Thursday, 27 May 2010

Same sh*t different day

Lovers: Taken from imdb

"I saw this movie at a preview event last Friday night and it was hilarious. The sold out cinema was laughing hysterically throughout the movie. The movie is fast paced and does not drag. The comedy is "r" rated with a little raunchy adult humor that can be shocking at times but that is in line with the movies theme of male/female relationships.Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler were both great in the film. Not a role that you would expect to see the King of Sparta, but Butler has great comedic timing complimenting his tough guy persona. And Katherine Heigl is once again perfect doing comedy.If you are expecting to see a typical romantic comedy you will be surprised, because this R rated film is geared toward the men in the audience as well as the ladies. Grab your significant other and be prepared to laugh and enjoy the movie together."

There are some good laughs to be had and it is quite fast paced but then there that last 20 mins…

Haters: taken form imdb

"Before renting this film I had read quite a few reviews about this film on this site and decided that it sounded good and would be appropriate for me to watch with my 17-year old daughter. I was misled. So, I need to make a comment. I've just re-read as many of those previous comments/reviews, plus a dozen more. It seems that many people saw the film in "preview" showing - they all loved it. Could those posts be planted by the movie production or distribution companies? Because, frankly, this movie was not funny, it was filled with vulgarity, and it was poorly made, with choppy scenes, poor character development, etc.If the creators of this film were trying to emulate a Hepburn/Tracy-like relationship on screen, they failed. Seeing a beautiful woman say the word c*** repeatedly is not humorous, sexy or intriguing. It's just plain bad film-making. A terrible script, stereotyped characters and, overall, a bad career choice for the actors involved.Very inappropriate for high school aged kids who love the romantic comedy formula and go to these movies because they feel good that the couple ends up together happy. This couple finally gets together, but my daughter and I felt liked we'd been dragged through the mud with them to get there. "

I can see where this lady is coming from, some jokes are crude but in all fairness there is worse out there! The point with the repeated cock lines is a bit cheap and not very funny.

What I thought:
As usual me and “rom-coms” don’t get on, they are all the same and ultimately boil down to one point. The important part is the journey and up until the final third The Ugly Truth is actually quite funny. Gerard Butler plays his character well and is quite good at delivering those funny lines, of course Katherine Heigl has made a career out of roles like this and as usual she is just as likeable as any other similar role, she has a very “Meg Ryan” moment at a dinner table that’s quite funny.

Where this film lets itself down is at the end, they build this film up as a battle of the sex’s comedy that holds no punches. What comes out at the end is a slushy romance to make you gag, which is a shame as there was some potential. The ending was just so non committal and felt like it was written in 5 mins and up until that crawl to the end the film is fast moving and the gags come quick and fast.

So it’s a laugh until about the last 30 mins or so, nothing to write home about.

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

No guts no glory

Lover: taken from IMDB
"I saw the movie at the world premiere in Venice and Mickey Rourke, Darren Aronofsky and other crew members were also in the audience. When the credits began, people were jumping out of their seats (including me) applauding and cheering for more than 15 minutes. It was really amazing. I have been a Rourke fan for 10 years now and to me Darren Aronofsky is one of the greatest directors of the last ten years. So when I entered the cinema my expectations were as high as never before. But this 40 Euro ticket was worth every cent. I never saw such a moving performance by "Sir Eddie Cook" who played Randy "the Ram" with such authenticity that I was paralyzed for almost two hours. And that's because Rourke isn't just playing "Ram", he IS "Ram", at least a part of him (there are many parallels to his real troubled past). Aronofsky really did a great job and really pushed the actors to their limits. It is amazing to see how a good director can turn such a simple story into one of the greatest movies I have ever seen (and I watch hundreds of movies). So everybody who grew up in the 80's with wrestling, hard rock and Nintendo or just loves movies should see this - at least ten times. God bless you Darren, Mickey and all the other crew members for the best cinema experience I have ever had. no doubt about it."

He really did love this movie!

Hater: Taken from IMDB
"The guy is very talented. Pi & Requiem for a Dream were brilliant but made no money. The Fountain was solid but overly ambitious and lacked a Hollywood storyline thus lost about $25 million. The Wrestler is Darren paying back his Hollywood machers. Yes, it is well acted but the story of an aging burnout who can't let go of his past glory is the oldest story in the book. I found the depth lacking and overall it just plodded along until the ultimately cliché ending. Just follow the numbers people - cost only $7 million and will probably gross about $20 - $30 million. This is Darren trying to remain viable in Hollywood and little else."

He really hated it!!

What I thought:
My thought on the Wrestler lay somewhere between these two, rather annoyingly I’m sitting on the fence for this film. I think to not see the parallel’s in Mickey Rourkes real life would be stupid but then that’s why he plays it so well. In regards to the depth I think the hate has a point it’s not that in-depth but then neither was Rocky?

The other inevitable comparison would be Rocky and I think Rocky does beat it hands down. Simply because Rocky is more likeable, Randy “The Ram” is a bit of a scoundrel and really only has himself to blame. Rocky on the other was just shit out of luck! I think the wrestlers worth watching for the performance but also a revealing expose into the world of wrestling.

Despite the fights being “fake” wrestling still takes a lot out of the combatants and its about time people realised that. I don’t watch wrestling anymore but when I did I loved it and The Wrestler reminded me why. The pain that you see in the film looks and feels real and it shows you the kind of punishment that these guys put themselves through to show you a good time.

I think the film should be watched as less a redemption story and more a revealing look into the life of a wrestler albeit a washed up one.

Friday, 21 May 2010

Growing Pains

Lover: Taken form IMDB
“So i got the chance of seeing An Education and let me tell you, i couldn't wait the hour to come and tell what a fantastic film this is. Well even that the plot has been re-used several times, i believe that this time it really move me. this movie has heart and even made me laugh and cry. Every one from the director to the cast did a terrific job but there were two that shine: Carey Mulligan and Rosemund Pike. Carey did a terrific and moving job as Jenny; she's so natural and charming but also so strong and moving as this girl that i think that if she doesn't get the Oscar i will be so upset and many of you too. Pike also shine in her bubbly role but also made me feel some compassion for her as somehow the other woman of copper's character. so if you have a chance of picking this movie anywhere you are don't even think twice; this movie is gonna change you.”

Well I don’t know about “changing me” but I liked the film too.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“It is simply beyond me how this film is seen as anything more than light moralistic drivel. I see about 400 films a year, and this was one of the 5 worst. Awful acting from the father, totally unbelievable and silly-easy plot, the sort of script that make film students wonder why they need to bother to study. It is moralizing nonsense from a woman who obviously fell too easily, got her feathers burnt, then spent the rest of her life avenging herself, and blaming him for being a cad. There are plenty of age-gap relationships that have lasted lifetimes, and even more same-age relationships that fail dreadfully, with abuses all around. It feels the film was made to score social points in a puritanical Britain. No depth of any kind, just that one lovely fake-teen, and a story that no doubt titillates older men to score it over a 5. Don't fall for the publicity-made hype. It is a TV movie at the most.”

It’s a shame these days that films are taken so seriously and this review isn’t even the pick of the bunch! One review I read damned the film for just being plain wrong!?

What I Thought:

When considering An Education you have to first detach yourself from the hysteria that has been made of horrible Paedophilic story’s that fills our news. As horrible as it all is it should in no way be applied to this movie which in a round about way is where some of the more scathing reviews are coming from. An Education is more than a coming of age story; it applies itself to the argument of where you learn more whilst growing up; in the real world or packing yourself off to college and University.

Our main character is a bright, charming and beautiful girl pushed into things by her parents at a time when the world was really moving forward. Perhaps not in the right direction but there was so much freedom out there for the youth and a revolution was going on. When a mysterious gentleman gives her a lift home and sweeps her off her feet its no wonder she gets carried away. Here begins the more controversial parts of the film, this gentleman just so happens to be quite a bit older. If it were to happen today his face would be on the front the Tabloids and he would be labelled a “predator”.

In some way’s he is though and it’s a credit to Peter Sarsgaard who plays him so well to the point where you don’t want to feel sorry for him but you do. Of course Carey Muligan is everything you have heard, a completely committed performance and worthy of every accolade she has achieved. In the end our main character has learned valuable lessons and found her way, because after all there really is no way of knowing how best to get “an education” because the real education is working that out for yourself.

Thursday, 20 May 2010

Not so merry men

Lovers: David Edwards for the

“Despite the feeling that Scott is laying the foundations for a sequel dealing with Robin's life as a forest-dwelling outlaw, the film never gets bogged down in backstory thanks to some great action set pieces. The highlight, however, is the odious Sir Godfrey, terrifically played by Strong who steals his every scene. As for Crowe, while he nails the Midlands accent, it'd be nice to see him without that trademark frown. Perhaps mindful of the 30-odd Robin Hood movies that have come before, Scott has portrayed him as a principled freedom fighter handy not just with a bow and arrow but able to deliver rousing speeches, even persuading King John to consider signing the Magna Carta. Your history teacher might not like it but this scores a bullseye”

Ok its not exactly singing with praise but sounds like he liked it.

Haters: Roger Ebert for The Chicago Sun-Times

“Have we grown weary of the delightful aspects of the Robin Hood legend? Is witty dialogue no longer permitted? Are Robin and Marion no longer allowed to engage in a spirited flirtation? Must their relationship seem like high-level sexual negotiations? How many people need to be covered in boiling oil for Robin Hood's story to be told these days? How many parents will be misled by the film's PG-13 rating? Must children go directly from animated dragons to skewering and decapitation, with no interval of cheerful storytelling?
The photography is, however, remarkable, and Crowe and the others are filled with fierce energy. Ridley Scott is a fine director for work like this, although in another world, Hollywood would let him make smarter films. God, he must be tired of enormous battle scenes.”

Roger Ebert makes me laugh, most of his reviews have this rose tinted view of Hollywood. I can appreciate that the movies have changed in the years he has been reviewing but I don’t think he has. You would be an idiot to think that this Robin Hood will be anything like what you have seen before; it’s directed by RIDLEY SCOTT!!!!

What I thought:

I thought Robin Hood was a nice blend of ye old legend and modern epic film making, the characters were as I would imagine them. This Maid Marion suffers no fools, these merry men are proper lads who like a drink (and should have had more screen time). As for the rest of the cast everyone was watchable as the last even Mark Strong who does seem to be milking that bad guy role.

I think it was well written to, the dialogue has all of the cringe inducing motivational lines and speech’s along with some very good moments humour that don’t feel forced. As usual Ridley Scott is the master of the modern epic, sweeping views of jaw dropping action set pieces, nobody does it better.

Another thing I don’t understand is everyone’s hatred for Russell Crowe, I can see the man has been typecast but then every great actor does! Johnny Depp is still milking that “eccentric clown” to the point where its become a little dry (though I’m yet to see Alice)and nobody hates him? It’s frustrating when people do that but then it’s the nature of the beast. In this film for instance Mr Crowe has a bit of laugh and his character doesn’t have as many hang-ups which is refreshing and means he can explore the role.

Robin Hood is a well played, well acted action epic that ticks all the right boxes for fans of Gladiator.

Wednesday, 19 May 2010

A Biopic, this is not.

Lovers: Taken from IMDB:
"Despite the title and unlike some other stories about love and war, this film isn't too sticky and pink, because love is as a rose: With thorns, that is. The four leading actors set their characters realistic and with a good sense and balance between the tragic and the down-to-earth.
The music and lyrics of the cabaret/chanson-esquire songs (sung b Keira Knightley herself) drag the viewer deeper and deeper in the film, from one place to another, between the brutal war and amongst the peaceful love. Some people may find it too much a biopic, but it ís mostly a romantic story, even though it consequently follows the life of Dylan Thomas and the triangular relationship which is steeped by joy and jealousy.
London gets visualized from another angle for once, the bohemian life of Dylan during the bombings of the Germans is set in a floating atmosphere of small bedrooms, pubs and bars. The independent women, the soldier and the charismatic poet are constantly swept in both feelings of love and anger.
Maybe the end is too twisted and hangs somewhat loosely to the rest of the film, but all in all this is a great romantic story"

I agree with this review….

Haters: Taken from IMDB:
"This is probably the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to see. There is no discernible plot, the script might have been written by a twelve-year-old, and the acting is deplorable. Above all, it seems to have nothing to do with either Dylan or Caitlin Thomas. This film buys into all the clichés about the Thomas' life together, and gives those viewers unfamiliar with the facts a picture that bears as good as no resemblance to the truth. The pretentiousness of this film is nauseating; I can only assume that none of the actors or actresses had ever read anything of Dylan or Caitlin Thomas. had they bothered to do so, they might have spotted the misquoted lines of Thomas' poetry that are scattered throughout the 'dialogue' at the most inopportune moments. this picture is deplorable. Miss it."

Now I don’t know much about the life of Dylan Thomas so I can’t really comment on that but just as a film not biopic it wasn’t all that bad.

What I thought:

You know when you see an actor and they become one of you favourites, from that moment on they can do no wrong. In this example it’s Cillian Murphy, who cut his teeth in the big time with Danny Boyles brilliant 28 Days Later which owed a lot to his performance. Since then whatever I’ve seen him in he has been great, including this. Despite the title and the cover convincing you your about to watch some slushy war time romance flick, it should surprise you. It will surprise you even more if you’re familiar with the poet Dylan Thomas, because although this film includes him as a character it is not a biopic.

This is a story of love and lust which simply has a wartime backdrop and is based on a time in Dylan Thomas’s life. It uses the poetry of the man to give it a very dreamy setting (though according to the hater review it is all “misquoted”). It’s Cillian Murphy’s war hero that carries the film for me, whose performance is believable and committed. He even helps to ignore the fact the Kiera Knightly is in it, as well its quite dark tone due to the subject matter and the setting. All of this makes for a quite a good wartime drama, forget watching it as a romance or biopic, you wont like it.

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

It aint Swingers!

Lovers: Taken from IMDB

"My wife and I saw this film not expecting a great deal. We aren't big fans of Vaughn or Favreau (Stars and Writers). But the film preview piqued our interest. We were surprised and delighted to see that Peter Billingsley (A Christmas Story) was the Director. He did a fine job! We were quite pleasantly surprised to find Couples Retreat was very touching and poignant in it's handling of the challenges of marriage. Yes, it has some rather sexually suggestive scenes, but they are played for laughs and not personally offensive for us. The resolution of conflicts in the participants lives was very satisfying for us as we believe marriage is worth the effort! The setting in Bora Bora is absolutely breathtaking and we truly enjoyed our afternoon at the movies!"

Hmm not to sure about the handling of challenges of marriage, apart from that fair enough.

Haters: Taken from IMDB

"If your idea of Comedy consist of juvenile dirty jokes that center around masturbating and sticking your private parts into other peoples faces, then this is your kind of movie. If your idea of Entertainment is watching four narcissistic, sexually depraved adults trying to cope with married life, then this is your kind of movie. The photography and location are fantastic. Casting did a great job in booking the talent. Peter did a good job on the set. The plot could work with better writers. The story was weak and fragmented. I would recommend this movie only if you have absolutely nothing else to do on a cold rainy day and you're craving Popcorn. My rating is F+ for great scenery. The Cast, Crew and Producers should be ashamed."

I agree with this guy but there are still laughs to be had in this movie.

What I thought:

I have to say I was largely disappointed with this movie, the main reason being that the last time I saw John Fareau and Vince Vaughn act together was in swingers and that film rocked. Swingers had all the charm and look for an indie film and delivered quick-fire laughs, not belly laughs but a constant chuckle. Couples Retreat is nothing like that and apart from some sight gags that should get some laughs it’s not very funny. Vince Vaughn’s rant about being “bitten” by a shark is great but it’s the only real time Vince really hits his peak for dialogue.

So a largely disappointing film that should have made more if its cast than its location.

Monday, 17 May 2010

Nick and Norah’s nostalgia trip

Lovers: Taken from IMDB

“I've seen a ton of romantic comedies, some are good, some are awful; very few are really really good.... You guessed it... wow! Did we love this: smart, dippy, cutting, funny in all shades of funny, sweet romantic with a down low low-fi edge, up to date and even occasionally over the top this was far and away our favorite romantic comedy of the year and I'm giving it a solid ten in its genre. Need to go on a date movie? This is your bucket of chicken - I promise you'll leave feeling lighter and curly wurly. Very well directed by Peter Sollett it really brings an affection to its making and he's a name to look out for if you ask us... All in all kind of our bag through and through... go see...”

A nice review for a nice movie.

Haters: Taken from IMDB

“I'm not sure why or how this happened, but there seems to be an escalating amount of Jewish driven comedies emerging on the Hollywood Scene. I don't quite remember where it started, perhaps with the presence of Natalie Portman... who knows. Anyway, with that film about the Amusement Park this past summer to this film, movies that depict entire American communities as being nothing but Jewish kids is kind of offensive and discomforting. Where are the Christains or Muslims in these movies? Secondly, the characters were empty, think, nothing but makeup on skin. Sure they were all good looking on screen, but there really wasn't anything to them or the silly little story that they were thrown into. A night on the town of New York has been done too many times to be innovative.
1 Star, worth skipping.”

A rather controversial view of religion in not just this film but a lot of films, hmm? I could see his point if these films were supposed to have a religious angle but they don’t so I don’t see why he’s got his knickers in a twist!

What I thought:

For me Nick and Norah was a great nostalgic trip into my misspent youth. I was having a conversation the other day about the kind of music you listen to and the way it defines you. Back in the day I use to listen to quite heavy stuff but not because I was angry at my parents. I appreciated the energy, I like high energy songs and still do, what I was angry about back then was girls, which meant I was into what they call “pop punk”.

The point I’m trying to make here is that Infinite playlist made me feel the same way that music use to make me feel. It reminded what a first kiss felt like when you were a teenager, it reminded me what that first awkward fondle was like or how it felt when she broke your heart. It does this by being unashamedly cute, with Michael Cera using on his awkward type cast once again (if it aint broken why fix it?).

The majority of the cast are terrible stereotypes but weren’t we all at some point. This film is a pleasant watch and may take some of you on a journey to your past endeavours; or rather weirdly put you on a defensive about religious groups portrayed in movies?

Friday, 14 May 2010

Where no director had been before

Lovers: Taken from IMDB
“So I managed to go to the world premiere at the Sydney opera house last night. While I will not ruin the film before its release by delivering a shot by shot review here I will say that JJ Abrams is quite possibly the smartest film maker on the planet. Managing to poke fun at some of the sillier aspects of the original series/movies while still being completely respectful, action scenes that easily rival anything in Transformers, and space battles that are breathtaking. Now let me just say that while I do consider myself a big fan of Trek in all its forms, i don't have a uniform hanging in my wardrobe and I cant speak Klingon, but having said that I will say the movie is F###ING AMAZING...!!! Honestly, incredible film, do yourself a favour and see it as soon as it comes out. thanks, the end.”

Sums up the movie pretty well I think.

Haters: Taken from IMDB
“Darth Vader, err, Darth Maul - umm, I mean Nero - has this huge, gigantic awesome Death Star - err, I mean Mining Ship, that can destroy entire planets. So Nero blows up Alderaan - umm, I mean Vulcan, killing Princess Leia's father - I mean, Spock's mother. And then the Death Star homes in on the Rebel Base - Umm, I mean the mining ship homes in on Starfleet headquarters, and only Luke Skywalker can stop it by ignoring orders and turning off his targeting computer and trusting the Force - no, I mean only Jim Kirk can stop it by ignoring Starfleet's orders and trusting his instincts. It's a good thing Old Ben Kenobi was there to give Kirk that fatherly advice earlier - no, wait, that was Captain Pike.”

Brilliant review, almost certainly a star trek fanboy with a bee in his bonnet! He does have a point but who cares when the film is just so much fun!

What I Thought:

I can understand the fanboys point of view, it’s not a good feeling when someone comes along and messes with the formula of something your fanatic about. There has to be a line drawn somewhere though, Star Trek is a great film forget reboot or re imagining or whatever, it’s an entertaining popcorn blockbuster. Just because some fan has got on their high horse about some plot holes and it being different from the original should not put anyone off seeing it.

JJ Abram’s has pulled something that no one thought he could do, he took a franchise that was dead in the water and gave it a good kick into maximum warp! This Star Trek is the most accessible, not bogged down in science talk or political intrigue just good fun. The casting is the main thing for me, re-casting those iconic characters must have been one hell of a task but every actor shouldered the responsibility really well. Each one bringing back the characters with youth and energy only added to the lightning pace screenplay.

For more on Star Trek form me you can check out the review on the right…

Thursday, 13 May 2010

A great start to the summer season.

“Iron Man 2 is the perfect summer film. It is one of the few sequels that actually meets the standards set by the original. Overall, it’s lighthearted and fun, but has just enough elements of many genres (action, comedy, romance and science fiction, mainly) to make it appeal to almost everyone.”

Katie Rossomano @ Daily Titan

I completely agree with this review, much like the one bellow you should check out the whole review though.

“I don’t know what went on behind the scenes while the film was being made but rumours of reshoots and recuts have been swirling around the internet. Was this the film director Jon Favreau wanted to make? I doubt it. After Elf, the underrated Zathura and the first instalment, he’s proved himself a capable pair of hands. Perhaps the blame lies higher up the studio food chain.”

David Edwards @ the Mirror

Hmm a little harsh don’t you think? The rest of this guys review is pretty damning so I won’t indulge him by showing all of it!

What I thought:
When the first Iron Man came out, it caught a lot of people with their trousers down. It was a smash hit directed by someone not known for Summer tent poles and starred an actor better known for off-screen antics. It worked for that reason, John Favreau directed it not as summer blockbuster but just an interesting film that has a superhero in it albeit a flawed one. Robert Downey Jnr brought his roughish appeal to Tony Stark and funnily enough that’s exactly how he is in the comics.

With that perfect formula a sequel was in the bag and expectations were high. Well I of course speak for myself but I loved it, everything the first one was and more! Mr Downey Jnr channels his bad days to convince as the boozing Tony Stark and yet again brings out laughs in the most un-expected places, Gwyneth Paltrow despite rumoured disputes is funnier in this film and less highly strung. Don Cheadle does himself a favour and ignores the role in the first film to make War Machine his own.

The bad guys are brilliant too, Whiplash may be a bit stereo-typical Russian bad guy but he’s great! My only gripe is that I thought he deserved more screen time as Mickey Rourke clearly relished the role! Sam Rockwell is one of the stand outs for me, he’s one of my favourite actors and in this he channels Downy Jnr’s Stark only minus any charisma!

Apart from that everything was better, the director had a better hand over action after cutting his teeth on the first one and he’s always been great and handling dialogue. Now avoiding the link to the Avengers and Scarlet Johanssen and Samuel L Jackson is a bit like an elephant in the room! It does bring me to the biggest problem people have with it, that it is used more of a set up to the avengers than its own film?

I agree with them to a certain degree I just don’t think it’s a bad thing! Introducing this whole sub plot of the “arc reactor” poisoning him is a bit paper thin but it works. Perhaps it’s because I’m a marvel fan and love the characters crossing over! Either way I think it’s besides the point as even if it is a link it’s an entertaining one.

Wednesday, 12 May 2010

I'm back

I’m back

Sorry it’s been so long since my last update but I had a few things to do…

Now I’m married have finally flown in a plane and have a spanking new job that’s so right it should be wrong!

To start back I have a few films to catch up on and seem as it’s very current we’ll start with Iron Man 2…

About Me

My photo
"Films are Loved, Films are hated. I'm here to help you decide where you stand..." I also do web work including a good knowledge of HTML, ASP, using the adobe web package and a strong understanding of SEO, Google Analytics.