Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Worth watching, more daft but fun acting. Good atmosphere.
*Read after watching* *Just watch it anyway*
Like many of these films with the lead actor, of whom I seem to be quite a fan, I'd probably cringe massively if it was in English, but because it's in Japanese (same if it was Korean or Chinese), I happily and perhaps patronisingly treat it as a school play and enjoy it for all the glorious overacting and silliness of plot and direction. I could be provoked by wondering why, there having been at least one previous game and most likely as many viewers, had none of the players seen the show themselves before. And just what is the premise for the supposed societal acceptance of this game on TV anyway? Oh, but who cares? Even if it's meant to be taken seriously and the moral ending isn't really meant to be cheesy - with the 'throwaway' flourish about appreciating life, the total clash with Western cinema norm just makes this typically quaint and enjoyable. As ever, you can probably enjoy watching these movies even more by role-playing as a naive and excitable Japanese schoolgirl, or simply another Tatsuya Fujiwara. So much fun to feel as shocked as he always seems to get! =)) Evocative of Battle Royale, Cube, Kaiji, Hostel, Saw, the Ring. But more like a creepy and minimalist Big Brother TV show with weapons. Not quite as fun as Kaiji or Battle Royale, and it's certainly not Deathnote (like or nearly as good as)- but it's worth watching. Doesn't quite feel new or original because of said films but it is more of the same for fans of the genre. 6/10
The Avengers (2012)
Kinda boring, no, yaaaawwwwn, very boring! Zzzzzzzzzzzz
How I would love to have championed Joss Whedon for this. But alas, no.
The Avengers is not a great movie. Avengers is a boring movie.
OK, I saw it in 3D. The only other film I've seen in 3D was Avatar and - this may also indicate to you I'm not a movie snoot - I rather thought Avatar was OK, unlike many who say it's awful. You would be right therefore, to infer that the novelty of 3D hasn't exactly had a chance to wear thin on me yet.
Let's just get the 3D out of the way: for me, it was like watching a holographic projection, very unreal. Often there were only 2, maybe just 3 planes of focus and sometimes this made the focus too oddly focused!, e.g. a wobbling briefcase in the foreground that looked like something out of Toy Story. Also, some of the action with Johanssen is frantic CGI cartoony acrobatics, and in 3D this just looks even more of a mess, anything but exciting! I was cautioned not to see in 3D - that person was right. The print isn't compensated for by the darkening effect of the glasses. I think it affected me too. Eye-fatigue, plus the combination of how those glasses make the film so dark, plus a major major flaw in the film, caused me to give up on consciousness and spare my eyeballs more than once.
Yes, in 3D at least, this film is too dark to see what's going on. Detail becomes elusive and the 3D focus only allows you to see one or two parts of the screen - everything else is often deliberately way out-of-focus. This makes the film visually uninteresting (especially for us 'autistic' background viewers ;-).
And the major major flaw.. Oh, I might have already let that slip: this movie is boring! Surely I can't be so bored that easily by a film I've never seen before! It's impossible! Avengers: yes, there's some showy effects that may impress those that can get off on over 2 hours of blam blam blam but me: yaaaawwn! Honestly, I was expecting to enjoy The Avengers, especially since I kinda liked the Thor movie (nothing to do with Portman, who does very little for me). And also, my total non-appreciation for The Avengers goes against what I'd hoped... that I could say something great about this film, and be able to champion Joss Whedon for a new era of Sci-Fi movies. Serenity was good, very good - albeit with forgivably TV-movie quality. Unfortunately, it seems, budget wasn't the limiting factor and I've now lost interest.
Duncan Jones, do you hear?
Go back and try again! This is a sopping wet follow-up!
Wow, what happened? Battle Royale, the original, was awesome. Then this? It starts well. All seems like the first film and you think, that's OK I can deal with that. And for the first half it is OK. Then it's not.
It becomes a shambles; the number of sentimental dying moment scenes goes beyond silly, and then the already overstretched plot decides to abandon you twice and go off into sentimental story lines you don't care for.
Bad writing, bad editing! Good luck if you fight to watch to the end, but don't expect a good sequel to Battle Royale?
OK, but a bit vague in direction, there's better...
First of all, for a bit of perspective, I'm currently going through some old movies of the Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Martial-arts genres I never saw from the 70's onwards. LadyHawke was in my shortlist based on a reasonable IMDb score and the cast.
Ladyhawke is a fantasy romance set in medieval France. It has a decent plot basis that I won't reveal.
The cast sounds good enough but it's a bad movie overall due to flimsy direction of character and story. Often a good score can disguise a bad movie but it's the worst it could be, of a very typical 80's trend and not at all complementing of the medieval era.
For the fault of direction it's perhaps unfair to be critical of the cast...
But if I may; though Hauer looks the part of a dark hero, this is essentially a romantic tale and his rugged air of cynicism is a poor match for the role.
Broderick, and his medieval clippered haircut is, as expected, mousy, gormless-cute and effecting a confused accent.
Pfeiffer is beautiful as always and plays what she's given well enough, but how she got a blow-dryed conditioned hairstyle in that era is beyond me. She shows her stuff better in Stardust!
And the other minor parts: John Wood is interesting as the bishop though the script for him trails off disappointingly. And Leo McQuern as Father Imperious is the most well-rounded of the lot.
The star of this film is the animal handling and the animals themselves, and the production value location filming.
The score is abysmal, but check the other reviews for more info. The 80s synth-pop doesn't fit - I could only get through by laughing it off! If I hadn't seen better quality of a similar ilk maybe I could see Ladyhawke more favourably. But Princess Bride this isn't, and Beastmaster is better. Ladyhawke just doesn't tie together well.
So Ladyhawke hasn't made my list of films to see again, but for your info neither has Starman (Sci-Fi), Perhaps it's as re-watchable as Hawk the Slayer. For me, that's not saying much. Take my review as lightly as you like.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)
There is.. another.. Star Wars anime..
This is truly awful.
I speak as a Star Wars fan for many years, before the dark times... before the prequels!
And no, not even ROTS could appease my disappointment. (All three films failed to live up to expectations, and fail to be scrutinised favourably to this day.)
Thankfully, there is a far better alternative by way of the original anime series by GENDDY TARTATOVSKY, Volume 1 and Volume 2 of Star Wars Clone Wars (note the missing 'The').
The Tartatovsky DVDs, with far better storytelling and style, will provide your necessary SW kicks so you can say farewell to Star Wars on a much brighter note.
So do yourself a favour - avoid this CGI affair and the series that followed it and get the Tartatovsky Volumes instead.
The Hunger Games (2012)
It seems as though David Miller has already written what I came to say, so take this as a vote for the same opinion.
Simply put, this film has been done before but better. Even if its closest predecessors (see below) might be sniffed at by intellectual movie snobs you'll likely find them more entertaining and memorable. This is like a pointless cover song. My advice is to look up the genre* and take your pick.
Better examples are: The Running Man, Battle Royale, Rollerball, Logan's Run, 1984, ... Gattaca, Equilibrium, Demolition Man, Robocop, ...
Stretching the genre further, eg. *'Future Dystopia Movies', you will find films that hit the same targets more effectively, thus making this film what it is - redundant.
Hide and Seek (2005)
Keep it Hidden
Very cliché buildup which is not so bad every now and again; if it works..
However, some of the other reviews refer to a multitude of red herrings and a massive twist.
Well, I have a different take. These are not red herrings, and neither is the twist an acceptable one. In short, this movie is just a big LIE.
Quite insulting really, to watch a movie from start to finish to find 90% is irrelevant. Yes, you could guess what happens in the final reel but not through any educated piecing together of what happens before it, simply through pure cynicism brought upon by watching bad movies like this one.
On a lighter note, Dakota Fanning does make me laugh at one point in this. Something she says, coupled with De Niro's facial response (one of his two trademark looks) is a priceless disturbing comedy moment.