Solomon Kane

It’s very, very wet!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“If you have no knowledge of the movie before enjoying this excellent piece of art, you will probably make some of the same mistakes as I did. When Solomon Kane is first introduced, you're sudden that he is not played by Robert Downey Jr., but face-recognition is impossible until he loses the beard. First will you think it sucks, but post the prelude you will fall in love with James Purefoy. The movie provides a main storyline which you will recognize from Star Wars, The Patriot, Lord Of The Rings, but it does also provides unique touch of Solomon Kane. Imagine The Patriot following the story of Gabriel (Heath Ledger), but with a way cooler main character: Lord Aragorn from LOTR. This movie remains you of why trilogies are made, and you wish Solomon Kane was in 3,4,5 or 1000 parts. It fulfills every expectation you could ever have to an Action-Adventure movie, and if you do not like the genre, then watch it just for the beauty of it. I have never felt the need of writing a review on IMDb, though I use it dayli, but I felt i owed it to all of you. WATCH IT!”

This is a way over top review for what is a way over the top film. 1000 parts I’m not even sure about the 1 part!

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“Very poor, shameless exploitation of the work of Robert E. Howard who must be spinning in his grave. The author of this original story was such a gifted story teller. His Solomon Kane bears zero resemblance to this Hollywood film. Like the terrible films made about Conan, this simplistic farce bears no resemblance to the author's great story telling. people who give this film a positive review are clearly not familiar with the plots, style and characterizations built by Robert E. Howard. This is too bad. I was so excited initially to see this film. As a boy Robert E. Howard's stories were a vital part of my life. Kane was one his more obscure characters, so I was hopeful. However, this film does not honor a single line, moment or idea of the original stories. They have just stolen his name and wardrobe and made a film that makes no sense at all to me. I was unable to finish watching this film.”

I felt it was important to get an opinion of someone who knew something about the original work, as I have no idea. As you can see it’s not that good!

What I thought:
The first thing to pop into my mind when talking about this movie is that I think it’s raining for about 90% of the film. Now that’s not a reason to think a film is bad, it is however a hint to how lethargic the rest of the film feels. Solomon Kane feels like a bad rip off of Lord of the Rings transported to Medieval England. There are no similarities in story it’s just the look for the film, starting with our hero.

For anyone not familiar with the original comic book Solomon’s look is pure Aragorn, there is nothing really wrong with that but the similarities are to strong character wise. There is no attempt to make Solomon a totally original character and when he’s lumbered with the cheesiest lines in the film it all looks and feels so wrong just imagine Aragorn telling all those orks on pelennor fields to “come on!” Credit where credit is due James Purefoy does the best he can with the material and does convince with his fighting which by the way is the best thing about the film.

With a story that is as un-original as it is predictable and actors that look like they’re hoping to make the next big fantasy franchise, it must find a niche somewhere? The action is a redeeming factor, very well thought out sequences of swords, axes and sorcery are fun to watch. The final nail in the coffin, when our big bad guy shows up at the ending you’re waiting for Gandalf to appear and cry “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!” It’s just too much! Well here is hoping that the reboot of Conan isn’t this bad.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

Jim Carrey at his zaniest!

Lover: Taken from IMDB
“I'm guessing that everybody knows the story of this movie by now, but for those who might not have had the opportunity to see this great movie, it's quite a simple formula. The Miami Dolphins mascot is stolen and by word-of-mouth advertising Ace Ventura (Jim Carrey) is called into manic action. His job is to find the dolphin and return it before The Miami Dolphins' crucial game. Jim Carrey is quite simply amazing, I never stopped laughing the whole way through the movie. This is surely Carrey's best work, even now. OK, Dumb and Dumber and The Mask are very funny movies too, but this takes the biscuit. Everything Ace does made me laugh, from whipping football player's with a towel to get a ring imprint to showing up at a mansion party and being his usual manic self. 100 laughs per hour, if you have a sense of humour, then this movie is for you!!!”

A good review but Ace Ventura is definitely an acquired taste when it comes to sense of humour…

Hater: Taken from IMDB
“It's mainly because of Ace Ventura. He's just too much here, too much to the point where it's just stupid and VERY annoying and just not funny. He was a lot better in The Mask and Bruce Almighty, but here, it's just too much. I don't understand why people find Jim Carrey doing dumb faces or saying dumb things hilarious, it's really not. It's just stupid. How was this a hit film? How did it do it? Did people really watch crap like this? Because honestly, that's like watching Chris Crocker kiss another man, I mean seriously, it's just NOT FUNNY! It's just so bad, and people are saying "no it's not Jim Carrey, he did amazing" no, honestly, it WAS him, because he was just too much here, and it's just not funny, it's stupid. Definitely a 1/10, an abysmal film, watching it was worse than cutting up my butt with razor blades and rolling in a pile of salt.”

… And this review proves my point, Ace Ventura is Jim Carrey at his absolute craziest and clearly it goes too far for some people. Me on the other hand…

What I thought:
This incredibly silly comedy works for me mainly on two areas, the fact that I still have the sense of humour of a 12 year old boy (vital in liking this film!) and it makes me very nostalgic. This and the sequel (Natures Call) got me though the last few years at secondary school, where me and my friends quoted it endlessly along with another Jim Carrey hit; Liar Liar. This means that every time I watch it I still laugh in the same places and feel the need to instantly call or text my old school friends the same parts we used to do.

This aside, Ace Ventura is as I have said before an acquired taste. If you have a very silly sense of humour you should get a kick out of it every time our hero is on screen. It dips a bit every time he’s off it (which thankfully isn’t much). Some people however will just find it silly and not funny at all, this film is not for them, they should be watching Woody Allen or something! It’s important to forget things like plot and character development when watching any of Carrey’s older films and this is no exception. A thin ‘looking for a dolphin / gender bending plot twist’ ties the movie together but this is just a stage for Jim Carrey’s silliest character. It’s brilliantly funny if you have the right sense of humour.

The Buzz: 03/02/11

Above: Poster for new film Dylan Dog: Dead of night

Adaptation of comic book 'Vice'

'The Strangers' sequel?

Pet Cemetery remake

The Buzz: 02/02/11

Hugh Jackman excited about Aronofsky's Wolverine

Domonic Cooper talks Captain America

Excellent news Joseph Gordon-Levitt in talks for The Dark Knight Rises!

Javier Bardem talks Bond

Up and Coming Movies...

Rio

In UK Cinemas April 2011

What they say:
RIO is a 3D motion picture event from Blue Sky Studios, the makers of the “Ice Age” films and one of the most successful producers of animated feature films in the world. The comedy-adventure centers on Blu, a rare macaw who leaves the comforts of his cage in small town Minnesota for the exotic wonders of Rio de Janeiro. But Blu’s new life and adventures in Rio are complicated by the fact that he can’t fly. Lucky for Blu, his new menagerie of friends are ready to help him find his inner-hero – and teach him what it really means to soar.

What i say:
Ice Age is one of the non pixar films that has come close to toppling them, if Rio is anywhere near as good as the first ice age, we're onto something!

The Buzz: 01/02/11

John Carter of Mars Updates

John Woo's 'The Killer' getting a remake in 3D

Tyler Perry is the new Alex Cross (Morgan Freeman played him in Kiss the Girls)

Steven Kings The Stand gets a movie adaptation

Akira

An Essential for anyone interested in anime

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Buzz: 31/01/11

Meet the new Superman

Javier Bardem is the next Bond villain?

The Screen Actors Guild Awards

The future of Freddie Kruger

2001: A Space Odyssey

More like marmite than you'd think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Buzz: 30/01/11

Elton John get s biopic?

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

'Mothers Curse' for Barbara Steisand and Seth Rogen

Sundance Festival round-up by Dark Horizons

Get him to the Greek

A bit close to home for Russell Brand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Buzz: 29/01/11

Above, pic of Joseph Gordon-Levitts new film

Pic from Ryan Reynolds & Jason Bateman body swap comedy

Get Back: A Beatles comedy

Lego does the Oscars

Beeonfilm: About the idiot who does this…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your’s
Peter Bee

28 Weeks Later

Like days only bigger and a bit dumb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Buzz: 28/01/11

Jackass 3.5?

The new Charlies Angels

Judi Dench in next Bond

Thor script leaked online