 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
BobJ
(Member)
|
Saw Paranorman last night... and didn't enjoy it much.
I have long loved somewhat dark off-beat humor having grown up loving shows like The Addams Family, The Munsters, Titus, and a few other black-humored movies and TV programs. But Paranorman does not live up to the standards set by any of those and comes off as a hollow attempt to simply cash in on a single notion- a kids film that has elements a kids film shouldn't.
First off, this is not a movie for young kids. How it did not receive a PG-13 is beyond me as there is an actual scene where Norman has to take a book from a recently deceased man's hands and in the process hits the corpses head against tables and hard objects, cause get it? Those hits would have killed him if not already dead. Hilarious. Also, the "big" twist which many will figure out halfway through was darker than one would expect for this type of film. I could go on for another whole paragraph on inappropriateness, but ultimately that's a personal choice and better left to individual discussion.
Where the film really fails is in story... there isn't much of one. Most of the film is the main cast running around screaming as they are chased by the undead. This action is then later revealed to have been a waste of time which makes all those scenes even more irritating as they were ultimately pointless. I found most of the characters to be unlikable and not even remotely fun to watch. Some scenes between Norman and a new friend are nice, but that's it. There is an occasional laugh... and I do mean occasional.
Was there anything I liked? Well yes, two things: First, I did enjoy the final confrontation between Norman and the "villain". It's actually very effective and made me long for a better film to build to it. Second, the score is beautiful. One of the best I have heard in some time. I might purchase this score down the line.
Overall, I give Paranorman 5 out of 10 stars. I would have given it lower, but as mentioned, I did like the ending.
Harsh. Super harsh, matter of fact.
Me, I thought it was the best animated film of the year.
Not harsh at all, just my honest opinion. I wanted to love the film, and didn't.
HaHa! Even when I try to say something nice about a Pixar film, I get grief.
LOL. Just jazzing you. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 29, 2012 - 7:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Caught up on my Seth Grahame-Smith movies.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) dir. Timur Bekmambetov -- A deadpan comedy that isn't funny. A superhero action flick that's less exciting than obnoxious. But then, Bekmambetov is one of our most obnoxious directors and hey, at least this thing isn't quite so loathsome as his previous pile, Wanted. (3.5/10)
Dark Shadows (2012) dir. Tim Burton -- Actually, I enjoyed this more than I've enjoyed a Burton film in years. Far less dull than Alice. Well made, with good casting. The movie's biggest downfall is that it spends far too much time, especially in its second act, on stupid fish-out-of-water comedy at the expense of the opportunity to better get to know the family that is the heart of the film. The annoying goofy comedy aside, the movie has some delightful offbeat comedy, some surprisingly engaging melodrama, and, an even bigger surprise, an earnest, sincere core. Unfortunately it never really engages with either of its themes at more than a surface level. Anyway. Not nearly as bad as I expected it to be. A solid entertainment. Disappointing mostly in that it could have been so much more. (6.5/10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 30, 2012 - 9:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sirusjr
(Member)
|
Killing Them Softly (2012) - 4/10
Andrew Dominik's previous film, "The Assassination of Jesse James" was a bit slow but quite contemplative and left you thinking. It also had deep characters that you really got to feel for. "Killing Them Softly" is his latest film and is another one of those profanity laden films set in the modern day about crooks with little purpose. I didn't get to know any of the characters beyond the faces of the familiar actors. The movie spends a good deal of time bombarding the audience with speeches from politicians going on about the economic collapse in 2008. Just like watching a politician give a speech, the film was dry and never got me very excited.
Ordinarily I avoid spoilers in my reviews as a courtesy to those who might want to go into the movie and find something unexpected and exciting. Here, it is safe to say that spoiling the plot would be doing you a favor. To put it simply, a couple of ex-con idiots without a job decide to rob a card game. The guys who run the game hire Jacke (Brad Pitt), a hitman who kills the two idiots and the moron who got them to do it. The characters who live then complain about the uselessness of life, ending the movie.
"Killing Them Softly" is also completely devoid of a score. According to IMDB, Mark Streitenfeld wrote some ambient stuff for the film but just like his stuff for "Prometheus," it isn't noticeable. The film uses a few good songs here and there to good effect. Many of the songs are classics from the 50s or earlier.
If you enjoy political commentary in your films for its own sake, you might get something out of the movie. If you are looking for character development or plot that you can sink your teeth into you won't find it here. "Killing Them Softly" is a nihilistic waste of space that brings nothing to the table but negativity. Stay far away from this one.
Find my other reviews at Marvelmvs.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sirusjr, like you, I really enjoyed the book Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I was really reluctant to read it, but my brother begged me to read it. It turned into quite a history lesson, and I enjoyed the read. The movie is really bad. Little of the book is contained in the movie.
The book is DAMN good and a great read. I actually liked how FACTUAL alot of the book is and how it took some gaps in the history and filled them in a clever way. Loads of fun.
The film was just OK and on its own is fine but nothing great and certainly no where NEAR the greatness of the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 1, 2012 - 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sirusjr
(Member)
|
Ted (2012) - 6/10
“Ted” is a strange comedy directed by Seth MacFarlane, best known for his work on “Family Guy”. I skipped it in theaters because the trailers didn’t look very exciting. Still, I kept reading reviews saying how hilarious it was so I checked it out on DVD with my boyfriend. While it was better than I expected, it was nowhere near as much fun as everyone made it out to be.
The film has a lot going for it, with a charming feel that comes from some cheesy narration and an old-school orchestral/jazz soundtrack. Walter Murphy’s score hits all the luscious, swanky moments and drives its point home with a catchy main theme. The music helps accentuate the relationships between the talking teddy bear Ted (Seth MacFarlane), John (Mark Wahlberg), and his girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis).
While the film is made to be primarily a comedy, I couldn’t help but cringe at most of the juvenile antics that Ted and John were involved in. While some may laugh watching a bunch of idiots hosting a college frat party that involves drugs, destruction of property, and heavy drinking, I just shake my head. That being said, there are some genuinely funny parts in the movie if you ignore the adolescent partying. ”Ted” is a solid first feature film for Seth MacFarlane, although it never becomes anything more than good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 1, 2012 - 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sirusjr
(Member)
|
Hitchcock (2012) - 10/10
"Hitchcock" is a monumental film eclipsed only by the greatness of the legend himself. The movie goes behind the scenes of the making of "Psycho" and so, naturally, if you haven't seen "Psycho" you should do so first. (I do hope none of my readers are so deprived.) What makes the film so delightful is the look it provides into the process Hitchcock used when making his films. Sadly this does not include a look at how Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann work together on a film. The film only briefly hints at Herrmann's involvement, showing Hitchcock's first reaction to hearing the iconic violin for the knife slashes. In another scene we are told that Herrmann's lyrical score will help soften the blow of the stark imagery of Psycho itself.
Anthony Hopkins fully takes on the persona of Hitchcock, with all the screen presence he naturally possesses. At times on the set, the anger of Hitchcock's directing is truly arresting. Helen Mirren plays Hitchcock's wife and displays a powerful presence at all times. Scarlet Johansson and Jessica Biel both give fantastic performances as well, fully embodying the Hitchcock blonde look. Toni Collette is wonderful as Hitchcock's secretary Peggy, largely hiding in the shadows but ever-present and tirelessly working. I wasn't completely convinced by James D'Arcy's performance as Anthony Perkins but I suspect he was still the best man for the role.
The film itself is beautifully shot, with natural, vibrant colors. The script in the film is sharp and intelligent, gifting the audience with some scathing duels of words. Danny Elfman's score is a delightful orchestral work, evoking the spirit of Bernard Herrmann. It is a natural fit for Elfman with so many of his past scores taking on a similar style. It is the first score in a long time that left me saying half way through the film, "I need this score in my collection." It manages to deliver something even better than his work on Wolfman. "Hitchcock" may be Elfman's best score to date and is certainly the best score of the year.
Every facial gesture of the characters brings the you deeper into an understanding of the men and women they portray. "Hitchcock" has the playful feeling of a Tim Burton film without feeling disconnected from reality. The music evokes this perfectly, constantly straddling the line between serious and whimsical as Elfman does so well. If you find learning about how things are done behind the scenes in Hollywood fascinating, you will find "Hitchcock" to be an absolute delight. It is truly a love-letter to film-buffs everywhere. It brought me to a magical place that no other film has managed to do and is truly the most delightful film of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cape Fear (1962) - 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killing Them Softly. 0
Mindless sadism and misogyny. They don't even bother to make a viable storyline or reason for these things to exist now. The characters don't change, no conflict, no drama. Just brutality, hatred, and cheesy cynical monologs like every other tarantino inspired dreck. Vacant and soulless.
Skyfall- 7 ***
I thought it over and can see that the archetypes at play involve mythic themes. Basicaily it is Parsifal. Twins and the separation of the ego from self, as 007 vanquishes the threat (the denture rogue guy with a grudge) to the state- represented by M, and then reconditions himself as a truer soldier to the state, even though it's vailidity is questioned. The story is about the dissolution of the old world to the brave new world. I may be ambivalent about what it all means, but it's a sophisticated design even with the silly dentures and split timing train crash and whatnot.
Lincoln 9 ****
Loved it. Write more later when I think about it more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 2, 2012 - 8:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Men in Black 3 (2012) dir. Barry Sonnenfeld -- Not much of a fan of the first two in this franchise, but I was curious about this one. The first half-hour or so is just plain awful. Tommy Lee Jones is getting too old for this, and 45-year-old Will Smith is too old to be playing his character the same as the 20-something kid he was in the first one. But once the movie kicks into gear it becomes watchable, and often even very amusing. Josh Brolin is excellent, and Will Smith plays better against someone closer to his age than he does against the much older Jones. Michael Stuhlbarg is almost unbearably annoying, though. The second half of this flick probably rates 6, 6.5 out of 10, but taken as a whole it's no better than a 5.
Kahaani (2012) dir. Sujoy Ghosh -- Above average Indian thriller about a very pregnant woman (Vidya Balan, apparently a big star in India) whose husband has disappeared while he was in Calcutta on business. When she attempts to find him, everyone denies ever having known him. Low budget but makes up for it with character and intensity and, frankly, the pleasant surprise of being different than the zillion mediocre thrillers I see each year. 7.5/10
[Rec]² (2009) dir. Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza -- I didn't love the first one but this sequel is a big step down. The creatures behave completely differently than they did in the first, and the characters, despite being professionals, are ridiculously stupid. Plus this one feels much more staged -- the first one at least managed to get some sort of feeling of people trapped in a situation way over their heads; this one the POV gimmick often feels much more gimmicky. And then it gets just plain nonsensical. 4/10
[REC]³ Génesis (2012) dir. Paco Plaza -- For whatever reason, the co-directors of the first two parted ways, each to make a [REC] flick of his own. Plaza did part 3 (which takes place simultaneously to the first two); Balagueró will be concluding the franchise with part 4 next year. Anyway, this is easily the worst of the bunch. It quickly abandons the hand-held camera style of the first two films and we learn that without that excuse Plaza is simply not a very good director. Further, about halfway through, the film switches tone entirely from a [REC] film to an 80s-style splatter horror-comedy -- I was almost surprised when the creatures didn't ask for more paramedics. And even worse than the deliberate comedy are the bits that I wasn't sure whether they were meant to be taken seriously or not. Just a complete departure from what had come before, and not in a good way. Not scare, not consistent with the rest of the franchise, and barely even tolerable in a bad-good entertainment sort of way. Not recommended. 3/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 3, 2012 - 1:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Michael24
(Member)
|
Sint (2010) - 2/5
Sint (Saint or Saint Nick in the US) is a Dutch horror film based on the folklore of Sinterklass, the Santa Claus equivalent in the Netherlands and Belgium. The story creatively reimagines Saint Niklas as a malevolent being who kills whenever his annual December 5 celebration coincides with a full moon. The last time he appeared was in 1968, when he killed an entire family. Only the son, Goert, survived. Now a police detective (Bert Luppes), he is haunted by the memory of that fateful night. With a full moon set for this year's December 5, he recommends that all Sinterklass celebrations be canceled, but is ignored by his superior and put on leave instead. Meanwhile, teenager Frank (Egbert Jan Weeber) and his friends are preparing to celebrate the evening, with Frank playing Sinterklass at a party. But just as Goert feared, Niklas appears and begins turning Amsterdam into a bloodbath, and Frank is later arrested on suspicion of murdering two friends and his ex-girlfriend. When Goert saves him from certain death by Niklas, Frank learns the shocking truth behind Sinterklass and helps the policeman in his desperate act to stop Niklas once and for all.
Sint starts out strong but ultimately suffers from a seeming inability to decide what it wants to be and a script that lapses into laziness and confusion. The two prologues, set in 1492 and 1968, respectively, are well staged and eerie. The movie then segues to modern day. Whether intentional or not, there is a bit of a Halloween vibe as friends Lisa (Caro Lenssen) and Sophie (Escha Tanihatu) discuss their plans for the evening while walking home from school, which include babysitting and talking to one another on the phone. The story feels like it's setting up Lisa to be our heroine, which I would have liked a lot since Caro Lenssen is beautiful. But then as night falls and the killings start, she practically disappears from the rest of the film and we instead follow Frank, who at the start seems like a relatively minor character. It's an odd shift in focus, similar to one of the (many) problems I had with the recent A Nightmare on Elm Street remake.
The story does a good job distorting the mythology of Sinterklass, in the film said to be the work of a coverup by the Catholic Church to disassociate the holiday with its bloody roots. For example, Niklas's crosier has sharp edges and is actually a weapon, and the Zwarte Pieten (or Black Petes, essentially the Dutch equivalent of Santa Claus's elves) are not black because of their race but as a result of the fire which killed them, leaving them charred and zombie-like. Naughty children are not the only targets, either. Good or bad, child or adult; Niklas will kill anyone and everyone. There are some fine scenes in the film. Sophie's little brother hears noises overhead and peers out his bedroom window, where he glimpses a mysterious form on the roofs across the street and gets a startling surprise. The attack on Frank and his friends is fast and awesomely gruesome, and there's a foggy scene with a police boat stranded on the water that reminded me of The Fog. (Perhaps writer/director Dick Maas is a John Carpenter fan.) The best, though, is a sequence where the police chase Niklas, who is riding gallantly across the rooftops of the city on his white steed.
Sometime after the chase scene, though, is when it starts to fall apart. It feels like it forgets its horror mindset and becomes more of a dark action movie. There's something to do with a "special enforcer" type and a team of commandos that never makes sense. First they are looking for Goert, then suddenly they seem only interested in Niklas. Worse yet, the backstory of Niklas is never clearly explained. Why was he killing people in the first place in the 1400s? What causes a Catholic Bishop to go out with a gang of ruffians to terrorize the countryside, murdering adults and kidnapping children? It's never clear on just what Niklas is, either. A ghost? A zombie? There's mention of a curse that we can only assume has something to do with Niklas returning during December 5th full moons, but this notion is dropped as quickly as it's brought up and never elaborated on. The script also can't seem to remember if Niklas returns during a full moon every 32, 42 or 23 years.
My experience with Dutch cinema is limited to 1988's Spoorloos (known in the US as The Vanishing), which I only saw once in a film class about fifteen years ago, so I really didn't know what to expect from a Dutch horror film. I'm not sure if Sint is an exception or the rule, but technically it's very well made. The visuals are strong, so it's definitely nice to look at. The effects are bloody, a little CGIy at times but otherwise not bad, and the use of Sinterklass folklore is well done. The cast (damn, Dutch girls are hot!) does a passable job and the score, also by director Maas, is actually pretty awesome. It's just a shame the script couldn't have been stronger and that it has to end on such an overwhelmingly unsatisfying conclusion after starting out so strong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For once? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
