Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
An ambitious and confusing yarn, made within it's means
Unlike the cast, crew and various other fake-tanned patrons, I actually paid to go and see this premiere, so you can expect a more objective review than the previous.
I came out of this screening happy, I had a good time which is the main thing.
The movie is apparently being sold as Independence Day meets Shaun Of The Dead, but it fails in being comical enough throughout to earn that tagline. There simply wasn't enough comedy or parody of alien invasion movies.
The movie starts off with a cast of binge drinking characters that we don't know well enough to care about. This immediately disconnected me from all of them because they came across as ASBO awarded yobs who drink as much as they can before jumping into a fight, which, as one of the characters indicates at the start, is the norm.
This thankfully ends and they become more likable later on. However, it's virtually impossible to take Sean Brosnan's role as a ex-Black Ops military man seriously based on the irrational way he behaves at the start, the way in which he speaks to other military men and the ill thought out choices he makes towards the end of the film.
A film should firmly establish it's tone at the start. You need to set up an expectation for the viewer. Unfortunately, this was not handled well for the first 5/10 minutes of the film. Shaun Of The Dead, for example, explicitly sets the tone in the opening titles.
The opening titles of this movie were close ups of women's butts and people grinding in a club to dubstep. It felt self indulgent to the maker and not beneficial to the movie as a whole.
I had to try and not to laugh at parts since we were sitting near the cast and crew, but in hindsight, I feel like I should have been laughing and that I was confused by the tone of the subject matter.
The script wavers from being funny, serious, dramatic, immature and outright adolescent in parts. Sometimes these wavers are done quite well, but a lot of the time it was a little confusing.
Sometimes, these tone changes worked. One example of a dramatic tone change would be a horrifically brutal fight scene devoid of humour, in which a man tries to use a submachine gun on a child, which is then underlined by our lead (Sean Brosnan) doing a comical strut at the end to put his coat on. The audience were in fits of laughter at that point and it was a memorable moment. This was done very well, but it was a lone stitch in a larger tapestry.
There are moments when the film plunges into borderline plagiarism of other movies. I'll give the director/writer the benefit of the doubt that these were homage, they still felt out of place.
For example, a fight scene in a supermarket suddenly becomes a mimic of the famous fight scene in Old Boy which didn't seem entirely suitable at the time. Another example, which felt a lot more out of place, were two moments where Bianca Bree quotes Blade Runner in a monotone way to the main lead.
This later turns out to make no sense whatsoever as she turned out to be an alien. So... an alien that wants to wipe out mankind, but that has an appreciation of 20th century Earth cinema. This was very confusing to me, partly because I still had not determined what the tone of this movie should be. If it's meant to be funny, then fair enough, but it's just not that funny either. These weren't funny lines from Blade Runner either, they were from Roy Batty's death scene.
All those moments... seemed wide of the mark. If you're making a parody of alien invasion movies, what does Blade Runner or Old Boy have to do with it?
One moment that stands out as being particularly awkward was when an old man (that we'd never seen before) just turned up in the street and started reeling off a *lot* of expository dialogue. It went on for a long time, killed the pace of the movie and was poorly delivered. Astonishingly, parts of this speech were repeated in flashbacks later on! This was hilarious, but it seemed unintentionally so.
JCVD makes a welcome cameo in this movie towards the end. He needlessly pops up in flashes for the first half of the film. There were many flashbacks during the first half, but I think they were flashes of the later parts of the movie... so flashforwards? I have no idea, but their relevance was very confusing whenever these popped up.
I'd like to finish with some positive points about this movie. Despite all it's flaws, I felt that the cast and crew put a lot of effort into making a movie that they wanted to make and within the means they had to make it. I never got bored whilst watching the movie, even the old man who reeled off his speech in the middle was mildly amusing.
I was very happy to see JCVD on screen once more, even if for a short amount of time. This movie also has some phenomenal fight scenes. One particular fight in a pharmacy was absolutely brutal and really had me on the edge of my seat, no small feat to pull off. This was right up there with John Carpenter's fight scene in They Live.
I also have to tip my hat towards the makers of this film for actually using explosive squibs for when one guy got shot.
I feel that had the script been way more streamlined towards a parody of alien invasion movies, this would have been a winner.
Ignore the haters - a good Indy movie :)
This is a great film.
Read all the negative reviews on here and you'll find that they're written by blinkered people, who believe that because they buy loads of DVDs, this make them experts in film.
Also keep in mind that all the people that hate so much simply must come to the biggest movie online database to vent.
The main criticisms come from apparent 'hardcore Indy fans' that complain that the action, story and theme aren't plausible enough for them... because Ark's with super powers and evil ghosts that disintegrate flesh if looked upon are plausible... or a 1000 year old Crusader that can't die because he drinks from an old cup... removing the hearts of men without tearing their skin or them dying... or the countless other far fetched events that Indy has been through in the previous movies.
They'll also probably brag about how they knew this new film was going to be a tragedy before they saw it because of Lucas and Spielbergs films of recent years, then contradict themselves when they say they were surprised and had their 'childhood memories ruined' because they didn't enjoy it.
Blah blah blah, whatever. I find myself fortunate that I can still go to a movie and enjoy it, and not look for all the flaws in it that I couldn't see when I was a 10 year old because I was too young and stupid.
Go and see this movie. It's made by old pros and most of it is entertaining. There weren't many major problems with the movie, and I liked the alien theme of it that keeps in time with the era's mindset about Roswell and U.F.O speculation - something that obviously effected Spielberg's film career - whilst being up to date with current theories of trans dimensional travel (this is actually something that is currently being scientifically tested if you look it up).
A great effort, a great cast, good action and an interesting story for the Indy series.
So please haters, go and sort your lives out. Nobody cares if you can't take it, and that your original 3 films have now been ruined, and you can't watch them the same way anymore (just like your original Star Wars trilogy). This problem lies with you, not the film makers that apparently force you to go and see their new material (that you already knew you wouldn't like before you went to see it).
Death Proof (2007)
Most triumphant ! No spoilers here, just a good review.
This is a good film. Many people slam this film for the following reasons :
it's egotistical too much talking and not enough action the second half feels repetitive in relation to the first the scratches, jump cuts and editing 'errors' that are laid through much of the first half inconsistence in the setting, time-frame and scenario, and general 'goofs' as IMDb refers to them.
What many don't understand, is that these are intentional. This film is a celebration of Grindhouse cinema and only those who aren't familiar with Grindhouse won't get this film.
This harks back to those old horror films where directors would use repetitive dialogue because they couldn't think of anything else or they liked their work so much that they'd rehash it. They'd go as far as appearing in their own films because they loved themselves and they'd shamelessly reference their own work. Some of these old horror films would even rehash footage and scenes from other films that the director had done before. There would be what seemed like obvious errors in the films or inconsistence
Whilst we have all this homage to Grindhouse cinema, we also have Tarantino's film making talent at work. I'm not a particularly huge fan of Tarantino's previous work. I thought Reservoir Dogs was good, and perhaps Kill Bill Volume 2, but I thought many of his films lacked the story or content that I hoped for.
I loved this film. I think much of it is very carefully considered. Despite it supposed to be a homage to Grindhouse, you see inspiration from old Westerns from the likes of Sergio Leone, especially in the way that we have a long build up to the the death and gore which makes it much more hard hitting than if we just had a typical violence and killing at regular intervals.
What is particular kudos to Tarantino, is that if this film had been released in the time that he's homaging, it would have been a huge cult classic.
The only downsides to this film are some points in the second half, the dialogue goes on a little too long, and you can't help but feel that the better female actresses were in the first half.
This film gets better with repeated viewing, which I think is a sign of a good movie. When viewing you get a sense that they had a huge amount of fun working on this film. The soundtrack is really incredible, works very well with the film and is certainly right up there with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
Finally, I also have to say that Kurt Russell REALLY delivers in this film and it wouldn't have worked as well without him.
Star Trek: Spock's Brain (1968)
A great start to the third series !
Spock's Brain is an incredible episode.
This episode has all the beautiful traits that make Original Series Star Trek so popular. The actors perform with charm and enthusiasm, the story is engaging despite the low budget sets and props, and we also catch a glimpse of Mccoy's compassionate feelings for Spock, which is something we don't often see.
This particular episode has a good balance of cheap gags, classic hammy acting from shatner (which we can't get enough of) and suspense.
The only flaw with this episode is that the back story to the scenario could have been elaborated on a little more. The situation the crew find themselves in seems rather vague at times but this doesn't ruin the show.
If you love Original Series, don't skip on this one.