This was not a great horror movie but definitely a good one. The first half buildup was excellent (although those used to the recent crop of american horrors will probably find this a bit slow) and the second half was nicely done but not as well executed as the buildup.

One annoyance was that ever-increasing trend to edit so quickly that you have no idea what the hell is going on. I know they're trying to make you feel like the character but Marshall goes overboard like most other dircetors that attempt this style.

The other annoyance was the false ending. It does leave it a bit 'open' for interpretation but I dont see why it was included.

But the claustrophobic atmosphere of the first half and the decently executed visceral second half make up for these shortcomings.

And for those wondering, yes, there is some nice gore. 

The Children of Paradise - I got this blind as it was a Criterion and went in knowing nothing except that it's a highly revered French classic. I was not disappointed.

The first half is flawlessly executed, one of the best 90 min of cinema ever. Although the second half loses its way a bit and is not quite as good, this is a definite recommendation to anyone interested in films.



Bad Education - now this one has me in two minds. On the one hand, it's a nice blend of Hitchcock (especially Vertigo), noir and Almodovar's garish colours. It also features another stellar performance from Gael Garcia Bernal.

On the other hand, the script is far more concerned in its machinations, that it leaves no room to get to know the characters. We are never let into their motivations throughout the labyrinthine plot. And unfortunately, that leads to none of the scenes having much impact. 

This was quite good. Loved the carnage and some of the set pieces were very well executed.

On the downside, the family dynamic didnt work and was weak, and there was next to no narrative really.

But it achieves what it sets out to do and is good fun. 

uhhh
I'm glad I saw that in the cheap theatres
First half was great, dramatic, good special effects, etc
The ending, although it apparently follows the book, consists of one giant plothole in my opinion.

PSEUDO SPOILER WARNING
















A species could not advance further than humans have without knowledge of disease! I mean christ, these aliens can do all of this, yet they can't think to wear BIOHAZARD SUITS, a technology that WE HAVE? I can forgive them not nuking earth as Wells was writing before that came along, but really... how could these aliens survive that long without knowing anything at all about disease. The ending was really, really weak.

Plus cruise is an insane moron. But that goes for hollywood in general - if you can think of a ridiculous, pseudo-scientific, retarded idea, then half of 'em believe it. 

that goes for hollywood in general - if you can think of a ridiculous, pseudo-scientific, retarded idea, then half of 'em believe it.

You forgot the important part: being able to keep a straight face while selling it to them. 

two things :

firstly, if they went without that ending, there would have been cries of outcry ala LOTR for not sticking with the book.

secondly, I dont think it's all that unbelievable. Why would they know about the disease, their planet could have been anything unlike ours. To know anything about the disease would have meant to pay attention to all other life on earth, bacteria especially, apart from humans.

For a really silly ending which has that plothole you're referring to: Signs. Again SPOILER.










The water which the aliens are susceptible to is viewable from outer space since it covers 70% of the planet. Surely something that common and visible would have got their attention. 

Dear Mr Lucas, you're a visual craftsman.

This is quite possibly the best realised world put on to film yet. I didnt ever feel that this was a movie in my world, I felt as if I was actually in another world.

But all I could keep wondering when I was in this world was how little grasp of the english language the people in this world had. They talked as if they were all 13 yrs old and acted like it too. I just wanted to strangle them all and take over this world myself.

yours sincerely



6/10

ps : I'd rate it higher than return of the jedi but well below the standard of eps 4 & 5. 

I thought despite the great visuals in Revenge of the Sith, the actual directing was piss poor.
And well, yeah, don't get me started on the dialogue and acting. =)

Best to just skip the movies and buy the artbooks. =D 

The Island - god this was awful.

Tries hard to feature a (boring and unoriginal) plot for an hour or so and then turns into a chase movie. Only one semi-decent action sequence where the action is well choregraphed but is edited into oblivion.

Stay well away. 

With Michael Bay directing (the word in this case applied very loosely), I think staying away should be clear to anyone. 

Probably the best part of the movie is that some of the actors in it have been in actually good movies. 

yeah, I know. But I thought with ewan and scarlett, it might have at least been passable. 

The good bit was when Michael Clarke Duncan got dragged away screaming. I swear, that actor could be in the best comedy of the year and I'd still be moved. Other than that, just another shite film.

Best film of the year - Crash. It's just one of those films that I think about for ages after having watched it, trying to decipher exactly how each character changed and why. 10/10

Second best film of the year - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. I wasn't expecting much when I went to see this, but it turned out to be a really amazing black comedy. Laugh-out-loud moments, with a bit of thinky murder mystery and some light action for good measure! 9/10. 

Went to the movies and saw this political conspiracy thriller starring Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz and directed by the guy who did City of God.

It showed lots of promise but unfortunately came out as above average. The overall story was pretty good but the script iself was a bit of a mess. The acting was strong, both leads were very good, but the direction was distracting and disjointed. 

Robots - blah. Some nice animation but this is far far off from Pixar quality animated films. Very weak script.


Ikiru - I found this to be just above average. Well made and reasonably acted but far too long and heavy handed to be great. But given the status of the film, I'm obviously in the minority. 

Ring Two - This has been panned heavily and not without reason, the script is awful (especially the anticlimax) and downright absurd.

But it's also difficult to not see director Hideo Nakata's skill. Considering the script, this is quite a well directed film. Nakata manages to weave some delightfully twisted stuff into an otherwise messy film. And despite all its faults, the script does have some interesting ideas. Having Naomi Watts, who always makes things watchable, also helps.

A definite failure, but an interesting one. 

By Shambler.

1. The Agreement:

I agree that Robots was shite. Whether other such cartoons had cuteness combined with depth of perception and adult wryness, this had some cuteness combined with pure cheese.

2. The Opinion:

March Of The Penguins - I saw this recently, it was great. Almost the entire film has anything from 1 to about 2000 penguins in shot at any time, and they are very cool and cute. They waddle, shuffle, flap, scoot on their bellies, honk, kiss, stand around pondering the antartic world, and huddle together against 100mph winds. Okay so it's a documentary but since penguins are inherently cool and a lot of the footage is excellent, this was very nice.

3. The questions:

Is King Kong any good?

Is Narnia any good?

...

The End. 

I enjoyed King Kong immensely. One of my fave movies I've seen this year.

Start of the movie seems a bit slow, but serves well to introduce the characters and their various motives. And the characters had great growth throughout the film and only Jack Black's character felt somewhat dull (seemed like he was very one dimensional, which perhaps fitted his character, I just wish there was more to him). The female lead was absolutely awesome, definetely the strongest character. Glad she wasn't just there as just a 'damsel in distress'.

In any case, the movie was well worth seeing, and if given the chance, I'd go again. It was alot of fun. I'm already planning to buy the DVD when it comes out. 

Saw this last Sunday, and I wrote a lengthy review for another site, but I'll just give you the short version here:

Having never read the books, I approached this film not really knowing what to expect, but after all the ridiculous HYPE we've been fed by the media during the build up to this film (they basically marketed this film to be the next Lord of the Rings), I'm sure I can be forgiven for having at least [i]some[/i] expectations when I walked into the theatre.

I couldn't have been more disappointed.

The four child actors, with the possible exception of the one playing Lucy, were so flat and one-dimensional that never for one moment did I believe that they had any sort of emotional investment in the world, let alone the motivation to put their lives on the line for the big climactic battle. (Ok it's a kid's film, suspension of disbelief and all that - but that's still no excuse for shoddy acting). The children's sudden and inexplicable aquisition of awesome combat skills is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

Whilst the film seems slow in places, events often move quickly and jarringly, as if the film suffered a lot in the cutting room in order to squeeze it into 140 minutes. This hurried approach never allowed me a chance to give a shit about any of the supporting characters they introduced, leaving me going "meh" when they kick the bucket a couple of scenes later.

Visual effects-wise, the film is mostly excellent, highlights being the CG creature animation, in particular that of Aslan's. Some CG effects were a bit hit-and-miss, with some of the background compositing being very weak.

The rather predictable big battle at the end is the only entertaining sequence in my opinion, but it is still a fairly obvious and unimaginative attempt to duplicate a LOTR-style clash of armies. Much more build-up than actual battle, the build-up is good even though it does rip off Peter Jackson's imagery practically shot-for-shot. Once the swords clash though, it quickly fizzles out into a fairly directionless melee that's over before you've really had a chance to appreciate it.

I'll try and end on a high note by mentioning what did work. Tilda Swinton as the White Witch was pretty good (hers and Lucy's being the only noteworthy acting performances in the film really). The beavers were well voiced, other creatures not so (Liam Neeson was a poor choice for Aslan, and what's the deal with the American lead wolf?) Other than the battle, the film managed to distance itself visually from LOTR far more than I expected really, which is definately to director Adamson's credit. 

the female lead was naomi watts, who like I said in my ring two blabber is watchable in just about anything. 

the female lead was naomi watts, who like I said in my ring two blabber is watchable in just about anything.


That scene of Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive near the end of the movie. You know the one I'm talking about! 

Naomi Watts was good in that movie. Many others thought so too since she's landed so many good roles after that.

Don't degrade. 

Not Naomi Watts, you. 

big, dumb and silly with a poor climax, but lots of fun. Does exactly what it sets out to do and is very enjoyable in that regard.

And angelina is smoking. 

Yes, was fun and a bit disappointing at the same time. I wish it had taken them longer to work out what was going on and start to outright kill each other. The action sequences were just boring.