More about this movie
James Cameron, Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang talk about the arduous process of making this game-changing sci-fi epic...
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
A Christmas Present From Screenrush
The Essential Jim Jarmusch
As The Limits Of Control hits cinemas, we take a look at the career of the respected indie director...
As Where The Wild Things Are gets some parents in a tizzy over its mildly unsettling scenes of peril, we remember some of the most deeply disturbing scenes ever put into family films...
We take a look at Rob Marshall's new all-star musical Nine to see just how similar it is to its progenitor, Federico Fellini's 8 1/2
Film Review with Robert Mann - Review of 2009 Part 2
The Best and the Worst of 2009
Top 10 Movies
1) Avatar *****
After being out of the movie directing game for 12 years following his mega-hit Titanic, James Cameron’s new film understandably became the most eagerly anticipated release of 2009 and despite hype that was so overblown it seemed almost possible for the actual film to live up to expectations, it actually did live up the hype, proving to be not only the most visually stunning movie of the year but also a film with as much going on beneath the surface as coming out of the screen courtesy of 3D. Put simply Avatar is a truly amazing movie that has to be seen to be believed.
2) Star Trek *****
For some time the Star Trek franchise had been struggling to keep its place in the world of movies and television. All but the most loyal of fans had moved on and the mainstream audience had all but lost interest. What it took to reinvigorate the ailing franchise was some new blood and this is exactly what it got from J.J. Abrams who reinvented Star Trek for a whole new generation, delivering one of the spectacular and entertaining movies whilst also managing not to alienate the existing fan base. Easily one of the best sci-fi movies in years, this should bring about a whole new level of interest in space based science fiction blockbusters.
3) Up *****
Pixar. That’s all that I really need to say about this film. As, after all, everything Pixar makes is pure gold. But, I will say a bit more. Following the sensational Wall-E was never going to be an easy thing to do but Up manages to do and in fantastic style. Sure to be ranked not as only as one of Pixar’s finest movies to date but also one of the best animated movies of all time, this film has it all - adventure, humour, heart, fantastic characters and a great story, not to mention amazing animation and 3D effects. This film shows that Pixar are still the kings of the computer animation world and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
4) Adam *****
One of the 2009 releases that sadly didn’t get seen by many people due to a very limited release in cinemas, Adam is a film that really deserves more recognition than what it has received. Tackling the subject of Asperger’s Syndrome in a sensitive and heart warming manner it is both an enjoyably offbeat romcom and a sincere, moving and realistic look at how Asperger’s Syndrome affects those afflicted with it. The fact that it manages to pull off a somewhat downbeat ending whilst still leaving you with a warm feeling is a particular strength of this delightful romance that easily beats any of the generic romance films released by Hollywood this year.
5) (500) Days of Summer *****
Another offbeat romance that like the aforementioned Adam was a big hit at the Sundance Film Festival, (500) Days of Summer is probably one of the most refreshing and unique romantic comedies seen in some time. An original idea is presented in a fresh and appealing manner and despite the potentially downbeat nature of the story the film never depresses or loses its charm and warmth. A definite must see for anyone tired of the predictable fluff that Hollywood churns out time and time again.
6) Bandslam *****
Perhaps one of the biggest surprises in the top ten, Bandslam is a film that came completely under the radar, so much so that despite great reviews it bombed terribly at the box office, i.e. hardly anyone actually saw it, and it is a great shame because there is so much more to it than you might expect. Not a High School Musical knockoff as the marketing might have you believe but rather an enjoyable and moving indie style music drama based around music quite unlike what most kids are listening to these days. A truly delightful feel-good film that deserves to be seen, and if you are in the majority that hasn’t seen it, I greatly urge you to do so.
7) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button *****
While criticisms that this film resembles Forrest Gump certainly have a degree of validity, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button nonetheless proves to be a truly beautiful and moving film. A film about life and love, the story spans across an entire life time, perfectly capturing both the joy and the sadness that comes with the passing of time. A film that will warm your heart and make you cry, this is should stand the test of time and be fondly remembered for a long time to come.
8) The Secret of Moonacre *****
One of the most underappreciated films of the year, The Secret of Moonacre was something of a flop with both moviegoers and critics. And it is a real shame as it is a truly delightful little fantasy flick. It may not have the big scale of effects of other bigger fantasy movies but it manages to be both beautiful and charming in ways that a number of other fantasy efforts have failed to. Don’t listen to the naysayers, this is a film that has lots going for it, if only people would give it a chance.
9) Monsters Vs Aliens 3D *****
Best seen in 3D, Monsters Vs Aliens is probably DreamWorks Animation’s best movie yet. Terrific animation that almost rivals that of fellow animation studio Pixar is backed up a hugely entertaining story and humour that is as witty and clever as it is funny. Paying homage to classic alien and monster B movies, the film doesn’t fall on the pop culture references of many other DreamWorks movies but some generally quite smart gags and in-jokes that will offer as much for older viewers to enjoy as younger ones. And the 3D effects are without a doubt some of the best seen yet.
10) Where the Wild Things Are *****
A bit of an oddity, this one is. Given that Where the Wild Things Are is based on a book for children you would expect a film for children. But, director Spike Jonze’s promise of making a “children’s film for adults” is one that the film lives up to. Certainly a film that not everyone will appreciate this as much a study of the imagination of the child at the heart of the story as it is the fantasy flick you would probably expect. Technically superb, this is a film with plenty to offer but you really need to see it with an open mind and for maximum appreciation repeat viewings may be warranted.
NOTE: Toy Story 3D is not included in the top ten due it being a re-release of an older film.
Bottom 10 Movies
1) Lesbian Vampire Killers NO STARS
Recipe for an awful film - take two of the most annoying unfunny and unfunnily annoying ‘comedians’ that Britain has to offer, make them the stars of their own film, then base that film around a concept so thin that it would barely support a short sketch. This pretty much sums up Lesbian Vampire Killers, the single worst movie of the year and one of the worst movies ever made. Avoid at all costs.
2) Dance Flick ½
Easily one of the least surprising additions to the bottom ten, Dance Flick continues the downward trend of the once great spoof movie genre. Where once such films featured smart and witty homages now they are lowest common denominator, and with Dance Flick it seems that even the lowest common denonominator doesn’t care about these films anymore, as gladly this was rejected by moviegoers as well as critics. Here’s hoping we will be spared more of this rubbish in the future.
3) Observe and Report ½
Seth Rogen - one of the most overrated comedy stars of the last few years. At least in this critic’s opinion anyway. And possibly an opinion that is being embraced by the mainsteam moviegoing audience as well judging by the lowsy reception of his 2009 releases, of which Observe and Report is the worst. However, it nearly managed a higher rating and were it not for the sick and offensive date rape scene this film wouldn’t wouldn’t be slightly less awful, the emphasis being on slightly.
4) Fighting *
A drama that suffers from a case of pure predictability, a mediocre story and dull characters, Fighting takes ideas from other better movies and does nothing with them, making for a film that is just plain boring and will only be enjoyed by anyone who hasn’t seen the countless the films it rips off. Frankly, even they probably won’t be very impressed.
5) I Love You, Beth Cooper *
Chris Columbus was never a particularly good film director but even he is better than this trash. A teen comedy that is sorely lacking in the comedy department, this is a film that actually had some promise and in the hands of a capable director, or even Chris Columbus at his prime, could have been a decent, if forgettable teen flick. Forgettable I Love You, Beth Cooper certainly is but it doesn’t even come close to being decent, in fact being rendered nearly unwatchable but for a few slightly redeeming features.
6) The Unborn *
It is very easy to make a bad horror movie. In fact some of the worst movies are horror films, and The Unborn is just the latest in a long line of them. Failing to be particularly scary and being completely unoriginal in every respect, this has little value, even as a throwaway horror film. Only the most undemanding of moviegoers will get any appreciation out of this.
7) Jennifer’s Body *
By horror genre standards, Jennifer’s Body was a very heavily hyped film. And this hype was based around two things - Juno writer Diablo Cody being the scriptwriter and star Megan Fox being hot. Well, it seems that Diablo Cody was a one hit wonder, her script work here being lowsy, her delivering an incoherent story and intertextual references that mostly miss the mark. And Megan Fox being hot is very subjective. So, again, another horror movie that fails to deliver, but unlike some others this only actually showed some promise, so it is something of a disappointment.
8) The Final Destination 2D *
You’ll notice that only the 2D version of The Final Destination appears in the bottom ten. This is because the 3D version has just enough merit to earn itself two stars, just enough to keep clear. The fact that the film was made for 3D is the big problem here. Whereas previous films in the Final Destination series actually had decent storylines and dealt with some smart ideas, this one does little more than deliver a series of death scenes designed to utilise 3D effects, and the 3D comes at the expense of everything else. It is just a gimmick, and then not a particularly good one, and there is really no point in a 2D version of the film actually existing because without 3D the film has nothing to offer.
9) New in Town *
The only romantic comedy to find itself in the bottom ten, New in Town is a perfect example of everything that can be done wrong in a Hollywood romcom. It fails to be very funny, doesn’t deliver much worth mentioning in the way of romance and its stereotypical portrayals of many of the characters are almost offensive. It’s a shame to see a cast that is actually pretty talented appear in such a poorly produced product.
10) The Haunting in Connecticut *½
A horror film that has some redeeming features but ultimately still ends up failing, due to an over reliance on cliché, The Haunting in Connecticut lacks flair and panache, being presented as a generic horror flick when it had the potential to be an interesting psychological piece. No doubt many people will appreciate the film much more than me but in this critic’s opinion this is not a film worth wasting your time on when there are other similar efforts that do a much better job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Top 10 Movies
1) Avatar *****
After being out of the movie directing game for 12 years following his mega-hit Titanic, James Cameron’s new film understandably became the most eagerly anticipated release of 2009 and despite hype that was so overblown it seemed almost possible for the actual film to live up to expectations, it actually did live up the hype, proving to be not only the most visually stunning movie of the year but also a film with as much going on beneath the surface as coming out of the screen courtesy of 3D. Put simply Avatar is a truly amazing movie that has to be seen to be believed.
2) Star Trek *****
For some time the Star Trek franchise had been struggling to keep its place in the world of movies and television. All but the most loyal of fans had moved on and the mainstream audience had all but lost interest. What it took to reinvigorate the ailing franchise was some new blood and this is exactly what it got from J.J. Abrams who reinvented Star Trek for a whole new generation, delivering one of the spectacular and entertaining movies whilst also managing not to alienate the existing fan base. Easily one of the best sci-fi movies in years, this should bring about a whole new level of interest in space based science fiction blockbusters.
3) Up *****
Pixar. That’s all that I really need to say about this film. As, after all, everything Pixar makes is pure gold. But, I will say a bit more. Following the sensational Wall-E was never going to be an easy thing to do but Up manages to do and in fantastic style. Sure to be ranked not as only as one of Pixar’s finest movies to date but also one of the best animated movies of all time, this film has it all - adventure, humour, heart, fantastic characters and a great story, not to mention amazing animation and 3D effects. This film shows that Pixar are still the kings of the computer animation world and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
4) Adam *****
One of the 2009 releases that sadly didn’t get seen by many people due to a very limited release in cinemas, Adam is a film that really deserves more recognition than what it has received. Tackling the subject of Asperger’s Syndrome in a sensitive and heart warming manner it is both an enjoyably offbeat romcom and a sincere, moving and realistic look at how Asperger’s Syndrome affects those afflicted with it. The fact that it manages to pull off a somewhat downbeat ending whilst still leaving you with a warm feeling is a particular strength of this delightful romance that easily beats any of the generic romance films released by Hollywood this year.
5) (500) Days of Summer *****
Another offbeat romance that like the aforementioned Adam was a big hit at the Sundance Film Festival, (500) Days of Summer is probably one of the most refreshing and unique romantic comedies seen in some time. An original idea is presented in a fresh and appealing manner and despite the potentially downbeat nature of the story the film never depresses or loses its charm and warmth. A definite must see for anyone tired of the predictable fluff that Hollywood churns out time and time again.
6) Bandslam *****
Perhaps one of the biggest surprises in the top ten, Bandslam is a film that came completely under the radar, so much so that despite great reviews it bombed terribly at the box office, i.e. hardly anyone actually saw it, and it is a great shame because there is so much more to it than you might expect. Not a High School Musical knockoff as the marketing might have you believe but rather an enjoyable and moving indie style music drama based around music quite unlike what most kids are listening to these days. A truly delightful feel-good film that deserves to be seen, and if you are in the majority that hasn’t seen it, I greatly urge you to do so.
7) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button *****
While criticisms that this film resembles Forrest Gump certainly have a degree of validity, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button nonetheless proves to be a truly beautiful and moving film. A film about life and love, the story spans across an entire life time, perfectly capturing both the joy and the sadness that comes with the passing of time. A film that will warm your heart and make you cry, this is should stand the test of time and be fondly remembered for a long time to come.
8) The Secret of Moonacre *****
One of the most underappreciated films of the year, The Secret of Moonacre was something of a flop with both moviegoers and critics. And it is a real shame as it is a truly delightful little fantasy flick. It may not have the big scale of effects of other bigger fantasy movies but it manages to be both beautiful and charming in ways that a number of other fantasy efforts have failed to. Don’t listen to the naysayers, this is a film that has lots going for it, if only people would give it a chance.
9) Monsters Vs Aliens 3D *****
Best seen in 3D, Monsters Vs Aliens is probably DreamWorks Animation’s best movie yet. Terrific animation that almost rivals that of fellow animation studio Pixar is backed up a hugely entertaining story and humour that is as witty and clever as it is funny. Paying homage to classic alien and monster B movies, the film doesn’t fall on the pop culture references of many other DreamWorks movies but some generally quite smart gags and in-jokes that will offer as much for older viewers to enjoy as younger ones. And the 3D effects are without a doubt some of the best seen yet.
10) Where the Wild Things Are *****
A bit of an oddity, this one is. Given that Where the Wild Things Are is based on a book for children you would expect a film for children. But, director Spike Jonze’s promise of making a “children’s film for adults” is one that the film lives up to. Certainly a film that not everyone will appreciate this as much a study of the imagination of the child at the heart of the story as it is the fantasy flick you would probably expect. Technically superb, this is a film with plenty to offer but you really need to see it with an open mind and for maximum appreciation repeat viewings may be warranted.
NOTE: Toy Story 3D is not included in the top ten due it being a re-release of an older film.
Bottom 10 Movies
1) Lesbian Vampire Killers NO STARS
Recipe for an awful film - take two of the most annoying unfunny and unfunnily annoying ‘comedians’ that Britain has to offer, make them the stars of their own film, then base that film around a concept so thin that it would barely support a short sketch. This pretty much sums up Lesbian Vampire Killers, the single worst movie of the year and one of the worst movies ever made. Avoid at all costs.
2) Dance Flick ½
Easily one of the least surprising additions to the bottom ten, Dance Flick continues the downward trend of the once great spoof movie genre. Where once such films featured smart and witty homages now they are lowest common denominator, and with Dance Flick it seems that even the lowest common denonominator doesn’t care about these films anymore, as gladly this was rejected by moviegoers as well as critics. Here’s hoping we will be spared more of this rubbish in the future.
3) Observe and Report ½
Seth Rogen - one of the most overrated comedy stars of the last few years. At least in this critic’s opinion anyway. And possibly an opinion that is being embraced by the mainsteam moviegoing audience as well judging by the lowsy reception of his 2009 releases, of which Observe and Report is the worst. However, it nearly managed a higher rating and were it not for the sick and offensive date rape scene this film wouldn’t wouldn’t be slightly less awful, the emphasis being on slightly.
4) Fighting *
A drama that suffers from a case of pure predictability, a mediocre story and dull characters, Fighting takes ideas from other better movies and does nothing with them, making for a film that is just plain boring and will only be enjoyed by anyone who hasn’t seen the countless the films it rips off. Frankly, even they probably won’t be very impressed.
5) I Love You, Beth Cooper *
Chris Columbus was never a particularly good film director but even he is better than this trash. A teen comedy that is sorely lacking in the comedy department, this is a film that actually had some promise and in the hands of a capable director, or even Chris Columbus at his prime, could have been a decent, if forgettable teen flick. Forgettable I Love You, Beth Cooper certainly is but it doesn’t even come close to being decent, in fact being rendered nearly unwatchable but for a few slightly redeeming features.
6) The Unborn *
It is very easy to make a bad horror movie. In fact some of the worst movies are horror films, and The Unborn is just the latest in a long line of them. Failing to be particularly scary and being completely unoriginal in every respect, this has little value, even as a throwaway horror film. Only the most undemanding of moviegoers will get any appreciation out of this.
7) Jennifer’s Body *
By horror genre standards, Jennifer’s Body was a very heavily hyped film. And this hype was based around two things - Juno writer Diablo Cody being the scriptwriter and star Megan Fox being hot. Well, it seems that Diablo Cody was a one hit wonder, her script work here being lowsy, her delivering an incoherent story and intertextual references that mostly miss the mark. And Megan Fox being hot is very subjective. So, again, another horror movie that fails to deliver, but unlike some others this only actually showed some promise, so it is something of a disappointment.
8) The Final Destination 2D *
You’ll notice that only the 2D version of The Final Destination appears in the bottom ten. This is because the 3D version has just enough merit to earn itself two stars, just enough to keep clear. The fact that the film was made for 3D is the big problem here. Whereas previous films in the Final Destination series actually had decent storylines and dealt with some smart ideas, this one does little more than deliver a series of death scenes designed to utilise 3D effects, and the 3D comes at the expense of everything else. It is just a gimmick, and then not a particularly good one, and there is really no point in a 2D version of the film actually existing because without 3D the film has nothing to offer.
9) New in Town *
The only romantic comedy to find itself in the bottom ten, New in Town is a perfect example of everything that can be done wrong in a Hollywood romcom. It fails to be very funny, doesn’t deliver much worth mentioning in the way of romance and its stereotypical portrayals of many of the characters are almost offensive. It’s a shame to see a cast that is actually pretty talented appear in such a poorly produced product.
10) The Haunting in Connecticut *½
A horror film that has some redeeming features but ultimately still ends up failing, due to an over reliance on cliché, The Haunting in Connecticut lacks flair and panache, being presented as a generic horror flick when it had the potential to be an interesting psychological piece. No doubt many people will appreciate the film much more than me but in this critic’s opinion this is not a film worth wasting your time on when there are other similar efforts that do a much better job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Film Review with Robert Mann - Review of 2009 Part 1
Complete List of 2009 Films Reviewed
Note: Since writing a few of my reviews I have revised the ratings, feeling that I may have been either too harsh or generous with my ratings in retrospect. These revised ratings are indicated as: (Revised rating).
1) 2012 ***½
2) 9 **½
3) 12 Rounds **
4) 17 Again ***½
5) (500) Days of Summer *****
6) Adam *****
7) Aliens in the Attic **
8) Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel ***
9) Angels & Demons ****
10) Avatar 3D ***** 2D *****
11) Bandslam *****
12) Beverly Hills Chihuahua **
13) Blood: The Last Vampire *½ (Revised rating)
14) The Boat That Rocked ****
15) Bolt 3D ****½ 2D ****
16) The Box ***½
17) Bride Wars ** (Revised rating)
18) A Christmas Carol 3D **** 2D ***½
19) Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant **
20) Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 3D ****½ 2D ****
21) Confessions of a Shopaholic ***
22) Coraline 3D ***½ 2D ***
23) Couples Retreat **
24) Crank 2: High Voltage ***½
25) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button *****
26) Dance Flick ½
27) Defiance ***½
28) District 9 *****
29) Dorian Gray **½
30) Dragonball Evolution ***
31) Duplicity **** (Revised rating)
32) Fame **½ (Revised rating)
33) Fantastic Mr. Fox ***
34) Fast & Furious ****
35) Fighting *
36) The Final Destination 3D ** 2D *
37) The Fourth Kind ****
38) Frost/Nixon ****
39) Funny People **
40) G-Force 3D **** 2D ***½
41) Gamer **½
42) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past *****
43) G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra ***
44) Gran Torino ****½
45) The Hangover ****
46) Hannah Montana: The Movie ****
47) Harry Brown ***½
48) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ****
49) The Haunting in Connecticut *½
50) He’s Just Not That Into You ***½
51) Hotel For Dogs *****
52) I Love You, Beth Cooper *
53) I Love You, Man **½
54) Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs 3D **** 2D ***½
55) The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus **½
56) Inglourious Basterds ****
57) The International ***½
58) The Invention of Lying ****
59) Jennifer’s Body *
60) Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience **½
61) Julie & Julia ***½
62) Knowing ***
63) Land of the Lost ***½
64) Law Abiding Citizen ***
65) Lesbian Vampire Killers NO STARS
66) Love Happens **½
67) Marley & Me *** (Revised rating)
68) The Men Who Stare At Goats ****
69) Michael Jackson’s This Is It ****
70) Monsters Vs Aliens 3D ***** 2D ****½
71) My Sister’s Keeper ****½
72) Nativity! ***
73) New in Town *
74) Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist ****
75) Night at the Museum 2 ***½
76) Notorious ***
77) Observe and Report ½
78) Orphan ***½
79) Pandorum ****
80) Paul Blart: Mall Cop ***
81) The Pink Panther 2 ***½
82) Planet 51 **½
83) The Proposal **½
84) Public Enemies ***
85) Push ****
86) Race to With Mountain ****
87) Role Models **½
88) The Secret of Moonacre *****
89) Seven Pounds ***½
90) Sherlock Holmes ****½
91) Shorts **
92) Slumdog Millionaire ****½
93) The Soloist ***½
94) The Spirit **** (Revised rating)
95) St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold ****
96) Star Trek *****
97) State of Play ****
98) Surrogates ****
99) The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 ***
100) Terminator Salvation **** (Revised rating)
101) The Time Traveller’s Wife ****½
102) Toy Story 3D (Re-release) *****
103) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen **** (Revised rating)
104) The Twilight Saga: New Moon *****
105) The Ugly Truth **½
106) The Unborn *
107) Underworld: Rise of the Lycans **
108) The Uninvited ***½
109) Up 3D ***** 2D *****
110) Valkyrie ****
111) Watchmen **** (Revised rating)
112) Where the Wild Things Are *****
113) Whiteout **½
114) The Wrestler ***½
115) X-Men Origins: Wolverine ****
116) Zombieland ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Note: Since writing a few of my reviews I have revised the ratings, feeling that I may have been either too harsh or generous with my ratings in retrospect. These revised ratings are indicated as: (Revised rating).
1) 2012 ***½
2) 9 **½
3) 12 Rounds **
4) 17 Again ***½
5) (500) Days of Summer *****
6) Adam *****
7) Aliens in the Attic **
8) Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel ***
9) Angels & Demons ****
10) Avatar 3D ***** 2D *****
11) Bandslam *****
12) Beverly Hills Chihuahua **
13) Blood: The Last Vampire *½ (Revised rating)
14) The Boat That Rocked ****
15) Bolt 3D ****½ 2D ****
16) The Box ***½
17) Bride Wars ** (Revised rating)
18) A Christmas Carol 3D **** 2D ***½
19) Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant **
20) Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 3D ****½ 2D ****
21) Confessions of a Shopaholic ***
22) Coraline 3D ***½ 2D ***
23) Couples Retreat **
24) Crank 2: High Voltage ***½
25) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button *****
26) Dance Flick ½
27) Defiance ***½
28) District 9 *****
29) Dorian Gray **½
30) Dragonball Evolution ***
31) Duplicity **** (Revised rating)
32) Fame **½ (Revised rating)
33) Fantastic Mr. Fox ***
34) Fast & Furious ****
35) Fighting *
36) The Final Destination 3D ** 2D *
37) The Fourth Kind ****
38) Frost/Nixon ****
39) Funny People **
40) G-Force 3D **** 2D ***½
41) Gamer **½
42) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past *****
43) G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra ***
44) Gran Torino ****½
45) The Hangover ****
46) Hannah Montana: The Movie ****
47) Harry Brown ***½
48) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ****
49) The Haunting in Connecticut *½
50) He’s Just Not That Into You ***½
51) Hotel For Dogs *****
52) I Love You, Beth Cooper *
53) I Love You, Man **½
54) Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs 3D **** 2D ***½
55) The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus **½
56) Inglourious Basterds ****
57) The International ***½
58) The Invention of Lying ****
59) Jennifer’s Body *
60) Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience **½
61) Julie & Julia ***½
62) Knowing ***
63) Land of the Lost ***½
64) Law Abiding Citizen ***
65) Lesbian Vampire Killers NO STARS
66) Love Happens **½
67) Marley & Me *** (Revised rating)
68) The Men Who Stare At Goats ****
69) Michael Jackson’s This Is It ****
70) Monsters Vs Aliens 3D ***** 2D ****½
71) My Sister’s Keeper ****½
72) Nativity! ***
73) New in Town *
74) Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist ****
75) Night at the Museum 2 ***½
76) Notorious ***
77) Observe and Report ½
78) Orphan ***½
79) Pandorum ****
80) Paul Blart: Mall Cop ***
81) The Pink Panther 2 ***½
82) Planet 51 **½
83) The Proposal **½
84) Public Enemies ***
85) Push ****
86) Race to With Mountain ****
87) Role Models **½
88) The Secret of Moonacre *****
89) Seven Pounds ***½
90) Sherlock Holmes ****½
91) Shorts **
92) Slumdog Millionaire ****½
93) The Soloist ***½
94) The Spirit **** (Revised rating)
95) St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold ****
96) Star Trek *****
97) State of Play ****
98) Surrogates ****
99) The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 ***
100) Terminator Salvation **** (Revised rating)
101) The Time Traveller’s Wife ****½
102) Toy Story 3D (Re-release) *****
103) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen **** (Revised rating)
104) The Twilight Saga: New Moon *****
105) The Ugly Truth **½
106) The Unborn *
107) Underworld: Rise of the Lycans **
108) The Uninvited ***½
109) Up 3D ***** 2D *****
110) Valkyrie ****
111) Watchmen **** (Revised rating)
112) Where the Wild Things Are *****
113) Whiteout **½
114) The Wrestler ***½
115) X-Men Origins: Wolverine ****
116) Zombieland ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Film Review with Robert Mann - St Trinian's 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold
St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold ****
The St Trinian’s films have been a staple of the British film industry for a long time with the five films being released across a 26 year span, ranging from 1954 to 1980. Some of these were regarded to be classics of British comedy cinema while others were considered charmless additions to a film series well past its sell by date. Its significant role in British film history was enough to warrant a revival, released in 2007, which was produced by British filmmaking institution Ealing Studios which has seen something of a comeback in recent years. While the practice of updating the series to keep up with the times wasn’t something that had proved wholly successful with previous instalments in this case it worked well, reflecting the less reserved times we now live in, and the film was a big hit, making a follow-up inevitable. With the release of St. Trinian’s: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold that follow-up is here. But is this sequel a film that will be remembered as a classic in the years to come or is it something that will be quickly forgotten? It’s hard to say really but for the time being at least it is a very funny film.
Life is as chaotic as ever for the goths, emos, trustafarians, geeks and ‘posh totty’ of St Trinian’s boarding school. When Celia (Juno Temple) is offered £20,000 by the nasty Lord Pomfrey (David Tennant) to obtain a ring that has been hidden in the school library for hundreds of years, the other girls Chelsea (Tamsin Egerton), Roxy (Sarah Harding), Bianca (Zawe Ashton), Beth (Jessica Bell), Zoe (Montserrat Lombard), Lucy (Ella Smith), Tania (Cloe Mackie), Tara (Holly Mackie), Daisy (Daisy Tonge), Bella (Clara Paget), Saffy (Gabriella Wilde), Jess (Jessica Agombar) and Harriet (Harriet Bamford) - now lead by new head girl Annabelle Fritton (Talulah Riley), decide to get in on the act and try to get more money out of Pomfrey. Their attempt backfires, however, and Pomfrey breaks into the school and steals the ring. Learning from headmistress Camilla Fritton (Rupert Everett) that the ring is one of two that when combined will lead to the location of a treasure buried long ago by her pirate ancestor, the girls are going to use all their guts, guile and girly charm to find the second ring, steal back the first one and find the treasure. But to do so they must stay ahead of Lord Pomfrey and his women hating secret society AD1 who are determined to stop the girls at any cost. Enlisting the help of former St Trinian’s head girl Kelly Jones (Gemma Arterton) and Miss Fritton’s love interest Geoffrey Thwaites (Colin Firth), the girls set about finding the treasure and putting an end to the plan’s of the bad guys. But with AD1 having people everywhere, can the feisty girl-gang outfox their fiendish rivals?
St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold is a distinctly British film. The humour is aimed squarely at the British movie-going audience, being of the very silly variety that people in other countries likely wouldn’t be able to appreciate in the same way as does. It is silly but not so much in a way that seems lowest common denominator and while moviegoers with more sophisticated tastes in comedy probably won’t have much appreciation for this film, there is enough here to amuse quite a broad audience. The film could be criticised for having many of the characters as stereotypes - the girls are all in cliques and the bad guys are rich, posh politicians - but this is rather a charm of the film, something that works in its favour. The film doesn’t portray characters stereotypically in any kind of offensive manner but rather in an old fashioned kind of way, not taking itself seriously in any way. In fact, a degree of suspension of disbelief is required when watching this film really, as there is no way much of what happens could happen in real life. This is, of course, why the film offers such great escapism though. The reason the characters, and thus the humour, work so well can be heavily attributed to the cast. While no one is exactly going to win any awards for their acting, everyone is extremely game and they are all the more amusing for it. This is particularly the case with Rupert Everett who not only spends the entire film in drag, playing a female character, but actually, in one very funny and slightly cringe worthy scene, kisses Colin Firth. Firth too is extremely game as demonstrated by that particular scene, and David Tennant is also very amusing, clearly getting much enjoyment out of playing the bad guy for a change. As for the girls, they all shine, each bringing their own touches to their roles. They are all good so it is hard to pick out any particular ones who shine. The film isn’t as strong in all aspects, the story being pretty thin, but the film does what it sets out to do. It is extremely funny, very British and a great piece of entertainment. Only time will tell if the film is remembered fondly but for the time being St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold is at least a hugely entertaining that is definitely worth checking out if you are in the mood for some good laughs, the kind of which only the British could provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
The St Trinian’s films have been a staple of the British film industry for a long time with the five films being released across a 26 year span, ranging from 1954 to 1980. Some of these were regarded to be classics of British comedy cinema while others were considered charmless additions to a film series well past its sell by date. Its significant role in British film history was enough to warrant a revival, released in 2007, which was produced by British filmmaking institution Ealing Studios which has seen something of a comeback in recent years. While the practice of updating the series to keep up with the times wasn’t something that had proved wholly successful with previous instalments in this case it worked well, reflecting the less reserved times we now live in, and the film was a big hit, making a follow-up inevitable. With the release of St. Trinian’s: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold that follow-up is here. But is this sequel a film that will be remembered as a classic in the years to come or is it something that will be quickly forgotten? It’s hard to say really but for the time being at least it is a very funny film.
Life is as chaotic as ever for the goths, emos, trustafarians, geeks and ‘posh totty’ of St Trinian’s boarding school. When Celia (Juno Temple) is offered £20,000 by the nasty Lord Pomfrey (David Tennant) to obtain a ring that has been hidden in the school library for hundreds of years, the other girls Chelsea (Tamsin Egerton), Roxy (Sarah Harding), Bianca (Zawe Ashton), Beth (Jessica Bell), Zoe (Montserrat Lombard), Lucy (Ella Smith), Tania (Cloe Mackie), Tara (Holly Mackie), Daisy (Daisy Tonge), Bella (Clara Paget), Saffy (Gabriella Wilde), Jess (Jessica Agombar) and Harriet (Harriet Bamford) - now lead by new head girl Annabelle Fritton (Talulah Riley), decide to get in on the act and try to get more money out of Pomfrey. Their attempt backfires, however, and Pomfrey breaks into the school and steals the ring. Learning from headmistress Camilla Fritton (Rupert Everett) that the ring is one of two that when combined will lead to the location of a treasure buried long ago by her pirate ancestor, the girls are going to use all their guts, guile and girly charm to find the second ring, steal back the first one and find the treasure. But to do so they must stay ahead of Lord Pomfrey and his women hating secret society AD1 who are determined to stop the girls at any cost. Enlisting the help of former St Trinian’s head girl Kelly Jones (Gemma Arterton) and Miss Fritton’s love interest Geoffrey Thwaites (Colin Firth), the girls set about finding the treasure and putting an end to the plan’s of the bad guys. But with AD1 having people everywhere, can the feisty girl-gang outfox their fiendish rivals?
St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold is a distinctly British film. The humour is aimed squarely at the British movie-going audience, being of the very silly variety that people in other countries likely wouldn’t be able to appreciate in the same way as does. It is silly but not so much in a way that seems lowest common denominator and while moviegoers with more sophisticated tastes in comedy probably won’t have much appreciation for this film, there is enough here to amuse quite a broad audience. The film could be criticised for having many of the characters as stereotypes - the girls are all in cliques and the bad guys are rich, posh politicians - but this is rather a charm of the film, something that works in its favour. The film doesn’t portray characters stereotypically in any kind of offensive manner but rather in an old fashioned kind of way, not taking itself seriously in any way. In fact, a degree of suspension of disbelief is required when watching this film really, as there is no way much of what happens could happen in real life. This is, of course, why the film offers such great escapism though. The reason the characters, and thus the humour, work so well can be heavily attributed to the cast. While no one is exactly going to win any awards for their acting, everyone is extremely game and they are all the more amusing for it. This is particularly the case with Rupert Everett who not only spends the entire film in drag, playing a female character, but actually, in one very funny and slightly cringe worthy scene, kisses Colin Firth. Firth too is extremely game as demonstrated by that particular scene, and David Tennant is also very amusing, clearly getting much enjoyment out of playing the bad guy for a change. As for the girls, they all shine, each bringing their own touches to their roles. They are all good so it is hard to pick out any particular ones who shine. The film isn’t as strong in all aspects, the story being pretty thin, but the film does what it sets out to do. It is extremely funny, very British and a great piece of entertainment. Only time will tell if the film is remembered fondly but for the time being St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold is at least a hugely entertaining that is definitely worth checking out if you are in the mood for some good laughs, the kind of which only the British could provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock Holmes ****½
Since the early days of cinema filmmakers have looked to classic literary works for inspirations for their films, the novel adaptation having just as big a place in cinema history as more original cinematic works. The same is still quite true today but perhaps in a different way. While literal adaptations of classic novels do still show up from time to time - a la the recent A Christmas Carol - many classic novels have been adapted so many times for both the big and small screen that there is little left to get out of truly faithful adaptations so a new approach has come into being, one that can be described in once simple word - re-imagining. The updating of a classic literary work to make it more modern is something that most of us will have seen in way or another but never before has there been one that has come with such controversy as Guy Ritchie’s 21st century take on Sherlock Holmes. Essentially taking a character that we all know thanks to numerous portrayals in many adaptations and turning him into some kind of Victorian action hero, there has been some criticism that the original intention of author Arthur Conan Doyle has been lost, despite claims by Ritchie that they have actually stuck quite faithfully to Doyle’s original writing and suggestions that this depiction of Holmes may actually be closer to Doyle’s original intention, the version of the character we are used to seeing in fact being the unfaithful interpretation. Whether or not the film is a truly faithful interpretation isn’t really of much significance, though, as long as people actually like the interpretation and judging by the extremely positive response thus far it is fair to assume that this 21st century repackaging of a well worn out literary character is winning big with audiences. And quite deservedly so I might add.
After finally catching serial killer and occult ‘sorcerer’ Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), legendary sleuth Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his assistant Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) can close yet another successful case. But when Blackwood mysteriously returns from the grave and resumes his killing spree, Holmes must take up the hunt once again. Contending with his partner's new fiancée Mary (Kelly Reilly) and Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan), the dimwitted head of Scotland Yard, the dauntless detective must unravel the clues that will lead him into a twisted web of murder, deceit, and black magic - and the deadly embrace of temptress Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) who has an agenda of her own. However, as Blackwood’s devilish plans unfold and his seemingly supernatural abilities reveal themselves, Holmes finds himself facing not only his biggest and toughest case yet, but also a plot that could change the face of the whole world.
Despite what many literary purists will inevitably say, Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is not an adaptation that will make Arthur Conan Doyle roll in his grave (or rise from it to enact revenge) - quite the opposite in fact. This interpretation may be sold as a modern take on the source material but in many ways it is actually pretty old fashioned. There is a distinct sense of authenticity to proceedings, with the look, sound and feel of 1890s London being convincingly captured in everything from production design to costumes and performances to dialogue. While the film has been represented as a ‘modern’ take on the Holmes character none of the essence of the period has been compromised. So, no 21st century dialogue has been slipped in to bring in the 21st century audience. Just the action has been amped up, making this interpretation of Holmes much faster paced than past ones. And for anyone worried about the action compromising the integrity of Doyle’s signature creation, there is no need to fear, as the action sequences merely fill in details implied in the original stories. Doyle would say that Holmes apprehends or arrests the bad guy. Here we see HOW he does so. After all, the bad guys wouldn’t go down without a fight would they? So, in short, this is a grittier and more down to earth Holmes than we are used to, but still Holmes nonetheless. And the action sequences are just as period authentic as everything else in the film, not to mention being extremely thrilling and quite smartly executed. This is particularly the case with the fight sequences which we are shown first in slow motion, accompanied by Holmes’ musings (presented as voiceover narration) on how best to fight his opponent, then at normal speed as he implements his attack. This approach is smart and original, giving us an insight into Holmes’ distinctive reasoning process, and means that the fights actually serve a purpose in the development of the Holmes character, rather than existing just of the sake of action sequences. Authenticity is present in every facet of the film, particularly the performances, with everyone doing a great job. Robert Downey Jr. is superbly entertaining as Holmes, delivering a fresh and unique take on the character, here presented as brash and rough around the edges, completely unlike past portrayals of the character. He doesn’t just entertain but convinces as well, particularly thanks to a very convincing British accent. His Holmes is one that we can both enjoy watching and genuinely give a damn about, something that is crucial to the success of the film. He isn’t alone, though, with the supporting cast also of a high standard. Jude Law’s Watson is also different to the character we know well, here a mind to rival Holmes and also a tough individual who comes to Holmes’ rescue more than a couple of times (without ever diminishing Holmes’ presence though). Law too is both hugely entertaining and convincing. Rachel McAdams is also very good, being excellently seductive and sly as the only adversary who has ever outsmarted Holmes, while Mark Strong makes for a superbly sinister villain, even if his character is out-shadowed slightly by mystery villain who is present in the background. This is not the fault of Strong though. The success of the performances can also be attributed to the script as well as the actors. As well as sounding very period authentic, the dialogue is also very sharp and smart and sometimes wittily humorous. The writing for Holmes is particularly effective, making us believe that Holmes really is a genius detective. The writing is also very good with regard to plot. The story is very strong and should appeal to both Doyle purists and mainstream moviegoers alike, being very respectful of its source material whilst mixing things up so as to ensure that things never seen in any way tired or predictable. So, overall, Sherlock Holmes is a re-imagining that works. Both smart and fun, it is an adaptation that brings enough new to the fold to attract a new generation of super sleuth fans while also showing respect for its inspirations so as not to alienate those who appreciate Arthur Conan Doyle’s original writings. And with the ending setting things up for a sequel you are sure to leave the cinema eagerly anticipating the follow-up. It is elementary my dear film fan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Since the early days of cinema filmmakers have looked to classic literary works for inspirations for their films, the novel adaptation having just as big a place in cinema history as more original cinematic works. The same is still quite true today but perhaps in a different way. While literal adaptations of classic novels do still show up from time to time - a la the recent A Christmas Carol - many classic novels have been adapted so many times for both the big and small screen that there is little left to get out of truly faithful adaptations so a new approach has come into being, one that can be described in once simple word - re-imagining. The updating of a classic literary work to make it more modern is something that most of us will have seen in way or another but never before has there been one that has come with such controversy as Guy Ritchie’s 21st century take on Sherlock Holmes. Essentially taking a character that we all know thanks to numerous portrayals in many adaptations and turning him into some kind of Victorian action hero, there has been some criticism that the original intention of author Arthur Conan Doyle has been lost, despite claims by Ritchie that they have actually stuck quite faithfully to Doyle’s original writing and suggestions that this depiction of Holmes may actually be closer to Doyle’s original intention, the version of the character we are used to seeing in fact being the unfaithful interpretation. Whether or not the film is a truly faithful interpretation isn’t really of much significance, though, as long as people actually like the interpretation and judging by the extremely positive response thus far it is fair to assume that this 21st century repackaging of a well worn out literary character is winning big with audiences. And quite deservedly so I might add.
After finally catching serial killer and occult ‘sorcerer’ Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), legendary sleuth Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his assistant Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) can close yet another successful case. But when Blackwood mysteriously returns from the grave and resumes his killing spree, Holmes must take up the hunt once again. Contending with his partner's new fiancée Mary (Kelly Reilly) and Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan), the dimwitted head of Scotland Yard, the dauntless detective must unravel the clues that will lead him into a twisted web of murder, deceit, and black magic - and the deadly embrace of temptress Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) who has an agenda of her own. However, as Blackwood’s devilish plans unfold and his seemingly supernatural abilities reveal themselves, Holmes finds himself facing not only his biggest and toughest case yet, but also a plot that could change the face of the whole world.
Despite what many literary purists will inevitably say, Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is not an adaptation that will make Arthur Conan Doyle roll in his grave (or rise from it to enact revenge) - quite the opposite in fact. This interpretation may be sold as a modern take on the source material but in many ways it is actually pretty old fashioned. There is a distinct sense of authenticity to proceedings, with the look, sound and feel of 1890s London being convincingly captured in everything from production design to costumes and performances to dialogue. While the film has been represented as a ‘modern’ take on the Holmes character none of the essence of the period has been compromised. So, no 21st century dialogue has been slipped in to bring in the 21st century audience. Just the action has been amped up, making this interpretation of Holmes much faster paced than past ones. And for anyone worried about the action compromising the integrity of Doyle’s signature creation, there is no need to fear, as the action sequences merely fill in details implied in the original stories. Doyle would say that Holmes apprehends or arrests the bad guy. Here we see HOW he does so. After all, the bad guys wouldn’t go down without a fight would they? So, in short, this is a grittier and more down to earth Holmes than we are used to, but still Holmes nonetheless. And the action sequences are just as period authentic as everything else in the film, not to mention being extremely thrilling and quite smartly executed. This is particularly the case with the fight sequences which we are shown first in slow motion, accompanied by Holmes’ musings (presented as voiceover narration) on how best to fight his opponent, then at normal speed as he implements his attack. This approach is smart and original, giving us an insight into Holmes’ distinctive reasoning process, and means that the fights actually serve a purpose in the development of the Holmes character, rather than existing just of the sake of action sequences. Authenticity is present in every facet of the film, particularly the performances, with everyone doing a great job. Robert Downey Jr. is superbly entertaining as Holmes, delivering a fresh and unique take on the character, here presented as brash and rough around the edges, completely unlike past portrayals of the character. He doesn’t just entertain but convinces as well, particularly thanks to a very convincing British accent. His Holmes is one that we can both enjoy watching and genuinely give a damn about, something that is crucial to the success of the film. He isn’t alone, though, with the supporting cast also of a high standard. Jude Law’s Watson is also different to the character we know well, here a mind to rival Holmes and also a tough individual who comes to Holmes’ rescue more than a couple of times (without ever diminishing Holmes’ presence though). Law too is both hugely entertaining and convincing. Rachel McAdams is also very good, being excellently seductive and sly as the only adversary who has ever outsmarted Holmes, while Mark Strong makes for a superbly sinister villain, even if his character is out-shadowed slightly by mystery villain who is present in the background. This is not the fault of Strong though. The success of the performances can also be attributed to the script as well as the actors. As well as sounding very period authentic, the dialogue is also very sharp and smart and sometimes wittily humorous. The writing for Holmes is particularly effective, making us believe that Holmes really is a genius detective. The writing is also very good with regard to plot. The story is very strong and should appeal to both Doyle purists and mainstream moviegoers alike, being very respectful of its source material whilst mixing things up so as to ensure that things never seen in any way tired or predictable. So, overall, Sherlock Holmes is a re-imagining that works. Both smart and fun, it is an adaptation that brings enough new to the fold to attract a new generation of super sleuth fans while also showing respect for its inspirations so as not to alienate those who appreciate Arthur Conan Doyle’s original writings. And with the ending setting things up for a sequel you are sure to leave the cinema eagerly anticipating the follow-up. It is elementary my dear film fan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Film Review with Robert Mann - Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel
Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel ***
When Alvin and the Chipmunks was released two years ago no one expected much from it, many self respecting film fans in fact dreading it. However, the film proved to be a huge surprise hit at the box office so a sequel received the immediate green light. And parents, you only have yourselves to blame now that you are being subjected to Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel - just the word Squeakquel will probably be enough to fill film fans with dread once again. Seriously though, the first film, whilst being rather irritating to accompanying adults wasn’t THAT bad really. It kept the kids entertained, possibly took some parents on a nostalgia trip and was far from being one of the most unbearable kids films that parents have ever had to endure. But does the sequel manage to repeat this feat, a feat which was quite impressive considering the film’s stars were singing chipmunks whose voices are enough to irritate even the most hardened of moviegoers? Not quite, but it still manages to avoid being too irritating, so that’s something.
When their adopted father Dave Seville (Jason Lee) is hospitalised, loveable singing rodents Alvin (voiced by Justin Long), Simon (voiced by Matthew Gray Gubler) and Theodore (voiced by Jesse McCartney) find themselves with a new human minder in the form of Dave’s twenty-something nephew Toby (Zachary Levi) and heading back to the high school classroom like regular kids. There they must save the school’s music programme by winning the $25,000 top prize in a battle of the bands. But first they have to tackle a host of new challenges such as peer pressure, school sports and girls - namely Brittany (voiced by Christina Applegate), Eleanor (voiced by Amy Poehler) and Jeanette (voiced by Anna Faris), aka rival musical trio ‘The Chipettes’. Sneaky manager Ian Hawke (David Cross) is determined to wreak revenge on his former clients The Chipmunks by making the girls the Next Big Thing. Can the two groups overcome their personal and music differences?
As you would expect after the first Alvin and the Chipmunks film The Squeakquel just delivers more of the same. So, from a technical stand point, this film, just like its predecessor, has very little to offer. The plot, or what passes for plot, is wafer thin, existing only to provide a link between the film’s events and the scriptwriting is never more than passable. The performances from the film’s human cast are equally as unimpressive. Jason Lee is relegated to the sidelines this time around, only appearing in a few scenes and then given hardly anything to actually do. In his place is Zachary Levi, from TV’s Chuck, who is an amusing addition to the cast but too is completely wasted in a role that makes no use of his talents. Also wasted are Wendie Malick as school principal Dr Rubin and David Cross who again fails to make an impression as the villain of the piece. Much of this is not the fault of the cast though but rather the writers who give the cast nothing of note to do, not that the target audience will care, as the real stars are The Chipmunks and The Chipettes, who are better than their human counterparts thanks to some good voice work from a (rather unnecessarily) starry voice cast. With such criticisms for the film you would probably wonder why give it three stars? Well, for all its faults this is, at least, a film that will keep the kids happy. The Chipmunks and The Chipettes are totally adorable computer creations and the numerous song performances by each of the groups are lively and fun. This time around, however, none of the songs are the original Chipmunks tunes from the 1950s but rather quite fun cover versions of popular songs from the last year, including ‘Hot N Cold’ and ‘You Spin Me Round’ among others. As for the humour, the film largely delivers on the same level as the first film. The gags are all clean and harmless and kids will probably find it quite hilarious, although parents less so. There are, however, a few movie in-jokes that, while not being particularly smart or inventive, some older viewers may get some appreciation out of. So, overall Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel is a film that kids will love and parents should be able to be endure. And given the lack of choice for films to take the kids too at the moment parents should be grateful that this film offers simple, harmless fun that the kids will love.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
When Alvin and the Chipmunks was released two years ago no one expected much from it, many self respecting film fans in fact dreading it. However, the film proved to be a huge surprise hit at the box office so a sequel received the immediate green light. And parents, you only have yourselves to blame now that you are being subjected to Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel - just the word Squeakquel will probably be enough to fill film fans with dread once again. Seriously though, the first film, whilst being rather irritating to accompanying adults wasn’t THAT bad really. It kept the kids entertained, possibly took some parents on a nostalgia trip and was far from being one of the most unbearable kids films that parents have ever had to endure. But does the sequel manage to repeat this feat, a feat which was quite impressive considering the film’s stars were singing chipmunks whose voices are enough to irritate even the most hardened of moviegoers? Not quite, but it still manages to avoid being too irritating, so that’s something.
When their adopted father Dave Seville (Jason Lee) is hospitalised, loveable singing rodents Alvin (voiced by Justin Long), Simon (voiced by Matthew Gray Gubler) and Theodore (voiced by Jesse McCartney) find themselves with a new human minder in the form of Dave’s twenty-something nephew Toby (Zachary Levi) and heading back to the high school classroom like regular kids. There they must save the school’s music programme by winning the $25,000 top prize in a battle of the bands. But first they have to tackle a host of new challenges such as peer pressure, school sports and girls - namely Brittany (voiced by Christina Applegate), Eleanor (voiced by Amy Poehler) and Jeanette (voiced by Anna Faris), aka rival musical trio ‘The Chipettes’. Sneaky manager Ian Hawke (David Cross) is determined to wreak revenge on his former clients The Chipmunks by making the girls the Next Big Thing. Can the two groups overcome their personal and music differences?
As you would expect after the first Alvin and the Chipmunks film The Squeakquel just delivers more of the same. So, from a technical stand point, this film, just like its predecessor, has very little to offer. The plot, or what passes for plot, is wafer thin, existing only to provide a link between the film’s events and the scriptwriting is never more than passable. The performances from the film’s human cast are equally as unimpressive. Jason Lee is relegated to the sidelines this time around, only appearing in a few scenes and then given hardly anything to actually do. In his place is Zachary Levi, from TV’s Chuck, who is an amusing addition to the cast but too is completely wasted in a role that makes no use of his talents. Also wasted are Wendie Malick as school principal Dr Rubin and David Cross who again fails to make an impression as the villain of the piece. Much of this is not the fault of the cast though but rather the writers who give the cast nothing of note to do, not that the target audience will care, as the real stars are The Chipmunks and The Chipettes, who are better than their human counterparts thanks to some good voice work from a (rather unnecessarily) starry voice cast. With such criticisms for the film you would probably wonder why give it three stars? Well, for all its faults this is, at least, a film that will keep the kids happy. The Chipmunks and The Chipettes are totally adorable computer creations and the numerous song performances by each of the groups are lively and fun. This time around, however, none of the songs are the original Chipmunks tunes from the 1950s but rather quite fun cover versions of popular songs from the last year, including ‘Hot N Cold’ and ‘You Spin Me Round’ among others. As for the humour, the film largely delivers on the same level as the first film. The gags are all clean and harmless and kids will probably find it quite hilarious, although parents less so. There are, however, a few movie in-jokes that, while not being particularly smart or inventive, some older viewers may get some appreciation out of. So, overall Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel is a film that kids will love and parents should be able to be endure. And given the lack of choice for films to take the kids too at the moment parents should be grateful that this film offers simple, harmless fun that the kids will love.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Monday, December 21, 2009
Brittany Murphy Tribute - Quote of the Week : Spun (2002)
"The state took him away. It's weird, cause stuff happens and you don't really notice it while it's happening... life is sort of passing by. I held him once. Yeah, he felt so nice in my arms. And then they took him away. And I'm gonna hold him again. I'm gonna hold him real tight. I'm gonna hold him so tight that no one can ever take him away from me ever again."
Nikki (Brittany Murphy) reveals to fellow speed addict Ross (Jason Schwartzman) that she has a son in Jonas Akerlund's Spun (2002).
Brittany Murphy died tragically today at the young age of 32. She had a talent some top performing actors do not - versatility. Brittany had the ability to drift from one genre to another, whether it was a romantic comedy - Just Married (2003), a horror film - Deadline (2009) or a comic book epic - Sin City (2005), she always had tremendous appeal on screen.
And let's not forget her solid drama performances - Girl Interrupted (1999) she played the the role of a mentally disturbed person in an institution with Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie, the promiscuous girlfriend of rapper Eminem in 8 Mile (2002) and of course a speed junkie alongside Mickey Rourke and John Leguizamo in Spun.
R.I.P. Brittany - your contagious smile is something we can only now visit by watching your movies once again... thank you for that gift.
Brittany Murphy died tragically today at the young age of 32. She had a talent some top performing actors do not - versatility. Brittany had the ability to drift from one genre to another, whether it was a romantic comedy - Just Married (2003), a horror film - Deadline (2009) or a comic book epic - Sin City (2005), she always had tremendous appeal on screen.
And let's not forget her solid drama performances - Girl Interrupted (1999) she played the the role of a mentally disturbed person in an institution with Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie, the promiscuous girlfriend of rapper Eminem in 8 Mile (2002) and of course a speed junkie alongside Mickey Rourke and John Leguizamo in Spun.
R.I.P. Brittany - your contagious smile is something we can only now visit by watching your movies once again... thank you for that gift.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - Avatar
Avatar 3D *****
Avatar 2D *****
Hype - it’s a word that gets thrown around a lot these days and this year alone many films have claimed to be the most hyped up or eagerly anticipated film of the year. However, it is almost indisputable that the film that really can claim that title is Avatar. More than twelve years and (if rumours are to be believed) as much as $500 million in the making, this film sees legendary movie director James Cameron returning to the big screen for the first time since 1997’s mega smash hit Titanic (which is still the most successful movie of all time), the only things he has done in the mean time being a couple of IMAX 3D documentaries and TV series Dark Angel. Having directed such great films as the aforementioned Titanic, the first two Terminator movies’ and Aliens among others, Cameron is a director who has always been on the cutting edge of advances in filmmaking technology and virtually everything he has done in his illustrious career thus far has furthered the filmmaking industry as a whole. For some time the buzz has been that Avatar will achieve this once again, with the new 3D camera Cameron developed himself specifically for this film already being sought after by the elite of Hollywood’s film directors, and the film supposedly delivering the most revolutionary CGI and 3D effects ever seen. However, the momentum for the film hit a slight stumbling block when the first footage was released, some claiming the effects to be too artificial looking and far from the revolutionary content that has been promised. Nonetheless, the film has still become one of the must see events of 2009 and reviews thus far have been stellar. So, the big question is does Avatar live up to its hype - something that is, frankly, quite hard to do given how hyped up it actually is - and will it revolutionise cinema in the way Cameron has envisioned or does it disappoint, just another sci-fi action blockbuster that will be quickly forgotten? Well, it’s James Cameron we’re talking about here so it’s the former of course. Avatar is probably one of the most amazing things you will ever have seen on the big screen.
It is the year 2154 and Earth is a dying world. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a paraplegic ex-marine who is dispatched to the distant jungle world of Pandora where a sinister corporation, run by corporate boss Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), is mining a rare and extremely valuable mineral called Unobtanium. However, the native Na’Vi, a humanoid race who claim Pandora as their home, both physically and spiritually, are none too happy about the damage the humans are causing to their world. So, under the leadership of Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the Avatar Programme has been created to negotiate with the Na’Vi, the Avatars being genetically engineered beings made up of both human and Na’Vi DNA. However, while sharing similar appearance, the Avatars are not trusted by the tribe and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Thus, Jake, the newest member of the Avatar Programme, is recruited by the gung-ho Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) to get on the inside of the Na’Vi tribe and obtain intelligence that will be used against them. Initially, Jake is focused on his mission but everything changes when he encounters Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a member of the Na’Vi tribe who believes there is something special about him. As he is brought into the tribe and begins to learn their ways, Jake finds himself falling in love not only with Neytiri but also the tribe and the entire world. Meanwhile, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand. Enlisting the help of the increasingly embittered Dr Augustine, along with fellow Avatar participant Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore) and pilot Trudy Chacon (Michelle Rodriguez), Jake brings together all the tribes of Pandora for an epic battle for the fate of the world once and for all.
Avatar is a film that has a lot of expectation to live up to, with the buzz essentially promising the most spectacular viewing experience ever seen. Whether or not the film can claim this title will be a matter of individual opinion but whatever your view you will have to admit that the film certainly does come extremely close. Whether you see the 2D version or the 3D version you will be treated to some incredibly photo realistic CGI, which has been used to create an entire planetary ecosystem for Pandora, in which every last detail, down to tiny plants and leaves, has been independently created. Pandora is a true beauty to behold, a jewel of a planet that is breathtaking in scope and spectacle, everything from the plants that glow fluorescently at night to the mountains that float way up in the sky being a truly impressive sight. And, as if the planet itself wasn’t impressive enough, Cameron also delivers some truly spectacular effects in the rendering of the planet’s life forms. Pandora is host to a whole array of unique alien life forms and each is rendered with impressive spectacle but none more than the Na’Vi tribe themselves. Brought to life using motion capture animation technology much like that used in the recently released A Christmas Carol, the Na’Vi (as well as the Avatars) seem completely real and it isn’t just their movements that are true to life. A major criticism that has been levelled at Robert Zemeckis’ recent motion capture films is that the CG characters lacked emotion but the same cannot be said for the characters here. Of course, it probably helps that they are aliens rather humans but the Na’Vi (and, again, Avatars) really do show emotion, and completely believably too. We really do feel for the Na’Vi characters as they find themselves in a fight for their very survival and believe in the growing bond between Jake and Neytiri, and this is a testament to both the impressive capturing of emotions in the characters and the terrific performances from the film’s cast - more on that later. Also, the Avatars look remarkably like their human counterparts, another way in which the effects impress. The film is also visually spectacular in other aspects too. The machines used by the human aggressors look suitably cool and destructive and take part in the film’s climactic battle sequence, which is truly epic, thrilling and completely awe-inspiring. The destruction of Pandora by these machines is also spectacular but in a different way, one that is quite tragic and that we are really encouraged to care about. While not a purely action based movie the action sequences all deliver lots of thrills, ensuring that the film delivers as much in the action department as it does in its representations of Pandora and the love story at its core. The film impresses whether you see the 2D or the 3D version but to get the full impact you really have to see it in three dimensions. It is like the difference between watching a recording of an event and actually being there as it is happening. The 3D is probably the most impressive ever, not once used as a gimmick, but rather as a window into another world and the means to create a fully immersive viewing experience. If you really pay attention you may notice that even little details such as buttons on consoles are in 3D - this is just how much attention has been put into the 3D here. It is like going on a journey through the jungles of Pandora for yourself and actually being a part of the epic events that unfold. The effect is really too impressive to properly put into words so I will describe it in just one - AMAZING. As this is a James Cameron movie though, impressive visuals alone wouldn’t cut it. The film has to have a heart and it most definitely does. We aren’t just awed by the effects but we actually care about what is going on. The story (written by Cameron himself, naturally), with important plot elements told to us in voiceover narration by Jake, is a fantastic piece of writing that effectively blends together both a love story and a sci-fi action adventure in much the same way that Cameron mixed romance and disaster in Titanic, and the dialogue is also up to scratch, not a single line letting the whole down, and an entire language having being created for the Na’Vi. The characters are all superbly written and brought to life by fantastic performances from the entire cast. Sam Worthington, who won much acclaim for his performance in this year’s Terminator Salvation, once again impresses, fully capturing the emotion of a man who finds his entire existence turned on its head as he falls in love with the very planet he is supposed to be helping destroy. His chemistry with co-star Zoe Saldana is electric, and she also impresses as the tough but also gentle woman who win’s the protagonist’s heart. Other tough girl roles come in the form of Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez. As for the other major players, Stephen Lang is a full-on bad ass bad guy as the near psychotic central antagonist and Giovanni Ribisi convinces as the ignorant corporate boss who just watches everything from a distance, refusing to forge any emotional connection to what is going on, his only goal being to make money (just like any real corporate boss, really). So, overall, even with such a ridiculous level of anticipation, Avatar does somehow live up to its hype. Even at a bum numbing 2 hours 45 minutes in length, it never ceases to be interesting, exciting or enjoyable and it shows that James Cameron really has lost none of his ability to wow audiences. In fact, if this really is the future of cinema as many have suggested it to be, and I genuinely believe that it may be, then bring on the future because it is looking quite spectacular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Avatar 2D *****
Hype - it’s a word that gets thrown around a lot these days and this year alone many films have claimed to be the most hyped up or eagerly anticipated film of the year. However, it is almost indisputable that the film that really can claim that title is Avatar. More than twelve years and (if rumours are to be believed) as much as $500 million in the making, this film sees legendary movie director James Cameron returning to the big screen for the first time since 1997’s mega smash hit Titanic (which is still the most successful movie of all time), the only things he has done in the mean time being a couple of IMAX 3D documentaries and TV series Dark Angel. Having directed such great films as the aforementioned Titanic, the first two Terminator movies’ and Aliens among others, Cameron is a director who has always been on the cutting edge of advances in filmmaking technology and virtually everything he has done in his illustrious career thus far has furthered the filmmaking industry as a whole. For some time the buzz has been that Avatar will achieve this once again, with the new 3D camera Cameron developed himself specifically for this film already being sought after by the elite of Hollywood’s film directors, and the film supposedly delivering the most revolutionary CGI and 3D effects ever seen. However, the momentum for the film hit a slight stumbling block when the first footage was released, some claiming the effects to be too artificial looking and far from the revolutionary content that has been promised. Nonetheless, the film has still become one of the must see events of 2009 and reviews thus far have been stellar. So, the big question is does Avatar live up to its hype - something that is, frankly, quite hard to do given how hyped up it actually is - and will it revolutionise cinema in the way Cameron has envisioned or does it disappoint, just another sci-fi action blockbuster that will be quickly forgotten? Well, it’s James Cameron we’re talking about here so it’s the former of course. Avatar is probably one of the most amazing things you will ever have seen on the big screen.
It is the year 2154 and Earth is a dying world. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a paraplegic ex-marine who is dispatched to the distant jungle world of Pandora where a sinister corporation, run by corporate boss Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), is mining a rare and extremely valuable mineral called Unobtanium. However, the native Na’Vi, a humanoid race who claim Pandora as their home, both physically and spiritually, are none too happy about the damage the humans are causing to their world. So, under the leadership of Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the Avatar Programme has been created to negotiate with the Na’Vi, the Avatars being genetically engineered beings made up of both human and Na’Vi DNA. However, while sharing similar appearance, the Avatars are not trusted by the tribe and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Thus, Jake, the newest member of the Avatar Programme, is recruited by the gung-ho Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) to get on the inside of the Na’Vi tribe and obtain intelligence that will be used against them. Initially, Jake is focused on his mission but everything changes when he encounters Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a member of the Na’Vi tribe who believes there is something special about him. As he is brought into the tribe and begins to learn their ways, Jake finds himself falling in love not only with Neytiri but also the tribe and the entire world. Meanwhile, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand. Enlisting the help of the increasingly embittered Dr Augustine, along with fellow Avatar participant Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore) and pilot Trudy Chacon (Michelle Rodriguez), Jake brings together all the tribes of Pandora for an epic battle for the fate of the world once and for all.
Avatar is a film that has a lot of expectation to live up to, with the buzz essentially promising the most spectacular viewing experience ever seen. Whether or not the film can claim this title will be a matter of individual opinion but whatever your view you will have to admit that the film certainly does come extremely close. Whether you see the 2D version or the 3D version you will be treated to some incredibly photo realistic CGI, which has been used to create an entire planetary ecosystem for Pandora, in which every last detail, down to tiny plants and leaves, has been independently created. Pandora is a true beauty to behold, a jewel of a planet that is breathtaking in scope and spectacle, everything from the plants that glow fluorescently at night to the mountains that float way up in the sky being a truly impressive sight. And, as if the planet itself wasn’t impressive enough, Cameron also delivers some truly spectacular effects in the rendering of the planet’s life forms. Pandora is host to a whole array of unique alien life forms and each is rendered with impressive spectacle but none more than the Na’Vi tribe themselves. Brought to life using motion capture animation technology much like that used in the recently released A Christmas Carol, the Na’Vi (as well as the Avatars) seem completely real and it isn’t just their movements that are true to life. A major criticism that has been levelled at Robert Zemeckis’ recent motion capture films is that the CG characters lacked emotion but the same cannot be said for the characters here. Of course, it probably helps that they are aliens rather humans but the Na’Vi (and, again, Avatars) really do show emotion, and completely believably too. We really do feel for the Na’Vi characters as they find themselves in a fight for their very survival and believe in the growing bond between Jake and Neytiri, and this is a testament to both the impressive capturing of emotions in the characters and the terrific performances from the film’s cast - more on that later. Also, the Avatars look remarkably like their human counterparts, another way in which the effects impress. The film is also visually spectacular in other aspects too. The machines used by the human aggressors look suitably cool and destructive and take part in the film’s climactic battle sequence, which is truly epic, thrilling and completely awe-inspiring. The destruction of Pandora by these machines is also spectacular but in a different way, one that is quite tragic and that we are really encouraged to care about. While not a purely action based movie the action sequences all deliver lots of thrills, ensuring that the film delivers as much in the action department as it does in its representations of Pandora and the love story at its core. The film impresses whether you see the 2D or the 3D version but to get the full impact you really have to see it in three dimensions. It is like the difference between watching a recording of an event and actually being there as it is happening. The 3D is probably the most impressive ever, not once used as a gimmick, but rather as a window into another world and the means to create a fully immersive viewing experience. If you really pay attention you may notice that even little details such as buttons on consoles are in 3D - this is just how much attention has been put into the 3D here. It is like going on a journey through the jungles of Pandora for yourself and actually being a part of the epic events that unfold. The effect is really too impressive to properly put into words so I will describe it in just one - AMAZING. As this is a James Cameron movie though, impressive visuals alone wouldn’t cut it. The film has to have a heart and it most definitely does. We aren’t just awed by the effects but we actually care about what is going on. The story (written by Cameron himself, naturally), with important plot elements told to us in voiceover narration by Jake, is a fantastic piece of writing that effectively blends together both a love story and a sci-fi action adventure in much the same way that Cameron mixed romance and disaster in Titanic, and the dialogue is also up to scratch, not a single line letting the whole down, and an entire language having being created for the Na’Vi. The characters are all superbly written and brought to life by fantastic performances from the entire cast. Sam Worthington, who won much acclaim for his performance in this year’s Terminator Salvation, once again impresses, fully capturing the emotion of a man who finds his entire existence turned on its head as he falls in love with the very planet he is supposed to be helping destroy. His chemistry with co-star Zoe Saldana is electric, and she also impresses as the tough but also gentle woman who win’s the protagonist’s heart. Other tough girl roles come in the form of Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez. As for the other major players, Stephen Lang is a full-on bad ass bad guy as the near psychotic central antagonist and Giovanni Ribisi convinces as the ignorant corporate boss who just watches everything from a distance, refusing to forge any emotional connection to what is going on, his only goal being to make money (just like any real corporate boss, really). So, overall, even with such a ridiculous level of anticipation, Avatar does somehow live up to its hype. Even at a bum numbing 2 hours 45 minutes in length, it never ceases to be interesting, exciting or enjoyable and it shows that James Cameron really has lost none of his ability to wow audiences. In fact, if this really is the future of cinema as many have suggested it to be, and I genuinely believe that it may be, then bring on the future because it is looking quite spectacular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Sunday, December 13, 2009
In The Loop Wins
In The Loop, the movie spinoff of BBC political comedy The Thick Of It was named best comedy film at The British Comedy Awards last night.
Dench Loves Loren
Dame Judi Dench had the most terrifying moment of her life while performing a musical number in Nine - because screen legend Sophia Loren was watching her sing.
The veteran star shows off her song and dance skills in director Rob Marshall's movie musical, but she admits she was almost too starstruck to perform after spotting the Italian actress walking onto the set.Dench recalls, "I'd never met her and she arrived on set just as I was about to perform my number. She sat and watched. I said to Rob, 'I can't have ever been more frightened than at this moment.' It was like someone had given me an enormous injection. I suddenly had to be on the ball."
Hey - Eatliz
Hey is a new 3D animatied music video for Eatliz.
Hey is a fantasy journey about a little girl with a special pet friend - a huge toad.
The project took almost 3 years to be realized, together with fifteen animation crew. Hey was selected to a record number of 92 international festivals and won 12 international awards, including The Spike Lee award at the Tribeca Film Festival (NY).
Hey is taken from Eatliz's (Israel's leading alternative band) debut album Violently Delicate which was released in Europe and Israel.
Click here to get the video in HD quality, wallpapers, gallery, trailer and special MTV art, and the AniBoom feature.
The director, Ben Shetrit has a great future ahead of him.
The director, Ben Shetrit has a great future ahead of him.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - Where The Wild Things Are
Where the Wild Things Are *****
Movies based on children’s fantasy books are a dime a dozen nowadays but whereas most filmmakers look to the more famous or more recent works of fantasy fiction such as Harry Potter or Twilight, i.e. ones that have a big place in popular culture, for their inspirations, every now and then a film director looks to something that today’s kids may be a bit less familiar with. Where the Wild Things Are is such a film. This isn’t to say that the 1963 picture story by written and illustrated Maurice Sendak isn’t beloved by people all over the world, because it is in fact one of the most beloved children’s books of all time - at least according to the trailer for this film - but in an age when kids are more interested in wizards and vampires I suspect that not many children will be talking much about the story upon which this film is based. The story is something of an oddity in terms of being an inspiration for a film, though, as while the likes of Harry Potter and Twilight are substantial works of fiction that offer much to transfer to the screen, Where the Wild Things Are is a work clearly aimed at a much younger audience, consisting of a mere 37 pages, most of them taken up with pictures, the story itself being so short that it’s a wonder a feature length film can be made out of it at all. Such a lack of material hasn’t deterred director Spike Jonze, however, who brings his unique and distinctive filming style, previously seen in such offbeat cinematic fare as Being John Malkovich and Adaptation., to a much more mainstream, although still very artistically independent, kind of movie. And it is a style that suits the source material perfectly.
Max (Max Records) is a child turning adolescent who has a very active imagination and who throws fits if others don’t go along with what he wants. Following an incident with his sister Claire (Pepita Emmerichs) and her friends, and a tantrum which he throws as a result of his mother (Catherine Keener) paying more attention to her boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo) than him, Max runs away from home. Wearing his wolf costume at the time, Max not only runs away physically, but runs toward a world in his imagination. This world, an ocean away, is inhabited by large wild beasts, including one named Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini) who is much like Max himself in temperament. Instead of eating Max like they normally would with creatures of his type, the wild things - who also include Ira (voiced by Forest Whitaker), Douglas (voiced by Chris Cooper), The Bull (voiced by Michael Berry Jr.), Judith (voiced by Catherine O’Hara), Alexander (voiced by Paul Dano) and K.W. (voiced by Lauren Ambrose) - befriend Max after he proclaims himself a king who can magically solve all their problems. However, the problems he encountered in the real world soon catch up with him.
Where the Wild Things Are has been described as a “children’s film for adults” and this is a description that certainly that seems pretty accurate. Ranging from the kidified opening studio idents to the deeper undertones that are present throughout the film, there is a clear conflict with regard to who the film is really aimed at - children or adults - but it is a conflict that ultimately turns out in favour of mature moviegoers. This isn’t a criticism against the film but it is to say that anyone expecting a cutesy film that the whole family can enjoy may be in for a bit of a shock - while the book may well have been aimed at the young-uns this film adaptation is probably too deep and intense for really young viewers, being pretty dark and scary at times. Adults who like to let their inner child out every now and then, however, will find a lot to appreciate here. As a fantasy movie, the film really is rather beautiful, with the visuals being excellent in every regard. The film is beautifully shot, the locations and sets are fantastic, making for a visually tantalizing fantasy world, the costumes are superb and the manner in which the ‘Wild Things’ are realized so much better for not being done with CGI but rather real people wearing suits, CGI only used to enhance facial expressions. Such low tech effects as these are one of the key things that really makes the film stand out, as while CGI can deliver amazing visuals, there is something quite special in knowing that something was actually filmed rather than just created in a computer. The film also excels in other areas with fantastic audio courtesy of an indie style soundtrack and a very good story that has much more going on beneath the surface than many may realize. The fantasy world serves as a kind of contrast to Max’s real life, him initially escaping there from the real world but soon finding that he hasn’t really left his problems behind, the reasons for his frustrations really being internal. This creates deep undertones that are a significant presence but never so much as to seem preachy. For anyone who fails to pick up on this, however, the story is still very strong, although some fans of the original story may be disappointed that the actual plot of the book has effectively been retconned and its place an entire new story has been created that is true to the spirit and essence of the book. The script effectively balances the darker moments with some very sweet humour and while the film certainly isn’t recommendable for really young viewers there is certainly for both adults and children to enjoy. The performances are also excellent. Relative newcomer Max Records is sensational as Max, perfectly capturing the essence of a child who feels isolated and alone and who takes his frustrations out on those around him. Unlike many child actors he never once irritates and he shows that he is definitely a star to look out for in the future. Catherine Keener is also very good, even though her screen time is extremely limited. Kudos must also go out for the vocal performers who superbly bring to life the ‘Wild Things’. They don’t just voice the characters; they make us care about them, conveying emotion and personality in plentiful supply. Simply put, they are all excellent. So, all in all, Where the Wild Things Are is a technical marvel of a film. There is plenty for both adults and children to enjoy, but the most appreciation is likely to come from older viewers, and the film may be too scary for really young children. Whatever, though, it is a film that shows the true power of imagination, something that every one of us will have experienced at some point in our lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Movies based on children’s fantasy books are a dime a dozen nowadays but whereas most filmmakers look to the more famous or more recent works of fantasy fiction such as Harry Potter or Twilight, i.e. ones that have a big place in popular culture, for their inspirations, every now and then a film director looks to something that today’s kids may be a bit less familiar with. Where the Wild Things Are is such a film. This isn’t to say that the 1963 picture story by written and illustrated Maurice Sendak isn’t beloved by people all over the world, because it is in fact one of the most beloved children’s books of all time - at least according to the trailer for this film - but in an age when kids are more interested in wizards and vampires I suspect that not many children will be talking much about the story upon which this film is based. The story is something of an oddity in terms of being an inspiration for a film, though, as while the likes of Harry Potter and Twilight are substantial works of fiction that offer much to transfer to the screen, Where the Wild Things Are is a work clearly aimed at a much younger audience, consisting of a mere 37 pages, most of them taken up with pictures, the story itself being so short that it’s a wonder a feature length film can be made out of it at all. Such a lack of material hasn’t deterred director Spike Jonze, however, who brings his unique and distinctive filming style, previously seen in such offbeat cinematic fare as Being John Malkovich and Adaptation., to a much more mainstream, although still very artistically independent, kind of movie. And it is a style that suits the source material perfectly.
Max (Max Records) is a child turning adolescent who has a very active imagination and who throws fits if others don’t go along with what he wants. Following an incident with his sister Claire (Pepita Emmerichs) and her friends, and a tantrum which he throws as a result of his mother (Catherine Keener) paying more attention to her boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo) than him, Max runs away from home. Wearing his wolf costume at the time, Max not only runs away physically, but runs toward a world in his imagination. This world, an ocean away, is inhabited by large wild beasts, including one named Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini) who is much like Max himself in temperament. Instead of eating Max like they normally would with creatures of his type, the wild things - who also include Ira (voiced by Forest Whitaker), Douglas (voiced by Chris Cooper), The Bull (voiced by Michael Berry Jr.), Judith (voiced by Catherine O’Hara), Alexander (voiced by Paul Dano) and K.W. (voiced by Lauren Ambrose) - befriend Max after he proclaims himself a king who can magically solve all their problems. However, the problems he encountered in the real world soon catch up with him.
Where the Wild Things Are has been described as a “children’s film for adults” and this is a description that certainly that seems pretty accurate. Ranging from the kidified opening studio idents to the deeper undertones that are present throughout the film, there is a clear conflict with regard to who the film is really aimed at - children or adults - but it is a conflict that ultimately turns out in favour of mature moviegoers. This isn’t a criticism against the film but it is to say that anyone expecting a cutesy film that the whole family can enjoy may be in for a bit of a shock - while the book may well have been aimed at the young-uns this film adaptation is probably too deep and intense for really young viewers, being pretty dark and scary at times. Adults who like to let their inner child out every now and then, however, will find a lot to appreciate here. As a fantasy movie, the film really is rather beautiful, with the visuals being excellent in every regard. The film is beautifully shot, the locations and sets are fantastic, making for a visually tantalizing fantasy world, the costumes are superb and the manner in which the ‘Wild Things’ are realized so much better for not being done with CGI but rather real people wearing suits, CGI only used to enhance facial expressions. Such low tech effects as these are one of the key things that really makes the film stand out, as while CGI can deliver amazing visuals, there is something quite special in knowing that something was actually filmed rather than just created in a computer. The film also excels in other areas with fantastic audio courtesy of an indie style soundtrack and a very good story that has much more going on beneath the surface than many may realize. The fantasy world serves as a kind of contrast to Max’s real life, him initially escaping there from the real world but soon finding that he hasn’t really left his problems behind, the reasons for his frustrations really being internal. This creates deep undertones that are a significant presence but never so much as to seem preachy. For anyone who fails to pick up on this, however, the story is still very strong, although some fans of the original story may be disappointed that the actual plot of the book has effectively been retconned and its place an entire new story has been created that is true to the spirit and essence of the book. The script effectively balances the darker moments with some very sweet humour and while the film certainly isn’t recommendable for really young viewers there is certainly for both adults and children to enjoy. The performances are also excellent. Relative newcomer Max Records is sensational as Max, perfectly capturing the essence of a child who feels isolated and alone and who takes his frustrations out on those around him. Unlike many child actors he never once irritates and he shows that he is definitely a star to look out for in the future. Catherine Keener is also very good, even though her screen time is extremely limited. Kudos must also go out for the vocal performers who superbly bring to life the ‘Wild Things’. They don’t just voice the characters; they make us care about them, conveying emotion and personality in plentiful supply. Simply put, they are all excellent. So, all in all, Where the Wild Things Are is a technical marvel of a film. There is plenty for both adults and children to enjoy, but the most appreciation is likely to come from older viewers, and the film may be too scary for really young children. Whatever, though, it is a film that shows the true power of imagination, something that every one of us will have experienced at some point in our lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Avatar Twitter Reviews
- Peter Hall, Cinematical: The AVATAR buzz is an understatement. That movie was unbelievable.
- Erik Davis, Cinematical: Avatar screening in Texas just let out – exit polls reveal lots of happy people who were blown away
- ComingSoon.net: Okay, about Avatar?…. WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW! Unbelievable… amazing. James
Cameron has done it again.
- C. Robert Cargill, Ain’t It Cool News: So I just got back from a movie. It was pretty great…if by pretty great I mean OMFGHOLYFUCKINGSHITOMGOMGOMG. Because that’s what it was.
- Rob Worley, Mania.com: AVATAR will not be critic-proof. The story is familiar and ALL the usual Cameron archetypes are in play. I dug it anyway.
- Alex Billington, FirstShowing.net: James Cameron is a freakin’ genius! I can’t say much but wow, I loved it. Avatar was phenomenal, pretty much blew me away.
Blagged From Popbitch
>> Ritchie v Cameron <<
Sherlock Holmes to battle Avatar
Guy Ritchie's film, Sherlock Holmes, is released
on Boxing Day, just a week after James
Cameron's much-anticipated Avatar.
Ritchie was spotted at the IMAX preview of
Avatar with his producer Joel Silver.
They were obviously keeping tabs
on the competition. Ritchie's verdict?
"Well, nothing to worry about here, then".
Sadly, as it was dark, we weren't able to
see whether the remark was said with
any seriousness.
>> Storming around <<
Gangster film director has history
deep_stoat writes:
"If you read the Guardian magazine then you
might have seen this article about the making
of a disastrous UK gangster film. Good to see
director Nic Auerbach is still around but
shame the Guardian didn't have space to mention
how, when he ran Storm Films in the 90s, Auerbach
was notorious for screaming fits, and how
he reduced any number of office managers at
various post houses to tears. I knew one woman
who would actually go and hide when she saw him
coming rather than deal with him."
The article:
http://bit.ly/8LeaNY
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Dodgy Screengrabs - Charlie & The Chocolate Factory
Hope to do loads of these. Thanks to Timm for the pic. Any more? Send 'em our way.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Quote Of The Week : I Am Legend (2007)
"He had this idea. It was kind of a virologist idea. He believed that you could cure racism and hate... literally cure it, by injecting music and love into people's lives. When he was scheduled to perform at a peace rally, a gunman came to his house and shot him down. Two days later he walked out on that stage and sang. When they asked him why - He said, "The people, who were trying to make this world worse... are not taking a day off. How can I ? Light up the darkness." Robert Neville (Will Smith) talking to Anna (Alice Braga) about the iconic Bob Marley. Terrific dialogue.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Cracks Interviews
Juno Temple and Maria Valverde tell all about going back to school and starring opposite Eva Green...
More about this movie
More about this movie
Harry Potter Interviews
As Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince is released on DVD and Blu-ray, Screenrush talk to the young cast about their favourite memories, practical uses of magic and how they would deal with an unforgivable curse...
More about this movie
BIFA
Raindance is delighted to be able to announce this year's winners of the British Independent Film Awards.
The winners were announced a in London's East End Sunday night.
The event was hosted by James Nesbitt, with special honours going to Sir Michael Caine and Daniel Day-Lewis.
Surprise winners were Moon (Best British Independent Film, and Andrea Arnold, Best Director for Fish Tank.
See all the winners of the 2009 British Independent Film Awards here.
The winners were announced a in London's East End Sunday night.
The event was hosted by James Nesbitt, with special honours going to Sir Michael Caine and Daniel Day-Lewis.
Surprise winners were Moon (Best British Independent Film, and Andrea Arnold, Best Director for Fish Tank.
See all the winners of the 2009 British Independent Film Awards here.
What's In The Box ?
The cinematic release of The Box this week got Screenrush thinking about other mysterious receptacles in movies that have baffled, befuddled and often terrified us over the years...
Sasha Grey Interview
The star of The Girlfriend Experience (and plenty of other films....) talks about making the move from porn to the mainstream and acting for director Steven Soderbergh...
More about this movie
More about this movie
In Conversation With Christopher Lloyd
As his latest movie, Santa Buddies, is released on DVD, Screenrush talks to the much-loved actor about the roles that defined his career...
Michael Keaton Interview
Screenrush talks to Michael Keaton about his directorial debut, The Merry Gentleman.
More about this movie
More about this movie
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - The Box
The Box ***½
Back in 2001, with the release of his feature directorial debut Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly was hailed as a visionary film director and considered to be someone to really watch out for in the future. While not a box office success the film was very well received by critics and became something of a cult phenomenon, its cult popularity eventually leading to an unnecessary straight to DVD sequel that Kelly had no part in. With such an impressive debut, expectations were extremely high for Kelly’s follow up film and initially it seemed that his apocalyptic sci-fi/comedy/satire/musical/whatever film Southland Tales might actually live up to these expectations. However, when Kelly’s ‘work in progress’ version premiered at the Cannes Film Festival it was reviled and even after being recut and effects being completed the film still failed big time at the box office, failed to make an impression with critics (although there are a few that really appreciated the film - I am one of them) and worse still failed to find the kind of cult appeal that Kelly’s debut did. Now, several years on, Kelly has made another attempt and, following the excess of Southland Tales, his latest effort is a much more back to basics effort, more akin to the style of his first film. It actually seems like a match made in heaven. The short story Button, Button by sci-fi author Richard Matheson (I Am Legend), previously adapted for television series The Twilight Zone is exactly the kind of source material that Kelly can really do justice to. But after the disappointment of Southland Tales - according to some people anyway - is The Box a return to form for Richard Kelly or will Kelly himself be the victim of The Box?
Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden) Lewis are an ordinary suburban couple whose life has hit a rough patch. Things look like they might improve, however, when one day they receive a strange wooden box with a button on top as a gift. However, this seemingly innocent object comes with fatal and irrevocable consequences. Mysterious stranger Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) tells them that, with the press of the button, the box will bestow one million dollars upon its owner. But pressing the button will simultaneously cause the death of a person - someone they don’t know - somewhere in the world. With just 24 hours to make their choice, Norma and Arthur find themselves in a dark and disturbing reality, where nothing is as it seems.
Even though The Box has been sold as a considerably more mainstream film than Richard Kelly’s previous directorial efforts, it is most likely that if you didn’t appreciate Donnie Darko you won’t find much appreciation for this film. Kelly’s distinctive style is evident throughout in both the visuals and the script (he writes as well as directs once again) and consequently, just like Donnie Darko and Southland Tales before it, this is a film that is unique, so unique in fact that only a minority of moviegoers will actually like, or even understand, it. As with Donnie Darko the story is extremely ambiguous. We are not spoon fed information or given any easy answers but rather left to come up with our own interpretations. In particular, the identity and motives of Arlington Steward’s employees remain a mystery, and are something that could be the subject of much conjecture among film fans for some time to come. The character of Steward himself is an enigma, playing an integral role in the film’s events but without any clear indication as to what he is truly up to. The suggestion that he is conducting tests on human subjects - i.e. Norma and Arthur - makes this quite a thought provoking film, with the series of moral and ethical challenges faced by the characters raising a key question - what would YOU do in the same situation? As such, you are guaranteed to leave the cinema with some food for thought. While the film certainly has such intellectual properties, however, it does take some time to get going, as the film starts off in quite dull and uneventful fashion, taking a bit too long to get the necessary exposition out of the way, and only really coming to life once the button has actually been pushed. This slowness of pace means that the film falls considerably short of the level of quality seen in Donnie Darko but once things get going the quality really does pick up. Kelly creates a suitably eerie and creepy atmosphere, with a definite Twilight Zone style vibe going on, and the story goes off in very interesting and unexpected directions, taking on an Invasion of the Body Snatchers style twist at one point. Kelly also gets plenty of opportunity to show off his technical skills. The cinematography captures the dark, sinister tone of the story well and the visual effects are very good, in particular the effects used to make Arlington Steward into the man with half his face missing that we seen on the screen (an effect that apparently cost $1 million to render), which is extremely realistic and unnerving. This effect also adds to the already sinister screen presence of Frank Langella, who delivers a very good performance as the enigmatic Steward. The other performances are also very good with both James Marsden and Cameron Diaz being believable, and Diaz doing a very convincing Southern accent. Richard Kelly fans will also appreciate the presence of Kelly regular Holmes Osborne as Norma’s father/detective investigating murders that may or may not be linked to the box. Authenticity isn’t just present in the acting, though, but also in other aspects too. The look and feel of 1976 America is very authentic and there is significant attention to detail. The soundtrack also aids the feel of the period, as well as complementing the tension that is being portrayed on the screen. Overall, The Box is a film for Richard Kelly fans and one that is unlikely to be appreciated by a broader audience. It has many qualities for those who are able to appreciate them but for the average moviegoer it may be too slow paced and hard to follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Back in 2001, with the release of his feature directorial debut Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly was hailed as a visionary film director and considered to be someone to really watch out for in the future. While not a box office success the film was very well received by critics and became something of a cult phenomenon, its cult popularity eventually leading to an unnecessary straight to DVD sequel that Kelly had no part in. With such an impressive debut, expectations were extremely high for Kelly’s follow up film and initially it seemed that his apocalyptic sci-fi/comedy/satire/musical/whatever film Southland Tales might actually live up to these expectations. However, when Kelly’s ‘work in progress’ version premiered at the Cannes Film Festival it was reviled and even after being recut and effects being completed the film still failed big time at the box office, failed to make an impression with critics (although there are a few that really appreciated the film - I am one of them) and worse still failed to find the kind of cult appeal that Kelly’s debut did. Now, several years on, Kelly has made another attempt and, following the excess of Southland Tales, his latest effort is a much more back to basics effort, more akin to the style of his first film. It actually seems like a match made in heaven. The short story Button, Button by sci-fi author Richard Matheson (I Am Legend), previously adapted for television series The Twilight Zone is exactly the kind of source material that Kelly can really do justice to. But after the disappointment of Southland Tales - according to some people anyway - is The Box a return to form for Richard Kelly or will Kelly himself be the victim of The Box?
Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden) Lewis are an ordinary suburban couple whose life has hit a rough patch. Things look like they might improve, however, when one day they receive a strange wooden box with a button on top as a gift. However, this seemingly innocent object comes with fatal and irrevocable consequences. Mysterious stranger Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) tells them that, with the press of the button, the box will bestow one million dollars upon its owner. But pressing the button will simultaneously cause the death of a person - someone they don’t know - somewhere in the world. With just 24 hours to make their choice, Norma and Arthur find themselves in a dark and disturbing reality, where nothing is as it seems.
Even though The Box has been sold as a considerably more mainstream film than Richard Kelly’s previous directorial efforts, it is most likely that if you didn’t appreciate Donnie Darko you won’t find much appreciation for this film. Kelly’s distinctive style is evident throughout in both the visuals and the script (he writes as well as directs once again) and consequently, just like Donnie Darko and Southland Tales before it, this is a film that is unique, so unique in fact that only a minority of moviegoers will actually like, or even understand, it. As with Donnie Darko the story is extremely ambiguous. We are not spoon fed information or given any easy answers but rather left to come up with our own interpretations. In particular, the identity and motives of Arlington Steward’s employees remain a mystery, and are something that could be the subject of much conjecture among film fans for some time to come. The character of Steward himself is an enigma, playing an integral role in the film’s events but without any clear indication as to what he is truly up to. The suggestion that he is conducting tests on human subjects - i.e. Norma and Arthur - makes this quite a thought provoking film, with the series of moral and ethical challenges faced by the characters raising a key question - what would YOU do in the same situation? As such, you are guaranteed to leave the cinema with some food for thought. While the film certainly has such intellectual properties, however, it does take some time to get going, as the film starts off in quite dull and uneventful fashion, taking a bit too long to get the necessary exposition out of the way, and only really coming to life once the button has actually been pushed. This slowness of pace means that the film falls considerably short of the level of quality seen in Donnie Darko but once things get going the quality really does pick up. Kelly creates a suitably eerie and creepy atmosphere, with a definite Twilight Zone style vibe going on, and the story goes off in very interesting and unexpected directions, taking on an Invasion of the Body Snatchers style twist at one point. Kelly also gets plenty of opportunity to show off his technical skills. The cinematography captures the dark, sinister tone of the story well and the visual effects are very good, in particular the effects used to make Arlington Steward into the man with half his face missing that we seen on the screen (an effect that apparently cost $1 million to render), which is extremely realistic and unnerving. This effect also adds to the already sinister screen presence of Frank Langella, who delivers a very good performance as the enigmatic Steward. The other performances are also very good with both James Marsden and Cameron Diaz being believable, and Diaz doing a very convincing Southern accent. Richard Kelly fans will also appreciate the presence of Kelly regular Holmes Osborne as Norma’s father/detective investigating murders that may or may not be linked to the box. Authenticity isn’t just present in the acting, though, but also in other aspects too. The look and feel of 1976 America is very authentic and there is significant attention to detail. The soundtrack also aids the feel of the period, as well as complementing the tension that is being portrayed on the screen. Overall, The Box is a film for Richard Kelly fans and one that is unlikely to be appreciated by a broader audience. It has many qualities for those who are able to appreciate them but for the average moviegoer it may be too slow paced and hard to follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Film Review with Robert Mann - Planet 51
Planet 51 **½
2009 has seen something of a revolution in the world of computer animated filmmaking. With digital 3D becoming a fixture in cinemas all around the world, and seemingly here to stay, all the major animation studios have been adopting three dimensions into their movies, giving an edge to films that were already quite impressive to look at to start with. However, while the big boys have all been getting in on the 3D act, many smaller animation studios have been left out. One of these is the Spanish based animation studio Ilion Animation who this week, make their feature debut with the release of Planet 51. Having already been release in the states the film performed extremely poorly, suggesting that demand for animated movies not released in 3D has virtually disappeared over the past year. But while the film may not be presented in three dimensions, does this mean that the film is in any way two dimensional when it comes to quality on its own terms? Sadly yes.
Lem (voiced by Justin Long) is just an average teenager working on getting his dream girl Neera (voiced by Jessica Biel) and furthering his career at the local planetarium - except that he's an alien. At least to U.S. astronaut Captain Charles T. Baker (voiced by Dwayne Johnson) who lands on Lem's planet hoping for a quick flag plant and a hasty return to Earth and his millions of screaming fans. But on this alien planet, which bares a striking resemblance to 1950s America, the media has tagged spacemen as brain-eating, zombie-creating monsters, causing Baker to run for his life and into Lem's house. Now it's up to the green native to get the clumsy astronaut back to his spaceship before military dictator General Grawl (voiced by Gary Oldman) and mad scientist Professor Kipple (voiced by John Cleese) manage to exterminate the Earthly visitor.
In the animation department, while it may not quite be of the standard we have come to expect from the product of the major animation, Planet 51 does have some things going for it. While rookies to the computer animation game, Ilion Animation has done a pretty decent job here with animation that is bright and colourful and extremely cute and charming with a very smooth look, even if it is a bit lacking in texture. The animation style perfectly suits the content of the film and shows that Ilion may well have a bright future in the world of animation. Sure, the animation isn’t the best you will see this year but at times there are sequences that are quite beautiful. It is really just a shame that the quality seen in the animation isn’t evident elsewhere. For example, when it comes to humour there is a genuine lack of substance. Essentially, the film is a homage/spoof of 50s B movies and this comes with a potential goldmine for gags, something that this year’s Monsters Vs Aliens exploited very effectively, but here much of the humour is rather predictable and the successful gags are more likely to make you giggle than laugh out loud. There are a few in jokes and references that are clearly aimed at older viewers, with films being references including Aliens - alien xenomorphs are kept as pets - E.T., Star Wars and The Terminator. Sadly, none of these jokes are particularly smart and so not only will they not make older viewers laugh but they will also go completely over the heads of younger ones. The voice cast is also pretty serviceable with all involved doing a decent job but no one really standing out in anyway. This is pretty much the way the film is in general, actually - a serviceable and mildly entertaining animated film that may keep undemanding kids satisfied for a while but has little to offer anyone wanting more. There is definite promise in the animation though so here’s hoping that Planet 51 isn’t the last we see of Ilion Animation, but that next time they’ll put a bit more effort into other aspects as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
2009 has seen something of a revolution in the world of computer animated filmmaking. With digital 3D becoming a fixture in cinemas all around the world, and seemingly here to stay, all the major animation studios have been adopting three dimensions into their movies, giving an edge to films that were already quite impressive to look at to start with. However, while the big boys have all been getting in on the 3D act, many smaller animation studios have been left out. One of these is the Spanish based animation studio Ilion Animation who this week, make their feature debut with the release of Planet 51. Having already been release in the states the film performed extremely poorly, suggesting that demand for animated movies not released in 3D has virtually disappeared over the past year. But while the film may not be presented in three dimensions, does this mean that the film is in any way two dimensional when it comes to quality on its own terms? Sadly yes.
Lem (voiced by Justin Long) is just an average teenager working on getting his dream girl Neera (voiced by Jessica Biel) and furthering his career at the local planetarium - except that he's an alien. At least to U.S. astronaut Captain Charles T. Baker (voiced by Dwayne Johnson) who lands on Lem's planet hoping for a quick flag plant and a hasty return to Earth and his millions of screaming fans. But on this alien planet, which bares a striking resemblance to 1950s America, the media has tagged spacemen as brain-eating, zombie-creating monsters, causing Baker to run for his life and into Lem's house. Now it's up to the green native to get the clumsy astronaut back to his spaceship before military dictator General Grawl (voiced by Gary Oldman) and mad scientist Professor Kipple (voiced by John Cleese) manage to exterminate the Earthly visitor.
In the animation department, while it may not quite be of the standard we have come to expect from the product of the major animation, Planet 51 does have some things going for it. While rookies to the computer animation game, Ilion Animation has done a pretty decent job here with animation that is bright and colourful and extremely cute and charming with a very smooth look, even if it is a bit lacking in texture. The animation style perfectly suits the content of the film and shows that Ilion may well have a bright future in the world of animation. Sure, the animation isn’t the best you will see this year but at times there are sequences that are quite beautiful. It is really just a shame that the quality seen in the animation isn’t evident elsewhere. For example, when it comes to humour there is a genuine lack of substance. Essentially, the film is a homage/spoof of 50s B movies and this comes with a potential goldmine for gags, something that this year’s Monsters Vs Aliens exploited very effectively, but here much of the humour is rather predictable and the successful gags are more likely to make you giggle than laugh out loud. There are a few in jokes and references that are clearly aimed at older viewers, with films being references including Aliens - alien xenomorphs are kept as pets - E.T., Star Wars and The Terminator. Sadly, none of these jokes are particularly smart and so not only will they not make older viewers laugh but they will also go completely over the heads of younger ones. The voice cast is also pretty serviceable with all involved doing a decent job but no one really standing out in anyway. This is pretty much the way the film is in general, actually - a serviceable and mildly entertaining animated film that may keep undemanding kids satisfied for a while but has little to offer anyone wanting more. There is definite promise in the animation though so here’s hoping that Planet 51 isn’t the last we see of Ilion Animation, but that next time they’ll put a bit more effort into other aspects as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Saturday, December 5, 2009
It's The Bunny And The Bull Weird Museum Challenge!
Does director Paul King know the difference between the real crazy museums and the made-up ones?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)