Change Your Image
chrism-41414
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Midnight Special (2016)
Good start, lack of payoff
Had some interesting themes, and some not-so-interesting themes. Really fell apart in the third act as the "big reveal" that was supposed to be the payoff for all the earlier intrigue was totally lame. Felt a bit Shymalanny, in fact. It starts out tense and engaging, but the more you learn about the ultimately unimpressive premise, the less immersive the experience becomes.
In terms of acting, Michael Shannon, Kirsten Dunst and Kylo Ren all did a fine job as always. However, the plot revolved entirely around the young boy: child actors can very often make the movie sink or swim, and unfortunately this was the former. Perhaps it was bad dialogue, but for me, I couldn't take the kid seriously and that left the final third dead in the water.
Good start, jumped the shark about half way through. 6/10.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Cartoonish and flat. The bad writing disembowels it completely.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the unwarranted and unnecessary sequel to 2012's equally unnecessary and unwarranted The Amazing Spider-Man. It almost goes without saying that this is a staggeringly transparent cash- grab on the part of Sony and to a lesser extent Marvel, but the question is, is it worth your time and money?
The short answer is, absolutely not. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 evokes unavoidable comparisons to the masterstroke of the 2002-2007 trilogy, Spiderman 2, which was unquestionably superior in literally every conceivable fashion. As a matter-of-fact, you'll often wish – during TASM2's 140 minute runtime – that you're watching Spiderman 2. But how can that be? As Buzzfeed like to remind us, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are delightful; Dane De Haan is a promising young actor with a striking resemblance to a young Leonardo Di Caprio and Jamie Foxx is an experienced actor playing a potentially strong villain. Behind the camera, director Marc Webb impressed everybody with (500) Days of Summer and a string of well-known music videos, so what could go wrong? The answer, as is often the case in failed blockbusters, is lazy, shitty writing. It will be of no surprise to anyone that screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have each had a hand in at least one Transformers movie. But I digress.
TASM2, much like its predecessor, tediously and uncharismatically explores the mystery of what happened to Peter's parents, while Peter himself unconvincingly gets adjusted to his new life as Spiderman. Typically, there is also an antagonist who pops out of the woodwork courtesy of Oscorp (which surely by now should've faced at least some legal scrutiny for becoming a world-leader in the manufacture of supervillains), and Harry Osborn also appears as the harbinger of an inevitable Green Goblin return. This much has surely been made obvious by the trailer.
While this movie has some legitimately impressive action set-pieces, it succeeds only in turning a respectable group of lead actors into scenery-chewing, Saturday-morning-cartoon caricatures. During the film's non-action scenes, the leads unforgivably adopt ham-fisted pseudo- representations of their real-life personalities - I'm referring in mainly to Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone here. It becomes insipidly clear as the film goes on that their off-screen personality as a "cute celebrity couple" has been allowed to directly influence the writing. Often it feels as if they've just been thrown into a scene and told to improvise, and riff off of their natural chemistry. This is cute to watch, but when you suddenly remember that the last scene finished with an argument (or even an official break up at one point) it does make you question how well the writers knew their own screenplay. They chuckle and fawn giddily over each other, in spite of the fact that the narrative demands that they behave otherwise – like real human people would.
Poorly written scenes are not in short supply, and they encapsulate the knuckle-bitingly poor dialogue that mutilates this movie from beginning to end. The dialogue in the original trilogy was far from Shakespeare, but it was firm, utilitarian dialogue that moved the plot along. Here, everything is awkward and confused. It also through this poor scripting and story-telling that it becomes unescapable to realise Peter is in fact, quite obnoxious and douchey in this incarnation of Spiderman. Look at the plot from the villains' point of view as the film goes along, and you'll see what I mean.
Ultimately, TASM2 just left me feeling quite sad. The writers' tendency to open up plot holes the size of craters, and the bizarre shift toward Adam West Batman-style "campy" villains just made everyone seem like a dick who wasn't worth rooting for. By rebooting the Spiderman franchise this early – and getting a great cast to boot – Sony have made the unspoken promise that they've corrected the mistakes that the original trilogy made, and even improved upon its positives. However, they have achieved neither. This series has thus far done everything that the original series did, but slightly worse. Anything new it's tried to do, it has done poorly, and frankly I feel like a sucker for going to see it.
BUT HEY, THEY'RE MAKING A THIRD ONE WITH DOC OCK AND VULTURE AND OTHERS. GET OUT YOUR WALLETS.
Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
Visually Adequate, Horribly Anti-Feminist
Privilege CHECK: I am a straight, white male, aged 21. This is what I thought of the movie;
Blah blah blah, fine visual effects, blah blah. I'll get straight to the point. This film sucks in terms of the message it's sending to kids; specifically young girls. The original "The Wizard of Oz" was significantly ahead of its time in terms of feminism, and it's over 70 years old. "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is a very confusing step backward, all arguments of cheap Hollywood-remake cash-grabbing aside. Here is why...
It's easy to spot true feminism in contemporary cinema with a few very simple questions;
1: Is there more than one female main character? 2: If yes, do they ever speak to each other? 3: If yes, do those conversations address something besides the leading male character? 4: Does their motivation go further than getting the aforementioned man, or "Mr. Right" at the end?
If the answer to all four is yes, then that there is probably a true feminist piece, as it depicts independent women making independent decisions to achieve their own goals. This is a good message to send young girls, and you may notice that "The Wizard of Oz" accomplishes this perfectly.
If the answer to any of those questions is no, then that is faux-feminism, and Hollywood is incredibly fond of this in a supposedly post-feminist world. You may notice that "Oz: The Great and Powerful" falls down on questions 3 and 4, often in a jaw-droppingly lunk-headed fashion. Let's examine this in more detail;
EVERY WOMAN IN THIS FILM ONLY EVER DOES ANYTHING FOR JAMES FRANCO'S BENEFIT, EVEN THOUGH HE IS BLATANTLY A TOTAL DONG.
Seriously, right from the get-go, Mila Kunis in her needlessly tight leather pants can't wait to give him the keys to the kingdom and (presumably) sleep with him, only to later get dumped and go on a psychotic rampage, totally turning her own life upside down and throwing away what was probably a very lucrative career as a princess of whatever. Rachel Weisz is evil anyway, but every discussion she has, and for that matter everything she does has something to do with James Franco, who's been cheaply shoved into the story because there was a prophecy he'd bring balance to the force or whatever. Michelle Williams, in spite of her being able to practise magic, making her infinitely more powerful than James Franco, in his capacity as just some guy, still ends up subservient to Franco's character at the end because he sort-of helped rid the kingdom of the Wicked Witch of the Wherever.
Nitpicking aside, if you break the original and this prequel down to its most basic message that young girls will take away, it is this;
"The Wizard of Oz": As a young woman it is important to be brave, clever and kind to others - especially those less fortunate - to succeed in your goals. You must also look after your dog.
"Oz: The Great and Powerful": It is very important to be pretty and get a hot guy like James Franco. If he runs off with a hot blonde, however, it's probably your fault for being a b!tch.
Worse still is the message that young boys may take away: No matter how much more talented, moral or intelligent she may be, you're still the man so your goals are more important. Casual infidelity and stringing girls along is also totally fine and there will be no consequences.
This seems a little strange to me that was is effectively a remake could be so backward in it's message, compared to the source material which is ancient by cinema standards. This is so bizarre in fact, it completely overshadows everything else in the film. But as for the film itself, it was powerfully average green screen schlock.
4/10. Don't see it, definitely don't take your kids to see it.
The Machine (2013)
An Uneven Blend of Ideas Great and Terrible
The Machine follows the story of two irritating scientists as they stand slackjawed at the edge of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. That's about all I can say without giving away any spoilers, and in all honesty that's already a more accurate plot synopsis than the one that already exists on the IMDb.
This movie had some genuinely impressive moments, which are the result of some very competent film-making; the visual effects are beyond anything I could've possibly imagined and are nothing short of spectacular given the film's low budget. Aside from this, the cinematography is very impressive - however it segues from being beautifully shot to appallingly shot so frequently it will leave you both dizzy and confused.
The set design was also impressive, and more accurate than you might assume - a Q+A with the Director revealed that care had been taken to make the sets look authentically MoD. As well as this, the techno-babble isn't as stupid as it initially sounds either - the crew have indeed done their homework.
However, I'm sorry to say it was all for nothing, as the three critical elements that keep people interested - the script, acting and casting - are nothing short of appalling. The characters are incredibly flat - often spewing robotic exposition, and they occasionally have outright bizarre sweary outbursts in a desperate bid to make the dialogue seem more brooding.
The film's leading actress is sublimely annoying, and her shrill, squeaky voice made me want to knaw off a thumb before the hour mark. As for Tobey Stephens, after 10 years of following they guy's career, I still can't tell if he's a bad actor, or if he's consistently fed awful scripts. Either way, in this film he often acted as though he'd just witnessed some horrible event and had been given a powerful sedative.
The fundamental flaw with this film is that some very talented people worked very hard to put together a visually stunning piece of work - although seemingly no one had read the script. It was awfully clear, right from the opening scenes that it'd been written in one draft, possibly over a weekend. This was incredibly frustrating to witness, because there's no reason that independent, low-budget films - when done right - can't become world-wide blockbusters (i.e. Paranormal Activity). However, once its film festival run is all said and done, Red&Black Films will see this movie fade away into obscurity; and they will say it's because they didn't really have the resources, or they didn't have bigger names attached, but they will be wrong. It's because the whole idea was flawed right out of the gate; and the basic elements that were at their own fingertips right from the get-go (dialogue, characters, pacing) were so catastrophically out of whack it sunk a film that really could've been something special. Shame.
Medal of Honor: Frontline (2002)
The Gem of the MOH Series
When you think of World War Two, you think of the bloody beaches of Normandy, the shattered villages of rural France, and the plotting resistance pin-pricking German positions. And this is exactly what this game delivers.
The game-play is - in a good way - typical of a first person shooter. The range of weapons is very realistic as well. The story portrays you as Jim Patterson, a private in the U.S. army, picked for a series of undercover missions across undercover France.
The only let down is the fact that you can't play 2 player. But other than that, a brilliant game. Seeing as it's quite an old game now, you can pick it up in most game stores for under £25.
A real gem. 9/10