Superman has always been one of the most quintessential superheroes of comic-book lore. It's hard to top a man who can fly, zap things with his eyeballs, see through walls, move faster than a speeding bullet, jump over buildings, survive just about everything, and live for centuries. On film, the Man of Steel has been treated with varying degrees of class and cheese; Richard Donner's films are iconic in themselves, and Bryan Singer's film had its moments. Given the success of The Dark Knight trilogy, it was only inevitable that filmmakers would try to put a more earnest, serious, heavy-weight spin on the saga of Superman.
Unfortunately, this is still not a perfect adaptation. Many critics and film-goers have written this film off as stylistically gaudy, crammed-full of gargantuan action scenes laden with one too many camera zooms and shakes, and with a narrative that's wonky. It has become the biggest love-it-or-hate-it film of 2013.
I, for one, love the film, despite all its excesses and problems. The action continuously blows me away; the film is loaded with huge-scale action, the likes of which blows most other superhero films out of the water. It gets relentless as superpowered characters slam into each other at rocketing speeds, blasting entire city blocks in their wake. In some of the most frightening and intense scenes, alien machines pummel huge parts of Metropolis to a flattened ruin. Even when the mass destruction isn't on full display, the film still moves fast and fluidly.
A lot of the film's momentum can be attributed to its narrative, which is purposefully mixed-up so that the film doesn't waste that much time covering old ground. The relevant parts of Superman's origins are covered in flashbacks inserted at key moments. This does create a jarring shift that may throw viewers off, but I felt the pacing was perfect. Everything else plays out in a pretty straightforward manner. What really matters, however, are the characters, which are at their strongest. The film intimately explores the title character, not only through the snippets of the origin story, but also in exploring him as an outcast full of emotional vulnerabilities. The film shows what he learns from living among humans, and underscores strong themes of morality. There are also some deviations that I think benefit the story (primarily, Lois Lane is no longer a total ditz).
There are still a few nitpicks, however. I never did get used to the notion that Superman could be seen as a threat to humanity (perhaps because I've been spoiled by the older films, where Superman saves people and is cheered; here, he saves people and gets into trouble). The fate of Jonathan Kent is a rather manipulative scene. The most critical viewers would also make the same complaints as with Zack Snyder's other films: too cold, not enough depth.
As mentioned before, the photography can be rather gaudy, with frequent use of zooms, some camera shaking, and some scenes with bright flashing lights. Personally, I never found it all that problematic; most of the film is still pretty solid, and I think the drama scenes boast some of the best shots, with frequently intimate close-ups of specific characters and objects. Editing is pretty interesting, for better or for worse. Acting is a surprising treat: I think Henry Cavill is superb as the title character, and everybody else is pretty decent. Writing gets the job done. This production has fine-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Special effects are plentiful, some looking great and others looking a little underdeveloped. Hans Zimmer's score, much like the film itself, has been criticized for being too much shallow noise, but I personally love the music for its simple themes and powerful spirit.
In fact, that pretty much sums up my stance on Man of Steel: it's noisy, but I still find it moving. It may not be a perfect or beautiful film, but it has the perfect pacing, and it is a film with power. Not only power in the action scenes (of which it does have plenty), but also power in the characters, and their struggles in finding strength and a place in the world.
5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Very Good | Film: Very Good)
Recommendation: As a rental.
On Blu-Ray, it looks and sounds darn near perfect!
PQ: 4.5/5, AQ: 5/5
Last edited by Al_The_Strange; 11-10-2013 at 02:18 AM.
The Good:I can't believe that out of all the Avengers, I now find myself most enthusiastic about Thor. Not Iron Man. Not the Hulk. Thor. I already can't wait to see Odinson's next big screen adventure. That's how good Thor was and that's how good The Dark World is. **** Iron Man 3 and its bullshit Mandarin stunt, Phase Two starts here. The thing I like the most about the Thor movies is how closely tied they are to the main Avengers storyline. These aren't just fillers like The Incredible Hulk or the Iron Man sequels, these are actually essential bridges to each superhero get-together. The cast is fantastic once again. Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Portman, Hopkins, Elba, Russo, Alexander, Skarsgård (in "banana balls" mode), and even Dennings--you can tell they all relish being a part of this series. Goodbye, Dutch angles, new director Alan Taylor goes for a different look and feel which may take a little while to get used to, especially if you've rewatched the original several times, but once it gets going... man. It took all the way to November, but we now have this year's best popcorn flick. The action set pieces are a marked improvement over Branagh's film. Right off the bat, you can tell this sequel is grander in scale; more epic than any other solo Avenger movie thus far. The stakes are high and no one is safe. Previous Avenger installments are usually slagged for their lackluster finales, but Taylor bucks the trend, offering up a thrilling climactic battle in which Thor fights Malekith and his horde of elves, Jumper-style across the nine realms. The art direction, cinematography, score, costume design, makeup, and visual effects are all top-notch. The Dark World is the prettiest MCU movie yet, and yes, that's including The Avengers. Oh, and they pull a brilliant twist in the end that will surely have people speculating. The same can be said about the very intriguing mid-credits scene. (Don't be so fast to leave the theaters.)
The Bad:Just a few minor quibbles, namely Malekith and Darcy. Now, Christopher Eccleston doesn't do a bad job by any means, it's just that Malekith, on his own, is a rather bland and one-dimensional foe. However, when taken as a whole, his throng of dark elves are quite the formidable pack; a bunch of creepy-looking ****ers capable of wreaking some serious havoc, whether on Earth or on Asgard. Case in point is Malekith's colossal right-hand man Kurse (played by Mr. Eko himself), one ugly mother****er of a beast that is certainly not to be messed with. Another issue is the forced humor with the main offender being Kat Dennings' character, Darcy. Dennings seems like a decent comedienne herself, so I guess the writing is to blame here. While the film has its moments, it's not nearly as amusing nor as charming as the original. And that post-credits scene (Yes, there are two of them this time around) is quite crappy and unnecessary.
The Bottom Line:Thor: The Dark World is one of the best MCU movies yet. Recommended.
So the first film was set in the distant future of 1997. In this sequel a massive earthquake hits LA and practically wipes it out in the distant future of the year 2000. And now in the present day of the year 2013 'Snake Plissken' is brought back to once again rescue the USA. I just find it amusing how these now old films are out of date with their 'distant future' dates. Also on a personal note it sorta affects the films impact for me, dunno why, I guess it doesn't hold the same futuristic feel obviously.
Snake is back! he's still bad, he's all in black and grunts more than ever (did he really need that heavy full length trench coat?! oh wait...it was for the coolness factor wasn't it). Was this specific adventure required? no not really, the plot is exactly the same as the first film, swap a President for a black box. I think the problem here was everyone wanted to see more from Snake and we all knew damn well it had to go down the same route really. I mean sure we could see any kind of action thriller with Snake but it had to have that same kind of lingering dread, the same countdown threat for Snake to feed off. In that sense the film works well and does offer another nice apocalyptic atmosphere.
Yet despite Snakes awesomeness we all know how badly this film turned out. I think the main issue was the fact the film simply plods along from one set piece to another like a videogame, accept the plot in between is very thin. It also comes across very obviously that Carpenter wanted to include as many extreme sports/situations for Snake as possible with no real reason for them, just to boost the coolness levels. We see Snake surfing on a tidal wave!, hang gliding whilst using a sub machine gun, riding a motorbike (although admittedly that was uber cool), playing basketball like a pro etc...Like many sequels/reboots/remakes Carpenter makes the classic mistake of going totally totally overboard with everything when he didn't need to. The first film didn't have all these extravagant set pieces, it was just Snake being the epitome of a badass in that epic Clint Eastwood/man with no name kind of way.
From the very beginning the film just follows the first film too closely. Plus the initial narration makes little sense, the President seems to know about the pending quake yet no one else does? no one does anything?. It conviently leaves LA as an island...like the President said it would? wut? how did he know??. Why didn't they just create their own area for the unwanted instead of waiting for a quake which may or may not do what they were waiting for?...or so it seemed.
The other main poke in the eye was the absolutely horrific CGI and bluescreen work all the way through the film. I saw the film when it was first released in the cinema and I do recall thinking even back then it looked a bit hokey, of course at the time it was fine but looking back now its dreadful!. The sequences of CGI look amaturish at best, the underwater sub sequence is bordering on the kind of B-movie trashy CGI you'd expect from The Asylum...if not worse. Lets not talk about that hideous Universal Studios homage with the 'Jaws' appearance. Coupled with that you then have some awful bluescreen work throughout which just sticks out like a big red sore thumb.
The casting in the film is good, again don't get me wrong not everything was bad, but it just wasn't utilised correctly. Did we need government men being all gruff like Van Cleef from the first film? Bruce Campbell and his plastic surgery nightmares were a good touch but all too brief and again highly campy, Pam Grier is in the dictionary under cult movie star but her role here is just plain lame and not fully realised, Fonda's character is pointless and the main bad guy 'Cuervo' was like an old campy Bond villain...plus he has been clearly modelled after Guevara.
It really is such a shame as everyone wanted more Plissken badassery and this film was like a bit of an insult really. There are some nice touches dotted around don't get me wrong, Snake on the bike was cool, seeing an old Snake was cool, the brief showdown with Bangkok rules was nice errr...I'm struggling. Carpenter pretty much rehashed everything from the first film but made it more campy, the grittiness was gone and replaced with lame characters from a panto. Name of the game...campy.
Its a strange mix really, a blend of top ice cool imagery and quips alongside watered down camp hijinx, with a small small smattering of blood. The film seems to be almost parodying the genre yet at the same time going along with it and trying to be semi serious. Myself I do like it to a degree mainly because of Snake but I just wish there was another chance to make up for this damp entry. The film does end with a good setup for 'Escape the Earth' or maybe how about some Snake Chronicles? we need to see Snake once more before its too late (and no new casting with reboots thank you very much).
The Good:French impressionist Dimitri Kirsanoff must have been either a time traveler or a genius because Ménilmontant is years ahead of its time. Within 38 minutes, Kirsanoff showcases all sorts of camera styles and editing techniques, you wouldn't believe this film was from the 1920s. Even his gorgeous lead actress Nadia Sibirskaïa was ahead of her time. She delivers such an expressive and heartbreaking performance, it's simply extraordinary. Also brilliant is how the director manages to tell a story without any dialogue or intertitles. And Paul Mercer's score for the Kino release is just... "wow." I have no words. One of the best soundtracks I've heard in a while.
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:A tragic, dream-like tale of sex and crime, Kirsanoff's Ménilmontant is visual poetry. Recommended.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Well who'd of thought a film about a theme park ride would become so huge. A simple theme park attraction that I rode when I was but a wee nipper in Disney World Florida, and it wasn't that amazing if I recall. So Verbinski and Bruckheimer take many ideas and leafs out of the video game 'The Secret of Monkey Island' and low and behold we have our pirate flick.
Tis the year of our lord errr...the late 17th Century, or possibly the early 18th Century, not too sure, but plundering be a plenty!. The crew of the Black Pearl are after cursed treasure and the blood of the last remaining pirate so they can break the curse put upon them for stealing the cursed gold in the first place. Unfortunately the last pirate is dead (cos they killed him) so they need his offspring instead, in the mean time 'Captain Jack Sparrow' is wanting his beloved vessel the Black Pearl back under his control.
The plot is actually kinda fiddly methinks and even now I'm having to wrap my head around exactly why and how things happen. So the Aztec gold is cursed and that curse turns the pirates into the undead, skeletal warriors that are unable to be killed. Now is that really a curse? these guys are pirates, they live a life of danger and plundering, surely being immortal and invincible would be really handy traits to have no?. I don't really understand why these guys wanna break the curse so badly and make themselves vunerable to death which inevitably awaits them at every turn. Especially with the whole British Navy after them all the time.
There are many little quibbles I have with the plot really, in all the battle sequences the good guys fight the pirates, but what for?? they can't win, the pirates can't be killed, it just seems so pointless to me haha. To break the curse all the pirates that stole the gold need to put their blood back into the chest along with all the gold...I think, yet that isn't made clear. You tend to think its just the offspring of 'Bootstrap Bill', this is why Sparrow wipes his blood on the coin in the end which I never clicked on. That leads me to the other point or mistake that 'Barbossa' is shot by Sparrow before 'Turner' drops the last blood soaked coin into the chest. So doesn't that mean that at the exact moment he was shot he was still cursed and invincible? thusly he should have survived that bullet. The coin should of been in the chest before Barbossa was shot surely.
Quibbles aside the film is actually a rollicking good adventure the likes of which hadn't been seen for some time. In the good old fashioned tradition of Errol Flynn swashbucklers by jove. I can't deny that the film is tremendous fun enhanced of course by the campy performance of Depp which came straight out of left field. No one really expected what Depp came up with and it was really fresh! the film could so easily have become a stuffy straight laced predictable action romp ('Cutthroat Island' anyone?) but the inclusion of Depp's Sparrow really gave a different angle. You have the obligatory hero in Bloom and of course the damsel in distress with Knightly but Sparrow was such a unique character giving such a quirky boost to the traditional proceedings.
On top of that was the inclusion of a vast array of really decent pirate characters both good and bad from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. This not only gave the film a nice comic book-esque feel but also actual realism as of course pirates of the day were a scurvy bunch from all over, pirates were pretty politically correct and hired anyone. I personally liked 'Mr Cotton' and his parrot in the traditional sense there, 'Ragetti' and 'Pintel' are a classic slapstick duo of baddie pirates that amuse nicely and Kevin McNally as 'Gibbs' gives us another traditional approach with lots of golden pirate dialog that I think stems from Robert Newton and Disney's 1966 Treasure Island film.
Gotta give kudos to the makeup and costume designs for the pirates, they really do look completely unwashed. Their teeth, facial hair, coarse knotted looking head hair, even their eyes, it all looks really authentic. Naturally Sparrow isn't quite as scruffy as the rest but his attire is definitely more effeminate which is funny, more so with his body language. Oh and Barbossa...Soul Calibur the movie much? 'Cervantes' if you ask me, just running that up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it.
In all honesty there are so many good characters in this film its hard to narrow them all down. Then you have the typical type of visuals that you'd think Tim Burton had a hand in, excellent dark atmospheric sequences and shots including dark misty seascapes, fog bound galleons, the yellow glow of light from a cross hatched window pane breaking through the gloomy night, skeleton pirates in the moonlight, bleak islands by night etc...Then on the flip side there are the gorgeous daylight visuals of the British ports, sandy beaches, palm trees, galleons and various other vessels harbouring against tropical settings etc...its all here, everything you'd expect to see and everything you want to see in a good old fashioned pirate film.
I can see why the film expected to bomb as its one of those dodgy types of genres, but from the offset you can see the quality of detail on display. Everything really looks top dollar all the way through the film but amazingly the film has such a good range of characters (which is unusual lets be honest) it really doesn't matter. For once a Hollywood blockbuster actually got it right and gave us something other than flashy special effects, they gave us good fun characters we care about...to a degree. Also the special effects aren't all CGI which is one for the books (skeletons aside), a lot of the action is using real sets, real explosions, real stunts and in real locations which really does make all the difference, just like in the good old days.
The actual pirate skeletons still look OK but of course feel a bit dated these days. The CGI can't be hidden with these guys and it is obvious, that inescapable fake plastic feel about them. Should have used stop motion I reckon hehe.
To this day I still can't believe this summer blockbuster managed to do what the creators set out to do. To make a film harking back to the days of the silver screen, the golden age of Hollywood and at the same time use traditional real time effects without much use of CGI (what they did use was sensibly done, sparingly). They took an Errol Flynn swashbuckler added some nice touches of humour, a little modern action here and there, a dash of good old fashioned sea tales/myths and cranked up the location visuals to produce a top adventure. If only the plot had been a little clearer in places. Gotta love the film title though huh.
For those who feel the found footage horror film has unfortunately succumb to self-seriousness as of late, here comes Skinwalker Ranch (not to be confused with anything pertaining to Star Wars) to restore it its silliness and spunk. UFOs, ghost children, Native American myths, and overgrown beaver-like creatures are all Jackson Pollocked onto a do-it-yourself canvas and the results are often ingratiating. It should satisfy any genre fan that has eighty minutes, some spare change, and a strong tonic of ironic detachment handy on an easy-going afternoon. Writer/director/star Devin McGinn's debut feature doesn't provide legitimate scares, but an attitude.
Let's run the story down quick and dirty: after the disappearance of Utah cattle rancher Hoyt Miller's ten-year-old son, a paranormal research team sets up camp, which includes surveillance cameras all around the perimeter and a small team of guys analyzing the footage around the clock in the hopes of spotting strange occurrences. As is typically the case for films in the genre, the crew will steadily get a sense that something is terribly off, but they will stay well past the point that they should in the hopes of gaining something in the way of scientific interest. There's always that one guy that makes them implausibly stay way past the point when they should have left.
The narrative fits and frets as it inches toward the finish line, but for much of the first hour, it glides on the wings of its Scooby Doo meets Paranormal Activity charm. A found footage paean to the wild fantasies of a bored elementary school student. It would be no different than an episode of the Saturday morning serial, in fact, if the cattle rancher uttered those famous disenfranchised words, "and I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids," upon being unmasked. Well, the film gets away with it, in its own way. Disheveled digital footage (which at times seems not to have been recorded by a someone listed in the casting credits) and a suitably lo-fi sound mix and footage capture modestly looney set-pieces, such as a father chasing his ghost son, shotgun in hand, which would never find a home in a major studio.
I may be overselling Skywalker Ranch at this point. It's not as brazenly erratic as it needs to be to garner a cult audience and it does not use the ranch setting creatively enough to ever marry the words "clever" its name. The performances effectively just keep the plot rolling from eventful night to eventful night. The character of the cattle rancher (played by Jon Gries) should have been just the scene-chewing role to launch this film's half baked plea to cult status, but alas, all he provides is his surly, weathered mannerisms. Skywalker Ranch is just the sort of movie to satisfy you when you are able to enjoy a film due to the conviction of its cockeyed grin, not because of its ability to invest you in the world it builds.
The Good:A man and his girlfriend witness a robbery and are sent to a "neuroforensics" lab where memories can be accessed like files and viewed on a computer screen. It's quite a clever sci-fi premise, but what ensues is a rather humorous commentary on modern age privacy. Instead of identifying the suspect, they inadvertently open the man's personal "wank bank," a sizable collection of downblouses, upskirts, and even memories of sex with his past girlfriends. Oh, shit...
The Bad:The comedy is milked a bit too long.
The Bottom Line:Curse you, technology! Witty and original, The Mind Job is definitely worth a look.
The Good:A man and his girlfriend witness a robbery and are sent to a "neuroforensics" lab where memories can be accessed like files and viewed on a computer screen. It's quite a clever sci-fi premise, but what ensues is a rather humorous commentary on modern age privacy. Instead of identifying the suspect, they inadvertently open the man's personal "wank bank," a sizable collection of downblouses, upskirts, and even memories of sex with his past girlfriends. Oh, shit...
The Bad:The comedy is milked a bit too long.
The Bottom Line:Curse you, technology! Witty and original, The Mind Job is definitely worth a look.
Seems a bit like The Entire History of You, except a bit more comedic.
My Two Cents
Wow, I really don't know what to think about this movie. It is definitely the most ballsy comedy I've ever seen. It's definitely the most bad-sh*t crazy comedy I've ever seen. However, it's not the funniest comedy I've ever seen. The best way to describe Observe and Report would be a pleasantly unpleasant experience.
Black comedy aside, the film's strongest point comes from Seth Rogen's performance, whose acting is impeccable here. I truly believed that his character truly believed that he was the last thing that protected humanity from evil, the one that separated the light from the darkness. When he struggled both emotionally and physically, I felt for him. Roles like these reveal an actor's likability, if he manages to play a complete a**hole (I daresay a maniac) and yet is still likable, then that actor has some serious skill.
Due to the movie's general aggressiveness and darkness, it will not merit a re-watch from me, nor can I recommend it on any level. But I still acknowledge its guts (which goes to show how torn I am on this). 5/10
At the start, it looked like this would be one of those movies I usually loathe: the type of film that looks good but never really goes anywhere with the story, or show anything worth seeing. This really isn't the type of film I usually enjoy. However, it has garnered its fair share of acclaim and praise, so I was compelled to see what all the fuss is.
To be fair, the film has its moments. It is largely a character-driven film, showing hip young characters doing their thing. It is a colorful cast with lots of hip dialogue and attitude.
At the same time, there is a heavy contrast (a lot of which is accentuated by the classy black-and-white photography). Even though the film plays out like a typical story about urbanites achieving their dream, it's more about the deep hole they wind up digging for themselves. Frances is actually the type of person I've tried so hard NOT to become: a slacker with no job who leaches off of others and struggles to eek out a meager living. Even though the characters don't really suffer and everything is glossed over with a certain quirky charm, the film is effectively overshadowed this way, and it makes for a fairly interesting exploration of the character (if not the modern generation).
The film not only looks forward, but also looks backward, digging up the look and style of classic French new wave cinema and revitalizing it. There are times when the film looks and feels remarkably French, thanks to its camerawork, the lighting, the black-and-white stuff, and the occasional music cue. In fact, I'd say this whole film is like an adult version of The 400 Blows. Thus, it looks quite modish. Acting is really good from the cast, and the writing is not bad. This production looks very authentic and real. The soundtrack makes good use of a variety of music (including some happy slappy French-sounding music, and some rock 'n roll).
In the end, this is a decent film, but it doesn't touch me as deeply as it has with others. Anybody who enjoys the New Wave style cinema will probably dig this the best.
3.5/5 (Experience: Average | Story: Average | Film: Very Good)
'Fifteen men on the Dead Man's Chest Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum! Drink and the devil had done for the rest Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!'
Who'd of thought a movie based on a theme park and pirates would be so successful that it would garner a sequel. A sequel that was so so so utterly huge in production values it makes perfect sense that it would fail to live up to its predecessor. The old lesson Hollywood never learns, making things bigger and flashier doesn't always mean it will be better.
The plot? oh geez where to begin. This is the main issue with this franchise which begun in this sequel, only to get worse in the third film. The story becomes so convoluted and twisty its hard to keep up, and this is a Disney film!. Put very simply...most of the characters are all after various bit n pieces including 'Davy Jones' heart, 'Sparrow's' compass and the Black Pearl. Each character has their own reason for needing each item and most of these reasons intertwine with each other at some point, oh and old characters come back into the fray.
The plot is the first film was pretty straight forward, I'm not saying simple is best but it was easy to swallow. This film kicks off relatively well with the characters we know in trouble for helping Sparrow, a deal is set, a plan underway and everybody knows who is doing what and why. The trouble is as the film progresses sub plots pop up, new characters enter with their own story arcs, old characters come back with more story arcs, plans change and double crossing ensues. I can't deny it becomes tricky but in the end it is decipherable and when you think about it its quite good.
So once you've got your head around the plot you do tend to notice how big everything has become. The prison Sparrow escapes from at the start looks very similar to some kind of fortress you'd expect to see in a Tolkien story. The entire early cannibal infested island part of the film really does show how the franchise took a swing for the worst. Sparrow, Norrington and Turner break out into a three way fight over Jones chest which lasts for at least 10-15 minutes, displays way way too much slapstick, completely unbelievable cartoon stunts that detach you from the film and the trio end up covering half the island whilst battling!. In short the whole sequence wasn't needed, it was completely overblown and merely flashy filler, it bared no importance to the plot whatsoever...and this is what you will come to expect from the franchise thereafter.
Now of course we know this franchise is a comedy of sorts, a period set comedy action thriller for everyone to enjoy. The first film had a nice balance of that plus some supernatural fantasy that really worked well. This sequel added that horrendous cartoonish hijinx that totally tore you away from any suspension of disbelief because it went beyond that into a pure hokey farce.
On top of the ludicrous tomfoolery now on show this film has easily had much more creative influence from the classic videogame The Secret of Monkey Island. If you know the game its quite plain to see really, the cannibal island at the start, the murky, misty, swampy location where the team meet voodoo priestess 'Tia Dalma' and of course that character in her entirety, plus the similarity Jones has to 'LeChuck' in terms of evil behaviour, the supernatural and looks.
It is a shame because the film is a good fantasy with some gorgeous visuals both CGI and real time. Davy Jones and his crew are incredible, a real sight to behold, especially Jones squid-like face of course. Its amazing to actually see CGI that looks so good you think its a real makeup job. The other crew members are also so vividly imaginative and well crafted, every scene with these fishy dogs was really great fun, I was always looking out for different types of mutants in the background. I really liked their vessel the Dutchman and the war torn barnacle covered ghost ship appearance it was given (much like the Pearl and its ghostly shrouds of mist n fog), and of course the Kraken was a fun nautical myth to include if somewhat unoriginal and not too good on the CGI front.
Its still a fun film which is saved by the British actors and their astoundingly fun well spoken pomposity, that and the excellent effects on Jones and his (undead?) crew. The finale for Sparrow is an exciting cliffhanger even though you know he will be back, its interesting to see a group of heroes bickering and double crossing each other instead of simply fighting together as one unbeatable team and that supernatural spice is just right. The plot difficulties do mire proceedings but Verbinski just about pulls it off and manages to provide decent escapism.
The Good:Prince Avalanche is an occasionally thoughtful little film about loneliness and isolation. Two guys, Alvin (Paul Rudd) and Lance (Emile Hirsch), are tasked to paint yellow traffic lines on a highway after a devastating wildfire in the 80s. Both happen to be polar opposites--Alvin enjoys being alone and away from the city, Lance doesn't. Rudd and Hirsch do a fine job and their conversations can sometimes be profound. But the true stars of this film are Tim Orr's picturesque cinematography and the beautiful soundtrack by David Wingo and Texas post-rock band Explosions in the Sky.
The Bad:Rudd and Hirsch's characters are very human and therefore they should be relatable, but I somehow didn't feel connected to the two. And for a dialogue-centric comedy, most of the dialogue lack spark and the comedy falls flat. Another issue is that while it clocks in at a mere hour and a half, it feels a bit longer than its runtime. Prince Avalanche just ultimately feels like a half-baked idea.
The Bottom Line:Well, at least David Gordon Green snapped out of that weird stoner phase and is no longer wasting his time and talent making trash like Your Highness and The Sitter. Slowly but surely, we'll get there.
The Good:I must admit, I enjoy Jurassic Park III. It's fun, it's entertaining, and it's rewatchable. Sure, it's nowhere as good as the original, but let's be real, nothing will ever be. As a sequel, though? It's awesome. Way better than that lame-ass follow-up The Lost World. Dr. Grant is back (and as much as I love Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park just ain't Jurassic Park without Sam Neill), you have a solid supporting cast, thrilling set pieces (The best part has to be the "bird cage" sequence), a nice mix of visual effects and animatronics, the greatest theme song ever (John Williams is a god), and even some Pteranodon action! Finally!
The Bad:Stupid characters doing stupid things, as usual. Ol' T-Rex getting owned by a ****ing Spinosaurus. That shit ain't right. This is his franchise, his turf, and he gets his ass kicked in like a ***** by some new kid in town. Sad. T-Rex should sue.
The Bottom Line:A solid sequel that offers a nice fix of dino mayhem. If only the dinos ate Téa Leoni, then maybe people would've liked this movie a bit more.
The Bad:Ol' T-Rex getting owned by a ****ing Spinosaurus. That shit ain't right. This is his franchise, his turf, and he gets his ass kicked in like a ***** by some new kid in town. Sad. T-Rex should sue.
That fight was epic. The way that Spinosaurous snapped the T-Rex's neck...
Agreed on everything else though. My biggest complaint about JP3, however, is that it's just more island stuff, wheras I was hoping they'd have a more world-wide conflict or something. I'm hoping Jurassic World will be something epic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SquidPuppet
Squid to avoid.
Yeah, I'm not a fan either. It was great to see once, but I doubt I'll be seeing it again. I'm glad I didn't blind-buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SquidPuppet
Those guys make killer tunes. So moody.
Their soundtrack to Friday Night Lights is lovely.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
