N
nebbit
Guest
Good stuff as usual
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
N
nebbit
Guest
There probably is in New Zealand but I an in Australia
I don't feel insulted Honey i like people from the land of the long white cloud
I don't feel insulted Honey i like people from the land of the long white cloud
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
I've only seen this film from him, but am looking out for Cache.
Thanks for the comments on the review though. It makes me wonder one thing. I got 7+ rep on Spongebob and I think that's my worst written review of the bunch, yet it's one of the more popular ones? Is it the review or is it the film?
Questions my friend...questions.
Thanks for the comments on the review though. It makes me wonder one thing. I got 7+ rep on Spongebob and I think that's my worst written review of the bunch, yet it's one of the more popular ones? Is it the review or is it the film?
Questions my friend...questions.
H
honeykid
Guest
I disagree about Ryder, she was the best thing about it.
B
Brodinski
Guest
Nice piece on State Of Play. I have this one in my DVD collection, just never got around to watching it yet. Will probably do that this week
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 1: May 1st, 2010
Nightmare On Elm Street
An Hour & A Half Of Cheap By The Book Horror Scares
Yes, this is cheating a little bit but I wasn't going to let this one go to waste. So instead, I'm making it my first entry.
The children on Elm street are all having the same nightmare, a horribly burned man with a glove of knives on his hand trying to kill them. If you die in your sleep, you die in real life. This is the re-invention of the horror icon Freddy Krueger.
First it was Leatherface, then Jason and now Freddy. The Michael Bay produced horror vehicles are back in full swing with more teenagers to die, more blood to splatter and more CGI effects in place of actual special effects. It was only a matter of time before one of the most famous horror icons got his remake and here it is, with a new actor behind the hat and sweater. The original Nightmare on Elm Street has a special place in my heart. Watching it at 2 in the morning at a cottage in the middle of the woods really made for a frightening experience. His reappearance in later films made him more of a comical villain than someone to really be afraid of, but now those who are bringing him back want to take him, not only back to his horrific original self, but to dive even deeper and make him more frightening than ever before.
They succeed in making this version of Freddy more scary than his previous outings and more real with the make-up of being a burned victim, but in the end, this character just isn't as scary as he once was. Jackie Earle Haley does a magnificent job as Freddy, which is saying something because he's taking over the role of someone who's been doing it for 20 years and he's covered in make up for most of the film. Even though he does his Rorschach voice again, it's still well done and nice to hear. He stands out in an otherwise lame and lazy horror remake. You know the film is going to have problems when you see Freddy in full in the first 5 minutes.
To be fair, this isn't a total train wreck. There are worse horror remakes out there *cough* Prom Night *cough*. But this Nightmare is too serious for such a silly concept. We dive immediately into the problem, with a murder of one of the kids. We are then told that the kids have been seeing Freddy for sometime now. Which is lazy writing. We are already too late into the story. We should be with the characters when they are first encountering him, not keeping it a secret from others. We can't connect to these characters at all.
There are plenty moments of really bad CGI. The scary and famous scene in the original when Freddy leans out from the wallpaper watching the character sleeping was some pretty scary stuff. Here, it is an afterthought and it looks horribly fake. The film relies way too much on fake, cheap and useless scares. I thought we were getting past these stupid things. The film uses it so much that you expect it to happen and it loses all meaning. Thus, the film becomes formulaic. Character nods off, they are asleep without knowing it, see Freddy, cheap scare, they wake up. Repeat for every other character in the film and you begin to fill up the 95 minute time slot.
Now, for fans of the series, I can say this about the films. Every death in the nightmare films were creative. Puppeteering death? Awesome stuff. Here he slices people with his glove. Nothing spectacular. I guess since they tried to make him serious they wanted to take out all the fun and exciting deaths, instead they tried to keep it real. Well, Friday the 13th managed to keep it's fun and cheesy attitude, this nightmare doesn't and it falls flat. It was too serious for it's own good and has no terror, no thrills and no suspense.
Our lead, Nancy, Rooney Mara, is not memorable at all. She is no Langenkamp and the whole time I was watching her I kept thinking, "This is what Abigail Breslin will look like in 10 years". Clancy Brown is underused and instead of paying attention to Kyle Gallner, I kept trying to remember where I have seen him before. The answer is the equally lame horror film Jennifer's Body.
I can give this film praise where it is deserved. Freddy looks great and is more terrifying than what his previous installments had him be and the ending is clearly the highlight. I was cheering, which was a surprise to me. The sound design is really great as well. Freddy's voice is all over the place and at times I thought he was in the theatre. But in the end, this Nightmare remake is really a disappointment.
[rating]2[/rating]
Nightmare On Elm Street
An Hour & A Half Of Cheap By The Book Horror Scares
Yes, this is cheating a little bit but I wasn't going to let this one go to waste. So instead, I'm making it my first entry.
The children on Elm street are all having the same nightmare, a horribly burned man with a glove of knives on his hand trying to kill them. If you die in your sleep, you die in real life. This is the re-invention of the horror icon Freddy Krueger.
First it was Leatherface, then Jason and now Freddy. The Michael Bay produced horror vehicles are back in full swing with more teenagers to die, more blood to splatter and more CGI effects in place of actual special effects. It was only a matter of time before one of the most famous horror icons got his remake and here it is, with a new actor behind the hat and sweater. The original Nightmare on Elm Street has a special place in my heart. Watching it at 2 in the morning at a cottage in the middle of the woods really made for a frightening experience. His reappearance in later films made him more of a comical villain than someone to really be afraid of, but now those who are bringing him back want to take him, not only back to his horrific original self, but to dive even deeper and make him more frightening than ever before.
They succeed in making this version of Freddy more scary than his previous outings and more real with the make-up of being a burned victim, but in the end, this character just isn't as scary as he once was. Jackie Earle Haley does a magnificent job as Freddy, which is saying something because he's taking over the role of someone who's been doing it for 20 years and he's covered in make up for most of the film. Even though he does his Rorschach voice again, it's still well done and nice to hear. He stands out in an otherwise lame and lazy horror remake. You know the film is going to have problems when you see Freddy in full in the first 5 minutes.
To be fair, this isn't a total train wreck. There are worse horror remakes out there *cough* Prom Night *cough*. But this Nightmare is too serious for such a silly concept. We dive immediately into the problem, with a murder of one of the kids. We are then told that the kids have been seeing Freddy for sometime now. Which is lazy writing. We are already too late into the story. We should be with the characters when they are first encountering him, not keeping it a secret from others. We can't connect to these characters at all.
There are plenty moments of really bad CGI. The scary and famous scene in the original when Freddy leans out from the wallpaper watching the character sleeping was some pretty scary stuff. Here, it is an afterthought and it looks horribly fake. The film relies way too much on fake, cheap and useless scares. I thought we were getting past these stupid things. The film uses it so much that you expect it to happen and it loses all meaning. Thus, the film becomes formulaic. Character nods off, they are asleep without knowing it, see Freddy, cheap scare, they wake up. Repeat for every other character in the film and you begin to fill up the 95 minute time slot.
Now, for fans of the series, I can say this about the films. Every death in the nightmare films were creative. Puppeteering death? Awesome stuff. Here he slices people with his glove. Nothing spectacular. I guess since they tried to make him serious they wanted to take out all the fun and exciting deaths, instead they tried to keep it real. Well, Friday the 13th managed to keep it's fun and cheesy attitude, this nightmare doesn't and it falls flat. It was too serious for it's own good and has no terror, no thrills and no suspense.
Our lead, Nancy, Rooney Mara, is not memorable at all. She is no Langenkamp and the whole time I was watching her I kept thinking, "This is what Abigail Breslin will look like in 10 years". Clancy Brown is underused and instead of paying attention to Kyle Gallner, I kept trying to remember where I have seen him before. The answer is the equally lame horror film Jennifer's Body.
I can give this film praise where it is deserved. Freddy looks great and is more terrifying than what his previous installments had him be and the ending is clearly the highlight. I was cheering, which was a surprise to me. The sound design is really great as well. Freddy's voice is all over the place and at times I thought he was in the theatre. But in the end, this Nightmare remake is really a disappointment.
[rating]2[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
[No message]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 34: June 3rd, 2010
Get Low
A Great Performance To Bookend A Great Career.
Felix Bush is a hermit, he lives all alone in the backwoods and he likes it that way. He has a sign that reads 'no trespassing', when someone trespasses, he puts up another sign 'no damn trespassing'. One day a priest arrives to inform him of a death, someone he knows. He then gets the idea to have a funeral party for himself, while he is still alive.
If Robert Duvall were to stop acting now then he can be proud of his career. He surely will continue to act, because he's darn good at it, but with Get Low he manages to give a performance that is both emotional and real. The film is loosely based on real events and Duvall, along with the supporting cast are able to bring this dry period piece to a rather enjoyable close.
Get Low is something that many people will think is boring, and it is at parts. If it weren't for the performance from Duvall, then the film would be rated lower in my books. Bill Murray, Bill Cobbs and Lucas Black all share the screen time, but never do much to really hold a scene with Duvall. They are good, but Duvall simply outshines them all. One scene in particular comes to mind and it's the most interesting part of the film itself, near the end. Duvall gives a speech and it feels real, you feel the humanity in his performance and speech, as if someone's grandfather were telling them a story for the first time.
Lucas Black's role could have been played by anyone. Unfortunately for Black, he hasn't matured enough as an actor to make this role memorable or even important. I give him points for starring in a film like this, more attempts like this and he might be enjoyable. Bill Murray channels his Broken Flowers role here. He saunters along and throws in the occasional smart ass remark. Sissy Spacek plays an old friend of Felix, they have history together. Certain revelations are made in the film that put a heavy strain on their so called friendship.
The film at first is about this man who wants to throw a funeral party, but but the film's end, it seems as if it was never about that at all. The most important scene is indeed at his funeral party, but it's for reasons only revealed to the viewer at that particular moment. Felix has a secret, a reason he is all alone now. The film doesn't really try to get us to guess what it is or care about it until really late in the story.
Get Low looks great and is directed confidently. The film has a wooden golden glow to it. Very appropriate considering Felix is a carpenter of some sort. It plays well in the time line it's characters are in and never feels fake. There have been some talk about Oscars for this film. While I don't really think it has a chance in any department, the only one that wouldn't surprise me is Robert Duvall. His honest portrayal of a broken man that hates himself should be recognized. Get Low is something that not many film goers will appreciate, but those looking for good performances from veteran actors (Black being the exception) will find something to like in Get Low. I know I did.
[rating]3.5[/rating]
Get Low
A Great Performance To Bookend A Great Career.
Felix Bush is a hermit, he lives all alone in the backwoods and he likes it that way. He has a sign that reads 'no trespassing', when someone trespasses, he puts up another sign 'no damn trespassing'. One day a priest arrives to inform him of a death, someone he knows. He then gets the idea to have a funeral party for himself, while he is still alive.
If Robert Duvall were to stop acting now then he can be proud of his career. He surely will continue to act, because he's darn good at it, but with Get Low he manages to give a performance that is both emotional and real. The film is loosely based on real events and Duvall, along with the supporting cast are able to bring this dry period piece to a rather enjoyable close.
Get Low is something that many people will think is boring, and it is at parts. If it weren't for the performance from Duvall, then the film would be rated lower in my books. Bill Murray, Bill Cobbs and Lucas Black all share the screen time, but never do much to really hold a scene with Duvall. They are good, but Duvall simply outshines them all. One scene in particular comes to mind and it's the most interesting part of the film itself, near the end. Duvall gives a speech and it feels real, you feel the humanity in his performance and speech, as if someone's grandfather were telling them a story for the first time.
Lucas Black's role could have been played by anyone. Unfortunately for Black, he hasn't matured enough as an actor to make this role memorable or even important. I give him points for starring in a film like this, more attempts like this and he might be enjoyable. Bill Murray channels his Broken Flowers role here. He saunters along and throws in the occasional smart ass remark. Sissy Spacek plays an old friend of Felix, they have history together. Certain revelations are made in the film that put a heavy strain on their so called friendship.
The film at first is about this man who wants to throw a funeral party, but but the film's end, it seems as if it was never about that at all. The most important scene is indeed at his funeral party, but it's for reasons only revealed to the viewer at that particular moment. Felix has a secret, a reason he is all alone now. The film doesn't really try to get us to guess what it is or care about it until really late in the story.
Get Low looks great and is directed confidently. The film has a wooden golden glow to it. Very appropriate considering Felix is a carpenter of some sort. It plays well in the time line it's characters are in and never feels fake. There have been some talk about Oscars for this film. While I don't really think it has a chance in any department, the only one that wouldn't surprise me is Robert Duvall. His honest portrayal of a broken man that hates himself should be recognized. Get Low is something that not many film goers will appreciate, but those looking for good performances from veteran actors (Black being the exception) will find something to like in Get Low. I know I did.
[rating]3.5[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 26: May 26th, 2010
Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs
Cloudy With A Chance Is A Great Fun Time.
Failure after failure after failure after failure, Flint decides to solve a certain sardine problem his town has, by converting water into food. He invents a machine, which then goes a bit haywire and launches itself into the sky. Fortunately for him, it worked, and food begins falling out of the sky. Unfortunately it eventually gets a mind of it's own and tries to destroy to town with over-sized food.
Look at the pretty colours. Those were the words from my girlfriend when we saw the trailer for this film, which we sadly did not see in the theatres. Yes, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is a great animated kids film with more than enough comedy for the older crowd. Although it wasn't the best animated film last year, it was the funniest in my opinion.
The animation fit the story perfectly and the food falling all over were great visuals. You can tell the animators had a lot of fun with this film. Sony Pictures Animation haven't really had a film in their roster to stand out and to me, this one is their golden ticket. It's a shame it wasn't recognized at the Oscars, as I think it deserved a place on the nomination list.
The kids learn valuable lessons about responsibility and being yourself, while getting to have fun with the images of ice cream snowball fights, a building made out of jello and a school covered by a giant pancake. The adults get the comedy of Bill Hader from SNL, recognizable voices of Mr. T, Neil Patrick Harris and the man, the myth, the legend himself, Bruce Campbell. Each role fit their voice actor perfectly. Usually Anna Faris annoys me, here she made me like her character more because of her unique voice. James Caan as the dad is the added cherry on the top of the cake. Gummi Bear Twilight Zone reference? Brilliant.
The film is really funny and hits every note it has to. The climax works perfectly and the vibrant colours will keep the kids watching the screen. The disaster film has been given the animated kids film treatment and it works wonderfully. I highly recommend Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs for the entire family.
[rating]4[/rating]
Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs
Cloudy With A Chance Is A Great Fun Time.
Failure after failure after failure after failure, Flint decides to solve a certain sardine problem his town has, by converting water into food. He invents a machine, which then goes a bit haywire and launches itself into the sky. Fortunately for him, it worked, and food begins falling out of the sky. Unfortunately it eventually gets a mind of it's own and tries to destroy to town with over-sized food.
Look at the pretty colours. Those were the words from my girlfriend when we saw the trailer for this film, which we sadly did not see in the theatres. Yes, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is a great animated kids film with more than enough comedy for the older crowd. Although it wasn't the best animated film last year, it was the funniest in my opinion.
The animation fit the story perfectly and the food falling all over were great visuals. You can tell the animators had a lot of fun with this film. Sony Pictures Animation haven't really had a film in their roster to stand out and to me, this one is their golden ticket. It's a shame it wasn't recognized at the Oscars, as I think it deserved a place on the nomination list.
The kids learn valuable lessons about responsibility and being yourself, while getting to have fun with the images of ice cream snowball fights, a building made out of jello and a school covered by a giant pancake. The adults get the comedy of Bill Hader from SNL, recognizable voices of Mr. T, Neil Patrick Harris and the man, the myth, the legend himself, Bruce Campbell. Each role fit their voice actor perfectly. Usually Anna Faris annoys me, here she made me like her character more because of her unique voice. James Caan as the dad is the added cherry on the top of the cake. Gummi Bear Twilight Zone reference? Brilliant.
The film is really funny and hits every note it has to. The climax works perfectly and the vibrant colours will keep the kids watching the screen. The disaster film has been given the animated kids film treatment and it works wonderfully. I highly recommend Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs for the entire family.
[rating]4[/rating]
H
honeykid
Guest
So you've seen Near Dark and know how great it is? That makes the choice even more baffling.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 75: July 14th, 2010
Big Trouble In Little China
Feel pretty good. I'm not, uh, I'm not scared at all. I just feel kind of... feel kind of invincible...
...and boy did Kurt Russell feel invincible during that scene. A quick listen to the commentary track on the dvd is a pleasant surprise.
Truck driver Jack Burton, played by long time friend and collaborator of Carpenter, Kurt Russell, arrives in Chinatown and agrees to help out an old friend. But his old friend's fiancee is kidnapped, and this leads the pair down a mythical and dangerous road.
This isn't my favourite John Carpenter film, nor is it my favourite John Carpenter/Kurt Russell collaboration. Yet, it is still one hell of a fun and entertaining film. The film moves at an incredible pace and is never short on action. John Carpenter is responsible for the better half of the cheesy 80's. Mostly in his horror genre, which I am a fan of. After all, he is the master of terror, right? Yet, Big Trouble In Little China is such an odd film for him to take on that it makes a perfect fit. Does that make sense? No? Oh well.
Russell and Carpenter are great together, you can feel the chemistry between the two, even though one is always behind the camera. Russell gives us his wise ass shtick as Burton and the dialogue is great for this character. Russell makes one bad ass character here to go along with his Snake Plissken, another character that involves Carpenter.
Big Trouble In Little China is funny, action packed and is a joy to watch. It's absurdity adds to the level of cheese and awesomeness. Iro threw this on my list to watch when I did this last time, better late than never right?
[rating]4[/rating]
Big Trouble In Little China
Feel pretty good. I'm not, uh, I'm not scared at all. I just feel kind of... feel kind of invincible...
...and boy did Kurt Russell feel invincible during that scene. A quick listen to the commentary track on the dvd is a pleasant surprise.
Truck driver Jack Burton, played by long time friend and collaborator of Carpenter, Kurt Russell, arrives in Chinatown and agrees to help out an old friend. But his old friend's fiancee is kidnapped, and this leads the pair down a mythical and dangerous road.
This isn't my favourite John Carpenter film, nor is it my favourite John Carpenter/Kurt Russell collaboration. Yet, it is still one hell of a fun and entertaining film. The film moves at an incredible pace and is never short on action. John Carpenter is responsible for the better half of the cheesy 80's. Mostly in his horror genre, which I am a fan of. After all, he is the master of terror, right? Yet, Big Trouble In Little China is such an odd film for him to take on that it makes a perfect fit. Does that make sense? No? Oh well.
Russell and Carpenter are great together, you can feel the chemistry between the two, even though one is always behind the camera. Russell gives us his wise ass shtick as Burton and the dialogue is great for this character. Russell makes one bad ass character here to go along with his Snake Plissken, another character that involves Carpenter.
Big Trouble In Little China is funny, action packed and is a joy to watch. It's absurdity adds to the level of cheese and awesomeness. Iro threw this on my list to watch when I did this last time, better late than never right?
[rating]4[/rating]
M
mark f
Guest
Show of Hands: Who here has watched the 2010 The Wolfman? I certainly haven't, but I will.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 57: June 26th, 2010
Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince
Pacing issues aside, this film is an improvement.
Harry is in his sixth year at Hogwarts and discovers a book that belongs to someone who called themselves the Half Blood Prince. Dumbledore asks Harry to get closer to the new potions teacher, Slughorn, in order to unlock new mysteries about Voldemort.
To me it seems that the films that have come after The Goblet of Fire are just build up to the finale. The theme, story structure and style are all different and neither film (Order of the Phoenix or Half Blood Prince) seem to have a main antagonist or mission for the kids to do. Instead they are a build up of events that will lead to a destructive and emotional ending for our characters that hit the screen in 2001. Each film prior, in some way, can stand on their own. These films cannot. They rely on the previous material so heavily that people who watch it without prior knowledge of events will most certainly be lost in the vast amount of detail that goes on.
Half Blood Prince is the better film, compared to the boring and uninteresting Order of the Phoenix. This one gives us a little bit more mystery and one of the biggest 'oh my god' moments of the books. The film doesn't have as much emotional weight as the book does, this is due to a lot of the material missing. Specifically the big battle that was suppose to take place at the end. The filmmakers said they left it out because they didn't want to take away from the battle at the end of the next film. I call B.S. The Two Towers had an important battle that was grand, only to be outdone by the next film. Why can't this series do the same?
The film clocks in around 2 and a half hours. It's pretty long and a lot of the scenes drag on. We stay too long on the uninteresting moments and too few minutes are given to the ones that we care about. The filmmakers have a lot to juggle with this series and the decisions made earlier to exclude material might hurt them in the long run. The changes made to the films don't hurt it, only if you are a die hard fan that wants every word translated to the screen. Since the day of adaptations we've seen countless films leave material out. It's expected, so people need to get over it. It's one thing to leave out little details, but for me, it's another to totally ignore the battle sequence.
Harry and the other kids are getting better with every film. I absolutely hated both Harry and Ron in the earlier films. While they can still be irritating, they have improved greatly over the course of the films. The same cannot be said for another book to film adaptation that have teenage girls moist thinking about Vampires and Werewolves. The improvement comes from people who really care about the craft of film-making. Every cast member is British and when you are surrounded by people like Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, to name a few, the pressure to do well is more apparent. As the series goes on, regulars like Hagrid are dumbed down to cameo roles, unfortunate.
The film looks great and the special effects are still strong as is the ability to adapt such a large book. I would personally add more stuff and take away others. The importance of the Half Blood Prince and why/who he is, is left alone. The reveal is there but again, no reason for a why. Each additional character is great, last year we were given the love to hate Dolores Umbridge, this time we get the lovable Horace Slughorn. He has a few comedic scenes and a key moment in the film that helps Harry and Dumbledore with their cause.
The Half Blood Prince seems like a more put together film than Order of the Phoenix. The complaints I've heard are all regarding the material that is missing. Yes, while some of it was indeed needed in the film, it doesn't make it bad. I could do with less Quidditch after seeing it for 9 years, focus more on the emotions of the characters and the weight of their actions and less on the stuff we've seen before a hundred times. If you are going by the movies only, this one is one of the better ones. Despite the film's missed opportunity at the ending, it stands as one of the better additions to the series. Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favourite though.
[rating]3.5[/rating]
Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince
Pacing issues aside, this film is an improvement.
Harry is in his sixth year at Hogwarts and discovers a book that belongs to someone who called themselves the Half Blood Prince. Dumbledore asks Harry to get closer to the new potions teacher, Slughorn, in order to unlock new mysteries about Voldemort.
To me it seems that the films that have come after The Goblet of Fire are just build up to the finale. The theme, story structure and style are all different and neither film (Order of the Phoenix or Half Blood Prince) seem to have a main antagonist or mission for the kids to do. Instead they are a build up of events that will lead to a destructive and emotional ending for our characters that hit the screen in 2001. Each film prior, in some way, can stand on their own. These films cannot. They rely on the previous material so heavily that people who watch it without prior knowledge of events will most certainly be lost in the vast amount of detail that goes on.
Half Blood Prince is the better film, compared to the boring and uninteresting Order of the Phoenix. This one gives us a little bit more mystery and one of the biggest 'oh my god' moments of the books. The film doesn't have as much emotional weight as the book does, this is due to a lot of the material missing. Specifically the big battle that was suppose to take place at the end. The filmmakers said they left it out because they didn't want to take away from the battle at the end of the next film. I call B.S. The Two Towers had an important battle that was grand, only to be outdone by the next film. Why can't this series do the same?
The film clocks in around 2 and a half hours. It's pretty long and a lot of the scenes drag on. We stay too long on the uninteresting moments and too few minutes are given to the ones that we care about. The filmmakers have a lot to juggle with this series and the decisions made earlier to exclude material might hurt them in the long run. The changes made to the films don't hurt it, only if you are a die hard fan that wants every word translated to the screen. Since the day of adaptations we've seen countless films leave material out. It's expected, so people need to get over it. It's one thing to leave out little details, but for me, it's another to totally ignore the battle sequence.
Harry and the other kids are getting better with every film. I absolutely hated both Harry and Ron in the earlier films. While they can still be irritating, they have improved greatly over the course of the films. The same cannot be said for another book to film adaptation that have teenage girls moist thinking about Vampires and Werewolves. The improvement comes from people who really care about the craft of film-making. Every cast member is British and when you are surrounded by people like Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, to name a few, the pressure to do well is more apparent. As the series goes on, regulars like Hagrid are dumbed down to cameo roles, unfortunate.
The film looks great and the special effects are still strong as is the ability to adapt such a large book. I would personally add more stuff and take away others. The importance of the Half Blood Prince and why/who he is, is left alone. The reveal is there but again, no reason for a why. Each additional character is great, last year we were given the love to hate Dolores Umbridge, this time we get the lovable Horace Slughorn. He has a few comedic scenes and a key moment in the film that helps Harry and Dumbledore with their cause.
The Half Blood Prince seems like a more put together film than Order of the Phoenix. The complaints I've heard are all regarding the material that is missing. Yes, while some of it was indeed needed in the film, it doesn't make it bad. I could do with less Quidditch after seeing it for 9 years, focus more on the emotions of the characters and the weight of their actions and less on the stuff we've seen before a hundred times. If you are going by the movies only, this one is one of the better ones. Despite the film's missed opportunity at the ending, it stands as one of the better additions to the series. Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favourite though.
[rating]3.5[/rating]
H
honeykid
Guest
Hey, that was all that film had going for it, though I still enjoyed it more than Aliens.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 34: June 4th, 2010
Shark Tale
Big Name Stars Don't Make The Film Any Better.
A mafia film of sorts, set underwater and with fish. Will Smith is Oscar, a fish that lies about killing a shark. The shark was actually killed by a dropped anchor, yet Oscar was at the scene and is now known as the Sharkslayer. Mob Boss Robert DeNiro hears about his son's death and takes matters into his own hands, this doesn't bode well for Oscar.
Shark Tale at first glance seems to be a mere rip off of Finding Nemo. The Pixar film that had fish as their main characters was charming, funny and adventurous. It's not fair to compare the two, since this film lacks all of those ingredients. Shark Tale instead relies on pop-culture references to get the adults smirking and the bright colourful fish to get the kids wanting the toys. The story, the animation and the fun are all below the bar. With every film that is released by Dreamworks, the inevitable will happen. People will compare it to Pixar. Pixar is simply in another league, they seem to care about their stories and characters and not just having a bunch of people cash in on the current craze.
Shark Tale has an impressive cast, if this were a live action dramatic film, starring Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, Robert DeNiro and was directed by Scoresese, then we might have a masterpiece on our hands. Alas, the actors of this world think that just because they lend their voice to an animated character, that their job is half done for them. Jack Black works in this film, even DeNiro, who plays up on his past roles. Jolie, Zellweger and Smith do not. They have nothing to add to the film that some nameless actress/actor could have done.
There is no sense of adventure. We are trapped under the sea instead of exploring the depths of this world. It was interesting to see the fish life here, but I'm sure we've all seen creative takes on modern life in a film that has an odd setting, The Flinstones is famous for this.
I still hear people talking about Finding Nemo today, hell even older animated films like Toy Story, but Shark Tale seemed to have faded the next day after the release. It's not memorable to kids, nor will adults find any real charm or wit. The film tries to hard with a lot of the jokes and references that it becomes tiresome.
Shark Tale fails because it would rather have big name stars on the poster, than a tangible and interesting story. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, what matters most in a film is the story. Sure, it can be done before, but as long as the story teller and the story telling is good and has my interest, I'm game. Shark Tale did none of this and it felt lazy, much like the cast.
[rating]2[/rating]
Shark Tale
Big Name Stars Don't Make The Film Any Better.
A mafia film of sorts, set underwater and with fish. Will Smith is Oscar, a fish that lies about killing a shark. The shark was actually killed by a dropped anchor, yet Oscar was at the scene and is now known as the Sharkslayer. Mob Boss Robert DeNiro hears about his son's death and takes matters into his own hands, this doesn't bode well for Oscar.
Shark Tale at first glance seems to be a mere rip off of Finding Nemo. The Pixar film that had fish as their main characters was charming, funny and adventurous. It's not fair to compare the two, since this film lacks all of those ingredients. Shark Tale instead relies on pop-culture references to get the adults smirking and the bright colourful fish to get the kids wanting the toys. The story, the animation and the fun are all below the bar. With every film that is released by Dreamworks, the inevitable will happen. People will compare it to Pixar. Pixar is simply in another league, they seem to care about their stories and characters and not just having a bunch of people cash in on the current craze.
Shark Tale has an impressive cast, if this were a live action dramatic film, starring Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, Robert DeNiro and was directed by Scoresese, then we might have a masterpiece on our hands. Alas, the actors of this world think that just because they lend their voice to an animated character, that their job is half done for them. Jack Black works in this film, even DeNiro, who plays up on his past roles. Jolie, Zellweger and Smith do not. They have nothing to add to the film that some nameless actress/actor could have done.
There is no sense of adventure. We are trapped under the sea instead of exploring the depths of this world. It was interesting to see the fish life here, but I'm sure we've all seen creative takes on modern life in a film that has an odd setting, The Flinstones is famous for this.
I still hear people talking about Finding Nemo today, hell even older animated films like Toy Story, but Shark Tale seemed to have faded the next day after the release. It's not memorable to kids, nor will adults find any real charm or wit. The film tries to hard with a lot of the jokes and references that it becomes tiresome.
Shark Tale fails because it would rather have big name stars on the poster, than a tangible and interesting story. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, what matters most in a film is the story. Sure, it can be done before, but as long as the story teller and the story telling is good and has my interest, I'm game. Shark Tale did none of this and it felt lazy, much like the cast.
[rating]2[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 65: July 4th, 2010
After Hours
What is the very worst night you ever had...?
If I had to pick one director that is my all time favourite, it would have to be Mr. Martin Scorsese.
An ordinary guy has the worst night of his life after he agrees to meet up with a girl he met at a coffee shop. Thing go from bad to worse as the night goes on.
Even though Scorsese is my favourite director, I have my doubts about some of his films. Not everyone is perfect. I had my doubts about this film, I wasn't sure I would like it. To be fair though, I had no idea what it was about. It was one of those, judge a book by its cover situations. So here is a life lesson for the young ones out there, I'm sure you've never heard this one before. "Never judge a book by it's cover".
When you have a film resume like Scorsese does, its easy for a film such as this to get lost in the mix. When you have films like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and his Oscar winning film The Departed, it's hard to stand out. So I take an appreciation to the little films he does that are in my opinion just as strong as his other work, but never seem to get the recognition. I really dig Bringing Out The Dead and After Hours is another film that surprised me quite a bit.
There is an old saying for writing a script. You want to take your character, make him climb a tree and while he is up there, throw rocks at him. Eventually you let him down. This is suppose to be like a story, the character sees a challenge, tries to overcome it, sees conflict and eventually the falling action is resolved. With After Hours, Scorsese keeps our character up in that tree and continues to throw rocks at him no matter what.
I really like the New York feel this film has, even if it is outdated today. The streets act as characters themselves. Settings in Scorsese films tend to do that, look at his latest flick Shutter Island. After Hours has our main character, who is kind of a jerk at times, suck in tough situations, that only get worse as the night goes on. I kept thinking to myself, what would I do in that situation.
For a film with no action, it is pretty suspenseful. The whole film is the reaction of characters to certain things. Most of it is negativity towards our character. Not only does this film stand as one of Scorsese's most underrated films, I'd say it's underrated in general. I never hear anyone talk about it and when I mention it to someone, they just seem to have a blank look on their face. After Hours should and needs to be seen by more people. It's an entertaining movie from a master filmmaker.
[rating]4[/rating]
After Hours
What is the very worst night you ever had...?
If I had to pick one director that is my all time favourite, it would have to be Mr. Martin Scorsese.
An ordinary guy has the worst night of his life after he agrees to meet up with a girl he met at a coffee shop. Thing go from bad to worse as the night goes on.
Even though Scorsese is my favourite director, I have my doubts about some of his films. Not everyone is perfect. I had my doubts about this film, I wasn't sure I would like it. To be fair though, I had no idea what it was about. It was one of those, judge a book by its cover situations. So here is a life lesson for the young ones out there, I'm sure you've never heard this one before. "Never judge a book by it's cover".
When you have a film resume like Scorsese does, its easy for a film such as this to get lost in the mix. When you have films like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and his Oscar winning film The Departed, it's hard to stand out. So I take an appreciation to the little films he does that are in my opinion just as strong as his other work, but never seem to get the recognition. I really dig Bringing Out The Dead and After Hours is another film that surprised me quite a bit.
There is an old saying for writing a script. You want to take your character, make him climb a tree and while he is up there, throw rocks at him. Eventually you let him down. This is suppose to be like a story, the character sees a challenge, tries to overcome it, sees conflict and eventually the falling action is resolved. With After Hours, Scorsese keeps our character up in that tree and continues to throw rocks at him no matter what.
I really like the New York feel this film has, even if it is outdated today. The streets act as characters themselves. Settings in Scorsese films tend to do that, look at his latest flick Shutter Island. After Hours has our main character, who is kind of a jerk at times, suck in tough situations, that only get worse as the night goes on. I kept thinking to myself, what would I do in that situation.
For a film with no action, it is pretty suspenseful. The whole film is the reaction of characters to certain things. Most of it is negativity towards our character. Not only does this film stand as one of Scorsese's most underrated films, I'd say it's underrated in general. I never hear anyone talk about it and when I mention it to someone, they just seem to have a blank look on their face. After Hours should and needs to be seen by more people. It's an entertaining movie from a master filmmaker.
[rating]4[/rating]
C
Classicqueen13
Guest
Thank you! Even as a kid, I didn't like Shark Tale and never got what there was to like about it
T
thracian dawg
Guest
One down, 364 left to go.
There's no way to you can keep up this pace. It made me tired just reading this.
There's no way to you can keep up this pace. It made me tired just reading this.
W
WBadger
Guest
One of my favorite Hitchcock films, great review.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 36: June 5th, 2010
The Breakfast Club
The Ultimate Teen Flick?
A group of kids are sent to detention on a Saturday for various reasons. They are all different, from the nerd, the jock, the rebel, the princess and the weirdo. These kids manage to find out things about each other and themselves while serving detention.
Even though I was born in 1987, two years after the film was released, I can relate to it. That's what makes The Breakfast Club so damn good, kids generations later can still relate to the characters and their problems. John Hughes is the one person in the film industry who got what teenagers desired, were scared of and felt. The man was/is a legend and the 80's belonged to him. The Breakfast Club is one of my favourites from him. Planes, Trains and Automobiles still takes the top spot, but The Breakfast Club has more of an emotional connection to the viewer.
The cast, also known as the Brat Pack, do a wonderful job filling in their high school clich
The Breakfast Club
The Ultimate Teen Flick?
A group of kids are sent to detention on a Saturday for various reasons. They are all different, from the nerd, the jock, the rebel, the princess and the weirdo. These kids manage to find out things about each other and themselves while serving detention.
Even though I was born in 1987, two years after the film was released, I can relate to it. That's what makes The Breakfast Club so damn good, kids generations later can still relate to the characters and their problems. John Hughes is the one person in the film industry who got what teenagers desired, were scared of and felt. The man was/is a legend and the 80's belonged to him. The Breakfast Club is one of my favourites from him. Planes, Trains and Automobiles still takes the top spot, but The Breakfast Club has more of an emotional connection to the viewer.
The cast, also known as the Brat Pack, do a wonderful job filling in their high school clich