cuppa_tetleys Reviews

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (2007 Video Game)

A good game, but not even scraping the heels of its predecessors

[7/10 · 11 September 2011]

I would welcome some feedback on this issue of mine; everyone seems to hold this game in the same regards as that of the original Prime - some saying it surpasses it, however I cannot see how from any angle.

My initial gripe (this may be just a personal thing) is that the game is on the wii and, for me, is far too unresponsive. Often I found myself twisting, turning, thrusting and throwing my wii-mote at the screen as it indicates, yet nothing happens. And although many favour the ability to point and shoot with the motion controls, as a devoted fan to the previous two Primes I had mastered the gamecube controls, and so stepping into a new control scheme that was less responsive felt like I was playing with my hands in buckets of cement. Motion controls take away a great deal of immersion from a game because your brain has to concentrate more on telling your body to perform greater movements, splitting your attention thus inhibiting your immersion when playing the game. The reason a classic controller is so effective at drawing you in is because it requires the minimal possible movement in translating thoughts to the screen, heightening immersion. Overall, playing on the wii marred the experience for me - as it would if I played the previous Primes on it.

Secondly, Corruption feels more like a transplanted action-shooter than an adventure shooter like all previous metroid games. The appeal to metroid games is the eerie and disturbing atmosphere of wandering alone through hostile territory, free to explore; stumbling upon weapons, lore, interesting creatures and enemies. But Corruption begins in a military base with one dimensional, army stereotypes accompanied by a rag-tag team of fellow bounty hunters. I could appreciate their presence if it was meaningful or emotionally provoking but they're just there to fight later on, with no greater purpose. If it was going for a more Mass Effect-type space opera, I would understand, but every single character we meet is shallow, boring and poorly fleshed-out. This compounds the fact that by having lots of allies (which the infamous solitary bounty hunter would not have)it robs us of that coveted atmosphere - if Samus could call in the troops at any time, where's the danger? Also, while Corruption attempts to expand the scale of the action by having greater involvement with Samus' ship and other planets, it ironically only serves to shrink it in comparison to the original Prime. Each planet is shallow and one-note, offering one thing of interest with its own enemies and back story that just ends up being thinly spread. This kicks the depth and exploration aspects that I loved in Prime in the head, as on Tallon IV we saw the remnants of the Chozo and the attempts of the space pirates to salvage the mysterious meteor and its power - and the variety of climates upon the same planet that you could freely visit gave it a rich flavour, that this huge space was just one tiny planet in an enormous universe, and it offered a great sense of enormity. In Corruption, each planet feels small and monotonous, like what we see is all it has to offer. The little details are gone - the creatures that are native cousins to similar ones on the same planet, the subtle mystery rewarded by exploration and the great connectivity have been extracted in favour of a more 'marketable' product. An exciting shooter with aliens, space marines and explosions. Like Halo. And Gears of War. And Doom. And Quake. And Killzone. And Turok. And Alien vs Predator. And Jericho. And Mass Effect. And all of the subsequent sequels to all the titles I just mentioned. The list goes on.

Combined with inferior creature designs, the omission of beam-swapping (what made the previous two games great was that by the end you had 4 different beams, missiles and combos to kill things with), the lack of story and low difficulty level, for me, make it unfathomable how anyone could liken it to Prime and Echoes.

Despite that don't get me wrong, this is still a good game - it's more innovative than Echoes and tries to stretch the series in different ways, albeit unsuccessfully. The power-ups are all original and entertaining, the graphic are splendid, the gameplay is good once you get used to it and there are some moments that really capture the spirit of metroid, if only in isolation.

In conclusion a good game that I'd recommend buying if you have a wii, but don't expect it to rock your socks.

The Inbetweeners (2011)

About as good as it gets for this sort of thing, which is ultimately boyish and shallow.

[6/10 · 27 August 2011]

I like this film a lot more than I thought I was going to; films based on series never seem to work because everything has to re-set to 0 at the end of the film to not confuse audience about the continuity for later series. It was also the inbetweeners, a series which I can appreciate but it's never something I could get into, mainly because of it's style; all the jokes are based around penises, sex and awkward situations, a shallow form of comedy I rarely indulge in. The only thing I did like about the inbetweeners were the characters: Will is the David Mitchell-esque nerd whose overriding sense of logic conflicts with social norms, Simon is the 'one with relationships', Neil is the stupid, funny one (a la Zach Galifinakis in everything) and Jay is the dick who thinks he's a ladies man and gets the group into the situations to begin with. Who's also annoying.

This time, after Simon's girlfriend dumps him, Jay proposes to the gang that they go to Greece for 2 weeks, and thus a motion-picture was born. There's not a lot to this film to be honest, it's what you'd expect or have seen in the trailers so for the sake of brevity I shall be brief.

The things the film does well are few, though they're mostly due to discrepancies in taste and if you like toilet humour, gross-out jokes, penises and awkward situations the you'll mostly likely love this film. There's not an awful lot to say about those, though I must say that my problem lies with the awkward situations. Maybe it's just me, but there's one scene (and you'll know which one) which is so deliberately uncomfortable, I had to actually stop watching because it made me feel so bad. There are many moments like that in the film, and I really don't like them, so if you do - by all means. My biggest laughs in the film came from the interplay between characters rather than the obvious social ineptitude they all possess, just throw away lines from Will and Neil were always entertaining. And the best laugh in the film is a dance related one, which is absolutely superb, and made me anticipate more of the same, but in vain.

My issues are many, though it's not I didn't like the film, I'm just very critical. Perhaps I'm comparing it to other raunchy comedies this summer, and it certainly falls into that category, but that might be a little unfair as it's based on a popular British television series about nerds. Regardless, beside the awkwardness I hated how the film opted for the cheap laugh every time. Every single time a joke was set up you could bet the answer was either going to humiliation, poo or a nob joke. I shall confirm here - you actually see a penis during the course of the film. I didn't laugh. Also, despite the ending being brave enough to have things end differently than the start of the film, there really is very little pay-off for anything. There was only once where I was genuinely caught off guard and really laughed in this film.

However don't think I didn't like the film; it entertained me, yet offended me in a slighter manner, but I was never bored.

If you really like inbetweeners, you'll like this because it's really just more of the same taken to the next level. But if you DO like the inbetweeners, then watch Horrible Bosses because it is much better.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Summer 2011: A season blessed with brilliant prequels

[9/10 · 17 August 2011]

To begin on a tangent before evaluating the film, before summer 2011, I had not seen a decent prequel film. Prequels to films are often made when there is either a rich back story behind the originals or the producers are wanting a little more money from a particular franchise (see the Star Wars prequels). The problem they present is that film- makers have to construct their work, with the knowledge that the audience knows how it ends. One of the greatest things about seeing a film for the first time is the surprise and anticipation, to removing that can detract a lot from the overall impact of the film. But this summer I have had the pleasure of seeing X-men First Class, and now Rise of the Planet of the Apes - two excellent prequels to series that I didn't care for previously.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (RPA from now on, I can't bear typing it) is not only a triumph in CG animation, but as a stellar science fiction film, that remembers that films are infinitely more engaging when the audience actually cares for the characters on screen. Too often do I see films with a high premise that forget to flesh out their characters, leaving us to run around in mindless, weightless explosions with nobodies who we know less than 3 things about (cough, Transformers 3). Yes, RPA is about super intelligent apes that ransack cities and take on armed forces with little more than what surrounds them, but before we get to that there is an enormous amount of development from the main protagonist; Caesar. Although the advertisement trumpets James Franco, John Lithgow etc, the real star here is Andy Serkis, along with millions of dollars worth of CG animation to create the most expressive animated creatures on film. Even with Avatar, using real humans, pales in comparison to the amount of detail going into every single one of these apes; there is not one second in the film where you cannot understand one of the primates intentions - you could practically vocalise them yourself with the refined eye movement, body language that clearly separates Caesar from his more primitive relatives. Needless to say, Caesar's performance is flawless; after all this is the man who brought Gollum to life, but he captures the screen with an entirely wordless performance, which to me is the greatest part of the film. I felt for Caesar more than any other character in this film, and he did it without saying a word. Eat that Michael Bay. I was almost in tears at one point during one of Caesar's more emotional scenes for Christ Sake - although a chimp, the heightened intelligence really gives him just enough human characteristic to be above the uncanny valley while still behaving like an animal.

The humans in the film were what I considered weakest in this film; not any of the performances were bad, but a little more development in some minor characters and some tweak in the writing here and there would have made this a perfect 10. Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) felt a bit off to me; he was cruel but almost in a cartoon way, though I suspect that's more to do with ill writing than any personal issues. The main cast are good, though at it's current length, I think more development with James Franco's character wouldn't have gone amiss, but then again, this might have thrown off the pacing.

Another thing I love about this film is that while taking a sharp diversion from its roots in terms of gradual characterisation, it does a superb job of delivering what everyone inevitably came for. A massive Chimpocalypse. A simian uprising that sees the downtrodden apes taking up arms against humanity, and in three words: it's f - ing cool. Made all the more exciting by the anticipation and the feel for these characters, the marvellous point about Caesar's character is that we sympathise with him, we understand why he leads an ape army AND WE SUPPORT HIM. A super intelligent ape is rallying a chimp attack force to free themselves from their confines, cause mayhem, disrupt order and ultimately rule humanity AND WE WANT THEM TO. And for that I applaud.

I love a film that makes us look inwards at ourselves and question our own moral codes and attitudes to events in life (this one clearly representing a case of animal cruelty) that make us conclude that WE are indeed the bad guys, and we need to change. Living in a small, rural middle-class society (like myself) or a well-developed area often makes mainstream audiences forget about those less fortunate than themselves, and what it drives them to, or in this case, what having too much drives us to, and it's refreshing to see something that reminds us of how much of a plague we are to the rest of the planet.

Overall, I would say a strong 9/10, perhaps not quite reaching the highs that First Class did, but by God, was it more consistent - definitely watch this one, and stay after the credits.

Due Date (2010)

A film that tries to have its cake and eat it.

[6/10 · 5 August 2011]

'For the sake of brevity, I shall be brief' to paraphrase Shakespeare and be a massive annoyance, which is ironically what this film felt like in some parts. Here you have Zach Galifinakas playing Alan from the Hangover and Robert Downey Jr. on a road trip together, while Zach is extremely irritating and Downey is the straight guys who has the funnies. Aside from the fact that the film isn't very funny and its attempts at humour are often crass and cheap, my main gripe is that both the main characters are priks of an extremely high degree. I liked neither or them at any point in the film; Downey's character is violent and tight (he is very reserved and in one scene punches a child for annoying him) ans Zach is playing the same as Alan in the hangover, but even more of a dick. In the Hangover, we like Alan because although he's an idiot, he means well, but in this, he's a dick from start to finish. To validate my opening gambit, and illustrate my previous point, there is a scene when Zach asks Downey about his father. Downey then gives a brilliant, emotional story of how his father left him, and you could tell he was really trying to hide his feelings but letting them slip out. It was touching. Then Zach bursts out laughing, cruelly, and claims his dad wouldn't do that cos 'he loved me'. The film thought it was funny and played it off as a joke, when really it was cruel and awful and made me hate that character for the rest of the film. There are points when it tries to be emotional, but immediately contrasts them with an attempt at humour, but the jar in tone is so sudden, it fails to deliver on either level.

There are a few funny parts, but they are far and few between, while being very cheap. It is shot extremely well however, and overall the acting is very good. Though I wouldn't recommend it.

500 Days of Summer (2009)

Romance told from the guy's point of view. And done fantastically.

[9/10 · 27 June 2011]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't like Romance films; I find them to be a bit too fantastical, but in the wrong way, and extremely predictable. When I mean the wrong type of fantastical, I mean that it is an unrealistic play-through of how real life events could, in reality, occur, though only through astronomical coincidence. For example, bumping into the girl you love after you've broken up in the place you used to feed the ducks, and then doing some extreme romantic gesture, like dancing on a rooftop, to win her back etc. That doesn't click with me, because these romantic films are set in our world, our reality. The rules are established from the principal contact - this will not feature any space-monkeys, will be entirely within our realm of physics and as a result, I can't take such implausible coincidences.

We enjoy films like the Inception, The Lord of the Rings, because they take place in a world where the rules are established to beyond our capacity to understand in reality. And in that fantasy, anything can happen and suspension of disbelief does the rest. But in our world, things like that don't happen - we've all been in relationships so we know for a fact, film romance is not ever applicable, and as a result, we don't learn anything, we don't grow by travelling these characters, we're just killing time. Although you might call me stupid, saying films would be boring if they only remained within our mundane reality, I say this when taking into account the tired cliché love formula, that pretty much stays the same no matter what route you take or what spin you put on it. We know that everything will be all right in the end and the characters will kiss on a bridge with candlelight and the beautiful lit sky. Not in this film.

The film in question takes the tired formula and breaks it over its knee with some of the most inventive story-telling and camera work I've ever seen - and this is technically an independent film. The acting is superb throughout - the two leads Joseph Gorden-Levitt and Zoe Deshcanel are spectacular and their chemistry is contagious. These are not actors - these are real people. We love these people and we want to see their relationship develop.

Another rare thing for a Rom-com - it's funny. I can sit through the majority of crap with Hugh Grant and maybe chuckle a few times, this gets you laughing from the get go and then becomes serious at the appropriate moments. This is another film that I call a 'moment picture'. A film that contains these small sections in little moments that are either a stroke of genius, a powerful emotional impact, or something that just makes you euphoric watching, regardless of overall quality. These moments are memorable, and they are the parts you talk about after you've seen it. You can watch any number of films that contain no moments at all or maybe one or two - this is full of them. Combined with excellent pacing and consistent engaging content it makes this film, to me, flawless. The only reason I don't give it a 10, is because although perfect, It's not quite up there with the other films I've rated 10, but that is by no means a detriment to this film.

In short, watch it.

Star Trek (2009)

An extraordinary spectacle, visually stunning, otherwise uninspiring for a Star Trek virgin

[8/10 · 19 June 2011]

There seems to be a disparity in reception of this film between hard- core Star Trek fans. Half seems to think it's an incredibly faithful adaptation with fantastic action and lovable characters, the other half seem to think this works as a guidebook on 'Star-Trek-for-dummies', with writing and intellect far below the standard they have seen previously in the Star Trek series. I, however, have never seen Star Trek, nor have I held any interest in it, but I can honestly say that this film impressed me.

The setting was intriguing, the vulcans were extremely interesting and the characters were fun and likable. But lord almighty is this film beautiful. Everything from the Enterprise to the giant enemy space look absolutely astonishing, Star Trek boasts battles of epic proportions and (no other way to say it) badass aliens that look really cool. The direction and soundtrack are appropriate for the scale; action is reminiscent of the early Star Wars films, though seriously upgraded, orchestrated with booming percussion and high violin that might as well classify as space pornography.

The film however is not without fault; the writing, while good for an action film, may disappoint some fans looking for the intricate complexity of the science fiction, and didn't really draw me in all that much compared with the aesthetic. And while the characters are fun, I didn't really sympathise with any of them too much, though Spok especially seemed to possess an extremely deep and interesting race and back story that kind of got glossed over in the grand scheme of shooty space action. I was a bit disappointed myself; the Vulcans seemed fascinating and I would've liked to learn more about them, but we are only given the bare bones. I think, to me, none of the characters acted in a human way, which put me off somewhat, but that might be the entire point of an grandeur space opera, people go about things in a completely different manner. I just didn't see any real weakness in the characters that made me think them human. Spok briefly shows a crack in composure, but the entire nature of the vulcan people is to be calculating and logical, so he remains blank throughout the rest of the film.

The villains in this also perplexed me slightly, we are merely told of their motives and then they just pop up now and then, whenever they feel like it, it seems. Villains become better when we know more about them; it offers a kind of moral conflict in our minds when we sympathise with immoral motives. This isn't true of all villains (Dark Knight's Joker), but then the acting needs to be excellent and 3 dimensional, which it isn't here.

Any complaints I have are personal gripes, and even with them I can still highly recommend Star Trek, regardless of your Trek disposition.

Mary and Max (2009)

Charming, sublime, unique, moving, hilarious.

[10/10 · 10 June 2011]

I had never heard of this film until my friend told me about a clip of it he'd seen, knowing I was a fan of black comedy. So we sat down to watch the first 10 minutes at 3 in the morning and then we ended up watching the whole thing, neither of us moving from our seats the entire time, fixated. This film is a genuine masterpiece; a unique, stark aesthetic as framework for an engaging exchange between two incredibly complex and lovable characters, the socially awkward Mary and Max, who communicate via letter across different countries.

To skip to the meat of the issue; these characters are hilarious. Their world is hilarious. A universe filled with unexpected visual gags that range from innocent to pitch black. Often you'll not know whether to laugh or cry, as the story developments crush you but imagery on screen is side splitting. For these characters are not just funny, they are tragic. Their world is also tragic. It pleasantly reminds me of Forrest Gump, in the sense that we fall in love with these characters and their naivety because they make us laugh and feel elated, so that when misfortune befalls them the empathy coupled with drastic change of tone hits you like a wrecking ball.

Although many people claim there is no such thing as a perfect film, I don't believe so. To me, a perfect film successfully achieves exactly what it sets out to do with excellent execution that keeps us engaged and entertained. If a film does all this, and lacks any mistakes or moments where it unintentionally takes me out of the experience, to me that is as good as cinema gets for me. This is a perfect film. Whether you agree or disagree, appreciate the effort, charm and beauty that has gone in to this project. 10/10

Scarface (1983)

Al Pacino's performance is the only thing this film has going for it.

[6/10 · 13 May 2011]

I had to skip bits of this film when I watched it; past the half way mark it slows down to a halt. This film is in desperate need of an editor; it could have been a great film if they cut out about an hour of Tony Montana being an idiot, because we get that pretty quickly! Al Pacino is on top form though, finding comedy to the character while simultaneously creating someone you don't want to mess with. And, of course, I love the accent.

Not a lot to say for this film - it hasn't aged well, what with its main attractions being violence, bad language and drugs, which are practically prerequisites for Hollywood films these days.

Watch the first half, then watch something else.

Crash (I) (2004)

A brilliantly crafted message that the title doesn't even hint to.

[8/10 · 13 May 2011]

Crash reminds me of a drama piece I did for an exam - an ensemble of different characters and events that seem separate but are related in theme and statement. Every performance in this film is excellent; every part no matter how small has been carefully thought out and acted with skill. All writing, acting and directing are fantastic, and special praise for the editing and the structure of the piece which always keeps you engaged and keeps the pace at the correct tempo.

Any problems I had with the film were probably just ones of taste; in terms of an artistic work, Crash is essentially perfect. It deals with racism in so many different and intelligent ways that, combined with great acting, give us a real sense of reality. However in the first 20- 30 Min's I felt like I was being bashed over the head with the message: RACISM IS BAD, with every character talking about race and discrimination which seemed unnatural to me. But that was most likely just to make it really clear to the audience what was being dealt with, and the narrative and dialogue settle after a while to deliver some truly amazing stuff.

Another gripe I had with this was that, as with my drama piece, it was very difficult to become emotionally attached to any of the characters as just as you get focused on one guy, it jumps to the next and you don't see the same characters on screen for another half an hour. Again, this was intentional - this film is to make us think, not feel; to reflect on our own attitudes and question ourselves what we would do in the same position.

A truly brilliant artwork, but it is in no sense a standard film as it's purpose is to convey a message through its story. It reminds me somewhat of Requiem For a Dream, in a good way, but without the emotional impact as we can't really connect with the characters too well. I shed a few tears at one bit though. In summary, it does exactly what its meant to do and any faults that can be found are merely due to discrepancy of taste.

8/10.

Thor (2011)

Best Marvel film, second best superhero film I've ever seen

[8/10 · 3 May 2011]

Marvel really have outdone themselves this time with their independent films, creating a mind-blowing motion picture with Thor, the Viking God of thunder, that I consider to be the best superhero film behind The Dark Knight I've ever seen. It's rare that I get this kind of excitement out of watching a film; it's even rarer that I go to see a film twice in the theatre, but Thor has brought about these phenomenons.

These are easily some of the greatest visuals if not the best visuals to date, and for me it trumped Avatar in the special effects department. Yeah, I said it. But it's so much more than just the spectacle that Avatar was (that's all Avatar was to me, Yeah I said it), the action is fantastic, the characters are endlessly entertaining (especially the Viking God on Earth) and both story and script are tight and well-paced, no slow points.

An interesting thing is that one of the things I really liked about Thor, but that possibly kept it from being even better, was it's focus of narrative. It is simply about a super-powered God finding his way, that's it. About as deep as it gets. And that's exactly what I love; you awe at the entertainment the characters, action and the thrill of experiencing it provide, without delving into extreme darkness or emotion that a lot films tend toward nowadays; the notion of 'gritty' and 'realistic'. This is why I compare it to the The Dark Knight; Nolan did the realistic thing extremely well to great success, yet Thor is the opposite - a completely outlandish tale involving Gods and magic that, although while dealing with some of Thor's personal problems, never goes too deep, that keeps you entertained, not shocked or moved.

You'll know the best part in this film when you see it, and it just childishly excites to a level that I have never felt with any of the previous Marvel films. My favourite Marvel film was Iron Man, but this makes Iron Man look dated.

Overall I highly, highly recommend this film and if you haven't seen it yet, DO. ASAP. AND THEN BUY IT ON BLU-RAY.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A beautiful film, but I regret leaving it till this late to see it.

[8/10 · 26 April 2011]

I only saw this recently (mid 2011) and I really wish I hadn't have left it this late. To give this context, I had already seen the second and third films first and had otherwise been told about the story from my friends who all had seen it too many times in its year of release; I hadn't enjoyed the latter films because I had no idea what was going on and I was very young so my attention span was appalling. In addition I watched the extended edition instead of the theatrical one, so my review of this film is going to be incredibly skewed compared to the majority of Lord of the Rings fans.

To be brief, gorgeous cinematography, good acting and great action but none of it felt original or fresh simply because I've seen pretty much every scene either referenced or parodied so many times it just made me laugh most of the time. Also, to someone who already knows what's going to happen, how it's going to happen and when, I found it difficult to endure over 3 hours of needless exposition that I already knew and I'd already heard being quoted hundreds of times over the course of about 10 years.

However, I adored the scene in the mines, the special effects and the very few moments that DID surprise me, though they are few and far between. Though I'm definitely going on to watch the other two again and am now looking forward to The Hobbit upon its release.

Fargo (1996)

Maybe I just didn't get it

[6/10 · 25 April 2011]

I will acknowledge that Fargo is, technically at least, a fantastic film. The Coen brothers always deliver fantastically written, directed and shot pieces of cinema, but I just didn't enjoy this one very much. I think it maybe to do with the setting - I know nothing about, nor care for Dakota or its significance. Also the characters - they were mostly appealing, but I just couldn't get in to any of them. There's some wonderful black humour on display here, some suspense, and good characterisation. However I just feel as if I've seen all of this done better elsewhere in individual instances, and I certainly wouldn't compare this to No Country For Old Men, which I watched recently.

If I want humour, I'll watch a comedy, if I want suspense I'll watch a thriller and if I want good writing I'll watch Oscar nominees. Though, to me, Fargo seems to be a diluted collaboration of elements that I've seen done better in their specific environment.

All in all, I suppose I'd compare my viewing experience to one of someone who is told the twist before they've seen the film - one of the major aspects of enjoyment is ruined from the beginning, and I just really didn't like the setting or characters.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

One of the best most intense film experiences ever - I've never loved and hated a film so much at the same time.

[9/10 · 24 April 2011]

This film is tense. That is the biggest aspect of this production for me - I have never before experienced film so suspenseful that even a cut to a different angle makes me jump. To get the praise out of the way as I'm saying nothing new - it is masterfully directed, acted, written, paced and shot.

However - I hate this film's ending. I was actually seething at the last 20 minutes or so that I just sat there reeling, not really taking in what happened. Mild spoiler alert, but the film builds up for an hour and a half to an epic final showdown with a character that we have followed since the beginning that we are really connected to, and then it just cuts to the aftermath. It skips over the ending. It take the most anticipated moment of the entire film and just dismisses it, giving us no details of how or when it happened, just the result. And I just sat there and said aloud 'WHAT?' to myself. I felt so cheated out of a satisfying ending that I just stared blindly at Tommy Lee Jones for next half hour or so.

Now, apparently this is how it happens in the book, but I think it's safe to say in this case, that breaking away from the source material would've been preferable - even if they had to make the film 2 and a half hours instead of 2, that would've been better than successfully creating a character and then just cutting their development arc short just because the book did it. Hell, it probably would've even supported the Sheriff's message at the end even more.

Saw (2004)

A strange film, one that switches from being brilliant to being unbearable

[7/10 · 17 April 2011]

I had low expectations going in to this film - a franchise that spans over 3 films is something I'm always wary of, especially when each film is essentially going through the same motions. It started out great; two people in a room who have no idea who each other are or how they got there making for an extremely engaging first act. They have been placed there by a murderer who places people in situations where they have to escape from precarious circumstances or die. Flashbacks give us more information on each character and it assumes that kind of format of switching from outside the room and inside.

If I'm going to praise anything, it's the plot - specifically when involving the murders and how they challenge their victims, those are genius. Otherwise the plot is kind of average; there are brilliant twists and turns you don't expect, but the rest of them of a bit stupid. You can tell it was written by two people because the quality of writing soars and then dives in alternating scenes; some sequences are fascinating and well thought out, but others that focus on the characters are horrifically unrealistic and far-fetched and it detracts from the experience. Generally though, the writing is OK; when talking about the murderer it's excellent, but the writers clearly know little about character building - as they spurt clichés and illogically change emotions. This may account for the films biggest problem, the acting.

It's been awhile since I've seen a popular title with such terrible acting - and it only declines as the narrative progresses. Some scenes are unbearable to watch because of the terrible delivery, especially characters become emotional and frantic, as they just start mimicking what they've seen in cartoons. In one scene, a character is shown pretending to die and I honestly thought it was a joke at first. Normally I would've laughed, but I was enjoying the film so much up to that point, that I was just disappointed. So don't watch this after something like 'The Social Network'.

About 5/6 of the way in, the film completely messes things up before finishing brilliantly - it's clear that there were set pieces that were really well thought out, but filling in the gaps turned out to be an exercise in crap. I nearly stopped watching it, it turned into so much of a pantomime, but I was thoroughly rewarded for my perseverance.

Overall, very good directing, turbulent (in terms of quality) story, suspenseful, terrible acting, awful characters and a good ending. However I was all ready to give this film a 9 or a 10 at some points, but then it dropped to about a four. I would've given it 5 if not for the ending, so be warned - IT GETS BAD.

I was disappointed by this film, but there's a lot to be learnt from it. I'm not going to watch any of the sequels, though.

Unforgiven (1992)

Why I'm not a fan of westerns

[4/10 · 11 April 2011]

I don't like western films as they remind me of history in secondary school, which I hated. However I decided to give them a chance after watching the more recent '3:10 to Yuma' and thoroughly enjoying it. I'm a younger audience member so my film knowledge goes to around the late 90's onwards, so I thought I'd broaden my horizons. And I have come to the conclusion that if you're not a fan of westerns, then you won't like this film.

Unforgiven is paced so slowly that it takes over half the film to get the main plot. There are hardly any action sequences, and when there are they evoke no excitement in me - they just take their time, which is perhaps more realistic, but I watch films that help me escape reality not mirror it. Which leaves you with a slow plot that offers very little substance, and the characters. The character are good, however, with Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman and Jaimz Woolvet providing convincing performances.

My problem, however, is with Clint Eastwood's acting. It's clear that he has thought about his character, but he only has one expression. This is the first film I've seen him in, and his face stays the same the whole time, as far as I could tell. His voice portrays grief and regret well, but even when he gets angry, his face stays the same as before making him impossible to read. That may be just his style of acting - not everyone has to be extremely expressive, but even his body language didn't convey anything to me, and it just irritated me throughout the whole film.

Overall, I can't determine how good this film is, because I know it's intended as a tribute to westerns; for fans of the genre and as such I'm a poor judge because of my dislike for it. I gave it 4/10, based on what I felt as guy who has seen one other western in his life.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

No surprise why it's the highest rated film on IMDb

[10/10 · 10 April 2011]

There are very few films that leave me in tears and make me reflect upon life in an extremely meaningful and profound way, and by God if Shawshank hasn't been the best.

Speaking as quite a young film enthusiast, I prefer more modern films in general; I can appreciate the classics in their period of release, but I think that we need to move on in order to advance and become more sophisticated in art. I see people reeling off their favourite films from decades past, past horror films, action films etc, and I think the standard of films has risen so much over the past few years that the only thing that makes some the classics seem tolerable is nostalgia. Watch 'The Exorcist' or 'Star Wars' now and although you can see why it was so popular, compared to their modern-day equivalents they don't exactly blow your mind. This may seem naive, but I detest the notion that because something was done first, it must be the best at it - we learn from the past to move forward. But watching Shawshank, I wouldn't mind if things stayed that way. There is nothing wasteful in this film at all. Every single line, expression, scene and shot has significance in the message that overrides the whole production.

I'm just gushing now and I haven't even said much about the film, but the fact that I was made to consider all this and then be compelled to write about it, is proof enough of this film's worth. No matter who you are, or where you come from or what you like, Shawshank will touch you - it will make you laugh, cry and marvel at such excellence that is nothing short of film-making perfection.

No-one reads the reviews for this film other than to confirm what they already knew - that this film is a masterpiece, and that it demands recognition, so if by a minute chance you are reading this without watching it, erase this review from your memory and watch it fresh eyes.

I thought this film was going to be a mediocre-fest that snobbish critics drool over because of the word 'Redemption' in the title. And that's the best way to watch it. Underestimate it, so that when it blows your mind you can sit back and slap yourself in the face for not already having seen it. And if you didn't feel that way after seeing, I suppose you can just go back and re-watch Michael Bay's Tranformers for the fifteenth time.

Limitless (I) (2011)

So much potential wasted here, but so much fun it excuses it

[7/10 · 3 April 2011]

Limitless is based by a book of the same name and any problems I have with the film are due to the translation of book to film. Primarily, it's clear that the book is written in the first person as their is an ongoing narration throughout the film of the main character commenting on events and giving exposition - which does the job in telling the story effectively, combined with the visuals (which are amazing), it does become irritating and at times unnecessary.

My main problem with the film, however, is directly linked to why I liked it so much. Due to being based on a long book that would take hours and hours of reading, the story gets condensed and sped up, so plot points fly by one after the other and no time is wasted on anything useless which keeps it fast paced and engaging. However, this also means that problems and events that should have had more time get roughly 10 minutes to begin and conclude, downplaying their significance somewhat. Problems that seem dire get dealt with very quickly, seemingly with no side effects. The plot also lacks an overriding goal - a destination, it seems as if Eddie (Bradley Cooper) just takes things as they come rather than have an overall game plan, and it leaves you a bit dissatisfied in places as it feels it lacks direction, where in the book it would be more spread out and natural. OK, bad's out the way - now the good! The film is very well written; the script is very tight and has clearly been cut down for efficiency yet still natural and the acting is brilliant also. All characters are very convincing and Bradley Cooper's intelligent Eddie is so entertaining, convincing and endearing that you eventually love the character and rejoice every time he has to explain anything to the normal humans.

Some of the action scenes are a bit naff, but otherwise very well done, but besides Bradley Cooper's performance, I'd say the main prize goes to the director - Neil Burger. My hat goes off to him for his visual imagination - his transitions between different locations are the best I've ever seen in a film and it really encapsulates Eddie's disorientation when he blacks out on and off. The effects used to illustrate the effects of the drug are also brilliant; sometimes you forget the voice over and just get lost in the special effects - such as the one in the trailer when the letters fall from the ceiling. The only thing I would complain about is the fact that he often uses extreme close ups excessively and it gets a bit distracting, but nothing compared to how compelling this film was. It was clever, but not genius, it was thrilling, but not mind blowing - it was just a lot of fun. Definitely worth seeing if you're an aspiring director or just a person with eyes in their face.

Shutter Island (2010)

Great source material, unsatisfactory adaptation

[5/10 · 3 April 2011]

Firstly, if you haven't seen the film, before you do, do not try and learn anything about it or ask anyone if it's any good, stop reading and just watch it- you'll enjoy it more. Secondly, I see this a lot these days; great source material that has good potential is often wasted when translated to another genre, and unfortunately this is the case with Shutter Island.

The story and characters are both very good, with a well-paced narrative that never feels rushed or awkward despite being adapted from a book and with DiCaprio doing a good job as the protagonist we sympathise for him and we come to understand that he is rather complex. However, my gripes lie, unfortunately, with the writing and the acting. Perhaps it's because I'm spoiled by gems such as The Social Network that are fantastically well-scripted and convincing, so anything that falls below my expectations I deem as bad. But there were some moments in Shutter Island where I was really taken out of the experience by how hollow and one-note some of the characters were. Conversations were spoken as if the actors were in different rooms for the most part, with no characters thinking or reacting to what's been said, they're just spouting what they've been told to say. Of course this isn't present for the entire film, but frequently enough for me to be pulled out of the story and start glancing at my watch.

Another issue I had with it being adapted from a book, is that in a novel, all exposition is through dialogue or introspection - nevertheless, with words. Film also holds the visual element, but here often fails to use it. Many of the important plot points that could have been briefly explained visually with possible narration were told just through characters standing and talking to one another for lengthy periods. The film devolves into non-naturalism on multiple occasions so why it couldn't have in those instances baffles me, because it would have made the story so much more involving.

The writing in general is not terrible, but it occasionally feels awkward when characters are forced to switch rapidly between two emotions, as if the script was written in sections by different people; one second they could be sarcastic and calm - the next extremely angry and aggressive with no clear sign of irritation. Which brings me to the directing. I know Scorsese is a legend, but here it's below average with pans that feel out of place and cuts feel unnatural, as if they were pointless, or they feel like we've missed something. This is probably also due to bad editing, with cuts being too early or too late, or characters movements being repeated from a different angle that disrupts flow. My problem with character interaction maybe that reaction shots were simply edited out, making performances feel wooden when they were not. Some parts, also don't gel well with others; there is a sequence in which DiCaprio comes across a man who offers him a ride to somewhere on the island. He accepts and they begin to drive to their destination, but the driver starts philosophically rambling on about a major theme that was previously mentioned, and I felt as if I was being hammered in the face with a message. It had no story relevance, no character development, just a big fat message slapping me across the face that was integrated so extremely poorly that I couldn't help but cringe inside.

On the positive, however, the film was at its best when it diverted from realism to a more symbolic and dream-like style that could either be memories or foreshadowing or something else - and that ambiguity is engaging, it keeps you guessing and sometimes you're never sure what is reality and what is not. The ending was good also, as it brought together all the little traces from around the story and brought them together in a shocking and satisfying way, and although I guessed most of it - there will definitely be moments when you go 'so that's what that meant!'.

Overall, worth a watch, but I'd recommend the book over the film as the plot and characters are the most interesting parts which are just airlifted from it anyway.