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.

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.

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.

Not so merry men

Lovers: David Edwards for the Mirror.co.uk

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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…

A great start to the summer season.

Lovers:
“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.

Haters:
“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.

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…

It's not so funny

Lovers: Taken from IMDB

“The new comedy, Funny People raises the bar on both Apatow and Sandler movie. Both of them nicely switch their roles around. While Apatow has been making mature movies with Knocked Up, The 40-Year Old Virgin, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, this is way mature than any of those. Sandler, on the other hand has been making a lot of immature movies (no offense, Adam, I love your movies). He now takes on a more dramatic role. Sandler plays George Simmons, a comedian who figures out he has ALM, a rare type of cancer. He hires a less famous comedian named Ira (Seth Rogen) to be his personal assistant. Ira feels bad when George only tells him about his disease. But George soon tells all his comedian friends to unexpectedly discover his medicine actually fought the disease off for the moment. He sucks in his ex-girlfriend, Laura (the fantastic Leslie Mann) with his disease. They soon fall in love even when he's not sick anymore. Laura's husband, Clark (Eric Bana) figures out. The movie is both sweet and funny, and such cameos as Eminem, Ray Romano, Andy Dick, Sarah Silverman, Aziz Ansari, and many more keep the laughs coming. This is definitely a movie worth checking out.”

I agree with this guy on the Adam Sandler fron but not so much to Apatow one…

Haters: again taken from IMDB

“When I went to see this movie, I was expecting a comedy. With the impressive line up of comedians in this film I thought there would be a lot of humor. However, this film left me wanting to run for the nearest exit. The trailers lead you to believe this film would have you rolling on the floor with laughter. I found myself utterly bored. And it was difficult to find ways to keep myself awake during the film.

I do enjoy a lot of Adam Sandler's works. I am not that fond of this film. This film has too much drama that drags on and on. The only funny lines seem to be used as fillers to wake you up when the film starts to lag. I do not understand why they would have such an all-star cast of amazing comedians with a story line that is so lack-luster Where is the comedy? Well at least it wasn't a total loss...the popcorn was good.”

This review is titled “too much drama, not enough comedy” I couldn’t have put it better myself but I think this review is overly harsh.

What I thought:

Funny people is a very strange Judd Apatow film, its not really feel good at all. That has to be down to the subject matter, I mean how many laughs can you get out of death? It’s not that there’s no laughs to be had its just not very feel good comedy. You join George Simmons a successful comedian in a bit of a transitional stage in his career and he has just found out he is dying from cancer.

On one point the lover’s review is so right; the best thing about Funny People is a career best performance from Adam Sandler. It’s astounding that an actor who makes a career out of playing idiots can pull a performance like this out of his hat. It has its moments its just not as laugh out loud as other Apatow films. Makes you wonder what he will tackle next? 40 year old virgin was sex, Knocked Up was pregnancy and Funny People was Death.
Watch this knowing that it is Judd Apatows and Adam Sandlers most dramatic turn yet and you’ll enjoy what is actually a very poignant movie.

Will the real bond please stand up

Lovers: Taken from a customer on Tesco DVD rental

“This is a good Bond film, better than all Brosnan's film hands down, although Quantum of Solace isn't as polished as Casino Royale. The villians and the bond girls aren't as memorable as in Royale, but Craig and Dench are on top form, with Dench being given a welcome extented role. The action scenes although good, are just a carbon copy of the latest Bourne film, which is a shame as Bond doesn't need to copy the Bourne films, as he has his legacy to look up to. Don't expect any invisable cars, cheesy one-liners or any raised eye brows, as this Bond is more like the Terminator rather than a posh, martini drinking spy. That said, the story is really good and continues Bonds investigation of the dark organisation that killed Vesper. And know doubt, Bonds investigation into this organisation will play an important role in the next film which I look forward in seeing. I hope they get a Chris Nolan (The Dark Knight) to direct the next one, as I think he'll introduce some new intersting concepts to the Bond franchise. Overall solid entertainment.”

Well I say lover but even this person recognises the faults in this film which I will explain lower down.

Haters: Again taken from Tesco DVD rental

“First off don't believe the hype! Although this film does follow on from Casino Royal it just isn't in the same class. I say this with a deep sigh as I wanted this to be another great outing for Bond. In the press releases we are told Daniel Craig did most of his stunts but, you can't tell as the film makers have taken the Borne Identity school of action filming and plonked it in the middle of a Bond film. The cutting is so fast you can't tell what the action is let alone who is fighting, not what I expect of Bond. The other let down is the plot or rather lack of one. Dame Judi & Daniel were good with what they were given to work with, which wasn't much. All in all I was very disappointed and I can only hope Mr Bond's next outing isn't during a writers strike...”

I agree with this one but not on the same points…

What I thought:

First things first, it’s not as good as Casino Royale, its clearly influenced by another certain amnesia suffering spy and finally this is a bond like no other. This is a bond where you feel every punch, where every explosion thunders down the speakers but that pretty much it! Quantum took what was effectively a rebirth of James Bond and made it into a script that is effectively an excuse for a fight or explosion every 5 minutes!

It is a real shame and a real waste of all the talent involved, it was time for bond to grow up but is that really what everyone wanted to see? If I want kinetic camera work and fighting that looks like it really hurts I’ll watch Bourne. I want a bond that us charming and suave not brooding a gloomy! I want gadgets that are impossible not a free running bond leaping across balconies. Like Casino Royale before it its just not bond, but unlike Royale which at least was a good film this is not even that.

It’s not terrible the action is brilliant but if they are going to make it a revenge flick they needed to make more of it.

Newsround 15/04/10

Louis Leterrier would love to do a second Hulk movie but feels a little movie called The Avengers might get in the way (more about that further down!)
http://uk.movies.ign.com/dor/objects/14293438/the-incredible-hulk-2/videos/hulk2_letterier_040910.html;jsessionid=33453pl9to7l4

Russell Brand talks about the Drop Dead Fred remake, I really like Russell Brand but I don’t think he will do this justice but that’s because I love the original so much.
http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEfFigjiwjwOij

Joss Whedon, creator of Buffy (ahem) Firefly (underrated) Dollhouse (Don’t go there) is set to Direct the Avengers!
http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/marvel-close-to-whedon-hire-on-the-avengers/#more-31658

A little rumour about an added scene to Iron Man 2…
http://www.badtaste.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12730&Itemid=84

Newsround 14/04/10

A script review for a third Riddick film, Sounds promising if they can bring back the feel of the first one?
http://www.coronacomingattractions.com/news/exclusive-script-review-chronicles-riddick-dead-man-stalking

Joe Johnston talks about the casting of Chris Evans as Captain America. Hopefully he’ll do the character justice though his performance is one of the redeeming factors of the otherwise dire fantastic four movies.
http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansites/captainamerica/news/?a=6790

A second chance of meatballs? My sons certainly hope so as they loved the first one, to be fair so did I
http://io9.com/5515454/cloudy-with-meatballs-2-is-happening--minus-the-original-directors


Matthew Vaughn (The Director of the brilliant Kick-Ass) may take on another comic book, penned by Jonathan Woss!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/09/jonathan-ross-interview

The age gap

Lovers: Taken from IMDB
“Night of the Living Dead is a true classic and without a doubt Romero's best and most influential film.

Of course, being simply influential alone would not simply allow this movie to get a full-fledged star rating if it didn't pull through with it some quality at all, which it does in spades. In Night of the Living Dead, there is good pacing, surprisingly good acting from a list of no-name actors, and the most important part that sticks with the film to this day, the sense of dread in the film. In this movie to this day you get that feeling of hopelessness, people get attacked for no reason and nothing can save them. Whether it's family-togetherness, love between a couple, or even the law-enforcers at the end, this was all tapping into the uncertainty level people were having at the time and still today it has meaning. Topping this off with Romero's (at the time) large use of gore adds to the overall uneasiness of the film. Finally at the film's current times, there is a great subtle final nail in the coffin attack with the sad fate of the character Ben. Being the only sole voice of reason is shot, which, at the time of filming brought harsh realities of such other African-American leaders who were brought down unfairly such as Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, even if this wasn't the original idea Romero had.

Overall, no matter how cheesy some of this movie make look to modern eyes, Night of the Living Dead is a classic for offering horror without a shred of hope, forever influencing every horror movie in it's wake.”

There is no arguing how influential Romero’s movies are but this is probably my least favourite one. I’ll explain a little further down.

Hater: Taken from IMD
“I have no idea how this film is so highly rated. My only guess is that at the time it was released some 40 years ago it must have made such an impact. Young people then (now old people) must relate to it in such a way that reminds them of their youth and thus they give the movie such a great review. The truth however is this movie is absolutely HORRIBLE and further proof that you can't trust the ratings. Total waste of time. Not scary. Bad acting. Just ridiculous. If you are under the age of 40, skip this piece of garbage. Bad. Bad. Bad. Very bad.”

Now this guy is being a bit harsh though I do see where he is coming form.

What I thought:
Now the difference in age of an average film viewer can be very drastic and now zombie movies keep coming out and keep getting bums on seats you are bound to get a younger audience re visiting the old ones. Most pivotally Night of the Living Dead, now most people know why it was important so I’ll skip the details but to these younger eyes Night of the Living Dead does look horribly dated, not to mention de-sensitized youths high on the likes of saw and hostel not having their blood lust fulfilled.

You should never judge an old film from a modern perspective you have to take it for what it was at the time. Night is an effective psychological thriller not really a horror. What can you do against such never ending relentless flesh eating killers? Romero’s films have always been about the fight for survival in what is ultimately a hopeless situation and this one laid the format. If you do love modern horror this is not for you, if your a zombie movie fan it’s an absolute essential and finally if you’re an appreciator of film its worth a re visit everyone once in a while.

For me the age barrier comes in, now I hate 99% of modern horror it’s just not scary and is that not the point? That said there are a few old classic horror movies that despite being influential also are not scary in the slightest. Dawn of the Dead is thoroughly effective but night is a little bit too low in production value for me to take seriously, that’s why its my least favourite possibly, I say that as I have yet to see diary and survival…