Monday, 31 January 2011


An Essential for anyone interested in anime

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Without a doubt the necessary injection of Manga culture Western audiences needed. Personal objections (or should I say appraisals) aside, Akira deconstructs the form of narrative and character development that we had all become accustomed to through Hollywood and produces a reasonably honest translation of Katsuhiro Otomo's Manga epic, with mass deletions of unnecessary characters and plot avenues. The story is complex enough to keep western audiences attention, yet simple enough to digest whilst taking in the wonderfull animation and excellent soundtrack (a collection of traditional Japanese instruments and modern day synthesised electronica that allow for elements of cinema to establish themselves for the audience) The conflict between the two main characters, Tetsuo and Kaneda is ultimately superceded by the films namesake, the mystery of the boy Akira, and as with very few films Hollywood produces it leaves it's more labour intensive thinking until the end. A delight to follow, with periods of intense action and thought provoking predictions of a neo society, one would like to think of the film as the pipe dream of one who predicted such tragic events as of September 11. Akira, whilst violent for the medium, is a lush metropolis of gang warfare, a psuedo examination into the possible, and a fantasy tale of elements long lost in modern cinema. A cool, entertaining piece littered with cult visions and awesome bikes.”

One of the best reviews I’ve read on IMDB, couldn’t have put it better myself.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“The problem i had with this movie is that it came off as a plotless mess with very superficial characters. I'll admit it was well animated but there was nothing to make me want to see it again nor recommend it to anyone else. I think the reason it is so highly acclaimed is that when it was released to the west, it was so fresh to viewers equating animation with Disney that it automatically became "good." I think it gets 1.5 stars”

Short but sweet and very wrong on one point, yes it was different when it was first released however it has not only lived up to everything that has superseded it, but in most cases is still far more superior than a lot of anime that comes out. Baring that in mind it still deserves more than 1.5 stars, admittedly Akira does get a little bogged down in the science of the story but the only characters that are superficial are the ones that are supposed to be like that.

What I thought:
“No Akira, No Matrix it’s that important” That’s what Empire magazine said about Katsuhiro Otomos’ opus Akira. It’s a fairly bold statement but not unjustified, Akira is basically a cartoon but I guarantee you won’t see anything else like it. It bridges the gap of so many different things it’s an anime but its ultra violence is not off putting and not just entertaining to pubescent boys. Its’ hand drawn but its presented like a Hollywood Blockbuster and the fact that it’s all hand drawn only makes you appreciate more! It is sci-fi but is still original and groundbreaking, and very few Directors can even hope to reach this level of innovation. It’s an intelligent Movie Blockbuster and that is very rare the only difference is: this is animated.

For anyone wanting or getting into anime this is seminal and should not be missed.

The Buzz: 31/01/11

Meet the new Superman

Javier Bardem is the next Bond villain?

The Screen Actors Guild Awards

The future of Freddie Kruger

Sunday, 30 January 2011

2001: A Space Odyssey

More like marmite than you'd think.

Lover: Taken from IMDB
"For all those bewildered by the length and pace of this film ("like, why does he show spaceships docking for, like, 15 minutes?"), here's a word you might want to think about:Beauty.Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you'll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinemagoers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film's plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so. '2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films."All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde."

This is quite a dramatic review but i can see where they are coming from. Sadly most people go to the cinema to be entertained not see "lovely art". I'm not liking the tone of the review either, there is nothing wrong at all with finding this film boring, there i said it! i find 200 and bloody 1 an over long, achingly slow paced sci-fi which is only worth seeing once.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
"I'm sorry, good music and cool special effects do not make a good movie! What the heck? I mean, I saw this movie when I was a kid, and I didn't like it. Now, I have a growing appreciation for movies, and I wanted to write a comment from a more grown up point of view. I had 2 hours to spare and I watched this movie, I swear I nearly went insane. I normally put on the subtitles, in case I miss something or misunderstand the dialoug, 89% of the movie is silent! Apes?! I could just go to the zoo and say I saw this movie! I could watch "Star Wars" and say I saw this movie! It's the same friggin' thing. I'm not trying to be so harsh on this film, but how can anyone find this entertaining?! How?! Unless you are 150 years old, that is the only way I could understand. Geez, people. This movie is so out dated and needs to be thrown away, especially from the top 250! Why are so many bad movies on top 250?! I'm getting sick of these over hyped movies! 1/10"

a little harsh, as the film does have good points. it is beautifully shot and full of great ideas, it's just soo slow and long its boring. Unlike the first review this is the flipside of the whole "is cinema an art form or form of entertainment argument?"

What i thought:
Now before a lot of film buffs get in a big strop, I’m not saying that Stanley Kubricks Sci Fi Epic is a bad film. I watched it only for the second time yesterday and this time was struck by how terribly slow moving it is! I’m not denying that it’s a beautifully shot film with the music to match; there is also no denying how groundbreaking it was. I did however find myself wanting to fast-forward through some of the long drawn out sequences that whilst accompanied by brilliant music, do start to get a bit tedious. All of this in a film that’s around 2 and half hours long!

All I’m saying is that repeat viewings do it no favours…

Available on DVD and Blu-Ray now
Running Time: 141 mins
Cert: 12

The Buzz: 30/01/11

Elton John get s biopic?

Adam Sandler puts in a lot of weight for his next one...

'Mothers Curse' for Barbara Steisand and Seth Rogen

Sundance Festival round-up by Dark Horizons

Saturday, 29 January 2011

Get him to the Greek

A bit close to home for Russell Brand

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“This movie is about a washed up rock star named Aldous Snow. He does drugs and gets drunk while partying all the time. He turns his life around after meeting Arron Green. Arron is working for a record company that has low revenue. Arron suggests that Aldous Snow does a live performance at the Greek theater in Los Angeles. So he is put in charge of getting Aldous Snow from London to the Greek theater. Along the way Aldous decides he wants to see his dad in Las Vegas. After seeing his dad and talking with him he goes to L.A. to see the girl that he fell in love with. After almost committing suicide he performs at the Greek theater. This movie is good because it shows what it's like to be a rock star who has hit rock bottom. This movie is hilarious but also serious. The movie also shows how a good friend can change your life. When Aldous meets Arron he changes his life. When Arron meets Aldous his life becomes more fun.”

Less a review more synopsis really, like this person though I did like this movie.

Hater: Taken from IMDB

“I am shocked at the positive responses to Gte Him To The Greek. I found it hard to watch. It was a grab bag of all the films like it in recent years, had no sense of space or time, unrealistic moments that were suppose to be unPC but just felt off ( Aaron Green drinking all that booze and smoking drugs in the Limo, Aldous Snow's bone sticking out and performing anyway, the violence and fighting in the hotel room, the threesome at the end) to just name a few. Jonah Hill looked obese and his likable low key guy was not interesting enough to carry the scenes. Russell Brand was just being used for his look and flare for the extreme and British accent. It was just an offensive poorly presented road trip with one unbelievable scene after another. I hate to dismiss a film with harsh words that take about 1 minute type out , knowing any film, no matter what anyone thinks of it, takes much work and heart and untold efforts of hundreds of artists to crafting but I think efforts like this are a huge waste of everybody involved's time.”

Hmm a bit harsh to call Jonah Hill obese! A little on the tubbier side he may be but chances are he’s richer than you?

What I thought:
I have a feeling I was always going to like this, I’m a fan of Russell Brand and after reading his books I would imagine that Greek was somewhat a challenge. If not at least it would have made the comedian think, the similarities are mainly the more addictive side of the personality. Drugs, alcohol and of course sex all poke their way into this movie and it’s amazing how lightly some of these things are portrayed but never in an irresponsible way. It does this by not really taking it seriously and by also clearly pointing out that they can be a bad thing.

I’m not saying the film was full of deeper messages about these addictions but it doesn’t sugar coat them either. Aldous Snow is basically a rock star version of Brand himself albeit with a different up-bringing, for anyone who has read any of his books or seen any of his stand ups (ponderland to) you’ll notice that a few of the jokes are clearly straight out of his experiences. Jonah Hill does well and what is expected of him, un-wilfully pulled along for the ride despite being the one supposed to be ‘getting him to the Greek’. What he does really well is perform the part with a naivety about the Rock star lifestyle he enters. Everyone so often the film threatens to get really slowed down by messages of loneliness and dealing with addiction, but if they went any deeper it would have been suicide for a film of this ilk.

There are some really funny moments in this film and it’s watchable for any fans of Russell Brand, however there is an unlikely source of scene stealing. Shaun Combs better known as P-Diddy completely usurps this film form right under everyone’s noses. Not only are the majority of his lines the funniest in the film, but who would have known he could be that funny! He had me cracking up!

It may not be everyone’s cup of Darjeeling but a must, just to see P-Diddy!

The Buzz: 29/01/11

Above, pic of Joseph Gordon-Levitts new film

Pic from Ryan Reynolds & Jason Bateman body swap comedy

Get Back: A Beatles comedy

Lego does the Oscars

Friday, 28 January 2011

Beeonfilm: About the idiot who does this…

My name is Peter Bee, (beeonfilm, get it?) I’m the wrong side of twenty and I live in London. I write this blog / site mainly as a hobby, as I love watching and talking about movies. I first started writing about films on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, that’s going back pretty far; 2002 onwards. During that time I tried my hand at all sorts of creative things; Acting, Singing and Writing being the main points. If I’d really worked hard and a bit more committed I might have made something out of those days, as it stands I was using the whole “I’m being creative” excuse for laying about on my ass and not getting or keeping a job.

In early 2006 this all changed, I wont go into my personal life but put short I had children. Twin boys and that really put my life into perspective. Responsibilities finally came down on me like a tonne of bricks and you can’t get much bigger than being a father! That all turned out well and now I have 3 children and a beautiful wife; though flattery will get me no where, I still leave towels on the floor and shaven facial hair all over the sink! I’m digressing but this made me get a permanent job and work my bum off for my family, it wasn’t easy to start off with!

You adapt in those situations and you find ways of still doing the things you love, movies was the easiest one to fit around my new busy lifestyle. During sleepless nights I would divulge my movie obsession and by the age of 4 months my boys had watched all Star Wars movies (rubbish prequels included), all Lord of the Rings, the Alien series and even the whole 9 seasons of The X Files! Doing reviews was just fun and once again its easy to fit into a busy lifestyle. One of my day jobs was working at City and Guilds; in their customer relations team.

I met some great people in that job and one of them was Martin, He shared my love of film and we frequented a local cinema. It was his idea that I think about writing reviews for a website seem as I enjoyed it so much. I contacted a few and one that got back to me was a website called The Smell of Napalm. An independent review site that gave me my big (or small) break; it was a review of the film Cloverfield that got me the work and my reviews began to be published. With my wife proof reading my work for me and being the sites most prolific writer (at the time) it was good. The highlight of this was getting to see The Dark Knight at the IMAX for free and being served breakfast before I went in (the showing was at 9:30am the day of the premiere), it was then I thought “I’ve almost made it!”

I tried writing for other sites and after some quite frankly rude feedback from one I decided to give that a rest and tried print instead. I got a couple of reviews in a local newspaper and even for a while had a weekly film news column, this lead to me having a film news thing on the Napalm site too. Both of these didn’t last to long and I was back to just writing the reviews, but it did give me important experience. On the advice of the then Editor of the Napalm site Richard Badley I started my own film blog.

The beginning of Beeonfilm, a delightful play on words I thought that worked really well and would give me my own brand name. The blog was only supposed to be an online portfolio; eventually I started covering more and more things on there till my most prolific time in 2010 when I started the daily Buzz. I remember reading other peoples reviews of films and feeling very strongly about them, thinking that some of these are a bit unfair and horribly biased. There’s nothing wrong with it it’s what sites like IMDB are for, however if someone went on there thinking I’ll read one of these reviews to decide what to watch, they might be put of something they may have actually loved. People also like debating films, especially the ones that get mixed reviews and I try to facilitate that. It’s interesting to read some peoples extreme views especially if they make some valid points (very rare on IMDB!).

This is where the USP of Beeonfilm came from, the lovers and the haters! Because lets face it, even the best films have people that hate them. Some of the poorer films you’ve seen are loved by some. This proves that whatever the movie; some are hated and some are loved and I’m here to help you decide where you stand. Whilst hopefully keeping you up to date on film news, rumours, new releases, awards etc…

2011 should be a big year for Beeonfilm, as it hopefully makes the leap from blogger (Thank you, you have served me well) to This site will be the staging ground for Beeonfilm advancing into other areas, Lovers and Haters reviews of TV series, Computer games and maybe even Theatre and Books who knows! I’ll also be talking to you through other mediums as my old friend Martin helps me out with a weekly podcast. All of these things are a working progress so I don’t really know when you’ll see them but you will. In the meantime thank you for reading my blog I hope you like it and continue to read.

Peter Bee

28 Weeks Later

Like days only bigger and a bit dumb

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“28 Weeks Later is the very promising and very terrific sequel to 28 Days Later. It starts off strong, and the film never lets go. It has great production values. The direction by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is really amazing. He directs with a fast-paced tone. The cinematography is spectacular, and the film has a sort of futuristic look to it. It has the post-apocalyptic atmosphere. The writing is very strong. The characters are very well developed, so we care about them. The performances by everyone in the cast are top notch. The action is riveting, since this film is more of an action film than 28 Days Later. I also thought this was a very thought-provoking film. The way people have to kill each other because there is no other way is a truly deadly thought. It reminded me of the theme of The Mist, another great 2007 horror film. Overall, everything that made 28 Days Later work is present here as well. 28 Weeks Later might even be better than the original. I very much appreciate horror films like this, and am very glad they can still be made. Terrific film-making!”

Maybe a bit to much praise, it’s not at all as good as the first one but it is a good movie.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“I'm open to believe the U.S. Army is stupid- but THAT stupid? How do 2 kids get out of the "safe" zone and manage to steal a moped, ride through London, hang out at their house, and meet their mother before the Army can catch up with them? The purpose of putting the safe zone on an island in London was for containment (I assume) and yet, the survivors AND the zombies are able to walk across a bridge to get off the island AFTER it's been fire bombed? I am able to guess the mother's genetic eye-color trait is linked to the genetic anomaly that makes her and her kid immune- how does the idiot doctor not figure it out? Is the medical director really so stupid as to not guess these kids could be current hosts- is she really so stupid as to whisk the two kids away without checking their blood- and wouldn't doing a full work up on both kids be required when they were first caught? Is she so stupid as to risk her life to get these two kids out of Britain who can be carriers, like their mother was a carrier? And really... the father's reaction when he finds out his wife is alive... this is a man who should have severe PTSD (the entire survival population should have PTSD)... and he saw his entire nation succumb to this virus and yet he is ready to believe that his wife comes out of an attack unscathed? And then he sneaks through security to see her???!! Really??! And again back to the stupid U.S. Army-- you'd think security in that place would have been better...I get that he had "all access" pass, I just think the Army would have guards around too. Come on... the movie was so stupid upon stupid. Sorry to all the fans, I really liked the first one.”

A very good review with some very valid points! It’s a bit harsh to write the film off for them though. Suspension of disbelief is one reason why we watch movies, it would be wrong to let that ruin what is a perfectly acceptable horror movie.

What I thought:
You definitely get more bang for your buck with this sequel to Danny Boyes 28 Days, it delivers them thick and fast and ups the ante on kinetic camera work from the first one. In many ways it’s a great example of a sequel; it’s faster, bigger with a much more emphasis on gore. This one finds all sorts of ways to shock you with the violence while the first was more subtle, it does work and it does push the boundaries of the first. Even the ending is a great part of what could become a trilogy; everyone knows that the second part of a trilogy ends on a downer.

Like the second review though this film does not live up to its predecessor, by having a film this scale in London and at this pace it has to sacrifice the story telling with some pretty messy plot holes. For a detailed look at all of them just look at the Hater review above, they’re exactly right. Though some of what they say is a little harsh to say the least, not everyone gets PTSD in these kinds of situations, not every soldier who comes back from a front line has PTSD. I also don’t think it’s that hard to believe the guy wanted to see his wife after thinking that she was dead! The questionable nature of the U.S Army allowing a lot of this to happen is a little dubious but you could argue that they were bored, no longer on the alert as the country has been infection free for 6 months? In fact a lot of the banter between the actors playing the army correctly points this out.

It falls down to you, where would you draw the line. Will you go that far to defend the film or are these plot holes to much. Either way it is an entertaining and sometimes shocking horror film.

Available on DVD and Blu-Ray
Cert: 18
Running Time: 100 mins

The Buzz: 28/01/11

Jackass 3.5?

The new Charlies Angels

Judi Dench in next Bond

Thor script leaked online

Thursday, 27 January 2011

Open House

Keeping it in the family

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“A recently divorced woman is attempting to sell her home when two lunatics break in & murder everyone she loves or cares about in her life.There's a bit more to the story than that but im not going to ruin it.Besides you'll probably figure it out within 15 minutes anyway. Nothing groundbreaking here there are a few jolts some shocks & enough sustained tension to not bog things down & keep the movie from being too dumb or too overcooked. Open House looks crisp & moves briskly & has a lot of TV actors in lead roles which typically is disastrous for these micro movies. Anna Paquin is topped billed on this site which is understandable considering her bro is the brains behind it but unfair to Rachel Blanchard & Brian Geraghty who are 2 of 3 actors that carry this movie for its duration. The 3rd is Tricia Helfer of BSG fame who does the psycho bitch routine very well.Watch her facial expressions throughout Open House & you'll know what I mean. The only complaint I have is the end which feels rushed & unsatisfactory.However I cared enough about the victims to say a few times aww man I kinda liked that guy.Which is pretty good in my opinion because all the side actors are just lambs to the slaughter & you know it as soon as they pop up on screen.All in all Andrew Paquin is a competent writer & director who should have no problem tackling bigger mainstream movies in the future. Sidenote here I hate True Blood!Am I the only one that feels Alan Ball is slumming it?!?!? I say this only because Sookie & Bill share some screen time here. That is all go watch Open House & Enjoy but if your expecting your two favorite True Blood actors to have a big meaty part in this sorry but its just a selling point.They're screen time is extremely limited.”

There were no brains is this lack lustre shocker, that was tired and predictable from the opening shot to the closing.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“There is absolutely nothing of value in this movie. First of all, forget about the tension or suspense or mystery - because there is none of that. The plot is so hollow that you could seriously not care less what happens next - except looking forward to the end credits. For an R-rated film about sex and murder both of those things are suspiciously missing. Sure people are killed, but they are killed with cutaway shots and splashes of raspberry jam against the wall or window. And the "sex" scenes make old episodes of The Love Boat look x-rated. I guess it was writer Andrew Paquin's sister who got him the chance to make this horrid screenplay into a movie. And if she bankrolled it too, then it's probably his last. Well, it's probably is last anyway. I can usually even enjoy watching bad movies... but not this one.”

Completely agree with this one.

What I thought:
One thing pops to mind when watching this movie; Family. The two murderers of our story are brother and sister and have a weird incest thing going on. They’re not the only ones though, wait for the end credits and you’ll see the Directors name; Andrew Paquin. Anna Paquins brother, you know the one from True Blood or Rogue in X-men if you will. She’s in this but don’t let the topping the bill confuse you, she’s in it for about 5 minutes in what was clearly just a favour. This is the biggest problem with the film, if you have a sister who has already made her name for her self don’t drag her down with your first directorial effort even if she offered first.

Andrew Paquin may be a little known writer but directing is not his forte by a long shot. Open House is a run of the mill shocker about a divorcee who is selling her home. When a couple “move” in and start killing almost everyone and keep her tied up in the basement it’s all downhill from that point. Where to start really, sex scenes where someone should tell the director that underwear should probably come off for the actual act. Death scenes that are at best; basic slash and stab with a lot of fake blood. It’s just a very un-imaginative film with a basic premise that could have been worked into something so much better.

Some of the acting however is half decent, the brother and sister do quite well at playing clearly demented people. Quick glances and long silences work to tell you a bit about their mental state, all other actors do their jobs well. Anna Paquin and her hubby (Stephen Moyer) both make token appearances and both struggle to make more of the bad writing. As for our damsel in distress (Rachel Blanchard) who I know better as Nancy from Peep Show, she’s good and convincing as a vulnerable divorcee but again there’s that writing and of course she’s locked up for half the movie.

It's like a house of cards, the directing and the writing let the rest of the film down. The effect is a Thrilling shocker that wont thrill or shock.

the Buzz: 27/01/11

Cloverfield 2 a long way off

Michael Fassbender joins Alien prequel Prometheus.

The Hobbit delayed again, for Peter Jackson to have surgery.

Will Smith and Jay-Z remake Annie?

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

2011 Oscar Nominations

Can't say much about many of these as i havent seen them, however i am very happy that Inception has 8 nominations and Toy Story 3 is up for best picture!

Looking forward to seing who take thme home on the night!

Bellow are all the nominations for your viewing pleasure...

"127 Hours"
"Black Swan"
"The Fighter"
"The Kids Are All Right"
"The King's Speech"
"The Social Network"
"Toy Story 3"
"True Grit"
"Winter's Bone"

Javier Bardem for "Biutiful"
Jeff Bridges for "True Grit"
Jesse Eisenberg for "The Social Network"
Colin Firth for "The King's Speech"
James Franco for "127 Hours"

Annette Benning for "The Kids Are All Right"
Nicole Kidman for "Rabbit Hole"
Jennifer Lawrence for "Winter's Bone"
Natalie Portman for "Black Swan"
Michelle Williams for "Blue Valentine"

Darren Aronofsky for "Black Swan"
David O. Russell for "The Fighter"
Tom Hooper for "The King's Speech"
David Fincher for "The Social Network"
Joel & Ethan Coen for "True Grit"

Christian Bale for "The Fighter"
Mark Ruffalo for "The Kids Are All Right"
Geoffrey Rush for "The King's Speech"
Jeremy Renner for "The Town"
John Hawkes for "Winter's Bone"

Amy Adams for "The Fighter"
Helena Bonham Carter for "The King's Speech"
Melissa Leo for "The Fighter"
Hailee Steinfeld for "True Grit"
Jacki Weaver for "Animal Kingdom"

"Biutiful" - Mexico
"Dogtooth" - Greece
"In a Better World" - Denmark
"Incendies" - Canada
"Hors la Loi" ("Outside the Law") - Algeria

"How To Train Your Dragon"
"The Illusionist"
"Toy Story 3"

Michael Arndt for "Toy Story 3"
Simon Beaufoy & Danny Boyle for "127 Hours"
Joel & Ethan Coen for "True Grit"
Aaron Sorkin for "The Social Network"
Debra Granki, Anne Rosellini for "Winter's Bone"

Mike Leigh for "Another Year"
Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg for "The Kids Are All Right"
Christopher Nolan for "Inception"
David Seidler for "The King’s Speech"
Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington for "The Fighter"

"Alice in Wonderland"
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One"
"The King's Speech"
"True Grit"

"Black Swan"
"The King's Speech"
"The Social Network"
"True Grit"

"Alice in Wonderland"
"I Am Love"
"The King's Speech"
"The Tempest"
"True Grit"

"Exit Through the Gift Shop"
"Inside Job"
"Waste Land"

"Killing in the Name"
"Poster Girl"
"Strangers No More"
"Sun Come Up"
"The Warriors of Qiugang"

"127 Hours"
"Black Swan"
"The Fighter"
"The King's Speech"
"The Social Network"

"Barney's Version"
"The Way Back"
"The Wolfman"

A.R. Rahman for "127 Hours"
John Powell for "How To Train Your Dragon"
Hans Zimmer for "Inception"
Alexandre Desplat for "The King's Speech"
Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for "The Social Network"

'Coming Home' from "Country Strong"
'I See the Light' from "Tangled"
'If I Rise' from "127 Hours"
'We Belong Together" from "Toy Story 3"

"Day & Night"
"The Gruffalo"
"Let’s Pollute"
"The Lost Thing"
"Madagascar, a Journey Diary"

"The Confession"
"The Crush"
"God of Love"
"Na Wewe"
"Wish 143"

"Toy Story 3"
"Tron: Legacy"
"True Grit"

"The King's Speech"
"The Social Network"
"True Grit"

"Alice in Wonderland"
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One"
"Iron Man 2"

The Buzz: 26/01/11

Above: Poster for new film Battle: L.A

Duncan Jones Director of Moon, turned down Superman reboot

Hangover 2 story details

Avatar sequels confirmed

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

28 Days Later

A Landmark in British horror

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“28 Days Later is a hyper-kinetic and adrenaline fuelled British horror directed by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting). The film takes place in modern day Britain where a virus known as the rage virus has been used and has made all those who come into contact with it turn into blood-thirsty zombies. Boyle directs the film as if biographical, of this man who wakes up alone in a hospital to find no one is left, who then has to run for his life to get away. Boyle makes this an experience worth watching as he flicks the camera here to there especially when an oncoming attack of the zombies approaches. The setting is the key player from the beginning which evidently doesn't show any sign of stopping throughout the duration of the film. This helps create's the tension when needed to give the audience a thrill of insecurity about what's going to happen.”

A good review in that they like it, my only complaint? They’re not zombies.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“I originally saw this in the Cinema and left un-entertained. I thought it was a good idea that was shoddily executed. Some acting was appalling especially the daughter, can't remember her name. Also, Danny Boyle isn't a good director, he's meant to be making a horror film here and he puts a stupid supermarket scene in. It starts with trolleys being ridiculously choreographed through the checkouts and the 2 girls having great fun helping themselves to the chocolate, forget 5 minutes before, when they were nearly savaged by the sprinting zombies. And the ending?! What a joke. Cillian Murphy is suddenly an action hero. Nowhere before in the movie did it reveal that he had such stealth skills and the nerve to take out trained army personnel. 28 Weeks Later was by far a superior film. So when 28 Days Later was on TV last night, I thought maybe I was being a bit harsh with it, so I watched it again. After two hours, I realised I wasn't being harsh enough.”

Now now, where to start! I love this film its one of my top movies so I shall defend it aggressively! Acting is a matter of opinion especially if you’re not going to come up with any examples of why you thought they were that bad. Danny Boyle clearly is a good director and once again no point made. The shopping market scenes are used as a contrast and if these characters had been living in this world for 28 days prior; they would be used to being chased and would probably take advantage, c’mon it’s what everyone would do! Well now there’s that Z word, they’re an infected human that’s why they can sprint! Cillian Murphy an “action hero?” he doesn’t do anything that strategic; just stays out of sight and against soldiers who are terrified of the infected; it’s not that hard to believe he could take them on. Anyway you missed the point; the rage virus is a window into what we humans can be capable of, Jim’s descent into aggression is the un-infected example of rage.

What I thought:
As the title said 28 Days Later is a landmark in British horror, It’s scary and thought provoking; two things you rarely see in films of this nature. Despite some short sighted people our monsters here are infected people, plying itself free from any “zombie convention” and any comparisons are subjective. The acting is great if a little wooden from Megan Burns (Hannah) and the directing and cinematography is stark and exposing with the kinetic camera work thats used when portraying the infected is perfect. Even if you didn’t find 28 Days Later scary (by the way it scared that pants of me when I first saw it!) it is thought provoking stuff. Leading to conversations of an empty London and post epidemic Britain, it’s a terrifying look at this in practice albeit with a made up virus.

Available on Blu-Ray and DVD
Running Time: 113 mins
Cert: 18

The Buzz: 25/01/11

Above Poster for new film Submarine

2011 Razzie nominees

More Matrix movies? please no.

More Avengers talk

Monday, 24 January 2011

Up and Coming Movies...


In Uk Cinemas: 25/02/11

What they say:
Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson, TAKEN) awakens after a car accident in Berlin to discover that his wife (January Jones, MAD MEN) suddenly doesn't recognise him, and another man has assumed his identity. Ignored by disbelieving authorities and hunted by mysterious assassins, he finds himself alone, tired and on the run. Aided by an unlikely ally (Diane Kruger, INGLORIOUS BASTARDS), Martin plunges headlong into a deadly mystery that will force him to question his sanity, his identity, and just how far he's willing to go to uncover the truth.

What i say:
Looks an awful lot like Taken, if it's half as good it'll be great!

Raising Arizona

As Screwball as they come

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“A lot of things come together to make this film highly enjoyable; acting, writing, music, pace, directing... It's over-the-top fun. It took me several viewings before it sunk in that the film's base story is about child kidnapping; which is an extraordinarily serious crime. But this film makes you enjoy every minute so it's easy to forget the seriousness of the base story. While I'm not a fan of Nicholas Cage, I thought this was a perfect vehicle for him. Holly Hunter is always excellent, IMHO. Their attention to detail in crafting their characters was on point and thorough."Well alright then." :)”

Short and sweet and fair enough, over the top fun indeed!

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“1st watched 11/21/2008 - (Dir-Joel Coen): Attempted road-runner like comedy falls flat of impressing me as it's plodding pace bored me. Despite my expectations before watching this early Coen brothers film, I was somewhat disappointed with this screwball comedy with strange characters. Nicolas Cage has done this kind of non-acting before in other movies and Holly Hunter isn't a whole lot better. The movie is basically about a couple that wants a child, can't have one and decides to steal one of the quintuplets of a local rich family, obviously because they cant handle five. The antics that revolve around this act with other strange characters like a over-the-top motorcycle bounty hunter and prison mates also get in the act of trying to get the child and the reward money. All in all, the ridiculousness doesn't necessarily make for a very funny movie and I'm sure there have been better movies carrying basically this same premise.”

I think it all comes down to sense of humour; off the wall and over the top comedy is not your cup of tea then you probably wont like this, like this person.

What I thought:
Second in my Coen Brothers double bill was Raising Arizona, the self confessed screw ball comedy which in no way should be taken seriously. As pointed out by one of the reviewers above; the issue of child kidnapping should not be taken lightly, but this is no normal film. The Coens have created appropriately zany characters and Nicholas Cage is a wonder to behold, using his usual crazy eyes and emotive face for comedy rather than an unhinged performance.

In some places I laughed out loud, but the whole film I had a smile on my face. The characters are watchable and have their part to play. It’s not the most intricate of their stories but their dialogue is still second to none. The Biker burning the road as he drives; just one example of the hyper reality used in certain scenes but it all fits wonderfully. So it’s not the funniest film you’ve ever seen but you’ll have fun watching it.

The Buzz: 24/01/11

D.J. Caruso to take Y: The Last Man

Kick Ass 2, still a little while off

Slash to make horror movies

Kevin Smith to distribute 'Red State' himself

Sunday, 23 January 2011

Millers Crossing

Not quite a gangster movie

Lover: Taken from IMDB
"The Coen brothers are artists too, and their cool dazzler is an elegy to a day when Hollywood could locate moral gravity in a genre film for grown ups. In a Prohibition-era war between Irish and Italian gangs, the aide (Gabriel Byrne) to a shady politician (Albert Finney) tries to broker a peace – but then he and his employer fall for the same woman. Here are the Coens at the top of their game, with a dark saga, almost operatic in tone, that pays homage to the films of the time it depicts, and also to the stories of Dashell Hammett. The acting is spell-binding, with Byrne and Finney both mesmeric, and the sense of menace the brothers conjure up is squirmingly uncomfortable – especially when the action reaches that remote part of the woods named in the title, a favoured location for assassinations."

A fair enough review which had i not watched after the Coens No Country for Old Men I would have completely agreed with. The fear in No Country is far ore tangible than millers crossing. for me it was a little too predictable to be that uncomfortable.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
"A monument to style over substance, "Miller's Crossing" may quite possibly be the worst gangster film ever made. Apparently the Coen's couldn't decide to play this rip-off of Hammett's "The Glass Key" straight or for laughs with the result being a dreadful mishmash that's virtually unwatchable. Gabriel Byrne's laconic performance is soporific. John Polito humiliates himself with an over-the-top performance and given his career of embarrassingly poor performances, that's saying a lot. The rest of the cast either sleepwalks or hams their way through this dreadfully paced piece of dreck. The Coen's script appears to have been written during an extended bender and is practically incomprehensible. The only positive I one can say about "Miller's Crossing" is that the cinematography was not particularly bad."

This is really harsh, The Coens can sometimes come across as a little pretentious with their direction, but they have never let us down on dialogue or pulling some fantastic performances from every actor they work with!

What i thought:
It's the first in my Coen Brother double bill, as i catch up on ones I've missed. Millers crossing is the Coens taking on the gangster genre but I didn't really feel it was a genre movie. more a character study of it's main antagonists, at this it is superb, every character of importance written to and performed to perfection. Each one has a character arc that is clearly defined and everyone effects the story, in short perfect Coens!

for me though it wasn't that tense, i loved the story finding it's way through tense sections, but they were predictable. I don't want to tell you what happened but Id seen every death coming, which didn't spoil the film at all but its no way as tense as say something like No Country.

A final word for the Cinematography, it's beautiful with the hat blowing in the wind and colour tones as dark as the time and the tone of the movie;It's stunning.

The Buzz: 23/01/11

Above Ian McShane as Blackbeard in new Pirates of the Caribbean.

Photos from Taylor Lautners new one, Abduction.

Bond rumours or not?

War Machine spin off

Friday, 21 January 2011

Crying with Laughter

A real ‘Stand up’ performance!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“A shambolic stand up comic Joey Fisk (a terrific Stephen McCole in a welcome lead role) meets an acquaintance from his school days Frank Archer (an understated Malcolm Shields) whose attentions have a sinister ulterior motive. It's hard enough to do a comedy or a really good thriller with genuine shocks but to combine them both without diminishing either is a real accomplishment from writer/director Justin Molotnikov. It's great to see a whole cast of Scottish faces that are new to the big screen. Here's hoping it gets a good distribution deal.”

I agree, the lead role was played to perfection by Stephen McCole, it really is a fantastic performance! The mixing of comedy and thriller is good if a little undermined by its setting (I’ll explain down bellow)

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“The over all impression I had of Crying With Laughter was that of a film student or amateur film maker being let loose with a professional film crew and not really knowing what to do with it. The script wasn't great and the plot that unfolded down right silly. Low budget film makers always seem to feel the need to have a shocking element to their story as if this makes it intrinsically good drama and an obligatory climatic scene where all is revealed. It actually started off reasonably well with a solid enough character, the stand up comedian Joey Frisk played by Stephen MacCole. He's a bit clich├ęd but a decent script could have built around him and his relationship with his family. Instead a totally unconvincing character called Frank starts hanging around trying to get him to attend a school reunion. Frank apparently beats up Joey's landlord and then claims to be a witness to Joey doing it and identifies him in a police line up. It's such a severe attack that Joey is facing the possibility of many years in prison. Frank then pretends to be a friend to Joey offering him a place to live and even an alibi. Anyway a very silly plot unfolds where Frank kidnaps a former teacher who raped him as a child and as it turns out Joey but to be honest by this point I didn't really care. Frank also kidnaps Joeys daughter for reasons that shall remain a mystery. The ending is a bit daft and there is absolutely no resolution as to what will happen to any of the characters concerning the assault charge or the kidnapping. Not that I was particularly interested in finding out.”

I think this reviewer needs to re-watch it, it’s really not that hard to follow what’s going on or understand why certain characters act the way they do, or do the things they do. A bit harsh as even if you think the story is silly (which it isn’t) the lead performance is convincing and really watchable, it’s nice to route for a character.

What I thought:
So it’s a Scottish indie film, it’s gritty and darkly funny and that’s all your really need to know before watching it. During the film you should be struck by what is powerhouse of a performance from a little known actor who was strangely in Wes Andersons Rushmore. You should predict what’s going on and indeed what’s going to happen half way through but you won’t mind. After watching it, you’ll reflect that you’ve seen a film that you didn’t think was going to be anything special when actually it’s a very good.

Mixing this gritty real life look at an aspiring stand up comedian whose life is running off the rails, with a thriller is hard. Most thrillers people are used to seeing are bigger budgeted and not often in Scotland, Shallow Grave being a brilliant exception! The result of this is that the thrilling part that is supposed to have you on the edge of the seat has an odd effect. Maybe its life in the Uk I don’t know, but its laced with this kind of “everything will eventually go wrong” state of mind.

This does not however detract from the quality of this film as our heroes past un-coils in front of his eyes in a very brutal way. You saw this coming but didn’t know how they would get here or how they would resolve it. Here in lies the biggest plot hole of all, its fine to let your audience imagine what happens next but at least throw them a bone, all of things going on and characters that we’ve watched are just cut off in favour of a sweet scene. It’s ok for our hero but is it ok for our audience, that all depends on the audience.

The Buzz: 21/01/11

Red Dwarf set for return in 2012!

Mark Bailey to write Marvels Black Panther

Russell Brand in "Rock of Ages"

Benicio Del Toro and James Franco in "The Iceman"

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

A Serious Man

Did I miss something?

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I have to say that before writing this review, I had some mixed feelings about the Coen brothers' most recent film A Serious Man. But I have to say that it is far superior to their previous effort, Burn After Reading. A Serious Man tells the story of Larry Gopnik, a Midwestern physics professor whose life begins to follow the rule of Murphy's Law, that anything than can go wrong will go wrong. Larry seems to be a nice guy and everything seems to just fall apart. He goes to three different rabbis for guidance. Unfortunately, they are no help as his problems seem to grow. His wife leaves him for an older man, his brother still lives with him and their family, a student tries to blackmail him to change a failing grade, and he's in love with the neighbor next door, who sunbaths nude. A Serious Man is a darkly funny film that It works mainly because of Michael Stuhlbarg, who gives a performance that deserved an Oscar nomination. I hope to see more of this actor in the future. The Coens have brought yet another great screenplay of their own to life, thanks in part to their brilliant direction. The Coens also have great help from frequent collaborators including composer Carter Burwell and cinematographer Roger Deakins. It may not be everyone's cup of tea and it may rub members of the Jewish community the wrong way. But if you approach it with an open mind then you might enjoy it.”

A good review, it was better than Burn after reading and Michael Stuhlbarg is outstanding. Not sure members of the Jewish community would be that offended?

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“One, you do not need to totally understand Judaism to get this film. Yes, the beginning of the film lays the groundwork that tells the viewer that any descendants of the Jewish couple who "killed" the Dybbuk is doomed to experience letdowns, but then again, maybe not. It is just a basic folktale, one from any religion or culture. Second, you do not need to understand physics either. Other than the passing of time seems to not pass at all while watching this film. After almost 40 minutes I had had it. Yes, a lot of %$&^ is dumped on this guy, and you wonder why he would deserve to be dumped on so much, but then you do not care. None of the characters were worth the time or effort. Maybe past the 40-minute mark it gets better, but alas I could not justify wasting my time to see what happened, and why. The acting was OK, but not worth the time to sit through this film, which might be better titled, A Pathetic Man.”

Now this one is a shame because it’s not a bad review but I don’t think you should review a film unless you’ve watched the whole film. It’s common sense, for all you know the ending could have blown you away!

What I thought:
Well despite being utterly confused at the end I was yet again impressed by the Coen Brothers. It’s not a hard thing to say as most of their films are lauded over by critics and filmgoers alike. This film however plants itself some where between The Ladykillers (the worst Coen movie) and No Country for Old Man (my favourite, though I haven’t seen True Grit yet). It’s really funny and darkly so in most places; it’s wonderfully paced and brilliantly acted.
I’ll stop there as I have to say I got confused towards the ending, I thought I’d missed something? Was I supposed to be reading deeper into this film than I had? I started checking the running time, thinking there might still be a scene that would expose the hidden meanings etc. There was just that ending? Our main character gets a scary call from his Doctor when he decides to take a bribe and a hurricane threatens to blow everything away.

I can make a guess at some ethereal matters of Old Testament style punishing from god, however that just seems too much but is it? It’s obvious our hero is descended from the cursed couple at the beginning but is that the point of the film? Our hero is destined to have things go wring because that happened? If so its not that bigger deal like I’ve already said the film is very funny and really entertaining. For me though the film feels like it had so much more and didn’t show it, I thought “am I not getting this because I’m not Jewish.”

It was touted as their most personal and as I’m pretty certain they are Jewish you can really tell. If you’re not like me and don’t think to deeply about films you’ll probably love this Coen classic.

The Buzz: 19/01/11

Above, the cast of X-Men: First class in full costume!

Death scene changed for last Harry Potter

Ben Affleck to tackle corruption in Congress next

Johnny Depp is The Lone Ranger

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

The A-Team

Really not as bad as everyone thought it would be

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I went to this with low expectations. Remake after remake was getting tiresome. Knight Rider was pitiful, the 80s one had it's own class. Battlestar was good to start then fizzled out in the last two seasons and V is good but is yet to really get moving. This is full throttle from the opening. I was really awestruck by how perfectly cast it was. The support is superb too and the story is original and up to date with the present era. It is absurd in a funny way at times but never stupid. I enjoyed this a lot more than any other I have seen in a long time. It's like a roller-coaster ride. When it's over you want to go back to the start!!”

Perfectly reasonable, it was well cast despite the concerns, though it is absurd to the point it’s a bit stupid at points but I’m enjoying myself to much to make that ruin the film.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Hi, This movie is a crap and it has only few intelligent reviews. There was a lot of action in that movie but it wasn't enjoyable at all. Only few examples how that movie was not worth watching and was making me sick: A guy smiling and sneering at a bad guy when he's going to die in a split of second? Falling in a tank with one parachute left and screaming "awesome!"??? Some dialogue: "Do you speak Swahili?" Answer: "You, don't?". There's no real physics in that movie at all, a lot of noise, actors are playing poseurs (every character in that movie is a poseur), dumb action, dialogues etc... It is wore than dumb stories where you at least don't expect nothing ambitious. Every episode of an old series was a way better than this crap. Try to look at this movie this way while watching it.”

First I like the fact it begins with Hi, “I’m here to talk to you about A-Team”. I also like the fact that they state there are no intelligent reviews and goes on to write a not intelligent review. It’s a fun movie and in no way should be taken as this person has clearly viewed it. Just because you mention physics in a review does not make it intelligent, oh and since when has physics really mattered to Hollywood movies! What were you expecting Hamlet?

What I thought:
A-Team was good fun and the fun remains on DVD, it might lose a bit after repeat viewings but it is entertaining. I reviewed it for the smell of napalm and that review is on the links on the right but I shall try and make this fresh.

Watching it again made me realise how convoluted the story is, trying a bit too hard to make it twisty and turny. All it really needed was the right cast to make it fun and you would have made a half decent A-Team film. The casting was great Liam Neeson didn’t seem a risk at all after I saw Taken; Bradley Cooper was a shoe in for Face! Sharlto Copely deservedly getting a big job on the back of his superb performance in District 9, he plays Howling mad Murdock to perfection and has the funniest lines in the film! Just look out for the Braveheart bit! The biggest risk however was Mr T, the guy is not just a character anymore he’s a cultural icon, that’s a lot of pressure.

That pressure that fell on Quinten “Rampage” Jackson. I for one thought it was inspired casting, the original Mr T didn’t start in acting and this new version honoured this. The character is true to the idea of Mr T and doesn’t let you down.

If you do want to read a bit more from me about this film click here…

The Buzz: 18/01/11

Arnold Schwarzenegger back on acting duty's?

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Darren Aronofsky to take over or reboot batman franchise!!? Nolan hasn't even finished yet!

Lee Byung-hun who plays Storm Shadow has signed on for G.I Joe 2

Monday, 17 January 2011


Still a whole lot a life in these old legs!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I can't even begin to describe how funny this movie is. Helen Mirran, especially, was excellent, with her deadpan lines: "I kill people, dear." Hilarious! John Malkovich played a very believable nutcase, making the whole theater crack up laughing almost every time he appeared on screen. I haven't seen any of Bruce Willis' 'Die Hard' movies, but he should do more funny ones; he definitely has the knack for it. Karl Urban was AWESOME...that man can play ANY role! Every single actor was perfect in their role, and this movie didn't disappoint at all, it stayed interesting for every single minute. If anyone is unsure about seeing this movie, PLEASE don't hesitate, it's worth every penny!”

It is worth every penny and it is very funny, you might not find as much to laugh at as this person clearly did though.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“What a disappointment! I still try to wrap my head around the fact that a director (Robert Schwentke) who has great actors like Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren and a sufficient budget at his disposal is able to produce such an utterly crap..Pardon my french!! So what went wrong? I dare to say almost everything: Stiff and lifeless acting, lame jokes and a horrible soundtrack. If you watched the trailer then you have already seen the best parts! I highly doubt that anyone with a brain is able to enjoy the story let alone the whole movie. Directing a movie isn't an easy thing to do and that is one of the reasons why there are only a few people on this planet who are able to master this craft. Clearly Robert Schwentke isn't one of them!”

A real battering for the director here with no real points made! Red is great fun and is very funny in places but more likely to cause giggles than guffaws.

What I thought:

I loved Red, compared to the very similar movies that came out this year; The A Team (over baked story), The Losers (over baked characters) or The Expendables (Just over baked!). This men (and the queen) on a mission is so much fun it seems hard to believe anyone wouldn’t enjoy it!?

Bruce Willis brings out his more sarcastic wise cracking version of himself and he plays it so well! Really likeable character and you really route for him from the moment you realize he’s been chatting up the girl at the pensions place because he’s clearly lonely. The film is full of moments that will at least put a smile on your face, if just for scenes involving Willis. The chemistry is great and all of the so called ageing cast are superb, Morgan Freeman getting a sly look at a nurse behind, John Malkovich batting a grenade out of the air and of course, Helen Mirren.

How can you not like a film that has Helen Mirren shooting a gun!? To kill!? A person!? Its brilliant and she treats the role like she would any other and plays it with real conviction. The action is fantastic and well done, with Karl Urban getting his “Ass handed to him” by Bruce Willis in an office being the stand out for me. The most important thing about Red though is the casting, such talent supposedly too old for these kind of roles, proving there’s still life in these old legs.

The Buzz: 17/01/11

Lots of photos today, first from Last Harry Potter, it's also above

New Saucy Twilight snap

The Hangover 2

Captain America

The Buzz: Golden Globes 2011

The Social Network had a good night with Colin Firth and Natalie Portman getting Globes for their roles in The Kings Speech and Black Swan respectively.

I can’t say much about the awards themselves really as I’ve only actually seen one of the winners; Toy Story 3. To be fair any animation up against Toy Story 3 doesn’t stand a chance!

Bellow are the rest of the winners…

Best film (drama): The Social Network

Best film (musical or comedy): The Kids are All Right

Best director: David Fincher - The Social Network

Best actor (drama): Colin Firth - The King's Speech

Best actress (drama): Natalie Portman - Black Swan

Best actor (musical or comedy): Paul Giamatti - Barney's Version

Best actress (musical or comedy): Annette Bening - The Kids are All Right

Best supporting actor: Christian Bale - The Fighter

Best supporting actress: Melissa Leo - The Fighter

Best foreign language film: In a Better World - Denmark

Best animated feature film: Toy Story 3

Best screenplay: Aaron Sorkin - The Social Network

Best original song: You Haven't Seen the Last of Me - Burlesque: music and lyrics by Diane Warren

Best original score: Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross - The Social Network

Sunday, 16 January 2011

Sherlock Holmes

It’s jolly good fun!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“What a ride. "Sherlock Holmes" left me giddy. I absolutely loved it. It was thrilling, funny, stylish, fast-paced and brilliantly acted. Downey Jr. is a delight to look at. He eats up the screen. He gives the character all sorts of mannerisms and nuances which really bring Holmes to life like never before. The chemistry and interplay between him and Jude Law is hilarious. I wasn't a big fan of Rachel McAdams's performance, but it didn't detract from the experience. I felt she just didn't bring as much to the table as the others. (Kinda like Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.) Guy Ritchie really outdoes himself here. The way he uses the camera, the motion, the fluidity, the snappy pacing - I loved every minute of it. A really fantastic movie. Well done.”

Some good points, Robert Downey Jnr once again is scene stealing but clearly had fun sharing the screen with Jude Laws Dr Watson. Guy Ritchie did indeed direct this with some panache, adding just enough of his usual stylings with some great set pieces (harbour explosion was fantastic!). The criticism aimed at Rachel McAdam’s is a little unfair as her performance was good but the character was under used, but then this is a buddy movie make no mistake!

Hater: Taken from IMDB

“I actually had high hopes for this movie. I went with a big crowd of people and while they planned to see Avatar I was going to see Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately for them, Avatar was sold out so they all joined me in this train wreck of a movie. To be fair, there are about 10 minutes total that are kind of interesting. But the movie is 2 hours and 15 minutes long so there's the problem. There are so many plot holes that a mack truck could drive through and even with suspension of disbelief, it is truly a hodge podge of dreck with loud noises interspersed amongst the dreck to keep you awake. We are supposed to believe that Irene Adler is so strong as to heave a drugged and out-of-it Holmes from off the floor by the fireplace and onto a bed and then strip and handcuff him to the bed posts. They don't show you any of this because it would be laughably unbelievable. She must be super human to accomplish such a feat. There are other ridiculous stupidities that I thought perhaps were aimed at teens but the teens that were with me actually fell asleep because it was so boring. Every once in a while one of the sleeping teens would nod awake at a loud explosion. One such explosion completely engulfed the major characters yet in the next scene, not a burn mark is to be found. Apparently people in Holmes' day were made of asbestos. Don't waste your money. I like R.D.J. but this was a waste of time and money.”

Hmm interesting, not many valid points made just making a point of telling you some people fell asleep. The plot holes in question really aren’t that bad, the film goes at just enough pace you shouldn’t notice and even if you do the movie can rest all on Downey Jnr’s shoulders as he carries the film through its worse bits. I can see where he’s coming from with the explosion, however the scene he’s talking about is done in some stunning slo-mo!

What I thought:
What is tough to understand about Sherlock Holmes is that before the film came out, it was being talked up as a more serious and true to the book take on the Great Detective. In the end it was a great blend of that with great blockbuster Film making, Guy Ritchies trademark camera work with excellent production design is perfection. However it misses some of the more risky elements of the books, like Holmes taking Opium!

Downey Jnr and Jude Law make a great on screen couple; you can see they enjoyed their time together and Law plays a more leaner and up for it Watson. This “Blockbuster” take on Sherlock Holmes was a risk but it still plays to the brilliant deducing so important to other adaptations by using clever voiceovers. Once again though a film that can really lay its real pleasure at the feet of one man, Robert Downey Jnr you’ve don’t it again, Elementary really.

The Buzz: 16/01/11

Rise of the Apes delayed

Ben Foster goes 360

Ridely Scotts Alien prequel details and name: Prometheus

Footloose remake

Saturday, 15 January 2011


At least it’s better than Street Fighter!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“So,i was waiting this movie for years and now i finally saw it.To begin with,if tekken fans wanted a movie exactly like the game they will be disappointed.It has it's differences.Every video game that becomes a movie has differences from the original game.That doesn't mean that the movie can't be good.In tekken's case the movie is very good.I loved it and i am a big tekken fan from the beginning of tekken. The story is simple and although not the same it has the classic,Jin goes to avenge Jun's death which he blames the mishima's and tekken. Most characters look like the game,most outfits look like the game too,the acting is good, the girls are very hot and it has references to the game . Best thing of the movie is the fight scenes and the music.Great battles,too much blood and a classic Hollywood finale.It is a well made movie and everyone who is open minded and don't expect the wrong things will like it.I know i did.This is a great action movie and my favourite video game.THIS IS IRON FIST.Don't forget to see the scene after the credits.Best line ever.”

This person is right the action is very good and well-choreographed, but make no mistake this is not a great action movie.

Hater: Taken from IMDB

“I guess you could rate Tekken based on the video game or as a movie on its own. Either way its as bad as it can possible get. The story feels artificial just to get on with the fights, you feel during the whole movie that the characters are totally out of place. Jin Kazama in this movie has for some odd reason Australian accent and has no martial arts training from what i can see. Marshal Law is not a bruce lee character anymore, he is suddenly a beefed up MMA fighter! Jun (Jin's mother) and Kazuya is enemies for also some weird reason. The only things they are keeping from the game are some of the clothes and hairstyles. If you would review it as a fighting movie it would be bad as well, cause the fighting is non existent. Tekken is nice cause you have fighters with different fighting styles. Here you have mostly MMA fighting which consists of no real proper training behind it.This movie fails on so many levels. How on earth can a director get money to make a movie like this?”

I thought the film was pretty poor, but even this review seems a little harsh, I thought the action and fight sequences were very good. I can’t question the Knowledge about the game itself as I was never a big fan of the Tekken games.

What I thought:
Film makers will reach a point (hopefully) where they will realise that video games just don’t make good movies. Some games could work but they are always stuck somewhere between trying too hard to please fans of the game and trying too hard to please filmgoers. Tekken has it very hard, beat-em-ups are probably the hardest to transport to the big screen. Just think of Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat before it, Street Fighter was an awful mess with little cohesion and no real aim as to what it was trying to do. Mortal Kombat was better, it’s darker tone probably helped along with more exciting fights but it was ruined by hammed up acting and a mysteriously cast Christopher Lambert.

Tekken places itself somewhere firmly between them, the fight sequences surpass both but the story is predictable and un-interesting. Like Street Fighter, it doesn’t really know what it is; production value on par with a TV serial and costumes that are too much like a computer game. Like Mortal Kombat the cast really ham it up and another mystery casting of Luke Goss?

Tekkens biggest problem is trying to fit the round format and levels of the computer game into the context of a film. The fights are in an arena which can change its environment to fit levels of the game, it just feels like a real cop out. The tournament in question restricts the film makers and any other form of story, plot and indeed character development gets left behind. All of this said Tekken is good fun for the fighting and free running and a must for Tekken fans.

The Buzz: 15/01/11

Above, new photo of Thor

A fifth pirates already planned!

Sherlock Holmes 2 details

The Critics choice awards

Thursday, 13 January 2011

The Reef

Try and watch any movie based in the sea with a shark that isn’t a cartoon and we challenge you not to compare it to Jaws. It’s unfortunate for this sub-genre that its benchmark is a stunning horror that started the Summer Blockbuster, because quite frankly none compare. The Reef is a small Australian production with a slow burning cat and mouse tension as its calling card. Ok, so once again it’s no Jaws but don’t write this one off just yet…

Click Here to read more

The Buzz: 13/01/11

Above, poster for new film 51

The fate of Ghostbusters 3 rests with Bill Murray

Sam Mendes still directing new Bond?

Movies shot on I-Phones!?

Monday, 10 January 2011

Why Pixar are one of the greatest film studios of all time...

Christmas 2010 became the time I caught up with Pixar movies I hadn’t previously seen. It was the year that they completed the perfect trilogy with the sublime Toy Story 3 and the year I finally got round to seeing Up and Wall-e. On watching these three movies I realised something, Pixar have released 11 feature films and counting and amazingly every single one has been a hit. Not just box office numbers but most are hailed by the critics, most important however are the children who flock to these films in their drones, accompanied by their more than willing parents.

Those willing parents are more the key to success of Pixar than the children in some respects. They’re films are not just kids films, they deal with very adult issues and more often that not have very sly comedy winks to the more mature viewer. Here are some examples for you…

When have you ever known an animated kids film to not only portray a “post apocalyptic” type world but deal with it as an issue?
How many animated kids films have you seen that have a geriatric as the lead?
Or deal with real issues of pain and loss?

There have been some Disney features in the past that have dealt with similar issues but they dress it up. Studio Ghibli are very much about these issues however they’re appeal is not as universal as Pixar.

The animators and the Directors clearly treat their films with the same love and attention to detail as any Oscar best picture. Each film is heavy and funny enough for adults and fun and exciting for the little nippers. Even when Pixar dip their toes into the safer warmer waters of more kid-centric fare (ala Cars or Bugs Life), they create such vivid characters that appeal to children hugely, and you only have to compare the merchandise of Cars to other Pixar movies to see just where its success lies. Cars 2 is this years Pixar release, no doubt critics will pounce on it as they did the first Cars but I’ll still go and see it, especially with the news that the accompanying Pixar short is Ken and Barbie from Toy Story 3 on their Hawaiian honeymoon.

Yes this is a feature where I gush about Pixar a lot but I really do love their films. Toy Story 3 is a heart breaking end to a trilogy that surpasses any I have watched; even the greats like the original Star Wars had their bad points (ewoks). Toy Story has none and only got stronger in animation and emotional clout as the films went on. As Andy grew the inevitable severance from his Toys was always going to deliver the biggest punch and who didn’t, at least just for a second think that they might just end it in the furnace? Who can tell me that when the Toys blankly looked at each other and held hands to accept death that they didn’t feel for those computer animated Child’s Playthings.

Films like Up and Wall-E have ace’s in the from of their characters, Up’s Mr Fredrickson is a grumpy old man and my son (4) pretends to be him! Dug is one of the greatest characters they have ever come up with, the voice is perfect and with the facial expressions un-changed like a real dog (not Disney grins and human traits) everything he says is hilarious! Wall-E is a whole different kettle of fish, a robot who can not speak to convey emotions and yet you fell for him almost instantly, his eyes like big puppy dogs and his beeps and blips so emotive. A love between two robots and an outer-space “dance” sequence that would give anyone on strictly a run for their money; it all comes together in what is simply a great story thanks to these voiceless characters.

Until this year Finding Nemo was my favourite though, its tale of a fathers search for his son against impossible odds is incredible and moving. It’s visually stunning and like The Incredibles has real family Drama beating at the heart of it. What Father hasn’t been a bit over protective and terrified when they’ve lost their child? What family hasn’t had to deal with some of the more real issues that are shoe horned into a Watchmen type super hero story? All of these things make the characters real and recognizable despite the fact their fishes or can stretch their body to make a boat.

Pixar also love playing with your perceptions as well, did you think you’d see a fancy French kitchen run by rats, or that one of them is a fine chef? Did you know that the monsters hiding in your cupboard are more scared of you then you are of them? These films make fine comedy flair by flipping common ideas on their head, Ratatouille more so than Monsters Inc. The latter has incredibly dense design and who can blame them with a whole new Monster world to build from scratch; it also includes the cutest Pixar character in boo. The Monsters are also set to return to our screens in 2012!

So there you have it, the reasons I think Pixar is one of the greatest Film Studios of all time. Now the Academy will shove Toys Story 3 in best animated film category when it really belongs in best picture.

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.