DVD Reviews => Movie Reviews => Topic started by: Critter on December 13, 2009, 03:39:05 AM
Title: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 13, 2009, 03:39:05 AM
Everytime I see a film at the cinema I post a review on here, I thought instead of making many different threads though I could just keep all the reviews in the one place.
Film's Seen At Cinema
- Whip It (3/5) - 2012 (1½ /5) - 9 (3½/5) - Where The Wild Things Are (5/5) - Avatar (4/5) - Fantastic Mr Fox (4/5) - Sherlock Holmes (4/5) - Invictus (3½/5) - Bran Nue Dae (4/5) - Up in the Air (5/5) - Alice in Wonderland (3½/5) - Kick-Ass (5/5) - How To Train Your Dragon - (4/5) - Iron Man 2 - (3/5)
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 13, 2009, 03:39:43 AM
Plot: In Bodeen, Texas, an indie-rock loving misfit finds a way of dealing with her small-town misery after she discovers a roller derby league in nearby Austin.
Cast: Ellen Page - Bliss Cavendar Alia Shawkat - Pash Drew Barrymore - Smashley Simpson Landon Pigg - Oliver Andrew Wilson - Razor Juliette Lewis - Iron Maven
My Thoughts
This is Drew Barrymore's directorial debut and it shows. With Whip It Barrymore played it as safe as someone could making their first film by following a formula of these "teen breaking out of a rut" type films that seems to have developed over the years. She stuck to this forumula and followed all the regular conventions and cliches so closely in fact that I often felt while watching the film that I had seen it before.
That said however this still was a cute and easily enjoyable film, it just didn't break any boundaries or bring anything new. Ellen Page seems to be playing the same character over and over these days of the quirky and often misunderstood teenager. And while I must admit she's good at it it would be nice to see her go back to the days where she had a larger variety of roles such as An American Crime, Hard Candy and X-Men.
One thing this film does succeed in doing is educating the world of the sport of 'Roller Derby' which really is the highlight of the film. The derby scenes are fast-paced and in my opinion very well shot which made them a delight to watch. Especially for those of us who didn't even know of the roller derby sport before this film (keep in mind I'm from a small town in Australia :P)
Overall this film is light-hearted and quite enjoyable with some funny and memorable characters yet still brings nothing new to the table.
Rating: 3/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 13, 2009, 03:40:21 AM
Plot: An epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.
Cast: John Cusack – Jackson Curtis Amanda Peet – Kate Curtis Chiwetel Ejiofor – Adrian Helmsley Thandie Newton – Laura Wilson
My Thoughts I saw this today mainly because my friend and I wanted to see something that isn’t New Moon but hardly anything else was showing. 2012 was fun in some parts due to the impressive visual effects but the storyline was very lacking and overall I felt it was very much a letdown. I felt no connection to hardly any of the characters and really didn’t care if they lived or died, as well as just being frustrated with them most of the time. Another thing I found odd was that even though this was a doomsday apocalyptic film I never really knew if the director wanted us to take it seriously or not, while some scenes were intense the majority of the most action-packed scenes were laced with lame jokes and antics which really didn’t seem to fit. Overall there really wasn’t much here, although I do admit the special effects were good by the end of the film they didn’t even seem impressive anymore as after 2 and a half hours I just felt bored of them.
Rating: 1 ½ /5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 13, 2009, 03:44:00 AM
Plot: A post-apocalyptic nightmare in which all of humanity is threatened.
Cast: Christopher Plummer - 1 Martin Landau - 2 John C. Reilly - 5 Crispin Glover - 6 Jennifer Connelly - 7 Fred Tatasciore - 8 Elijah Wood - 9 Alan Oppenheimer - The Scientist
My Thoughts I saw this film today hardly knowing anything about it apart from the fact that it has Tim Burton’s name attached and it was based on a short film. I found 9 quite enjoyable but also underwhelming in many ways. The visual side of the film was outstanding, I found it quite refreshing to see a dark and somewhat gritty computer animated film come from America instead of the constant flow of films with their bright colours and cute characters (even though I do like these most of the time). The detail in the landscape created and the design of both the leading characters and the evil, junk yard type monsters was inspired, it actually made me want to get out a sketch pad and start drawing the minute I got home.
Another high point for me was the excellent voice acting and the high standard of sound effects throughout the film. The sound effects especially made the fight scenes genuinely exciting for the most part and even allowed for a few unexpected jumps. While I found this film visually outstanding what let it down for me was the plot, which felt almost rushed as the film progressed and didn’t seem to be going anywhere. There were no subplots through this film, just one straight story which I found to be quite repetitive. Although I found the plot somewhat diminished I feel this film is a great step for Western mainstream animation. It’s proof, perhaps somewhat guided by the success of WALL·E that animation does not have to be all about comedy set within clean cut colourful words of cute characters.
Rating:3½/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Jimmy on December 13, 2009, 04:13:24 AM
I've updated the link for the first 2 reviews in the list, the previous lead to nowhere :shrug: 9 is already listed for this week update (I've the previous link in your animation marathon)
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 13, 2009, 04:23:56 AM
Thanks Jimmy, sorry I should have warned you before I started moving all my reviews around.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 13, 2009, 09:29:42 AM
Plot: An adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's story, where Max, a disobedient little boy sent to bed without his supper, creates his own world--a forest inhabited by ferocious wild creatures that crown Max as their ruler.
Cast: Max Records – Max Catherine Keener – Mum Mark Ruffalo – The Boyfriend James Gandolfini – Carol Paul Dano – Alexandra Catherine O’Hara – Judith Chris Cooper – Douglas
My Thoughts I have been looking forward to this film for a long time, I loved the book as a child and this is one of the most creative film adaptations I have seen. With a lot of book to screen films such as Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings series, filmmakers come against the problem of having too much material, having to choose what to take out, and worrying how closely they should stick to the book. Wild things is almost the polar opposite to this situation as the book itself is a mere 38 pages long with only one or two sentences on each page. In this case Jonze did not have to worry about what to take out, but more, what to add in. This gave him and his creative team license to go as far as they wanted with the story while still keeping the essence of the book alive and I feel they did this very well.
The wild things themselves are marvelous, the large costumes and CGI effects applied to the faces are so realistic that throughout the film I never once thought that is a just a person in a costume. Each wild thing felt so real and was propelled by the raw emotion supplied within the storyline that also helped their characters develop. The voice acting of each wild thing was natural and extremely well done. While this film may be based on a children’s picture book, it is certainly not a children’s film. Some of the scenes are quite intense to the point of scary and the way the characters are seen turning on each other throughout the film could be disturbing to very young children.
Another highpoint of the film to me was the soundtrack and the locations. I’m not sure where it was filmed exactly but the scenery was absolutely beautiful, as was indeed the entire film.
Rating:5/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 09:27:27 AM
Avatar
(http://i46.tinypic.com/mkc9ic.jpg)
Director(s): James Cameron
Writer(s):James Cameron
Plot: A paraplegic marine dispatched to the planet Pandora on a unique mission becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home.
Cast: Sam Worthington– Jake Sully Zoe Saldana – Neytiri Sigourney Weaver – Dr. Grace Augustine Stephen Lang - Colonel Miles Quaritch Michelle Rodriguez – Trudy Chacon
My Thoughts I don’t even know where to begin describing this film. I limited myself from reading reviews before seeing it to have an open mind as I am aware that there has been an equally large negative response as there has been positive. In the end I don’t care what the critics are saying as this film gave me one of the best cinema experiences I have had. I saw this in 3D which I was apprehensive about at the start as I haven’t seen a 3D film at the cinema before and have only previously witnesses blurriness or colour distortion within such films. Avatar however was something else, the 3D was amazing, it wasn’t about making things jump out of the screen at you, but about pulling you into the screen and into this world that Cameron created.
I have heard what people have been saying about the film, not original this, predictable storyline that etc , and I will admit the storyline (which ran just short of 3 hours) was somewhat predictable. And yes, it did remind me somewhat of FernGully: The Last Rainforest which was one of my favourite animated films of the 90’s. In the end though I just didn’t care, I had been taken into a whole new world, a world with such a strong atmosphere and amazing visuals that I had to occasionally look around the cinema to remind myself that I was not actually on Pandora (the fictional planet of the film). I don’t know what this film would have been like in 2D but the world I saw was so real and believable that I could just about forget it was a film at all, instead believing that I was walking amongst these native people on their planet.
One thing I was pleasantly surprised about was Sigourney Weaver’s role. I of course knew she was in the film but I had no idea just how large of a role she had. Weaver yet again delivered another spellbinding performance in a science fiction film, the genre she is well known for. Aside from Weaver the whole cast was fantastic. Australian actor Sam Worthington was fantastic for someone who was relatively unknown before this film, he carried all of his scenes fantastically (even though a lot of them were in the digitally altered blue, alien body).
For those who know me they will understand my love and fascination with animation and visual effects in film which is most likely another reason I rate this film so highly. For me, someone who wants to become and animator and work on film effects myself in the future you can imagine how this film must have seemed like an early Christmas present. An area of design that has always captured my attention in film the most has been creature design. Avatar presented me with an entire planet of new animals! Needless to say I can’t even begin to describe how much I loved seeing so much fantastic creature design put to work to bring these fantastical beings to life. The end result of course, was outstanding.
And as some of you know I am also an archer and have a strong interest in this sport as well as the history of it. In Avatar of course the native people’s weapon of choice was the good ol bow and arrow which provided yet another reason why I loved this film so much. The design of some of the bows and the magnificent archery displayed was something I found captivating.
As you can tell from this review Avatar had a lot in it that I already had a large personal interest in which contributes to my love for it. And while I can defiantly see how this film is not for everyone I encourage anyone who is seeing it to see it in 3D as they will not regret it. I myself am hoping to catch it again in the cinema before it leaves which is a rare thing for me with such long films.
Rating:4/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on December 21, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
Thanks, Critter! Is it the cinematic revolution we've been promised? I can't see how; a milestone maybe, but for me, cinema progresses in writing, not tech.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 12:30:00 PM
Hmm I wouldn't call it a milestone in cinema storytelling, but I would definatly call it a milestone in filmmaking... if that makes sense. It's hard to explain but James Cameron actually invented the technology to make this film, he made a new way of using 3D which presents and opportunity to fully involve the audience in the film. As I said in the review it's one of the first times in the cinema I truly felt like I had been transported to another world, rather than just watching a film on the screen.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: snowcat on December 21, 2009, 12:38:37 PM
Im going to see it this afternoon, this film could make or break 3D... I can't say i'm excited... some feeling in the back of my head tells me i'm not gonna like it.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 12:41:23 PM
I hope you enjoy it Emma, although as I said I can see how Avatar isn't for everyone and can understand where the critics are coming from. Yet I just loved it to pieces haha, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't have tears underneath those 3D glasses more than once :P. When a film can do that to me, and also leave me with a face much like this smiley-> :o for a lot of it then hell, I'm impressed.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: venomsinner on December 21, 2009, 12:45:59 PM
I work in a cinema and already this film has divided people, I took a look at last night when I finished my shift and I have to say the 3D was impressive but im not impressed with the story.... if James Cameron spent as much time on the story as he did on the technology... this could have been a brilliant film. :2cents:
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Kathy on December 21, 2009, 12:57:08 PM
I hadn't planned on seeing this film in the theater but after reading your review I think I must. I hope I feel the way I did after seeing Star Wars in the cinema for the first time - goosebumps.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Achim on December 21, 2009, 01:10:08 PM
I understand most people compare it to Fern Gully or Dances With Wolves (Jon.... ;))
Thanks, Critter! Is it the cinematic revolution we've been promised? I can't see how; a milestone maybe, but for me, cinema progresses in writing, not tech.
Well. in case you didn't hear that episode, Mark Kermode criticized the film for being "baggy" (overly long), the story being non-original (see above), the creature design lacking and, of couse, the 3D being unnecessary. However, he did point out that in overall he did somewhat enjoy it and several times went "Wow!". I guess from him this is almost like a seal of approval for this kind of film.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 01:13:25 PM
Quote
I hadn't planned on seeing this film in the theater but after reading your review I think I must. I hope I feel the way I did after seeing Star Wars in the cinema for the first time - goosebumps.
Ah Kathy I am jealous of you for that, Star Wars is one of those films I wish I saw at the cinema. I hope you enjoy Avatar but don't get your hopes up too much based soley on my review. I think it's beter to go into films like this without any expectations and then just seeing what happens, whether the result of that is positive or negative.
Quote
I understand most people compare it to Fern Gully or Dances With Wolves
As I said in my review the plot did strongly remind me of FernGully but in the end I didn't mind.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Achim on December 21, 2009, 01:21:29 PM
As I said in my review the plot did strongly remind me of FernGully but in the end I didn't mind.
I haven't seen Fern Gully myself, but I think I catch the drift.
Anyway, sorry for not having your review yet, I just wanted to avoid possible spoilers as I haven't seen the film yet.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 01:26:39 PM
Quote
Anyway, sorry for not having your review yet, I just wanted to avoid possible spoilers as I haven't seen the film yet.
No worries, I don't believe I put any spoilers in it all, I usually tend to not talk about plot that much when I review films but just ramble on about various other things haha. And by the way I highly recommend FernGully. It is a fantastic animated film that I still love just as much today as I did when I was a child :thumbup:
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Achim on December 21, 2009, 03:37:54 PM
No worries, I don't believe I put any spoilers in it all, I usually tend to not talk about plot that much when I review films but just ramble on about various other things haha.
Good to know. Thanks.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Jimmy on December 21, 2009, 04:22:52 PM
(...) for me, cinema progresses in writing, not tech.
Me and Jon agree on this ;D For me what is important in a film is the story and the cinematography. Computer effects and any other gimmick have no importance for me...
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on December 21, 2009, 06:32:20 PM
(...) for me, cinema progresses in writing, not tech.
Me and Jon agree on this ;D For me what is important in a film is the story and the cinematography. Computer effects and any other gimmick have no importance for me...
And a recent example (which you may not quite agree with me on!), is Inglorious Bast... NO! I'm kidding. :tease: though it does have it's moments, like the cafe scene... :whistle: But I'm digressing.
The recent example I meant was WALL.E; not so much the story itself, but how the animators created virtual cameras that could mimic real ones and they worked with live action cinematographers to learn how they should work. As one said, it was funny, because since the camera was invented, they've been trying to hide the 'faults', yet Pixar choose to imitate them! In a way, they were handicapping the computers. And so for the first time in animation, you had realistic zooms and depth of fields. Importantly, they did this to add another dimension to the story and I think it was amazing, and commendable that they didn't shout about it. You may not have even noticed, which is the best sort of step forward.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 10:38:02 PM
PIXAR had to do a lot with WALL-E to make it what it was. Not only with the zooms etc in the camera like you said but also in the animation itself. As they said, animation likes to be clean and polished, but what they were doing for the first time was trying to make dirty animation (all the Earth scenes). This posed a challenge as it had never been done to that extent before, but being PIXAR of course they pulled it off.
A lot of you seem to be mentioning how you feel you will be let down by the plot of Avatar and that computer effects aren't everything without actually seeing it. I myself loved the plot, and the story. It may have seemed a bit preachy to some but hell, I'm a hippy-type who never gets sick of seeing the anti-global warming etc messages in film. As an environmentalist I loved the message and I found the story itself to be always compelling. Yes I did say I found it somewhat predictable and I stand by that, but predictable as it may have been it was still executed exceptionally well. It was the inner struggles of these characters and the smaller srorylines within the plot that made me enjoy the story so much.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: snowcat on December 21, 2009, 11:31:58 PM
So I went to see it...
...I can't say its the big deal its been made out to be.
All I think its done is establish Cameron in the 21stcentury. I agree with alot of people, if he had so much time to make this technology, surely he had time to develop the story?
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 11:46:42 PM
It's a shame that you didn't like it Emma.
I myself am hoping to see it at least one or two more times in the cinema while I can still enjoy the 3D magic :P.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: snowcat on December 21, 2009, 11:49:20 PM
There are many impressive 3D films in the cinema. both Up and A Christmas Carol were very good.
Avatars 3D was impressive, but
as films go I always say
the visual side is like the looks and the story is like the personality..... no matter how good something looks without personality its no good.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 21, 2009, 11:51:21 PM
Yes but you see as I said previously I did enjoy the story. I enjoyed it a lot, even with it's clear environmentalist message etc etc. So mixed with a story I loved and visual effects of a high standard like that then you can see why I loved it so much.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on December 22, 2009, 12:21:13 AM
The thing I always try to remember is how I frequently defend Tarantino. Nothing is original and in Scorcese's documentary series about the history of American film he devotes a section to the director as a "smuggler"; stealing bits here and there. I've said the story sticks out to me because it's Dances With Wolves, but Last Samurai did the same and both owe a debt to Lawrence of Arabia.
Everything goes in cycles, so if you aren't familiar with any of those, this will be fresh anyway. I'm not going to complain too heavily until I see it! Empire's review called the plot "prosaic", but agreed with you, Critter, that it is a hugely immersive (is that a word? It'll have to do!) experience...
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on December 22, 2009, 01:09:42 AM
Wow Jon, immersive is definatly the word I would choose for this film. I couldn't think of a way to describe the experience more. And I agree with what you said about storylines of films more often than not being borrowed from other films. That doesn't bother me as long as it is excecuted well, which in my opinion, Avatar is. Which is also another reason why I am a fan of Tarantino films.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: goodguy on December 22, 2009, 01:49:27 AM
I admit I'm not very interested, but it is fun to read the various reviews. For example, Roger Ebert gushes that most of the budget has been put on the screen, while his editor Jim Emerson talks about the CGI equivalent of Astroturf and is reminded of the decoration in Thai restaurants.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Achim on December 22, 2009, 05:34:34 AM
There are many impressive 3D films in the cinema. both Up and A Christmas Carol were very good.
Did you mean the 3D effect or you thought that A Christmas Carol was a good film? Surely it being in the same sentence as Up refersw to the 3D only...?
I admit I'm not very interested, but it is fun to read the various reviews. For example, Roger Ebert gushes that most of the budget has been put on the screen, while his editor Jim Emerson talks about the CGI equivalent of Astroturf and is reminded of the decoration in Thai restaurants.
:hysterical:
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: snowcat on December 22, 2009, 09:32:10 AM
There are many impressive 3D films in the cinema. both Up and A Christmas Carol were very good.
Did you mean the 3D effect or you thought that A Christmas Carol was a good film? Surely it being in the same sentence as Up refersw to the 3D only...?
:p its ok, I only meant the 3D was impressive, more so then Up in my opinion... however, I did not enjoy the film... I doubt ill watch it again!
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on January 18, 2010, 12:09:43 AM
Writer: Roald Dahl (Novel) Wes Anderson (Screenplay)
Plot: Angry farmers, tired of sharing their chickens with a sly fox, look to get rid of their opponent and his family.
Cast: George Clooney – Mr Fox Meyrl Streep – Mrs Fox Bill Murray – Badger Jason Schwartzman – Ash Owen Wilson – Coach Skip Eric Chase Anderson – Kristofferson
My Thoughts
I am a huge fan of Roald Dahls children’s books. I have read all of them and still read them today, and unlike some others of the film adaption’s based on them, I think that if Dahl was alive today he would really be proud of this one. Fantastic Mr Fox has everything a film based off such a great book should have, it’s funny, charming, unusual and most importantly captivating from start to finish. Mr Fox himself is portrayed throughout the film as a lovable anti-hero who at times had the whole cinema laughing out loud, and at other times had us all close to tears in some of the more touching scenes. This is Wes Anderson’s first animated film, and only the second of his works I have seen. I am know hoping to go back through his filmography and watch many more of his works as I have enjoyed the films I have seen of his so much.
The voice acting in this film was sensational, the voices just sounded so natural and never felt forced or false and this gave the character puppets within the stop-motion animation a truly believable life around them. The film was visually stunning, with fantastic detailed backgrounds and characters, every tiny little detail from a spoon to a chair was carved for the film in miniature scale which shows how much time and effort was really put in, and it pays off. Stop-motion animation was said to be a dying art some time ago but with the successes of such films as Coraline, Mary and Max and now Fantastic Mr Fox I think it is safe to say that this great art form is safe in the filmmaking business.
Rating: 4/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on January 18, 2010, 02:00:05 AM
Nice review of a film that seems to be splitting people down the middle. What I would say is that stop-motion was never in any danger of dying, thanks to Wallace and Gromit, plus other Aardman animations like the understated Creature Comforts... ;)
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on January 18, 2010, 02:11:23 AM
I only say that it was in danger of dying becuase of what I've heard. I went to see Adam Elliot (Mary and Max, Harvey Krumpet) last year giving a presentation on his life and films. I also got to speak to him briefly afterwards. It was from Elliot that I got the idea as during his talk he stated that many people told him during the process of Harvey Krumpet that he would never get anywhere with it becuase he was working in a dying art form. This was some time after the Wallace and Gromit success and there seemed to be quite a long void of stop-motion animation until it seemed to pick up again. Obviously those people were wrong however since Harvey Krumpet went on to win the Academy Award.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on January 22, 2010, 07:13:59 AM
Plot: Detective Sherlock Holmes and his stalwart partner Watson engage in a battle of wits and brawn with a nemesis whose plot is a threat to all of England.
Cast: Robert Downey Jr – Sherlock Holmes Jude Law - Dr. John Watson Rachel McAdams – Irene Adler Mark Strong – Lord Blackwood Eddie Marsan – Inspector Lestrade
My Thoughts I have been wanting to see this film for a while now as many people that I know, including some on this site have been raving about it. I finally got to see it last night and I must say that I was certainly not disappointed. This film was a wonderful tale of the master detective and was told in a gritty, sophisticated and quite humorous manner in which I have not experienced Holmes before.
Admittedly though I have not seen many Holmes films or shows before. I have indeed only seen one when I was a lot younger which was the 1985 Young Sherlock Holmes which truthfully scared me to death when I saw it (I was a lot younger than I am now). I love seeing films that are set in London, especially during the era of the industrial revolution and I believe Ritchie recreated this dark and grimy feeling perfectly within the streets, which for me was somewhat reminiscent of Burton’s London in Sweeney Todd which I also loved. It was not only the streets of London that were visually outstanding in this film but the set, prop and costumes designs were amazing, and in this case it was really the attention to detail that was the most vital aspects. In some scenes I almost wish I had more eyes just to stare around at all the fantastic little things scattered throughout various sets.
Hans Zimmer delivers another great score for this one (seriously, does that man sleep? How many movies does he do in a year!)which makes for some great action scenes and adds a great visual rhythm to the film. I found the plot to be somewhat complicated in parts but not so much so that I didn’t understand it, merely so much that I actually had to think over things a few times before I really got them and I think that was another great aspect to the film, I almost felt as if I was trying to solve the crime with Holmes himself.
All performances in the film were great, Downey Jr. delivered another fantastic role and portrayed Holmes with great intelligence as well as perfectly timed humour. The real stand out for me however was Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler. I have been a fan of McAdams for a long time and enjoy seeing her develop as an actor with each new film she does. She has certainly come a long way since Mean Girls and seems to just keep getting better with each film she does.
Rating: 4/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on February 04, 2010, 05:02:40 AM
Plot: Nelson Mandela, in his first term as the South African President, initiates a unique venture to unite the apartheid-torn land: enlist the national rugby team on a mission to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
Cast: Morgan Freeman – Nelson Mandela Matt Damon – Francois Pienaar Tony Kgoroge – Jason Tshabalala Patrick Mofokeng – Linga Moonsamy Matt Stern – Hendrick Booyens Julian Lewis Jones – Etienne Feyder Marguerite Wheatley - Nerine
My Thoughts While watching Invictus I had the same feeling arise throughout it, and that is that while the film was good, it could have been great. A lot of the scenes in this film are very long and drawn out, and while that doesn’t usually bother me it gave this film a somewhat flat feeling for the first half. While there were some rather compelling scenes throughout the first half of the film there were not many and it really didn’t pick up until the final third of the film.
Despite this I still managed to enjoy the film a lot, despite much of the story being about rugby of which I have no interest. Morgan Freeman was amazing as Mandela and the film did have some truly inspiring and motivational scenes. South Africa is a place I have always wanted to visit and I loved seeing the landscape of this fantastic country through the film, a lot of which reminded me of Australia. This film was longer than I expected but I did not find it too long. The games of rugby themselves were quite exciting despite some scenes containing a lot more slow-motion than they should, especially towards the end of the film. I think I would have enjoyed this more if I understood the political history of South Africa more than I do but I still think I learnt a lot from this film.
Rating: 3½/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on February 09, 2010, 11:19:15 PM
Plot: In the Summer of 1965 a young man is filled with the life of the idyllic old pearling port Broome - fishing, hanging out with his mates and his girl. However his mother returns him to the religious mission for further schooling. After being punished for an act of youthful rebellion, he runs away from the mission on a journey that ultimately leads him back home.
My Thoughts Bran Nue Dae is the most refreshing Australian film I have seen in a long time. Based on a stage musical (yes the film is a musical, which is something I enjoy quite a lot) Bran Nue Dae gives us something that we have not seen for a long time, and that’s a light-hearted and rather hilarious story involving Australian Aboriginals. I’m not sure if anyone here really follows the Australian film industry but I’m safe in saying that almost 100% of Aboriginal films that have been released within the last 20 years have been dark and depressing, tales of the stolen generation or petrol sniffing kids in the outback. While many of these films have been amazing you can imagine how much a breath of fresh air Bran Nue Dae is amongst it all. When the film finished one of my friends said that she was waiting for the story to turn dark and it’s serious message to come in, yet in this film it just didn’t come, which suited it perfectly.
This film was fun, from the nicely animated opening credits to the final, ending song, it was a fun film to watch and put everybody in the cinema in a good mood. A lot of this I can put down to the unique directing style that Rachel Perkins brought to the film. Perkins brought to the film a somewhat eccentric way of editing, and use of sound effects which really fit the story and the characters well. Obviously this film is filled with an Australian cast, many of whom are well known here but not so well known overseas, Geoffrey Rush being the exception to this. Bran Nue Dae had fantastic scenery and landscapes and was shot in some excellent place, such as one scene the oldest cinema in Australia. I enjoyed seeing this Australian scenery in a film in that felt like a more real, unlike say, Baz Luhrmann’s over stereotyped ‘Australia’ where everything just felt to lavish.
Rating: 4/5
Trailer
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on February 11, 2010, 12:37:06 AM
Writer: Jason Reitman (screenplay) and Sheldon Turner (screenplay) Walter Kirn (novel)
Plot: With a job that has him traveling around the country firing people, Ryan Bingham leads an empty life out of a suitcase, until his company does the unexpected: ground him.
Cast: George Clooney - Ryan Bingham Vera Farmiga - Alex Goran Anna Kendrick - Natalie Keener Jason Bateman - Craig Gregory Melanie Lynskey - Julie Bingham Amy Morton - Kara Bingham
My Thoughts Up in the Air is now my absolute favourite film by Jason Reitman, I will find it very hard faulting this film at all as I found it stunning from the beginning to end. As far as Reitman films go I have seen Thank You For Smoking which did not do a lot for me and Juno. While I greatly enjoyed Juno I felt while watching Up in the Air that Reitman had more freedom as a director here and was really able to find his own style. One thing that really stood out to me in this film was the editing, which is not usually something I pay a lot of attention to but the editing here was amazing, there was just something almost unusual about it that gave the story a unique flow of events.
Everyone in this film was amazing but a stand out for me, aside from the obvious flawless act by Clooney was Anna Kendrick’s role. I was captivated by her character throughout the film and found her performance outstanding for a young actor who has not done many films, and even more outstanding considering some of those films were the hideous Twilight series. It’s great to see a young person come out of a bad situation such as those films and suddenly prove that they can actually act, which is exactly what she did.
I love a film that is heavy on dialogue but can really be carried by its words alone without ever being dull and that’s exactly what this film did. I found myself sympathizing with almost all of the characters and really caring about what happened to them which in my opinion is what makes a great film.
Rating: 5/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on February 11, 2010, 01:52:34 AM
Empire gave this a glowing review, but then those since seem to find all sorts of flaws. There's just something I really like the look of about it though. You've got me thinking again!
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on February 11, 2010, 02:31:46 AM
I highly recommend the film Jon :thumbup:
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Tom on February 11, 2010, 07:52:13 AM
I also saw it in the cinema recently and I liked it, too.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on February 11, 2010, 08:06:10 AM
Awesome Tom, I will certainly be watching this one again. Maybe not until it's on DVD though.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on March 04, 2010, 02:51:13 PM
Writer: Linda Woolverton (screenplay) Lewis Carroll (books)
Plot: 19-year-old Alice returns to the magical world from her childhood adventure, where she reunites with her old friends and learns of her true destiny: to end the Red Queen's reign of terror.
Cast: Johnny Depp – Mad Hatter Mia Wasikowska – Alice Helena Bonham Carter – Red Queen Anne Hathaway – White Queen Crispin Glover – Stayne Matt Lucas – Tweedledee / Tweedledum Stephen Fry – Cheshire Cat Alan Rickman – Caterpillar Timothy Spall – Bayard
My Thoughts I am finding it very difficult to rate this film, on one hand the visuals and performances from most actors were amazing, and made for a highly enjoyable film. On the other hand there was a few things that bothered me about it (including one highly cringe-worthy scene towards the end that made me question Burton’s sanity for keeping it in).
I should start off by saying that I am a huge Alice in Wonderland fan, I have read Lewis Carroll’s novels many times and have enjoyed a lot of the film adaption’s, including the animated Disney version which is still my favourite version. This Alice in Wonderland is a sequel of sorts, not the official sequel of ‘Through the Looking Glass’, but something set 10 years after that.
Now for my biggest gripe about the film. The thing that I have always loved about the world of Wonderland, including most of its film adaptions is the nonsensical nature about it. The books have no plot, they are nonsensical words strewn together in a way that creates a random series of events. This somewhat ‘plotless’ plot is why I have always loved the world so much, a world in which literally nothing makes sense. In this film however there is a plot… a highly conventional fantasy plot. This is a typical ‘good vs evil’ quest ending with a final battle. This is altogether way too much predictable storyline for something that shouldn’t even have plot to begin with.
That being said, I didn’t hate this film. I actually enjoyed it. Once I got over how annoyingly predictable the plot was I was able to immerse myself within the fantastic characters and world, enjoying ‘most’ of the film. Stephen Fry was excellent as the voice of the Cheshire Cat who always had an incredible screen appearance and the March Hare was one of the best characters. I have heard some complaints about Wasikowska’ Alice but for me she was one of the highlights. I think she was cast very well and was a highly likable grown up Alice. The design and animation was spectacular. The 3D was okay, although it seemed to be almost unfinished in some areas, I would actually like to see the film again in 2D to compare. The characters speak ‘Outlandish’ several times through the film which is a welcome reference to Carrolls original work.
All in all I enjoyed the film, enough to see it again at the cinemas despite my complaints about it, it’s visually entertaining and has some great performances. However, for anyone here planning on seeing the film I only have one thing to say… beware the Futterwacken.
Rating: 3½/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Achim on March 05, 2010, 05:25:16 AM
Thanks for the review, seems I don't need to bother myself...
The 3D was okay, although it seemed to be almost unfinished in some areas, [...]
I heard that this was not filmed in 3D, only added to the finished product later on. That might cause the unfinished look of it.
Ah you never know, you may enjoy it, I enjoyed it for the most part. And yeah the 3D was added in later but they were very pressed for time in the completion. I saw an interview with Helena Bonham Carter about a week and half before it opened and she said that Burton hadn't finished it yet. He was definitely cutting it close.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: snowcat on March 05, 2010, 08:29:34 AM
I have no interest in my film, your review confirms my not wanting to see it... of course Disneys :] "we release it early on DVD so F'you" attitude is annoying"
...Im currently working on an article about why I hate Tim Burton.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on March 05, 2010, 11:19:44 AM
I have no interest in my film, your review confirms my not wanting to see it... of course Disneys :] "we release it early on DVD so F'you" attitude is annoying"
...Im currently working on an article about why I hate Tim Burton.
You do mean Alice in Wonderland right? You kind of lost me when you said 'my film'. But I agree that Disney has been butchering this film
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: snowcat on March 05, 2010, 01:37:53 PM
it should say that film
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on March 05, 2010, 03:00:05 PM
"Hate"? Blimey, bit strong, Emma! :laugh: I'm not fond of his stuff overall, but love Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on March 05, 2010, 03:03:17 PM
Edward Scissorhands, Sleep Hollow and Beetljuice are my favourite Jon. That and his animated films. I didn't much take to some of the remakes though, especially Planet of the Apes.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: RossRoy on March 05, 2010, 03:29:22 PM
No love for Big Fish? :(
I happen to love pretty much anything made by Tim Burton. I love his visual style for some reason.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on March 05, 2010, 03:44:20 PM
I happen to love pretty much anything made by Tim Burton. I love his visual style for some reason.
:slaphead:
How could I leave out Big Fish, it is one of my favourites! I think it's becuase out of most of Burtons films it is the one I have seen the least, probably why I forgot it but I certainly loved it when I watched it. I also like his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I know a lot of people don't like but I'm a fan of Roald Dahl, and I respected how close Burton kept to Dahls original work. It is stated that Dahl himself didn't like the original version with Gene Wilder, and after reading his novels I can understand why. Burtons version however was very true to Dahls words.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: snowcat on March 05, 2010, 05:33:01 PM
Alice In Wonderland Director: Tim Burton ... I should start off by saying that I am a huge Alice in Wonderland fan, I have read Lewis Carroll’s novels many times and have enjoyed a lot of the film adaption’s, including the animated Disney version which is still my favourite version. This Alice in Wonderland is a sequel of sorts, not the official sequel of ‘Through the Looking Glass’, but something set 10 years after that.
Just stumbled about this DVDTalk review (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40635/alice-in-wonderland/) of a 1966 BBC version by Jonathan Miller. Never even heard of it before, but - wow - that sounds (and looks) very interesting to me. And the new set reviewed here also includes a 1903 silent version and the Dennis Potter version.
I suppose I should be thankful for Tim Burton's 3D Action Alice. Without it, a gem like that probably wouldn't have resurfaced.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on March 07, 2010, 01:07:33 AM
There have been something like 16 film versions of Alice in Wonderland over the years. I have seen a few of them and some are just awful, others are fantastic. I still haven't seen the 1903 one but I would love to track it down.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on March 07, 2010, 02:40:47 AM
And what version is the Burton one? Not the original novel, not the original novels sequel, but a new chapter in Alice's life? Does it bear any relation to any of Carrol's work or is it just basically "fan-fiction"? :shrug:
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on March 07, 2010, 07:59:02 AM
It's basically fan fiction, some parts follow the course of the original novel but it definitely sways a lot from that story, being set 10 years in the future.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on April 08, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Writer: Jane Goldman (screenplay) Mark Millar (comic book series)
Plot: Dave Lizewski is an unnoticed high school student and comic book fan who one day decides to become a super-hero, even though he has no powers, training or meaningful reason to do so.
Cast: Aaron Johnson – Kick-Ass/ Dave Lizewski Chloe Moretz - Mindy Macready / Hit-Girl Nicolas Cage - Damon Macready / Big Daddy Christopher Mintz-Plasse - Chris D'Amico / Red Mist
My Thoughts So Kick-Ass was officially released in Australia today, and while I admit that I have been looking forward to this film for quite some time I think I underestimated just how much I would enjoy it. From the trailers it looked like it would be good, a fun twist on your average superhero film and I was of course highly looking forward to the character of Hit-Girl. What I got however was something that was far beyond ‘good’… not just in Superhero films but in exciting, quirky, action filled films in general. Kick-Ass was never dull, from its nicely paced opening scenes which neatly set up the plot while never feeling too hurried, to its explosive final fights. And such fantastic fights they were, a delight to all the senses. One absolute genius scene in particular, a shoot-out shot entirely within strobe lighting which created not only one of the most exciting scenes within Kick-Ass but also for me, most superhero films all up.
There is of course a lot of controversy surrounding Chloe Moretz’ character ‘Hit Girl’. I’ve heard just about all the complaints, which seem to be everywhere here, radio, breakfast shows, newspaper etc. She’s 11, she kills a lot of people, she swears like a sailor and one of the strongest complaints of all, she is apparently presented in the film in a ‘sexualised’ manner. Now this last complaint is something I saw nothing of in the film, I saw a strong willed young character who never seemed to be overly sexualized at all. It leads me to think that the people making these complaints are the type of people who are specifically looking out for such things. Aside from all the annoying controversy however Hit-Girl truly is a wonderful character, she is quite the scene stealer and has an amazing screen presence. This is the type of young character that I believe young girls should look up to, not be shunned away from (well, maybe minus her language).
While Moretz’ performance was amazing so was everyone else’s. I am not usually a fan of Nic Cage and must admit I wasn’t looking forward to his character that much, but I was greatly put it my place rather swiftly at how fantastic his performance was. Big Daddy was insane yet had a certain charm about him, you could tell that despite his unusual techniques of bringing up his daughter that his love for her was genuine, and the way he spoke was fantastic, a nice reference to Adam West which made his performance yet another delight to the screen. Something I discovered about the film, which I found quite unusual is like unlike most book or comic adaptations, the comic book for this was actually being written at the same time as the screenplay. In this case the screenplay was actually finished before the comic itself was. That's why in the case of this film I find it amusing when I read people complaining about changes they made from the comic book, considering the screenplay was actually finished first.
The plot was actually quite complex, while still being easy to follow. It had a lot more layers than I was expecting and went much deeper as a film than the trailers suggested. There was a lot more emotion, and while there was fantastic, mind-blowing action, as well as many humorous scenes there was also a few touching moments, and quite sad scenes which I didn’t expect, but worked well. To say this film was exciting, a rush is almost an understatement. I left the cinema, walked out of the complex and felt like turning around and walking right back in to see it again. I will probably see it 1 or 2 more times before it leaves the cinema which is a mark how much of a thrill it is to witness. This is a definite 5/5 film for me and my favourite so far of 2010.
Rating: 5/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Najemikon on April 08, 2010, 03:09:02 PM
:thumbup: Nicely done!
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on April 08, 2010, 03:12:44 PM
Ah Jon, I read your review and it made me even more excited but as I said, there was just no preparing for how much I loved this. I saw it hours ago and I am still on a high. As Empire magazine said 'Where the heck did this come from?'. I just never expected so see something so original and fantastic, especially in a superhero film which is such a used genre now.
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on April 13, 2010, 03:54:33 AM
Writer: Cressida Cowell (based on the novel by) Dean DeBlois (screenplay)
Plot: A hapless young Viking who aspires to hunt dragons becomes the unlikely friend of a young dragon himself, and learns there may be more to the creatures than he assumed.
Cast: Jay Baruchel – Hiccup Gerard Butler – Stoic Craig Ferguson – Gobber Christopher Mintz-Plasse – Fishlegs America Ferrera – Astrid Jonah Hill - Snoutlout
My Thoughts Now now DreamWorks, where did this come from? A film with a fantastic storyline, no copious amounts of unneeded pop culture references and hardly any toilet humour. Is this really a DreamWorks film? I had to keep asking myself that while watching this latest effort. DreamWorks do indeed seem to be improving their game lately, what with the very decent Kung Fu Panda and now this. I still don’t think they have a made a film that is quite as PIXAR worthy as some people seem to think but they sure are coming close, which in my books is quite a good thing.
How To Train Your Dragon was a surprisingly heartfelt and exciting film, with stunning visuals as many of the action or flying scenes with the dragons were superb, and while the film may not have quite the lasting impression of say, Up it was still highly entertaining, and a fun fast-paced film without ever feeling too childish. I myself have never read the books this film is based on but that doesn’t seem to matter at all as I still highly enjoyed it. The fact that the main Dragon ‘Toothless’ bears a striking resembles to Disney’s ‘Stitch’ as they were designed by the same person bothered me at first, but I soon came to love the creature in the film.
I saw this in 3D and feel that the 3D actually enhanced this film, unlike a lot of the other 3D efforts out at the moment. The story was clever and while being quite straight-forward and easy to follow it still had a nice couple of twists which you didn’t expect from the start. I felt the ending was maybe a little overly happy, going with a traditional happy ending to appease the kids but overall a great animated film, one which I would love to see again.
Rating: 4/5
Title: Re: Critter's Films at Cinemas Reviews
Post by: Critter on April 30, 2010, 01:00:28 AM
Iron Man 2
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2labqed.jpg)
Director: Jon Favreau
Writer: Justin Theroux (screenplay) Stan Lee (Marvel comic book) ...
Plot: Billionaire Tony Stark must contend with deadly issues involving the government, his own friends, as well as new enemies due to his superhero alter ego Iron Man.
Cast:
Robert Downey Jr. - Tony Stark Gwyneth Paltrow - Pepper Potts Don Cheadle - Lt. Col. James 'Rhodey' Rhodes Scarlett Johansson - Natalie Rushman / Natasha Romanoff Sam Rockwell - Justin Hammer Mickey Rourke - Ivan Vanko Samuel L. Jackson - Nick Fury
My Thoughts
So I saw Iron Man 2 last night on it’s opening day in Australia. I did quite enjoy the first one but for some reason I didn’t have extremely high expectations for this one, and because of that I think I was able to enjoy it more. This film was extremely fun to see at the cinema but it didn’t have quite the lasting impression of the first one and unlike some other films I have been seeing lately, I don’t have the urge to see it again. Like I said though a great couple of hours of entertainment, just maybe not quite living up to it’s predecessor.
The film looked great, the design on the suits and the other robots that entered at the end was fantastic, and the animation for them was flawless. The sound was fantastic, I may as well have been on a battlefield several times in the film and that’s one of the reasons that if you want to see this, you should see it in the cinema.
I can’t quite pinpoint exactly what it is that made this one feel lackluster to the first, I can’t seem to put it down to any one aspect although I must say that after the first, the plot in this at some parts felt very repetitive. One part in particular annoyed me a bit as they seemed to make the exact same mistake as they did in the first… these people never seem to learn.
One thing that was actually a major highlight for me was the addition of Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman or The Black Widow. Her character was fantastic, and while I think she did have quite a bit of screen time I feel they should have developed her more throughout the film. One scene in particular, a fight scene of hers was beautiful to watch, it was like watching art, or ballet. Fight scenes in films are something that have become quite repetitive, but there was something unique about how this character fought that was a joy to behold… my only complaint being that there was not enough of it.