Movie Chat

[weezaard]

Out of no where I will appear, and say, "you said 'flat' to much."

I do like your critiques though. ~Silent Reader

[Calistoknight]

I do like your critiques though. ~Silent Reader

I also wanted to say that I enjoy your reviews/critiques also Dong Zhou, even if I don't actually add anything to the conversations I just want you to know you have fans secretly cheering you on!

[Dong Zhou]

Thank you weezaard and Zun Fei, I appreciate it.

I do use the flat too much, I agree. Should think of another word for it

[Dong Zhou]

Just realized how long it was since updated this. Lately: an Ealing comedy revamp, a few films I didn't finish, a film about Chibi, a drama and a children's spy-comedy.

Tried Muppets from Space but couldn't get into it, though nice to see the Muppets again. Also tried Knights of the Round Table, lovely colors including a nice purple covered horse but absolutely dreadful delivery of their lines made me turn off.

St Trinian's

A reboot of the Ealing comedy series, which were based on works by the satirical cartoonist Ronald Searle. Written by Piers Ashworth, Nick Moorcroft, Jamie Minoprio and Jonathan M. Stern, produced and directed by Oliver Parker and Barnaby Thompson. Music by Charlie Mole, cinematography by Gavin Finney and editing by Alex Mackie (latest film). Premise: Annabelle Fritton (Talulah Riley) is taken by her father Carnaby (Rupert Everett) from Cheltenham Ladies' College to join her aunt Camilla's (Rupert Everett) infamous and near bankrupt St Trinian's school. As she struggles to settle into the anarchic school, the new hard-line Minister of Education Geoffrey Thwaites (Colin Firth) decides to make an example of the worst performing schools: like St Trinian's.

I have watched the five previous films and I found them to have a good theme, nicely amusing and a pleasurable thing to watch for an afternoon. Nothing more then that so perhaps not the audience this was intended for and had mixed feelings about watching the reboot. I had enjoyed Oliver Parker and Barnaby Thompson's adaptations of Oscar Wilde plays, very fond of An Ideal Husband, but both were flawed and amusing.

Music was good, the choice of song or music did seem to add to the mood though my sister found it increasingly annoying, a really enjoyable ending song. It felt like the creators captured the spirit of the original films and its sense of humor, updating it a bit. There were plenty of nods to the past, like Rupert Everett playing the headmistress and her brother in the way the late Alastair Sim did, but also nods to films the cast had been in, like Pride and Prejudice references. The fans may appreciate those nods but there is plenty for those who haven't watched the original films. The humor is not laugh out loud funny but found it consistently worked so was often amused. Not all of the story knitted well together, early on it particularly felt like it was jumping from theme to theme, and though it had a decent main story, several elements felt underdeveloped or seemed to vanish, only sometimes popping back. Film started well and was amusing, characters quickly linked up well, good atmosphere but as said earlier, did suffer from feeling like it jumped from theme to theme. It did settle down into a more coherent story but there was a long middle passage which became rather boring, it still retained the sense of humor but the plot failed to be of interest. Felt they overused the twins Tara & Tania (Cloe and Holly Mackie) during that part. Thankfully it found its feet again, the story becoming more intresting and the character moments returning. The cast did a good job throughout.

One problem I did have with the film was its use of the ladies... looks. The old films did have older students who used their charms for humors/story sake without being overtly/uncomfortably sexual. This film carried that on, particularly with the Posh Totty group, and carefully did some of "this could go badly wrong" moments so keeping it funny without making me uneasy. Which they then waste by inappropriate camera shots, "teasingly" looking up skirts and eyeing up thighs in stockings. Also didn't like Annabelle Fritton's outfit in second half of the film for this reason.

Overall: Bar unease over some of the leering camera-work, a pleasant and amusing film that gave a nod to the past without being hidebound by it.
6.0/10

---

Red Cliff

Watched the western version which tries to push the two films into one.

I liked the start: a decent explanation of the situation by the narrator, clear show of who is good and who is evil, spectacular views, entertaining and inventive battles, some decent scenes not involving battle with good dialog. Scenes did seem to jump a bit from one to the other though and it seemed very selective of using captions to introduce a character like "Cao Cao, Han Prime Minister." but not Emperor Xian. Which felt a little harsh. In the case of Lu Su, felt a bad move to have him involved for several minutes with no introduction at all. I had been interested in how they would handle certain issues, felt like Good allies vs evil Cao Cao was fine at first but grew more and more ridiculous, Cao Cao was clearly intelligent but the good vs evil thing became rather too one sided for my tastes. The Zhuge Liang/Zhou Yu thing was far better done, one music scene aside, and enjoyed watching their relationship develop, felt nobody got harmed by the film's portrayal.

Film retained the eye for the spectacular shot. I liked the early battles becuase they didn't follow the history/novel strictly so could throw up a surprise and I liked those changes, it mixes action scenes nicely with scenes from outside the battle and the fights got my blood going even with the hammer-horror blood. I did find it amusing when generals kept running into battle with no weapon in hand and relied on grabbing a sword or spear from a foe, was a bit too over-the top. Unfortunately, by the time of the climatic Chi Bi battle, I had got bored of the fight scenes and I never felt particularly interested as I watched the battle unfold. The social scenes started well but became hit and miss, very good in the rare moments with humor, good dialog but main romance didn't click together and the scenes with Cao Cao didn't tend to work for me.

Film became far less intresting for me once it moved towards final battle and was bored for the first part of the last half hour. Less bored during the last 15 minutes but that was due to the film becoming unintentionally ridiculous, left me laughing my head off. End song/poem was very nice so at least the credits left the film on a high.

Overall: Started well but grew bored of the battle scenes and ended very very badly.
5.5./10

---

Black Snake Moan

Wasn't a fan of the music, which became a problem near the end, felt the voices could be too quite but was impressed by the make-up when Rae was battered, loved the camera work during one scene. Initially found that each scene was strong but when it changed to the next scene, I seemed to lose interest until that new scene built up. Not sure why and after awhile, I didn't have those gaps of disinterest. This is a film with very strong language, voilence and contains adult material but done it in such a way that I wasn't too uncomfortable, it didn't feel exploitive but an important part of the tale and the characters. Unlike the poster which does the film a great disservice. The unease I felt when watching the film was from two well crafted themes: from an action of Lazarus to Rae and from small hints that something dark lies behind Rae's promiscuity. The former made me worry where things were heading, despite Lazarus seeming fairly kind, as there were a number of ways that could go and the latter meant any Rae seduction or other action along those lines was clouded by the thought of what had driven her to this. Ricci can make a reasonable seductress but any feelings I had were always dampened by what little I knew/suspected.

Ricci and Jackson put in very good performances and combine well, they both fit into their roles and the contradictions within them. I initially found Lazarus and Rae to be somewhat unlikeable but didn't realize till the film was over that they had really grown on me. While well supported by side characters like paster R.L, it is the relationship and struggles of the two main characters that drive the film along. It doesn't quite hit the emotional heights at times but it was very intresting and enjoyable to watch. Unfortunately, once it takes away the two uneasy themes in the end phase, I found it got less and less intresting. More music for me not to enjoy and a sense the film was trying to wrap itself up, not giving certain moments enough chance to have an impact. There was one scene very near the end that made me smile but the general failure to quite have the emotional punch did hinder the last half an hour while one of the actors performance dipped in an otherwise very good performance from the cast.

Overall: A film that used two unsettling themes well and built up an intresting relationship between it's two main characters. Ending a little disappointing.
7.0/10

---

G-Force


It is a mediocre opening as it sets itself up and I got some sense of what was to come: good animation, Darwin not being the most likeable character ever, Kelli Garner as Marcie not giving the best performance of her career, solid enough story and a few funny lines. The film picked up rapidly and became increasingly funny, it was an amusing film with good lines, a sense of the absurd and had some fun characters that it used well, like Agent's Carter and Trigstad or the guinea pig Hurley. It has one of the most amusing chase scenes I have seen for some time. When the film isn't being funny, the film is a little boring. The story doesn't always tie up the loose ends and has a few holes, not all the characters are intresting enough, the action isn't exciting and while I admired what they attempted with the boss fight, I found myself increasingly bored. Thankfully then, there is a lot of humor and the film has a nice spirit about it. Cast generally do a good job.

Overall: Funny but more for children then adults.
6.0/10

[Jin Shi]

Couldn't agree more with your Red Cliff review, never seen a movie start so strong and end so weak.

/another silent reader

[Dong Zhou]

Thanks Jin Shi

Two family films and a famous reboot.

Bedtime Stories

A Disney fantasy/comedy for children written by Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy (latest film as writer), produced by lead actor Adam Sandler, Andrew Gunn and Jack Giarraputo, directed by Adam Shankman (latest film as director). Music by Rupert Gregson-Williams, cinematography by Michael Barrett and editing by Tom Costain and Michael Tronick. Premise: Marty Bronson (Jonathan Pryce) narrates a tale about a motel he had loved but was forced to sell to Barry Nottingham (Richard Griffiths), who promised that Marty's son Skeeter (first timer Thomas Hoffman as child, Adam Sandler as adult) would take over the running of the hotel when he grew up. Several years later, Skeeter is working in the hotel as a janitor when he agrees to help look after niece Bobbi (Laura Ann Kesling making debut) and nephew Patrick (Jonathan Morgan Heit, first film) at nights for sister Wendy (first timer Abigail Droeger as child, Courteney Cox as adult) as she looks for a job in Arizona. Skeeter decides to give them a bed time story like his father had done before him and soon discovers these tales come true.

This is a film which should be used for how you shouldn't write a story, too many times a twist or a decision the film makes feel arbitrary or just too ridiculous, even for a children's fantasy. Something will just deal with whatever the problems Skeeter and co are facing, no matter how big the problem and how illogical that help is, no explanation ever given. Despite my willingness to overlook some of these deus ex machina, it happens too often. What makes it more frustrating is that the stories turned into reality, which could easily get silly, are well handled. Yes, it is easier to give the stories adaptations more leeway but generally, it is done in a clever and amusing fashion, not always doing it in the way expected, with a sense that the film knows this is a bit silly and having fun with Skeeter knowing something of what will happen and those around him being ignorant.

The romances work quite well, partly due to general likeability of the characters, but aren't written well. The main one is hardly a surprise but one of the characters is such a jerk to the other that when the romance does come, it feels like the film has drastically changed direction with a main relationship. Another isn't built up at all, the couple are thrown together for a scene or two then left completely till the end. Again, the romance worked, they had some fun moments in those scenes and I was happy the characters got together but really felt rather random.

Looks nice, not a fan of the music. The quality of the film is a bit patchy, every now and again there is a bit a duff bit where things aren't very intresting but usually recovers quickly enough. The end part, as well as unrealistic plotting, didn't work very well despite some nice ideas so film does dwindle in enjoyment for the last fifteen minutes or so. Yet I enjoyed the film for 3 main reasons: 1) It was warm-hearted and likeable, I liked the message for the kids. 2) It was funny, using dialogue, characters and situations to produce a laugh. Though they do overuse the originally charming Gerbil Buggsy and they get a little crude with him. 3) The characters were well used and generally likeable. This is not a film with brilliantly fleshed out characters, indeed some like Aspen (Lucy Lawless) and Wendy are only really there for amusement and plot purposes respectively. Yet while each character may fit certain roles rather than be real humans, they help make the humour work and I easily warmed to most of them. Even the villain Kendall (Guy Pearce) was strangely likeable in his own way, the children were adorable, Jill (Keri Russell) grew on me and even the spoof Paris Hilton, the socialite Violet Nottingham (Teresa Palmer) had grown on me by her second scene. Oddly enough, the two main male characters were more problematic. Best friend Mickey (Russell Brand) is initially just not very funny but he eventually grew on me, his good nature helped and the jokes got funnier. Skeeter on the other hand comes across as rather a jerk for a considerable part of the film and it is hard to root for him for quite awhile.

Overall: Poor plotting but warm hearted, likeable characters and funny.
5.5/10

---

The Spiderwick Chronicles

A fantasy film adaptation of the many books in the series by Holly Black and Tony DiTerlizzi, adapted by producer Karey Kirkpatrick (latest film in both roles), David Berenbaum (latest movie) and author John Sayles. Directed by Mark Waters, produced by Krikpatrick, Mark Canton, Larry J. Franco and Ellen Goldsmith-Vein (first film), cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, music by James Horner and editing by Michael Kahn. Premise: Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) frantically finishes his work on magical beings before vanishing, his daughter Lucinda (Joan Plowright) locked up for saying he was taken away by fairies. 80 years after Arthur vanished, Lucinda's niece Helen Grace (Mary-Louise Parker) has separated and moves into the house with her three children: the fencer Mallory (Sarah Bolger), the pacifist nerd Simon and his troubled twin Jared (both by Freddie Highmore). Soon Jared finds things aren't quite right...

My recording stuttered a few times before a big animated moment but the visuals were very impressive throughout. For me, they were the best parts of the film as I rapidly grew bored. The early scene in the car was nice, quickly gave a flavour of the family dynamics and the characteris but after that? My main problem was Jared. He was clearly going through a difficult time and he is young, so perhaps the problem is with me but I found him unlikeable. He acted like a jerk for awhile and even when he becomes nicer, he does revert to the unlikeable side every now and again. When it came to a point where he realized something horrible, instead of sympathising I felt tempted to applaud him for finally working it out. He also did a lot of stupid things, as in endanger everyone by ignoring advice and taking the dumbest route possible. So naturally, he becomes the leader of the group Now ok, the immature idiot becoming the leader is fine normally, usually they mature or offer something different but this felt forced. That the film had decided who would be leader and that was that. Mallory had seemed more the leader at first, she was hard working, had some brains (more then Jared, not as much as Simon), some leadership whereas Simon was clearly a follower but they seemed to weaken her as the film went on. In the darkest recesses of my, and my sister's mind, the thought did occur that it was the female they weakened for the male.

Mallory and Simon are initially more likeable then Jared but both have their jerk moments, Simon fades out while Mallory gets usurped by Jared. I had no reason to get behind them as the film grew on and there was little else the film did that got me excited. There was tension in some of the early scenes but that soon faded, the action was boring, the villains never felt scary or threatening, little humour. There is a nice basic idea behind the film but it doesn't look like the fantasy aspects are used as well as they should be, some decent side stories that had a bit more emotional punch for my sister then an already bored me. Side characters like Thimbletack (voiced by Martin Short), the slightly creepy Hogsqueal (Seth Rogen) and plot device Helen were more likeable then the main characters and their presence on screen usually provided a welcome dose of humour but felt like more could have been done with them. Voice work was good, Sarah Bolger and Freddie Highmore were shaky at first but grew into their roles, Mary-Louise Parker was decent but was overshadowed by my memories of her eye-catching performance in Angels in America.

Overall: Bored but animation was impressive. My sister felt action/some fantasy bits were underwhelming but solid story, actors, (and likeable) characters and good animation.
Me: 5.0/10. Sister: 6.0

---

Star Trek

A reboot of the famous sci-fi series, written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, directed and produced by J. J. Abrams with Damon Lindelof helping with production. Michael Giacchino did the music with the theme music from the late Alexander Courage, cinematography by Daniel Mindel, edited by both Mary Jo Markey and Maryann Brandon.

My star Trek experience is: watched and enjoyed the series Voyager, have a secret love for the cheesy fansong. My sister and my father both have more history with the show.

Visual effects quite impressive, I imagine they look better in a cinema, but it did feel like it was trying to show off in the space scenes, long slow looks at the ships and so on. Felt the film struggled to build a consistent rhythm for awhile, most scenes were good but when Kirk was alone or it went into action then I tended to get somewhat bored. This also became a problem near the end, I was initially pulled in by the dramatic tension but grew bored. However a lot of the film was fun, even I got some of the nods to the past, I enjoyed the humour and I liked most of the characters. I would have liked to have seen more of Spock's parents but I felt they balanced the cast well, concentrated on Spock and Kirk of course but gently introducing each of the other main members of the crew, though not always quite getting the balance right, and it felt like some camaraderie was being built but not too much. Kirk came across as a bit of jerk at times but his strengths combined with a fairly good nature and the charm of Chris Pine as Kirk. Spock could easily go wrong but they trod the fine line between emotion and logic, as did the excellent performance of Zachary Quinto. Story did what it needed to do, provide enjoyment, set up enough wiggle room for the reboot and set up the characters. Pacing was a little off near the end and overall story requires a little ability of suspending disbelief but it really set up well for the future.

Overall: Fun, good characters and humorous but with boring parts.
6.5/10

[Dong Zhou]

My films: One classic I got bored of, two family animated films and a classic Arthurian musical

Tried Singing in the Rain, liked it at first but grew bored. Elements of the humor I did like, particularly Lina Lamont's unrequited affections for Don Lockwood or the early Hollywood version of Lockwood's rise and the real version, others like the psychical comedy were not to my taste. Didn't like Kathy Selden and after the early scenes, I tired of Cosmo Brown's attempts at humor. Didn't feel anything for the romances and while the dances were impressive, I didn't get much enjoyment out of them. As for the songs, they failed to lift the film for me.

---

Ratatouille

An animated comedy/family film by Pixar, written by director/voice-actor Brad Bird (latest film as actor), co-director Jan Pinkava (only film) and Jim Capobianco, produced by Brad Lewis. Music by Michael Giacchino, cinematography by Sharon Calahan (latest film) and Robert Anderson, editing by Darren T. Holmes and Stan Webb. Premise: In France, a rat called Remy (comedian Patton Oswalt) has a finely developed taste-buds and sense of smell, he becomes a big fan of cook Auguste Gusteau (comedian Brad Garrett). When Remy's love of food causes his rat family to flee their home into the sewers, he gets separated and finds himself in Paris. Helped by the ghost of Gusteau, Remy then helps hopeless cook Alfredo Linguini (Lou Romano).

The animation is quite nice, enjoyed some of the views of Paris. The rest of the film is a lot of mediocre with a few good moments. The voice-acting is good but Janeane Garofalo's French accent for Colette Tatou is rather heavy at first, the main characters are decently constructed but the side characters are cringe-worthy stereotypes and it is hard not to want to punch Remy for awhile. For the most part the story is a bunch of decent ideas that are blandly told, it is just uninteresting to watch for most of the time. There is a sense of humor, particularly around the ghost of Auguste Gusteau and the restaurant owner Skinner (Ian Holm), those moments were a welcome relief. Only one character had any emotional impact with some moving scenes near the end and those brief scenes help lift the film.

Overall: Uninteresting bar the odd doses of humor. Some emotion at the end lifts the film score
5.5/10

---

Camelot

A musical adaption, the original was written by Alan Jay Lerner with music by Frederick Loewe, based on the book series "The Once and Future King" by T. H. White, Lerner helped adapt this to film. The music was adapted by Alfred Newman and Ken Darby, they won Oscars for it, produced by Jack Warner, directed by Joshua Logan, cinematography by Richard H. Kline and editing by Folmar Blangsted. Premise: King "Wart" Arthur (Richard Harris) knows he is facing Lancelot in battle (Franco Nero) and wonders to Merlin (Laurence Naismith) how things came to such a state. The wizard tells Arthur to think back to when he first met "Jenny" Guinevere (Vanessa Redgrave)...

Won Oscars not only for it's music but for costumes (John Truscott, first film) and the set (John Truscott, Edward Carrere and first-timer John Brown). The costumes were lovely for the most part though there was one horror, set looked a bit aged at the start but still does well. Didn't think Redgrave was always served well by the different hairstyles, some looked good on her but some of the 60s hairstyles did not and the heavy-eye makeup on Harris was notable. Was an early issue with lighting but otherwise fine.

It is a 3 hour film and for the first half, it is a camp comedy, using one-liners and songs like "The Simple Joys of Maidenhood" for a good time. Another being Lancelot's epic song to his own perfection! The songs caught the mood (apart from one a verse suddenly reappears out of nowhere), were catchy, humorous and are enjoyable. Harris sometimes overdoes the comedic expressions but his gentle-singing style worked for his character, Redgrave more got the balance of when to play it straight and when to camp/sexy it up, she and Nero sing very well. The time flew by as the film seemed to refuse to take itself seriously and made a joke of a lot of things.

Yet it had carefully set itself up so when the mood changed from comedy to drama, it was ready. Only the doddery Pellinore (Lionel Jeffries) seemed a joke character by the end of the comedy section, we had seen that Lancelot was more then a strong braggart and had quickly grown to like him, but even Pellinore would grow into a real character. When I realized the jokes had stopped and that I hadn't heard a song for awhile, I did miss it and the film was never quite as strong a drama as it had been a comedy. There were flaws, sometimes the end of a scene or a song seemed to be mishandled and while I could see the intentions, it didn't quite work. The ending suffered from this, emotive and powerful stuff for quite awhile but would have been better cutting the last 10-20 seconds out. Though one potentially absurd scene was engrossing and extremely well pulled off. David Hemmings's Mordred looked too young, he seemed a schoolboy weasel rather then the big evil villain, there was also an issue of the confusing time-jumps. While the film wasn't as strong, it was still very good and Harris seemed to thrive better in the sadder role, while the main three of Harris, Redgrave and Nero had strong chemistry together. The songs were of a sadder note but were well crafted, may not have been the upbeat-catchy of old but instead had an emotional pull. The drama section of the film could be moving at times and managed to hold itself together for a long time before that strong, if slightly mishandled, ending.

My sister and I have a few films of various types, including Robin Hood, musicals, horrors and so on that we would love to see again every 10-15 years. This is the first King Arthur film that has entered the list for my sister, second for me if you count the excellent Sam Neill Merlin as film rather then a TV mini-series.

Overall: Hilarious for awhile, intresting drama for the second half. Good songs.
8.0/10

---

Monsters vs. Aliens

A family animation by Dreamworks, written by Directors Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon with help from Maya Forbes, Wallace Wolodarsky, Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger. Produced by Jill Hopper (latest film), Latifa Ouaou (first film as producer) and Lisa Stewart, music by Henry Pryce Jackman, editing by Joyce Arrastia (latest as lead producer) and Eric Dapkewicz. Premise: Susan Murphy (Reese Witherspoon) is hit by a meteorite at her wedding to weather reporter Derek Dietl (Paul Rudd) and she grows into a giantess before being captured by the army. Meanwhile, an alien called Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) is looking for that meteorite...

Animation is good, watched the 2D version, good voice-work. Takes awhile to get into, neither Susan or Derek come across as likeable for awhile and as my sister said "the jokes are too good for this movie." It did pick up general quality but I was not a fan of the action scenes and I never grew to be fond of Sarah or care for some of the characters. I did enjoy myself though, the movie was pleasant and had a lot of humour while I did like a few characters like Bob (Seth Rogan), the adorable Insectosaurus (Conrad Vernon) and the bumbling President Hathaway (Stephen Colbert). It was a pleasant and relaxing 90 minutes.

Overall: Funny
6.0/10

[Dong Zhou]

Been watching a lot of Globe Theater Productions of Shakespeare plays and the 25th anniversary of Phantom of the Opera but films since last post: The third of a video game movie franchise, tried a historical drama and a horror film

Tried A Man for All Seasons based on the late Robert Bolt's play about Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of Henry VIII and later a saint. Gave it 40 minutes before my sister and I gave up. Rich sets and costumes and conservations can be good, particularly between More (the late Paul Scofield) and Cardinal Wolsey (the late Orson Welles) or daughter Margaret (the late Susannah York). Yet there was always an element of stiffness to the whole thing and it didn't feel like intended formal stiffness. Also Scofield's More walked around as if he had a halo over his head.

I preferred, and I realize I will be burnt as a heretic to culture for this, the Tudors for their More (Jeremy Northam) and Wolsey (Sam Neill) felt more human and were more entertaining

---

BloodRayne: The Third Reich

The third in the video game films, written by first-timer Michael Nachoff, produced by Dan Clarke and the infamous director Uwe Boll, cinematography by Mathias Neumann, music by Jessica de Rooij and editing by Charles Ladmiral. Premise: Rayne (Natassia Malthe) is fighting Nazis and stops a train heading taking people to a Concentration camp. Joining up with freedom fighter Nathaniel (Brendan Fletcher) she accidentally turns Nazi commander Ekart Brand (Bloodrayne regular Michael Paré) into a vampire.

I have never played the Bloodrayne games but had seen the previous two films and quite liked them. Both were badly flawed but enjoyable, partly for those flaws admittedly, and Boll/Mathias Neumann had a good eye for a beautiful shot. There was still one or two good shots but this time, I didn't enjoy myself. Indeed, I came away with a bitter feeling in my mouth. Fighting the Nazis? Fair enough, reminded me vaguely of the first game and films have done that before. Using the Holocaust? Isn't the first film to do it but as soon as it went with a long opening of people in transport to camps, I felt uneasy. It didn't go as far as I feared thankfully but still... Medical experiments on the vampire also felt uneasy coming so soon after the long opening scene. The few gore bits felt ewww and felt unclean in the sex scenes. It was nothing where I felt the need to turn off but it left a taste once the credits started rolling.

As for the film quality, bar the odd good views and the performance of Safiya Kaygin, it was very poor. Even the look of Rayne seemed wrong, she had red hair in the games (to the best of my knowledge), when played by Kristanna Loken and when Natassia Malthe first played her, now she had black hair, a lot of cleavage and a really stupid hat. The plot was weak and just ended up laughing at the end phase though it did have one original touch. The first action scene was powder-puff and silly, they did improve on that but it was never exciting. The dialogue was poor and the delivery of the lines was even worse with Clint Howard's delivery so bad that it almost became amusing. The only exception was the brief role for Safiya Kaygin, decent delivery and she even managed to shine during one scene with what she did with her eyes. Willam Belli wasn't as bad as most of the rest to be fair to him.

Overall: Poor+a bitter taste after watching it.
3.0/10

---

Final Destination

The first of the horror series based on Jeffrey Reddick's story (first time) and adapted by him, producer Glen Morgan and director James Wrong (first time as director). Morgan was helped by Warren Zide and Craig Perry, cinematography by Robert McLachlan, music by the late Shirley Walker, editing by James Coblentz. Premise: Seniors at a highschool are going to France for a school-trip but Alex (Devon Sawa) feels jittery and starts to get visions of the plane crashing. His panic gets five other pupils and a teacher thrown off the plane: best friend Tod Waggner (Chad Donella), jock Carter Horton (Kerr Smith) and his girlfriend Terry Chaney (Amanda Detmer), Billy Hitchcock (Seann William Scott), loner Clear Rivers (Ali Larter) and teacher Valerie Lewton (Kristen Cloke). The plane to France explodes, killing all on it and as the survivors struggle to come to terms with what happened, they start to die.

The title credits are inventive but overall, it is a slow starter (not helped by it's love of toilets) as the film takes its time to set the story and the world, it's pieces take awhile to gel together into a decent whole. It wasn't a scary film, though my sister found the title sequence enjoyably chilling, as it relied on building suspense before the scary kill but, for me, that didn't work. There was only one brief moment of suspense and the build up to each kill was met either with boredom or "I wonder how such and such will lead to death". In terms of kills, the plane stuff was impressive but then the early kills were meh. The mystic element didn't work for me, it just seemed a bit silly. Then the kills change tack, it is mystic yes but it's more clever and it's over the top set ups leading to some impressive and equally over the top deaths which were throughly entertaining.

This film has a great overall theme and several neat idea's, just not always quite executed right. It takes awhile for the "mystic" stuff to work, I felt it undermined the early deaths, but when it did fit in, and credit partly to the brilliantly over-the-top performance of Tony Todd for this, the film suddenly seemed to pick up. Willingness not to follow the code of who dies first, generally avoids stereotype characters though perhaps not the deepest written characters ever, the film excellently uses survivor guilt on them all to affect their behavior. One romance works well, the characters connect and it is well written, the other just feels forced in and isn't built up at all properly. Acting is alright but not particularly good, bar Todd's enjoyable cameo, and tends to waver with Kristen Cloke's performance falling apart near the end. Ending was very good.

Overall: Slow starter which became enjoyable but certainly think more can be done with the basic idea so looking forward to the sequel.
Both: 6.0/10

[Zhao Xiao]

Saw The Amazing Spider-Man and I really enjoyed it.

I think what I most liked about the film was the fact that Andrew Garfield (Spidey) looked the part. I'm sure that maybe on some level Tobey Maguire worked the whole big college nerd thing but I just couldn't imagine him actually being the guy jumping across roofs and beating guys silly. Garfield fits the role of high school loner/photography geek quite well, plus he's leaning more towards half-decent looking as opposed to Maguire... I dunno, I'm not saying all heroes have to radiant super sexy or something but its easier to like a protagonist if you knows it plausible for him to bag some hot babes. I'm not quite sure what the Gwen Stacey of the film is supposed to be; awkward but attractive nerd? Popular/smart girl? I couldn't tell but the romance between her and Peter is quite believable and cute.

SPOILERS
One inconsistency, as far as I'm concerned is the antagonist, The Lizard. At first I assumed Connors would be constantly fighting his Lizard alter-ego, trying to undo what was done to him, as he is a smart, compassionate scientist, but he quickly forgets that and plots world domination. So okay, fine, having an arm again has made him selfish, I can get that, and I can almost pretend he's had an Inner-Voice chatting to him this whole time (who randomly speaks in his head once in the whole film). But what i don't get is the fact that we've established that Connors has changed, he knows Spidey's identity and he wants to take over the world, so why, at the end of the film, does he decide to save Spidey's life? I mean, it makes no sense considering Connors had turned evil, right? I would have preferred maybe a wailing, broken Connors who mourned the loss of his super-predator enhancements and swearing vengeance against Spidey. It just didn't make sense at all. Maybe they were trying to emulate Spider-Man 2, with the troubled villain Otto Octavius? His mind, constantly battling the whispers of his A.I. tentacles?

But overall the film is 8/10 for me. I will def go see the next film, especially as it looks like a Norman Osborn/Green Goblin film!

[Dong Zhou]

Watched: My first Indiana Jones movie, a Dr Seuss based film, a historical romance and a spoof.

Peter O'Toole has retired. Not seen his most famous film but made an entertaining Henry II for Becket, the first half of the film is pretty much made worth watching by O'Toole' force of personality, then a less eye-catching but still charismatic performance as the same man in The Lion in Winter then as the sometimes creepy Maurice in Venus. Every time I have seen O'Toole, he has been excellent

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

My sister and I had never seen an Indiana Jones film before so when the latest one came out, it occurred to us that we should try to see the trilogy. Was nice to see the iconic boulder scene!

There was a lot wrong with the film. The first thing I noticed was the voice acting seemed... like it was being dubbed on and was poorly delivered during the first half. Not entirely sure if the cast got better or we just got used to the voice problems. The writing seems poor, maybe bits were cut out, but there seems to be plot holes, suspend your brains please moments or lacking a bit of consistency. The romance gets hit by a few thing: Marian's personality seems to shift somewhat to suit the need of the scenes, doesn't quite get built up properly as I felt more "she should go with Bellog " at times rather then Indiana and after a great romantic scene which pretty much made up for all of that, it followed up with a "What on...?" scene.

For all the flaws, it was a fun film. For example Marian and the romance, it was hard not to like her as she was a fun character, decently performed by Karen Allen, who clicked well with Indiana with some fun scenes and good lines. There is a fair bit of humor, the action is good bar one phase where it felt flat, it has an awesome monkey, the whole thing clicks well together. Allow the brain to relax and sure, the writing could be better, I have seen better from Ford, the late Denholm Elliott, Alfred Molina and John Rhys-Davies, but it has what I need from an action film. Good action, a sense of humor, intresting characters (I liked the contrast between Bellog and Indiana) who bounce off each other, good dialog, nice touches like the map. To the films credit, they even made the early exposition enjoyable. Overall ending phase went on a bit too long though it finished well with two good scenes. My sister greatly enjoyed the music near the end but felt action was poor throughout the film.

Overall: Grew more and more into the movie, fun despite it's story problems.
Me: 7.0/10, Sister: 6.0/10

---

Horton Hears A Who

From the Dr. Seuss book, adapted by Ken Daurio, Cinco Paul and Jeff Siergey (latest film as writer). Music by John Powell, editing by Tim Nordquist (latest film as sole editor), produced by Chris Wedge, first-timer Bruce Anderson and Bob Gordon in his latest film, directed by both Jimmy Hayward and Steve Martino (first film as director). Premise: In the Jungle of Nool, a tiny dust speck is pushed off a flower and when it passes elephant-teacher Horton (Jim Carrey), he hears a scream and rescues it. He gets in contract with one of those that lives on the speck, the Mayor of Whoville (Steve Carell), both will have to work together to get the speck somewhere safe.

At first, it seems a beautifully drawn, superbly voiced, fairly pleasant family film with jokes that are hit or miss for adults. The sort that gets a 6 or becomes slightly boring as time goes on. It was much more then that, though it remained beautifully drawn, superbly voiced including by narrator Charles Osgood, pleasant family film. Some of the writing, presumably the lines that were taken straight from the book, is poetic, it has some inventive idea's for both worlds, and the film drew us in, making us care both what happens to Horton and the Who's. It could mix poignancy with a humour that had got stronger, with some very good jokes and the adorable/strange Katie (Joey King). By the end, even though part of you suspects that a family film would never allow bad things to happen, it was able to build tension for it's climatic moment. Having done that, it's ending is so strange and out of nothing that it would wreck another film, for us it was hilarious.

Overall: Funny, warm family film that grows on you.
Me: 7.0, Sister: 8.0

---

The Young Victoria

Period drama/romance written by Julian Fellowes with the help of Alastair Bruce (first film) , the 5th Baron Aberdare, for historical advice, both now in the House of Lords, with Sandy Powell (won Academy award) hired for historically accurate costumes. Produced by Martin Scorsese, Graham King and Sarah, Duchess of York (first film), music by Ilan Eshkeri, cinematography by Hagen Bogdanski, editing by Jill Bilcock and Matt Garner, Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée. Premise: The elderly Hanoverian King of England, William IV (Jim Broadbent) has no legitimate child by his Queen Adelaide (Harriet Walter) so his heir is his teenage niece Victoria (Emily Blunt). Not yet of age, she is alarmingly controlled by her mother the Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and the mother's lover Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) and wishes to break free. In Belguim, her uncle King Leopold I's (Thomas Kretschmann) position remains fragile and he needs England's help so he trains his nephew Albert (Rupert Friend) to try and win her support and affection.

The history side of things is a mixed bag. It probably helps with advertising and standing out of the crowd, indeed I wonder if I would have watched it without the historical connection. The costumes and locations are excellent, in one case my sister got distracted by one of the beautiful props, and no doubt it helps having the story set out when writing. The political crises after Tory leader Sir Robert Peel (Michael Maloney) beat Whig leader Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) was short but highly entertaining to watch with both actors pulling of those scenes well and it did use some historical moments well. While generally historically accurate, it has one so utterly blatant, spectacular and unnecessary deviation that it jerked me out of the film. Trying to fit in all it wanted badly affected the pace, making transition between scenes seem jerky at times and ended up trying to fit in too much in the last half an hour, film would almost certainly have benefited from another half an hour to flesh things further after a certain major event. There were also times when it's portrayal or casting seemed odd to me, young Victoria seems to have remarkable self-awareness for a teenager and I can't say how accurate it is, but struggled to take her love of the poor as much more then the film trying to push her as a goodie. Paul Bettany seemed far too young to be Lord Melbourne and only turned on the charm at times. While it managed to flesh out some characters like the King or the Duke of Wellington (Julian Glover) in their small roles, there were too many and it could be puzzling working it if some were new characters or not. I got confused between the Duchess of Sutherland (Rachael Stirling) and Lady Flora Hastings (Genevieve O'Reilly) at one point

Leaving aside the history the dialogue is usually enjoyable with an ability to find humour in the scenes and there is charm outside the main couple as Victoria talks to her advisers like Melbourne or her aunt, as the young lady deals with the challenges in front of her. The little bits of banter between political foes or exchanges between Albert with his uncle the Belgian King, the adviser Baron Stockmar (Jesper Christensen) and his elder brother Ernest (Michiel Huisman) are enjoyable. The cast do a good job and it also has an adorable dog. See the film for the dog!

The key part that makes it so enjoyable is that it is a very enjoyable love story with two characters that link so well together, a charming romance and one that could suit any time and any place with a bit of adapting. Sure the story is familiar: boy and girl meet, fall in love, the course of love doesn't run smooth, eventually happiness but the old formula done right still works a treat. Victoria and Albert as a couple simply work together so well, enough similarities to draw them together and enough differences to stand out from each other. Neither Blunt or Friend put in the greatest displays of acting one will ever see but Blunt fills the character well and they click together on screen. Watching their romance develop, the twist and turns is intresting and can be very sweet. Their moments together, apart from the big non historical moment, feel realistic for their young characters and nearly always has charm. I was worried at one point that it might go too far but they again got the right mix, suiting the characters and making the moments sweet/charming, never risking tarnishing the mood. I just wish they had extended the last half hour to an hour, more time as their relationship develops onto the next level would have been nice though what they showed was entertaining.

Overall: Will watch this again in ten years. An enjoyable and sweet love story but jerky pacing.
Me: 7.5 Sister: 6.5

---

Hot Shots!

A comedy spoof written by the director Jim Abrahams and producer Pat Proft, helped in production by Bill Badalato. Music by Sylvester Levay, cinematography by Bill Butler and editing by Jane Kurson and Eric A. Sears. Premise: Topper Harley (Charlie Sheen) is an ace, but sacked, pilot haunted by the disgrace of his pilot father Leland "Buzz" Harley (Bill Irwin) but is recalled for a top secret project where his vital skills can be used.

I have never watched Top Gun, that main film it parodies, or one or two others that it likes to tease. Did see Two and Half Men when it was Sheen and Jon Cryer, though not when Ryan Stiles was in it, so did get some amusement from that.

I thought it was a funny film, simple as that. Good lines, a lovely song, the cast playing it for laughs. From the silliness during the title scene to the jokes in the ending credits, there was usually some joke being played. It was a bit hit and miss, the final action scene went over my head and tended to find the senile Admiral Thomas 'Tug' Benson (the late Lloyd Bridges) unfunny for most of it. Even when the jokes don't work, the film is pleasant enough. Plenty of enjoyable silliness and loved how the triangle between Harley, rival Kent Gregory (Cary Elwes) and the girl Ramada Thompson (Valeria Golino) parodies/skewers several action film romance stories.

Overall: Funny
7.0

[Zhao Xiao]

I saw The Dark Knight Rises last night. And I'm not going to rant or criticize the film, nor praise how 'inspiring' and earth shattering the movie was - I will simply say it was in my opinion an extremely satisfying end to the trilogy.

Its funny, I browsed the IMDB forums and fanboys were already arguing over whether it is the definitive end to the saga and, obviously, whether its better than Dark Knight (sigh). There was even a topic someone created where he spent probably 10,000 words citing why Nolan should have made the final film into Two Films.

I can't say my opinion is neutral. It's not. I enjoyed the film immensely. It did everything I wanted it to and gave me a little extra, but I will try anyhow not to make it too obvious...

I look at each film in the trilogy as a standalone. The first film is the origins. The second film is Batman's achievement/proof of his heroism. And the third is his end. Main reason for separating them out is so i don't let my opinions of the the others cloud my views of the one in question. I will say now I cast The Dark Knight from my mind. Some fanboys, which i find a little disturbing, can't seem to shake the Joker out of their heads. The reasons for their obsession are pretty obvious to everyone so i won't bother listing them but I will restate the fact that this fixation on Joker has jaded the success of Nolan's trilogy. I really and truly hope people will look on The Dark Knight Rises as a film in its own right and not a sequel to a fan-faved movie.

They literally went all out for the film. Massive crowd scenes, vehicle chases and intense visuals of the Gotham made it feel intensely epic. The action was by-the-book awesome. Nothing too spectacular but it wasnt really needed. Sometimes a simple scene is all you need. I think, though, the story was ambitious but entertaining. No spoilers here but seriously Gotham couldn't have a worse disaster (you thought the Joker was bad). Probably the best bit of the narrative was how it connected both previous film's plots together. You do really need to see the first two but you can still enjoy the third as a great epic tale of Batman's last battle.

I left the cinema happy, satisfied and still excited by the film's conclusion and the conclusion of the trilogy. I didn't leave thinking 'that's not how i wanted it to end', 'i don't understand...' or even 'damn Hollywood!' In my opinion it was a perfect ending to one of the best stories I've ever seen. Rises is how all trilogies should end.

[Cao Chao]

Spoilers . . .

I enjoyed it except for four bits. One, wtf is with Bane's death? That was ridiculously anti-climatic, even if there was an Urkel moment with Catwoman. Two, the skyline of Gotham changed ridiculously from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight to the Dark Knight Rises. Three, the Alfred sequence in the exposition where he imagines running into Bruce Wayne in Italy was annoying. Now, if they just had Alfred speaking, it would've been a lot better. And four, wtf is with the Batpod being more heavily armed than the Bat-VTOL???

[Zhao Xiao]

Spoilers...

I was wondering about the power of the Batpod myself. I'm guessing when it broke out of the Tumbler Batmobile - it "grabbed" all the missile launchers/weapon systems from the main vehicle and planted them onto the bike? I also kinda expected a more visceral and awesome end to the Bane battle. Ha, maybe even Bane becomes thrown before the masses of Gotham who then dispense their own justice on the dude?

[Calistoknight]

Spoilers....




I agree, the ending was anti-climatic to me, I saw it coming that the woman was really the mastermind behind everything and I wish they hadn't done it, it really diminished Bane as a villian in my opinion, I wanted an awesome drawn out battle between Batman and Bane as the last two remaining League of Shadow associates. I was disappointed in that. Overall it was a good movie, I'd say on par with Batman Begins, but not as good as the Dark Knight. Personally there wasn't enough action/Batman in the movie for me to really enjoy it. I expected him to come back in amazing specatular in your face fashion and he really doesn't.

Though as a whole I enjoyed the trilogy and the more darker direction they took it in. And when they try to reboot the francise again (you know they will) it will be interesting to see if they try to top it or do something more original.

[Han1977]

Anyone here watched The Raid ?

I read reviews and not sure whether I should watch the film or not. Its indonesian film and a long time ago, as Indonesian I decided not to watch Indonesian film unless I can watch it for free on TV , but some people said that its really good.