either, everything seems self conscious.
Perhaps I'm being harsh.
Whilst not the greatest story ever, it is better than most kids films. It doesn't take any risks like Surf's Up but it does the job that it's trying to do.
In a word? Smug.
* Generally in animated CG kids films there is always a rollercoaster type sequence. This is the main character flying through some ludicrously complex series of roads or waterways or whatever. There's one in Surf's Up, Happy Feet, Robots, Ice Age, even Finding Nemo. And also Bee Movie. But when you get to the end of the sequence in Bee Movie one of the characters says something like "Isn't it great they combined our roads with the amusement parks" which was a great little reference.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Still don't get it
Everyone knows Bejeweled, everyone has played Bejeweled but everyone may not know that the third game of the series is coming out soon.
Which has (apparently) taken three years to make.
Three years.
Bejewelled. The game where you line up 3 jewels that look the same.
Three years.
How does that work?
Which has (apparently) taken three years to make.
Three years.
Bejewelled. The game where you line up 3 jewels that look the same.
Three years.
How does that work?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
This is why I hate not having the Internet at work
Missed this yesterday. Very annoying. Reaaaally looking forward to this game and by the time I had got home the site handing out the keys had pretty much exploded.
Same thing with Battlefield Heroes, I always miss them handing out beta keys by like an hour or something.
Why does the Internet hate me so?
Same thing with Battlefield Heroes, I always miss them handing out beta keys by like an hour or something.
Why does the Internet hate me so?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Film review: Pineapple Express
Pineapple Express @ IMDB
So now we have a trend. First Hot Fuzz, then this and Tropic Thunder: action
films are back in the mainstream.
I, for one, have no problem with this. Guns rule.
What we have in this films is a good old genre bender: we have the
relationship issues of a Knocked Up (Seth Rogen) crossed with the stoner
comdey of a Superbad (James Franco) and a dash of any cop thriller from the
late 80s you care to mention (all the guns they have at the end).
The basis of the film is the friendship between the two main characters
played by Rogen and Franco. Rogen, we all know his stick and it's still
working. Now Franco, last time I saw him he was angsting it up in Spider-Man
3 so I was little unsure. But to my surprise, he's a great comedy actor.
They hold the film together and (obviously) get most of the best lines.
The only issue is going to be if you go along with the film. If you enjoyed
the humor from something like Superbad then you're going to love this film.
It's not something that's going to cross barriers.
So while the film may not appeal to everyone, if you go with it it's a great
ride. It's also really suprisingly violent but in a good way. It even ticks
the two boxes marked "car chase" and "shoot out" admirably.
In a word? Fruity.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
They still proper freak me out
Anyone watch Fonejacker last night?
Basically, there were these adverts around the show:
Appears to be some kind of Zombie Big Brother and it proper freaked me out.
Then I went to the website and clicked the big red eye to get the trailer and was a bit disappointed: here was me thinking the whole thing was going to be like watching an episode of BB only with zombies and instead it's all filmy. I would have been much more interested in the just being done with the usual BB cameras as the atmosphere it created in the little trailers proper freaked me out.
Then I looked into it a bit more and found out Charlie Brooker wrote it so everything might be okay.
Basically, there were these adverts around the show:
Appears to be some kind of Zombie Big Brother and it proper freaked me out.
Then I went to the website and clicked the big red eye to get the trailer and was a bit disappointed: here was me thinking the whole thing was going to be like watching an episode of BB only with zombies and instead it's all filmy. I would have been much more interested in the just being done with the usual BB cameras as the atmosphere it created in the little trailers proper freaked me out.
Then I looked into it a bit more and found out Charlie Brooker wrote it so everything might be okay.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Film review: RocknRolla
RocknRolla @ IMDB
Oh, Guy Ritchie. You poor fool.
I remember when Lock, Stock first came out and he was hailed as some kind of genius saviour of the British film industry. And, in a way, he was. His debut film really reinvigorated British films and got people interested in them again.
But, at the same time, he killed his career.
Harsh? No, because he was now typecast and stuck in the 'Geezer' genre of film. Snatch, despite being a good film, didn't do anything to dispute this.
His attempts to move beyond this, Swept Away and Revolver*, failed miserably.
So, we come to Rocknrolla. Lock Stock 3? Pretty much.
We have the usual group of wideboys and gangsters duckin' and divin' and what not. The plot is pretty much dead in the water, something to do with property and a missing painting and the Russian mafia.
This is the main problem with the film: the plot requires a lot of talking. So for the first few reels nothing happens. Once the film decides that, you know what, the plot doesn't really matter then it becomes enjoyable.
And say what you like about him, but Guy Ritchie can make a good looking film. It does look great with the high point being a botched heist followed by a chase in the middle of the film. That bit is really good.
It tries, it really does. Everyone is being cheeky geezer cockney sparrows but they are all enjoyable performances. The problem is that Guy Ritchie (as the writer) seems enamoured with these rambling monologues that try to say profound things but tend to ramble on. If the film was as tight and as focused as the heist in the middle it would have been a great film. But it isn't. It's good.
The end teases a sequel. A bad thing? Possibly not.
In a word? Geezer.
* Now, I haven't seen either of these films but the reviews I have read have been scathing. In fact, Mark Kermode referred to Revolver as one of the worst films to be released in the entire 21st century, despite it being only 2008.
Oh, Guy Ritchie. You poor fool.
I remember when Lock, Stock first came out and he was hailed as some kind of genius saviour of the British film industry. And, in a way, he was. His debut film really reinvigorated British films and got people interested in them again.
But, at the same time, he killed his career.
Harsh? No, because he was now typecast and stuck in the 'Geezer' genre of film. Snatch, despite being a good film, didn't do anything to dispute this.
His attempts to move beyond this, Swept Away and Revolver*, failed miserably.
So, we come to Rocknrolla. Lock Stock 3? Pretty much.
We have the usual group of wideboys and gangsters duckin' and divin' and what not. The plot is pretty much dead in the water, something to do with property and a missing painting and the Russian mafia.
This is the main problem with the film: the plot requires a lot of talking. So for the first few reels nothing happens. Once the film decides that, you know what, the plot doesn't really matter then it becomes enjoyable.
And say what you like about him, but Guy Ritchie can make a good looking film. It does look great with the high point being a botched heist followed by a chase in the middle of the film. That bit is really good.
It tries, it really does. Everyone is being cheeky geezer cockney sparrows but they are all enjoyable performances. The problem is that Guy Ritchie (as the writer) seems enamoured with these rambling monologues that try to say profound things but tend to ramble on. If the film was as tight and as focused as the heist in the middle it would have been a great film. But it isn't. It's good.
The end teases a sequel. A bad thing? Possibly not.
In a word? Geezer.
* Now, I haven't seen either of these films but the reviews I have read have been scathing. In fact, Mark Kermode referred to Revolver as one of the worst films to be released in the entire 21st century, despite it being only 2008.
Oh, come on
Seriously? Is that your best excuse? Global Warming. Nice.
I'm going try that one. "Sorry dear, couldn't get the shopping you wanted, global warming".
That one would get me a smack in the mouth, I'm sure of it.
I'm going try that one. "Sorry dear, couldn't get the shopping you wanted, global warming".
That one would get me a smack in the mouth, I'm sure of it.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Film review: Surfs up!
Surf's Up @ IMDB
You know what, I always thought this was a spin off of Happy Feet.
Apparently it was developed entirely separatley at the same time, just pure co-incidence. It was, of course, the dancing penguins that got all the press whilst this film was kind of pushed to the side.
This is a shame really as in many ways this is the superior film. It even got nominated for an Oscar for the Best Animated film.
So, we have penguins. In this case, surfing penguins. So far so cute. But here's the rub: the film is setup like a documentary as we follow one penguin's dream to enter a big surfing contest named after his surfing idol, Big Z.
The documentary setting immediatley sets it apart from all the other kids CGI films and gives it a breath of fresh air. They throw in roughed up old footage, photos, everything to complete the illusion of this being filmed on the hoof and assembled in an edit suite.
The voice acting is good (Jeff Bridges gives us a penguin version of The Dude, Shia LeBouef does his usual thing) and the humour is funny. It must have helped that one of the directors worked on Toy Story which further proves that it takes Pixar (or even someone who used to work there) to really understand CG kids films and make them into something special.
Very enjoyable.
In a word? Tubular.
You know what, I always thought this was a spin off of Happy Feet.
Apparently it was developed entirely separatley at the same time, just pure co-incidence. It was, of course, the dancing penguins that got all the press whilst this film was kind of pushed to the side.
This is a shame really as in many ways this is the superior film. It even got nominated for an Oscar for the Best Animated film.
So, we have penguins. In this case, surfing penguins. So far so cute. But here's the rub: the film is setup like a documentary as we follow one penguin's dream to enter a big surfing contest named after his surfing idol, Big Z.
The documentary setting immediatley sets it apart from all the other kids CGI films and gives it a breath of fresh air. They throw in roughed up old footage, photos, everything to complete the illusion of this being filmed on the hoof and assembled in an edit suite.
The voice acting is good (Jeff Bridges gives us a penguin version of The Dude, Shia LeBouef does his usual thing) and the humour is funny. It must have helped that one of the directors worked on Toy Story which further proves that it takes Pixar (or even someone who used to work there) to really understand CG kids films and make them into something special.
Very enjoyable.
In a word? Tubular.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Who decided to call it Big Bang Day?
Hopefully seeing The Pineapple Express tonight, that is of course if the world doesn't end.
Good luck everyone!
Good luck everyone!
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
Uh oh.
A trifle worrying. Thankfully The Duchess isn't in the model series affected so we can all breathe a sigh of relief.
That is, of course, on the assumption that the screen isn't going to break again.
That is, of course, on the assumption that the screen isn't going to break again.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Film review: Hellboy II The Golden Army
Hellboy II: The Golden Army @ IMDB
How many comic book films have we seen this year? It's crazy. It wasn't that long ago they on the level of something like Steel. Something to make fast, on the cheap that would soon vanish into rental Hell.
Now we get films like Hellboy II that are practically baroque works of art.
I'm getting ahead of myself a little bit.
Hellboy returns, now with a girlfriend but still the same gruff attitude and some more bad guys to beat up.
That's my main issue with the film; the bad guys. Not that I'm bashing Luke Goss, you understand. But you never got a good feel for them, they didn't dominate the story. The fairy tale creatures and the world created is great but there was just something missing in the last third.
But it's still a great film. It's truly a character piece wrapped up in comic book clothes with a big red horned guy at the centre.
Ron Pearlmen is great as Hellboy, he fits the character like a glove and it shows. The support is also great, they bicker like real people and no one lets the side down. Everyone has room to shine, especially Doug Jones under his own latex as Abe Sapien. It's also really funny. The action is good too.
You can tell where the budget really went though: set and chacater design.
It's stunning. There a ton of animatronic characters and practical effects that look amazing. The chacaters visit a Market full of trolls and Lord knows what else that really makes the film. A whole world is created from pretty much the ground up that is faultlessly presented. It's nothin like what you would normally see in the cinema, let alone just comic book films. It's surreal and grotesqe and visionary.
It also bodes well for the director's version of The Hobbit.
So I really liked it. While it's not perfect I wouldn't hear a word against it. It's also nicely teed up for a third film that I'm very much hoping will be made.
Also, it has the best use of a Barry Manilow song for quite some time.
In a word? Devilish.
They should have called it The Webminator
This looks interesting, at least in a Google-Trying-To-Take-Over-Everything-But-Look-Nice-About-It kind of way. They even roped in comic auteur Scott McCloud to promote it.
It's probably been coming a while and I will try it to see how all the other Google bits and bobs fit into it. But I've already got Firefox and can't get rid of Internet Explorer and I downloaded Safari as well and I quite liked the look of that social web browser so do I really need another one?
Major problem? Chrome. Not a great name.
What I really need is a bigger hard drive for my PS3. Those demos fill it up super quick.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Film review: Speed Racer
Speed Racer @ IMDB
Remember when The Wachowski Brothers ruled the world? This will be the 18 months of so after first Matrix when everyone thought they were amazing and it sold loads of DVDs and everyone was happy.
Two sequels later and everyone hates them.
Shame. Because everyone seems to be lining up to give Speed Racer a kicking when it doesn't really deserve it.
The eponymous Speed Racer is race car driver in a racing obsessed world living in the shadow of his brother, Rex Racer, who died racing in a race car accident. After making a name for himself on the track the big teams want to hire Speed to race for them. But are they all they seem?
The problem we have, not just with this film but with The Wachowski's themselves, is that no one will tell them no. The Matrix made sooo much money they just do what they want and no one tells them otherwise. Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad.
It's good in this film because no one else would make a film that looks like this. The original anime the film is based is replicated on the screen to an amazing level. This isn't just the vehicles, which we will get to later, but the overall look of the film. Colours pop off the screen like nothing else. It looks amazing.
And then the cars start racing.
What they have done is taken the car chase sequence from The Matrix Reloaded and taken it to insane levels. The cars spin around the track, leap in the air and barrel roll. It's totally seamless and totally amazing.
What is not so good is when they start talking. Whilst the dialogue isn't as cringe worthy as some of The Matrix Revolutions, it's not great. It's supposed to be a kids film but when you get scenes digging into the intricacies of corporate sponsorship and it's place in sport, I started zoning out and I'm an adult.
And then there is Spritle.
Every now and then you get a film character that seems to have been placed into a film with the sole intention of bringing the whole thing crashing to the floor. There was Chris Tucker in The Fifth Element, Jar Jar Binks in The Phantom Menace and now Spritle.
He's supposed to be comedy value. I understand this. He's teamed with a monkey, and I have no problem with monkeys. But whenever he crops up he just destroys the pace of the film, all of his jokes fall flat and he is very annoying. If I were to ever buy this on DVD I would rip it onto my computer, edit him out and then burn it back on to DVD. Not even the bit when he's playing Freebird could save him.
And that's the problem: if they had a producer that would stand up to them things like this wouldn't happen and the film would be a lot better for it.
I really enjoyed it. It doesn't deserve the kicking it's had. My son sat through the whole film which is a not inconsiderable 137 minutes long. Not a masterpiece but it's not as bad as the Matrix sequels. Which is always a good thing.
In a word? Zoom.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Film review: Get Smart
Get Smart @ IMDB
Now, I don't know about anyone else but I actually remember watching this TV show. Not when it originally aired in the 60s, mind you, despite what the Wife says about my age.
Now, I don't know about anyone else but I actually remember watching this TV show. Not when it originally aired in the 60s, mind you, despite what the Wife says about my age.
No, you see Channel 4 when I was growing up used to show cheap US TV shows in the afternoon after school. They didn't have a children's department like CBBC or CITV to make their own shows. So they'd show old episodes of The Munsters or Batman or Mork & Mindy. And, Get Smart.
Not that I remember it that much. All I really remember is the title sequence. And that it's about a bumbling secret agent fighting villainous criminal organisations.
Does this make it an ideal series to reinterpret for the big screen? Yes and No. No, because it' not that well remembered outside of the US so there's no in-built audience. Yes, because of the fact it's not that well remembered you can take some liberties without the fan base going crazy.
So, we have Steve Carell as Maxell Smart, an analyst who dreams of becoming a full agent for CONTROL. Let's hope that CONTROL's nemesis, KAOS, isn't hatching a plot to expose the identities of all the CONTROL agents so they can hold the US government to ransom and the only way the plan can be foiled is if newly promoted Agents are sent out into the field.
Oh, wait.
To be honest, I should have been more worried about seeing this film. The last big budget Steve Carell comedy died very publicly on it's ass. But he has a very engaging screen presence that makes you laugh and can carry the comedic and emotional burden of the film.
It's not great. The plot is a little scatter shot but you can't get too picky because it is very enjoyable. You get some great little character comedy, especially with Alan Arkin as the Chief of CONTROL. It also works in that they don't make Maxwell Smart a complete incompetent. He's an idiot, like most of us are, but it's not ridiculously over the top. Anne Hathaway as Agent 99 doesn't let the side down and The Rock needs to be cast in a decent film soon as he has great comedic potential.
Is it better than the original TV show? That's not the point. The film can pretty much stand on it's own two feet and whilst it's not breaking any boundaries, it's a good piece of fun.
In a word? Hoot.
Warning, Controversy Ahead
This is pretty impressive. But, frankly, the researchers should ignore the disabled and get to work on building my robuit suit. It'll be just like Appleseed!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Because THAT'S a good idea.
So, we're all pretty much agreed that Superman Returns didn't quite hit the mark.
But does it really need to be re-booted as a dark version of Superman? Really?
That's not what Superman is about. It should be about wonder and heroics. The best Superman story in the last ten years is Grant Morrison's All Star Superman and that doesn't have to rely on the tired grim and gritty approach to Superheroes. All it does rely on are the core Superman concepts and good writing.
So none of this gritty nonsense please. That's what we have Frank Miller for.
But does it really need to be re-booted as a dark version of Superman? Really?
That's not what Superman is about. It should be about wonder and heroics. The best Superman story in the last ten years is Grant Morrison's All Star Superman and that doesn't have to rely on the tired grim and gritty approach to Superheroes. All it does rely on are the core Superman concepts and good writing.
So none of this gritty nonsense please. That's what we have Frank Miller for.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Film review: Underdog
Underdog @ IMDB
My tour of the current state of kids films continues unabated, now we venture back into the live action talking animal genre. Considering the last time we wandered down this surprisingly dark alley it was for Alvin and The Chipmunks, also starring Jason Lee, we should probably be concerned.
This time, rather than being cast as an actual human, he's the voice of the eponymous Underdog. An ex-police dog gifted with super-powers following a lab accident, can Underdog protect the city and find a new family?
Of course he can. This is a kids film. But it's no where near as bad as The Chipmunks. I'm not really sure why.
It's not like the nostalgia factor works outside of the US. This film falls into a strange sub-genre of live action cartoon re-makes, specifically US cartoons from the 50s and 60s. This isn't a great sub-genre as other films in it include Rocky & Bullwinkle and George of The Jungle. The only Underdog cartoon I've ever seen was the highlights in the opening credits.
Perhaps it's because Underdog isn't as annoying as the Chipmunks. Lee's usual laconic drawl works quite well in canine form and the special effects are quite good. The human cast, however, is the usual sketched in roles that don't really go anywhere.
The casting itself is, however, a bit interesting. You've got James Belushi cast as the Father of the family so right there you've got a reference to K-9. The main bad guy is great. He's previously been in several indie films but here he really goes for it as the villain. He's chewing scenery as fast as they can build it and he's almost worth the price of entry alone.
So, we seem to be on a sliding scale. Each week gets a bit better and whilst Underdog is no Wall-E it's still an enjoyable film. The main moral to take away from this film is probably only watch Jason Lee in a kid's film if he's the voice of an animal rather than one of the human cast.
In a word? Barking.
Sorry.
My tour of the current state of kids films continues unabated, now we venture back into the live action talking animal genre. Considering the last time we wandered down this surprisingly dark alley it was for Alvin and The Chipmunks, also starring Jason Lee, we should probably be concerned.
This time, rather than being cast as an actual human, he's the voice of the eponymous Underdog. An ex-police dog gifted with super-powers following a lab accident, can Underdog protect the city and find a new family?
Of course he can. This is a kids film. But it's no where near as bad as The Chipmunks. I'm not really sure why.
It's not like the nostalgia factor works outside of the US. This film falls into a strange sub-genre of live action cartoon re-makes, specifically US cartoons from the 50s and 60s. This isn't a great sub-genre as other films in it include Rocky & Bullwinkle and George of The Jungle. The only Underdog cartoon I've ever seen was the highlights in the opening credits.
Perhaps it's because Underdog isn't as annoying as the Chipmunks. Lee's usual laconic drawl works quite well in canine form and the special effects are quite good. The human cast, however, is the usual sketched in roles that don't really go anywhere.
The casting itself is, however, a bit interesting. You've got James Belushi cast as the Father of the family so right there you've got a reference to K-9. The main bad guy is great. He's previously been in several indie films but here he really goes for it as the villain. He's chewing scenery as fast as they can build it and he's almost worth the price of entry alone.
So, we seem to be on a sliding scale. Each week gets a bit better and whilst Underdog is no Wall-E it's still an enjoyable film. The main moral to take away from this film is probably only watch Jason Lee in a kid's film if he's the voice of an animal rather than one of the human cast.
In a word? Barking.
Sorry.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Film review: Horton Hears a Who
Horton Hears a Who @ IMDB
Now, when I was a kid, hand drawn animation was king
Well, to be fair, Disney was all but dead on it's feet, cartoons on TV were being shopped out to cheap Far East animation houses to churn out 30 minute toy adverts and hardly anyone was putting out any animated feature films.
Then a couple of things happened: The Little Mermaid (which revitalized Disney and animated features in general) and Toy Story (which proved that 3D animation could work in the cinema).
So had a lot of studios looking at the success Disney was having with Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King etc and set up their own animation houses but when Toy Story came along heads were turned again. It was a combination of animated kids films being again critically and (more importantly) commercially successful plus a new medium that wasn't as labour intensive as hand drawn animation.
This short recap is why we have had the glut of 3D films over the last few years which brings us to Horton Hears a Who.
Based on the story by Dr Seuss, it is about Horton the elephant who finds a spec upon which is an entire world, lived in the Whos.
Dr Seuss hasn't had a great time of it in recent times in the cinema. We've had the two live action adaptations, How The Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in The Hat. Both far from ideal. Why?
Simple. The worlds created in the films looked...flat. The artwork is the Suess stories is wildly surreal which is never quite carried off in the previous films.
This film, however, nails the look of the books perfect. It is for reasons like this that 3D animation proves why it has grown to dominate the animated world. The scope of movement and design is fantastic. But, the problem with all these 3D animated films is that they just don't try. Whilst Pixar is out there really pushing what you can do in an animated film for kids, most just don't bother. They get the cute animals, a few throwaway references for the adults watching, wrap it up in a mice moral package and there you go.
Which is what Horton suffers from. It's not bad: it bounds along, some of the set pieces are funny, it looks great, the message is delivered nicely (if repeatedly) but it just doesn't get to the heights of a Pixar film.
But again, this is not aimed at me and my son loved it. And the monkeys were really funny but then monkeys always are.
In a word? Pleasant.
Now, when I was a kid, hand drawn animation was king
Well, to be fair, Disney was all but dead on it's feet, cartoons on TV were being shopped out to cheap Far East animation houses to churn out 30 minute toy adverts and hardly anyone was putting out any animated feature films.
Then a couple of things happened: The Little Mermaid (which revitalized Disney and animated features in general) and Toy Story (which proved that 3D animation could work in the cinema).
So had a lot of studios looking at the success Disney was having with Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King etc and set up their own animation houses but when Toy Story came along heads were turned again. It was a combination of animated kids films being again critically and (more importantly) commercially successful plus a new medium that wasn't as labour intensive as hand drawn animation.
This short recap is why we have had the glut of 3D films over the last few years which brings us to Horton Hears a Who.
Based on the story by Dr Seuss, it is about Horton the elephant who finds a spec upon which is an entire world, lived in the Whos.
Dr Seuss hasn't had a great time of it in recent times in the cinema. We've had the two live action adaptations, How The Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in The Hat. Both far from ideal. Why?
Simple. The worlds created in the films looked...flat. The artwork is the Suess stories is wildly surreal which is never quite carried off in the previous films.
This film, however, nails the look of the books perfect. It is for reasons like this that 3D animation proves why it has grown to dominate the animated world. The scope of movement and design is fantastic. But, the problem with all these 3D animated films is that they just don't try. Whilst Pixar is out there really pushing what you can do in an animated film for kids, most just don't bother. They get the cute animals, a few throwaway references for the adults watching, wrap it up in a mice moral package and there you go.
Which is what Horton suffers from. It's not bad: it bounds along, some of the set pieces are funny, it looks great, the message is delivered nicely (if repeatedly) but it just doesn't get to the heights of a Pixar film.
But again, this is not aimed at me and my son loved it. And the monkeys were really funny but then monkeys always are.
In a word? Pleasant.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Film review: Alvin and The Chipmunks
Alvin and The Chipmunks @ IMDB
My son likes going to the cinema. And I like taking him, not only because he should enjoy going to the cinema but also because my nearest cinema shows kids films on a Saturday morning for £1 a ticket.
The problem is this: not every kids film is made by Pixar. Case in point: Alvin and The Chipmunks.
It's just so...meh. It's so meh I can't be bothered to repeat the plot, what little there is. I remember some singing chipmunks getting into some hi-jinks with people talking in between. I think.
It's not that it's bad, there's just no ambition. I think it's trying to make a statement about the treadmill like nature of the modern music industry using the Chipmunks as a metaphor for the young talents sucked into the materialistic, money obssesed mainstream pop machine.
Tries to. All you really get is the aforementioned hi-jinks and the talking and that's about it.
Basically, it's a by the book kids film so it's not aimed at me. My son however loved it. So there you go, like in every Spielberg film you should ignore the adult and listen to the children.
Just let it be known that you were warned.
In a word? Yawn.
My son likes going to the cinema. And I like taking him, not only because he should enjoy going to the cinema but also because my nearest cinema shows kids films on a Saturday morning for £1 a ticket.
The problem is this: not every kids film is made by Pixar. Case in point: Alvin and The Chipmunks.
It's just so...meh. It's so meh I can't be bothered to repeat the plot, what little there is. I remember some singing chipmunks getting into some hi-jinks with people talking in between. I think.
It's not that it's bad, there's just no ambition. I think it's trying to make a statement about the treadmill like nature of the modern music industry using the Chipmunks as a metaphor for the young talents sucked into the materialistic, money obssesed mainstream pop machine.
Tries to. All you really get is the aforementioned hi-jinks and the talking and that's about it.
Basically, it's a by the book kids film so it's not aimed at me. My son however loved it. So there you go, like in every Spielberg film you should ignore the adult and listen to the children.
Just let it be known that you were warned.
In a word? Yawn.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Wa-hoo!
Happy with that. It is a great game but does look a bit bobbins these days. Hopefully the PS3 will make it so that buildings don't randomly appear when you're three feet away from them.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Film review: The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight @ IMDB
We've had a lot of Comic Book films this year and most have been really good. But all of the review have had a little caveat at the end, normally along the lines of "this film is really good and is the best comic film but The Dark Knight is out later this year".
It's fair to say that the hype for this film has been immense. The reboot of the Batman franchise was a critical success so that was creating a lot of expectations anyway. The viral marketing campaign was drawing them in then you have Heath Ledger's death and everything seems to have gone through the roof.
It's an awful lot of weight to put on one film and when this happens they usually collapse: see Star Wars Prequels, Matrix sequels, Superman Returns, etc.
Luckily, this film has some very broad shoulders.
So, we have Batman continuing his battle against the Gotham Criminal Underworld now helped by the new District Attorney Harvey Dent. Perhaps Harvey can take over the fight and Batman can retire?
Not if The Joker has anything to say about it.
We'll get it out of the way first: Heath Ledger is really good. Really good.
So is everyone else. The returning cast seem very comfortable in their roles and the new members don't let the side down. Aaron Eckhart* as Harvey Dent is great, Maggie Gyllenhall should have been cast in the first film and Heath Ledger is, again, really good.
But it's no point having a great cast if the film itself is rubbish and, thankfully, that is not the case here. Christopher Nolan has crafted a complex, deep film about heroism and what it means and what happens when heroes fall. It is a meaty film with the running time to match. That's not a bad thing because it give the film room to breathe. It's a very measured film, it doesn't have a breakneck pace but it doesn't need to.
So, we have great performances, an excellent story, an amazing score. Perfect film? Pretty much. There is a Bat-Gadget introduced at the end that very nearly destroys the air of realism built over the two films. Some may flinch at the running time. It's still a guy dressed as a bat beating people up so if you don't buy into that then the film doesn't work.
In a word? Dynamic.
* He's not a household name but we like Aaron Eckhart films in the Doyle Household. Well, it's only really The Core, one of the most scientifically incorrect (allegedly) films ever made but great fun.
We've had a lot of Comic Book films this year and most have been really good. But all of the review have had a little caveat at the end, normally along the lines of "this film is really good and is the best comic film but The Dark Knight is out later this year".
It's fair to say that the hype for this film has been immense. The reboot of the Batman franchise was a critical success so that was creating a lot of expectations anyway. The viral marketing campaign was drawing them in then you have Heath Ledger's death and everything seems to have gone through the roof.
It's an awful lot of weight to put on one film and when this happens they usually collapse: see Star Wars Prequels, Matrix sequels, Superman Returns, etc.
Luckily, this film has some very broad shoulders.
So, we have Batman continuing his battle against the Gotham Criminal Underworld now helped by the new District Attorney Harvey Dent. Perhaps Harvey can take over the fight and Batman can retire?
Not if The Joker has anything to say about it.
We'll get it out of the way first: Heath Ledger is really good. Really good.
So is everyone else. The returning cast seem very comfortable in their roles and the new members don't let the side down. Aaron Eckhart* as Harvey Dent is great, Maggie Gyllenhall should have been cast in the first film and Heath Ledger is, again, really good.
But it's no point having a great cast if the film itself is rubbish and, thankfully, that is not the case here. Christopher Nolan has crafted a complex, deep film about heroism and what it means and what happens when heroes fall. It is a meaty film with the running time to match. That's not a bad thing because it give the film room to breathe. It's a very measured film, it doesn't have a breakneck pace but it doesn't need to.
So, we have great performances, an excellent story, an amazing score. Perfect film? Pretty much. There is a Bat-Gadget introduced at the end that very nearly destroys the air of realism built over the two films. Some may flinch at the running time. It's still a guy dressed as a bat beating people up so if you don't buy into that then the film doesn't work.
In a word? Dynamic.
* He's not a household name but we like Aaron Eckhart films in the Doyle Household. Well, it's only really The Core, one of the most scientifically incorrect (allegedly) films ever made but great fun.
Holy Bat-Curse!
Let's examine the facts:
1) Heath Ledger dies.
2) Christian Bale beats up several family members
3) Morgan Freeman gets himself into a car crash.
The first and third one do look a bit curse-ish but you can't really justify opening a can of whoop-ass on your Mum by saying you were cursed.
Can you?
1) Heath Ledger dies.
2) Christian Bale beats up several family members
3) Morgan Freeman gets himself into a car crash.
The first and third one do look a bit curse-ish but you can't really justify opening a can of whoop-ass on your Mum by saying you were cursed.
Can you?
Friday, August 01, 2008
Film review: Wall-E
Wall-E @ IMDB
I think we can all agree at this point that Pixar make really really good films. Has there ever been a bad Pixar film? Even the worst Pixar film is better than the majority of animated dross that gets thrown at us.
So when I say that the new Pixar film is one of, if not the best Pixar film then it's pretty damn good.
Wall-E is a robot that has been left alone cleaning Earth for 700 years. His best friend is a cockroach and he spends his evening watching Hello Dolly and waiting for...something. Then another robot named EVE arrives and Wall-E< falls in love.
Toy Story changed cinema when it was released but comparing it to Wall-E is like comparing a cave painting to a Van Gough. It looks amazing. Previous Pixar films have made various leaps in 3D technology; the hair in Monster's Inc, the water in Finding Nemo, the food in Ratatouille. What Wall-E really advances is the 3D camera itself. It looks like it was filmed. The depth of field and movement is astoundingly realistic. Couple that with the overall design, including Wall-E himself and you have one amazing looking film.
And it's so different as well. You get the feeling this is Pixar really flexing their creative freedom. How many other merchandising juggernauts have no words spoken for the first 40 minutes? There's live action footage thrown in there as well. It's so different than the usual kids films like Madagascar or Ice Age.
One might argue that the story gets reigned in once Wall-E gets into space and meets the Humans but that's not a problem. You get so drawn into the relationship between the two robot leads that you get swept along.
It's simply a great film. And my son, not yet four years old, sat through the whole film entranced. That's all you need to know really.
Two final points: the end credits are amazing. Before the film starts there is the traditional Pixar short film and this one is a corker. Absolutely hilarious.
In a word? Astounding.
I think we can all agree at this point that Pixar make really really good films. Has there ever been a bad Pixar film? Even the worst Pixar film is better than the majority of animated dross that gets thrown at us.
So when I say that the new Pixar film is one of, if not the best Pixar film then it's pretty damn good.
Wall-E is a robot that has been left alone cleaning Earth for 700 years. His best friend is a cockroach and he spends his evening watching Hello Dolly and waiting for...something. Then another robot named EVE arrives and Wall-E< falls in love.
Toy Story changed cinema when it was released but comparing it to Wall-E is like comparing a cave painting to a Van Gough. It looks amazing. Previous Pixar films have made various leaps in 3D technology; the hair in Monster's Inc, the water in Finding Nemo, the food in Ratatouille. What Wall-E really advances is the 3D camera itself. It looks like it was filmed. The depth of field and movement is astoundingly realistic. Couple that with the overall design, including Wall-E himself and you have one amazing looking film.
And it's so different as well. You get the feeling this is Pixar really flexing their creative freedom. How many other merchandising juggernauts have no words spoken for the first 40 minutes? There's live action footage thrown in there as well. It's so different than the usual kids films like Madagascar or Ice Age.
One might argue that the story gets reigned in once Wall-E gets into space and meets the Humans but that's not a problem. You get so drawn into the relationship between the two robot leads that you get swept along.
It's simply a great film. And my son, not yet four years old, sat through the whole film entranced. That's all you need to know really.
Two final points: the end credits are amazing. Before the film starts there is the traditional Pixar short film and this one is a corker. Absolutely hilarious.
In a word? Astounding.
Top Down Cloverfield? I'm There
Wow. This looks ace.
I saw a trailer for this a while ago and assumed it would only come out on Japan but the trailer is now up on the European PlayStation Store which is a good sign.
Basically, the game uses hi-res Google Maps of various cities. You have to guide a group of people through the streets whilst avoiding monsters trying to eat them.
I like monsters. Sounds way fun.
I saw a trailer for this a while ago and assumed it would only come out on Japan but the trailer is now up on the European PlayStation Store which is a good sign.
Basically, the game uses hi-res Google Maps of various cities. You have to guide a group of people through the streets whilst avoiding monsters trying to eat them.
I like monsters. Sounds way fun.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Film review: Wanted
Wanted @ IMDB
What's been great about this Summer Blockbuster season is how good and< popular the Comic Book Films have been. But what has also been great is how they've stuck close to the original stories and really respected the< creators and their creations.
Then we get to Wanted.
Wanted the comic written by Comic Legend Mark Millar with art by the incomparable J G Jones. It pains me to say that I haven't read it yet but I do know it's about a young man who finds out that his Father was a super-villain who, years ago, had banded together with other super-villains, killed all the heroes and took over the world.
Wanted the film is about a young man who finds out his Father was a member of a covert team of assassins who kill people.
Bit of a tonal shift there.
Importantly, the creators were aware of the changes and had no problems with them. Bit of a shame, but lets look at the film on it's own merits.
What we have here is a throwback to the days when Riggs and Murtagh ruled the Box Office. You've got violence, gun play and swearing. Considering the amount of marketing the film is getting, it's quite surprising. But that's okay, because we like good looking gun play is Casa Del Doyle and we get plenty of it in this film. What with the majority of the characters being semi-mystical assassins being able to bend bullets round corners this is pretty much of a given. The film delivers in spades with some great set pieces, from the opening roof top leap to the trigger happy showdown.
So, as eye-candy goes not a problem. All action boxes get ticked (or blown to shreds) so no issues there at all.
The issue with have is when people open their mouths and talk* and the plot rears it's ugly head. It's your basic revenge story with a twist thrown in. It's not that the acting is bad, everyone acquits themselves. James McAvoy makes for an interesting lead, Angelina Jolie finally gets to be in a film where she doesn't have to hide her tattoos.
It's not bad, but it's not great either. But there is one big stumbling block.
It's called The Loom of Fate.
The assassins get all their targets by interpreting threads woven in cloth by The Loom of Fate.
The Loom of Fate.
If you can get past that, the film is very enjoyable. If you can't get past that, the film falls apart.
I just about got past it and had a great time.
Loom of Fate.
I really need to read the comic.
In a word? Loom.
* I say that but when Morgan Freeman opens his mouth and says "Shoot that Motherfucker" it is pretty good.
What's been great about this Summer Blockbuster season is how good and< popular the Comic Book Films have been. But what has also been great is how they've stuck close to the original stories and really respected the< creators and their creations.
Then we get to Wanted.
Wanted the comic written by Comic Legend Mark Millar with art by the incomparable J G Jones. It pains me to say that I haven't read it yet but I do know it's about a young man who finds out that his Father was a super-villain who, years ago, had banded together with other super-villains, killed all the heroes and took over the world.
Wanted the film is about a young man who finds out his Father was a member of a covert team of assassins who kill people.
Bit of a tonal shift there.
Importantly, the creators were aware of the changes and had no problems with them. Bit of a shame, but lets look at the film on it's own merits.
What we have here is a throwback to the days when Riggs and Murtagh ruled the Box Office. You've got violence, gun play and swearing. Considering the amount of marketing the film is getting, it's quite surprising. But that's okay, because we like good looking gun play is Casa Del Doyle and we get plenty of it in this film. What with the majority of the characters being semi-mystical assassins being able to bend bullets round corners this is pretty much of a given. The film delivers in spades with some great set pieces, from the opening roof top leap to the trigger happy showdown.
So, as eye-candy goes not a problem. All action boxes get ticked (or blown to shreds) so no issues there at all.
The issue with have is when people open their mouths and talk* and the plot rears it's ugly head. It's your basic revenge story with a twist thrown in. It's not that the acting is bad, everyone acquits themselves. James McAvoy makes for an interesting lead, Angelina Jolie finally gets to be in a film where she doesn't have to hide her tattoos.
It's not bad, but it's not great either. But there is one big stumbling block.
It's called The Loom of Fate.
The assassins get all their targets by interpreting threads woven in cloth by The Loom of Fate.
The Loom of Fate.
If you can get past that, the film is very enjoyable. If you can't get past that, the film falls apart.
I just about got past it and had a great time.
Loom of Fate.
I really need to read the comic.
In a word? Loom.
* I say that but when Morgan Freeman opens his mouth and says "Shoot that Motherfucker" it is pretty good.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Two and bit weeks in: The PS3 Update
It's awesome.
Maybe it's because I've had a couple of years in the console wilderness but it's awesome having a PS3.
The last console I had was an X-Box and I swapped that for my Brother-in-Law's DS way back in 2006 so it's been a long time of handheld gaming.
I love having a Blu-Ray player, especially with my awesome new TV. I love having wireless controllers. I love being able to download demos off the PlayStation Store. I love being able to buy full games off the PlayStation Store. I love linking my PSP up to the PS3 via wireless.
I haven't got much into the online game stuff yet. I do have some online games (GTA IV and Metal Gear Solid 4) but haven't got into them yet.
The updates are a bit annoying. That's one reason why I haven't played Metal Gear online yet is because you have to download a big update before you can play it. Some of the games install themselves as well does take a while. It's not a problem but it is there. The install on Metal Gear was fine though, as during the whole time it was installing ('bout ten minutes) Solid Snake was stood on screen smoking endless cigarettes whilst health warnings about smoking came up on the screen.
Games wise, my opinions so far are as follows:
GTA IV
Brilliant. Still GTA but amazing.
Metal Gear Solid 4
A fresh kind of madness. Looks amazing, makes no sense.
Dynasty Warriors: Gundam
Giant robots smashing each other up. Brilliant.
Burnout Paradise (borrowed)
Looks stunning, plays just as good. The open sandbox nature of the game should be confusing but isn't.
Heavenly Sword
Game is fun but the best thing about them is the cut-scenes. Directed by Andy Serkis, they are stunning. Shame the game can't quite keep up. Completed it as well.
Uncharted
Great action game, loads of fun, nice characters and looks great.
All in all, having a PS3 is ace.
Maybe it's because I've had a couple of years in the console wilderness but it's awesome having a PS3.
The last console I had was an X-Box and I swapped that for my Brother-in-Law's DS way back in 2006 so it's been a long time of handheld gaming.
I love having a Blu-Ray player, especially with my awesome new TV. I love having wireless controllers. I love being able to download demos off the PlayStation Store. I love being able to buy full games off the PlayStation Store. I love linking my PSP up to the PS3 via wireless.
I haven't got much into the online game stuff yet. I do have some online games (GTA IV and Metal Gear Solid 4) but haven't got into them yet.
The updates are a bit annoying. That's one reason why I haven't played Metal Gear online yet is because you have to download a big update before you can play it. Some of the games install themselves as well does take a while. It's not a problem but it is there. The install on Metal Gear was fine though, as during the whole time it was installing ('bout ten minutes) Solid Snake was stood on screen smoking endless cigarettes whilst health warnings about smoking came up on the screen.
Games wise, my opinions so far are as follows:
GTA IV
Brilliant. Still GTA but amazing.
Metal Gear Solid 4
A fresh kind of madness. Looks amazing, makes no sense.
Dynasty Warriors: Gundam
Giant robots smashing each other up. Brilliant.
Burnout Paradise (borrowed)
Looks stunning, plays just as good. The open sandbox nature of the game should be confusing but isn't.
Heavenly Sword
Game is fun but the best thing about them is the cut-scenes. Directed by Andy Serkis, they are stunning. Shame the game can't quite keep up. Completed it as well.
Uncharted
Great action game, loads of fun, nice characters and looks great.
All in all, having a PS3 is ace.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Film review: The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk @ IMDB
You know what? I like Ang Lee's Hulk film. Sure, it was goofy as hell but then so were the comics. I went to the cinema to see it and found it quite refreshing after the glut of X-Men inspired films with people wearing dark leather costumes and all that.
It was silly. And a bit talky.
Not any more though.
Hot on the heels of the brilliant Iron Man film we get a 'rebooted' version of the Hulk, this time with 20% less talking and lots more smashing. A lot more smashing.
The plot is, as ever, Bruce Banner on the run trying to not to get angry because when he does he turns green and smashes stuff whilst running from the army who want to turn the Hulk into a weapon. Those who have glanced at the Internet will recall that the current Mr Banner, Ed Norton, fell out with the studio because he wanted the film to be a 2 and a half hour character piece and the studio wanted a 90 minutes lean mean (green) action machine.
So what do we get?
We get a good film. It cracks along, the acting is good and there's no freaky transitions that draw you out of the film. It does brush over the character stuff, which will hopefully mean there will be a Director's Cut when it comes out on DVD.
You do, or at least I, want them to get deeper into the Hulk/Banner conflict. But this isn't possible because they don't let the Hulk speak. One of the defining aspects of the comic is that Hulk hates Banner. Hates him. Says it all the time. Not in the film and when you lose that you lose a bit of the dynamic between Banner and the Hulk.
This is what happens when the Hulk is based on the TV show and not Peter David's legendary run on the Hulk comic.
But the reason why you go see a Hulk film is not for the talking but for the smashing. Which is great. Really great. The Hulk looks great. Him smashing stuff looks great.
You also get the Hulk fighting a decent enemy in the Abomination. This is where some comic films suffer in that there is no decent villain for the hero to be let loose on (Superman Returns, I'm looking at you). But not here. Here we have a grumpy Tim Roth getting the Super Solider Serum and going toe to toe with the Hulk. That bit is great and is a good indication of what the Captain America film might be like. Then his transformation really begins and we get to see some excellent trashing of New York.
So. I don't have a problem with this film, it's not as good as Iron Man but better than any of the previous Marvel films (excluding Spider-Man). There are loads of Easter eggs for the fans, much like the end of Iron Man.
It bodes well for the future of Marvel's current crop of movies.
In a word? Smashing*.
*Sorry, but you knew that was coming.
You know what? I like Ang Lee's Hulk film. Sure, it was goofy as hell but then so were the comics. I went to the cinema to see it and found it quite refreshing after the glut of X-Men inspired films with people wearing dark leather costumes and all that.
It was silly. And a bit talky.
Not any more though.
Hot on the heels of the brilliant Iron Man film we get a 'rebooted' version of the Hulk, this time with 20% less talking and lots more smashing. A lot more smashing.
The plot is, as ever, Bruce Banner on the run trying to not to get angry because when he does he turns green and smashes stuff whilst running from the army who want to turn the Hulk into a weapon. Those who have glanced at the Internet will recall that the current Mr Banner, Ed Norton, fell out with the studio because he wanted the film to be a 2 and a half hour character piece and the studio wanted a 90 minutes lean mean (green) action machine.
So what do we get?
We get a good film. It cracks along, the acting is good and there's no freaky transitions that draw you out of the film. It does brush over the character stuff, which will hopefully mean there will be a Director's Cut when it comes out on DVD.
You do, or at least I, want them to get deeper into the Hulk/Banner conflict. But this isn't possible because they don't let the Hulk speak. One of the defining aspects of the comic is that Hulk hates Banner. Hates him. Says it all the time. Not in the film and when you lose that you lose a bit of the dynamic between Banner and the Hulk.
This is what happens when the Hulk is based on the TV show and not Peter David's legendary run on the Hulk comic.
But the reason why you go see a Hulk film is not for the talking but for the smashing. Which is great. Really great. The Hulk looks great. Him smashing stuff looks great.
You also get the Hulk fighting a decent enemy in the Abomination. This is where some comic films suffer in that there is no decent villain for the hero to be let loose on (Superman Returns, I'm looking at you). But not here. Here we have a grumpy Tim Roth getting the Super Solider Serum and going toe to toe with the Hulk. That bit is great and is a good indication of what the Captain America film might be like. Then his transformation really begins and we get to see some excellent trashing of New York.
So. I don't have a problem with this film, it's not as good as Iron Man but better than any of the previous Marvel films (excluding Spider-Man). There are loads of Easter eggs for the fans, much like the end of Iron Man.
It bodes well for the future of Marvel's current crop of movies.
In a word? Smashing*.
*Sorry, but you knew that was coming.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
DVD Collections I Need to Get Round to Completing At Some Point
1) John Carpenter
Looking pretty good so far but missing Dark Star, Halloween, Prince of Darkness and Memoirs of An Invisible Man. You may mock that last one but I went to the cinema to see it and I liked it. The music is awesome.
Seriously.
2) Alec Baldwin
I've got The Royal Tennenbaums which has the excellent narration from The World's Greatest Actor, also Glengarry Glen Ross with Baldwin making The World's Greatest Ever Cameo. Not enough. I need to buy a copy of The Departed, rather then keeping my friend Ryan's copy (even though he has had my copy of Army of Darkness for at least 4 years). Also Team America as I'm almost 73% sure he did the voice for his own puppet in that. And The Shadow.
What?
3) Batman
Topical, this one. Haven't a single Batman film. Bit poor that. Roll on the Blu-Ray releases.
4) Kevin Smith
Looking at my shelves, shockingly light on Smith DVDs. I've got the US version of Mallrats with the great commentary, Dogma, Clerks Animated and Clerks 2 but no Chasing Amy, no original Clerks. My geek head is hung in shame.
5) Criterion
For those in the know, Criterion make the best DVDs. The best. And my sole Criterion DVD is the Beastie Boys Video Collection. Hard Boiled and Seven Samurai are two Criterion DVDs that are going to have to go on the list.
But, I hear you ask, why DVD when you have a PS3 that plays Blu-Rays? Simple: not of all these are out on Blu-Ray and they're cheaper on DVD anyway. And the PS3 upscales the DVDs to HD anyway so they look great on my ace new TV.
Not as great as The Fountain on Blu-Ray but great nonetheless.
Looking pretty good so far but missing Dark Star, Halloween, Prince of Darkness and Memoirs of An Invisible Man. You may mock that last one but I went to the cinema to see it and I liked it. The music is awesome.
Seriously.
2) Alec Baldwin
I've got The Royal Tennenbaums which has the excellent narration from The World's Greatest Actor, also Glengarry Glen Ross with Baldwin making The World's Greatest Ever Cameo. Not enough. I need to buy a copy of The Departed, rather then keeping my friend Ryan's copy (even though he has had my copy of Army of Darkness for at least 4 years). Also Team America as I'm almost 73% sure he did the voice for his own puppet in that. And The Shadow.
What?
3) Batman
Topical, this one. Haven't a single Batman film. Bit poor that. Roll on the Blu-Ray releases.
4) Kevin Smith
Looking at my shelves, shockingly light on Smith DVDs. I've got the US version of Mallrats with the great commentary, Dogma, Clerks Animated and Clerks 2 but no Chasing Amy, no original Clerks. My geek head is hung in shame.
5) Criterion
For those in the know, Criterion make the best DVDs. The best. And my sole Criterion DVD is the Beastie Boys Video Collection. Hard Boiled and Seven Samurai are two Criterion DVDs that are going to have to go on the list.
But, I hear you ask, why DVD when you have a PS3 that plays Blu-Rays? Simple: not of all these are out on Blu-Ray and they're cheaper on DVD anyway. And the PS3 upscales the DVDs to HD anyway so they look great on my ace new TV.
Not as great as The Fountain on Blu-Ray but great nonetheless.
Forgot I could do this
Which probably explains the lack of posts this month.
That and the PS3. More on that later.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
This has been a good weekend
1) It was my birthday yesterday.
2) I got The Fountain on Blu-Ray. To play on my...
3) PlayStation 3. Oh yes.
4) But what's the point of having a PS3 without a nice TV to watch it one? So we bought one, a 32" LG Scarlet which will arrive Thursday.
All is good with the world.
2) I got The Fountain on Blu-Ray. To play on my...
3) PlayStation 3. Oh yes.
4) But what's the point of having a PS3 without a nice TV to watch it one? So we bought one, a 32" LG Scarlet which will arrive Thursday.
All is good with the world.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Film Review: Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull
Indiana Jones @ IMDB
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. It makes the past look better and sells tons of DVDs each year. But you can get stuck in the past and not appreciate what you have now.
Exhibit A: the new Indiana Jones film.
How long in the making? Oh, ages. Did we think it was going to happen? Probably not. The Star Wars Prequels didn't bode well.
But people forget that Steven Spielberg makes great popcorn films. And that's what Indiana Jones is: a great (the best?) popcorn film.
So it is that Indy returns, older, not necessarily wiser but still has a hat and a whip and some weird artifact to return to somewhere.
Start with the problems: that title. Sort of sums up the story really. Bit too long, bit too convoluted and a bit silly.
But if you go with it, it's fun. It cracks along and it's never far until the next great set piece. Harrison Ford, a little creaky admittedly, can still carry the film. Shia LeBouef doesn't let the side down despite being in the silliest part of the film. The support is great, even if Ray Winstone's part is a little underwritten. No problems with the cast at all.
The thing is this: it's not like the old Indy films. Yes, there is CGI. It's not, as Spielberg promised, an old school Indy film. Nor should it be, this is 2008. The old Indy films used all the cutting edge film making technology they could lay their hands on and so does this film. I don't have a problem with CGI if it's used properly and in this film it is. It enhances.
The silliness, however, does not enhance. And it does get silly. Silly really is the best word to describe it. The ending is very silly. Well, the bit before the end is silly, the bit after that is one of the most astonishing CGI sequences I've ever seen. The scale of it is amazing and is almost worth the entrance fee alone.
So: great film. As good as the old ones? In some ways yes, in some ways no. But it can stand beside them and hold it's own and that's all we could have asked for.
In a word? Cracking.
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing. It makes the past look better and sells tons of DVDs each year. But you can get stuck in the past and not appreciate what you have now.
Exhibit A: the new Indiana Jones film.
How long in the making? Oh, ages. Did we think it was going to happen? Probably not. The Star Wars Prequels didn't bode well.
But people forget that Steven Spielberg makes great popcorn films. And that's what Indiana Jones is: a great (the best?) popcorn film.
So it is that Indy returns, older, not necessarily wiser but still has a hat and a whip and some weird artifact to return to somewhere.
Start with the problems: that title. Sort of sums up the story really. Bit too long, bit too convoluted and a bit silly.
But if you go with it, it's fun. It cracks along and it's never far until the next great set piece. Harrison Ford, a little creaky admittedly, can still carry the film. Shia LeBouef doesn't let the side down despite being in the silliest part of the film. The support is great, even if Ray Winstone's part is a little underwritten. No problems with the cast at all.
The thing is this: it's not like the old Indy films. Yes, there is CGI. It's not, as Spielberg promised, an old school Indy film. Nor should it be, this is 2008. The old Indy films used all the cutting edge film making technology they could lay their hands on and so does this film. I don't have a problem with CGI if it's used properly and in this film it is. It enhances.
The silliness, however, does not enhance. And it does get silly. Silly really is the best word to describe it. The ending is very silly. Well, the bit before the end is silly, the bit after that is one of the most astonishing CGI sequences I've ever seen. The scale of it is amazing and is almost worth the entrance fee alone.
So: great film. As good as the old ones? In some ways yes, in some ways no. But it can stand beside them and hold it's own and that's all we could have asked for.
In a word? Cracking.
No Travolta = The Win
Looks good. Not sure about the spinny chandelier thing but, hey, I'm not going to argue with The Punisher.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The next big thing?
J J Abrams's new TV show, Fringe, will debut later in the year with a pilot episode costing $10 million.
$10 million? For a pilot?!
$10 million? For a pilot?!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
They snuck that one out.
The teaser for The Spirit film has been released.
Might not be on your radar, but considering it's written and directed by Frank "300, Sin City" Miller is probably should be.
Might not be on your radar, but considering it's written and directed by Frank "300, Sin City" Miller is probably should be.
Film review: Iron Man
Iron Man @ IMDB
I love comics. I love movies. Therefore, I love comic book movies.
So if we go from Blade (taking that as the beginning of the renaissance of the comic book movie genre) it would have to go 30 Days of Night, X-Men 2, Sin City, Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2 in ascending order. Where does Iron Man fit in?
So, weapons manufacturer x war zone + sharpnel in heart = painful dose of reality.
Alright, that's too simple. Robert Downey Jr is Tony Stark of Stark Industries, the weapon manufacturer for the US military livin' the high life. Until, when showing off his weapons in Afghanistan, he gets attacked by terrorists using his own weapons leaving him with his heart powered by a car battery. One big pile of spare parts later, we get Iron Man.
First off performances: Robert Downey Jr is the best casting in a comic book film since Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He fills Tony Stark and holds the film together. The character could easily have come off as smug but Downey Jr adds a streak of humor that keeps everything going. Gweneth Paltrow as the love interest does her best with an underwritten role, the scenery is only there so Jeff Bridges can chew on it so well.
But that's not what we're here for. We're here for a man in a robot suit beating the crap out of stuff. And in that respect, the film does not fail. Remember Transformers? The best special effects ever?
Beaten. The film looks so real, all the lines are blurred, it's faultless. It's amazing.
So it works. The story is great, the scenes when Stark is refining the armor are great, the dialogue is great. It's great!
Does it beat Spider-Man 2 as the best comic book film ever?
In a word? Yes.
I love comics. I love movies. Therefore, I love comic book movies.
So if we go from Blade (taking that as the beginning of the renaissance of the comic book movie genre) it would have to go 30 Days of Night, X-Men 2, Sin City, Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2 in ascending order. Where does Iron Man fit in?
So, weapons manufacturer x war zone + sharpnel in heart = painful dose of reality.
Alright, that's too simple. Robert Downey Jr is Tony Stark of Stark Industries, the weapon manufacturer for the US military livin' the high life. Until, when showing off his weapons in Afghanistan, he gets attacked by terrorists using his own weapons leaving him with his heart powered by a car battery. One big pile of spare parts later, we get Iron Man.
First off performances: Robert Downey Jr is the best casting in a comic book film since Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He fills Tony Stark and holds the film together. The character could easily have come off as smug but Downey Jr adds a streak of humor that keeps everything going. Gweneth Paltrow as the love interest does her best with an underwritten role, the scenery is only there so Jeff Bridges can chew on it so well.
But that's not what we're here for. We're here for a man in a robot suit beating the crap out of stuff. And in that respect, the film does not fail. Remember Transformers? The best special effects ever?
Beaten. The film looks so real, all the lines are blurred, it's faultless. It's amazing.
So it works. The story is great, the scenes when Stark is refining the armor are great, the dialogue is great. It's great!
Does it beat Spider-Man 2 as the best comic book film ever?
In a word? Yes.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Suddenly Batman Forever seems a looong time ago.
So a picture of Two-Face from the upcoming Batman Begins sequel has leaked onto the web:
Yeesh. That Joker picture looks like Sunshine and Rainbows compare to that.
Full trailer is now up online as well. Still looking awesome.
Yeesh. That Joker picture looks like Sunshine and Rainbows compare to that.
Full trailer is now up online as well. Still looking awesome.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Things I Should Have Blogged About if I Didn't Watch TV
1) The viral marketing that Marvel did for their Secret Invasion crossover.
2) The complete lack of any decent film release at the cinema.
3) The release of GTA IV and the lack of it in my house.
4) The new Hulk trailer.
5) How awesome The Doyouinverts are.
2) The complete lack of any decent film release at the cinema.
3) The release of GTA IV and the lack of it in my house.
4) The new Hulk trailer.
5) How awesome The Doyouinverts are.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Hello
Blog has been a bit sparse over the last couple of weeks because I've been driving my ass off getting ready for my next driving test.
Which I failed.
For the third time.
So, one one hand I still can't (legally) drive but I will be blogging more.
Great.
Which I failed.
For the third time.
So, one one hand I still can't (legally) drive but I will be blogging more.
Great.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Me likey special boxes
Look at that: Cloverfield DVD in a special box. Oh, we like that. We like that a lot.
Until we read the release date. June? JUNE?
Just has a though: Father's Day. Time to drop some hints.
Until we read the release date. June? JUNE?
Just has a though: Father's Day. Time to drop some hints.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Heard of this one?
Directed by Ben Stiller? Co-written by Ethan Cohen?
Sign me up!
(This, by the way, is the film Owen Wilson should have been in but wasn't due all that trying to kill himself business. Nevermind eh?)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Film Review: Diary of The Dead
Diary of The Dead @ IMDB
So, zombies are cool again. What to do next? Let's, oh, I don't know, get the Granddaddy of Zombie films to make another one.
George A Romero (or glass face if you've seen any recent pictures of him) made Night of The Living Dead for virtually no money, massive success, heralded the extreme horror films of the seventies, birthed an entire sub-genre, made some more zombie films, dropped off the radar a bit. In case you didn't know.
So what do we have here? A re-imagining of Night of The Living Dead, set in contemporary times. Only instead of a farm house in the middle of nowhere it's a group of student film-makers trying to get home. All this is seen from the students perspective as they film their journey.
So far, so Cloverfield. But the difference here is we're watching an actual finished documentary by one of the students. So you get voice-over and music and editing. When this is explained at the beginning, I groaned a bit. Inserting the music seems forced and a bit silly. It helps when about half way through the student filming the action sits down and edits a sequence you saw a few minutes previously. Very web 2.0.
And that's the main thrust of the film, a commentary of todays citizen journalism, weblogs (hello), YouTube, all of that. Social commentary has always been a staple of Romero's film but whilst it does sometimes seems forced and a bit trite at least it's trying to say something. This immediately lifts it above the normal torture porn fare you get these days.
But, nevermind all that high brow nonsense, bring on the zombies! And Romero does and they fuck people up and people fuck them up in various imaginative ways.
Problems: the students are a bit vague and not that interesting. The film feels like it's never building to a climax. The best character in the film is introduced and killed off in five minutes.
But it's good and solid and scary and bleak as anything. Very bleak. The last scene? Bleak.
In a word? Bleak.
So, zombies are cool again. What to do next? Let's, oh, I don't know, get the Granddaddy of Zombie films to make another one.
George A Romero (or glass face if you've seen any recent pictures of him) made Night of The Living Dead for virtually no money, massive success, heralded the extreme horror films of the seventies, birthed an entire sub-genre, made some more zombie films, dropped off the radar a bit. In case you didn't know.
So what do we have here? A re-imagining of Night of The Living Dead, set in contemporary times. Only instead of a farm house in the middle of nowhere it's a group of student film-makers trying to get home. All this is seen from the students perspective as they film their journey.
So far, so Cloverfield. But the difference here is we're watching an actual finished documentary by one of the students. So you get voice-over and music and editing. When this is explained at the beginning, I groaned a bit. Inserting the music seems forced and a bit silly. It helps when about half way through the student filming the action sits down and edits a sequence you saw a few minutes previously. Very web 2.0.
And that's the main thrust of the film, a commentary of todays citizen journalism, weblogs (hello), YouTube, all of that. Social commentary has always been a staple of Romero's film but whilst it does sometimes seems forced and a bit trite at least it's trying to say something. This immediately lifts it above the normal torture porn fare you get these days.
But, nevermind all that high brow nonsense, bring on the zombies! And Romero does and they fuck people up and people fuck them up in various imaginative ways.
Problems: the students are a bit vague and not that interesting. The film feels like it's never building to a climax. The best character in the film is introduced and killed off in five minutes.
But it's good and solid and scary and bleak as anything. Very bleak. The last scene? Bleak.
In a word? Bleak.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Looks pretty Incredible to me
Hulk trailer now online and it looks pretty cool.
My main bug bear with the Ang Lee Hulk was the hoops it tried to jump through to explain away the Hulk, rather than just saying "Look, it was gamma radiation. Okay?". It seems to be taking a lot of inspiration from the Ultimate version of the Hulk, which can only be a good thing.
Looks like with this and Iron Man it's going to be a Marvel-ous summer of films.
What?
My main bug bear with the Ang Lee Hulk was the hoops it tried to jump through to explain away the Hulk, rather than just saying "Look, it was gamma radiation. Okay?". It seems to be taking a lot of inspiration from the Ultimate version of the Hulk, which can only be a good thing.
Looks like with this and Iron Man it's going to be a Marvel-ous summer of films.
What?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Isn't one of them a lady man now?
I am quite looking forward to this. Yes, the last two Matrix films (as we all know) sucked all kinds of ways but this looks interesting. It looks like the Wachowski's aren't under the pressure the two sequels must have put them under and are just making a film they want to make. It looks mental and John Goodman has the 'tache of the Gods. Worth the entrance fee alone.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
About time too.
Looking forward to it.
But am I the only one that likes the old Ang Lee Hulk film? It wasn't amazing but it was still pretty good!
But am I the only one that likes the old Ang Lee Hulk film? It wasn't amazing but it was still pretty good!
Film review: There Will Be Blood
There Will Be Blood @ IMDB
A film about the American obsession with oil, eh? How politically relevant. But let's forget the politics and look at the film.
What we have is the story of a silver miner who becomes an Oil Man, a man who controls oil fields across America and what he does along the way.
Good Lord. There are Movies and there are Films and then there is Cinema. This is Cinema, capital C. It looks astounding. There are scenes from this film that will be played forever.
Daniel Day-Lewis is, surprise surprise, astounding. He's a force of nature at the centre of the film. The real surprise is that everyone else is just as good. Day-Lewis' nemesis in the film, a young Preacher, goes to to toe with him and it makes for some riveting scenes.
It really is hard to put into words how great this film is but also how different it is. It feels like it has no structure, at least not the usual three act structure. It just is. Things happen. People say things.
There's nothing like it.
The only thing that disappointed me was the lack of a gratuitous Luiz Guzman cameo.
In a word? Astounding.
A film about the American obsession with oil, eh? How politically relevant. But let's forget the politics and look at the film.
What we have is the story of a silver miner who becomes an Oil Man, a man who controls oil fields across America and what he does along the way.
Good Lord. There are Movies and there are Films and then there is Cinema. This is Cinema, capital C. It looks astounding. There are scenes from this film that will be played forever.
Daniel Day-Lewis is, surprise surprise, astounding. He's a force of nature at the centre of the film. The real surprise is that everyone else is just as good. Day-Lewis' nemesis in the film, a young Preacher, goes to to toe with him and it makes for some riveting scenes.
It really is hard to put into words how great this film is but also how different it is. It feels like it has no structure, at least not the usual three act structure. It just is. Things happen. People say things.
There's nothing like it.
The only thing that disappointed me was the lack of a gratuitous Luiz Guzman cameo.
In a word? Astounding.
Film review: Rambo
Rambo @ IMDB
I was born in 1980. I was raised on cheesy action films. Commando is a work of art. My video shelf was adorned with Schwarzenegger and Willis and blood and cops who got the job done nevermind the rules. I remember the days when mainstream American cinema all looked to inspiration from Lethal Weapon.
But times have changed. The bloodthirsty heroes from my past are gone, just look at Die Hard 4.0. John McClane was neutered, not a swear word passed his lips and barely a brutal death scene was seen.
When things are this desperate, you need someone special. Someone built for war. A weapon.
You need Rambo.
Let's get this out of the way: being honest, the film isn't great. Sketched characters, flimsy plot, villain wasn't great. But I haven't seen a film like this in my life.
A bold statement perhaps. The immediate comparison is the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. We're talking heads flying off, guts spilled out, arms lopped off violence. Nothing is as violent as this film. Nothing.
Let's go back to Commando. Remember the end? When Arnie stood there and mowed down a South American army with one gun? And remember the soldiers would kind of stand there and shake and fall down?
This film is that sequence but done properly. I have not experienced anything as visceral and astoundingly insanely violent as this film.
Plot? Who cares? It's all an excuse for people to be lined up in front and Rambo to get brutally murdered. Stallone is great, a hulking presence, a foreboding presence. You see him and you just know people are going to get fucked up.
And they do.
In a word? Glorious.
I was born in 1980. I was raised on cheesy action films. Commando is a work of art. My video shelf was adorned with Schwarzenegger and Willis and blood and cops who got the job done nevermind the rules. I remember the days when mainstream American cinema all looked to inspiration from Lethal Weapon.
But times have changed. The bloodthirsty heroes from my past are gone, just look at Die Hard 4.0. John McClane was neutered, not a swear word passed his lips and barely a brutal death scene was seen.
When things are this desperate, you need someone special. Someone built for war. A weapon.
You need Rambo.
Let's get this out of the way: being honest, the film isn't great. Sketched characters, flimsy plot, villain wasn't great. But I haven't seen a film like this in my life.
A bold statement perhaps. The immediate comparison is the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. We're talking heads flying off, guts spilled out, arms lopped off violence. Nothing is as violent as this film. Nothing.
Let's go back to Commando. Remember the end? When Arnie stood there and mowed down a South American army with one gun? And remember the soldiers would kind of stand there and shake and fall down?
This film is that sequence but done properly. I have not experienced anything as visceral and astoundingly insanely violent as this film.
Plot? Who cares? It's all an excuse for people to be lined up in front and Rambo to get brutally murdered. Stallone is great, a hulking presence, a foreboding presence. You see him and you just know people are going to get fucked up.
And they do.
In a word? Glorious.
Film review: Juno
Before we begin, learned colleagues, an apology for the backlog. Several film reviews will now come flying at you like Cleopatra. Sorry for the delay.
Juno @ IMDB
Okay. The main thing to wrap your head around is this:
This is a film about teenage pregnancy that was a smash hit in America.
Several things there don't make sense. The issues touched upon in this film usually gets people out with their placards and wearing their protest trousers.
But no. This was a genuine smash hit that ended up being (when I saw it) Oscar nominated. Why is this?
Great script. Plain and simple.
You've got your lady teenager and your boy teenager and they get it on and she gets pregnant and then she finds a couple to adopt her baby and off you go.
Simple idea, great characters, great dialogue, good performances. Simple as that. You could break it down and everything but there's no need: it's a great film. Highlights:
1) Ellen Page. The film hinges on her performance, an annoying person here would bring everything down. But she isn't and she doesn't.
2) J K Simmons, tired of stealing Spider-Man films, moves to the indy circuit.
3) Great soundtrack.
It deserves all of it's plaudits. Well done all round.
In a word? Great.
Juno @ IMDB
Okay. The main thing to wrap your head around is this:
This is a film about teenage pregnancy that was a smash hit in America.
Several things there don't make sense. The issues touched upon in this film usually gets people out with their placards and wearing their protest trousers.
But no. This was a genuine smash hit that ended up being (when I saw it) Oscar nominated. Why is this?
Great script. Plain and simple.
You've got your lady teenager and your boy teenager and they get it on and she gets pregnant and then she finds a couple to adopt her baby and off you go.
Simple idea, great characters, great dialogue, good performances. Simple as that. You could break it down and everything but there's no need: it's a great film. Highlights:
1) Ellen Page. The film hinges on her performance, an annoying person here would bring everything down. But she isn't and she doesn't.
2) J K Simmons, tired of stealing Spider-Man films, moves to the indy circuit.
3) Great soundtrack.
It deserves all of it's plaudits. Well done all round.
In a word? Great.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
PS3 ID
