Movie review rant 2014
- Thread starter zooboy28
- Start date
- Status
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
Has anyone seen or reviewed 'Gravity' yet? I'll be watching it this weekend only because I am intrigued to see how a 2hr movie can revolve around just 2 cast members.
Yes. See here for a review or two: http://www.zoochat.com/25/movie-review-rant-276456/
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Nah, it's all filled with reviews of shallow movies.
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
Nah, it's all filled with reviews of shallow movies.
If you look closely you'll find a gravity review.
The Last Legion
I watched this 2007 movie yesterday. I had confused it with The Eagle before watching (a movie with a connecting theme) but it is not nearly as good. It is like a movie striving for -- or pretending to strive for -- historical accuracy but where the only reference material the screenwriter has is a kids' history book with half the pages stuck together.
It isn't a terrible movie -- I found it quite watchable in fact -- but it was all over the place with dodgy history, cartoonish Barbarian baddies, and it was woefully miscast, starting with the lead role going to Colin Firth as a battle-hardened Roman general. I guess it could have been worse. They could had used Hugh Grant. I did approve of Aishwarya Rai as an anachronistic Kerala warrior but only for her beauty.
I watched this 2007 movie yesterday. I had confused it with The Eagle before watching (a movie with a connecting theme) but it is not nearly as good. It is like a movie striving for -- or pretending to strive for -- historical accuracy but where the only reference material the screenwriter has is a kids' history book with half the pages stuck together.
It isn't a terrible movie -- I found it quite watchable in fact -- but it was all over the place with dodgy history, cartoonish Barbarian baddies, and it was woefully miscast, starting with the lead role going to Colin Firth as a battle-hardened Roman general. I guess it could have been worse. They could had used Hugh Grant. I did approve of Aishwarya Rai as an anachronistic Kerala warrior but only for her beauty.
War Of The Worlds
I've seen this a few times but it was on tv last night so I watched it again. It is one of those movies with a heap of illogicalities and even a small child could pick out numerous plot-holes, but which is still enjoyable to watch. In other words, a Steven Spielberg movie. Oh, also a Tom Cruise movie. Two for the price of one!
In this movie Tom gets to run a lot. He runs from a lot of things in all his movies of course, but in this one he gets to outrun laser beams. As one does. The really brilliant thing about the movie is that Tom is actually completely incidental: it doesn't matter what he does in the movie, the aliens are still going to die at the end! His role is solely to put up with Dakota Fanning's screaming for two hours.
The storyline should be known to all -- simply put, Martians invade Earth in three-legged killing machines (the tripods) but in the end are killed themselves by Earth bacteria to which the aliens have no natural defence. Spielberg updates the story to the modern day and moves it to the USA rather than keeping it in late Victorian England which is quite understandable, and then (also expectedly) turns the main character into the standard divorced man having to save his annoying children who you just wish would die already! There are some additional idiotic touches as well, but thankfully the ending is kept true to the original story. Although, oddly enough, this is probably the movie's weakest point as well, because that ending doesn't really gel with the action movie which precedes it.
Summary: enjoyable fluff, dressing itself up as something deep but still just enjoyable fluff.
I've seen this a few times but it was on tv last night so I watched it again. It is one of those movies with a heap of illogicalities and even a small child could pick out numerous plot-holes, but which is still enjoyable to watch. In other words, a Steven Spielberg movie. Oh, also a Tom Cruise movie. Two for the price of one!
In this movie Tom gets to run a lot. He runs from a lot of things in all his movies of course, but in this one he gets to outrun laser beams. As one does. The really brilliant thing about the movie is that Tom is actually completely incidental: it doesn't matter what he does in the movie, the aliens are still going to die at the end! His role is solely to put up with Dakota Fanning's screaming for two hours.
The storyline should be known to all -- simply put, Martians invade Earth in three-legged killing machines (the tripods) but in the end are killed themselves by Earth bacteria to which the aliens have no natural defence. Spielberg updates the story to the modern day and moves it to the USA rather than keeping it in late Victorian England which is quite understandable, and then (also expectedly) turns the main character into the standard divorced man having to save his annoying children who you just wish would die already! There are some additional idiotic touches as well, but thankfully the ending is kept true to the original story. Although, oddly enough, this is probably the movie's weakest point as well, because that ending doesn't really gel with the action movie which precedes it.
Summary: enjoyable fluff, dressing itself up as something deep but still just enjoyable fluff.
I really hated the Spielberg-Cruise version of War of the Worlds. Dakota Fanning's screaming was a large part of that. Cruise's character's stupid, selfish son is another reason. After awhile I started cheering for the aliens, which is not what I think was intended.
I can instead recommend the 1953 version which actually has pretty decent special effects and is effectively creepy and suspenseful. It stars Gene Barry and Ann Robinson, who in a nice touch, play the grandparents at the end of the Spielberg version.
Even better than the 1953 movie version is the 1938 radio production done by Orson Welles and his acting company. It was so effective that some people thought that it was real and famously panicked about a real alien invasion. You can listen to it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs0K4ApWl4g
The best part of the Spielberg version is that one of the sets (as of this writing in summer 2014), the plane crash, can be visited on the Universal Studios tour and is quite impressive.
the very best version of The War Of The Worlds is the 1978 musical by Jeff Wayne. Superlative. It is available to listen to on Youtube for anyone who hasn't heard it.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I saw War of the Worlds at the movies when it first came out. I was disappointed that it was not set in Victorian times, or in London. HG Wells wrote the novel in the building obliquely opposite where I studied/worked for a number of years, and we both have the same alma mater. For this reason, I didn't enjoy this botched interpretation of a great novel. I still like Tom Cruise though. He will always have a special place in my heart for being Lestat.
He will always have a special place in my heart for being Lestat. 
cleusk
Well-Known Member
I've never understood the wussification of vampires. It used to be that vampires were scary monsters. Now they're being portrayed as emo trainwrecks yearning for romance. I wonder why it never occurs to the female lead that they are falling in love with a reanimated corpse that sucks blood.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a couple of my exes, come to think of it.
Vampires haven't been scary monsters since Victorian times (i.e. Bram Stoker's Dracula). The portrayal of vampires has evolved with the times, and the book-buying/movie-going audience loves the teen romances.
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
I saw this brilliant set (which is overlooked by local houses) when I visited Universal Studios last month. Having not seen the movie, we bought the War of the Worlds DVD once back in NZ, and watched it.
I really liked the first part, in whatever city it started in, lots of intrigue, great effects, etc. But then once they left the city it was a ridiculously disjointed story, with plot holes that totally destroyed the movie. It stopped making sense and the motives/logic disappeared altogether. And the brilliant plane crash set, which contains an actual Boeing jet, and must have cost a fair bit, is seen for barely a minute. And the ending, while poetic, is extremely anti-climatic and hugely disappointing. Even the title makes no sense. I think this is possibly one of the worst movies I've seen.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Gravity
Wow. Where do I begin? The ground breaking cinematography? The realistic fantastic CGI? The amazing sound effects, given that outer space is a vacuum and no one can hear you scream? Or the excellent acting by Sandra Bullock?
On the topic of Bullock, the story is bollocks - astronauts in outer-space need to get back to earth because their space station has been destroyed by space debris. Who cares?
Where this movie wins though, is that it is 2hrs of edge-of-your seat thrills. We watched it on a big screen TV in 3D, and we kept ducking/feeling nauseous when objects were flying through space/she was tumbling in all directions. I regret not having seen this in IMAX 3D for the shear entertainment value of it being an immersive experience.
9.5/10 - highly recommended, will buy the 3D BluRay.
Wow. Where do I begin? The ground breaking cinematography? The realistic fantastic CGI? The amazing sound effects, given that outer space is a vacuum and no one can hear you scream? Or the excellent acting by Sandra Bullock?
On the topic of Bullock, the story is bollocks - astronauts in outer-space need to get back to earth because their space station has been destroyed by space debris. Who cares?
Where this movie wins though, is that it is 2hrs of edge-of-your seat thrills. We watched it on a big screen TV in 3D, and we kept ducking/feeling nauseous when objects were flying through space/she was tumbling in all directions. I regret not having seen this in IMAX 3D for the shear entertainment value of it being an immersive experience.
9.5/10 - highly recommended, will buy the 3D BluRay.
for that set apparently they bought an old plane, took it apart, moved it to the site, and then built the "destroyed" houses around it. For myself I don't think any of those houses would have actually survived the inferno that would have resulted from a plane full of fuel hitting the ground. I sure don't think their vehicle would have been so completely untouched, sitting as it was just a few metres from the wreckage!
I liked that they kept the ending of the book instead of making it an action-hero ending, but agree it was done badly. In fact I knew someone who completely misunderstood the ending and thought it was the birds which had killed the aliens....
You should try reading the book by H.G. Wells. It is very good. (I wouldn't suggest that to nanoboy because he'd be like "ree...ding??"). The Speilberg movie also used the musical I mentioned earlier for some added inspiration.
'll be reviewing an animated movie next, so you should like that one.
Epic
This is a great movie! I like animated movies and this one is one of the best I've seen in a while. The plot concerns two races of teeny-weeny beings, one nature-protecting and the other nature-destroying, and a shrunken-down human girl. It is pretty standard story-wise, but is well-handled. It is suitable for adults as well as children, which I think is what animated movies should aim for. It is quite violent in parts, with brutal killings of tiny sentient beings (they're not quite human so it's alright...), but is also very funny in other parts. Possibly those two things may not seem to go together well, but the movie manages it well.
It is however very reminiscent of a cross-over Lord Of The Rings – Star Wars movie. Some parts seem like deliberate re-enactments (or homages, if you like), like the pod-race from The Phantom Menace. Now I know saying that the pod-race scene is also in this movie sounds like an immediate red flag but it is short and well-played.
I did have some unanswered questions, like what do the Leafmen ride in the winter when the hummingbirds have migrated south? But any plot-holes like that were completely cancelled out by the presence of a star-nosed mole! I mean, when was the last time you saw one of those in a major Hollywood movie?!
Ten out of ten, because a star-nosed mole demands no less.
This is a great movie! I like animated movies and this one is one of the best I've seen in a while. The plot concerns two races of teeny-weeny beings, one nature-protecting and the other nature-destroying, and a shrunken-down human girl. It is pretty standard story-wise, but is well-handled. It is suitable for adults as well as children, which I think is what animated movies should aim for. It is quite violent in parts, with brutal killings of tiny sentient beings (they're not quite human so it's alright...), but is also very funny in other parts. Possibly those two things may not seem to go together well, but the movie manages it well.
It is however very reminiscent of a cross-over Lord Of The Rings – Star Wars movie. Some parts seem like deliberate re-enactments (or homages, if you like), like the pod-race from The Phantom Menace. Now I know saying that the pod-race scene is also in this movie sounds like an immediate red flag but it is short and well-played.
I did have some unanswered questions, like what do the Leafmen ride in the winter when the hummingbirds have migrated south? But any plot-holes like that were completely cancelled out by the presence of a star-nosed mole! I mean, when was the last time you saw one of those in a major Hollywood movie?!
Ten out of ten, because a star-nosed mole demands no less.
Sounds like a couple of my exes, come to think of it.
That actually says a lot more about yourself than about your exes, Prof. Van Helsing...
Epic-pretty OK.
Gravity: http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/...pad.jpg?height=460&width=460&padToSquare=true
I prefer the alternative version
[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw79smKZB9E[/ame]
Sex Tape
Released in Australia yesterday, but I went to an advsnce screening earlier this week. Cameron Diaz and Jason Siegel are a married couple who, with the camera in an iPad, record one of their nights of passion.
The recording escapes, due to a syncing app that copies the recording to other iPads and computers. And so the couple have to track down the copies from friends, family members and work colleagues before anyone sees it.
It's actually quite a funny movie, if a little adult, so not for the kiddies.
And Cameron Diaz is naked. More than once. (So is Jason Segal but I didn't particularly care). The nudity, however, is quite tasteful.
8/10
Hix
Released in Australia yesterday, but I went to an advsnce screening earlier this week. Cameron Diaz and Jason Siegel are a married couple who, with the camera in an iPad, record one of their nights of passion.
The recording escapes, due to a syncing app that copies the recording to other iPads and computers. And so the couple have to track down the copies from friends, family members and work colleagues before anyone sees it.
It's actually quite a funny movie, if a little adult, so not for the kiddies.
And Cameron Diaz is naked. More than once. (So is Jason Segal but I didn't particularly care). The nudity, however, is quite tasteful.
8/10
Hix
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
Yes, its certainly not a particularly realistic film set when you think about it in depth. As for the houses, there are a couple of fake houses either side, but on the hill above, looking over the set, are actual houses with actual people living in them, with a mangled Boeing part of their view!
Tomorrow, When The War Began
This is a 2010 Australian movie which was very well received in Australia and New Zealand but not overseas, apparently due to a lack of proper promotion. It is based on a 1993 book of the same name and concerns an invasion of Australia by an unnamed army (I think it was an unnamed army; I might have just missed it, or you might have been expected to have read the book. I guessed it as being North Korea by implication). The story centres on a group of teenagers trying to escape capture while coming to terms with needing to turn into guerrillas to survive. Both the book and movie are aimed at "young adults" but I still liked it. I thought the acting was good and the story was well-done, although the group of kids were carefully-sorted for the script (there was the princess, the tough guy, the Christian, the non-white guy, the stoner, etc) and they did try to shoe-horn in some unconvincing romances which didn't really help or further the story.
All the cast are Australian so if you watch Home & Away or Neighbours you'll probably recognise some of them, and there's also Phoebe Tonkin from H2O: Just Add Water (more my style than Home & Away because it is about mermaids). There are supposed to be some sequels being made -- the book is the first in a long series -- but they may never see the light of day.
If the story of teens-saving-their-town-from-invading-army sounds familiar it is because it is exactly the same plot as the 2012 American movie Red Dawn which in turn is a remake of the 1984 movie Red Dawn. In 1984 it was Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen fighting off Russians while yelling "Wolverines!" from cliff-tops; in 2012 Chris Hemsworth was fighting North Koreans. I haven't seen the new Red Dawn but apparently it was crap. It has been too long since I've seen the 1984 one to comment. I suggest watching Tomorrow, When The War Began instead. Being Australian rather than American it is less hoo-rah and more thoughtful.
This is a 2010 Australian movie which was very well received in Australia and New Zealand but not overseas, apparently due to a lack of proper promotion. It is based on a 1993 book of the same name and concerns an invasion of Australia by an unnamed army (I think it was an unnamed army; I might have just missed it, or you might have been expected to have read the book. I guessed it as being North Korea by implication). The story centres on a group of teenagers trying to escape capture while coming to terms with needing to turn into guerrillas to survive. Both the book and movie are aimed at "young adults" but I still liked it. I thought the acting was good and the story was well-done, although the group of kids were carefully-sorted for the script (there was the princess, the tough guy, the Christian, the non-white guy, the stoner, etc) and they did try to shoe-horn in some unconvincing romances which didn't really help or further the story.
All the cast are Australian so if you watch Home & Away or Neighbours you'll probably recognise some of them, and there's also Phoebe Tonkin from H2O: Just Add Water (more my style than Home & Away because it is about mermaids). There are supposed to be some sequels being made -- the book is the first in a long series -- but they may never see the light of day.
If the story of teens-saving-their-town-from-invading-army sounds familiar it is because it is exactly the same plot as the 2012 American movie Red Dawn which in turn is a remake of the 1984 movie Red Dawn. In 1984 it was Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen fighting off Russians while yelling "Wolverines!" from cliff-tops; in 2012 Chris Hemsworth was fighting North Koreans. I haven't seen the new Red Dawn but apparently it was crap. It has been too long since I've seen the 1984 one to comment. I suggest watching Tomorrow, When The War Began instead. Being Australian rather than American it is less hoo-rah and more thoughtful.
- Status