Some guy is a really good cop despite looking like he may have taken a few too many detours to the local donut shop. He is a doctor of something or other but instead hangs around with overactors in order to catch all the crims. He has a lovely family and a happy life until Matthew Fox turns up and starts killing the odd person. The guy and his mates then try to stop Matthew before he kills any more people and Matthew doesn't take too kindly to this and starts killing people the guy likes. Once this happens Dr Cox, who runs the police, starts shouting and making awful decisions but don't worry the main guy seemingly has precognitive powers and will save you all from your apparent incompetence.
This film is an adaptation of a book by James Patterson. I can't say I have ever read the book in question and after this film then I can't say I ever will. My first clue that this film was shite was the fact, as far as I can tell, it skipped out the cinemas and headed straight for DVD town, never a good sign. Despite this love film sent me the dvd anyway so open it up I did and in the dvd player it went. The acting is beyond shocking with even Matthew failing to hold his head above water. The main actor is dreadful and is not believable as a top flight cop and psychologist. Dr Cox is just Dr Cox in a police uniform and even Jean Reno turns up, after having eaten a few pies since the last time we saw him, to rub salt in the wound of his career. Then comes the dialogue which is cliched up to its eyeballs with gems such as 'I'm just here to catch bad guys'. This rubbish may work in books, which I doubt by the way, but it does not in films. The story itself is dull to say the least and not even an interesting and original concept. As I say I haven't read any James Patterson books but if this is the standard of the storytelling then I doubt I ever will. I don't know who was reading this and thought 'O my god this would make an amazing film' because whoever you are I may come slap you. I did not enjoy this film.
Verdict: 0.5/5
Sunday 23 June 2013
Saturday 15 June 2013
Film review: Man Of Steel
The big chested indestructible one returns in the form of Henry Cavill. Henrys real life dad is Robin Hood, a.k.a. Russell Crowe, and is involved in a dying planet that is being threatened by Michael Shannon. To combat this Russell thinks its a sensible idea to send his new born son off in a rocket to earth. Once on earth baby Henry is found by Robin Hood, a.k.a. Kevin Costner, and his missus who raise him as a human. During this raising Henry lifts heavy things and burns doorknobs. Once grown he keeps himself to himself saving the odd person and then buggering off before anyone realises he is special. Amy Adams is a nosy cow who realises who Henry is and keeps following him and trying to expose his secret and convince Laurence Fishburne that the truth is indeed out there. Whilst all this is going on Michael Shannon turns up again in order to grab Henry and take over the world. Lots of smashing and crashing fighting occurs and we all fear for our lovely planet.
Generally superman is a bit dull as a character, or at least I used to think so. My big problem with him is his apparent invulnerability to everything other than kryptonite. This led to every bad guy who turns up having some form of kryptonite bullet, gas, frying pan in order to slap ol' supes with it and it makes for a boring run of similarity. Then Superman Returns came out and lo and behold kryptonite was involved and even Kevin Spacey could not drag the film from the dreary, dull depths it found itself in. Then superman seemed to get put on the sidelines for other superheroes to take centre stage. To my surprise then I actually really enjoyed this film. To start Henry Cavill is very good as the farm boy goody two shoes Clark Kent/Kal'El and Amy Adams is very good as Lois Lane. The support cast are equally as good and Michael Shannon as General Zod is brilliant. Like all good bad guys he is genuinely bad but there is a reason and a warped logic to what he is doing, this makes him believable and you almost feel for his plight. Being an origin story there will always be a 'how he got there' section and often they can become tedious but in this they choose to use a few short explanatory flashbacks instead and it works very well. You don't feel bored at any point and don't feel like you are being fed a load of filler. Another problem superhero films can have is once the hitting each other sections start which can become CGI heavy nonsense (see Ang Lees Hulk for an example) and again this film does not do that. There is CGI obviously but it doesn't look or feel out of place or over the top and it looks very good. Ultimately when you watch a superhero film you want them to beat the hell out of each other and this delivers in heaps and includes one of the toughest female bad guys you will see for a while. I came out of the cinema with a smile on my face and a warmth in my heart for the big laser eyed Kryptonian. Very good film.
Verdict: 4/5
Generally superman is a bit dull as a character, or at least I used to think so. My big problem with him is his apparent invulnerability to everything other than kryptonite. This led to every bad guy who turns up having some form of kryptonite bullet, gas, frying pan in order to slap ol' supes with it and it makes for a boring run of similarity. Then Superman Returns came out and lo and behold kryptonite was involved and even Kevin Spacey could not drag the film from the dreary, dull depths it found itself in. Then superman seemed to get put on the sidelines for other superheroes to take centre stage. To my surprise then I actually really enjoyed this film. To start Henry Cavill is very good as the farm boy goody two shoes Clark Kent/Kal'El and Amy Adams is very good as Lois Lane. The support cast are equally as good and Michael Shannon as General Zod is brilliant. Like all good bad guys he is genuinely bad but there is a reason and a warped logic to what he is doing, this makes him believable and you almost feel for his plight. Being an origin story there will always be a 'how he got there' section and often they can become tedious but in this they choose to use a few short explanatory flashbacks instead and it works very well. You don't feel bored at any point and don't feel like you are being fed a load of filler. Another problem superhero films can have is once the hitting each other sections start which can become CGI heavy nonsense (see Ang Lees Hulk for an example) and again this film does not do that. There is CGI obviously but it doesn't look or feel out of place or over the top and it looks very good. Ultimately when you watch a superhero film you want them to beat the hell out of each other and this delivers in heaps and includes one of the toughest female bad guys you will see for a while. I came out of the cinema with a smile on my face and a warmth in my heart for the big laser eyed Kryptonian. Very good film.
Verdict: 4/5
Film review: The Hobbit
Martin Freeman grows some hair on his feet, shrinks and moves into a hole in the ground. Sir Ian McKellen then rocks up at Martins door with a bunch of dwarves among which is Richard Armitage. They all have a little meeting which lasts about 20mins real time and eat a lot of food. These guys then convince Martin to go questing to try and get Richards castle back from a dragon and also this mountain crystal thing. Along the way they run into trolls, orcs, goblins and big dogs. There are also some elves and wizards who talk weirdlike about bad people. This all takes about 3 hours and nothing really gets sorted.
The lord of the rings trilogy is brilliant. All three are a joy to watch and completely envelope you in a world of swords, shields and short people. The books of lord of the rings are mahoosive and are full of fluff that is not really needed in the film world. Peter Jackson realised this and cut a lot of crap out and still was left with 9 hours of greatness. The reason I mention all of this is that the book of The Hobbit is about half the size of one of the books of the lord of the rings yet the plan for the film adaptation is exactly the same, three three hour films. I have read The Hobbit and cannot honestly see how they can make three long films from it. That isn't to say there isn't 9 hours worth of stuff in the book but like most books there is a lot of fluff and unfortunately this film suffers slightly for it. The main area that drags is the start. They seem to spend forever in Bilbos house chatting, singing and eating and it makes you want to shout at them to just get the hell on with it. Thankfully once they do the pace picks up and familiarity returns dragging you back into the fantasy world. Many special effect and costumed monsters turn up and look fantastic and the battles they are involved in are typically epic in scale. As you can tell I enjoyed the film very much despite the slow start. I am still skeptical about how they will stretch it to three films and worry that the 2nd one especially will suffer for it but I will reserve judgment for now. Good stuff.
Verdict: 4.5/5
The lord of the rings trilogy is brilliant. All three are a joy to watch and completely envelope you in a world of swords, shields and short people. The books of lord of the rings are mahoosive and are full of fluff that is not really needed in the film world. Peter Jackson realised this and cut a lot of crap out and still was left with 9 hours of greatness. The reason I mention all of this is that the book of The Hobbit is about half the size of one of the books of the lord of the rings yet the plan for the film adaptation is exactly the same, three three hour films. I have read The Hobbit and cannot honestly see how they can make three long films from it. That isn't to say there isn't 9 hours worth of stuff in the book but like most books there is a lot of fluff and unfortunately this film suffers slightly for it. The main area that drags is the start. They seem to spend forever in Bilbos house chatting, singing and eating and it makes you want to shout at them to just get the hell on with it. Thankfully once they do the pace picks up and familiarity returns dragging you back into the fantasy world. Many special effect and costumed monsters turn up and look fantastic and the battles they are involved in are typically epic in scale. As you can tell I enjoyed the film very much despite the slow start. I am still skeptical about how they will stretch it to three films and worry that the 2nd one especially will suffer for it but I will reserve judgment for now. Good stuff.
Verdict: 4.5/5
Film review: Wreck It Ralph
John C Reilly has got himself a job as a big guy who likes to destroy the same building over and over again whilst a little guy with a hammer fixes it. This is a computer game in an arcade called Fix it Felix where all of the characters come to life after the arcade is closed. They all meet in the plug sockets and have drinks and fun and all sorts of craziness. They can visit each others games but there is one rule, do not die in another game as you will never respawn. John is sick of being a bad guy and being treated like crap and decides to ignore the one rule and visit other games to try and win a medal in order to be deemed as good. When out in other games he meets a little girl who like racing. She robs his newly acquired medal and they have to work as a team to get it back. Then there is some baking of cars and racing around lakes of cola and punching floors. By the end we all learn lessons about what it is to be bad and to have job satisfaction.
Disney are giants of children's films. They have been making them for god knows how long and for the most part they are brilliant for both kids and adults. Now they have, alongside Pixar, carried this high level into the computer generated world. This continues in this film. Ralph is a troubled character with a loveable core and a big heart who develops in complexity through the film. The story is clever enough for the adult audience but not too complex to bore kids. The animations and worlds created are frankly beautiful and a feast for the eyes. True to form there is comedy liberally drizzled all over the film mostly in the form of Vanelope the little girl Ralph meets. The idea for the film is genius as it feels very current but also makes the 80's/90's child within reminisce about old school arcade games and makes you fall in love with them all over again. A particular highlight of the film is the self help group for bad guys in which Zangief from Street fighter opens up to a room that includes Bowser, M Bison and the ghost from pacman, brilliant. As you can probably tell I loved it.
Verdict: 4.5/5
Disney are giants of children's films. They have been making them for god knows how long and for the most part they are brilliant for both kids and adults. Now they have, alongside Pixar, carried this high level into the computer generated world. This continues in this film. Ralph is a troubled character with a loveable core and a big heart who develops in complexity through the film. The story is clever enough for the adult audience but not too complex to bore kids. The animations and worlds created are frankly beautiful and a feast for the eyes. True to form there is comedy liberally drizzled all over the film mostly in the form of Vanelope the little girl Ralph meets. The idea for the film is genius as it feels very current but also makes the 80's/90's child within reminisce about old school arcade games and makes you fall in love with them all over again. A particular highlight of the film is the self help group for bad guys in which Zangief from Street fighter opens up to a room that includes Bowser, M Bison and the ghost from pacman, brilliant. As you can probably tell I loved it.
Verdict: 4.5/5
Film review: A Good Day To Die Hard
Bruce Willis is back to fight crime and kick some guys in the ass. This time he is off to Russia to see his son who is working out there for the CIA. He is now bezzies with his daughter seeing as in the 4th film he saves the crap out of her but bestest son still hates him. McClane Junior is protecting this Russian guy who had something to do with plutonium from another Russian guy who also had something to do with plutonium. Herein starts the drive a bit, shoot a bit, clever line, blow stuff up method of storytelling we all know and love. During this all Bruce and Bruce Junior bond through the medium of wanton destruction but hey they're only messing up Russia so who in all honesty cares.
Like most of the world I am a huge, huge fan of the Die Hard films. The first two are two of the best action films not just of their time but ever, the third is not far off and whilst some didn't I enjoyed the fourth. Safe to say then that I was looking forward to the fifth instalment and yes I wasn't expecting an amazing film but I was expecting an enjoyable romp that would keep me entertained throughout. Unfortunately Die Hard 5 just didn't live up to my expectations. It is not a bad film it is just a nothing film which in some respects is worse. The storyline is a bit rubbish and Bruces relationship with his son is an exact replica of his relationship with his daughter in the 4th film right down to calling him John instead of dad until realising he is not bad as a dad and calling him as such. It pains me to say but I was bored throughout pretty much the entire film and sadly so it seems was Bruce. He put his foot on the clutch and cruised in neutral and frankly looked like he didn't want to be there. This in itself is odd and as a Bruce Willis fan a little disappointing. Overall I can't say I hated this film but I also can't say I liked it, I nothinged it.
Verdict: 2/5
Like most of the world I am a huge, huge fan of the Die Hard films. The first two are two of the best action films not just of their time but ever, the third is not far off and whilst some didn't I enjoyed the fourth. Safe to say then that I was looking forward to the fifth instalment and yes I wasn't expecting an amazing film but I was expecting an enjoyable romp that would keep me entertained throughout. Unfortunately Die Hard 5 just didn't live up to my expectations. It is not a bad film it is just a nothing film which in some respects is worse. The storyline is a bit rubbish and Bruces relationship with his son is an exact replica of his relationship with his daughter in the 4th film right down to calling him John instead of dad until realising he is not bad as a dad and calling him as such. It pains me to say but I was bored throughout pretty much the entire film and sadly so it seems was Bruce. He put his foot on the clutch and cruised in neutral and frankly looked like he didn't want to be there. This in itself is odd and as a Bruce Willis fan a little disappointing. Overall I can't say I hated this film but I also can't say I liked it, I nothinged it.
Verdict: 2/5
Film review: I Give It A Year
Rafe Spall is going out with Rose Byrne. They haven't been together too long before they decide it would be a good idea to get married so off they trot to become wed. The wedding is lovely despite Stephen Merchants best efforts and they pootle off to begin their wonderful life together. Shortly after this they realise that they don't have a lot in common, if anything, and start to have problems. Herein every single human being they meet is weird or kooky sometimes in equal measure. Then 2 bloody yanks turn up and start chucking spanners left right and centre. One of these is Anna Faris who seems to have visited Lesley Ashes cosmetic surgeon and the other is Simon Baker who has literally no sense of sarcasm or irony. The married couple then start to have feelings for their respective americans and start to realise they maybe shouldnt have got married, even though Minnie Driver told them as much at the start of the film, smart lady.
I had very high hopes for this film. It stars some great actors in Rafe and Rose and some great comedic presences in Merchant and a lot of the support cast. It is also a british comedy which, no offense americans, usually means it is a cleverer comedy full of wit and invention. All of this made me think it was going to be in the league of About a Boy or Four Weddings, shame then it is actually a bit shite. Rafe and Rose are perfectly fine in the lead roles but are never believable as a couple. They are completely different people from the outset which just makes you question time and again why did they get together in the first place? Yes I understand that things change and early marriages may reveal hidden problems but these people literally have nothing in common which would be a stumbling block right from the first meet. Then come the americans one a past love, Anna Faris, and one a hunky business partner, Simon Baker. The couple then start to behave awfully towards one another and especially in the case of Rose Byrne are just outright bitches. Simon is a humourless douchbag who is only charming to people he deems worthy and is a judgmental prick to everyone else. Anna is equally as dull as Simon and verging on the annoying as an almost free spirit hippy type. All of this would be forgivable if the film was funny. That is not to say I didn't laugh but the filmmakers are trying sooo hard to make you laugh that it becomes very annoying. Every single peripheral person is weird and inappropriate. From the marriage counselor to the solicitor drawing up their will weird jokes and one liners are thrown around willy nilly. I don't know about you but I have never met people like that and if I have it is very few and far between. All of this makes the entire thing unbelievable and frankly disappointing.
Verdict: 1/5
I had very high hopes for this film. It stars some great actors in Rafe and Rose and some great comedic presences in Merchant and a lot of the support cast. It is also a british comedy which, no offense americans, usually means it is a cleverer comedy full of wit and invention. All of this made me think it was going to be in the league of About a Boy or Four Weddings, shame then it is actually a bit shite. Rafe and Rose are perfectly fine in the lead roles but are never believable as a couple. They are completely different people from the outset which just makes you question time and again why did they get together in the first place? Yes I understand that things change and early marriages may reveal hidden problems but these people literally have nothing in common which would be a stumbling block right from the first meet. Then come the americans one a past love, Anna Faris, and one a hunky business partner, Simon Baker. The couple then start to behave awfully towards one another and especially in the case of Rose Byrne are just outright bitches. Simon is a humourless douchbag who is only charming to people he deems worthy and is a judgmental prick to everyone else. Anna is equally as dull as Simon and verging on the annoying as an almost free spirit hippy type. All of this would be forgivable if the film was funny. That is not to say I didn't laugh but the filmmakers are trying sooo hard to make you laugh that it becomes very annoying. Every single peripheral person is weird and inappropriate. From the marriage counselor to the solicitor drawing up their will weird jokes and one liners are thrown around willy nilly. I don't know about you but I have never met people like that and if I have it is very few and far between. All of this makes the entire thing unbelievable and frankly disappointing.
Verdict: 1/5
Monday 10 June 2013
Film review: Sinister
Ethan Hawke is a writer who lives in a really big house. He writes primarily about bad stuff and decides to move himself, his wife, his daughter and his son, who needs a haircut, to a house where bad stuff went down. In this new house he finds some old home movies that seem to be of families before they cark it in increasingly horrible ways. We don't see who is filming but there seems to be some funny looking bloke who pops up every now and again in bushes and mirrors and stuff. Then O look something scary......O no wait it was in the trailer, never mind, moving on. Ethan then thinks its a good idea to keep watching these films and writing about them and more creepy stuff starts to happen and.......hang on something scary is about to occur.....nope, another trailer bit.......O well maybe next time. Once Ethan is done watching the films over and over again his kids start doing weird things like sitting half nude in boxes and drawing on the walls and his wife shouts a lot, very dramatic of her I know, and more trailer related scares keep the tension in the lounge position as far away from the edge as it can be.
To say that watching the trailer ruins this film is a complete and utter understatement. It is meant to be a scary film right so that in itself should tell you that there should be some things to make you jump, scream, wet yourself or whatever your involuntary fear response may be. Even if there are no scares then the very least it should be creepy and make the hairs all over your body stand to attention. There was none of that in this film and I blame it on the trailer and the weak scare mechanic they use. When are horror films going to stop the quiet bit, quiet bit, BOO! method of scaring you, it doesn't work in the long run and it is boring and predictable so stop it! Then the bits that could have had potential they shove in the trailer, I am not kidding it is literally all of them. Because of all that there is zero tension which is more annoying than anything because the premise is actually not that bad, creepy films of murders with a big question mark as to who is a) doing it and b) filming it. Due to this premise it is at least interesting for about 25 minutes and then the holes start to form in both plot and explanation. Once the big reveal happens you have stopped caring and even more questions are both opened and unanswered. The most annoying of these is, WHO THE FUCK IS HOLDING THE CAMERA? Its not to say it isn't explained but it is only in a few situations where it makes even an ounce of sense. God I want to say the big reason why most of the films don't make sense but alas that would break my no spoiler rule, but I also don't recommend watching it so you will never know and your life will be better for it, believe me. I will end it there and with that all there is left to say is rubbish, complete rubbish.
Verdict: 1.5/5
To say that watching the trailer ruins this film is a complete and utter understatement. It is meant to be a scary film right so that in itself should tell you that there should be some things to make you jump, scream, wet yourself or whatever your involuntary fear response may be. Even if there are no scares then the very least it should be creepy and make the hairs all over your body stand to attention. There was none of that in this film and I blame it on the trailer and the weak scare mechanic they use. When are horror films going to stop the quiet bit, quiet bit, BOO! method of scaring you, it doesn't work in the long run and it is boring and predictable so stop it! Then the bits that could have had potential they shove in the trailer, I am not kidding it is literally all of them. Because of all that there is zero tension which is more annoying than anything because the premise is actually not that bad, creepy films of murders with a big question mark as to who is a) doing it and b) filming it. Due to this premise it is at least interesting for about 25 minutes and then the holes start to form in both plot and explanation. Once the big reveal happens you have stopped caring and even more questions are both opened and unanswered. The most annoying of these is, WHO THE FUCK IS HOLDING THE CAMERA? Its not to say it isn't explained but it is only in a few situations where it makes even an ounce of sense. God I want to say the big reason why most of the films don't make sense but alas that would break my no spoiler rule, but I also don't recommend watching it so you will never know and your life will be better for it, believe me. I will end it there and with that all there is left to say is rubbish, complete rubbish.
Verdict: 1.5/5
Friday 7 June 2013
Film review: Frankenweenie
A small boy has a dog. He has no friends but has a dog. He runs around with this dog doing science and filming toys when all of a sudden the dog gets hit by a car. The boy then thinks that plugging his dog into the mains is a sensible thing to do and turns out it works. The dog is then dead but not dead and many monster movie in jokes and references pop up and the dog runs around scaring people. Then some funny looking fat guy tries to burn the dog and probably the child. Good thing everybody is made out of plastecine or some other art and/or craft.
Even without prior knowledge you will know who made this film right from the opening scene. It is so completely Tim Burton it may as well be getting its end away with Helena Bonham Whatsherface. This is by no means a bad thing as Tim has a certain way with animation that personally I rather enjoy. The great thing about this film is it has so many references to old horror films that are subtle and obvious in equal measure. I am not the biggest horror film fan but I can appreciate the thought and effort that has gone into this film. The story is a sweet one and gets your cockles well and truly warmed whilst remaining entertaining. It is by no means Tims best and is by no means the best animated film you will see but if you like dogs/horror/animation/Tim Burton, delete where applicable, you will have a good enough time. Not the longest review I know but I have said all I want so back off.
Verdict: 3.5/5
Even without prior knowledge you will know who made this film right from the opening scene. It is so completely Tim Burton it may as well be getting its end away with Helena Bonham Whatsherface. This is by no means a bad thing as Tim has a certain way with animation that personally I rather enjoy. The great thing about this film is it has so many references to old horror films that are subtle and obvious in equal measure. I am not the biggest horror film fan but I can appreciate the thought and effort that has gone into this film. The story is a sweet one and gets your cockles well and truly warmed whilst remaining entertaining. It is by no means Tims best and is by no means the best animated film you will see but if you like dogs/horror/animation/Tim Burton, delete where applicable, you will have a good enough time. Not the longest review I know but I have said all I want so back off.
Verdict: 3.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)