Haven't been to the cinema for a while so I figured I owed it to myself.
The three films that I decided to take on were "Faster" which I didn't know anything about apart from that it has Dwayne Johnson in it and so was unsure about what to expect. "The Lincoln Lawyer" for which I had seen the trailer numerous times and expected very little from and "Submarine" which I had read about and expected to be something great.
So, "Faster" wasn't entirely terrible. It's not something that you'd watch over and over again but maybe a few times spread out. Pretty much just another badass revenge movie in which Dwayne Johnson's "Driver", on release from his prison sentence sets out to end everyone who aided in the killing of his brother. He's mostly remorseless and walks around offing people with a stern look and not saying much. There's a bit of compassion thrown in to show that even hard mother fuckers can have a bit of humanity about them.
While I don't generally think that Dwayne is a bad actor (look at The fucking Rock!) I think that only having a small number of lines in this film works for him as The Terminator works for Schwarzenegger.
I didn't really like seeing Billy Bob Thornton as a dope fiend loser but he earns likeability as the film goes on.
A fairly enjoyable slice of revenge/action that, considering its story as well as other recent films that fit into this category isn't really all that bad. The ending was a bit stupid but I've seen worse.
3/5
"The Lincoln Lawyer". I think I got this pretty much figured before seeing it. Basically, not that good. Matthew McConnaughey just isn't enjoyable to watch. His character was really smug and generally just unlikeable which I think is good for McConnaughey because the role lends itself to him but bad for everyone else. I didn't find the story all that interesting in itself and the mostly bad acting doesn't help.
McConnaughey plays Michael Haller, a lawyer who works out of the back of his Lincoln. He takes on a case, defending a young man who claims to be innocent of the crime he stands accused of. Things start to unravel and Haller gets in some shit.
One thing that I think could have been better developed was Haller's relationship with his family. He's broken up with his daughter's mother but they're trying to make it work. It just doesn't come across all that well. This part of the story should have had more screen time.
So with some underwhelming acting, McConnaughey's generally unpleasant demeanor and a fairly badly told story, the best thing about this film was William H. Macy's hair.
Another generous 2/5
On to "Submarine".
I'll start by saying that everyone everywhere should watch it. I expected it to be good but I think it was even better. It's what you'd expect coming from Richard Ayoade and yet still pleasantly surprising.
It's quirky but not in a pretentious, irritating, "Zooey Deshanel" sort of way. In a loveable way. It takes on certain passages of youth and the feeling that everything that happens now will determine the rest of your life but it manages to stay on the right side of the border between relating to the characters & their struggles and despising the characters because they can't possibly have enough life experience to have so much sadness in them.
The first kisses and the awkward hugging between Oliver (Craig Roberts) and Jordana (Yasmin Paige) are dead on. Sally Hawkins and Noah Taylor really sell the "dysfunctional parents" routine and have between them have more than a couple of brilliant interchanges with Roberts. Before this, the most memorable role that I can think of for Paddy Considine was in "Dead Man's Shoes". In "Submarine" he takes on the other side of the spectrum and nails it as a ludicrous mystic hippie type.
On top of all this, it was showing in screen 11 which I think I've only been in once before. It's small, there's tonnes more leg room and everything looked considerably clearer for some reason. 11 is now my favourite screen. Just so you know.
All in all, this is a fantastic film. One which I plan to see at least a couple more times this week as I'm sure it will be taken off soon for something lame but saleable.
Submarine gets from me as well as many other reviewers, I'm sure, 5/5
A couple of trailers I'd like to mention:
"The Source Code" looks daft. Jake Gyllenhall has lost his appeal. I really can't imagine it being very good and it seems a pretty stupid, "grasping at straws" attempt at a film.
"Your Highness" is looking okay. I don't want to make too much of a judgement just from the trailer because I think that they probably passed up a lot of stuff from the trailer for more obvious laughs. I just wish Zooey Deschannel wasn't in it.
"Arthur" looks appauling. I really can't understand why people like Russel Brand so much. And what is more perplexing is why Helen Mirren is in such a terrible film with Russel Brand. Surely she's above this? I expect I'll be avoiding this one. I'll just have to hope that Brand's role in "Tempest" is much much smaller and easily ignored.
So. There it is.
Bye!
Saturday 26 March 2011
Sunday 13 March 2011
"I am going to kill you and then I am going to defile your corpse."
I'm a little behind because of my hectic schedule but here is my latest addition from my trip to the cinema on Friday the 11th of March.
This little trip found me watching "Rango" again (see previous post), "Battle Los Angeles" and "Drive Angry" (finally).
So "Battle Los Angeles". I kind of had some high expectations when I saw the trailer for this a few months ago. I suppose I could say I was a little disappointed but only slightly and only because I was probably expecting too much.
It's a good film and it's enjoyable, if a little drawn out but it's fairly predictable. It takes an interesting twist on the war movie what with it being a fight against an unknown enemy from another world taking place in LA but it doesn't really get much further than that and eventually you're just watching another war film. It also produces some cliche character introductions with young guy with a pregnant wife and "1 day from retirement" guy both make a showing.
Aaron Eckhart deals with the predictability well and pulls off a safe performance. Topping the rest of the cast but without giving the role more than it needed. As ever, I think that Eckhart is a solid choice with whom you can't go much wrong.
Michelle Rodriquez. I don't know where to start. I just don't like her. She always has the same role. She thinks she's great. She isn't. I'm glad that she only entered in about half way through the story but I'd forgotten about her by that point and when she arrived on screen I was awash with disappointment. She was annoying me within her first 10 seconds on screen. I thought she died at one point but then she got up. I'll stop there. I think I got my point across.
A few words about the camera work. Hand held as you'd expect but maybe a little too shaky. Sure, it's a warzone and a shaky hand held camera certainly adds that sense of realism but a couple of shots were just unpleasant. I won't say much because I don't want to spoil the story but there's an over head shot which seems really unnecesary and unprofessional and a later shot which is just a bit all over the place and a bit disorientating.
All in all, a decent watch but only a little above average. I'm going to give it a 3/5.
I'd also like to compare it to another couple of alien invasion movies from the last 6 months or so. "Monsters" and "Skyline". "Battle Los Angeles" sits comfortably inbetween these two films.
"Monsters" is up top with a story that's original and interesting throughout, only being boosted by the impressive story of its creation.
"Battle Los Angeles" is in second place with an original idea that's executed with a fairly unoriginal story.
"Skyline" is down in 8th place (I dropped it down a few places because its just that bad). Not one likeable character. Uninteresting, predictable(and more so that "BLA")... Just plain crap. And with aliens invading every major city in the world to steal people's brains, two questions need to be asked: First of all, what the fuck do they want with the brains of people from LA? Fair enough, they're getting everyone else's brain but surely they'd leave certain places alone because... what's the point? Which brings me to my next question: If you're going to make a film about aliens who are stealing the brains of people from the entire world, why tell the story of a bunch of douche bags from California? Surely there are more interesting and likeable people in the world?
Anyway, I think that's enough ranting. On to "Drive Angry".
I have to say. I loved it. I expected to because it looks pretty stupid and it has Nic Cage in it but it was even better than I expected.
I do have to mention though, that the 3D effects, though well executed were still incredibly irritating and unnecessary. My tally chart tells me that I noticed thirteen instances of shit flying at the screen which is ridiculous. It didn't even need it. There are films that are shit and have shit 3D throughout. These films may need this nonsense to justify such a ridiculous gimmick. I really don't think this film did. Though I hate 3D and wish it a quick and violent death, I thought the 3D in this film was decent enough for it to not need crap flying at the screen to remind you that there's a reason you have some stupid glasses on your face. I was pleased to see that the title at the beginning of the film did not have "3D" present. That shit is stupid.
So, the actual film. It's funny, it's uncompromising and it gets pretty brutal at times. I actually didn't realise that it was an 18 until I got ID'd when buying a ticket. I didn't have my ID but when I told the lady that I'm 23 she just laughed and gave me my ticket. I'm glad the cinema isn't as strict as the supermarket.
Amber Heard wasn't nearly as annoying as she very easily could have been in her supporting role. In fact, she was actually quite likeable(and not just because she's fit and wearing hot pants).
Both Nic Cage and William Fichtner both nailed bad ass motherfucker as well as expected and, again were both very likeable.
I think what's happened here is that a film has been made that knows that it's daft and has not only managed to pull of pure badassery but has excelled in it whereas a lot of films will perhaps try to forget that they're daft and in doing so look more daft and fail at whatever else they're trying to accomplish.
The only real disappointment that I want to mention is the end. There's a bit of an anti-climax which I think we can blame the 3D for to an extent. Some sketchy looking CGI kind of kills the moment. It might not have been much better in 2D but I think it would have been a little less disappointing.
I don't know what else to say. If you had some doubts about this film but still couldn't decide whether to give it a go or not, go see it before it's too late. Paying extra for unwanted 3D is lame but in this case it's acceptable.
I'm going to give it a 3.5/5. It's awesome but I'm afraid denominations have to be made for the fact that it's in 3D and the anti-climax. Still very much worth watching.
A couple of trailers worth mentioning:
"A Turtles Tale": I caught this just before "Rango" started and I was a little offended. The whole thing was appauling. It was emotionless, the music was just lame and the film just looks like an even crappier "Finding Nemo".
"Tomorrow: When the War Began": Started out pretty lame, then it went all "Red Dawn" but shit. So some army invades Australia and some kids who are hiking decide to take them on. Frankly, it looks shit.
"Scream 4": I don't know where to start. I used to think "Scream" was good when I was in high school but it isn't. I know it's a big joke about horror films but it doesn't really come across in my opinion and, going off the trailer, "Scream 4" just looks as if it's going to be taking that to a whole new level, trying even harder to be funny and failing even harder still. A pointless reboot of something that shouldn't have been a saga and that was never really all that good.
So, that's it for now. Until next time..
This little trip found me watching "Rango" again (see previous post), "Battle Los Angeles" and "Drive Angry" (finally).
So "Battle Los Angeles". I kind of had some high expectations when I saw the trailer for this a few months ago. I suppose I could say I was a little disappointed but only slightly and only because I was probably expecting too much.
It's a good film and it's enjoyable, if a little drawn out but it's fairly predictable. It takes an interesting twist on the war movie what with it being a fight against an unknown enemy from another world taking place in LA but it doesn't really get much further than that and eventually you're just watching another war film. It also produces some cliche character introductions with young guy with a pregnant wife and "1 day from retirement" guy both make a showing.
Aaron Eckhart deals with the predictability well and pulls off a safe performance. Topping the rest of the cast but without giving the role more than it needed. As ever, I think that Eckhart is a solid choice with whom you can't go much wrong.
Michelle Rodriquez. I don't know where to start. I just don't like her. She always has the same role. She thinks she's great. She isn't. I'm glad that she only entered in about half way through the story but I'd forgotten about her by that point and when she arrived on screen I was awash with disappointment. She was annoying me within her first 10 seconds on screen. I thought she died at one point but then she got up. I'll stop there. I think I got my point across.
A few words about the camera work. Hand held as you'd expect but maybe a little too shaky. Sure, it's a warzone and a shaky hand held camera certainly adds that sense of realism but a couple of shots were just unpleasant. I won't say much because I don't want to spoil the story but there's an over head shot which seems really unnecesary and unprofessional and a later shot which is just a bit all over the place and a bit disorientating.
All in all, a decent watch but only a little above average. I'm going to give it a 3/5.
I'd also like to compare it to another couple of alien invasion movies from the last 6 months or so. "Monsters" and "Skyline". "Battle Los Angeles" sits comfortably inbetween these two films.
"Monsters" is up top with a story that's original and interesting throughout, only being boosted by the impressive story of its creation.
"Battle Los Angeles" is in second place with an original idea that's executed with a fairly unoriginal story.
"Skyline" is down in 8th place (I dropped it down a few places because its just that bad). Not one likeable character. Uninteresting, predictable(and more so that "BLA")... Just plain crap. And with aliens invading every major city in the world to steal people's brains, two questions need to be asked: First of all, what the fuck do they want with the brains of people from LA? Fair enough, they're getting everyone else's brain but surely they'd leave certain places alone because... what's the point? Which brings me to my next question: If you're going to make a film about aliens who are stealing the brains of people from the entire world, why tell the story of a bunch of douche bags from California? Surely there are more interesting and likeable people in the world?
Anyway, I think that's enough ranting. On to "Drive Angry".
I have to say. I loved it. I expected to because it looks pretty stupid and it has Nic Cage in it but it was even better than I expected.
I do have to mention though, that the 3D effects, though well executed were still incredibly irritating and unnecessary. My tally chart tells me that I noticed thirteen instances of shit flying at the screen which is ridiculous. It didn't even need it. There are films that are shit and have shit 3D throughout. These films may need this nonsense to justify such a ridiculous gimmick. I really don't think this film did. Though I hate 3D and wish it a quick and violent death, I thought the 3D in this film was decent enough for it to not need crap flying at the screen to remind you that there's a reason you have some stupid glasses on your face. I was pleased to see that the title at the beginning of the film did not have "3D" present. That shit is stupid.
So, the actual film. It's funny, it's uncompromising and it gets pretty brutal at times. I actually didn't realise that it was an 18 until I got ID'd when buying a ticket. I didn't have my ID but when I told the lady that I'm 23 she just laughed and gave me my ticket. I'm glad the cinema isn't as strict as the supermarket.
Amber Heard wasn't nearly as annoying as she very easily could have been in her supporting role. In fact, she was actually quite likeable(and not just because she's fit and wearing hot pants).
Both Nic Cage and William Fichtner both nailed bad ass motherfucker as well as expected and, again were both very likeable.
I think what's happened here is that a film has been made that knows that it's daft and has not only managed to pull of pure badassery but has excelled in it whereas a lot of films will perhaps try to forget that they're daft and in doing so look more daft and fail at whatever else they're trying to accomplish.
The only real disappointment that I want to mention is the end. There's a bit of an anti-climax which I think we can blame the 3D for to an extent. Some sketchy looking CGI kind of kills the moment. It might not have been much better in 2D but I think it would have been a little less disappointing.
I don't know what else to say. If you had some doubts about this film but still couldn't decide whether to give it a go or not, go see it before it's too late. Paying extra for unwanted 3D is lame but in this case it's acceptable.
I'm going to give it a 3.5/5. It's awesome but I'm afraid denominations have to be made for the fact that it's in 3D and the anti-climax. Still very much worth watching.
A couple of trailers worth mentioning:
"A Turtles Tale": I caught this just before "Rango" started and I was a little offended. The whole thing was appauling. It was emotionless, the music was just lame and the film just looks like an even crappier "Finding Nemo".
"Tomorrow: When the War Began": Started out pretty lame, then it went all "Red Dawn" but shit. So some army invades Australia and some kids who are hiking decide to take them on. Frankly, it looks shit.
"Scream 4": I don't know where to start. I used to think "Scream" was good when I was in high school but it isn't. I know it's a big joke about horror films but it doesn't really come across in my opinion and, going off the trailer, "Scream 4" just looks as if it's going to be taking that to a whole new level, trying even harder to be funny and failing even harder still. A pointless reboot of something that shouldn't have been a saga and that was never really all that good.
So, that's it for now. Until next time..
Saturday 5 March 2011
Rango, Unknown and a pocket full of dreams
Last night I traveled to Wigan by way of Cineworld, taking in the sights of Rango and Unknown along the way.
I got into the Rango showing a couple of minutes late but I got the gist of the set-up and I don't think I missed too much.
Rango (Johnny Depp), a pet lizard, traveling through the Mojave desert in his tank in the back of his owners' car. through an unfortunate event he finds himself flung from the car and lying alone on a desolate road. After conversing with nearby almost-roadkill he wanders hopefully into the desert, heading west. He comes across 'Dirt', a small town inhabited by various critters. Finding himself in an opportunity to reinvent himself he gives himself a name, tells a few tall tales and becomes the object of the townspeople's awe.
I had high expectations for this film after seeing the trailer and it seems that they were well founded. The plot gets somewhat predictable but is saved by the quality of the characters and the setting of the film. A few quips for a slightly older audience and a sly little 'Fear and Loathing...' cameo made me feel a little more at home in a screen mostly occupied by kids and parents (though barely occupied at all to be fair). I certainly plan to see this again, partly for the first couple of minutes that I missed at the beginning, partly for the small parts that I missed in the middle due to falling asleep (out of being tired, not bored I assure you) and partly because it's currently showing in screen 1 and I do enjoy screen 1. Mostly I'll be seeing it again because it's very good, and very much worth watching as much as possible.
Which leads me to 'Unknown' which it is very much worth avoiding as much as possible.
I think 'Taken' has led people to seeking out Liam Neeson for euro based badassery. If only he'd been gracious enough to let it alone.
Unknown follows Neeson's crazy amnesiac around Berlin as he tries to figure out why his wife doesn't know who he is.
All I can really think to say about this film is that it's funny. It's not supposed to be, but watching it's lack of subtlety as Martin Harris (Neeson) struggles to remember things and is made out to look like a loon I couldn't help but laugh. If you like films that are funny but aren't supposed to be (see: The Wicker Man) then watch this. Otherwise, just don't. It's daft.
Rango - 3/5
Unknown - A generous 2/5
I got into the Rango showing a couple of minutes late but I got the gist of the set-up and I don't think I missed too much.
Rango (Johnny Depp), a pet lizard, traveling through the Mojave desert in his tank in the back of his owners' car. through an unfortunate event he finds himself flung from the car and lying alone on a desolate road. After conversing with nearby almost-roadkill he wanders hopefully into the desert, heading west. He comes across 'Dirt', a small town inhabited by various critters. Finding himself in an opportunity to reinvent himself he gives himself a name, tells a few tall tales and becomes the object of the townspeople's awe.
I had high expectations for this film after seeing the trailer and it seems that they were well founded. The plot gets somewhat predictable but is saved by the quality of the characters and the setting of the film. A few quips for a slightly older audience and a sly little 'Fear and Loathing...' cameo made me feel a little more at home in a screen mostly occupied by kids and parents (though barely occupied at all to be fair). I certainly plan to see this again, partly for the first couple of minutes that I missed at the beginning, partly for the small parts that I missed in the middle due to falling asleep (out of being tired, not bored I assure you) and partly because it's currently showing in screen 1 and I do enjoy screen 1. Mostly I'll be seeing it again because it's very good, and very much worth watching as much as possible.
Which leads me to 'Unknown' which it is very much worth avoiding as much as possible.
I think 'Taken' has led people to seeking out Liam Neeson for euro based badassery. If only he'd been gracious enough to let it alone.
Unknown follows Neeson's crazy amnesiac around Berlin as he tries to figure out why his wife doesn't know who he is.
All I can really think to say about this film is that it's funny. It's not supposed to be, but watching it's lack of subtlety as Martin Harris (Neeson) struggles to remember things and is made out to look like a loon I couldn't help but laugh. If you like films that are funny but aren't supposed to be (see: The Wicker Man) then watch this. Otherwise, just don't. It's daft.
Rango - 3/5
Unknown - A generous 2/5
Friday 4 March 2011
"This aint no 'coon hunt."
Yesterday I journeyed to the cinema to watch 'True Grit' and 'Four Lions' and good times were had by all(me).
So, True Grit. It's impressive on all accounts. A good script which is masterfully executed by a great cast. Jeff Bridges is on top form as the foul mannered Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn. Personally, I feel that this film makes up for the incredibly disappointing 'Tron: Legacy' in which Jeff was not necessarily bad himself but certainly not good enough to save it(which he can hardly be blamed for).
Hailee Steinfeld makes a pretty great debut. She could have very easily been an annoying, whiny little bitch but manages to take on the role with the grace and presence of a seasoned actress.
As, for Jeff, this film makes up for Tron, it seems that for Matt Damon this film could be making up for a couple of his recent ventures. I never managed to see 'Hereafter' but if the trailer is anything to go by then it wouldn't be all that great. I just don't buy Matt Damon as a psychic. A genuine psychic. It just seems daft. I will, however hold any major judgement until I've actually seen the film as the trailer seems to be a little confused and doesn't really seem to get across the actual plot of the film. Anyway, 'The Adjustment Bureau' also looks pretty fucking stupid but I'll give it a go, perhaps tonight. To get back to my original point, Damon seems to have taken on some pretty strange rolls in these two films. Roles that I can't entirely picture him pulling off while in True Grit he manages to take on an interesting role and nail it. Particular stand out moments were his back-&-forths with Cogburn and the childish upset that he was caused when put down.
It's probably just me being retarded but the first time I saw this film I failed to notice Barry Pepper. He had a pretty big role and his make-up, though great, shouldn't really have been enough for me to not realise it was him. But anyway, he makes another quality addition to the "supporting-role" section of his CV and is certainly worth mentioning. One other thing is a certain relation between his characters in 'True Grit' and in 'Saving Private Ryan'. Probably nothing intentional and I won't ruin it by saying what I'm on about here but I thought it worth mentioning.
I'm going to go ahead and give 'True Grit' a 4/5 and recommend that everyone see it.
So, True Grit. It's impressive on all accounts. A good script which is masterfully executed by a great cast. Jeff Bridges is on top form as the foul mannered Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn. Personally, I feel that this film makes up for the incredibly disappointing 'Tron: Legacy' in which Jeff was not necessarily bad himself but certainly not good enough to save it(which he can hardly be blamed for).
Hailee Steinfeld makes a pretty great debut. She could have very easily been an annoying, whiny little bitch but manages to take on the role with the grace and presence of a seasoned actress.
As, for Jeff, this film makes up for Tron, it seems that for Matt Damon this film could be making up for a couple of his recent ventures. I never managed to see 'Hereafter' but if the trailer is anything to go by then it wouldn't be all that great. I just don't buy Matt Damon as a psychic. A genuine psychic. It just seems daft. I will, however hold any major judgement until I've actually seen the film as the trailer seems to be a little confused and doesn't really seem to get across the actual plot of the film. Anyway, 'The Adjustment Bureau' also looks pretty fucking stupid but I'll give it a go, perhaps tonight. To get back to my original point, Damon seems to have taken on some pretty strange rolls in these two films. Roles that I can't entirely picture him pulling off while in True Grit he manages to take on an interesting role and nail it. Particular stand out moments were his back-&-forths with Cogburn and the childish upset that he was caused when put down.
It's probably just me being retarded but the first time I saw this film I failed to notice Barry Pepper. He had a pretty big role and his make-up, though great, shouldn't really have been enough for me to not realise it was him. But anyway, he makes another quality addition to the "supporting-role" section of his CV and is certainly worth mentioning. One other thing is a certain relation between his characters in 'True Grit' and in 'Saving Private Ryan'. Probably nothing intentional and I won't ruin it by saying what I'm on about here but I thought it worth mentioning.
I'm going to go ahead and give 'True Grit' a 4/5 and recommend that everyone see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)