One of my favourite films is The Crow starring Brandon Lee. I haven't seen it for a while because my original copy is on VHS and my old player isn't working any more. But I recently spotted the DVD for nearly nothing... so of course I bought it.
Everything conspires to make this the most brilliant dark film ever. Obviously the tragic accidental death of Brandon Lee during filming plays its part; but every performance is good, the music is fantastic, the technical stuff and the director and all the other people who make films, they all did a great job.
You can analyse it all you like, but ultimately you can tell that this was a film that only got finished because the people making it cared enough to finish it. Cynics might say that the money men expected to make a profit from the notoriety of Lee's death. That might be true. But I bet most of the people who worked on this film wanted it to be great for Brandon.
Sunday 30 March 2014
Saturday 22 March 2014
The World's End
I expected a lot from The World's End and was slightly disappointed. Part 3 of the hardly ever referenced Cornetto Trilogy is less funny and less exciting than both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.
It's hard to put my finger on why. The characters are similar, the writing style is similar, the direction is similar... maybe that is the problem, it's quite like the other two films, so this time we've already seen all this stuff?
There's so little that's new and interesting. Sorry guys. I wanted to really like this. But it is just OK.
It's hard to put my finger on why. The characters are similar, the writing style is similar, the direction is similar... maybe that is the problem, it's quite like the other two films, so this time we've already seen all this stuff?
There's so little that's new and interesting. Sorry guys. I wanted to really like this. But it is just OK.
Friday 21 March 2014
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
I haven't read The Hunger Games books, but my younger relatives have so I end up watching the films.
The second film The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is pretty close to the book (I'm told) and progresses the story nicely from the first part. Being a cynical old person I thought it might just be more of the same, but it isn't.
Jennifer Lawrence is great again as the lead. Josh Hutcherson is the wonderfully wooden gooseberry... as he's supposed to be, I think. Woody Harrelson is perfect as the drunk-but-kind mentor. Pleasantly surprised to see another good turn from the often under-rated Jena Malone as the only returning tribute to openly express the anger you'd expect them all to feel.
It is a long film (especially for kids) at 146 minutes; but the time flies by, which is a good sign. In fact I was rather surprised when it finished. But this is a middle film of a trilogy, so you are always going to be left dangling.
Enjoyable film; especially if watched with young fans of the books.
The second film The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is pretty close to the book (I'm told) and progresses the story nicely from the first part. Being a cynical old person I thought it might just be more of the same, but it isn't.
Jennifer Lawrence is great again as the lead. Josh Hutcherson is the wonderfully wooden gooseberry... as he's supposed to be, I think. Woody Harrelson is perfect as the drunk-but-kind mentor. Pleasantly surprised to see another good turn from the often under-rated Jena Malone as the only returning tribute to openly express the anger you'd expect them all to feel.
It is a long film (especially for kids) at 146 minutes; but the time flies by, which is a good sign. In fact I was rather surprised when it finished. But this is a middle film of a trilogy, so you are always going to be left dangling.
Enjoyable film; especially if watched with young fans of the books.
Saturday 15 March 2014
Thor: The Dark World
I've been a Marvel Comics fan since I was a kid, so I'm always going to give these movies a chance. Thor is one of my least favourite characters though... having a Norse God flying around in 20th century America always seemed a bit dumb to me.
So it is probably a good move to set the Thor movies mostly in Asgard and its related otherworldly realms.
Thor: The Dark World is mostly a good action romp. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, Tom Hiddleston is even better as Loki and there are plenty of decent supporting performances.
Unfortunately, despite having a great actor to play the bad guy (Christopher Eccleston is one of my favourite actors of all time) and some great effects, the Malekith character is woefully under-developed. Eccleston does brilliantly with what he's given (as usual) but he's not got a lot to work with... we just get shown that Malekith wants to make the Universe dark... and that's about it... he's a dark elf, he likes the dark, that's about it.
Accepting the weak plot, we can just enjoy the efforts of Thor and friends to battle the baddies. Don't ask what the stick things are that the not-actually-mad scientist makes to tackle the Aether... and don't ask what the Aether is (there's a clue at the end during the credits).
So it is probably a good move to set the Thor movies mostly in Asgard and its related otherworldly realms.
Thor: The Dark World is mostly a good action romp. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, Tom Hiddleston is even better as Loki and there are plenty of decent supporting performances.
Unfortunately, despite having a great actor to play the bad guy (Christopher Eccleston is one of my favourite actors of all time) and some great effects, the Malekith character is woefully under-developed. Eccleston does brilliantly with what he's given (as usual) but he's not got a lot to work with... we just get shown that Malekith wants to make the Universe dark... and that's about it... he's a dark elf, he likes the dark, that's about it.
Accepting the weak plot, we can just enjoy the efforts of Thor and friends to battle the baddies. Don't ask what the stick things are that the not-actually-mad scientist makes to tackle the Aether... and don't ask what the Aether is (there's a clue at the end during the credits).
Sunday 9 March 2014
Percy Jackson and The Sea Of Monsters
I really liked the first Percy Jackson film and wondered where the next one might go. There are quite a few books, aren't there? I'm not sure... anyway, Greek Mythology in a modern setting works nicely for me so I thought Percy Jackson and The Sea of Monsters would be worth a try.
Firstly, the title is a bit misleading. Unlike the first film which actually was about a Lightning Theft, The Sea of Monsters doesn't really have a lot to do with sea monsters...
Never mind. We still have Percy, Annabeth and Grover as our 1/2 Olympian equivalents of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley. There are plenty of new characters too (and some of the old ones are played by different actors) but for me Tyson is easily the best; as I didn't think the competition between Percy and Clarisse worked nearly as well as it could have done.
The story ticks along nicely. There are some funny bits. There is action. You can guess what is going to happen at the end quite easily. It's all quite light and fun.
Feels a lot like a "middle" film. I assume there will be a third, or more. Enjoyed it.
Firstly, the title is a bit misleading. Unlike the first film which actually was about a Lightning Theft, The Sea of Monsters doesn't really have a lot to do with sea monsters...
Never mind. We still have Percy, Annabeth and Grover as our 1/2 Olympian equivalents of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley. There are plenty of new characters too (and some of the old ones are played by different actors) but for me Tyson is easily the best; as I didn't think the competition between Percy and Clarisse worked nearly as well as it could have done.
The story ticks along nicely. There are some funny bits. There is action. You can guess what is going to happen at the end quite easily. It's all quite light and fun.
Feels a lot like a "middle" film. I assume there will be a third, or more. Enjoyed it.
Saturday 8 March 2014
Source Code (what happened to...)
SPOILER ALERT: this is not a review of the movie, it is a discussion of a specific plot point.
I just watched the movie Source Code again and one thing struck me that I had missed before. What happened to the school teacher in the parallel world?
A lot is made in the movie of the fact that the military in our world believe that the Source Code is not a real world, it is just a replay of what already happened in our world. The soldier doesn't believe this, he is convinced that the Source Code is a real, parallel, world.
If the military are right then there's no problem. But if the soldier is right then what is happening to the school teacher every time the soldier takes over his body? Is his consciousness just vanishing?
At the end of the movie it does look like the soldier is right. His world carries on. So what has happened to the school teacher? Is he possessed by the soldier for the rest of his life? What about his friends and family that the soldier doesn't even know?
Suddenly I thought "Aha. Maybe his world didn't carry on. Maybe he did die when his life support was turned off and the end of the movie is his brain just running down... carrying on the fantasy as long as it could."
But there is a problem with this interpretation: the soldier sends his handler a message to prove that the parallel worlds are real and that he exists there as himself. Then again, he sends the message before he dies, so maybe the parallel worlds are real but only for that short time period. Either way, if the parallel worlds are real then the school teacher gets screwed somehow (pun intended).
After all this reflection I think it was a mistake to have the soldier sending the message to his handler. It would have been better to just leave the question open as to whether the worlds were real or not. As it stands, in trying to find a happy ending, we are left with the unpalatable suggestion that the poor school teacher just got wiped out of existence.
I just watched the movie Source Code again and one thing struck me that I had missed before. What happened to the school teacher in the parallel world?
A lot is made in the movie of the fact that the military in our world believe that the Source Code is not a real world, it is just a replay of what already happened in our world. The soldier doesn't believe this, he is convinced that the Source Code is a real, parallel, world.
If the military are right then there's no problem. But if the soldier is right then what is happening to the school teacher every time the soldier takes over his body? Is his consciousness just vanishing?
At the end of the movie it does look like the soldier is right. His world carries on. So what has happened to the school teacher? Is he possessed by the soldier for the rest of his life? What about his friends and family that the soldier doesn't even know?
Suddenly I thought "Aha. Maybe his world didn't carry on. Maybe he did die when his life support was turned off and the end of the movie is his brain just running down... carrying on the fantasy as long as it could."
But there is a problem with this interpretation: the soldier sends his handler a message to prove that the parallel worlds are real and that he exists there as himself. Then again, he sends the message before he dies, so maybe the parallel worlds are real but only for that short time period. Either way, if the parallel worlds are real then the school teacher gets screwed somehow (pun intended).
After all this reflection I think it was a mistake to have the soldier sending the message to his handler. It would have been better to just leave the question open as to whether the worlds were real or not. As it stands, in trying to find a happy ending, we are left with the unpalatable suggestion that the poor school teacher just got wiped out of existence.
Wednesday 5 March 2014
Kick-Ass 2
It is rare for a sequel to be better than the original movie. So it should come as no surprise that Kick-Ass 2 is not as good as Kick-Ass. It is OK though.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Chloë Grace Moretz are both good again as Dave (Kick-Ass) and Mindy (Hit-Girl). This time director Jeff Wadlow steers the main characters down a slightly different path which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
The token big name actor replacing the brilliant (in Kick-Ass) Nicholas Cage is Jim Carrey as Colonel Stars and Stripes. Despite sometimes coming over as The Riddler turned good guy, he puts in a solid turn that outshines all the other minor characters put together, with the exception of Donald Faison's Doctor Gravity, who is hilarious.
The real problem for Kick-Ass 2 are the bad guys. In the original, Chris D'Amico was an amusing adjunct to the real criminals. Here he is supposed to be the main man... but it doesn't work. In fact all the bad guys are rubbish. And not rubbish in an amusingly incompetent way. They are just not very funny or threatening... they all lack any presence.
Worth a look if you enjoyed the original. Could have been a lot better.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Chloë Grace Moretz are both good again as Dave (Kick-Ass) and Mindy (Hit-Girl). This time director Jeff Wadlow steers the main characters down a slightly different path which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
The token big name actor replacing the brilliant (in Kick-Ass) Nicholas Cage is Jim Carrey as Colonel Stars and Stripes. Despite sometimes coming over as The Riddler turned good guy, he puts in a solid turn that outshines all the other minor characters put together, with the exception of Donald Faison's Doctor Gravity, who is hilarious.
The real problem for Kick-Ass 2 are the bad guys. In the original, Chris D'Amico was an amusing adjunct to the real criminals. Here he is supposed to be the main man... but it doesn't work. In fact all the bad guys are rubbish. And not rubbish in an amusingly incompetent way. They are just not very funny or threatening... they all lack any presence.
Worth a look if you enjoyed the original. Could have been a lot better.
Saturday 1 March 2014
Amazon buries LoveFilm Instant
Amazon have always been behind the scenes at LoveFilm, but over the last year or so they have been coming forward and have now completely taken over.
LoveFilm by Post remains as a brand, but LoveFilm Instant (the streaming service) is dead and buried... subscribers can opt for Amazon's own Prime Video service if they want it (but I don't).
I'm in two minds about "losing" the streaming service. I never asked for it in the first place. Having been a by Post subscriber for many years before streaming was possible, it just appeared one day as a free extra.
On the one hand, it was never a very good service for me. Or rather, it quickly became a not very good service. Initially I remember being quite impressed. But then LoveFilm stopped supporting Linux and you could only stream on Windows computers (which I don't have). Much later, when I got a Nintendo Wii U, I tried it again and it was OK... but only during the week. Even though I have a 60Mbps connection the buffering and drop-out at peak times was unacceptable.
On the other hand, I did use it (off peak) to try out a lot of foreign-language films that I probably wouldn't have risked renting. Knowing I could just give up after 1/2 an hour made it feel low-risk... even though I didn't actually bail many times. But the streaming selection is quite limited and I eventually felt that I'd probably seen all the decent foreign films they had.
So now I'm back to LoveFilm by Post where I started. It's actually cheaper than it was, so I guess I was paying for that free streaming service after all (stupid to think I wasn't). I may watch a few fewer films than I did... or I may try to get more disks if that becomes an option. Either way, I wont miss video streaming.
LoveFilm by Post remains as a brand, but LoveFilm Instant (the streaming service) is dead and buried... subscribers can opt for Amazon's own Prime Video service if they want it (but I don't).
I'm in two minds about "losing" the streaming service. I never asked for it in the first place. Having been a by Post subscriber for many years before streaming was possible, it just appeared one day as a free extra.
On the one hand, it was never a very good service for me. Or rather, it quickly became a not very good service. Initially I remember being quite impressed. But then LoveFilm stopped supporting Linux and you could only stream on Windows computers (which I don't have). Much later, when I got a Nintendo Wii U, I tried it again and it was OK... but only during the week. Even though I have a 60Mbps connection the buffering and drop-out at peak times was unacceptable.
On the other hand, I did use it (off peak) to try out a lot of foreign-language films that I probably wouldn't have risked renting. Knowing I could just give up after 1/2 an hour made it feel low-risk... even though I didn't actually bail many times. But the streaming selection is quite limited and I eventually felt that I'd probably seen all the decent foreign films they had.
So now I'm back to LoveFilm by Post where I started. It's actually cheaper than it was, so I guess I was paying for that free streaming service after all (stupid to think I wasn't). I may watch a few fewer films than I did... or I may try to get more disks if that becomes an option. Either way, I wont miss video streaming.
Man Of Steel
If you can switch off the right parts of your brain and just enjoy super-powered alien beings knocking seven bells out of each other, then you will like Man Of Steel.
I just about managed it. The effects are amazing and there's a lot of action. But the plot is both stupid and a long, long way from the comic book, which bothered me.
I just about managed it. The effects are amazing and there's a lot of action. But the plot is both stupid and a long, long way from the comic book, which bothered me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)