Movie review rant 2013

[zooboy28]

{Note from mods - thread continued from here: Movie review rant}



The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The first installment of the Hobbit Trilogy is rather unexpected, especially if you were expecting something like the Lord of the Rings. I saw the film in 3D, and it really is a beautiful and visually stunning movie, with amazing landscapes and sets which bring Middle Earth to life. Unfortunately, its story is not really on the same level as LOTR, being a rather dull and slow introduction to the series, which will hopefully improve. There is no real dramatic tension, the action is very tame and it seems to have been toned down to "family" level.

There are some excellent one-liners, and some very impressive CGI, but the standout scene is the one featuring Gollum, which totally changes the tone of the film for its 15 minute duration. Overall, the film is long and boring, with only the background and Gollum memorable

Rating: 6.5/10

 

[zooboy28]

Jack Reacher

Jack Reacher

This thriller is the first film to be made from the Jack Reacher book series written by Lee Child. It is based on the book One Shot. I have read the book, and a couple of others in the series, and they make pretty good reading.

And the film is actually a quite good adaptation of the book, certainly better than most adaptations anyway. Tom Cruise plays Jack Reacher (very well), an ex-Military Policaman who travels to a small US city to find out why a previously-investigated sniper has shot five people. The film moves along quickly, with plenty of decent action and a good story, although the motive makes more sense in the book.

Rating 7.5/10

 

[nanoboy]

Jack Reacher

This thriller is the first film to be made from the Jack Reacher book series written by Lee Child. It is based on the book One Shot. I have read the book, and a couple of others in the series, and they make pretty good reading.

And the film is actually a quite good adaptation of the book, certainly better than most adaptations anyway. Tom Cruise plays Jack Reacher (very well), an ex-Military Policaman who travels to a small US city to find out why a previously-investigated sniper has shot five people. The film moves along quickly, with plenty of decent action and a good story, although the motive makes more sense in the book.

Rating 7.5/10

I liked Minority Report's story, I love the Mission Impossible movies, and I was happy to see an adaptation of Interview with the Vampire. Tom Cruise being the star was inconsequential.

However, what does Reacher have going for it other than an A-lister like Tom Cruise? It sounds like a bog standard action flick like the other one he did with Cameron Diaz (?).

 

[zooboy28]

I liked Minority Report's story, I love the Mission Impossible movies, and I was happy to see an adaptation of Interview with the Vampire. Tom Cruise being the star was inconsequential.

However, what does Reacher have going for it other than an A-lister like Tom Cruise? It sounds like a bog standard action flick like the other one he did with Cameron Diaz (?).

Having had a quick look on wiki, I assume you mean Day & Knight, which was an action-comedy film that I didn't like at all. Jack Reacher is a much darker and grittier film, although relatively standard in the action-thriller genre. I think its main attraction is that it is based on the very popular book series. There was much outcry over the casting of Cruise, who is very different from the character, at least height-wise, and I'm not generally impressed by him, but he was pretty good here.

 

[nanoboy]

Having had a quick look on wiki, I assume you mean Day & Knight, which was an action-comedy film that I didn't like at all. Jack Reacher is a much darker and grittier film, although relatively standard in the action-thriller genre. I think its main attraction is that it is based on the very popular book series. There was much outcry over the casting of Cruise, who is very different from the character, at least height-wise, and I'm not generally impressed by him, but he was pretty good here.

Sounds like it is a possible rental then. Does he kill lots of baddies in cold blood like Liam Neeson in Taken?

 

[zooboy28]

Sounds like it is a possible rental then. Does he kill lots of baddies in cold blood like Liam Neeson in Taken?

Yup. Both sides do a bit of that actually.

 

[nanoboy]

Yup. Both sides do a bit of that actually.

Sweet!

(Check out the TV show 'Arrow'. Amazingly for a TV series, he kills lots if baddies per episode.)

 

[nanoboy]

A Harold and Kumar Christmas

What a silly, unfunny movie. American Pie Reunion was funny even though the characters grew up, but this movie was a failure on all counts.

Why was it made in 3D when they did not really utilise the 3D effect? Claymation made an appearance, but the only reason I can think of is to give clay animators some work.

You know what? This movie deserves no more of my time.

Rating: 4/10 where the first two movies were sixish.

 

[cleusk]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The first installment of the Hobbit Trilogy is rather unexpected, especially if you were expecting something like the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately, its story is not really on the same level as LOTR.

Of course it isn't! The Hobbit was written as a stand-alone story for kids. LOTR was written 20 years later.

 

[Hix]

Sounds like it is a possible rental then. Does he kill lots of baddies in cold blood like Liam Neeson in Taken?

Rental? Then you do yourself a disservice. It's definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

As Zooboy said, it's darker and grittier than Day and KNight, which was a light and comedic movie.

The thing that I think makes Reacher a better movie is the plot and the writing. If you liked Taken, you'll like this one too.



Hix

 

[nanoboy]

Rental? Then you do yourself a disservice. It's definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

As Zooboy said, it's darker and grittier than Day and KNight, which was a light and comedic movie.

The thing that I think makes Reacher a better movie is the plot and the writing. If you liked Taken, you'll like this one too.



Hix

Thanks. We will try to see it this weekend at the movies then.

 

[cleusk]

I finally got to see Les Miserables. I don't believe in long reviews, so I'll get straight to point. I strongly recommend it. If you don't like musicals, stay away - far away.

 

[nanoboy]

I finally got to see Les Miserables. I don't believe in long reviews, so I'll get straight to point. I strongly recommend it. If you don't like musicals, stay away - far away.

Why not? They do exist. Just have a look through this thread!

 

[zooboy28]

Ice Age 4

Why does it feel like there's nothing new under the sun? Or that there's definitely nothing new in the minds of movie producers?

It seems like every movie that I have seen recently is in some way tied to an older movie. "Those are the movies you choose to see", I hear you say. Well, do you suggest that I check out Madagascar 3? Or how about Batman 27 (or whatever number it's up to now)? Maybe the reboot of the Spiderman franchise? Ice Age 4 was inevitable.

It felt as though this franchise is merrily plodding along, thrilling kids every year or two with the same story in front of a different backdrop. Instead of the ice melting, or coming face-to-face with a remnant population of dinosaurs, in this instalment we saw the continents drifting! How original! Maybe in Ice Age 5 there may be aliens that transport the mammoth's gang to the present time via a tear in the space-time continuum! (PS* 20th Century Fox: I demand royalties if you steal my idea. )

Did I mention that there were pirates? A film needs antagonists right? Oh dear. Come to think of it, combined with the time wasted watching this movie and writing this review, that's 2 hours of my life that I will never be able to get back.

So, that's a wrap. If you are 5 years old, or have 5 year-old kids, then you really should give it a go in 3D. Everyone else, rent it on DVD out of loyalty to the franchise, or just give it a miss.

Rating: 5/10

I watched this on DVD the other day, and it was very disappointing. It was nowhere near the standard of the original Ice Age, which ranks among the best animated films since 2000, with some extremely funny moments (Taekwondodos!), as well as thrilling chace scenes and very touching bits.

Ice Age 4: Continental Drift had none of this. The characters were unappealing, and I didn't care what happened to any of them. The only good bit was the bit at the start, where the adorable acorn adorer Scrat managed to get to the earth's core, where he chased his acorn around and caused the continents to drift.

If you do have the option of watching this film, I recommend watching just the first bit with Scrat, and then turning it off.

Rating: 3/10 (and the 3 is just for Scrat).

 

[nanoboy]

Sounds like the movie was scat.

 

[JBZvolunteer]

Les Miserables Review

Les Miserables

Les Miserables is the film the musical fanatics have been preparing themselves for for months. In the end the film fell into the neutral category on how people fellt about it. Here is my take from when I saw it

Good
Eponine as played by Samantha Barks
Cosette as played by Amanda Seyfried
Marius as played by Eddie Redmayne
The song between Jean Valjean(Hugh Jackman) and the Bishop(Colm Wilkinson)
The Thenardiers and any scene starring them as played by Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter
Javert as played by Russell Crowe
"At the End of the Day"
"Javerts Suicide"

Bad
Jean Valjean as played by Hugh Jackman
Fantine as played by Anne Hathaway(main problem was "I dreamed a dream")
Set Design
Gavroche's death
The Audience

The Good: Let me just say right off the bat that the young actors were really some of the stars of the show. They saw the grace of the characters as they were in the musical and saw no need to mix things up for the film. They allowed us musical fans to keep our sanity. The standout in the group musically was Amanda Seyfried as Cosette. She had the amazing ability to just float up there in the rafters. Also, her vibratto was the stuff of legends, it may make a normal moviegoer cringe in fear but the musical fans will bow down before her at the skill level she was showing. The young actors weren't the only ones who stood out though, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were hilarrious as and the Thenadiers and were able to transfer their comedic skill into music quite well. The most controversial actor in the movie though was Russell Crowe as Javert, he in the end turned though out to be surprisingly good. His acting is what put him over the top in the end though. When watching him you didn't think "Russell Crowe is doing a really good job", you instead thought, "Javert is doing a really good job". This is a quality any actor should strive for. There were some scenes you also couldn't help but love. Anyone who likes action movies will love the scene where javert jumps off a bridge and falls a hundred feet to his death and musical fans will love the well done number "At the End of the Day" where Fantine loses her job as a rosary maker and you go on a tour of the town according to the lower and middle class. One of the most touching scenes is when the bishop played by the musical's first Jean Valjean Colm Wilkinson, hands over the silver candlesticks to Jean Valjean, when watching this scene it is almost as if a sense of warmth and hope wash over your body.

The Bad: The most looked forward to members of the cast were the biggest let down to me. Hugh Jackman tried to do way to much hidden messagery in his choice of singing style for my personal taste. Also Anne Hathaway I feel like tried to put to much of her own spin on "I dreamed a Dream" by making it sound to meek. It is in the brassiness of the classic Broadway performance that you get the wave of emotion that washes over you, her perfomance lacked this aspect. The set design and the scene of Gavroche's death really irked me. I could personally build a taller barricade in my basement then what they tried doing on England's largest indoor set. When they played off the barricade into Gavroche's death scene they made a big mistake when they allowed you to see the death, the emotion in the musical version of this comes from the fact that you yourself had to imagine his death. The biggest change when going from the musical to the movie version is in the audience. When you see the musical everyone sings along to songs such as "At the End of the Day" and "Do You Hear the People Sing" whereas, at the movie everyone is just sitting there in the theatre. This can make it into a very awkward moment.

Overall, I give Les Miserables a rating of 7/10 because I feel like everyone should see it but there will always be something to the movie which someone won't like.

Rating: 7/10

 

[zooboy28]

Madagascar 3

We saw this last night at the cinema - about 3 months after the rest if the world, probably because they wanted to time its release to coincide with the start of the school holidays. For the record, tickets cost $25pp and when you add a small popcorn and a small Coke, this movie cost at least $60 for two adults. I mentioned the cost because it was money well spent. This was easily one of the best animated films that I have ever seen!

Even if you did not see the first two movies, it does not matter because the premise is simple: a group of talking animals are trying to make their way from Europe back to their original home at the Central Park Zoo in New York.

The film was, in essence, an 'action comedy'. The laughs came at regular intervals, and many of the jokes were pitched for adults. "In France they work for only two weeks of the year - they have the same work ethic as Canada!" - according to the penguins. The action was nail-biting and could only have come to life in an animated movie.

The real standout for me was the excellent use of the 3D effect. Man, I kept bobbing and weaving to evade the shrapnel that kept hurtling towards me. If you are a fan of the nouveau-3D genre, then this film is a must-see for you.

This film was a great way to spend two hours because it wasn't just telling a story: it was an immersive and entertaining experience that the entire family would enjoy. Indeed, I might just go and see it again!

Rating: 9.5/10 (where the first two instalments were about 8's, and my former favourite animated film - Monsters Inc - was a 9)

I really enjoyed the first Madagascar movie (8/10), but thought the second one was pretty average (6/10), and so didn't have high hopes about the third installment, which we saw on DVD last week. Which meant we didn't get the 3D effects, but spent significantly less than nanoboy did.

Overall, it was probably on par with the second movie, a pretty lame kids movie, propped up by the penguins and lemurs (as were the first two) and an aggressive French woman. The first parts, where the animals leave Africa for Europe, up until they join the circus, were funny enough, but the rest of the movie was awful. I certainly wouldn't recommend it anywhere near as highly as nanoboy did.

It also doesn't portray zoos as good places (in fact, it stresses that circuses are better than zoos), which didn't make it any better.

Rating: 5/10

For the record, my favourite animated movies are Lion King, Robin Hood, Megamind and the Toy Story series, which would all score 9.5/10.

 

[nanoboy]

I really enjoyed the first Madagascar movie (8/10), but thought the second one was pretty average (6/10), and so didn't have high hopes about the third installment, which we saw on DVD last week. Which meant we didn't get the 3D effects, but spent significantly less than nanoboy did.

Overall, it was probably on par with the second movie, a pretty lame kids movie, propped up by the penguins and lemurs (as were the first two) and an aggressive French woman. The first parts, where the animals leave Africa for Europe, up until they join the circus, were funny enough, but the rest of the movie was awful. I certainly wouldn't recommend it anywhere near as highly as nanoboy did.

It also doesn't portray zoos as good places (in fact, it stresses that circuses are better than zoos), which didn't make it any better.

Rating: 5/10

For the record, my favourite animated movies are Lion King, Robin Hood, Megamind and the Toy Story series, which would all score 9.5/10.

This isn't a case of an Amazon review that states "this review is based on the hardback version": this is comparing a 2D movie on a small TV to a 3D immersive experience on a huge screen that was specifically designed for 3D. Your review compared to mine is like chalk and cheese for that reason.

I really feel that where the story failed (you) the 3D effect would have added at least 2 stars to your rating had you seen it in the cinema.

 

[zooboy28]

This isn't a case of an Amazon review that states "this review is based on the hardback version": this is comparing a 2D movie on a small TV to a 3D immersive experience on a huge screen that was specifically designed for 3D. Your review compared to mine is like chalk and cheese for that reason.

I really feel that where the story failed (you) the 3D effect would have added at least 2 stars to your rating had you seen it in the cinema.

That's probably quite true, the 3D would have been an improvement, but it was still a lame movie in terms of story and characters (as I said, I only liked the penguins and lemurs, the others were extremely dull), and its clearly not a good movie if seeing it in 3D improves it that much.

 

[nanoboy]

That's probably quite true, the 3D would have been an improvement, but it was still a lame movie in terms of story and characters (as I said, I only liked the penguins and lemurs, the others were extremely dull), and its clearly not a good movie if seeing it in 3D improves it that much.

I re-read my review and I did not even refer to the story. Instead I said it was an action-comedy. Who needs a story when you have 3D? And who needs 3D when you have a story?