Change Your Image
michaelthonger
Reviews
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Scott Pilgrim vs the simple minded (box office)
When talking about Scott Pilgrim vs The World, there are two topics to cover:
1. This film is sublime. It is the best possible adaptation of the comics (done with real love and respect for the source material, unlike corporate shill like X-Men origins: Wolverine or Spider-man 3), done by a director who is still perfect in his quality track record. The soundtrack and cinematography naturally blend to keep you entertained, and the strong script and compelling performances keep you invested. All this, and it is hilarious! Every actor plays their part perfectly (especially the evil exes- a huge feat when you take their relatively small amount of screen time into account. IMO, Brandon Routh was the funniest, and Jason Schwatrzman was the best villain). Michael Cera delivers easily the best performance of his career, Mary Elizabeth Winstead serves as far more than eye candy, and the comic relief is pitched at just the right level. I am not a hipster at all (Hipster music isn't usually my cup of tea at all!), but this has to be the most entertaining soundtrack of the decade- fun, bombastic, and surprisingly immersive (I was inspired to learn Beck's acoustic ballad 'Ramona' immediately!). The visuals and choreography are incredible and never become too intrusive. This is one of my favourite films of the decade, and I have seen it twice since its release (I hope to see it a third time. The last time I was this keen on rewatching a film was 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'- I must have a thing for movies with great direction, comedians playing relatively serious roles, and girls who dye their hair!!), which leads me on to the second topic;
2. As I left the cinema with my friend (she loved it as well), we met up with her friends. When we told them what we'd just seen, they said 'ugh, please tell me you didn't see that. It sounds so stupid!'. Needless to say, her friends aren't the brightest people, as they couldn't grasp the concept of parody (to them, Vampires suck is parody!) or tongue-in-cheek premises. I imagine this is the attitude of most people who didn't see it, and why it has flopped commercially. While I'm sure it will have a healthy run on DVD with its critical praise, and will build a larger fanbase over time when people get over the ridiculous 'OMG Hipsters!' mindset, it's still mildly disappointing to think that The Expendables, Vampires Suck and Grownups will gross more worldwide. We finally get something really refreshing in the film industry- something that isn't a pathetic Oscar hopeful or a bloody 80s remake, and the public doesn't care! It seems stupid and really unfair. However- a word of encouragement to the fans; those people are idiots! Is it really such an unexpected tragedy if someone chose Vampires Suck over this? if they chose Vampires Suck, do they really deserve decent cinema? Do they sound like the type of person who would really appreciate the amount of love and skill poured into Scott Pilgrim vs the World? The people who wanted to try something different and enjoy a great film did- the loss of money's a shame, but the film is better than I could ever have wished for!
In short; see the film if you haven't, don't fret too much about the box office (Spaced, another Edgar Wright directoral effort, took years after it first aired to become popular, and it is now regarded as one of the best sitcoms of all time), and a colossal 'Well Done' to everyone involved!!!
This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
Most overrated film of all time
I saw this for the first time the other day- I've been wanting to see it for ages, and saw it going for £3 in HMV (the 'up to 11' edition DVD). Having heard about how it's the greatest comedy film of all time and how it's an absolute classic, I was keen to have a laugh and see something I've never seen before; and, at risk of being flamed by fans, it SUCKED!! My first warning signs came when there's a whole minute and a half of a black screen before the menu, with four monotonous voices talking about how the screen is black. It wasn't funny, not even for its 'WTF factor'!
I managed to chuckle about three times (the stonehenge bit, the 'trapped in the pod' bit, and the tight trousers scenes- three funny moments; three stars. That's generous) over this incredibly short film, but the entire film was the exact same joke (that they're idiots and they're not very popular) played out over and over again. I've heard that 90% of this is improv- and it FEELS like improv. Poorly done improv. I've done improv work on stage before- an idiot is by far the easiest character to improvise for, because you can be as slow as you want, and you just have to say random stuff and pretend you don't understand things to get laughs. A 13 year old could come up with better lines- when I was in primary school, I was pretending to confuse 'sexist' and 'sexy'. The best bits by far were the scripted parts- the concerts and such.
However, this film has loads of fans, so I can only deduce that these are people who saw it when it was new, and it just hasn't aged well. I've seen almost all of the gags done elsewhere- Spinal Tap probably did it first, but other shows/mockumentaries do it better. The worst parts are plodding scenes of inane talking that leave you confused, wondering if what you just saw was supposed to be funny or not. It's not that I 'didn;t get it'- I got the jokes, they just weren't that funny- far too obvious for my liking. There was no subtlety in it at all- what you see is what you get. There's no plot to speak of, but a series of gags crudely stitched together, with more cul-de-sacs and pointless story arcs than your average episode of Family Guy.
Maybe it was the hype. Maybe I was expecting too much from the 'greatest comedy of all time', but I absolutely hated it. There really is nothing more to it than the clips you see on TV and reviewing programmes!
The bottom line- if you're a fan, great! Enjoy it! But if you're a noobie, AVOID!
Nowhere Boy (2009)
The myth behind the man
I'm not sure what the negative reviewers on IMDb saw, but it certainly wasn't this film. They seem to have problems with the premise of the film, the very nature of biopics, and non- existent problems with the film itself. Let me get something straight- biopic films are melodramatic and exaggerated by nature. Otherwise, we'd get a much more watered down film that'll only interest the most hardcore of fans, and bore everyone else to death. If you want realism, read a John Lennon biography, or watch a documentary. This, by its own admission, is a DRAMA about a teenage John Lennon, and the emotional effect his mother and aunt had on his adolescence. It isn't about his adulthood, or the music itself- that was made clear with in the advertising, so I'm not sure what people are whining about.
Having said that, this film is far from sugar-coated and pleasant. It gave a very honest and objective look at the man, showing that he wasn't a saint, and at times portrays characteristics not unlike the antagonistic school bully in your average high school movie, particularly in his treatment of the young Paul McCartney. It reminded me a lot of Cemetery Junction- not necessarily 100% realistic, but still dramatic and dark, as well as being humorous, heartwarming and uplifting in places. The film does an excellent job of showcasing Lennon's signature witty retorts and mindset, and that brings me on to the performances.
The acting is more or less spot on. Aaron Johnson, Kirsten Scott Thomas and Anne-Marie Duff all work together to create a triumvirate of acting perfection- each part is entirely naturalistic and believable portrayed, and the emotional turmoil that John is feeling really reflects on the viewer- Is his mother free-spirited and lovable, or reckless and frivolous? Is his aunt cold and oppressive, or loving and protective? The film constantly throws the viewer between each one, and although not necessarily excellently plotted or expertly constructed, Nowhere Boy creates a potent drama that asks as many questions as it attempts to answer. I, for one, enjoyed the hell out of this, and would recommend it to Beatles fan or hater alike.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
A film for pretentious stoners
I went into this film expecting a visually exciting, interesting, funny drama, and I was seriously disappointed. After the scene in the bar at the hotel (the first few minutes are quite good), the film dives into a boring slog through weird unlikeable characters, random events and irritating performances. This film proved nothing to me except that Hunter S Thompson is a pretentious hack and a waster who spent his time getting high and spending weeks coming to conclusions anyone could have reached. I myself am ashamed to know a group of stoners who all think they're Oscar Wilde when they're high, and I can assure you; they're not. The 'jokes' are unrecognisable and mostly unfunny. It uses needlessly derivative and meandering vocabulary (delivered in a way that will make you bang your head against a wall in irritation about 1 hour in) to disguise the fact that, ultimately, this film has nothing to say. If you found Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow annoying after 3 films, avoid this like the plague; he overacts to death. Benicio Del Toro's character is just a dickhead who mumbles incoherently for two hours and does whatever his character requires him to at the time; every other character is either unfunny, stupid, or a pointless celebrity cameo. If you're seriously delusional and think that getting high turns you into John Lennon, by all means watch this film. For those with a decent independently thinking head on our shoulders- avoid.
Cemetery Junction (2010)
A Great British Drama
While it lacks the puerile talentless 'comedy' stylings that dominate most popular comedies these days, Cemetery Junction manages to provide a stunning example of the British comedy-drama at its best (easily equalling classics such as East is East and The Full Monty). Flawless heart-breakingly realistic performances all round (Ralph Fiennes makes a chilling boss, even with the few lines he has), great hilarious set-ups (won't reveal too much, but one of the best ones involves Slade, and a certain well-known children's TV character), and a heartwarming message about family, friendship and wanting more out of life (themes perfected by Gervais and Merchant with The Office and Extras). It provides situations and gags that sound relatively unoriginal on paper, but become something new entirely on screen. It has a real heart, genuine emotion, genius humour, and showcases what makes good old-fashioned British dramas the best.
However, I fear those seeking a stupid comedy like The Hangover or Cop Out (where ridiculous unrealistic characters say random things desperate for laughs) will probably be disappointed. If it's cheap laughs you want from Ricky Gervais, watch The Invention of Lying (God help you)! I'm also not sure how well this film will sit with American audiences (the humour is downplayed and very British)
In short, a fantastic film for those who appreciate British comedy dramas in the vein of The Full Monty or East is East. Also, watch out for bald-headed Manc Karl Pilkington's 1 second cameo! Classic stuff!
Clash of the Titans (2010)
As close to a 'God of War' movie as we're gonna get
Having seen the original film, I would like to counter most of the criticisms being levelled at the remake by stating that the original has NOT aged well. 60% of the performances are ridiculous (borderline laughable) and the special effects, although cool, cannot possibly be taken seriously. When I went to see this, I expected a fun hack'n'slash creature feature, and I must admit (even though I can be a bit of a cinema snob) I enjoyed the hell out of this. It never tried to be anything it's not (it's far from being the next Lord of the Rings), but instead it revelled in ever visceral fight scene and breathtaking set piece. As a great fan of Greek mythology, I've been missing an epic mythology movie, and i got my fill with this (as unfaithful as it is to the myths- but it's an action movie at heart; who the hell cares if they took a few liberties with the source material?).
Liam Neeson and Raph Fiennes chew the scenery as only Greek Gods can to great effect- although I would have liked the story to have focused more on them and the other Gods. Sam Worthington is reasonably relatable and dynamic as Perseus, and Gemma Arterton claims her crown as the queen of unnecessary, bland, emotionless characters as Io (the movie would have been better off cutting her out, and having the other Gods taking her screen time- perhaps an actual God should have guided Perseus?).
Great quality CGI and set design makes for some breathtaking set pieces and scenery- particular favourites being the fight with Medusa in her lair, and the desert home of the scorpions. I have seen many incarnations of Medusa, and this was one of the better ones I've seen- a very threatening and intimidating presence for such a well recognised and cliché monster. Good costume design allows characters to shine (literally in Zeus' case, and figuratively in the case of the tree-man; I forget his name), and most of the characters are truly compelling and interesting to be around.
It does have its flaws- script doesn't really stand out at all, some parts are quite formulaic, few lapses in believability (damn Pete Postlethwaite did well getting his wife)- But it was a tremendously fun time at the cinema- I recommend it to any enthusiast of Greek mythology, the original film, or just straight-up matinée action. Just don't set your expectations too high!
Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant (2009)
Imperfect, but fun
I gotta admit, I was a die-hard fan of the books, and had a really great time watching this film, even though I'm 18. I was slightly put off when I first heard John C Reilly was going to play Mr Crepsley (I hate Talladega nights, and he doesn't look right for the part at all), but he really made the role his own, and he gave an extremely compelling performance. Admittedly, Willem Dafoe was really awkward to watch (he borderlines 'I'll just act camp and the kids'll love it' and 'I have absolutely no idea what this character's about'), the CGI spider looks awful (seriously, bright blue?), and some bits come across as pandering to the tween demographic (Evra's become a massive douche, the romantic subplot is unnecessary, and some of the 'comic relief' freaks who weren't in the books come across as really unfunny, like the big- headed midget), but it still has redeeming factors. I enjoyed seeing parts I remembered from the books coming to life, and I think that if Mr Weitz takes on board all the criticisms from the first film, he could really direct an excellent sequel, given the chance. We all loved the Darren Shan books as kids because they were nasty, gory, and hardcore (at least they were for a 13/14 year old), and some of that nastiness has rubbed off in its transition to film in their hurry to appeal to a new generation. But there are flashes of excellence in there (John C Reilly's funny and threatening simultaneously, Mr Tiny's great, the soundtrack's cool, and some of the more innovative cinematography's really creative). The humour is overplayed, but about 70% of it is quite funny (the unexpected masturbation reference, all of John C Reilly's jokes). All in all, unless you're a Darren Shan Nazi who can't take any altering of the source material (and there are a lot of changes), you should have a great time. Especially recommended for people who read the books ages ago, and remember little bits of it, but not entirely. I really enjoyed it, and think that they have a lot they could build on if a sequel is greenlighted.