Oblivion seems to me like the type of movie that requires several (or at least two) watches before a proper opinion can be given to it, because initially this film feels very fresh, pretty, and overall a good blockbuster-type movie.
Apparently I'm in the minority when it comes to the critics and this particular film, most saying that the story was predictable and it was light in the story department. I disagree, yes I predicted a few key twists in the story when they were initially presented, but the overall feel of the story was a mystery until I actually viewed the film.
I watched the film with my mother, and her limited sci-fi experience, besides the big ones like Star Wars, Star Trek and Inception, made the film an enjoyable and fairly unpredictable film for her, mainly because many of the tropes and cliches that are presented in this film are only familiar with medium to hardcore sci fi fans, something that neither me nor my mother are.
So as an outsider to the sci-fi scene, this film is really good, generic sci-fi. I enjoyed it as such, as did my mother, and some other people I am friends with as well. I will watch it again, with full knowledge of the story twists, and see if it still holds up as a film by itself. Until then, cheers.
Monday, 22 April 2013
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Click (warning, spoilers)
Let me talk to you a bit about genre.
I'm not the biggest fan of genre, but I do respect it as a viable method of writing. The rules of genre that defines things as Drama, Comedy, Tragedy, Fantasy, Romance and others have been set in stone over many centuries of evolution.
However, when someone tries to break trends, and makes a movie that fills two genres that are almost completely different in tone and execution, there's a small amount of respect that is earned for being able to make a movie like that, especially when it is a success.
And that's where we get to Click, probably one of the most famous examples of a dramatic genre shift in the history of film.
Click stars Adam Sandler, and for the first two thirds of the film, is the typical Adam Sandler fare, with crude humor, gross-out jokes, and general Adam Sandler randomness about an architect (what?) who is stressed with life and discovers a literal Universal Remote that helps his life be a little easier. He manages to fast forward sickness, rewind to previous events to relive them (albeit from an outsider perspective) and mute his wife's annoying friend.
There's only one catch: You can't relive the past, only rewatch it.
And when he accidentally fast forwards years of his life away, leaving his body on 'autopilot' (which is basically an emotionless version of himself) he finds that he divorced the wife he loved so much, his dad died of old age without him noticing or even being there, and his son has grown up to become a successful heir to his architecture company, the only problem being there's a severe lack of relationship between them (because when he got the remote, the son was only four years old, and he grew up to be thirty)
And this is where the dramatic genre shift occurs. Sandler wishes to rekindle his relationship with his family, who, mind you, has drifted off in different directions without him noticing, while his fat, unhealthy self is dying slowly.
Anyway, if you haven't seen the film, but don't care about spoilers (why else will you still be reading this) this event leads to the death of the main character, in an event that gets close to getting an emotional reaction for me (my number 1 sign of quality in a film) if it wasn't for Sandler.
The story is great, Adam Sandler isn't. This is a type of film that would've benefited from a better comedian, such as Jim Carrey (who proved that he could handle dramatic roles with 'The Truman Show') or even Robin Williams (who is constantly trying to be a dramatic actor, with variable results). Sandler's trademark screwball humor just feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie. Even Walken, who's considered the weirdest actor in the world, feels more in place in his comedic role as the angel of death who gives Sandler the remote in the first place, feels more in place than Sandler. If it was an all drama cast, with only Walken as the comic relief character, it would've been a far better movie, in my opinion.
My conclusion for this movie is that the Drama is great, the Comedy isn't. it got one of the two genres in this genre-bending film wrong by having Sandler in it, when a far more capable actor could've easily taken the role. It's a good movie, mind you, just not as good as it could've been.
I'm not the biggest fan of genre, but I do respect it as a viable method of writing. The rules of genre that defines things as Drama, Comedy, Tragedy, Fantasy, Romance and others have been set in stone over many centuries of evolution.
However, when someone tries to break trends, and makes a movie that fills two genres that are almost completely different in tone and execution, there's a small amount of respect that is earned for being able to make a movie like that, especially when it is a success.
And that's where we get to Click, probably one of the most famous examples of a dramatic genre shift in the history of film.
Click stars Adam Sandler, and for the first two thirds of the film, is the typical Adam Sandler fare, with crude humor, gross-out jokes, and general Adam Sandler randomness about an architect (what?) who is stressed with life and discovers a literal Universal Remote that helps his life be a little easier. He manages to fast forward sickness, rewind to previous events to relive them (albeit from an outsider perspective) and mute his wife's annoying friend.
There's only one catch: You can't relive the past, only rewatch it.
And when he accidentally fast forwards years of his life away, leaving his body on 'autopilot' (which is basically an emotionless version of himself) he finds that he divorced the wife he loved so much, his dad died of old age without him noticing or even being there, and his son has grown up to become a successful heir to his architecture company, the only problem being there's a severe lack of relationship between them (because when he got the remote, the son was only four years old, and he grew up to be thirty)
And this is where the dramatic genre shift occurs. Sandler wishes to rekindle his relationship with his family, who, mind you, has drifted off in different directions without him noticing, while his fat, unhealthy self is dying slowly.
Anyway, if you haven't seen the film, but don't care about spoilers (why else will you still be reading this) this event leads to the death of the main character, in an event that gets close to getting an emotional reaction for me (my number 1 sign of quality in a film) if it wasn't for Sandler.
The story is great, Adam Sandler isn't. This is a type of film that would've benefited from a better comedian, such as Jim Carrey (who proved that he could handle dramatic roles with 'The Truman Show') or even Robin Williams (who is constantly trying to be a dramatic actor, with variable results). Sandler's trademark screwball humor just feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie. Even Walken, who's considered the weirdest actor in the world, feels more in place in his comedic role as the angel of death who gives Sandler the remote in the first place, feels more in place than Sandler. If it was an all drama cast, with only Walken as the comic relief character, it would've been a far better movie, in my opinion.
My conclusion for this movie is that the Drama is great, the Comedy isn't. it got one of the two genres in this genre-bending film wrong by having Sandler in it, when a far more capable actor could've easily taken the role. It's a good movie, mind you, just not as good as it could've been.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
The Croods
Wow...
I mean wow! This movie was a very very pleasant surprise.
The Croods stars Nicholas Cage, Emma Stone and Ryan Renolds. Cage is the father of a cavemen, sort of neanderthal family, who is absolutely afraid of everything, and Emma Stone plays the rebellious daughter who wants to see the world, but when they meet the first human outside of their family, played by Ryan Renolds, everything changes.
Now, i'm going to say something rather big here. The Croods is THE most BEAUTIFUL animated film I've ever seen in my life. Dreamworks have really outdid themselves, and i think it's mainly to do with the colour. This is a really pretty movie. The environments are amazing, the creature designs are amazing, and even the characters are very well designed. Let me tell you, it's hard to make a large, muscular woman look attractive, but they did it somehow, although it probably helps that she was played by Emma Stone. Hottest female actress, and her voice shows that.
The story is a combination of both a father-daughter relationship movie, and a roadtrip movie (except without the road) I won't spoil the story for you because it's worth watching. Ignore the relatively low 69% on Rotten Tomatoes, it's worth it. Watch it on the big screen too. It's so good seeing it in super HD digital widescreen. Don't ask about the 3d though, I didn't see it in 3D, and there's minimal "Forced 3D" scenes, although it probably would enhance the overall experience, since Dreamworks is good at 3D
Overall, this movie is a must watch. It's up there in the great animated movies, and it's the prettiest animated movie ever, getting really close to Avatar quality (although Avatar is more realistic, which gives it a small upper hand)
Just watch it.
9/10
*Amazing effects, character design, and scenery
*Great Slapstick
*Great Voice Acting
- Slightly Generic Story
I mean wow! This movie was a very very pleasant surprise.
The Croods stars Nicholas Cage, Emma Stone and Ryan Renolds. Cage is the father of a cavemen, sort of neanderthal family, who is absolutely afraid of everything, and Emma Stone plays the rebellious daughter who wants to see the world, but when they meet the first human outside of their family, played by Ryan Renolds, everything changes.
Now, i'm going to say something rather big here. The Croods is THE most BEAUTIFUL animated film I've ever seen in my life. Dreamworks have really outdid themselves, and i think it's mainly to do with the colour. This is a really pretty movie. The environments are amazing, the creature designs are amazing, and even the characters are very well designed. Let me tell you, it's hard to make a large, muscular woman look attractive, but they did it somehow, although it probably helps that she was played by Emma Stone. Hottest female actress, and her voice shows that.
The story is a combination of both a father-daughter relationship movie, and a roadtrip movie (except without the road) I won't spoil the story for you because it's worth watching. Ignore the relatively low 69% on Rotten Tomatoes, it's worth it. Watch it on the big screen too. It's so good seeing it in super HD digital widescreen. Don't ask about the 3d though, I didn't see it in 3D, and there's minimal "Forced 3D" scenes, although it probably would enhance the overall experience, since Dreamworks is good at 3D
Overall, this movie is a must watch. It's up there in the great animated movies, and it's the prettiest animated movie ever, getting really close to Avatar quality (although Avatar is more realistic, which gives it a small upper hand)
Just watch it.
9/10
*Amazing effects, character design, and scenery
*Great Slapstick
*Great Voice Acting
- Slightly Generic Story
Monday, 25 March 2013
Django Unchained: Sadistic, yet Satisfying
I really enjoyed Quentin Tarantino's latest theatrical offering Django Unchained when i watched it with one of my friends a few days before writing this. It was definitely deserving of both of its Oscar nominations.
But did it deserve to win?
Django Unchained is a film about a slave named Django, who is set free by a bounty hunter who gives him his freedom in exchange for his help. They develop a strong friendship, something rare in those times in which this film was set, and set out to rid the world of criminals for money.
This film is two things: A very violent and satisfying action movie, with 60's Spaghetti Western vibes mixed in, and a strong cultural and social commentary of a very serious problem of racism, both back then, and now.
And this movie succeeds.
Despite its typical Tarantino comedic tone, this movie is very realistic, in that the way slaves were treated was reminiscent of how they were actually treated in real life. I can just picture the character Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed existing in real life, or at the very least, back then. He is a despicable character covered in the disguise of false-kindness, something several people do often.
This film is amazing. I won't go too deep in why, but if you seen any other Tarantino work, you know what to expect.
But did it deserve to win?
Django Unchained is a film about a slave named Django, who is set free by a bounty hunter who gives him his freedom in exchange for his help. They develop a strong friendship, something rare in those times in which this film was set, and set out to rid the world of criminals for money.
This film is two things: A very violent and satisfying action movie, with 60's Spaghetti Western vibes mixed in, and a strong cultural and social commentary of a very serious problem of racism, both back then, and now.
And this movie succeeds.
Despite its typical Tarantino comedic tone, this movie is very realistic, in that the way slaves were treated was reminiscent of how they were actually treated in real life. I can just picture the character Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed existing in real life, or at the very least, back then. He is a despicable character covered in the disguise of false-kindness, something several people do often.
This film is amazing. I won't go too deep in why, but if you seen any other Tarantino work, you know what to expect.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
SCREAM
Wow was this movie fun.
I watched Scream about a week ago (from writing this review), so this is from distant memory, but I can still remember enjoying the heck out of this movie.
Scream (1996) is a Wes Craven horror/comedy film. This film's purpose is to be a sort of spoof of classic slasher films, including Wes Craven's own Nightmare on Elms Street (which I have not yet seen). Although a spoof, this film works very well as a slasher in its own right, and has plenty of scares and close calls, mixed in with the witty dialogue and references.
This film, in case you don't know, is the introduction of the movie villain Ghostface, a dangerous killer who wears a halloween ghost costume. Ghostface is a great villain because, not only is he dangerous, but he also makes mistakes, and is clumsy. This trait makes some of the scenes even more tense, because you are never too sure whether the victim survives or the killer wins.
I won't go into the story, but if you're a fan of slasher movies, this is a great one, and I would be surprised if you haven't seen it. If you're just starting, like me, this is a great lee-way into some of the more intense and serious slashers out there.
I watched Scream about a week ago (from writing this review), so this is from distant memory, but I can still remember enjoying the heck out of this movie.
Scream (1996) is a Wes Craven horror/comedy film. This film's purpose is to be a sort of spoof of classic slasher films, including Wes Craven's own Nightmare on Elms Street (which I have not yet seen). Although a spoof, this film works very well as a slasher in its own right, and has plenty of scares and close calls, mixed in with the witty dialogue and references.
This film, in case you don't know, is the introduction of the movie villain Ghostface, a dangerous killer who wears a halloween ghost costume. Ghostface is a great villain because, not only is he dangerous, but he also makes mistakes, and is clumsy. This trait makes some of the scenes even more tense, because you are never too sure whether the victim survives or the killer wins.
I won't go into the story, but if you're a fan of slasher movies, this is a great one, and I would be surprised if you haven't seen it. If you're just starting, like me, this is a great lee-way into some of the more intense and serious slashers out there.
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Just Cause 2
Tough on the Computer, but Definitely Worth Playing
I got Just Cause 2 a while ago for my PC, and it definitely is a pain to run. Just Cause 2 is definitely the most graphically advanced game I own, and because of my computer's poor processor, lackluster RAM, and old monitor, I cannot play the game at its full glory, and I often get frustrated at the poor framerate.However, it still happens to be fun.
Just Cause 2 is a giant open world shooter. You play as an agent by the name of Rico Rodriguez, and it's your job to cause as much chaos in the island state of Panau as possible. There is a story, but it is irrelevant.
So, why is it so fun?
The biggest draw to the game is the large open world. From what I've read, it's around 400 square kilometers in total area. There are mountains, rainforests, and deserts. There are tonnes of secrets, Easter eggs and collectables to find, and almost no end of missions to do. What don't you want from a game like this.
The biggest letdown, however, is how taxing it is to play the thing. It is only playable on Windows Vista and up, and because of this, all Windows XP gamers get left out. The graphical options are limited, because no matter how low I set the settings, it still seems to run at a very low framrate, making the game very slow and stutter a lot. This game will be so much better with a better computer.
The game is cheap, however. It is a 2-year-old game, which means buying it now will be much easier, at $20. It is only 4 gigabytes, which means installing the game is fairly easy, and it leaves room to upgrade your computer if needed.
I'll say try before you buy. There is a demo out, which gives you access to one of the islands in the game, so give that a shot to see if your computer can run it. If it can run it, definitely buy it immediately. This game is fun, if it works.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Introduction: Hi's and Hello's
If you have any suggestions for things I should look at, please let me know.
The Rules:
1. I don't do points or stars. If you want a summary of what I think of a game without reading the entire review I do, I'll do a ranking system like this:Buy It
Try before you buy
Avoid like the plague
The meanings of each should be clear enough.
2. I'll start reviewing asap. I will not have a regular schedule, although I hope to at least release one review a week minimum. I may do more, and I may not be able to access the internet. Who knows?
3. These reviews reflect my opinion on the subject matter. It may change if I gain perspective, so I may release updates to reviews, call them something like re-reviews. You may enjoy something I hate, and you may hate something I enjoy.
4. This is for fun. Take me seriously, but not too seriously. Try not to be offended by anything I say (yes, offense is a choice of the listener) and take everything I say with a grain of salt.
That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)