 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I'd seen the original version instead of the redubbed US version, though.
Are you sure about this? Most of the voices in both versions seem to be the same (Grant, Hayek, Freeman, Tennant, Piven etc).
Scream 4 with the DVD commentary playing. Even with commentary the lack of scares and overall meh-ness (and its "Are you freaking kidding me?" third act) come over loud and clear; thank goodness for Alison Brie, Mary McDonnell, Emma Roberts when not overacting and especially Hayden Panettiere (the best thing about both film and commentary - if only Hayden hadn't departed from both before the end. Bring back Kirby!). 5/10.
I don't know about scares but I was HOWLING with laughter when the two cops were killed and the teen in the room was murdered in such an absurd over kill.
And that gay line was epic! I agree Kirby was the best thing about this film and I would love if Rose McGowan and Hayden Penettiere were both in a horror film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 30, 2012 - 8:37 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CindyLover
(Member)
|
Thinking back, the strangest thing about SCREAM 4 was that, late in the film, Hayden Panettiere was practically throwing herself at Rory Culkin and he picks that moment to waste her. Given that he's a film geek and given his look (he's no longer the cute asthmatic of SIGNS), that seemed pretty defeatist.
That also makes what happens, like most of the movie, pointless and illogical - so he wants her, she's finally about to give him what he wants and just because some jerk interrupts he possibly offs her a little later*... as the DVD commentary (and a lot of others) have noted, Kirby's still alive the last time she's seen and as per said commentary there was supposed to be a scene at the end where she's found ("We got a heartbeat!"). Considering that Panettiere got a lot of props from most people, fans and critics alike, it might have done better at the box office had said scene gotten filmed... who would you rather get rid of, Hayden Panettiere or David Arquette?
*Making for the ultimate "Serves you right" a few moments later courtesy of Emma Roberts ("This isn't what we rehearsed"). Anyone who brings harm to Hayden Panettiere deserves whatever he or she gets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looper (2012) 9/10
“Looper” is a powerful science fiction film that manages to combine bleak futuristic action with emotionally involving plot and characters. In an unusual twist, much of the future described in the film is not shown but merely referred to. The loopers have the job of killing people who are sent back from the future to be taken out. When a looper decides he is done in the business, his future self from 30 years later is sent back to get taken out like any other target. This ensures that the looper will not cause too much trouble.
Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a looper who is going about his usual business, until he runs into his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis). To go much further into the plot would spoil a lot of the fun, so I will leave that to other critics. Needless to say, it is not your typical action movie like the trailer makes it seem. The plot weaves an intricate tale that fits together nicely and leaves you satisfied in the end.
Nathan Johnson composed a unique score for “Looper” combining traditional instruments with a number of unique clicks from guns and other environmental clicks and bangs. It provides the film with a powerful emotional underpinning and presents some powerful themes. Gordon-Levitt, Willis and a few other actors who are key to the film provide powerful performances that help engage the audience.
Though “Looper” may not go down alongside the best science-fiction films of all time, it is one of the better-crafted science-fiction films of recent years. It manages to combine a well-written story with engaging characters and taut action in a way that is likely to stay with audiences long after they leave the theater. “Looper” is a satisfying film that is worth catching in theaters for fans of science-fiction who have been yearning for something good.
Couldn't disagree more.
For starters, the film is a solid 5 out of 10 and all of that is for what essentially the first act and the last 10 minutes.
The problem with the film is the middle where it all falls apart. HORRIBLY.
OK, so the first act is much like the trailers and the film moves fast and furious and its quite intoxiacting the world the director has presented and because it deals with time, its rather self aware of how retro is cool is now in yet ANOTHER cycle and the whole scene with JGL and Jeff Daniels is AWESOME.
Then Bruce shows up and the film takes up a notch with a FANTASTIC montage and plays around with time sequence and chronological order plus throws in some INSANELY violent moments and it then it appears to be heading into greatness...
And then we arrive at the farm and the film falls apart.
After the Diner scene where the stakes of the second act are presented and Willis is given a backstory of love that is worth rooting for, we are stuck with a rehash of TERMINATOR 2 what with Joe having to protect a kid that will grow up and kill all Loopers and eventually Willis' wife.
Now for those who saw, when Willis kiss the first kid and gains the memory of his wife back, its a GREAT scene and yet sadly, the moment passes and then he essentially is presented as the villain of the piece where in my point of view, he was the hero.
Thank goodness the kid actor and his mother are fantastic but sadly, I didn't care about this kid because he essentially goes AKIRA when he gets scared of mad and blows up shit or people or both and the over all story with him is that his mother wants LOVE to change him and wouldn't you know it, its the one thing Joe lacks that eventually he sees and thus decides to "break the cycle."
More problemeatic is the following:
Why have people with TK? Why have the INSANE amount of red herrings that makes us thing that Joe and Cid are one in the same? Why end the film damn near IMPLYING this? Why have such a bumble fuck idiot be the main villain and one who belongs in a slapstick film?
Instead of search for Willis, why not JUST kill Joe and focus all efforts on him because as we see, thats is what they do anyways once they get both of the loopers.
And then you have the flaw of how the hell did Cid become the Rainmaker if in the first time line, Joe never met Cid or his mother on the farm but as we saw, the Rainmaker lore is that he has a fake jaw and saw his mother killed before him which is EXACTLY how it plays out in the Willis / JGL timeline.
Maybe it is my hang up that I thought it would a slick and cool action sci fi film when instead it wants to be that AND a drama about love and breaking the cycles that create evil and the power of love.
Hopefully the director moves onto a full action film because the Willis sequence where he goes in and single essentially kills EVERYONE was amazing and powerful.
Good score, Weak film, Great acting... a wasted opportunity.
And I wanted to love it so bad!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 20, 2012 - 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sirusjr
(Member)
|
Argo (2012) - 9/10
“Argo” opens with a history lesson because the events portrayed in the movie, though dramatized to an extent, are primarily based on history. The few minutes at the beginning of the film devoted to history help instill a sense of urgency on it all. The whole thing took place before I was born so I appreciated the refresher. Because everything is based on real-life events, great lengths were taken to ensure that the actors in the film look as close as possible to the people they play. In the end credits we are shown side-by-side photographs that illustrate just how great of a job they did.
“Argo” is a tense film. If it wasn’t for the skilled interspersing of jokes, you would likely be in a constant state of anxiety from beginning to end. Thankfully, there are plenty of jokes to lighten the mood at times, though they never feel forced or unrealistic. Alexandre Desplat’s score helps drive the tension skillfully and often displays a middle-eastern flavor fitting of the Iranian setting.
The film does a fabulous job of making very clear the high stakes involved, letting the audience at times create additional tension in their minds. The mass uprising of the Iranian people is faithfully recreated on screen so that it often feels like you are watching from a news camera rather than events in a film. The actors all give convincing performances, so you can see the fear in their eyes.
“Argo” is a triumph of film-making and a highly-engaging history lesson. It is well worth checking out in theaters, and will not disappoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
