I have stuck with a spoiler-free version, even though the trailer they released with a day to go before the film smashes the worst of the spoilers right out in the middle of it.
Basically if you liked the first two of the new-generation Star Trek films you will love this. It keeps all the in jokes, the character building, the action, the music, the TOS references, and basically charges along at a rate of knots.
It has by no means the depth or scope of the older movies, and there isn't really the same political message tucked underneath the story that you might like from a classic Star Trek, and once you sit down and think of it later there are plot holes and continuity errors that you could drive the Enterprise through.
But for the 2 hours you are sat there it is going so fast that you probably won't get time to spot them.
Sunday, 24 July 2016
Tuesday, 12 July 2016
Film Review - Secret Life of Pets
It is basically a half-arsed version of Toy Story with all the hidden adult jokes stripped out and no soul. You should put about as much effort into seeing it as I put into writing this review.
Sunday, 5 June 2016
Film Review - Warcraft: The Beginning
Not learning from Batman vs Superman they take too many new characters, new locations, new powers, new back story, new ideas and throw them all at you in rapid succession, and then hope that you are so busy digesting all of these that you ignore the holes in the plot, the lack of development of most of the major characters and the blatant rip-offs from Lord of the Rings.
I want to give them credit for the special effects, but they still looked like computer game special effects. In some parts they were fabulous, in others they were 'lacking'. In particular on the lacking side were the dwarves with the funny shaped heads, this was especially telling as we know that a bit of forced perspective and a decent director can turn the tallest cast member into a dwarf well (LOTR again). There were a couple of things that I couldn't tell if they were CGI or physical effects and I am going to give the CGI guys the benefit of the doubt and assume the shoddy rubber elf ears were a physical. The floppy swords and the obviously plastic armour definitely were.
A couple of other things kept bugging me about the film and I realised too often that I was distracted by them and pushed out of the story. The hipster beards just annoyed me, Ben Foster and his character almost got away with it but the other male leads just looked stupid. And Ben Foster gave me a different problem, in that I kept wondering why Lance Armstrong was wearing a hoodie and pretending to be an evil wizard.
The female characters, from a movie based on a computer game, I expected to be over-sexualised, and instead I didn't think any of them were even portrayed as mildly attractive. Maybe that was just my expectations being set incorrectly.
The balance of powers was severely mismanaged, some of the creatures were ridiculously over-powered, which led to a deus ex machina issue with the lead flying half the length of the country, (with no shoes on) in a couple of minutes, on his gryphon which then easily shreds dozens of the Orcs. Why were the gryphons not included in the army if they are so powerful, and we know he has more than one because he mentions them earlier, and why did it take so long to get Intel if they are so fast? Similarly if the Orcs are storming all over the country crushing anything that stands, why are they still all back at their camp whenever the story justifies it?
And those sort of things just bugged me, again and again, throughout the entire film.
Oh, and I almost forgot, (actually I did forget for a week and came back to add this) 30 uncredited seconds of Glenn Close that you might miss if you aren't watching closely.
Overall 5 out of 10, and a decent amount of money bet on the next in the series never getting past a rumour.
I want to give them credit for the special effects, but they still looked like computer game special effects. In some parts they were fabulous, in others they were 'lacking'. In particular on the lacking side were the dwarves with the funny shaped heads, this was especially telling as we know that a bit of forced perspective and a decent director can turn the tallest cast member into a dwarf well (LOTR again). There were a couple of things that I couldn't tell if they were CGI or physical effects and I am going to give the CGI guys the benefit of the doubt and assume the shoddy rubber elf ears were a physical. The floppy swords and the obviously plastic armour definitely were.
A couple of other things kept bugging me about the film and I realised too often that I was distracted by them and pushed out of the story. The hipster beards just annoyed me, Ben Foster and his character almost got away with it but the other male leads just looked stupid. And Ben Foster gave me a different problem, in that I kept wondering why Lance Armstrong was wearing a hoodie and pretending to be an evil wizard.
The female characters, from a movie based on a computer game, I expected to be over-sexualised, and instead I didn't think any of them were even portrayed as mildly attractive. Maybe that was just my expectations being set incorrectly.
The balance of powers was severely mismanaged, some of the creatures were ridiculously over-powered, which led to a deus ex machina issue with the lead flying half the length of the country, (with no shoes on) in a couple of minutes, on his gryphon which then easily shreds dozens of the Orcs. Why were the gryphons not included in the army if they are so powerful, and we know he has more than one because he mentions them earlier, and why did it take so long to get Intel if they are so fast? Similarly if the Orcs are storming all over the country crushing anything that stands, why are they still all back at their camp whenever the story justifies it?
And those sort of things just bugged me, again and again, throughout the entire film.
Oh, and I almost forgot, (actually I did forget for a week and came back to add this) 30 uncredited seconds of Glenn Close that you might miss if you aren't watching closely.
Overall 5 out of 10, and a decent amount of money bet on the next in the series never getting past a rumour.
Friday, 20 May 2016
Film Review - Xmen Apocalypse
As with Civil War my first comment has to be, 'Why the hell can't DC learn from this?'. There is nothing particularly clever about this movie and yet it is on a completely different level to their recent efforts.
This second strain of Xmen continues to move along nicely by building around its existing characters while slowly introducing new ones where necessary to the greater story. There is development of the older characters. Even those where we have already seen their distant future the story builds within that framework and it's own internal consistency (allowing for the alternate timelines at least).
There is a villain with a clear and understandable motivation of his own.
There is a villain with a clear and understandable motivation of his own.
There are some great 80's references. My favourite was the Michael Jackson / Eddie Murphy leather jacket that Nightcrawler wears but there were many others. Star Trek and Knight Rider on the background TV screens almost pipped the jacket.
There are some great in jokes. 'The third movie is always the weakest'.
There are some subtle nods to the comics just for the fans. Jean Grey's Phoenix is the obvious one, other than the appearance of Apocalypse himself.
There are some subtle nods to the comics just for the fans. Jean Grey's Phoenix is the obvious one, other than the appearance of Apocalypse himself.
There are some great links back to previous movies. 'I feel a great swell of pity for the poor soul who comes to this school... looking for trouble'.
Anyway, enough ranting about how Marvel have again taken worse source material than DC and turned it into a vastly better film.
Overall 7 out of 10, because it wasn't quite an 8.
There is a brief, but largely pointless, Wolverine appearance.
And of course, there is Stan Lee!
So that is 8-1 for Marvel vs DC if you just take this film against BvsS. And I give DC their one point for the subtle nods to the comics but they weren't subtle at all, they were so blatant that someone might as well have been waving the comic book at the screen during them, at least that might have made more sense than the Flash and his weird time vortex smashing right through the middle of the film.
So that is 8-1 for Marvel vs DC if you just take this film against BvsS. And I give DC their one point for the subtle nods to the comics but they weren't subtle at all, they were so blatant that someone might as well have been waving the comic book at the screen during them, at least that might have made more sense than the Flash and his weird time vortex smashing right through the middle of the film.
Anyway, enough ranting about how Marvel have again taken worse source material than DC and turned it into a vastly better film.
Overall 7 out of 10, because it wasn't quite an 8.
Thursday, 12 May 2016
Film Review - Eye in the Sky
Lots of heavyweights, a couple of Oscar nominees, the obligatory Game of Thrones actor.
The story goes at a decent 'real-time-ish' pace even when things are being kicked upstairs.
A few niggles with the beyond-realistic tech making it feel a bit like a superhero movie rather than a drama. And that in turn leads to some plot issues
And a bit of a squeak in the story when they finally realise that a slight change in target might get them the desired effect. I had figured out their eventual solution almost an hour before the team of professionals and I can still offer 3 or 4 better tactical solutions that they don't even consider. The second strike option that suddenly materialises then makes that even more of a glitch.
I like the idea, it raises good questions about the politics and ethics of drone strikes and much of the execution is solid. It just is a bit of a damp squib considering the power of the material and the personnel involved.
Overall 7 out of 10.
The story goes at a decent 'real-time-ish' pace even when things are being kicked upstairs.
A few niggles with the beyond-realistic tech making it feel a bit like a superhero movie rather than a drama. And that in turn leads to some plot issues
And a bit of a squeak in the story when they finally realise that a slight change in target might get them the desired effect. I had figured out their eventual solution almost an hour before the team of professionals and I can still offer 3 or 4 better tactical solutions that they don't even consider. The second strike option that suddenly materialises then makes that even more of a glitch.
I like the idea, it raises good questions about the politics and ethics of drone strikes and much of the execution is solid. It just is a bit of a damp squib considering the power of the material and the personnel involved.
Overall 7 out of 10.
Fim Review - Captain America Civil War
Can't really write a review of this as I will be hugely biased as a fan of the Marvel series. So much so that I went to see this twice in 4 days.
Once again they managed to juggle a multitude of characters and personalities, from the very original and now ageing Iron Man through to the brand new Black Panther and the rebooted Spiderman in a film driven by Captain America while fitting them all into an over-arching story that makes sense, drives the action and fits well within the greater universe.
Basically I loved it, and the biggest gripe I have is that it makes DCs rush attempt to jam their characters into Batman vs Superman seem all the more terrible.
9 out of 10.
Once again they managed to juggle a multitude of characters and personalities, from the very original and now ageing Iron Man through to the brand new Black Panther and the rebooted Spiderman in a film driven by Captain America while fitting them all into an over-arching story that makes sense, drives the action and fits well within the greater universe.
Basically I loved it, and the biggest gripe I have is that it makes DCs rush attempt to jam their characters into Batman vs Superman seem all the more terrible.
9 out of 10.
Friday, 22 April 2016
Film Review - Batman vs Superman
The shortened version of the title BvS still has a letter too many. This film is pure BS.
The story wanders all over the place as they try to twist their way to the fight at the end.
Is Zack Snyder colourblind? Really someone who knows him should go and check. His films are all shot in this stupid monochrome that he obviously thinks is arty and clever but is actually just dull.
The guys at Marvel must be wetting their pants at this disaster coming on the heels of Man of Steel. The fanboys will go to see Justice League whatever but unless Suicide Squad is absolutely stunning I won't be joining them.
Overall 5 out of 10.
Film Review - The Revenant
Inarritu has spent a lot of time polishing this turd. Some of the artistic shots are absolutely fabulous. They have obviously had the second unit out in the snow for a great long time shooting scenic trees, snow, and sky. Lots and lots of sky.
The rest of the film is a half-written 30 minute script, packed out with some nice scenery and some hyper-violent scenes to make sure you don't fall asleep. There is no need for a lot of the extremity of the violence. Human vs Human, Animal vs Human, Human vs Animal, all ridiculously bloody and disgusting for no real reason.
The damage done to several of the characters would be unsurvivable in a modern well-staffed emergency room with a full surgical staff on hand. Instead these characters have almost zombie-levels of un-kill-ability. Huge amounts of blood loss, broken bones, field surgery with darning needles, 100ft falls that kill a horse, even being castrated by teeth looked to have been a survivable event. And through all of this no-one even gets an infection.
Also there is so little in the way of story development that I don't even know where to start. Maybe with the first scene. Where a fully armed team of about 40 professional hunters are completely shredded by 20 native americans with bows and arrows, some of the natives even having managed to penetrate right in to the middle of the camp and climb trees while no-one in what amounts to a small village even noticed them. Rather than fight back the well armed professionals all run away, leaving the equivalent of millions of dollars of furs and most of their compatriots on the beach.
Leo picking up an Oscar for this film is an absolute travesty. It is a perfectly average performance. It is not his worst work, but it isn't even close to his best. He got votes based on his body of work rather than this role. All four of the other nominees can rightly be offended. (Although in Cranston's case he might struggle to make any better a case than Leo).
Overall 6 out of 10.
The rest of the film is a half-written 30 minute script, packed out with some nice scenery and some hyper-violent scenes to make sure you don't fall asleep. There is no need for a lot of the extremity of the violence. Human vs Human, Animal vs Human, Human vs Animal, all ridiculously bloody and disgusting for no real reason.
The damage done to several of the characters would be unsurvivable in a modern well-staffed emergency room with a full surgical staff on hand. Instead these characters have almost zombie-levels of un-kill-ability. Huge amounts of blood loss, broken bones, field surgery with darning needles, 100ft falls that kill a horse, even being castrated by teeth looked to have been a survivable event. And through all of this no-one even gets an infection.
Also there is so little in the way of story development that I don't even know where to start. Maybe with the first scene. Where a fully armed team of about 40 professional hunters are completely shredded by 20 native americans with bows and arrows, some of the natives even having managed to penetrate right in to the middle of the camp and climb trees while no-one in what amounts to a small village even noticed them. Rather than fight back the well armed professionals all run away, leaving the equivalent of millions of dollars of furs and most of their compatriots on the beach.
Leo picking up an Oscar for this film is an absolute travesty. It is a perfectly average performance. It is not his worst work, but it isn't even close to his best. He got votes based on his body of work rather than this role. All four of the other nominees can rightly be offended. (Although in Cranston's case he might struggle to make any better a case than Leo).
Overall 6 out of 10.
Film Review - Creed
All in all it is a very suitable successor to the Rocky franchise.
Rocky himself is in. The training montage is in. The soundtrack is in. The boxing plays a large part but the story is still dominated by the characters rather than their circumstances. The references back to previous films are tastefully done rather than being shoved in your face. Anything that makes a Rocky film is in there somewhere.
Michael B Jordan is fairly believable as the pushy kid trying to make his own way in the world. His girlfriend is unfortunately styled a bit too much like Denise Huxtable and her role is limited but she holds her place. And most of the supporting cast do efficient jobs. Tony Bellew is the only one who is a bit out of place. He always seems to be trying to act. Even playing himself, right down to his own football club fandom doesn't really help.
But none of them really matter, they are all window dressing for Stallone himself. He is the stand-out of this entire movie. It is a fantastic reminder that 40 years ago, before the excessive action violence of the 80s got hold of him, he could actually act. And putting him back in a character that was his own original creation gives him freedom to inhabit the role in a way that probably isn't available to anyone else in the Hollywood machine.
His nomination for an Oscar was absolutely deserved, his failure to win was a shock to me. I can understand him losing out to Network for both his Best Actor and Best Writer nominations in 1976, although Rocky then taking Best Film over Network shows that the Academy were stuck somewhere in trying to reward both films. I have yet to see Rylance's Bridge of Spies Best Supporting Actor performance but if it was truly better than this work from Stallone then I am in for a treat.
And they have been quite smart about how they have set up for future movies. If Stallone wants to get out they can let the cancer or the chemotherapy beat him and still be consistent with the way they have previously treated Adrian and Paulie. If he wants to stay in they can size his part to suit, anything from a single sick bed scene to the same major supporting role that he plays here.
I want to give this 10 out of 10. Bellew almost costs it that score on his own, but it is some of the jive talk between Creed and his girlfriend that just seemed too forced and was the final nudge to cut a point off.
9 out of 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)