Change Your Image
fluffymarshmallowsandtof
Reviews
Avatar (2009)
Its ALL about the special effects
I had high hopes for this movie, but like so many of my friends warned me, it really was Fern Gully with better special effects.
The effects themselves were gorgeous- seamless, detailed, fascinating to watch. Amazing colours and good use of the 3D. I'm not sure about being 'revolutionary' but it definitely sets a new standard in the progression of special effects.
There were, however, so many aspects that just let the film down. The music, by James Horner, was so ridiculously similar in composition to the theme from Titanic it was hard to not to laugh! The script was OK, nothing particularly brilliant but not out of place. Sam Worthington, though easy on the eyes, failed to grab audience attention and his constant accent slips were somewhat irritating, though not as pronounced as his performance in Terminator Salvation. Zoe Saldana, though always in motion capture form, stole the entire film from Worthington.
The plot was predictable and absolutely no part got my heart pumping. I was extremely let down by the (expected) death of the bad guy, which in all seriousness was completely comical.
It was definitely a beautiful, pretty movie, but Cameron may have done well to invest more across the board instead of just on the effects.
Knowing (2009)
A strong premise... which epically fails.
I never really planned on seeing this movie. I'm not a huge fan of nicholas cage and his limited range of squinty facial expressions. However, after hearing some friends report on how 'awesome' it was, I decided to give it a shot.
The film begins beautifully, with Melbourne providing quite a good an admirable job at passing for Boston- my only clue was seeing Doug Peterson from Summer Heights High- and both visual effects and a plot which set up a dark mood, full of intrigue and possibility.
The film takes this on for a while, and for this time my only complaint was the badly photo-shopped image of rose byrne that appeared a couple of times, and a few awkward script moments that left many audience members laughing. Apart from a few unnecessary moments of foreshadowing, all looked well in the world of "Knowing." How, how wrong I was. Like in so many other films, it reached a point where I realised "This movie is going to have a really, really stupid ending." And I was right. It's almost as if the writer of the original story gave up on trying to create a quality ending, instead focusing on ridiculous and unsatisfying ways of bringing so many odd moments in the film together, combined with huge, but not always the greatest quality, special effects. This ending's stupidity is only compounded by rabbits, a ridiculous goodbye and an awkward and ultimately incomplete moment of family reconnection. Once it ended, the cinema was full of giggles and a few comments along the lines of "its about time it ended!" wait for the DVD, if you must watch it at all.
The Golden Compass (2007)
A fair adaptation of a great story.
As a Pullman fanatic, I try to approach this film as objectively as I can. I hope that my review will be useful to both those who have and those who have not read the book.
Unfortunately, the same things that hinder the book's translation hinder the movie as a whole- namely, the time constraints. The film was quite a bit shorter then it could have been, and as a result a lot of the depth and explanations are missing.
The plot moves fairly fast, scenes quickly cut to each other. While the whole story is included, the film loses a great deal of depth. We have barely enough time to gauge what is happening in one scene, and understand the concepts before jumping to the next time and place. Pullman readers will be satisfied with most, although perhaps annoyed at the slight additions and plot changes. It also becomes difficult to fully empathise with the characters, and although moments left me slightly choked up, a look around made me aware it was probably only me with my quite in depth knowledge of the book which left it that way. I was also constantly having to explain to those around me what was going on. Normally it is looked down upon in cinemas, but even the couple sitting next to my family asked me for clarification. The opening summary does help explain some of the more complex elements of Pullman's universe, but does not carry it through adequately.
I was expecting the film to suffer far more than it did from all the controversy, altering it to appease the Church, and ultimately it simply comes down to the wording. The Church becomes the Magisterium, God becomes the Authority, and the story of Adam and Eve is swapped for some random snippet about the ancestors- this move in particular makes it harder for non-readers to understand the concept of dust.
I think this can best be summed up as they took a great story, and condensed it slightly too much, to make a *good* fantasy film. A little more time, a little more depth and there would have been a wonderful film here. I do hope the trilogy is made in total, but the takings and reviews, as well as how they will manage to handle the story without a scathing declaration from various Christian groups, if what has been coming out is anything to judge by.
Gabriel (2007)
Wasted Potential
Save your $15 or $7 on Tuesdays. i don't care if it was made for free. no budget means no time limit. this movie has a lot of issues mainly that the plot makes no sense and is very inconsistent.
the actors accents fade in and out, and it doesn't bond to any particular structure.
On triple J they said that it was a compilation of many ideas. and thats where they wrote it from, but its total bull.
the trailer is misleading, and as a whole looks like a cheap pilot with passable special fx. not that they weren't brilliantly executed and well produced.
i think i could've got over it faster had the plot been better. but you can't mask a bad story line with good special fx, as we all know from previous experiences with tom cruise movies- not to say i didn't enjoy them. they just kind of..made no sense.
i think i'm more annoyed since it had such good potential to be a ridiculously good movie.
maybe the characters could have been wiser instead of saying vague stuff everywhere. tip toeing over topics to not offend. potential viewers. all in all it was basically the matrix and Constantine, which we all know featured keanu reeves. but the acting in this was even poorer than that of the movies it was being compared to.
Then putting in a completely unnecessary sex scene to illustrate the emotional attachment between 2 angels. when there was a perfectly sufficient kiss. Who knows. maybe some people like that. maybe some people enjoy bad movies because they're bad i don't know I'm not a doctor.
no character development. its one of those movies where it completely depends on the vague dialogue to introduce characters that are already little known to the audience.
just because you call a character by the name of a fallen or arch angel from some passage in scripture doesn't help the audience find out what relevance they have to the plot.
all we know is they're the enemy. and they have guns. guns that shoot bullets- in Purgatory??? and bad acting. i think thats the most damaging part.
i think the best way I could describe the special fx are if the chaser did a spoof of the matrix. THATS what the cgi was like.
it was blatantly Australian. which once again with a low budget of 0 and volunteer work might be a good argument. but once again that argument doesn't quite stand the test of time when you try to keep track of the plot.
1. a bad guy goes to purgatory getting rid of "the light" and the power from "the source"
"the light" being code for "good" and "the source" as a vague interpretation of a higher power without referring to "The Lord".
and they drop in the words "forgive me" every couple minutes lest we forget that these are angels and not just dudes named after angels.
the over use of coloured contacts made me cringe- although there was one of the best dark flashy strobe scenes i've ever seen. with rapid machine gun fire a dozen men and a dark warehouse. that was pretty sweet. totally discotek style.
the overall soundtrack was played to invoke emotion on the scene. but the mastering of it was terrible, volume was inconsistent.
they had a freaking guy from star wars help them, no wonder the overall production values are pro looking. seemingly.
now i'm not professional movie critic, and I'm not a doctor and I don't usually go on about movies this much. but its trying to convince the public that its something that its not with that trailer.
i watched the trailer after i watched the movie. and it fooled me again. into hoping there was a better made movie. a better version. with actual relevance. to anything.
instead i was left empty. alone. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO ANY OF THOSE CHARACTERS WERE?????????
at least dogma was smart about making a joke out of religion. this was just picking random bits and pieces and making a Frankenstein of a movie.
I SAW NO WINGS. oh wait. cos they were in human form...i forgot. yet they can somehow call upon super human strength and heal each other. yet once "healed" the guys still limp around.
Don't Bother. Imagine the lord of the rings if it had no big name actors and was made by the hallmark channel, on a low budget.
The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising (2007)
Disappointed
As a big fan of the original Susan Cooper series, I had some hope for the movie. Naturally, I was expecting some adjusting, and to not be AS satisfied as with my original read, but the degree to which this movie let me down was a surprise.
As an adaptation, I found there to be a distinct lack of magic found in the original story. It deviated perhaps a little too far from the original plot, and included some extra sub-plots related to the family life etc which really did it no favours. Additionally, if they are hoping to work with the rest of the series- which is doubtful- they've shot themselves in the foot with all the plot adjustments, and by losing much of the legends etc involved.
As a movie on its own, it was, to be honest, boring. The script was flat, and featured far too much repetition. I can only handle hearing Ian McShane bellow "YOU ARE THE SEEKER" so many times. Much of the film felt rushed, without adequate explanation, leaving many an 'eh?' in the air. I felt Will Stanton was miscast, but Christopher Eccleston was definitely a highlight.
Overall? A big mess of a beautiful piece of writing.
Wolf Creek (2005)
Scary because it's so realistic
I watch a lot of horror movies. a lot. I watched wolf creek with two of my good friends, on their small TV. We're all adults here, mind you. about three quarters of the way through the movie, something brushed over the gravel outside. We crowded around the back door, shoved the dog outside (cowardly I know) before sneaking out. turned out a gust of wind had pushed one of the hanging vines across the gravel. We were greatly embarrassed.
Wolf creek has some of the most beautiful imagery I've seen in a film for a long time, it makes the Australian outback looks truly beautiful. warning to all you potential tourists- there is a lot out there, but there's also a whole lot of nothingness. a LOT of nothingness.
As for the rest of the film, I found it to be scary because of just how 'true' the horror seemed to be. There was no faceless killer who, despite walking slowly manages to catch up with the innocent. Just Mick Taylor, a seemingly average Aussie bloke with a penchant for violence and sadism. Every wound, every word that came out of Mick's seemed to me to be exactly how one of the true psychos in this world would act. In general, this seemed to be much closer to reality, or at least my reality, then anything I've seen come out of Hollywood recently. Parties where everyone smokes? Rude outback trucker types? Dodgy cars? Check, check, check.
As the film went on, me and my viewing-mates became overrun by a sense of hopelessness, and personally, everything I thought was going to happen went a completely different way.
The only issue I had with this film was my familiarity with the actors (eg the chick from "the Wayne Manifesto" and John Jarrat made it really difficult for me to take parts of the film seriously. Despite that, It was generally a scary experience, but filmically one definitely worth experiencing.
The Five People You Meet in Heaven (2004)
A great quality film
I bought the book "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" in November of 2003, and loved it. I was touched by its optimism, story and general texture. I loved the differences between each section, such as the wartime and the love story. It's an incredible book, and I recommend reading it whether or not you have seen the film. The film remains true to the original story, which is just superb.
When I first heard that it had been made into a film, I was excited. When i heard it was starring Jon Voight, and was going to be on the Hallmark channel, i knew I had to see it. to be fair, i'm currently watching it (again) and am writing the review as it goes. I am very impressed by the direction, the use of colour really drives the mood. The casting is perfect, Jeff Bridges surprised me with a fantastic job of embodying the Blue Man- I don't really need to discuss the other actors, they have brilliant reputations and this film gives you an idea why.
I would definitely love to get a copy of this on DVD, its a movie unlike what I would usually enjoy, but I found it to be warming and something that really gets you thinking and feeling good.
Check it out, definitely