Change Your Image
progenitor33
Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance
Requiem For A Dream
Apocalypto
Crash
American Beauty
El Laberinto Del Fauno
The Thing
A Clockwork Orange
Donnie Darko
Let the Right One In
Last Life In The Universe
City of God
The Lives of Others
Martyrs
Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter � And Spring
Chungking Express
Das Experiment
Fight Club
Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid
Amores Perros
Spaghetti Westerns
The Seventh Seal
Once Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Green Mile
The Shawshank Redemption
Memories of Murder
In the Mood For Love
Stalker
The Elephant Man
Fargo
Citizen Kane
A Bittersweet Life
Goodfellas
The Usual Suspects
American Psycho
Moon
Donnie Brasco
Kim Jee-Woon, Wong Kar-Wai, Stanley Kubrick, Sergio Leone, Park Chan-Wook, Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, John Woo, David Fincher, Christopher Nolan, Guillermo Del Toro, Akira Kurosawa, Terry Gilliam, Frank Darabont, Oliver Hirschbiegel
Reviews
Harbinger Down (2015)
Doesn't achieve what it set out to do
I've been following the progress of Harbinger Down for over a year now, eagerly awaiting each update. Films like John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly are some of my favourite films ever, and Harbinger Down looked to bring this classic 80s practical monster effects goodness to the present day.
The reality? For a movie that's whole purpose is to showcase practical effects (PFX), it doesn't do this nearly enough, nor does it feature Studio ADI's expected level of quality for these effects.
Almost all the scenes that feature the monster are poorly lit (often only by a flashlight). This is to be expected to a certain extent, being a horror film, however if you watch The Thing/The Fly, you'll notice the creature is always at the forefront, in all it's grisly detail. In Harbinger Down you never truly get a good look at the creature, which I'm sure will be disappointing to many, as the whole point of the movie was to show off an awesome looking creature. What's more, there is a distinct lack of quality for some of the monster effects, something that is unheard of in Studio ADI's other work. Presumably this is why the effects are often obscured by shadow and low light. The few scenes that are well lit are either far too brief or garishly poor quality (the first appearance of the monster comes to mind). There is also a distinct lack of blood/gore in the film, which is a major shortfall. John Carpenter's The Thing is a hideously gruesome film, and that plays a big part in why the film is so loved. This film features barely any blood and gore, and the few scenes that do are often brief and very conservative on the bloodiness. I don't believe I'm wrong in assuming most people interested in these kind of films want to see gruesome practical creature effects and all the bloody mess that goes with that. Harbinger Down completely fails on this.
It feels below Studio ADI, as I know what incredible work they can do. I appreciate the budget was low for this movie, but the movie's whole purpose was to show off PFX and prove to the industry that CGI isn't always the best option. It feels like they have shot themselves in the foot, as this film is a poor effort at showcasing the power of PFX. A little more time and money could have refined the effects and really made a statement about PFX (which, ultimately, could lead to much more work for Studio ADI).
Unfortunately there's nothing outside the creature effects that is even remotely noteworthy. There's a lot of inexperience here, with directing, writing, movie pacing and acting, and it shows. But this is something that is hardly surprising, or overly important. All I was expecting was some gorgeously gruesome creature effects. I was happy to settle down for a hammy, poorly acted film - but in a "so bad it's good" way - where the monster would take centre stage and wreck up the place. The monster instead cowers in a dark corner, ashamed to show it's ugly face, while unlikeable characters and a largely un-engaging plot take the centre stage.
I'm a huge fan of Studio ADI's work and I adore practical creature effects. But this doesn't cut it. This is a poor movie. A poor movie that could have redeemed all it's shortcomings in acting, filmwork, writing, etc by just having regular, explicit monster appearances showcasing ADI work at it's best. This is, sadly, not what Harbinger Down is.
Avatar (2009)
Good, but no masterpiece
Avatar is good. The more I think about it, the more I realise I like it. When the film ended I left the screen with a headache from the epic effects and a tad of disappointment. Quite a lot actually (of both). All the hype isn't justified, and yet at the same time is. It really, really is.
Visually it is stunning. The vibrant imagery and 3D enhancement killed my eyes by the end of the film, but it was so worth it. Luscious forests, sprawling environments, and more lifelike creatures than ever before. This is film technology at it's very best, and most likely will be the best for years to come. I'm not one for CGI, but this really sets itself apart from the competition by 1000 miles. It will no doubt be another Terminator 2 - stand the test of time and still look top of the class for years.
However the story is where Avatar fails. Although actually rather interesting and unique, it succumbs to having all the cliché moments we come to expect from modern-day action cinema. Because of this, much of the film is very predictable. Not bad by any means, on the whole the majority will love it, but if you like a bit more edgy, stylised storytelling, then it will feel a little deflated.
The characters are decent, having a good connection with the audience, and of course supported by some great talent from worldwide.
All in all, Avatar is a film you really must experience if just for the visuals alone (in 3D!). The story is so-so; some great scenes, alongside some god-awful cliché ones. The cast fill their roles perfectly, and if you're looking for an epic action flick you couldn't really ask for any more....just don't look too deep into the story