Change Your Image
blippster
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Quantum of Solace (2008)
A 9/10 story edited into an 8/10 movie
Well I had high expectations after Casino Royale as you can imagine. Royale had a brilliant storyline, which, under the direction of Martin Campbell, was made into a brilliant film. The best Bond there was in my opinion.
Two years later, Quantum of Solace was released. I was a bit worried about it because I knew that Campbell (one of my favourite directors) was not directing this time. I only hoped that the new director would know what he was doing.
Quantum had a great story behind it. One of the best Bond story lines that there have been (although not quite up to Royale's standards). It had great actors in it. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are back as good as ever, but the outstanding performances came from Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene and Jesper Christensen as Mr. White.
The thing that really let Quantum down was the editing. The first scene and the last scene are the scene's one generally remembers the best from any film, and I must say this film's opening scene was horrible. Each shot was less than a second long, and the camera was moving far too quickly to work out what the hell was going on. When the car rolled off the cliff at the end of the scene, I was under the impression that there were still two more cars chasing Bond. The editing could not have made it less clear.
But enough of that unpleasantness; it is indeed a great film and a worthy follow-up to Casino Royale. A good 8/10.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Unjustly criticised
Now first of all, it isn't hard to see where the criticism comes from. When I walked out of the cinema, I was thinking "WTF had I just seen?". I had been expecting another Raiders of the Lost Ark, and instead got something more like National Treasure.
I was wary about giving the movie a second shot, but considering I wasn't paying, I decided to go ahead and rent it. It improved tenfold that second time I saw it. This time I was not expecting Raiders of the Lost Ark, I was expecting National Treasure, and I got something better! Harrison Ford is still the same after nineteen years. If there's any fear that 60-yr-old Indy wont be the same, they are unfounded. True he is cleverer, and wiser, and no longer a chauvinist, but it all fits in nicely.
This is about the only thing I like Shia LaDouche in. He seems to really be in his element, and his character is very likable. To be honest with you, I don't like the return of Karen Allen after all these years; she I felt was one of the weakest characters in the piece, but we do have the pleasant additions of Cate Blanchett and Ray Winstone.
The CGI brings the movie down a little. It is used even when it is far from necessary. That being said, it is not as bad as the usage in the Star Wars prequels, but Georgie Boy has to learn that just because he can use CGI, doesn't mean its necessarily a good thing.
I enjoyed the story; I felt it was actually a better story than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The aliens at the end were quite unnecessary and about as far from Raiders of the Lost Ark as one can get, but for the most part the story was solid. The action scenes are as good as they have been in all the movies, but sometimes they do stretch our disbelief too far.
So a word of advice: Don't go into the theatre expecting another Raiders of the Lost Ark. Don't go in expecting something that fits in perfectly with the original trilogy. Try to judge the movie for what it is, not what its predecessors were.
Juno (2007)
Diablo Cody...what would Ju No?
Juno is a 2007 film directed by Jason Reitman and written by Diablo Cody. The film stars Ellen Page as the titular character, as well as Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, J.K. Simmons, Allison Janney and Jason Bateman. The film premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in September, 2007.
The film follows the story of Juno McGuff, a sixteen-year-old girl who discovers she is pregnant to her friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). Juno at first decides to have an abortion, but later changes her mind and decides to put the unborn baby up for adoption. Through an ad in the local newspaper, she finds Mark (Jason Bateman) and Vanessa Loring (Jennifer Garner), a couple wishing to adopt. The film focuses on Juno's relationships with each of the different characters, Mark, Vanessa, her father (J.K. Simmons), her stepmother (Allison Janney), Paulie Bleeker, and her best friend Leah (Olivia Thirlby).
The film opens with Juno walking around in a cartoon landscape. This opening scene immediately sets the scene for the quirkiness of the film. Juno's on-and-off boyfriend Bleeker is part of a running team. At various points in the film we see the group of runners running past Juno in exactly the same fashion. This is I believe intended to show the repetitiveness of life, and is showing how Juno's life is different to most other peoples. There are other symbols of this, such as the tic-tacs that Bleeker is always eating. They also represent the repetition in life. There is also the symbol of the chair, which features at the beginning and end of the film, and is presumably meant to tie up the film in a circle, but I felt the chair symbolism was forced and didn't really do anything for me.
I absolutely hated the soundtrack. The songs chosen for the movie are clearly meant to reflect how quirky and off-beat the movie is, so I guess they fit, but it still doesn't stop it from being awful. The soundtrack includes multiple songs written by Kimya Dawson. Dawson was a personal choice from actress Ellen Page.
I didn't really like the film. It was mediocre; very forgettable. Perhaps if I was a pregnant teenage girl this movie would have spoken to me, but I'm not, so it didn't. My major criticism is the screenplay. Juno speaks with the vocabulary of an English professor. Is it meant to be funny? Cool? Smart? Clever? I wasn't entertained by it; it made the movie feel fake. Then at different points in the film, the character of Juno seems to completely reverse, and she uses words like "Forshizz", and an over-use of the word "like". It tried to contain too many references to typical teenage life, and tried to be funny but wasn't.
I would give this film 6/10.
Toy Story (1995)
A marvellous feat of CGI
Toy Story is a brilliant feat in the world of animated film, and was successful at the box office and well received by critics. The films success spawned a sequel in 1999 and a second sequel is to be released in 2010.
The story is about the cowboy doll Woody who is the favourite toy of a boy named Andy. Woody and the rest of Andy's toys all live together in Andy's bedroom, but Woody is the only one who is allowed to sleep in Andy's bed. Woody's position feels threatened when Andy receives a new action figure, an astronaut Buzz Lightyear, for his birthday. Because of Buzz Lightyear's fancy special features, Buzz replaces Woody as 'favourite toy'. Woody grows more and more jealous as the other toys accept Buzz into their community, and see him as some kind of leader because of his special features. When Andy decides to take Buzz on a family outing and not Woody, Woody feels offended. For revenge, Woody tries to trap Buzz behind a desk so that Andy will be forced to take Woody instead. However, Woody accidentally knocks Buzz out of the window, and the other toys see this as an attempt to murder Buzz. Woody is ostracised by the other toys. Woody does get taken on the family outing with Andy but unbeknownst to him, Buzz hops aboard the car as it leaves. During the outing, Buzz and Woody both become separated from Andy, who accidentally leaves them behind when he goes back home. Buzz and Woody must put aside their differences and work together if there is any chance of getting back home.
The animation of Toy Story is very impressive. The animators use very effective cinematic techniques that make you feel as though you are watching a live-action film rather than an animation. Toy Story was ground-breaking as this level of entirely CGI animation in a film had never been done before, and CGI in films had only started being used widely a few years earlier. The characters of Toy Story act and move like real people, and give the impression of having realistic weight. The animators get the effect of light with precision, and the animation barely feels out dated at all; modern animation do not necessarily seem any more advanced than this film. Unlike cartoons such as The Simpsons, the characters of Toy Story are based on human features. They move about as though they have the same body parts as humans.
Toy Story is a brilliant film in my opinion. It works on many levels so it can appeal to all people aged between 3 and 90. As far as its animation, it was absolutely brilliant for its time, and, as I said earlier, holds up very well today. The story is sharp and entertaining, full of hilarity, from toilet humour to dry wit; anyone will be able to find something funny about this film. The characters are also very lovable and the viewer feels attached to them in the first few minutes. I would definitely give this film a good four stars out of five. This film will surely last to infinity
and BEYOND!
Dogtown and Z-Boys (2001)
A great insight into the world of skateboarding.
Dogtown and Z-Boys is a documentary about the Zephyr Skateboarding Team, and their influence on skateboarding. It also focuses on the history of skateboarding. It was directed by Stacy Peralta, a member of the original Zephyr Team, and was written by Stacy Peralta and Craig Stecyk, another member of the team. The documentary stars the members of the Zephyr Team and is narrated by Sean Penn.
The documentary talks about the beginning of skateboarding, and how it evolved from surfing. It discusses skateboarding's popularity in the late 60s and the 70s, its decline in the 80s and its 'rebirth' in the 90s. Skateboarding was introduced in Dogtown, the nickname of the poor side of Santa Monica, California. The Zephyr Team originated from the Zephyr Surf Shop, which manufactured the first modern skateboards. The documentary mainly consists of the original Zephyr Team members talking about the past in the Zephyr Team, the competitions they won, and their popularity and prestige. It focuses on three particular members of the team; Peralta, Tony Alva, and Jay Adams, three virtuosos of skateboarding, and probably the best three members of the team.
The interviews in the documentary were usually voices over archival footage from Dogtown in the late 60s and 70s. Very rarely to you actually see the people being interviewed, but when you do, they are shown in black and white, while the archival footage was in colour. I think Stacy Peralta used this technique to show that the documentary was about the past (i.e. the Glory Days of the Zephyr Team) and not the present. The documentary is very fast paced, in that we often see clips of impressive skateboarding over up-beat music of the era (such as Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin and David Bowie), and the interviews tend to be quick and to the point. Knowing nothing about skateboarding (i.e. not even knowing how to ride one straight along the ground) I was very surprised that I found this documentary so interesting. The reason is that this doco was more about the Zephyr Team than the actual sport of skateboarding, so while I couldn't relate to skateboarding, I could relate to the boys in the team. Because it was made by actual members of the team, it gives it a little more depth and authenticity.
All in all, I would have to say this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It gave me a whole new insight, not just into the Zephyr Team, but into skateboarding as a whole. For those who love skateboarding, I can only imagine how it must be even more interesting. Seven and a half stars out of ten.
Lola rennt (1998)
One of the most fun films you will ever see
Run Lola Run is a German film by Tom Tykwer, starring Franke Potente as Lola and Moritz Bleibtreu as Manni. It was released in Germany in 1998 and worldwide in 1999. The German title of the film is Lola rennt, which means "Lola Runs". Run Lola Run is different in the way that it tells the same story three times, each with a different ending.
Lola's boyfriend, Manni, is supposed to deliver 100,000 marks to the Mafia boss, Ronnie, by noon. However, the money is stolen and Manni calls Lola for advice as to how to get the money he needs. Lola swears that she will get the money to him by noon, but she only has twenty minutes. Reality 1: Lola goes to her father at the bank to see if he will lend her the money. Reality 2: Lola runs to her father's bank but instead decides to rob it. Reality 3: Lola goes to a casino, to try to win the money she needs
Run Lola Run uses a lot of clever camera shots. A type of shot that is continuously used is the 360 degree shot (where the camera circles the subject). 360 degree shots are especially difficult because the crew cannot be anywhere near the camera or actors or else they would show up as the camera turns around. The camera cannot be set up on tracks either or else the tracks would show up. There are many other clever shots used such as, tracking, jump- cuts, and panning. The music used in Run Lola Run has a continuous heavy beat to it. The beat symbolises the ticking of the clock as Lola's time is running out. Time is a main theme of the movie, and every so often the movie cuts to a view of a clock to show how much time is left. The movie is in real time, which means the amount of time it takes to watch a bit of the movie is the same amount of time the characters take to do all the things they do in that part of the movie (e.g. it takes 20 minutes of real time between the part where Lola sets off to when she reaches Manni).
I really enjoyed the movie. It is fast paced, easy to follow, and constantly exciting. The plot is very clever in the way it shows that the smallest differences can result in large differences in the future. I would give this movie 7.5 out of 10.
Psycho (1960)
The most suspenseful film I have ever seen. A classic.
Alfred Hitchcock famously said: "There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it." I think that what Hitchcock meant by the line is that a moment in a movie that is considered 'scary', such as a murder or a stabbing, is not scary at all on its own; it is the lead-up to and anticipation of it that is scary. I agree with this statement, especially in the case of 'Psycho'. The murder scenes in 'Psycho' are very sub-par by today's standards, in that you don't see much blood (and the blood you do see isn't very vivid, as it is black and white), and in one stabbing scene, you don't even see the knife penetrate the victim's flesh. The murder scenes are also obviously fake, and by today's standards of gore, are almost laughable.
However, these negative points boil down to almost nothing when you compare it with the positive points in "Psycho", and I believe that some of the biggest positive points of the movie were the extremely well made suspense sequences, especially the scene where Lila Crane is in the house at the end. Alfred Hitchcock is known as "The Master of Suspense" and these scenes are a very good example of why he is called that. As Hitchcock said, the terror is in the suspense. In this movie, there are only three sequences which could be defined as "violent", although, because of the heart-pumping terror of the suspense scenes, "Psycho" is, for me, one of the scariest movies I've seen.
When comparing "Psycho" to new horror movies, "Psycho" wins hands down. While most modern horror movies are infinitely more violent than "Psycho", none of them seem to have the same gripping, heart-wrenching feeling because of their lack of suspense. With most new horror movies I have seen, such as "Saw" the movie didn't really get much scarier after the first bit of violence. For "Psycho", the effect was almost opposite, and the lack of violence was, in fact, one of the movies strengths.
I would say that "Psycho" is what a real horror movie is. When making a horror movie, one should focus less on the gore, and take a page out of Hitchcock's book by focusing on the suspense.
A solid 10/10!
The Third Man (1949)
The Third Man's the charm
The Third Man is an ideal example of Film Noir. With its impossible shadows and bleak plot elements, it embodies everything that makes the genre what it is. The protagonist of the film is Holly Martins, an American who goes to Vienna because his friend Harry Lime has offered him a job there. Upon reaching Vienna, Martins discovers that his friend has been run over by a car and killed. Or has he? Holly Martins is played by Joseph Cotten, a renowned actor of the period. Since Martins is the protagonist it is his journey throughout the film that is the most fleshed out, and it is he with whom we sympathise. Joseph Cotten does a good job of making his character seem believable and sympathetic, and portrays his journey from an innocent child-like author of westerns to a hardened man who has seen too much of the world with great skill.
The leading lady is Alida Valli, who plays Anna Schmidt. Schmidt was Harry Lime's girlfriend before the 'accident', and the character is deeply upset by her loss. Alida Valli manages to portray her character with a haunting believability. There is something mysterious and sad about the character which is not seen in very many other films.
But what really makes the film good is the performance of Orson Welles. Welles plays Harry Lime himself, and though the character really gets a minimal amount of screen time, Welles really steals the show. He doesn't just chew on the scenery, he swallows it whole! His character is the most complex of all, so pulling it off as well as Welles did is no walk in the park. Welles manages to show Lime's evil mixed with friendship for his wholesome friend Holly. His entrance to the film, as the light from an upstairs window beams down across his childish face, is by far the most memorable shot in the entire film. The look that he gives his old friend, half guilty half happy, still stays fixed in my eyes now.
There is a reason that this film won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography. It is superb. As I have said before, the film has many impossible shadows, as well as tilted camera shots. I think we have all seen scenes in films where a huge shadow coming round a corner precedes its considerably smaller caster. This was the film that invented that device. Even with the impossible shadows and camera angles, the cinematography does not feel out of place. With the films tone of darkness, evil and falsity, the shadows fit right in, and the askew camera angles only enhance the askew plot points.
The music of the film was written by Anton Karas. It is almost entirely zither music, and it brings a unique feel to the film. While the light-hearted music seems out of place at first, the viewer eventually gets used to it, and the music actually takes the film along a whole other road to where it would have gone wit darker music. While mostly light, the music is undoubtedly intense, and it emphasises certain themes very well, particularly in the scene just before the landlord gets murdered. As he turns around and notices his off-screen attacker, the music comes on very strong, and gives a feeling of fear to the film. As much as the music works in certain scenes, the lack of music works in others. During the showdown in the sewer, there is almost no music; just the sound of the falling water echoing through the tunnels. This gives a true sense of realism to the scene.
The director, Sir Carol Reed did very well with this film. He (as opposed to she, no matter what the name suggests) managed to evoke the characters feelings from not only the actors, but from the lighting and scenery as well. There is something about The Third Man that is unique. While it feels dated, many of the themes the movie embodies are still relevant today, and it is still enjoyable to modern audiences. I would give this film nine stars
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
Tremendously Funny!
This, for me, was one of the highlight movies of 2007. If your reason for not seeing it is 'The Simpsons sucks these days', then I urge you to give it a shot. It is much much better than the most recent episodes of the show, while admittedly not as good as the 'classic' episodes from about seasons 2-10.
The characters are all there, in full yellow, as funny and witty as ever they were. The jokes are certainly the best I've seen in a while, and had me laughing long after they had been said. In the true tradition of the show, there are special guest appearances, from Tom Hanks and the members of Green Day.
But what I feel makes this especially good, is that it feels like a movie, not an elongated episode. The story is allowed to have more depth than if it were told in just one episode. The animation is as good as it has always been, and from a technical perspective, the movie is very sound.
There will be a few surprises along the way, especially during Bart's skateboarding scene (people who have seen it will know what I'm talking about), and, as with every episode, there are a few new characters, notably Russ Cargill and President Schwarzenegger.
Truly, this is worth seeing for any Simpsons fan 8/10
I Am Legend (2007)
A great film riddled with plot-holes
SERIOUSLY MAJOR SPOILERS CONCERNING PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING!!! I didn't catch this movie when it was first on in cinemas, even though most of my friends recommended it to me. I guess I just thought it would just be a lot of Will Smith fighting things. It wasn't.
Although it had a lot of fighting, it also had a lot of heart, and I felt sad during Sam's death scene (especially as my dog was lying at my feet at the time), and at the death scene at the end. It is a worthwhile experience.
However there were a lot of plot-holes, I felt.
How did a cure for cancer turn into a deadly virus? Why didn't Neville throw the grenade out of the glass box at the end (it probably wouldn't have saved him but surely it'd be a better chance of survival)? How did Neville work out that the cured zombie's blood was the cure? Why does Neville think everyone's dead even though there are news broadcasts? Why didn't the woman wait till the sun had fully risen before driving Neville back? Why did Neville walk so easily into the trap the zombies had set up, even though he knew that there was something awry? What triggered the trap? Why didn't Sam try harder to wake him up while he was in the truck (e.g. barking loudly)? Now I'm sure some of you know the answers to these questions, but the point is that I din't while I was watching it and it just seemed very contrived.
However, thats not to say I didn't like it. The action scenes were fun, even though the CGI was terrible, and it was all in all a good film.
7/10 -Blip
The Lord of the Rings (1978)
Passable
This movie tried to be so good, it just didn't get there.
I would recommend this film to anyone who has read 'The Lord of the Rings'. While it skips over a lot of the book, the scenes that are included are quite similar to their counterparts in the book. It is fun to see the scenes from the book come to life, and they mostly looked very similar to what I had in my head. The film is closer to the source material than Peter Jackson's trilogy, but is still much worse in my opinion.
It lacks heart. The characters don't show any major development, and it is hard to identify with or like any of them. John Hurt does a good job as the voice of Aragorn, but sadly that's not enough to make up for the animators and writers portrayal of him. The characters aren't introduced well enough; Aragorn's introduction is pretty much "I am Aragorn, a friend of Gandalf's" and not much more is disclosed about him.
Another major problem is the animation. Ralph Bakshi uses this technique called 'rotoscoping', which I wont go into very much depth on, partially because I don't know exactly what it is or how it is made. Google it if you're curious. Anyway, the result of this technique is that at many points in the film, where characters have been 'rotoscoped', the characters look like a cross between live action people and cartoons, a very weird, displeasing effect. The orcs and Nazgul just look like black blobs with eyes during the scenes where they are rotoscoped. Apart from the rotoscoping, the animation is very incontinuous. Pippin's hair changes colour during the Mines of Moria scene, and characters faces shift around in an ungodly way. The backgrounds are also bad in my opinion. The backgrounds are clearly painted while the characters on them are cartoons which do not look realistic against the backgrounds.
Next problem is the pacing. Many times during the film a character will say something and the 'camera' (although there are no cameras when making cartoons you know what I mean) will linger on the characters face for 3 seconds after they've finished talking. 3 seconds of the character just standing there, looking, with nothing special taking place. Also, the 'Flight to the Ford' scene is disastrous. Just a lot of Frodo on a horse pacing back and forth in front of Nazgul who aren't attacking for some reason.
I think this film is, however, underrated. After you have seen the Rankin/Bass version of 'The Return of the King', you will see how bad an adaptation of 'Lord of the Rings' can be, and you will appreciate this attempt more, and be able to see that they did an alright job of it.
To recap, I DO recommend this to people who have read 'Lord of the Rings', just for the novelty of seeing scenes from the book interpreted by Bakshi. I even recommend people who have not read the books but have seen Jackson's trilogy to watch this, for the same novelty.If you are new to the 'Lord of the Rings' phenomenon, read the books, or at least see Peter Jackson's trilogy. You will not be able to understand this film without some prior knowledge of the story.
PS: I do not recommend ANYONE to see the Rankin/Bass version of 'Return of the King'.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
You may find Narnia a more savage place than you remember
I wont comment on the plot for the sake of newcomers to the story, but I will say this: It is deeper, darker, and danker than the first.
From the very first scenes you can see that things have changed. The primary antagonist, Lord Miraz, is a brutal tyrant, and in my opinion, a much better villain than the White Witch. I read on his IMDb trivia section, that Sergio Castellitto (the actor of Miraz) has never played a villain before this role. After seeing this film, you will not be able to believe he could play anything but a villain.
Ben Barnes (Prince Caspian) is perfect for the role. Caspian and the Telmarines have all been portrayed as Spaniards or other Europeans for this film, a stroke of genius from director Andrew Adamson. Barnes is able to pull off the raw emotion of his character, which is seen vividly during the scene in Miraz's bedroom (people who've seen the film will know what I'm talking about).
Peter Pevensie is struggling with the frustration of being 'trapped' in a boy's body after growing up as a man in Narnia. William Moseley pulls the part off without a hitch, and his verbal sparring with Caspian is wonderfully acted.
Skandar Keynes (Edmund)'s voice has broken since the first Narnia film, which really is a stroke of luck for Adamson, since the character Edmund is now much more psychologically mature and responsible, no longer the whiny little brat from the first one. Keynes is excellent in his part, better than any of the other child actors in this film, and better than other current child actors such as Daniel Radcliffe and Freddie Highmore. Keynes should have a secure future career by now.
The film has quite a bit more battle scenes than C.S. Lewis's novel, something that Lewis may have disliked, but that I felt befitted the film. A whole new battle scene is inserted at Miraz's castle, and although it is lengthy, it nonetheless serves purpose, and brings much more tension to the story. While this, and other scenes are added, no major scenes from the book are compromised, except for a few flashback scenes of Caspian's childhood, which are easily done without.
To conclude, this movie is better in every way possible than its predecessor. I can only hope that the films will continue in this fashion. The title of this comment, taken from the trailer, pretty much sums it up. I recommend any fans of the first film (even people who 'kind of liked it') to see the sequel.