Battle Los Angeles

It’s Independence Day for a Grunts-eye-view

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“The introductions to the character are short, some characters have such a small role before dying. However, you get the necessary information for character development by way of quick military-style preoperative intros before being dragged along for an amazing action ride as the Marines take on the enemy in Los Angeles. The producers don't pander to over introduction to anything, in fact the movie begins in the midst of the battle, before backing out to the 24 hours before the alien attack. It's now, it's news-breaking; you get a sense of urgency throughout the entire movie. Spoiler: I rarely need to see the 'monster' to enjoy a movie so I was more than satisfied that this was a movie that didn't become about the 'monster'...it's about the battle to save human life from an alien invasion. If you're paying attention to the news reports and conversations, you'll understand the 'monster' in this movie, and the desperate need to defeat 'it'; they are alien, they are built for battle, they want our water, they're here to take what they need. I truly enjoyed this movie; don't let critics keep you away! It's a sci-fi/action/adventure/drama bomb waiting to be dropped. You're in for a great ride. My only advice is - use the bathroom before the movie and don't drink too much 'cuz you'll be glued to your seat; you won't want to miss anything!”

Quite right however it’s hard to watch all of this great action and it is great action when you don’t really care about any of the characters, which of course is because of the distinct lack of any real characterisation. I will say I went to the loo during this movie, I was able to pick a part I didn’t think I would miss anything and I didn’t miss anything; I never go the toilet during a film!

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“This movie made Skyline look good! Maybe I missed a key part while I was completely baffled that this is the movie they decided to make when they had millions of dollars to spend. Why? Completely predictable, a cast of characters nobody cares about, and we're required to suspend belief time after time just to move the story along. Aliens arrive and invade, but it's OK, they don't have air support. How did they get here then? They have very advanced weapons, but apparently have spent no time learning to aim. It takes lots and lots of bullets to kill the aliens at first, but after a while just one will make them explode. And any time our marines make a significant kill, all action stops so they can Hoo Raa each other and dance a bit. Nevermind the firefight, the aliens will wait. Add in shaky camera work and this mess was virtually unwatchable. Maybe I still have a well developed attention span, so I need more than 10 minutes of action, some filler, 15 minutes of action, more filler, action, filler, lather rinse repeat end. It's movies like this where I think we should be able to ask for refunds! Maybe punitive damages!”

This review is quite right but a bit harsh, the action set pieces come thick and fast enough for the running time to trickle by quite well, it’s a film that will be ruined by repeat viewings but worth watching if it’s your bag baby!

What I thought:
The idea in this film seems so obvious you can’t really believe no one has come up with it before? Just imagine a run of mill Alien invasion flick of worldwide warfare from the eye view of the regular army. Sure it’s been sort of done before but not with kind of kinetic camera work that has been a regular fixture in war films since the like of Saving Private Ryan and of course Black Hawk Down. The latter being the ones this film itself has referenced, you can see why the modern combat is very much in line with that film.

Despite some of the misgivings above I quite liked the effects and I thought they were no better or worse than say District 9. I also quite liked the design of the creatures though how they are brought down in the end is almost as ridiculous as Independence Day’s computer virus. There’s that film that I just had to mention and it has more in common than paper thin plot devices and cardboard cut-out characters. It worse crime is that it’s basically a recruitment video for the American armed forces, the kind of stupid male bravado you see in this film I’m almost certain you would never see in real combat, though I’m not a soldier so you be the judge.

There are some things to enjoy here, like Independence Day again the action set pieces and building of tension for a threat to humanity is done well. In this film more in patches of news reports and exposition from characters but it works well. It’s just those characters that you have no time to get to know let alone feel sorry for when they are blown to smithereens, Hoorah!

Being John Malkovich

Get your head around this one

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“This film was absolutely incredible. Attempting to explain the plot in any way that would do it justice would be an excercise in futility, but let it be said that I see many, many movies, and in my lifetime, I have never seen a movie such as Being John Malkovitch. The acting is completely brilliant .. Cameron Diaz is nearly unrecognizable, both in behavior and appearance, as is John Cusack. John Malkovich was presented with an interesting opportunity in playing himself, and he seems to have seized the opportunity with relish. He is most definitely not being himself in front of the camera, but instead creates this wonderful character of John Malkovich the vessel. I've admired Spike Jonez's work for a good long time, and I'm pleased to say that in his first full length feature as a director, he succeeds with flying colors in creating an original, beautiful, humorous, and good natured picture. See Being John Malkovich, because come Oscar time, you're going to want to know why its winning!”

I liked being John Malkovich because on paper it shouldn’t work, a puppeteer gets a job in an office and finds a secret door that leads into John Malkovich? That’s the core idea, and then you have the weird office floor that is between floors like something out of Harry Potter. Fortunately all of these things just fall perfectly into place around a great cast a wonderfully funny and written piece of cinema.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Is it original? Yes. Is it creative? Yes. But is it GOOD?? A big NO. I must have looked at the clock every 2 minutes, just waiting for this….THING….in front of me to be over with. Just because a movie is new and original does not mean that it is good. I hate to generalize, but I certainly can see this garbage being a favorite of pseudo-intellectual, java sipping art house gurus, due to its bizarreness and originality. For most normal people, however, this movie will be nothing but a miserable experience. I've never seen a comedy that was less funny. The plot went from mildly interesting to surreal, the acting was stiff, the characters weren't compelling or endearing (how can one like a movie if the characters aren't likable, or, at the very least, interesting?), and, oh yeah, it was NOT funny at all. It will take a court order (and 10 stout men to enforce it) to ever get me to watch this horrid movie again. In fact, it'll take something extraordinary for me to ever see a Spike Jonze movie again. Yup, it was THAT bad. I've probably seen worse movies, but you'd have to give me a day or two to think of one.”

I’m not a pseudo-intellectual and I quite like this film, ok so most of the biggest laughs are gone by the time you get to middle of the picture and the more serious undertones of what is actually gone take over. Caring for the characters is an issue of taste and solely up to the viewer. I spent the whole film feeling sorry for most of the characters and it only made their situation all the more desperate.

What I thought:
This really will be a short one, at least for now anyway. Being John Malkovich is an impressive film if not just for the acting which is second to none, or the laughs; which fair enough are not thick and fast but when they do they come big. It’s the fact that not only did someone come up with this idea but that they pulled it off.

Told you this one would be short.

Ghosts

Please check out this short film, its brilliant...

The GHOSTS from Eddie O'KEEFE on Vimeo.

Folow these guys here http://theteenagehead.com/blog/

Braveheart

Entertainment or Historical rape, you decide?

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Most on this site pick the Godfather, or the Shawshank Redemption, but this is it, this is the best film ever made. People will complain, will argue that I am wrong, but I will say it again...Braveheart is as close to perfection as a movie can be. The acting is superb, the man who played Lonshanks, the actor who portrayed Robert the Bruce, both should have been nominated for Oscars due to their powerful rendering of evil and a man who is saved from losing his humanity (from becoming evil) by meeting William Wallace. And let us not forget the direction, the cinematography. Braveheart is glorious, beautiful to look at. The slow motion pictures of horses preparing to charge armed combatants, the entire landscape of Scotland that Mel Gibson captures with the camera. Braveheart is artwork, it is as good as any picture. That the film is number 93 on the list of the top 250 movies ever is a shame. Yes there is violence in this film but that violence does serve a point...that freedom isn't free and sometimes it takes death, gruesome and horrible, to let ones people taste what it is like to be free. Braveheart is a great movie and it deserves to at least be in the top ten of IMDb's list of greatest films.”

Braveheart is not the best film ever made; it’s a very good historical epic and one of the first modern ones to really give the genre a comeback. However the film is chock full of male bravado and there are for a lot of people too many dramatic liberties taken with the history.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“How this film won so many Oscars is beyond me.To start with its totally inaccurate,it looks like a typical excuse for Mel Gibson to try and look macho and at the same time practice his racial hatred on us English.I don't know about anyone else,but i saw this film about ten years ago and the thing i remember most about it apart from his silly hairdo,was the sheer offensiveness of it,I've never watched it since.He implies that the kings son was homosexual,which there's no evidence of,and then implies that homosexuals are evil people,how bad is that in the 20th century.Films have been banned for implying a lot less.But on the whole why cant he just leave our history alone and do something useful like make a film about the Aborigines or the American Red Indians,which is more his neck of the woods,not tear British history apart with how he wants to see it.I'm worried that he may try and make a version of the Battle of Britain,could you imagine it,he would probably portray the English as sitting around drinking tea saying,go on taffy and jock old boy go and kill some Hun for us ha ha tally ho.It would be that bad.”

History is a funny thing, especially when people take offence with how someone else perceives it. Braveheart is a classic example; even I’ll admit I’m a bit unhappy that we English are portrayed as Evil tyrants, to be fair though the old English empire were responsible for some pretty heinous acts. Read anyting about the history of the Scottish rebellion, William Wallace and Edward the first and you can see that there have been some pretty big exaggerations going on. For me when it comes to the historical accuracy the only people who should be allowed to judge it are the Scottish.

What I thought:
Braveheart as a Hollywood movie and as a story works wonderfully, easily defined characters and moments of pain and loss to make you feel sorry in all the right places. It’s got all the violent battles and gore it needs to pull it a certain male audience, along with some surprising moments of comedy. It’s a very well written piece, however when you take a moment in history and decide to make it into a film be prepared to have some rotten vegetables thrown your way.

Firstly you must look at the history and decide what can make a movie and what would make a history lesson. Once you’ve decided that you then have to tie all the moments together with dialogue, music, cinematography etc etc. In this process the story can turn into something that may well up offending people, take f or instance the majority of hater reviews on IMDB, they go on about how the film is homophobic and racist towards the English. There is no doubt that we are treated as the evil tyrants in this film but had we not the film wouldn’t have had a fun antagonist.

Even without the historic inaccuracies that can be found on the net as I’m not going into them; the film does still have its faults. For me it’s the completely unbelievable relationship with the French Princess, or some of the corny dialogue and the clear lines of good vs evil which just don’t sit right. Criticisms aside I do like Braveheart, it’s violent, stunningly shot, well enough acted piece of cinema that acts as a war cry for the Scottish, and you can see why the SNP used it.

Lost in Translation

A beautiful film of love and life

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“First of all: I can understand why people dislike the movie. If you are looking for an actual plot or comedy in the general sense it's probably not the right movie for you to watch. Lost In Translation is a "Feel"-Movie, it touches you or it doesn't. If you have an understanding for a feeling of loneliness which doesn't stem from actually being alone it might be very important for you to watch it. Sofia Coppola describes this feeling and the hope that still exists nonetheless in visual perfection and, by that, captures it perfectly. The colors, the music, the humor, the strange scenery and the two main protagonists, amazingly portrayed by Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson - everything falls into place. What remains is a movie experience so beautiful that you'll probably never forget it. Plus an ending that might touch you more, than real relationships ever could to that point. A truly important movie for our generation.”

Very much my kind of review, mainly because it starts with “I can understand why people dislike the movie”. Though I agree the plot and the comedy aren’t that complicated anyone thinking so is looking to closely at what is actually a simple story about loneliness and finding love where you least expect it.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Lets go to japan and hang around in different parts of the hotel. Then lets go out to the street and see, "whoa, this is different from America"! People don't talk English! Signs are not in English! People sing karaoke! People eat different food than in America! OK, lets go back to hotel room, and talk about our relationship that has lasted two days, and if we should go back to America. After all, that's where the family is. I decided, we are going back to America, it is a better place after all. This trip to japan was very educating, the view from my hotel room was great.”

Short and sweet and the reason I love it so much, it couldn’t be more obvious that they just didn’t get the point.

What I thought:
This film is like marmite, even if people can see the point the film is trying to make it can still be hated. Some people will find it slow moving and the big laughs are restricted to Bill Murray’s scenes. It’s just one of those films where not much happens, however read a bit deeper and you can see some deep running themes of loneliness, emptiness and above all love. It might sound soppy but that’s what this film is about, these two people have ended up in a city that can seem overwhelmingly alien, they are both going through tough patches and find love and companionship in each other.

Both are likeable if not damn right loveable, the director does such a good job at making you feel so sorry for them and love the fact that they find solace in each other. The performances are key; Bill Murray has matured like a fine wine and this along with most of his recent roles have been utterly convincing, his sardonic style of comedy only makes his characters seem more tortured, It’s easy to say acting wise that Scarlet Johansen has picked the easy route since this film but she was heartbreakingly good as a neglected newlywed, she even gets to flex some sarcastic humour against Anna Faris’s dim witted actress.

Every element is there if you just want to see it, is cinema a form of entertainment for you or sometimes just sometimes a window into what it is to be human.

Brokeback Mountain

It was the spit that did it

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“It was a real ordeal to get into the screening. The anticipation was palpable. The film arrived surrounded by a plethora of innuendo. "A gay western" "Heath and Jake's hot scenes" As soon as the film started every imaginable preconception flew out of the auditorium. This is a remarkable, moving and powerful love story. The setting is that of a modern western "The Last Picture Show" comes to mind. Ang Lee's attention to detail verges on science fiction. You can actually smell the place. Extraordinary. I'm not going to reveal anything about the story - Gian Luigi Rondi a legendary Italian film critic, revealed the ending to a television audience, what was he thinking?! - The film will be enjoyed much more allowing the story to unfold without having passages underlined and attention drawn to this or that particular. I felt compelled to write this comment because I'm overwhelmed. It has changed my perception, I must confess, about certain aspect of same sex love because I didn't think of same sex when I was watching it, I saw two human beings (amazing performances by both actors)I have the feeling "Brokeback Mountain" will make history, deservedly so.”

There’s no doubting the bravery and the talent that has gone into this film, from the actors themselves to the director. I have to say however that I was a bit disappointed.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“The cinematography was fabulous the acting was good. Thats where the praise ends. The opportunity to make a great film was lost after the first act (literally). They failed to deliver any real emotion or sympathy for the characters. Personally, I cannot believe Ang Lee won Best Director. The movie spans 20+ years and the major players never age? The actresses that played the wives still looked twelve years old. That was painful and distracting, but the real deal breaker was the two separate Thanksgiving scenes with the long shots of the obviously cold turkeys being carved. Horrible. Definitely NOT best director material. Plus, the love story was not believable and Jake and Heath had no chemistry. Jakes character was poorly developed. I wish I could quit this movie.”

Overly harsh points I think with the aging of the characters, some people don’t change in 20 years! He comments them on acting and cinematography then slates them for no chemistry and a random comment about thanksgiving scenes? I like the way they ended it though, probably what I would have used had they not used it first.

What I thought:
Like I’ve said I was disappointed by this film, I can’t fault it for acting or indeed the directing. There a few things I can think of why I wasn’t as impressed as I thought I would be and they start with that spitting. It’s not specifically the spitting that gets on my nerves it’s how aggressive the characters seem to thrown themselves at each other. I tried to justify by saying they were men born and bred in Middle America, of course their sexuality is going to confuse them and could explain why they are so aggressive with it. Saying this it didn’t really find in with the characters and despite that still felt forced.

As a love story it is a great tale and heart-breaking too, I just felt that it was quite slow moving and when that ending comes up it seems to just jump up and bite you in the face. Now my third and final point may or may not be relevant depending on what you want to take from the film, is it just a love story or a statement about homosexuality in a homophobic environment? If it’s the latter I feel the film loses an audience, the audience who have come along a lot since those days and it’s no longer an extreme issue. I think there are a lot of different ways of viewing this film and I’m sure a lot of people have different ways of viewing it, whatever yours is, I hope you enjoyed it.

Push

Fire the writers!

Lover: Taken From IMDB
“Push reminds me the Day Watch and Night Watch movies by Timur Bekmambetov, which are based on the novels of Sergei Lukyanenko. The action in these movies is not refined as the occasional Hollywood thriller. It is somehow more intense and usually feels more realistic. The characters in Push are normal individuals that happen to be born with abilities. Not like the usual superhero-super villain clashes we are used to seeing in blockbuster comic movies, Push delivers the action and drama in a more simple and natural fashion. And because the characters are normal individuals, feeling sympathy and familiarizing them with yourself for all their troubles and confusions and all they go through in the movie become much more easier. I really wish they'd do a sequel for Push.”

I can’t see the comparisons to Nightwatch films at all; however I agree that the action feels a little more visceral in this than most films of its type. However when it really matters it does all get a bit clichéd.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“It's the aged all comic book plot line, about a secret organisation that hunts people with special powers and uses them as weapons for the 'Greater Good', the only person that can stop them is a loser who hasn't even learnt how to use his powers properly. Chris Evans was quite funny as the Human Torch, but here he is out of place, as the 'Saviour'...Dakota Fanning doesn't do much, which is quite surprising as she is an actor who has given greater performances...We, do get to see a ravishingly beautiful, Ming-Na...The action is weak, the whole 'plan' is even more confusing and unnecessary. Overall a bad movie...”

Hit the nail on the head here, because of all the other movies of its type that have come out are more than likely based on comic books, they get away with being a little contrived. When you want to create a story from scratch specifically for the big screen you need something original, the best idea put in this film is the names given to the people with powers; pushers, shadows, bleeders.

What I thought:
Because it’s a story you’ve seen or read a hundred times it s a little hard to get into push, an original movie with no source material really needs to get you behind the characters. It’s not that any or all of the characters aren’t likeable it’s just they aren’t written very well. The only one who comes close is a character called Hook Waters played by Cliff Curtis, he should be a wisecracking character but is just to plain speaking to be interesting. Him and the rest of the people that help out our main characters are brought into the film and completely forgotten.

It also drags; the action set pieces are too far apart and filled up with sequence after sequence of dull characters trying to explain a dull non original back story of government experiments. There’s nothing wrong with using an idea that has been repeated before but add something that carries the film. This film has nothing that can carry its way out of obscurity, which is a shame cause I think there’s a good movie in there somewhere.

Zombieland

Killing zombies has never been so much fun!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“The best zombie movie ever made!!! This movie was really great!!it has a lot of potential in it.I really enjoyed!!it isn't really for kids under probably 11 or 12 even though I'm 11 years old.it has a lot of cursing.this movie has a lot of humor.and all the actors are great.i think Tallahassee was really funny!!I liked Columbus's's rules and his humor about surviving.he was a good actor.my favorite actor was Wichita played by Emma stone.she was a really good actress in the movie!!!she was playing this hot girl that was not your regular stuck up bitch as Columbus said in the movie.she was different from other type of girls.she was really tricky and was really smart.her and her sister little rock played by Abagail Breslin were really tricky!!! I hope everyone enjoyed this movie.I was hoping this movie was going to make it into the top 250 movies with a 8.0 or higher.this movie was great and it deserves a 10!!!this movie was great and I hope everyone liked it as much as me!!!!!”

A review from a 11 year old for a 15 movie? Take from that what you will, they are right the film is great but the greatest zombie movie ever made? No.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Comparing to this thing all spaghetti zombie movies are real pieces of art. Their behavior is completely random: they steel cars when there are plenty of cars around, waste ammo for unknown reason and generally behave like they were 6 years old. This what Bill Murray presented was incredibly stupid: he tried to pretend to be a zombie in eyes of an armed man fur completely no reason. What is the most crazy is that one of the characters is traveling America looking for some kind of candy., two girls are going through half of continent to visit some adventure park and when they got there of course they have to ask for attention of all zombies around. I cannot understand how bunch or total idiots like this could be last survivals of zombie infested continent. Moreover this movie is not funny at all.”

I think this person actually thinks there may be a zombie apocalypse, it’s a comedy for crying out loud who cares about the parts that don’t make sense. If you want to see the undead rising taken seriously go and watch George Romero’s films.

What I thought:
How I didn’t read or hear anything about this film being compared to Shaun of the Dead I don’t know. It takes a zombie infestation and uses it for any possible laughs it can get; it also has friendship and love at the heart of it. Now that I have seen it however I can see why no one really did, Zombieland is a very different beast, and it’s an incredible visual treat like Shaun done Hollywood style. The opening credits are fantastic and one of the best I’ve seen, the slow-mo zombie kills and panic stricken America is just perfect. It sets you up for what is film makers having fun killing zombies, even to the point where they mention a zombie kill of the week or something like that.

It’s pure wish fulfilment for all men old enough to have a un healthy obsession with zombies, whether you poison was Romero’s classics or Capcom’s masterpiece Resident Evil, you’ll love this film. Where it departs from Shaun’s the most is that it doesn’t take itself as seriously, the characters aren’t as likeable and the situations not as believable. This makes it harder to route for them but at the very least you’ll love Jesse Eisenberg’s geek and narrator of our story with a Zombie survival like guide of rules to follow, just brilliantly written and performed. As for Woody Harrelson, well he’s a delight in this movie and convincing as a zombie killing bad ass.

It’s hard not to have read about this film and not hear about the ‘inspired’ cameo, for those who don’t know look away now. When our characters go to California they decide to spend the night in one of the stars homes, they pick Bill Murrays’ and his is brilliant, a self-parody that reminds you why you love the man so much! Zombieland is a visual treat and flesh bitingly funny, It’s Shaun of the Dead for those who like their laughs cheap.

The Dark Knight

THE greatest comic book movie ever

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“An imperishable, spectacular and chaotically-brilliant movie. The Dark Knight possesses the essence that should always exist in the handover from comics to the big screen. Sequence after sequence, this is the absolute glory. A great movie that does not give a single frame to breathe. An ode to chaos and anarchy, while shares are confronted inevitably lead to a path dirty, black and hostile. A real Gotham City, dominated by fear. This is the best film of the year. Simply, ladies and gentlemen, The Dark Knight belongs to a category where no comic adaptation could enter before. Thanks Christopher Nolan. Simply, thank you for a film that's a lot more than the typical film based on comic books.”

A great review, no real points but I personally think like this person does that The Dark Knight speaks for itself.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“There is nothing special about this movie. Period. Nothiing special. It tries on so many levels to be this big mega movie, and in financial terms, it was, but you know what? It's still not good, no matter how many fans it has, no matter how much money it pulls in. Those are just figures and numbers, and they're quite boring in the long run. Let's go over a few reasons why it was not good. First off, the story bites off way more than is necessary. We have Bruce Wayne in this ridiculous attempt to win back a woman he'll never have the chance to be with. The woman he is in love with prances around like a little school girl, and really has no business being in the story to begin with. She is just there to make both Batman and Harvey Dent rival each other. I'm so sure that the writers could have come up with a better plan to pit the two against each other than that. Then, there's the Joker...the most ridiculous part of the story. Ridiculous because of the lengths and the means that the filmmakers took to bring a new kind of villain. It's not entertaining, it's not disturbing, it's just sick. This movie was not fun. It was not entertaining. It was a product for the mindless audiences who were going to buy into it anyway, and especially because of the death of Heath edger. Let's talk a little about that. This film had success that rode the curtail of Ledgers death. The studio deliberately used the poor suffering of a human being to push a film into exhibition. That's really sad, and you know what else? It's all this film will ever be...the last film of Heath Ledger, and America went to see it because he died before it's release. sad. Really sad. I didn't like it, and I bet others will not like me for that very reason. Even more sad still.”

Well that girl is the one he’s grown up with and its story tied in from the first one so the character has every right to be there and Bruce Wayne has every right to believe he may end up with her. The rivalry is valid; lots of men in literature have had more than just harsh words for each other over a woman. It’s harsh to say they took advantage of Heath Ledgers death for this film, firstly because they didn’t, secondly how could the press not talk about and ask about the death of one of the films biggest stars and as it turned out; best performance!? One last thing, it wasn’t Heath Ledger's last film, Doctor Parnassus was, if your so called using his death to promote the film stands how do you explan the poor performance of this film? I don’t not like you I feel sorry for you.

What I thought:
Like the title of the review Sais, The Dark Knight is the best comic book movie ever, mainly because apart from having some comic book characters and violence it’s not really a comic book adaptation. It’s hard for me to talk about this movie without gushing about it and I have reviewed it for the napalm site and the link is on the right. So I’m going to look at some of the criticisms, the first being Christian Bale's voice when he is batman. Ok so it is a bit OTT and has been ridiculed brilliantly on facebook but I didn’t notice it until someone mentioned it, that’s because the rest of the film is so damn good.

There are a few plot holes but some of the greatest films have potholes, sometime you just have to suspend your dis belief otherwise you end up spoiling what is a great film.

Batman Begins

Humble beginnings

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I got a chance to see 'Batman Begins' just this past Friday evening. I must say that before seeing the film, I felt in my heart this is the 'Batman' film we've been waiting for. Within ten minutes into the movie, I turned to my date and said to her, "This is it! This is the movie!" I just can't believe that after all these years, Warner Bros. finally got it right. For me the most intriguing part of the film, apart from the great script, and great acting, was Christopher Nolan's decision to base the film in reality. Deciding that Batman could really exist in our universe and our world was a stroke of genius. Another aspect of the film that's so refreshing is that instead of the focus being on the villain, Batman is the film's star. And rightly so. It's amazing what can happen when a studio leaves a respected director, and the creative team alone, and allow them to make the best movie possible. The only two negatives that I can think of is Katie Holmes and the fight sequences. Holmes does indeed look like a teenager playing grown-up. Her performance isn't bad per SE, it's just that you really don't buy her as an Assistant D.A. As for the fight sequences, I felt the cameras angles were too tight on the action, edited too quickly, and lit too dark so that you really couldn't tell what was going on and determine who was hitting who. Maybe we can attribute this to the fact that Nolan is not an action director. Hopefully the next film will open up the fight sequences so we can actually see Batman use the martial arts skills he developed during his exile. But apart from those relatively minor quibbles, the film is excellent, and I'm definitely going back on opening day June 15th, and seeing it a second time. A third and fourth viewing is definitely not out of the question.”

Exactly right, this was the Batman film that we were waiting for and was brilliant because it focused on who is a very complex character; Bruce Wayne. Unfair on Katie Holmes, she did ok for what was a largely under written role and the action does get better in the second.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“This new take on Batman just doesn't seem to work quite right. Nolan tries to basically get Shakespearean with the character and completely ignore the first four films. In some ways that works but in other ways it veers off into a Batman universe that makes no sense and becomes basically a movie that seems like he's attempting to have Batman seem more realistic to being like a person in our real universe. This is where Nolan fails. The magic and fun of Batman evaporates quickly. A man dressing up as a bat and fighting crime has a humorous element to it that Nolan completely ignores with this incarnation and everyone in this universe acts really dumb about it and their reactions to it make little sense especially Gordon's character. A lot of what Gordon does lacks logical sense and he never seems to really question the mental state of the person he first sees dressed as a bat. He's portrayed like some idiot willing to eventually put complete trust in someone he knows practically nothing about running around in a bat suit. His reasons for being so trusting are never clear. Does he know something everyone else doesn't? Bale's performance was pretty average but not as compelling as Keaton or Kilmer. He also tries to have a Batman voice that sounds ridiculous. The only reason for this film's critical success is that it struck a cord with the comic book fan die hards. It certainly didn't do that impressive box office numbers. Now with news that Nolan is going to present The Joker in a sequel, I see a potential disaster waiting to happen.”

The point was the he completely ignores the first four and quite right to for the third and fourth god awful instalments. Compare this Batman and Tim Burtons and tell me which one makes more sense, I could go on for hours about how idiotic this review is however they’ve done it themselves, I quote “that Nolan is going to present The Joker in a sequel, I see a potential disaster waiting to happen.” I think even if this guy hated it, the box office numbers pissed all over this comment.

What I thought:
After watching The Dark Knight, you should go back and re watch Batman Begins as it makes the film a whole new viewing experience! Take it as a journey and when you know where the character is going it only makes Bruce Wayne’s Transformation that much more exciting! The development in all of the characters that remain in the story is carried forward and developed. Let’s take Alfred’s point on the plane back to Gotham; he mentions how if you’re going to be using new techniques to fight crime doesn’t that mean that those criminals will also adapt? Did he not foresee the joker then, was it just well placed dialogue?

The ending and when the insane escape from Arkham only tantalise those taste buds, never has a comic book adaptation sequel been so well thought out and developed than this. It also brings to attention what the Dark Knight improved on, the cinematography only got larger. It made it more of a spectacle and opened up Gotham in all its glory. The Dialogue also smartened up, gone are the cheese ball lines that made you wince “I gotta get me one of those”, and in its place sharp and witty lines that complete the realism.

Now I feel like watching the Dark Knight...

I Love You Phillip Morris

Not as Challenging as expected but definitely as funny

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“It's more unique than rare that a film affects me this much. The center, the emotional center of Phillip Morris has entered my subconscious in a way that I can't quite describe. It changed my perception of things. This is the first time I see two men kissing that made complete sense. I believe and understood like never before the "normalness" of the feeling. I liked "Brokeback Mountain" too but in that case, the torturous path of self-loathing that the Heath Ledger character goes trough, kept me at the periphery of the story like a sympathetic, moved spectator. Here I was part of it, of them. I'm sure Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor have a lot to do with it. No cheap shots, no low comedy. They are so true that you can't help http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifloving them and rooting for them, flaws and all. I predict "I Love You Phillip Morris" will become the sleeper of 2009.”

Quite a statement saying a film has changed your perceptions but I can see why they would say so, Phillip Morris deals with homosexuality in a comedy without making it all a camp nightmare.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“I bought this "blind" - wanted a bluray disc for my new machine and saw this with recognised names in the cast and the words "outrageously funny" (News of the World)and "hilarious" (Instyle) on the box. Not unreasonably I expected to be amused by it but there isn't a laugh (nor even a smile) to be had. Jim Carrey seems to think that pulling faces makes you laugh, well probably if you're under 5, and the plot (what was it?)just rambles on to nowhere. Perhaps some people laugh at explicitly implied homosexual activity (eg inferred oral sex on a boat followed by a spit overboard)amusing. I just thought it sordid and inappropriate for a 15 certificate. Great moment is made of it being a true story but I could write a true story of my life this week & it wouldn't mean it was interesting - although it would probably be more amusing than this. Frankly, I have spent more worthwhile time in the dentist's chair than watching this tasteless, embarrassing bore.”

The argument that there are no laughs to be had is silly; as I laughed. So for some people there will be laughs to have, I sincerely hope a 5 year old doesn’t watch this though! The plot could not be easier to follow and I’m pretty sure this person has never escaped from prison so no their life story would not make a funny film.

What I thought:
You’ll hear some things about this film being daring and brave and really it’s not that brave, so its two very well-known actors acting gay and really going for it. The fact that the main relationship in this film is between two men does not matter it’s a comedy about a brilliantly intelligent man who constantly outwitted the U.S penal system. Knowing that this was based on real events only adds to these ingenious schemes to escape and be with his beloved.

No doubt it has strong themes running through it, however if you Watch this film hoping for some hard edged Brokeback Mountain style issues about homosexuality, chances are you’ll hate it. It’s just a very funny and very original comedy with no shame in the fact its main character is morally and sexually ambiguous. Another issue you might find watching this is mainly an issue for the women who find Ewan Macgregor attractive, I only say this because my wife who happens to have a thing for the Scott couldn’t even look at the screen when the actors shared their ‘intimate’ moments.

Shutter Island

Enjoy it while it lasts…

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“Really, Scorsese should just give it away for anyone. The man is one of the most brilliant directors of our time. Anyway, let me get to the actual movie; I just saw it at a early screening and have to write this while I'm thinking about how stunning it was. Shutter Island is certainly not a typical film, not even for Scorsese. It is a different take for the director, and he does it, as he does every film, perfectly, so much as to be in his own league of film-making. I don't want to give anything away, but I will say this: Shutter Island was completely unexpected, and a great start to 2010. It had all the components of a great film, and then some. The acting is spot on from every character; none of it seems forged or out of place. The script is fantastic; it has one of the most intriguing plots I have seen in a while (exception being Tarantino's Basterds). Everything, down to the set's lighting, was perfectly executed. I will say that not everyone will like this; Shutter Island, again, isn't your typical movie. To those, though, who do choose to see this film, be ready for a compelling, gripping, thought-provoking experience, so much so that you might think to see it again for further clarity (I know I will; it was so entertaining and my mind was blown!). Don't be surprised if you see this at the next Oscars...”

Quite right and definitely a film worth re watching to see just how good Martin Scorsese is and how he gets you to the end, however laboured.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Oooo! it's Scorsese! and The Caprio, and Ben "Gandhi" Kingsley. Let's start the praise, the "masterpiece litany"!!!! The film is presented this way (the quote is from a review at IMDb's): SHUTTER ISLAND is the story of two U.S. marshals, Teddy Daniels and Chuck Aule, who are summoned to a remote and barren island off the coast of Massachusetts to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a murderess from the island's fortress-like hospital for the criminally insane. Try now to believe it. As the aim of the movie is to deny what you have just read. So what's the point? I can introduce Alice in wonderland like "it is the story of a Chinese manufacturer who is hired by a mysterious underground tea dealer. Eventually she has to confront the mischievous queen of Tibet to defend a bunch of rabbits". Shutter Island is a bad movie. Everything is built on a "twist" which is clear since the very beginning. In-depth explanation involving fire and water dichotomy (some review at IMDb's) must come from patient 64. There are a couple of nice shots (nice doesn't necessarily mean "beautiful"), but there are a lot of flaws in the "story", boring clichés, incongruences, unexplainable behaviour even for an asylum... and the more you try to sum up things, the worst it looks.”

There have been plenty of films built on the twist at the end, did they like Fight Club? Seven? Sixth Sense? Atonement ? It is completely wrong to write a film off for this reason! The comparison with Alice in Wonderland whilst clever is ridiculous! As the review comes to the end he makes a lot of statements without really backing any up.

What I thought:
I was excited about the film, who wouldn’t with Scorsese at the helm, the early trailers looked great. Unfortunately I only got a chance to see if recently and I wasn’t disappointed till the end. From the very start you know you’re watching a film where not everything is right, set in a scary asylum secluded on an island it’s bound to be! The other thing that strikes you from the beginning is just how excellent and atmospheric this film is, a tense thriller that borders on psychological horror, with acting that supports it.

Every element is there from Scorsese’s trademark tracking shots and excellent eye for a shot, the soundtrack is extremely disjointed and the acting is brilliant. Put together it makes it a great tense thriller however there’s something not quite right when it reaches its inevitable end. Now there be spoilers ahead so look away now if you don’t want it ruined, but I think the reason the ending doesn’t work as well as it should do is the Leonardo Dicaprio makes his made up character Teddy Daniels to just too damn likeable. So went it gets to the end you have been routing for him the whole way through just to find out he’s not real.

It’s just a disappointing end to what is a fantastic film.

Antz

The only time dreamworks have trumped Pixar?

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“You know, there was a time in which we didn't candy coat stories for children. The Evil Queen in Snow White, for one, was forced to wear red-hot slippers and dance to her death. Even in older Disney films like "Bambi", the serious issue of death is broached. Now, no one dies. It's too serious.
Horsehocky.
One of the best moments I had watching "Antz" in a theater was listening to a mother explain why Barbatus died. Guess what? Death is a natural part of life -- and to refute it exists is plain wrong. Or, as in the recent Disney flick "Hercules", Hades, the God of Death is portrayed as evil. (What, are people supposed to be immortal?) While not appropriate for 4 year olds, I wouldn't think twice about showing it to an 8 year old. Why must movies be dumbed down -- PG means parental GUIDANCE. Any movie that forces you to talk to your kids after a movie is a good one. Don't treat your kids like little morons.”

A little bit extreme but a very valid argument!

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Take cheap ant jokes, old Woody Allen jokes, fight scenes ripped off from a flop "Starship Troopers" and what do you have? The sorriest competitor to ever step into the ring with Disney. Some people love this movie becuz it's different for animation, y'know. They say "Bitch" and "Hell". The real story behind Antz is an old Pixar employee coming over to Dreamworks and trying to get revenge at Pixar and Disney and "A Bug's Life" by ripping off the idea of using ants as lead characters and rushing through a poorly written script, gangly looking characters (even the females Sharon Stone and Jennifer Lopez look too similar to the male characters) Anyways, take all the improbabilities and scary animation... and you are left with a handful of celebrities trying to pull their fans into the movie. If you're a Woody Allen fan, you should check the movie out. He's the only plus side to this movie.”

The old Woody Allen jokes they are referring to are brilliantly re-worked into the life of an ant and instantly set the tone, the cheap ant jokes are for the kids watching. Those fight scenes are daring and Starship Troopers was not a flop, watch it again and read between the illness!

What I thought:

Is Antz the only time Dreamworks have ever trumped Pixar? Look at all of Pixars films and you realise why they are so universally liked. With Adult themes and in jokes they are truly family entertainment, there are only two exceptions to Pixars impeccable record. Cars and Bugs Life, both of which whilst having adult themes are a bit, well kiddy. The latter had to compare with another insect based tale from Dreamworks.

In that traditional Hollywood way of two extremely alike moves coming out in tandem, these two were set to go toe to toe. Unlucky for Pixar that Antz has to be the most adult themed Dreamworks animation they have released, from Woody Allens self deprecating drone to the main character confessing his most “erotic” fantasies and ants melting away from the effect of Termite acid. It is the pure definition of an adult themed kid’s film; in fact it’s so adult themed kids might not even get it.
It’s the only time I have liked Woody Allen as I find the way he does his comedy arrogant.

'Prometheus' The Alien Prequel

This is rumour control, here are the facts…

The long mooted Alien prequel has been talked about and theorised over for the last 3 years. Now that’s its finally green lit, what do we actually know about it? The first piece of very important information is that it will be directed by Ridley Scott, after a few directors names were thrown out there, the man who brought “the perfect organism” to screen should be the perfect one to bring it back.

However he has come out recently to say that it’s not really a prequel and though the ‘xenomorph’ will appear it won’t appear the way we know it? What does that mean exactly; we know that the Alien takes on genetic traits from its host so that should give us idea that there can’t be Aliens popping out of human chests. Despite of course the casting…

Another thing left out and Christ knows she deserves is the poor character of Ellen Ripley, survived only to be left alone not once but twice, burned in a furnace and cloned. This time a whole new batch of actors have taken on the pressure, headed by the brilliant Michael Fassbender (you can catch up with him in the summer as the young Magneto). Others to join this exciting sounding lot are Charlize Theron (Monster), Noomi Rapace (Girl with a Dragon Tattoo) and the ever dependable Idris Elba ( The Losers). All have been sworn to secrecy even before reading the screenplay!

Whatever quotes you may have read about this film having the same “DNA” as the Alien movies should at least give us hope. However it has been stated it’s a whole different story, whatever happens we should find out June next year….

Atonement

Atonement

It’s just not for me

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“ My wife and I went to see the movie last night and were totally blown away by the whole experience. So brilliantly directed and acted. The movie time just flew by and we were drawn in and captivated by each dramatic moment. Never having read the book or been an expert on WW2, I had a truly open mind on what to expect and I'm not one of those who count every rivet or go looking for technical inaccuracies however small. This was truly a masterpiece of cinematography. We were treated to wonderful performances, lavish sets, shocking and thought-provoking moments and haunting themes. I had the privilege of being an extra in the Redcar, Dunkirk scene and once seen in its full glory and effect on the big screen I was simply in awe and glad to have been a part of it. Walking along Redcar beach from now on will never quite be the same again. I am quite sure that the movie will win a number of awards within the next 12 months, but that is not what really matters. Movies are there to entertain, tell a story and affect you emotionally and by God this did it in spades! If you have not seen it yet, you must!”

This is a great review, very true and honest about what they wouldn’t pick holes in and quite right about the cinematography. The Dunkirk scene is one of the best one-take steady cam shots ever committed to film.

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Bottom line about this movie, who cares? None of the characters are particularly sympathetic & since when does a couple who have a 60 second fling in the library, then don't see each other for 4 more years qualify as a "great love story"? Oh, please.....The whole war footage was utterly confusing, and especially in the part of the cockney soldier, which is oddly funny. (Was that on purpose? If so, how very strange, if not, how very unfortunate). The ending, which just sort of suddenly lurches forward into present day, (lord, why did that poor Briony NEVER change her hairstyle?) is a huge bait & switch which cannot help but make you think that you've wasted two hours, essentially by being lied to. How on earth this film was nominated for so many Academy Awards, I do not know. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that Ms. Knightly's green dress was truly stunning. Seriously, that's it..........”

I think you could argue that a “fling” with someone would stay with you for that long; it’s a bit of a cynical life view really! However I agree about the characters, I’ve never been a big fan of Kiera Knightly so it was never going to be the easiest watch for me but I didn’t really like the characters and despite not seeing the twist at the end I just wasn’t impressed by it.

What I thought:
To say I didn’t like Atonement would be a bit a harsh I think, it’s an epic love story that spans decades and it’s told in a very beautiful way. Cinematography is brilliant and I have already mentioned it but that tracking shot of Dunkirk is one of the finest I have seen, it shows perfectly the horrors of that event and does it all in one long single shot. You’ve got to appreciate the craftsmanship that went into that and indeed the attention to detail in the rest of it.

For me I just wasn’t into the characters, this is a completely personal thing and should not put anyone off the film at all. All the acting was near perfect even from Miss Knightly and her accent sounding like an American putting it on! For some that invests in the characters and the love story the twist is brilliant and the film is heart-breaking.