27 Reviews
Sort by:
a NEW atmosphere.
4 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic Four. A more gritty realistic reboot. The film has a fresh new atmosphere to it, almost as fresh as Batman: The Dark Knight did. But I would not compare story and characters to that. Just how it doesn't feel like a typical superhero film.

Director Josh Trank successfully builds a new atmosphere and feel for a superhero film. You instantly know the characters, and feel compelled in their journey to success. This is much more of a science fiction thriller than a superhero film though. Do not go in expecting the typical multiple fight scenes, as this film keeps its pace and does not feel rushed. That is, except for the climax of the film, which at a point you suddenly realise this is the climax, and you are near the end. There is a lot of great build up, but ends rather suddenly. But once you get to the point where you realise it is the climax, you will accept it, as it is still thrilling.

The movie actually deals with their powers as almost disabilities, disfigurements. They don't achieve their powers and then are like "oh woo, I'm going to help people and stop the bad guy". They are actually scared of their 'powers' to start with, and it is disturbing. You feel it too as you watch it, and that is great. I haven't seen a superhero before which successfully pulled this off. The characters confused at their new abilities. I hope Marvel don't one day buy the rights back and reboot it for their Marvel Cinematic Universe. If anything, I'd love for them to continue this franchise, but let it be in an alternate world which Reed could cross over into the MCU. Bring it together. As then they would have more possibilities for the different alternate versions of characters, giving the studio more advantages of changes.
25 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Doubt (I) (2008)
Doubt and Dilemmas
13 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Doubt perfectly deals with major issues. The film, like the title suggests keeps you constantly in doubt as a nun (Meryl Streep) suspects a priest (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) of molesting an altar boy.

She, as a woman in 1964 works by herself to try and reveal the truth, due to the over-powering of men which she knows will be on his side. She has a high job as a principal in the school, and the young students fear her strictness. She has her 'right ways' for doing things. Using traditional hymns instead of radio 'christmas tunes' which Father Flynn wants for the Christmas sermon. She is even against the use of ink pens and sugar, which Flynn also uses and has in his cup of tea, three in fact. Sister Aloysius uses these to draw her suspicions to the truth in her mind.

She gains the suspicions from a sermon Father Flynn has, and wonders what relevance does it really have if not about a feeling he has himself. She asks Sister James (Amy Adams) to keep an eye out for suspicious actives, but due to James' own naivety doesn't report anything until a week later after Aloysius fears an incident would have already happened.

The film deals with large issues in a not-so on the nose way. Such as the overpower of men over women, and also struggling black families and parents wanting the best for their child. Sister Aloysius wants Flynn out of the parish due to her high suspicion and her own 'truth' that Flynn is a paedophile, and singles out the one black boy in the school as he would be the 'special' one. Flynn on the other hand says he is helping the boy, Donald, and no foul play has occurred except for the fact that Donald took altar wine, which Aloysius believes he actually gave him.

We are in constant doubt as to who's side to be on. The sister or the father. Children should be protect in schools, and also if need be helped by a tutor. Especially one, such as in 1964 which is the only one in the school of a different skin-colour. After the sister approaches Donald's mother, she say it is "only until June" and suggests that it will not be her son's fault and hints he may be homosexual. She wants the best for her son. She wants him to go to the best school, get the best grades and get into college. And she in her own way does not care that there is a possibility of her son being molested due to she does not want her husband to find out to beat her son again. She is in a dilemma of protecting her child from wrongdoings or doing what is best for him in life. Because she cannot do both, due to the colour of their skin, and also her abusive husband and challenges that arises due to racism.

The film ends with Flynn leaving the school and at his leaving sermon he says goodbye to each individual person in the congregation. Donald cries, while another boy smiles. What was this about? The film never showed any dislike of Flynn from his boy before. Was this due to Father Flynn coming onto this boy as well as Donald? We will never know. Even sister Aloysius is in high doubt at the end, and annoyed that Flynn gets a promotion at another parish.

The film is very character driven, and has dialogue heavy scenes which are all wonderfully acted by the entire cast. Each of them deserved those Oscar nominations, if not all should have won. The visual direction and hints are great, such as the heavy wind which can be linked to Father Flynn's "gossip" sermon, which was about a woman who confesses to the church that she had a dream that God was pointing a finger at her, and due to her gossipping. The father of her church tells her to go onto her roof and cut open a pillow then come back and tell him what happened. She said feathers. He tells her to go and collect every one, and she replies she cannot due to the wind taking them everywhere. He replies that THAT is gossip, and how fast it can travel. Back to the actual wind that occurs in the film, I feel this heavy weather reflects back on the intensity of the "Did he do it? Did her not?". We will never know, but we are stuck with the dilemma, such as his own mother to should he be protected from evils in the world, or comforted to have a good future?

Roger Deakins cinematography is great once again, but one thing that I felt was off was the use of his dutch tilts in the film, that I felt did not convey or progress any more emotion in the film that was already there. They felt forced, and strange in this drama. One use of editing and his work which I quite enjoyed was a shot of Aloysius looking down, with the camera looking up at her, her powerfulness. Then it cut to a shot of Flynn in another location, looking down on him as he walks. He looks up and we see where the camera was. A window with an eye on it. She is keeping close eyes on him, and will over-power him.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
After Perfection
4 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
We start off in Greece as Jesse drops his now 13-year-old son, Hank, off at the airport who is flying back home to Chicago after spending six weeks in Greek Peloponnese peninsula with Jesse and Celine and their two twin girls.

Jesse has a great relationship with his son, but can't help but feel disconnected from his life as he lives across the ocean. He feels that he is missing out on Hank's life and at the same time of loving his life with Celine as he lives in Paris with her and their twin daughters, feels bad for missing out Hank's life. He knows if he went home instead of missing his flight he would be living a miserable life with his now ex-wife.

Over dinner with their Greek friends, each friend has a long conversation about something that is all equally interesting to us as the audience. Humours conversations as they parody each other and emotional conversations about life and love. Raised wine glasses as they toast a few times on different subject matters that we would all toast ourselves if we had our own wine glasses.

One of the friends, a young couple talk about how they met and stayed in contact even though were far apart which Jesse and Celine were interested in. They said they Skyped and talked loads over it, and even fell asleep on cam together. In other films, a popular culture reference like this would seem forced, but in this film it is relevant. Here we have 41-year-old Jesse and Celine who met in 1994 and re-met in 2003. Nine years of no contact. And then we have this young couple who because of modern technology were able to stay in contact. This reflects how times have changed and how "Before Sunrise" could only exist in the time it was made.

As Jesse and Celine walk to a hotel suite that their friends have booked for them so they can have a night off and together away from their kids, they both talk deeply about love and life, what they regret and what they do not. As they get to the hotel they start to have sex but are interrupted from a phone call from Hank as he has arrived at the airport. Jesse signals to talk to him but Celine jokingly says 'good luck with your mom before hanging up. Jesse is annoyed that she said this as he feels she shouldn't say this to him, but she says he is old enough and that they have joked before about his mom. His mom is an alcoholic and apparently verbally abusive mother and hates Jesse and Celine. Hank at the airport told Jesse that she hates Daniel more than him, who we presume is her boyfriend. Celine can't stand her and wished that they had Hank to live with them. Jesse suggests that they move to Chicago and to be near him, but will only see him every other weekend and holidays, which Celine feels like is a waste and unfair, even though Jesse was only speaking mostly hypothetically.

The couple start to argue, sometimes intense and other times humorously. With these two wonderful characters, who may be the best characters ever created. You can tell how different there are, you can predict each others next act just as they predict what the other person is going to do. You can tell Jesse will be more laid back and Celine will be argumentative while backing herself up. She is scared of change as she has said before and even said she was scared to come on this Greek holiday just in case of a new revolution.

The film almost ends on yet another highly ambiguous ending after Celine storms out of the hotel room and doesn't return. Jesse looks around the room at items they almost used. Like wine poured in glasses. A tea Celine made but didn't drink. A messed up bed sheet as they almost had sex. In the previous two films we had similar shots as it reflects on the locations in the film before it ends, I was scared it was going to end here with Jesse alone in the hotel room, I was even prepared to shout out 'oh come on!' if we were left with an open-ended and ambiguous ending like the previous two. But luckily it cuts to Jesse walking up to Celine at a café outside on a peer. He pretends to be a stranger and chats her up which she doesn't like as she predicts he is being sweet again which will then end up with them loving each other and having sex, which she previously criticised for being always the same.

While chatting up Celine, Jesse pretends to be a time traveller Jesse coming back from the future sent by Celine to tell her younger self her life will be fine. He pretends to read a letter from a napkin which she finds ridiculous at first before he tells her straight from his normal self that she pretends that life will be a fairy tale just like their daughters and life isn't like that without a few negative things, and that he loves her unconditionally and accepts every flaw of hers. She starts to cry, then mildly smiles and asks more about this letter. The camera slowly pans back as we see them get along again as Jesse reads Celine the letter from her future self.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Man of Steel (2013)
Man of Steel, but where is Superman?
14 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I am split exactly between the middle with this film. A two-and-a-half hour film that is split into three obvious acts. First being destruction of Krypton, second being an awkward mix between modern day scenes and flashbacks to his childhood/teenage years and third being the almost-destruction of Earth as it morphs into a new Krypton being formed by General Zod.

The concept of Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-Al being a hidden hero around the country is great as he helps save people but always disappears and him being an 'urban legend'. They focused on it briefly but not as much as they should have, the concept of this is great, and then focus on how when he is revealed to the world he struggles coping with his new found fame. Lois Lane is nosing into this and isn't particularly likable or even interesting, same actually goes for every other character. Even Superman doesn't talk much in the film, and he is way to serious. The geeky 'Clark Kent' isn't even in the film, and I was really disappointed by that. It was like watching a Spider-Man film if Peter Parker's alter ego was never in it, and just focused on him himself.

The acting is good, especially by Ayelet Zurer who plays Lara, Superman's mother who I was very impressed by in her short screen-time, even felt she over-powered Russell Crowe's acting in the film, who I felt was obviously putting on an accent. Superman is well acted by Henry Cavill, but there is no emotion in the character and when there is, he screams exactly the same way every time, like they repeated a sound-bite.

The last hour of the film probably more was all action-packed, literally. In a town in the country-side as Superman is about to battle Faora and some other dude he tells the scared people to go into the houses as it is dangerous in the streets. Then there is a huge battle that causes couple of plane crashes and the military not thinking of civilian lives and most of the town gets destroyed. It isn't said innocent people died, but how could they not have? Also later on when General Zod sends down the badly and cringe-worthy titled 'World Engine' to transform Earth into a new Krypton, he just happens to also settle one half of this machine in Metropolis, and tens of thousands of lives must have been lost. Buildings collapsed, because of the machine gravity rose up then suddenly dropped, resulting in people going up in the sky then suddenly slammed down into the ground. In one line, 'Faora' says "for every life you save, we will kill a million more", that is a bloody accurate line! Superman is terrible in this film and tons, and tons of people get killed.

Also, I was annoyed with how Superman never realised he could fly, only once he put on his suit. And I didn't like the Jor-El 'ghost' walking around, I preferred the Marlon Brando hovering head as he teaches his son.

The film is half awkward mix between modern day and flashbacks and then full blown Michael Bay (except more interesting). The camera work at times I didn't think was very good at all. And in one flashback scene as Jonathan talks to teenage Clark the camera is really shaky and hugely distracting. This could have been an emotional scene but the hugely shaky camera was terrible. If it was 50% less shaky it probably would have been fine. Also there were too many close-ups at times and you could hardly figure out what was going on in any action scenes. At the end of the film once the world has been saved Superman tells Martha, his Earth mother that he is going to 'fit in' with Humanity and has a job. Then it cuts to Lois Lane being introduced to a new young journalist called Clark Kent, but because she has already several times spoke and been right next to Superman, she knew who Superman was before she knew who Clark Kent was, so she knows that this new journalist is Superman, which takes out for me the 'love triangle' between Superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Star Trekking into Darkness
11 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Star Trek Into Darkness starts off with what could be a really exciting pre-credits (or film logo in this case) mini-adventure, but in the end isn't as exciting and emotional as 2009's opening scenes, but what it does though, is re-introduces you to the characters that you love.

noel Clarke (who appeared in Doctor Who and wrote and starred in Kidulthood) appears in the next scene as a man with a dying daughter, but when John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) appears and tells him he can save his daughter, the father can't say no, but has to help Harrison first in a terrorist plot. This then leads into Starfleet starting a man-hunt to find him, and once his past is revealed the film gets a lot more interesting and as fast-paced as the previous film.

The film features references and homages, which in a way are obvious and at times feel forced, to scenes and situations from the classic series and films. There may even be so many, that new-comer fans to the Star Trek universe since the last film may not even get any of them, but fans of the series before the JJ Abrams awesome reboot/prequel/sequel may find the references tedious, forced and even cringe-worthy. I myself had a split second moments when I was like "really?", but over-all in the emotion of the movie, I forgave them and loved it.

It isn't as good or as fast-paced as the 2009 film, and after taking a little while to get into it, you do start to love it and it is a huge welcome sequel. Other things I liked, which in most if not all sequels are over-looked are minor characters that appear in the background of the first film are never seen again, but in this film the minor characters in the last film re-appear. Such as the little pixie goblin alien dwarf thing Scotty is friends with, also minor crew members on the Enterprise. Little cameos of minor characters for the geeks to be like "hey its that guy!". Abrams has tons of attention to detail, and I actually wish he didn't have to do Star Wars Episode VII in 2015, because Paramount plan to make and release the next Star Trek film in 2016, on the franchises 50th anniversary. Abrams could direct it still, but would literally have to move from Star Wars to Star Trek, and I don't think he'll be doing that. I just hope the next director they choose will carry on with Abram's style, even the lens flares!

"Star Trek Into Darkness" never goes into darkness, but does have fast-paced action scenes, amazing special effects and sets and great music. It's a welcome sequel to the previous film, but for original fans, the frequent references and homages to the previous TV-series and movies may be too much and distract them, and will either love them or hate them.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Miserables
12 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
‎Les Misérables. What to say? Quite a lot. Tom Hooper seemed to be more interested in adapting the musical than creating a movie with a coherent plot and good character development. Theatre and film is very different, and with the theatre can get away with more things.

You didn't have enough time to care for the characters, and some scenes took place in the same location for way too long and the sets sometimes actually look like film sets than real life, which made it feel more like a filmed version of the stage play than a movie. They also changed some shots you'll see in the trailer which is annoying as they were better in the trailer than the changed ones in the movie. It feels like they cut a scene short. The film doesn't deserve all the nominations it received, but Anne Hathaway does but I also feel they cut or trimmed some of her scenes or changed the shots that were used in the trailer which were frankly better and showed her acting ability a lot more.

I don't mind musicals that are sung through, don't mind them at all. But for the movie they should have changed some parts to just dialogue. They did that with the The Phantom of the Opera musical movie. The stage show is sung through after the prologue but in the movie they changed parts of songs to dialogue, because they actually don't need to be sung. And if they did this they could have added additional dialogue where there is more character development, which there currently isn't at all, just forced friendships. The film doesn't focus on the people of France much for me to care about their revolution and this is where scenes with normal talking could have helped. All of the main songs in the film that actually add to the plot could still be sung, but not every single one. It also would have made it more powerful when songs did kick in.

Javert's suicide also feels random, but I believe that he just became obsessed with hunting down Valjean over the years and kills himself so at least one of them will be free, because he knows that if he does capture him, he'll feel lost as it became his life-long obsession to arrest Valjean. I also can't help but feel that the creation of a new song for the film, which was 'Suddenly' was created just in hope for it to be up for a possible Best Original Song nomination, which it has been.

The acting, directing, cinematography and singing is brilliant, but work on the script was needed.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dredd (2012)
Dredd Done Well
9 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Plot was very simple, but good and is exactly what you think it would be from seeing the trailer. What also made the plot cooler is that it seemed like an 'every-day' scenario for them, and even at the end it is referred to as a drug bust gone wrong, just like its a normal thing. The special effects and slow-motion scenes to show characters on drugs were pretty good and the 3D was actually good, but mostly in the slow-motion scenes. It is probably the best movie I've seen that uses slow-motion, unlike King Kong where it wasn't really necessary and especially the last Resident Evil which I'm sure the new one will too. The acting was pretty good and not as cheesy as you think it might be from the trailer. The violence is extremely graphic but well done. Some of it is even like "wow, did they just do that?". It is a fun film that doesn't take itself too seriously and is re-watchable. I was hoping though however that the death of the villain Mama would have gone on more with a sort of fight scene, and we then see she isn't as tough as she thinks she is against Dredd. When she was falling in slow motion though, the shot where we see the ground floor I was hoping to see her body splatter all over the floor just for some guilty pleasure. The budget for the film, which was $45 million just seems like 'wow', as it does seem bigger budgeted. If Hollywood can continue making $45 million movies instead of $150 to 200+ then they would save a lot of money. 8/10
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Snow White and the Darker Side of the Story
30 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Snow White and the Huntsman. It was good. Entertaining. Nice back story to Snow White and Queen Ravenna. Makes you feel sorry for Ravenna which was good, she used to be living on the streets in a medieval slum-like place where she and her family were treated badly, she wanted to rise up and become powerful. The power over-took her. Charlize Theron's performance was quite good, believable. Kirsten Stewart is actually quite good too. Puts on a good English accent and fits Snow White much more than Bella Swan. Her performance in the later part of the film is quite strong. Chris Hemsworth is practically playing Thor again, I assume that's the reason he was cast. His back-story was an obvious tear-jerker. The first part of the film was quite slow, but the second part as soon as the 'dwarfs' are introduced, the film becomes more fast-paced and exciting and humorous. The special effects are very good in all of the film, except two points where they are really bad, both involving the Queen. The clichés and predictability mainly kick in the last couple of scenes, but mostly because we all know the Snow White story before. The film felt like a cross between Lord Of The Rings and Princess Mononoke, with even a tiny bit of Braveheart. 7.5/10
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Piranha 3DD (2012)
Piranha 3CCrap
13 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Starts off promising, but then slowly turns into a predictable boring sequel. The first film from a few years ago was good because it parodied 80s horror films with over- the-top gore and unnecessary nudity. This one is written by the writers who wrote the worser Saw films. The camera work is terrible and obscures everything. There are too many close ups and unnecessary slow-motion and old classical music that achieves what? Humour to make the situation funny? Shock similar to what Reservoir Dogs did? I have no idea. The plot is barely there in the latter half with characters with no personalities. There are three returning actors from the first one, one is Christopher Lloyd playing a Doc Brown marine biologist and the other is Ving Rhames playing the Sheriff from the first film who is scared of water and the other is the second-assistant camera operator who was part of the porno-making crew from the first film. In the end, there is a cliffhanger that obviously will lead into a third film, which I will be surely missing. Piranha 3DD is tamer on gore, nudity, language and horror and doesn't even live up to the trailer or it's title. Funnily enough, the trailer for this film looked better than the original film. But the films in reality are the other way around. I would rather watch Jaws 3, one of the worst films in the world that Piranha 3DD in some ways steals plot from, than watch this sequel again. James Cameron, I'm sure your sequel from the 80s Piranha 2: The Spawning is a better sequel to the original than this sequel is to the 2009 remake. 5/10
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Hunger for More Games
22 March 2012
For once a film that not only lives up to the trailer and hype, but actually surpasses it. The pacing for the film is excellent, especially for its run time of 142 minutes. The performances from Jennifer Lawrence (WINTER'S BONE, X-Men: First Class) and Josh Hutcherson (Journey to the Center of the Earth, The Kids Are Alright) were great and gave the characters of Katniss and Peeta so much depth and memorability. The directing is great and even though the camera work was a little too shaky at times, it made the violent scenes more dramatic and horrific. Not only was the film thrilling, but it is also the only film I've seen where no one in the screen spoke a word. The film didn't just engage my attention, but everyone else's too. With fast intense, edge-of-your-seat action and an emotionally filled script makes "The Hunger Games" a captivating action drama thriller. If you enjoyed the trailer, you will definitely enjoy the film. 9/10
2 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Movies With Benefits
4 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
8/10. Pretty good and funny. Sometime mild predictable moments but it was forgiving because of the situation. The acting and chemistry between Justin Timerlake and Mila Kunis was great. There was a good mix of drama and comedy and the film wasn't over-done with clichés apart from when the film deliberately was meant to be cliché as a joke. Highly recommended drama/comedy/romance film. If you are a guy, don't get put off with the romance aspect of the film, it's not lingered upon much and is more comedy and drama and enough to appeal to a group of friends who want to see a good comedy film at the cinema or just a adult couple who want to see something for a good laugh.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Apollo 18 (2011)
Apollo 18 Short Review
3 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Interesting and realistic-feeling setting with good psychological effects. Early reviews were negative saying it was predictable and non-scary but yes some parts were predictable, but only if you stopped paying attention to the film and thought about it. There are good scares, even though they are "jump scares". But this was a film when it doesn't matter if it was predictable and had obvious scares, it was just a fun scary intense film that makes you think. If you enjoy films with a good government conspiracy or found-footage films then you should enjoy this. Imagine it like a Blair Witch Project except it's outer-space and instead of any witches its aliens that do get seen briefly at a few points
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Super 8 (2011)
"Super 8" isn't so Super after all
22 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Super 8 wasn't so super. JJ Abrams practically tried to make it the next ET crossed over with The Goonies. It was also an obvious homage 70s/80s monster flicks and to Spielberg (who I bet he with his huge ego) is proud of it. It didn't even feel like JJ Abrams was even trying to make a good film. It might as well have been listed as a remake of ET. You could probably go and look at any film from the 70s or 80s and edit them all together and what you would get is this pointless disappointing film Super 8. It is the EXACT same story as ET but if it was crossed with The Goonies but barely any character development, stereotypical characters and situations for them and no good humour. The good thing about the characters were that the child actors were not that bad at all and I'll give them credit as I have nothing against their performances as they were perfectly cast but their characters created by JJ Abrams were just way too two-dimensional.

The monster wasn't even that great. It was a re-hash of the Cloverfield monster but a tiny bit less angry and not as big. Also he seemed like ET because he wanted to get off the planet and "go home". His back story felt exactly the same as the alien Paul from "Paul" about him being kept locked up and experimented on. The monster was way too over-hyped and won't be remembered in years to come. It seemed violent for no reason but yet really intelligent. Imagine the T-Rex suddenly being able to build a trap and DIY stuff but can also eat men off toilets, well thats what this one is.

The film started off good but seemed to fail. The dogs all disappeared in the film and ended up in the next towns but that was never fully explained. The main character Joel was supposed to have a dog but I didn't know he had one until he went searching for it and put up a "missing" sign on a billboard. The main story of the movie was basically a group of friends and one of the friends gets kidnapped by the monster and all of the other friends go and search and be brave little 13, 14 year old kids. That's practically the story and everything else before it seems pointless. At the end of the movie I didn't care about them. The ending even came quite sudden and if you actually watched the trailer then you would know what would happen in the end, the alien manages to go back to his home planet because this isn't an 18/R-rated film where the aliens don't get a good ending, the alien practically builds a spaceship that looks like ETs and then floats off while all of the public and military don't seem to be bothered by it even though they are looking at it. Even the military don't seem to care, funny how they were all secretive and protective about it and seemed to want to capture it back or kill it.

But the thing I do NOT understand is why is it every film this year that looked good turned out to be really disappointing or not that great? Yes I know trailers are meant to do this but this year they seem to be way over-hyping the films that they are advertising. Battle: Los Angeles had a great trailer and looked really intense and scary and the new "Independence Day" but without the humour and that ended up like watching a walk-through video for Call of Duty but with weird saucer-shaped headed aliens. Sucker Punch looked great too but it was boring, I even thought I was playing a video game because of how video-game it felt, forget Scott Pilgrim as being a video-game like film, I even though I would have to tap a few buttons to defeat a boss a few times. The film could have been great if there were a few plot changes and a character or two excluded. The great story would be that they escaped the institute and then the entire world seemed to be after them but instead the action was "fantasy moments" and was pointless because they weren't real. Super 8 was my last hope and now I do not think I can ever trust a movie trailer again.

Super 8 isn't a bad film, it just tries to pay so much homage to Spielberg and monster movies from the 70s and 80s and the film doesn't feel fresh or innovative. It felt lazy and Spielberg himself might as well have made a loose remake of ET and turned him bad and you would get Super 8 exactly. But what I don't understand is how is it I, a 18-year-old college student who adores movies can come up with great ideas with what these films can be but the film makers fail at doing it? My ideas for this movies aren't impossible, you could do them on the budget each movie has but every movie seems to be failing with scripts now and it's annoying knowing that professional Hollywood film makers can't even come up with a good film anymore. How is it I, and it's not just me it's my friends too, how is it we can come up with good ideas for films but Hollywood can't anymore? It defiantly seems like movies are now just business and have no heart to them (apart from the odd few of course, but the funny thing is these ones are done by less-famous film makers).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Finally I care
29 November 2010
I've never cared for Harry Potter even after seeing all of the other films at the cinema but in this one I actually cared about the characters. I loved the slow-paced mystery/adventure road movie style and it's great character development. Finally the acting was properly believable, not that they weren't good before. All of them, Daniel, Rupert and Emma are the best actors for the roles but in this one they finally shined.

Most people will say this is their favourite because of it being the latest one, but this is my favourite because I actually cared for the characters.

I loved the directing in this film, sound effects and editing. If I was part of the BAFTAs or Academy Awards or Golden Globes then I would nominated this for Best Picture.

Like it says on here the film is "emotionally satisfying". And it is. It really is.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Paranormal Activity 2
21 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I was cautious when I heard they were making a sequel because of Blair With 2: Book of Secrets (which was good, but not as a sequel).

PA2 turned out to be a great sequel, you could compare it to Rec 2, not as good as the first but better in most ways.

Nothing really happens much in the first thirty to forty minutes (kind of like the first one) and I was like "err, better get better" but it did. We see Katie a couple of times in the Katie WE know and love (pre-Demonic possession). She appears in the first half of the movie with Micah a few times, he is is intrigued by the video camera. Katie and her sister realise but try not to think that the Demon from their childhood is coming back. The main adult male character (whose name I forgot along with the others because of engrossed I was into the film) says to his partner/wife (Katie's sister) not to tell Katie and Micah. The Demon is after Hunter the baby and seems to want him bad, maybe he is meant to be the Anti-Christ and that's what Katie's late rich grandmothers deal was with the Devil that he could have the first male born in the family. The film features less character development from the first one, but there still is some. You start off not knowing which new character to like, the dad, the mom, step daughter, nanny, baby or dog. I grew attached to the step daughter, baby and dog.

The film is a sequel and a prequel, mostly a prequel until the last five minutes. The ending suggests that there could be another sequel, which there most likely will be. But as long as this series doesn't turn into a new franchise with one every year (even though the first was filmed three/four years ago). If it does then everyone will get probably good to bad.

With the film on the bigger budget ($2.7 million I believe) there were more scare features, but not predicable ones. A great scene is when the mom is in the kitchen and suddenly all of the cupboards and draws open like in a super-evil "Poltergeist" way. The mother gets dragged out of the baby's bedroom and downstairs, escapes goes back up but then gets violently dragged back downstairs into the basement. Great effects as you couldn't see anything. The dog Abby gets seriously injured, but isn't confirmed dead at all. The demon attacks her and then the family take her to the vets, nothing is said except the Doctors are still checking up on her.

Overview - Paranormal Activity 2 may start of slower than the first and feature less character development but is much more scarier and has more loud noises and unpredictable scares.


This film is like Rec 2 compared the original, not as good but not bad either
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Let Me In (I) (2010)
"Hit Back, Hard"... and he did
16 September 2010
An even better remake than I had expected.

I never thought I'd find a favourite film after seeing hundreds and hundreds of films from every genre but one day I did. I never expected and never even thought that my favourite film would turn out to be based on a book, based on a foreign book and the film be a foreign film. "Let the Right One In" is my favourite film.

I never thought a remake could be as good. I always knew this film was going to be good because of it's casting actually casting good actors instead of actors who are just in the film to bring fans in. The director couldn't have been a better choice and what was even better was that he wrote the screenplay to the film too.

This is a complete surprise. Let the Right One In is what Twilight should have been if Stephanie Meyer and the writers of the films actually thought out a good story. Let Me In is also what Twilight should be, Let Me In puts shame on Twilight.

The acting in this film is wonderful, I actually found the film more emotional than the original (a remake more emotional than the original?). The film was also more scary and surprisingly it has really good scares.

In fact there is just absolute wonder with this film. Inception is an original film therefore Hollywood will want more original films, Let Me In is a good remake so hopefully any remake now WILL be good.

The music is good, I liked it although even though I know who the composer is I can still tell it's him by his style. I can hear some cues that he has used before in some other films and TV shows. 7/10 The directing is really good, good effort. 8/10 The acting is extremely good, although not as good as I thought it would be but still really good. 8/10 The script. One word - wow. 8/10 Casting, production design, costumes - 9/10 Scares, thrills, emotions - 10/10 Captures the spirit of the book and original film - 10/10 This is a film that is extremely true to the original and if you don't like remakes and can't stand the idea of this remake of your beloved film then you should be shamed. GO and watch this film when it's released properly. I will be going to my local cinema to see it instead of travelling miles and miles to another film festival.

But if your a fan of the original or not, then still go and see this film. If you hate Twilight for spoiling vampires then see this film, if you hate remakes but occasionally give them a chance SEE THIS FILM.

I think when I re-watch the film I will probably enjoy it more and my rating will go up higher and I'll probably up date this review.

This film is a breath takingly emotional, beautiful, scary and actually the best remake ever made.
120 out of 190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Precious (II) (2009)
A Precious Film
26 August 2010
A truly magnificent film that may be slow, but slow in an acceptable movie pace. Wonderful directing and acting. Definitely deserved the nominations and awards it received. A great film where everyone learns their lesson in the end. It's truly emotional and will have anyone watching it in tears for joy and sadness at the end of the film. This is one of those films that makes me want to fight against child abuse and help the unfortunate individuals who can't spell, read, write or barely do anything just like Precious in this movie. 10/10. One of the best films about child abuse since Mysterious Skin. Sad and moving and sometimes funny. Precious is a "Precious" film
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Star Trek 5: Not As Bad As You've Read
26 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie could actually be the best odd-numbered Star Trek film. It's entertaining, got great action scenes. The characters are back better than ever. The directing is pretty good in my opinion and this film is highly-underrated by critics and especially by Star Trek films. This film does not deserve the 5/10 star rating on IMDb, this movie is terrific. Exciting and wonderful. They fly into the centre of the universe to find "God" only it turns out not to be him, just someone who was imprisoned thousands of years ago and has God-like powers.

I was actually really cautious when choosing to watch this movie, I thought I'd hate it because of the bad reviews its received and bad ratings its had. This movie has got to be the best odd-numbered Trek movie
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Taken (I) (2008)
"Taken" With Excitement
25 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A highly under-rated film by critics where in the future when this film is a classic they will have to make up some excuse about why they didn't like it at the time.

This film may have been done before but just not in the way at all this film turned out to be. If you haven't seen this film and want to but don't want to know much about it then imagine a Bond/Bourne film where the character has retired from his job and now a very protective father of his daughter and you've got Taken.

The film is very intense and very fast paced and one of those rare films where it doesn't matter about the film length or how fast it gets into the actual story, this movie is just brilliant because of how quick it does. It grabs you at the first scene and it's like you already know the main character Brian Mills, it's like he's part of you and you know exactly how he feels. This is because of the excellent acting by Liam Neeson. The film like I said is very fast paced, there are about ten to fifteen minutes of you knowing the characters and the surroundings and then five minutes of an introduction to the quest Brian Mills heads on when his daughter is speaking to him on the phone and he hears her get kidnapped. The rest of the film is so fast paced you'd have to click the slow button to realise what is going on. The movie is just brilliant in every way and like I said at the start highly under-rated by critics and they will feel guilty of their reviews when this film turns into a classic (which in my opinion already is, the critics just haven't realised it yet). In fact I can't even say anything more about this film, there are no words to describe it and it's actually one of those rare films I give a 10/10, but the only thing I can say is...

... if you want to see this film then forget the bad reviews coming from mostly all critics and some public people. Just go see it yourself and I promise you, if you liked the trailer then you will not be disappointed.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Star Trek Weakling
24 August 2010
It has a good idea but it would have been much better if Jonathan Frakes directed it. This is the worst Star Trek and worst Next Gen movie. It brings back the characters and that's a good thing because they haven't changed but the film doesn't bring back the Star Trek Next Generation spirit. The film had potential but the script seemed like it was written in a day with only one draft. The special effects were alright but the music was the worst thing. The music was OK, but it sounded more like music from a musical and with the quick beats and rhythm it was as if the cast would start singing. But the whole movie was just plan bad. I gave it a chance and I give every badly-reviewed movie a chance but this didn't pass. It was boring, it seemed like the audience were supposed to guess what was going on in some bits. It was a bad send-off to the Next Gen cast
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Beautiful under-rated Star Trek film by critics and fans
15 August 2010
This film is truly magnificent. Beautiful. I thought I wouldn't like it because of the bad reviews by critics and fans but boy were the critics and especially the fans wrong. This is a truly beautiful film that is in such heights as 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is a wonderful film that captured my attention from the first scene, from the first minute. This is a truly magnificent film adaption of the TV series. Star Trek doesn't need action scenes to be entertaining, I don't mind a film whether it has action scenes or not, just an entertaining story. I love the latest sequel, prequel and reboot Star Trek because that is what Gene Roddenberry would have loved to have done and if he was alive would have loved the film deeply. The film may rely heavily on special effects but at least it didn't rely on effects much as films do today. The effects are breath taking and throughout the whole film I cannot imagine the film even being made in 1979. 1979!!! It's like this film stole all the other 70s film special effects budgets to create the most awsomest and ageless effects ever.

The story is great and is very Star Trek: The Original Series. The film is over-long but with the effects, story and acting I really don't care. The film is scary, mysterious and just Goddamn beautiful and every Star Trek fan who pans this film really needs to reconsider whether they are a true "Trekkie" or not.

This film is just awesome, I cannot say how brilliant this is. When watching it it's like I'm on drugs, I've never been on drugs and never will but at least this "drug" that I'm high on won't shorten my life, just give me a high excited level and make my heart beat double the usual beat.

Other reviews have praised the film for it's score and I will not disagree. Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams are two of my favourite composers but thank God Jerry did it because otherwise it would have felt like Star Wars if John did it. Every music piece in the film sounds like an overture at the beginning of a musical that consists of snippets of music from the show. Fast beats, slow beats, high beats, low beats. It's just beautiful and makes me want to scream out "Star Trek" a thousand times on top of my roof because of how beautiful it is.

I give it a 9 out of 10 because I felt the film ended a bit abruptly with some unanswered questions but if I forgot that then it would have got 10/10. A brilliant film that is so super
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Most annoyingly hilarious episode/movie ever
17 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As like the other Young Indy "movies" there are two stories in one. The first part is set in Spain and Paulo Picasso returns which is quite nice but he doesn't have a huge part like in his first episode. The second Austria. The latter is one of the most annoyingly hilarious episodes ever made for either just television or even if the 45-minute second part was a feature length movie. It was so tense that my eyes have never been so wide open and my jaw just like in classic cartoons was down to the floor. It's just a simple adventure for Indy but it turns really frustrating. All he needs to do is stay in an apartment for three days and on the third day he will receive a "very important phone call that could change the course of history". But in the apartment he discovers there is no phone and asks a woman where it is and she says people took it. Indy then goes into the most nightmare-like incidents that gets him in court, jail, up and down every single building and rolls down flocks of stairs on the cabinet. It is terrifying, and really really tense and it would be nice if there was another episode that was like this, even though comedy doesn't suit Indiana Jones it would be nice to see another one
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The horror, the horror
14 July 2010
As true to war a TV series could be until Band of Brothers and The Pacific. A terrific film which is in my opinion is much scarier than Saving Private Ryan but less bloody. The whole film is intense and is as good as any war movie could be, the only difference with this one is that Indiana Jones is in it. It's very brutal for what could be a PG-13 rated (if the MPAA rated TV shows) and 12-rated film. It seems like that if you want a good war movie, get George Lucas and Steven Spielburg on the job. I could class this as a child-friendly war movie because it was no f-words and no guts hanging out of people's stomachs.

8 out of 10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Doctor Who: The Lodger (2010)
Season 5, Episode 11
Brilliant, original, fun episode
12 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Doctor Who - The Lodger

The synopsis always seemed interesting and after the previous episodes being a bit of a down fall I was pleasantly surprised to find this episode was bringing back some excitement. It features The Doctor more than Amy Pond but it's not like Love & Monsters, Blink, Midnight and Turnleft where just cameos from either the companion, Doctor or both. I was quite surprised to see that The Doctor was topless in this episode for some time and even more when what seemed to be a prostitute walk upstairs into the "room of doom". It has "Smithy" in it which was pretty good and exciting to see as well as a new Tardis on the second floor, wish it could have been explained more though.
15 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
City of the Daleks
11 June 2010
Having recently played this game I found that it was quite enjoyable even though it drags a bit it still keeps you attached. The story was standard Doctor Who, the music made me feel like I was playing a Star Wars game, the acting by Matt Smith and Karen Gillan was a bit wooden in some places and not as good as in the series but The Doctor and Amy were still in there. There are three acts to the game, the game itself is quite short and could be complete at least six times in a day. You get to play The Doctor for most of the game and in the third act Amy. As the title suggests the Daleks are back along with one of the main Daleks who we haven't seen for years. There are some sticky situations about what to do next and some three puzzles in each act that get harder as the game progresses but these are easy to over-come if your patient. The game played out actually like a Doctor Who episode with a pre-credits sequence, opening credits, Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, conclusion and end credits. I will be getting the next adventure (or expansion pack as it could be called) featuring the Cybermen as revealed on BBC and hope that it is exciting as this game and hope that this series of four will be back for Matt and Karen's second year of Doctor Who in 2011.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.