Plot: In 19th century London, Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp) was falsely banished by Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman), who lusted after his wife. Fifteen years later, Barker assumes the alias of Sweeney Todd and returns to London. He goes to the pie shop of Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), where he learns his wife killed herself after being raped by Turpin and that his daughter is now Turpin's ward and the object of his affection, which she doesn't want. Benjamin Barker, now Sweeney Todd, is determined to get revenge.
Review: I'm not a big fan of musicals. The only reason I wanted to watch this is because Tim Burton directed it. I was surprised at how fantastic this movie is.
The plot is very melodramatic and I absolutely love it. It's a fantastic story of revenge and love. When I watch this, I do feel like I'm watching a horror film version of Hamlet. Hamlet is a character obsessed with getting revenge, like Sweeney Todd is. His plans for revenge don't go as he intended, but unlike in Hamlet, it does work out in a twisted way for Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett. Until the end of the film that is.
The acting is outstanding. Johnny Depp is fantastic and I honestly think that this is one of his better performances. I don't know what Johnny's musical background is but he's actually a pretty decent singer. I didn't find him really mind-blowing but he's still good and holds his own. Helena Bonham Carter is also great in this. I think she and Johnny Depp had good chemistry between the two of them. Alan Rickman plays Judge Turpin, whom Sweeney Todd is going after for for revenge. I think he's brilliant in this role. Alan Rickman really is a great villain actor. Sacha Cohen Baron plays Adolfo Pirelli/Davy Collins, a barber who use to be Benjamin Barker's apprentice. I was surprised to see how good Baron is as a dramatic actor. We're so use to seeing him as Borat or anything else comedic, that it's very surprising to see how wide his acting range is. Jayne Wisener plays Johanna, Sweeney's daughter. I think she was very good in her role. Her vulnerability really shows on screen and I think she was a great asset. Ed Sanders plays Toby Ragg, an orphan that Mrs. Lovett hires and becomes deeply attached to her. I think he was phenomenal and he was a standout for me. The entire cast is amazingly talented and made this film work. Even though I love the plot, it's so over the top that it could've easily gone downhill. I think the cast helped the audience make sense of this crazy world.
Sweeney Todd is a musical so of course we have a wide variety of songs. I enjoyed most of them. My favourite was Worse Pies in London, sung by Helena Bonham Carter. I don't know why but I just found the song very entertaining and it's the more upbeat song that I can think of in the entire track. And it really gives us a good introduction of Helena Bonham Carter's character and a description of her struggles. I also believe Johnny Depp had a really good singing voice that fitted well for the role.
I liked the film's look. The makeup and costumes for all the characters is very much Tim Burton's style. Very dark, gothic and slightly depressing. The same goes for the setting of London in the nineteenth century. When you look at the film itself, you know that it's a Tim Burton movie.
Sweeney Todd kills his victims by slitting their throats. So of course this is a very bloody movie. I'm not a big fan of gore. I cringe at the sight of blood and gore in horror films, even though I love them. And I don't like gore because I think that filmmakers in general use it for the sake of it. They show gore because they want to, not because they have to for the story's sake. But in this case, I believe that the gore and blood was important and necessary to the story and the character of Sweeney Todd. The blood that shoots out of the victim's throat is showing us how mad Sweeney is and how determined is to get revenge for his life being destroyed, as well as the lives of his wife and now teenage daughter.
Sweeney Todd is a highly entertaining, fun and thrilling film that I think is one of Tim Burton's best films.
Rating: 4.5/5
Thursday 31 May 2012
Sunday 20 May 2012
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists (2012)
Plot: Pirate Captain is determined to win Pirate of the Year, in order to up his peers. He believes his opportunity has come when a young Charles Darwin persuades Pirate Captain to bring Polly, the parrot who is actually the last living dodo bird in a science competition where Charles Darwin hopes to be crowned Scientist of the Year. Pirate Captain looses his way as he tries to get to the top. Can he get out?
Review: This is a good, entertaining animated film.
I did like the story. I think that the story and characters appeal to both kids and adults. We have the setting of London in 1837, which some of the older viewers might enjoy seeing for it's accuracy or inaccuracy. We have fun characters that will lure in the kids and non-fictional characters that will lure in the adults.
I was actually surprised by the historical characters that were used in the film. In the film, we have a young Charles Darwin and Queen Victoria. For the kids that will be seeing this, they will more than likely have no idea who they are. But for the parents that are taking their kids to the movie, they will. The film is an adaptation from a series of books that I hadn't heard of, so I was genuinely surprised by the appearances of these two characters. Are they realistic portrayals of these historical figures. Of course not. But they're still entertaining to watch.
I felt that there wasn't an equal focus on all of the characters. Like Pirate Captain's crew. There's one pirate who's pretending to be a man. It's a good gag, but I wish we'd know more about this character and her motives about why she's pretending to be a guy. That annoyed me. The same thing goes for the other crew members. They all have good lines and provide good gags, yet we don't know about them as characters.
I liked the blend of humors in this. There's physical comedy, a couple of decent jokes for the parents, Charles' monkey with the caption cards and amongst others. So I did like the different types of humor. I also don't recall toilet humor, which I was relieved by because there are too many kids movies now that rely on farts in order to get a laugh. So I appreciate that the writers and everyone decided to take different comedy types and mix it all into one. And although they didn't always work, the ending result was good.
The animation is flawless like all of Aardman's films. Clay animation, as most of us know, is extremely time consuming and requires great attention to detail to make it work. These guys know what they're doing. It shows in every film. They made this film in 3D and sadly I was only able to see it in 2D.
So despite my praise for their work, there are times when the film is slightly boring, which is something I haven't said about a film from Aardman Studios to day. This is the studio that helped create the Wallace & Gromit films and Chicken Run, all funny and highly entertaining films. The plot is sometimes cliche and you can see the outcome coming and how everything will end. So I will say that maybe I had my expectations a little too high with this.
Whilst The Pirates! isn't Aardman's strongest film to date, it is still entertaining and good fun for the family.
Rating: 3/5
Review: This is a good, entertaining animated film.
I did like the story. I think that the story and characters appeal to both kids and adults. We have the setting of London in 1837, which some of the older viewers might enjoy seeing for it's accuracy or inaccuracy. We have fun characters that will lure in the kids and non-fictional characters that will lure in the adults.
I was actually surprised by the historical characters that were used in the film. In the film, we have a young Charles Darwin and Queen Victoria. For the kids that will be seeing this, they will more than likely have no idea who they are. But for the parents that are taking their kids to the movie, they will. The film is an adaptation from a series of books that I hadn't heard of, so I was genuinely surprised by the appearances of these two characters. Are they realistic portrayals of these historical figures. Of course not. But they're still entertaining to watch.
I felt that there wasn't an equal focus on all of the characters. Like Pirate Captain's crew. There's one pirate who's pretending to be a man. It's a good gag, but I wish we'd know more about this character and her motives about why she's pretending to be a guy. That annoyed me. The same thing goes for the other crew members. They all have good lines and provide good gags, yet we don't know about them as characters.
I liked the blend of humors in this. There's physical comedy, a couple of decent jokes for the parents, Charles' monkey with the caption cards and amongst others. So I did like the different types of humor. I also don't recall toilet humor, which I was relieved by because there are too many kids movies now that rely on farts in order to get a laugh. So I appreciate that the writers and everyone decided to take different comedy types and mix it all into one. And although they didn't always work, the ending result was good.
The animation is flawless like all of Aardman's films. Clay animation, as most of us know, is extremely time consuming and requires great attention to detail to make it work. These guys know what they're doing. It shows in every film. They made this film in 3D and sadly I was only able to see it in 2D.
So despite my praise for their work, there are times when the film is slightly boring, which is something I haven't said about a film from Aardman Studios to day. This is the studio that helped create the Wallace & Gromit films and Chicken Run, all funny and highly entertaining films. The plot is sometimes cliche and you can see the outcome coming and how everything will end. So I will say that maybe I had my expectations a little too high with this.
Whilst The Pirates! isn't Aardman's strongest film to date, it is still entertaining and good fun for the family.
Rating: 3/5
Monday 14 May 2012
True Grit (2010)
Plot: Rooster (Jeff Bridges), a tough U.S. Marshall, helps Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld) track down her father's murderer.
Review: I saw this around January 2011 in theatres. I honestly didn't know what to expect. It was cheap movie night so I figured why not go see something I hadn't heard of. And if it sucked, it wouldn't be a big waste of money. I was genuinely surprised at how fantastic this movie was. I'm not the biggest fan of Westerns, with a few exceptions, so it takes a lot to get me on board.
A wanted fugitive, a smart youngster, horses and of course guns being shot. That's what you'd expect out of a Western. And it's all in here. But there's so much more than that. What I see in this film is a story about justice and the serving of justice. But each character in the movie has a different sense of what justice is and how it should be served. What is the right and wrong thing to do? Is death the answer? I found the points of view interesting and they mesh together and make a compelling story.
An aspect of the film that shocked me most when I first saw it back in 2011 was how funny the movie is. It's not laugh out loud funny, but there are moments of good humor provided, especially by Jeff Bridges. The movie's tone is dark and suspenseful so it's good to laugh at certain points.
The acting is top notch. Jeff Bridges is of course fantastic as he usually is in his portrayal of Rooster. He is able to convincingly play a man who cares, although he doesn't allow it to be shown. He was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor last year and was completely deserving of it. Matt Damon plays LeBoeuf, a Texas ranger after Tom Chaney for the murder of a Texan senator. I think Matt Damon was a good choice and I found that his character is like a younger version of Rooster. Josh Brolin plays Tom Chanry, the man who murdered Mattie's father and the senator in Texas amongst others. I thought he was a convincing and menacing villain. Most villains have some sort of redeeming quality. This one had none that I could see. And I liked that because there are some characters that can't atone for their sins. I still believe that Josh Brolin and Matt Damon should have received Oscar nominations for their performances. Of course their chances of winning were slim, but they should have been recognized for their brilliant work.
But the real standout of the film is Hailee Steinfeld. She is phenomenal in her on-screen debut. Her character is determined, fearless and courageous and wise and mature beyond her years. And Steinfeld portrays that perfectly. Hailee Steinfeld was fourteen when she made this film and she's quite impressive. She was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Supporting Actress category. Although I'm happy she was recognized, she shouldn't have been nominated for Supporting Actress. She's on-screen more than Jeff Bridges, who was nominated for Best Actor. She should've been nominated for Best Actress. Nonetheless, her chances of winning were unfortunately slim in whatever category she got nominated in. Maybe it's her age. Either way, if she continues acting, I think she'll have a great career ahead of her.
Joel and Ethan Coen (who wrote, directed and produced this) are an awesome duo. Their ability to create moments of intensity, suspense and flat out humor in this Western is incredible. Each of them uses their own respective talent and use them to make an incredible film. True Grit received ten Oscar nominations last year (the second most nominated film) and didn't win any. I think it was one of the least talked about out of all the nominees. I do think if The King's Speech (2010) wouldn't have won, True Grit would've.
True Grit is an intense, suspenseful, entertaining and humorous film that you shouldn't cut yourself short of.
Rating: 5/5
Review: I saw this around January 2011 in theatres. I honestly didn't know what to expect. It was cheap movie night so I figured why not go see something I hadn't heard of. And if it sucked, it wouldn't be a big waste of money. I was genuinely surprised at how fantastic this movie was. I'm not the biggest fan of Westerns, with a few exceptions, so it takes a lot to get me on board.
A wanted fugitive, a smart youngster, horses and of course guns being shot. That's what you'd expect out of a Western. And it's all in here. But there's so much more than that. What I see in this film is a story about justice and the serving of justice. But each character in the movie has a different sense of what justice is and how it should be served. What is the right and wrong thing to do? Is death the answer? I found the points of view interesting and they mesh together and make a compelling story.
An aspect of the film that shocked me most when I first saw it back in 2011 was how funny the movie is. It's not laugh out loud funny, but there are moments of good humor provided, especially by Jeff Bridges. The movie's tone is dark and suspenseful so it's good to laugh at certain points.
The acting is top notch. Jeff Bridges is of course fantastic as he usually is in his portrayal of Rooster. He is able to convincingly play a man who cares, although he doesn't allow it to be shown. He was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor last year and was completely deserving of it. Matt Damon plays LeBoeuf, a Texas ranger after Tom Chaney for the murder of a Texan senator. I think Matt Damon was a good choice and I found that his character is like a younger version of Rooster. Josh Brolin plays Tom Chanry, the man who murdered Mattie's father and the senator in Texas amongst others. I thought he was a convincing and menacing villain. Most villains have some sort of redeeming quality. This one had none that I could see. And I liked that because there are some characters that can't atone for their sins. I still believe that Josh Brolin and Matt Damon should have received Oscar nominations for their performances. Of course their chances of winning were slim, but they should have been recognized for their brilliant work.
But the real standout of the film is Hailee Steinfeld. She is phenomenal in her on-screen debut. Her character is determined, fearless and courageous and wise and mature beyond her years. And Steinfeld portrays that perfectly. Hailee Steinfeld was fourteen when she made this film and she's quite impressive. She was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Supporting Actress category. Although I'm happy she was recognized, she shouldn't have been nominated for Supporting Actress. She's on-screen more than Jeff Bridges, who was nominated for Best Actor. She should've been nominated for Best Actress. Nonetheless, her chances of winning were unfortunately slim in whatever category she got nominated in. Maybe it's her age. Either way, if she continues acting, I think she'll have a great career ahead of her.
Joel and Ethan Coen (who wrote, directed and produced this) are an awesome duo. Their ability to create moments of intensity, suspense and flat out humor in this Western is incredible. Each of them uses their own respective talent and use them to make an incredible film. True Grit received ten Oscar nominations last year (the second most nominated film) and didn't win any. I think it was one of the least talked about out of all the nominees. I do think if The King's Speech (2010) wouldn't have won, True Grit would've.
True Grit is an intense, suspenseful, entertaining and humorous film that you shouldn't cut yourself short of.
Rating: 5/5
Thursday 10 May 2012
The Devil Inside (2012)
Plot: A young woman named Isabella becomes involved in a series of unauthorized exorcisms during her mission to discover what happened to her mother, who supposedly murdered three people during her own exorcism.
Review: I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this. When I saw the trailer when I went to go see Paranormal Activity 3 in theatres, I remember thinking: that movie will either do well or do incredibly bad. There's no in between. And I was happy that I wasn't expecting much because this was not good. The film was actually worse than I thought it would be. That's not good.
First of all, the film has no consistent plot. I liked the story idea I admit, but it didn't work. They kind of went along the same lines as the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project. Shaky camera movements, documentary style etc. But the difference is that the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project had some sort of consistency in the plot and characters.
We've seen exorcism done in horror films time and time again. I was actually liking the idea of secret exorcisms in Italy. I was also curious about what's really wrong with the mother because the way they advertised the movie, it was as if they were looking not only at the religion aspect, but the scientific aspect as well when it comes to people being supposedly possessed. I use that premise was explored more. But as usual, this film about exorcism followed the usual format and didn't really try anything different. We had floating people, body parts being contorted and everything else we've seen in other horror films, especially those that revolve around demonic possession.
The film's "acting" is decent at best, and I use the term loosely. Everyone in the cast is okay. The only standout for me was Suzan Crowley, who plays Isabella's mother, Maria. I thought she was convincingly creepy and eerie in her role.
The film's ending is what really made me crazy and not in a good way. There's no resolution at all. In the Paranormal Activity films, there's some sort of resolution. There not always great, but you know that something has happened. Like in Paranormal Activity 3, you know that those kids are doomed and that the husband is dead. We knew that even though it said the case was unsolved. It let us use our imaginations and imagine the worse case scenarios. In this, it just ends right then and there. It's like we're suppose to accept what supposedly happened and move on.
The entire film felt like they just shot a bunch of footage, put it together and hoped that it would work. But sadly it did not.
The Devil Inside is probably one of the worse horror movies I've seen in a long time and probably one of the worse films of 2012. Don't bother wasting your time with this. The only reason I'm giving the rating I'm giving is because of Suzan Crowley, who did give me the creeps when I watched this. And I feel that the rating I'm giving it is a little too high to be frank.
Rating: 1/5
Review: I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this. When I saw the trailer when I went to go see Paranormal Activity 3 in theatres, I remember thinking: that movie will either do well or do incredibly bad. There's no in between. And I was happy that I wasn't expecting much because this was not good. The film was actually worse than I thought it would be. That's not good.
First of all, the film has no consistent plot. I liked the story idea I admit, but it didn't work. They kind of went along the same lines as the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project. Shaky camera movements, documentary style etc. But the difference is that the Paranormal Activity films and The Blair Witch Project had some sort of consistency in the plot and characters.
We've seen exorcism done in horror films time and time again. I was actually liking the idea of secret exorcisms in Italy. I was also curious about what's really wrong with the mother because the way they advertised the movie, it was as if they were looking not only at the religion aspect, but the scientific aspect as well when it comes to people being supposedly possessed. I use that premise was explored more. But as usual, this film about exorcism followed the usual format and didn't really try anything different. We had floating people, body parts being contorted and everything else we've seen in other horror films, especially those that revolve around demonic possession.
The film's "acting" is decent at best, and I use the term loosely. Everyone in the cast is okay. The only standout for me was Suzan Crowley, who plays Isabella's mother, Maria. I thought she was convincingly creepy and eerie in her role.
The film's ending is what really made me crazy and not in a good way. There's no resolution at all. In the Paranormal Activity films, there's some sort of resolution. There not always great, but you know that something has happened. Like in Paranormal Activity 3, you know that those kids are doomed and that the husband is dead. We knew that even though it said the case was unsolved. It let us use our imaginations and imagine the worse case scenarios. In this, it just ends right then and there. It's like we're suppose to accept what supposedly happened and move on.
The entire film felt like they just shot a bunch of footage, put it together and hoped that it would work. But sadly it did not.
The Devil Inside is probably one of the worse horror movies I've seen in a long time and probably one of the worse films of 2012. Don't bother wasting your time with this. The only reason I'm giving the rating I'm giving is because of Suzan Crowley, who did give me the creeps when I watched this. And I feel that the rating I'm giving it is a little too high to be frank.
Rating: 1/5
The Incredibles (2004)
Plot: A family of undercover superheroes are forced to go back to their superhero ways to stop a super villain.
Review: Another great Pixar movie.
For me, the story is what held the film together. It's so layered and touches on so many different subjects. I'm going to point out certain aspects of the plot that I really liked and thought made the film so memorable.
What I like about this movie is that it takes the superhero story and turns it around and makes it unique. In this films, most superheroes are known and they work for someone. In some superhero movies, most of the heroes work in isolation and the government is their enemy. In this case, the government helps the superheroes. They help them create their "normal identities", erase the memories of those that know who they are and relocate them. So I like the premise of superheroes working and being known to a government.
I like the huge variety of superheroes that we got in this. We had Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible, Frozone. They're all so different, in terms of their powers, motives. Yet, they all unit for the same purpose- to bring peace into the world.
Syndrome, the villain of the film, is captivating and impressive. What I like about him is that he's very much human. He's been rejected by his own hero and is now determined to bring not only that hero down, but every other hero possible. The audience is able to relate with him because Syndrome the representation of those that have been put down and said they can't do what they want to do. He's the person who's dreams have been crushed and is determined to avenge that. To prove those people wrong.
In addition to all the superhero aspects, we have the human side as well. We have the family relationships. Bob (Mr. Incredible) and Helene (Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible), whose marriage is becoming strained. Bob is tired of the same old routine and longs to live back the glory days. It's very real and the parents watching this with their kids can realize that.
We also get the kids point of view in this. Typically, we don't see the true point of view of a superheo's child. In this case, we have a teenager and a pre-adolescent and a baby. We have Violet, Dash and Jack-Jack. Violet, the teenager and Dash, the preteen, long to be normal. They want to fit in society but realize that they have their limitations because of possible exposure. We have the kids realizing that the world is a dangerous place and learning the harsh truths that come with being a superhero. It's life or death.
Unlike most Pixar films, especially before this came out, I was genuinely surprised at the amount of violence and violent images. It's not overly traumatic for kids, but there are a lot of explosions, punches thrown, implied deaths and such that some the really younger kids might find unsettling.
Now I'm going to move from the story and touch on a few other things. The animation, like all of Pixar's films, is fantastic. From the multiple explosions, to the town, Frozone using his powers, Violet becoming invisible, Dash running on water, the chaos that Syndrome brings to the town, is all flawlessly down. It's incredible.
The Incredibles is an entertaining, exciting and thrilling animated film that is without a doubt one of Pixar's best works and will probably go down as being one of the best animated films ever created.
Rating: 5/5
Review: Another great Pixar movie.
For me, the story is what held the film together. It's so layered and touches on so many different subjects. I'm going to point out certain aspects of the plot that I really liked and thought made the film so memorable.
What I like about this movie is that it takes the superhero story and turns it around and makes it unique. In this films, most superheroes are known and they work for someone. In some superhero movies, most of the heroes work in isolation and the government is their enemy. In this case, the government helps the superheroes. They help them create their "normal identities", erase the memories of those that know who they are and relocate them. So I like the premise of superheroes working and being known to a government.
I like the huge variety of superheroes that we got in this. We had Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible, Frozone. They're all so different, in terms of their powers, motives. Yet, they all unit for the same purpose- to bring peace into the world.
Syndrome, the villain of the film, is captivating and impressive. What I like about him is that he's very much human. He's been rejected by his own hero and is now determined to bring not only that hero down, but every other hero possible. The audience is able to relate with him because Syndrome the representation of those that have been put down and said they can't do what they want to do. He's the person who's dreams have been crushed and is determined to avenge that. To prove those people wrong.
In addition to all the superhero aspects, we have the human side as well. We have the family relationships. Bob (Mr. Incredible) and Helene (Elastigirl/Mrs. Incredible), whose marriage is becoming strained. Bob is tired of the same old routine and longs to live back the glory days. It's very real and the parents watching this with their kids can realize that.
We also get the kids point of view in this. Typically, we don't see the true point of view of a superheo's child. In this case, we have a teenager and a pre-adolescent and a baby. We have Violet, Dash and Jack-Jack. Violet, the teenager and Dash, the preteen, long to be normal. They want to fit in society but realize that they have their limitations because of possible exposure. We have the kids realizing that the world is a dangerous place and learning the harsh truths that come with being a superhero. It's life or death.
Unlike most Pixar films, especially before this came out, I was genuinely surprised at the amount of violence and violent images. It's not overly traumatic for kids, but there are a lot of explosions, punches thrown, implied deaths and such that some the really younger kids might find unsettling.
Now I'm going to move from the story and touch on a few other things. The animation, like all of Pixar's films, is fantastic. From the multiple explosions, to the town, Frozone using his powers, Violet becoming invisible, Dash running on water, the chaos that Syndrome brings to the town, is all flawlessly down. It's incredible.
The Incredibles is an entertaining, exciting and thrilling animated film that is without a doubt one of Pixar's best works and will probably go down as being one of the best animated films ever created.
Rating: 5/5
Tuesday 8 May 2012
The Animal (2001)
Plot: Marvin (Rob Schneider), a man who dreams of being a cop, is in a car accident. A scientist finds him and puts animal parts in Marvin to give him a chance of survival. Marvin's animal side starts taking over.
Review: This movie is enjoyable. But is it great? No. It's decent at best.
The script is the film's biggest problem. I laughed a lot and the film is sporadically entertaining. The plot and story is very unbalanced. It's like the writers just wrote a bunch of scenarios and threw them together, hoping it would work. Some of it does, but the script isn't good enough to keep us engaged throughout the entire movie.
The acting is fine. Rob Schneider is Marvin. He's okay in his role. He's not my favorite comedian but I did laugh nonetheless. I think if there had been a different comedian, like Adam Sandler, maybe it would've worked a little better. Colleen Haskell plays Rianna, Marvin's love interest. I thought she did a decent job and I also think she and Rob Schneider worked well together. The twist with Rianna at the end I didn't expect. It doesn't make sense because they didn't really foreshadow it at all. It just came up out of the blue. Maybe that's why I was surprised. That goes back to the lack of good writing. John C. McGinley is Sergeant Sisk and I think he's on the same level as everyone else in terms of acting. Bu I hated the character and he wasn't sympathetic at all. Michael Caton is Dr. Wilder, the doctor that saves Marvin. I thought he was good but I found the character very creepy. He doesn't really have motives for what he does and that makes him questionable to me. All of the characters don't have a logical reason for what for they do and they don't have clear motives.
I did laugh and what made me laugh were the over the top jokes and gags. There aren't necessarily funny but just so unrealistic that you have to laugh at how ridiculous they are.
The Animal is a sporadically entertaining comedy that's a guilty pleasure more than anything else.
Rating: 2.5/5
Review: This movie is enjoyable. But is it great? No. It's decent at best.
The script is the film's biggest problem. I laughed a lot and the film is sporadically entertaining. The plot and story is very unbalanced. It's like the writers just wrote a bunch of scenarios and threw them together, hoping it would work. Some of it does, but the script isn't good enough to keep us engaged throughout the entire movie.
The acting is fine. Rob Schneider is Marvin. He's okay in his role. He's not my favorite comedian but I did laugh nonetheless. I think if there had been a different comedian, like Adam Sandler, maybe it would've worked a little better. Colleen Haskell plays Rianna, Marvin's love interest. I thought she did a decent job and I also think she and Rob Schneider worked well together. The twist with Rianna at the end I didn't expect. It doesn't make sense because they didn't really foreshadow it at all. It just came up out of the blue. Maybe that's why I was surprised. That goes back to the lack of good writing. John C. McGinley is Sergeant Sisk and I think he's on the same level as everyone else in terms of acting. Bu I hated the character and he wasn't sympathetic at all. Michael Caton is Dr. Wilder, the doctor that saves Marvin. I thought he was good but I found the character very creepy. He doesn't really have motives for what he does and that makes him questionable to me. All of the characters don't have a logical reason for what for they do and they don't have clear motives.
I did laugh and what made me laugh were the over the top jokes and gags. There aren't necessarily funny but just so unrealistic that you have to laugh at how ridiculous they are.
The Animal is a sporadically entertaining comedy that's a guilty pleasure more than anything else.
Rating: 2.5/5
Monday 7 May 2012
The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
Plot: David (Matt Damon) is a politician who meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a ballerina and instantly falls for her. David is taken by the Adjustment Bureau, who tell him that their job is to make sure that people's lives go according to "the plan" and is warned if he talks about them, his life will be reset and he'll never see Elise again. The film sees David fighting the Bureau in order to be with Elise. Will he succeed?
Review: I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed the film.
Firstly, I really like the plot and the story itself. I thought it was a unique spin on romance. A story about a higher power trying to keep a couple apart. Typically, in romance movies, you hear the characters saying or implying that a higher got them together. In this, they're trying to keep them apart. I liked the twists in the movie because it kept things interesting. There are some cliches, especially the ending which I predicted half way through the movie. Nonetheless, it still manages to work beautifully.
The acting is top notch. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are terrific individually and together. I also think they had good chemistry between the two of them. In order to make this kind of film work, especially because it's a romance, you have to have that spark to make it all fit together. They have it. Then we have those from the Bureau. Anthony Mackie plays Harry Mitchell and I think his character is very interesting and is the audience's voice. He's the one that saying how we feel about the entire situation. Terence Stamp plays Thompson and I found him to be convincingly creepy in his role. He's an excellent antagonist. John Slattery plays Richardson and I thought he was great. The entire crew is talented. The cast itself is very small so there's a feeling of intimacy. You can feel the tension and all of the emotions because there are very few people in it so the emotional stances of the film aren't all over the place.
The film itself is actually about the characters. It's about David and Elise and their fate. That's the theme of the film I really loved. It's who decides your fate and how your life will go. Is it up to you? Is your fate decided for you and you have to follow that plan? Or can you decide your own path? Do you have any free will, the ability to make a choice? These are the questions that are addressed. These are the questions that David asks himself. He follows the path for a while but then decides to make his own road to life. Not have it chosen for him. The questions that I wrote earlier are not only brought up in the love story between David and Elise but also in their personal lives as well. So this topic is brought up in numerous aspects of the film's plot and characters and it's done so very thoughtfully.
The Adjustment Bureau is a suspenseful and terrific thriller.
Rating: 4/5
Review: I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed the film.
Firstly, I really like the plot and the story itself. I thought it was a unique spin on romance. A story about a higher power trying to keep a couple apart. Typically, in romance movies, you hear the characters saying or implying that a higher got them together. In this, they're trying to keep them apart. I liked the twists in the movie because it kept things interesting. There are some cliches, especially the ending which I predicted half way through the movie. Nonetheless, it still manages to work beautifully.
The acting is top notch. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are terrific individually and together. I also think they had good chemistry between the two of them. In order to make this kind of film work, especially because it's a romance, you have to have that spark to make it all fit together. They have it. Then we have those from the Bureau. Anthony Mackie plays Harry Mitchell and I think his character is very interesting and is the audience's voice. He's the one that saying how we feel about the entire situation. Terence Stamp plays Thompson and I found him to be convincingly creepy in his role. He's an excellent antagonist. John Slattery plays Richardson and I thought he was great. The entire crew is talented. The cast itself is very small so there's a feeling of intimacy. You can feel the tension and all of the emotions because there are very few people in it so the emotional stances of the film aren't all over the place.
The film itself is actually about the characters. It's about David and Elise and their fate. That's the theme of the film I really loved. It's who decides your fate and how your life will go. Is it up to you? Is your fate decided for you and you have to follow that plan? Or can you decide your own path? Do you have any free will, the ability to make a choice? These are the questions that are addressed. These are the questions that David asks himself. He follows the path for a while but then decides to make his own road to life. Not have it chosen for him. The questions that I wrote earlier are not only brought up in the love story between David and Elise but also in their personal lives as well. So this topic is brought up in numerous aspects of the film's plot and characters and it's done so very thoughtfully.
The Adjustment Bureau is a suspenseful and terrific thriller.
Rating: 4/5
Friday 4 May 2012
Date Night (2010)
Plot: Phil (Steve Carrel) and Claire (Tina Fey) are a married couple who are stuck in a constant routine. They decide to change it up and go to a fancy restaurant. They fail to get a table. They steal a couple's reservation when they fail to show up. Then a case of mistaken identity leads to a chaotic date night that they won't forget.
Review: I enjoyed this movie.
What I like about the film's plot is that it ignores the typical romantic comedy story. It decides to take a typical idea and make it melodramatic and hilarious. There's no denying that the story and circumstances are exaggerated and over the top, but there's no denying that the premise is entertaining.
Despite the melodramatic situation, the film's characters feel very real to me. Phil and Claire are a couple that are determined to have their lives be more than what it is. They don't want to have their life planned out by routine. They want to live a spontaneous life every once in a while, which is why they go to that restaurant and steal the couple's table to begin with. It's a way of looking for some sort of escape.
Tina Fey and Steve Carrel are what makes the movie work. They're hilarious separately and they're just as funny together. Their comic timing and how they work blends together perfectly. You can also tell that Tina and Steve improvised a lot in this. For example, the stripper pole scene where Phil licks the pole and when he starts humping the floor. They make jokes and gags that I don't think would be funny if it was another actor saying them.
The rest of the film's cast is very good. Taraji P. Henson plays a detective and I think she plays the part well. She's a good female protagonist who knows how to stand up for herself, especially to pig-headed men. Jimmi Simpson and Common play the thugs that go after Phil and Claire. They're both very convincing as crazy gunmen. William Fitchner is the district attorney and I found him to be good in his respective role. We also have Mark Wahlberg, James Franco and Mila Kunis who appear and I found them to be hilarious and provide good laughs. The entire cast is talented and they work well together. But Tina Fey and Steve Carrel still make this movie for me.
Date Night is a funny and entertaining comedy.
Rating: 3.5/5
Review: I enjoyed this movie.
What I like about the film's plot is that it ignores the typical romantic comedy story. It decides to take a typical idea and make it melodramatic and hilarious. There's no denying that the story and circumstances are exaggerated and over the top, but there's no denying that the premise is entertaining.
Despite the melodramatic situation, the film's characters feel very real to me. Phil and Claire are a couple that are determined to have their lives be more than what it is. They don't want to have their life planned out by routine. They want to live a spontaneous life every once in a while, which is why they go to that restaurant and steal the couple's table to begin with. It's a way of looking for some sort of escape.
Tina Fey and Steve Carrel are what makes the movie work. They're hilarious separately and they're just as funny together. Their comic timing and how they work blends together perfectly. You can also tell that Tina and Steve improvised a lot in this. For example, the stripper pole scene where Phil licks the pole and when he starts humping the floor. They make jokes and gags that I don't think would be funny if it was another actor saying them.
The rest of the film's cast is very good. Taraji P. Henson plays a detective and I think she plays the part well. She's a good female protagonist who knows how to stand up for herself, especially to pig-headed men. Jimmi Simpson and Common play the thugs that go after Phil and Claire. They're both very convincing as crazy gunmen. William Fitchner is the district attorney and I found him to be good in his respective role. We also have Mark Wahlberg, James Franco and Mila Kunis who appear and I found them to be hilarious and provide good laughs. The entire cast is talented and they work well together. But Tina Fey and Steve Carrel still make this movie for me.
Date Night is a funny and entertaining comedy.
Rating: 3.5/5
Shrek the Third (2007)
Plot: When his father-in-law becomes ill, Shrek is looked as the heir to Far, Far Away. Not wanting to give up his swamp, Shrek asks Donkey and Puss to help him find Artie, who is the other heir and can take Shrek's place. Meanwhile, Fiona aids the help of other princesses when Prince Charming and his army of villains who are planning to take over Far, Far Away and get their own happy endings.
Review: After the accomplishments of the first two films, I had high hopes. And those hopes were pretty much crushed.
The film's plot itself is different compared to the plots of the first two movies. The plots in Shrek and Shrek 2 were orientated to kids, but had jokes and gags that could entertain adults. But in this one, the plot is aimed at adults. There are a lot of adult jokes and situations (like Donkey barging in on Shrek and Fiona and taking the covers off and yelling). The little kids who see this movie won't get it.
Most of the film's characters are the same. There are a few exceptions. We have Fiona's princess friends Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel. I thought they were good additions but sadly they aren't that entirely interesting to me. I also hoped that Artie would be a fine character, but I found him annoying and whiny. We also have Merlin who appears briefly. I think the filmmakers hoped he would be good comic relief, but sadly he wasn't. We also have villains like the Wicked Queen, the Ugly Stepsister, Cyclops, Puppet Master, Headless Horseman and many more. All of these additional characters should be fun to watch and breath life into the film, but sadly they weren't that entirely interesting.
The voice acting is good. The original cast are still at the top of their game. The new cast members are fine.
For me, the highlight was the animation itself. The film is visually stunning, like the first two. All of these movies are visual treats. These animators continue to do amazing work visually and keep us intrigued and amazed.
Overall, Shrek the Third is a film that turned out to be bland and not as funny and original compared to the first two and fell flat.
Rating: 2.5/5
Review: After the accomplishments of the first two films, I had high hopes. And those hopes were pretty much crushed.
The film's plot itself is different compared to the plots of the first two movies. The plots in Shrek and Shrek 2 were orientated to kids, but had jokes and gags that could entertain adults. But in this one, the plot is aimed at adults. There are a lot of adult jokes and situations (like Donkey barging in on Shrek and Fiona and taking the covers off and yelling). The little kids who see this movie won't get it.
Most of the film's characters are the same. There are a few exceptions. We have Fiona's princess friends Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel. I thought they were good additions but sadly they aren't that entirely interesting to me. I also hoped that Artie would be a fine character, but I found him annoying and whiny. We also have Merlin who appears briefly. I think the filmmakers hoped he would be good comic relief, but sadly he wasn't. We also have villains like the Wicked Queen, the Ugly Stepsister, Cyclops, Puppet Master, Headless Horseman and many more. All of these additional characters should be fun to watch and breath life into the film, but sadly they weren't that entirely interesting.
The voice acting is good. The original cast are still at the top of their game. The new cast members are fine.
For me, the highlight was the animation itself. The film is visually stunning, like the first two. All of these movies are visual treats. These animators continue to do amazing work visually and keep us intrigued and amazed.
Overall, Shrek the Third is a film that turned out to be bland and not as funny and original compared to the first two and fell flat.
Rating: 2.5/5
Wednesday 2 May 2012
Shrek 2 (2004)
Plot: Princess Fiona's parents invite her and Shrek to dinner to celebrate their marriage. But the in-laws don't know that their son-in-law and daughter are both ogres. Chaos soon ensues as King Harold plans to get things the way they were suppose to be: Fiona being married to Prince Charming with the help of the prince himself and his mother, the Fairy Godmother. Shrek is having his own doubts about whether or not Fiona is truly happy with how their lives have turned out. Will everything work out? Will everyone get their happily ever afters?
Review: Another sequel that's almost just as good as the first.
The film's plot is familiar. But there's no denying that it's hilarious. What I especially like about the plot is that it goes in different directions very smoothly and effectively. You think that it's going to be a film about how Shrek will get along with the in-laws. Then it goes into the territory of the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming's scheme. That's another of the plot I liked. Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother are usually those that save the damsels in distress. In this case, they're trying to ruin the happy couple. I also liked the twist with King Harold at the end. I didn't see it coming the first time I saw it but after seeing it again, I realized they had given a few small hints.
But what I perceive to be the film's core plot is about happiness. What people will do in order to not only for their own happiness, but the happiness of others. Shrek, King Harold (Fiona's father), the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming all do this. They have their own motives, but it ultimately comes down to happiness. Both Shrek and King Harold want Fiona to be happy. Shrek wants to make sure Fiona is happy with what she now has and King Harold decides to try and stir her in the direction that he think will make her happy. And it's also a direction that will make him happy. The Fairy Godmother is doing what she's doing in order to make Prince Charming, her son happy. Whilst Prince Charming is doing what he's doing for his own happiness and to satisfy his mother. So I think the main theme in the plot itself is happiness and it's well presented in the various plots of the film.
Like the first film, we have numerous references to the fairy tales and Disney films. In addition to Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother, we have the Ugly Stepsister, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and many more. Most of these characters are cameos. We also have many characters from the first returning like the Big Bad Wolf, Gingerbread Man, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio and many more.
A new main character that we have in this that I'm going to dedicate an entire paragraph to is the one and only Puss-in-Boots (voiced by Antonio Banderas). I think Puss-in-Boots was a breath of fresh air. I thought he was a hilarious character with great lines and fits into the movie surprisingly well. It didn't feel forced in his interactions with Donkey and Shrek. It felt natural. For me, Donkey was the highlight character in Shrek (2001) and Puss-in-Boots is that for me in Shrek 2 (2004).
The film's voice acting is fantastically done. Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz are perfect for their respective roles. They master it very well. The additional voice actors are also brilliant. Julie Andrews and John Cleese are wonderful as Fiona's parents. I believe Antonio Banderas was the perfect choice to voice Puss-in-Boots. He played Zoro and I think he has that charisma and charm that he transitions into the character. I also liked Jennifer Saunders and Rupert Everett as the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming respectively. Although it was brief, I thought Larry King providing the voice of the Ugly Stepsister to be absolutely hilarious. A highlight for me.
The animation, like the first film, is absolutely genius. I won't dwell on it too much because I'll be repeating myself from my review of Shrek (2001). But all of these animators are brilliant and passionate about what they do. You can tell in the product. And they deserve all the praise they receive.
This sequel definitely held its own and is just as good as the first one. But I prefer the first a little more. I think it's because Shrek (2001) was so original animation wise and in terms of its plot and other concepts that it's a little difficult to outshine. Shrek 2 is wonderful and entertaining throughout.
Rating: 4.5/5
Review: Another sequel that's almost just as good as the first.
The film's plot is familiar. But there's no denying that it's hilarious. What I especially like about the plot is that it goes in different directions very smoothly and effectively. You think that it's going to be a film about how Shrek will get along with the in-laws. Then it goes into the territory of the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming's scheme. That's another of the plot I liked. Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother are usually those that save the damsels in distress. In this case, they're trying to ruin the happy couple. I also liked the twist with King Harold at the end. I didn't see it coming the first time I saw it but after seeing it again, I realized they had given a few small hints.
But what I perceive to be the film's core plot is about happiness. What people will do in order to not only for their own happiness, but the happiness of others. Shrek, King Harold (Fiona's father), the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming all do this. They have their own motives, but it ultimately comes down to happiness. Both Shrek and King Harold want Fiona to be happy. Shrek wants to make sure Fiona is happy with what she now has and King Harold decides to try and stir her in the direction that he think will make her happy. And it's also a direction that will make him happy. The Fairy Godmother is doing what she's doing in order to make Prince Charming, her son happy. Whilst Prince Charming is doing what he's doing for his own happiness and to satisfy his mother. So I think the main theme in the plot itself is happiness and it's well presented in the various plots of the film.
Like the first film, we have numerous references to the fairy tales and Disney films. In addition to Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother, we have the Ugly Stepsister, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and many more. Most of these characters are cameos. We also have many characters from the first returning like the Big Bad Wolf, Gingerbread Man, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio and many more.
A new main character that we have in this that I'm going to dedicate an entire paragraph to is the one and only Puss-in-Boots (voiced by Antonio Banderas). I think Puss-in-Boots was a breath of fresh air. I thought he was a hilarious character with great lines and fits into the movie surprisingly well. It didn't feel forced in his interactions with Donkey and Shrek. It felt natural. For me, Donkey was the highlight character in Shrek (2001) and Puss-in-Boots is that for me in Shrek 2 (2004).
The film's voice acting is fantastically done. Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz are perfect for their respective roles. They master it very well. The additional voice actors are also brilliant. Julie Andrews and John Cleese are wonderful as Fiona's parents. I believe Antonio Banderas was the perfect choice to voice Puss-in-Boots. He played Zoro and I think he has that charisma and charm that he transitions into the character. I also liked Jennifer Saunders and Rupert Everett as the Fairy Godmother and Prince Charming respectively. Although it was brief, I thought Larry King providing the voice of the Ugly Stepsister to be absolutely hilarious. A highlight for me.
The animation, like the first film, is absolutely genius. I won't dwell on it too much because I'll be repeating myself from my review of Shrek (2001). But all of these animators are brilliant and passionate about what they do. You can tell in the product. And they deserve all the praise they receive.
This sequel definitely held its own and is just as good as the first one. But I prefer the first a little more. I think it's because Shrek (2001) was so original animation wise and in terms of its plot and other concepts that it's a little difficult to outshine. Shrek 2 is wonderful and entertaining throughout.
Rating: 4.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)