This film is not really what you expect from the write up yes there are action/fighting scenes but only a few.
The film is broken down into a series of parts and is very very slow for the major part with quite a few confusing scenes.
If you like your action/history type films avoid this one it's more an arthouse effort.
Story of the escape and survival in a new land of a violent viking prisoner and a young boy.
Law Abiding Citizen for me personally, falls into the following category of things that aren't quite there altogether; but regardless, the attempt or the gall of these things is very much appreciated. As a result Law Abiding Citizen falls alongside things such as charades on the radio, a bumble bee attacking a wasp and finally attempting to blink with both eyes.
By no means am I saying with such flippancy that Law Abiding Citizen is a bad film, because it is not. I enjoyed watching the film for the duration of its run time. But for some reason the film doesn't sit peacefully within my incoherent mind. When looking back on why this could be the case, there are a number of possibilities for such uncertainty. One explanation for it could be the acting. As the cover acutely shows, the film is dominated with two particular performances - One from Jamie Foxx and the other from a certain Caledonian Spartan - Gerard Butler. Without giving too much of the plot away and in turn spoiling it for all that wish to seek the film out. Mr G. Butler dawns the guise of Clyde Shelton, a man who has had to ordeal a brutal series of events involving his wife and daughter. I don't believe it is revealing too much to say his wife and daughter may only feature in the first couple of dark and chilling minutes of the feature. Mr J. Foxx takes the role of Nick Rice, an assistant District attorney focused primarily on his near perfect conviction rate. This lingering and bubbling arrogance from Rice plays a hefty part in the unwinding plot. And it is perhaps this nagging, and at times dubious plot where my main gripe lies. The overall theme is interesting and certainly gripping - One man's attempt at retribution against a polluted legal system by any means necessary. And exploding means at times, certainly keep intrigue levels in an incessant state. Again in an attempt to tip toe around the plot, the overall idea I like. However it is the twists and turns the film wants you to accept where the irritations fester.
One silly little thing that irks me is a plot device we have seen in many a film. And that is the lovely 10 years later insert at the beginning. Now I completely understand why it is used here, and it there is no denying that it does play an essential part in the plot, but the characters don't look as though they have matured in any way. Looking back at the last line I just typed I find it absolutely ridiculous that I even considered that as a criticism, but I have to be honest and say it did indeed nag me. Now to fully explain what I mean by this I will consider two things. Number one the characters do not look they have physically aged in anyway. But I am fine with that; as this could be explained with them both having a young painted portrait of themselves upstairs in their lofts. So I am okay with that. But add that lacking physical change with a lacking depth in the characters themselves and little flourishes of vexation begin to emerge. And when the characters do indeed begin to change and evolve, it is through such contrivances that I just can't fully bring myself to believe them.
Now I do enjoy many films that ask you to leave your brain just outside the cinema doors, or if you are at home your living room door. But Law Abiding Citizen doesn't quite know where it wants to stand. Does it want to be a throw away film, that you put on for an hour and a half and just let it wash over you? Or does it want to be a thought provoking film that will leave you with a number of questions that you can discuss with others and form your own opinions on? For me personally Law Abiding Citizen wants to be the latter, but in order to bring in an audience it had to delve into the armoury of the cinema going masses. Resulting in an interesting filmed being buried and muddied by an overly contrived and farfetched plot. Law Abiding Citizen is worth a watch. But don't go seeking it...Let the film come to you. Whether it be on television, in a bargain bin at the local supermarket or in a ditch which you were given co-ordinates to with only fifteen minutes to get to. One way or another let the film just drift into your life and give it a watch when it comes along...
This is an intriguing story, possibly more so because of the obvious comparisons to Tony Blair. Pierce Brosnan has definitely tried to capture some of his mannerisms without overdoing the similarities. A interesting sense of the disempowerment when constantly surrounded by people who do everything for you is one of the films clever ironies, and an impression of Lang's frustration and confusion is never far away, although you are not sure if he is being cleverly deceptive throughout? The same is true of Ruth Lang, who appears to be long suffering and frustrated by her own lack of female emancipation despite being a first class honours graduate from Oxford. The Ghosts attempts to understand more of the characters and relationships are constantly interrupted by the quickly developing change of events and I find it hard to understand those reviewers who found the film to be too long. I definitely experienced a sense of concern for the safety of the Ghost, which is in part due to Ewan McGregor's significantly better characterisation than in the terrible 'Angels and Demons'. Tom Wilkinson plays an unsubtle and arrogant friend from Langs time at University, who is keen to avoid any connection with Lang or the dead ghost writer, despite the dead man's final journey being the last recorded route on the cars satellite navigation system (somewhat of a coup for a prestigious German car manufacturers marketing department here). I would not go as far to say that this is a brilliant film but I would summarize by stating that it is intriguing from start to finish if you like a political thriller. I enjoyed the film but it hasn't changed my life or any cynical view of politicians. I have not read the Robert Harris novel; those who have say that the book is better and that Polanski changed the films ending.
Verdict
Very intriguing throughout
The trailer for Avatar assumes us all to be suckers for James Cameron's work. The box office takings would appear to confirm it. This is the first film in twelve years from THE DIRECTOR OF (boom) // ALIENS (boom) // TERMINATOR 2 (boom) // TITANIC (boom), a feat which in itself is meant to inspire such awe that we will drop what we're doing and rush to empty our wallets onto the box office counter, don our comedy 3D glasses and sit through a film pushing three hours, just because.
The plot of Avatar revolves around a former Marine, Jake Sully, a crewmember of a ship in the year 2154 travelling to a lush planet named Pandora, rich in highly valuable resources. The planet is populated with ten-foot-tall blue creatures known as the Na'vi, a species that a group have scientists have been able to produce artificially in a lab, with the use of a mixture of human and Na'vi DNA. This is the Avatar program, a scheme that allows humans to essentially plug in to a Na'vi body and make use of it to traverse the otherwise uninhabitable planet.
The ship's captain wishes to harvest the valuable minerals found underground by whatever means possible. But having made a connection with a particularly attractive member of the Na'vi, marine finds himself in conflict: does he side with his own species or help to protect his new friends and their planet from the inevitable devastation of the harvest?
And so begins James Cameron's story. Coincidentally, this is also largely where it ends. Having spent over a decade (and hundreds of millions) perfecting the look of the film, the story is where the film suffers. There's something so tragic in that when there are new technologies to utilise to tell their stories, filmmakers tend to spend so much time developing the technicalities that they forget that it's still, at the heart of it, a well-told story where the film will ultimately succeed. A film this epic in scale deserved a better story.
Unrelentingly liberal in his views, Cameron has here produced an almost insultingly obvious political allegory about the virtues of peace and protecting our world. It does, therefore, seem to smack of hypocrisy when in the final act, the forever peaceful Na'vi roar at each other about taking down their human invaders by whatever means possible, annihilating a significant chunk of their own rainforest in the process. It almost smarts that a film so preachy in its storytelling - peace good, capitalism bad - is also one of the most expensive motion pictures ever made.
But perhaps the story was thrown to the sidelines so as to not distract from the spectacle. Like it or not, this is one of the most visually stunning films to have ever been produced. The lush scenery of Pandora is so painstakingly detailed, from its fantastical pink dinosaurs to the dandelion seedlings that float delicately across the screen, that it is simply breathtaking. For this reason alone, I expect that the film is deserving of one viewing. But probably just the one.
I am less sure of the 3D aspect. Having paid my 3D-fee at the cinema, one of the initial shots on the space station brings such beautiful depth and clarity to the screen that I was warming up for a film experience unlike any other. Unfortunately, the third dimension almost feels gimmicky in the later acts, sometimes barely used at all, and other times used in high-speed action scenes to such a degree that it is arguably quite disorientating. It's involving, to be sure, but when the story itself isn't, it feels like cheating.
As writer-director-producer-editor, Cameron loses the benefit of perspective. The film, in its numbing 160-minute duration, often lapses into moments of complete self-indulgence (an overlong Na'vi dancing 'n' chanting scene or two immediately spring to mind). Perhaps as a one-man band, so enveloped in his own work, he can be in part forgiven for having missed 1999's 'The Matrix', which shares a number of the same plot elements with Avatar but managed to be considerably more exciting, and managed to get itself in to cinemas ten years earlier. A number of story elements in Avatar are so derivative, and so plainly so, that it's almost a joke. A number of comparisons with 'Dances with Wolves' and 'Pocahontas' have been drawn - their plots are essentially identical; I couldn't help but wonder upon realising that the lead of this picture, Jake Sully, and his counterpart in 'Pocahontas', John Smith, share the same initials. Both these films also share a well-respected, sentient tree in their supporting casts, but that's just a side note. It's a coincidence, I'm sure.
The DVD itself represents a real disappointment. The studio has claimed that the complete lack of bonus features is to provide the highest-quality digital transfer as is possible. I doubt it. With a film like this, I have no doubt that we can expect at least one re-release with discs full of self-congratulatory documentaries and commentaries, and yet another I'm sure, when the wheels of the home 3D market have started spinning.
I sort of wish that Avatar could have lived up to the tremendous hype that surrounded it. As a visual feat, it is astonishing. But regrettably, this is a film that crumbles under the sheer weight of its own self-assuredness. A shame: a technically excellent achievement that fails for being all style and precious little substance.
Excellent box set, and is great value for money. All 10 series are included in a beautiful collector's box set, it is a real keep sake, and the site has a wide range of retailers selling it at a reasonable affordable price.
Cracking psychological thriller, but only about three people saw it, and one of them was director Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko'). Set in 1976, 'The Box' is an absorbing, if overlong, 'Twilight Zone' style morality tale with allusions to Sartre's 'No Exit', in which a young couple; played by Cameron Diaz and 'X-Men' star James Marsden, are given the opportunity to receive a million dollars by pressing a button on a mysterious box. The catch being: that pushing said button would result in someone's death. Frank Langella co-stars as an unnerving inventor who seeks to seal the Faustian pact and set into motion an increasingly bizarre series of events.
It's good to see Cameron Diaz on screen again, as I'd all but given up on her after 'Charlie's Angles 2', a string of lame comedies and way too much time behind the mike on those 'Shrek' movies. But she's back with something akin to a vengeance in 'The Box' and puts in a good performance with a particularly strong, well acted scene towards the end. No one seems to rate Richard Kelly anymore, but the innovative young auteur who rose to prominence with cult classic 'Donnie Darko' is an acquired taste; few liked his hit n' miss futurist satire 'Southland Tales' and fewer chose to delve into 'The Box'. A demanding, occasionally frustrating, but ultimately engaging experience, this film's bound to find an audience at home; and is certainly one of the more memorable Hollywood thrillers in recent years. Give it a go.
Operatic in its construction the fine detail of the filming and storyline blends seamlessly.
There is a conflict within Mikey's character at the beginning. His conflict is thoroughly eclipsed by his drive and dedication to uphold his legacy after being exposed to a more nefarious experience than he was used to.
The camerawork is brilliant and in places emulates film noir of the forties.
This is widely regarded as the best film ever made for its convoluted pace and sometimes despicable characters.
Occasionally told in flashback the story jumps from late forties to the early part of the twentieth century and back.
Any film buff would be proud to have this in their collection, although saying that the expectations were high for the third part and critics are a strange breed who does not always see what they are expecting.
In conclusion the story flows well, the players complete their duties and the director captured a significantly brilliant piece of art for our enjoyment. 10/10
Crime, Extortion, Mafioso, Epic
Hollywood has had an uneasy relationship with science fiction, the least structured of all the genres. Despite helping define it in a hotbed of b-movie paranoia, the studios have largely lost the initiative to comic books, animation and even games, such as Half-Life. You can count the truly definitive entries easily, like 2001, Bladerunner, Star Wars, etc, up to Children of Men. And for every one of those there are a dozen more copies demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of the material and the audience (often by the same creators; yes, I mean you, George Lucas!), resorting to cheap and tired blockbuster staples rather than themes that sell themselves to begin with.
Thankfully a new generation of film-makers have grown up understanding that problem and Weta effects wizard Neill Blomkamp is one of them. District 9, despite a strong political sub-text, feels rough and ready, like it's leaping from 1970s British comics, via the 1950s alien invasion horrors. All it needed was a trashy title ("My Husband is a Prawn from Outer Space!") and the love affair for generations of sci-fi fans would be complete.
A film distinctly of two halves, the first being paranoid horror and the second alien thriller, District 9 isn't shy about its roots (The Fly and Robocop are easy spots), but as with the recent popular zombie parodies like Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, and now superheroes with Kick-Ass, it's a proud film by a geek for geeks. And I mean that in the best possible sense as this is a cult film punching above its weight (Oscar nominated, no less). It's exploitive, cartoony, and slightly nuts in the most fun way, and shot through with poignancy.
Much of that is thanks to the heartfelt and natural, but full-blooded and largely improvised performance by Sharlto Copley. In a film of broad strokes and cartoon villains, he is Blomkamp's ace. He looks like a nerd, but acts like a live-wire, grabbing your attention immediately (important in the exhausting opening ten minutes). He could so easily have been unlikeable and predictable, being a cowardly hero with an obvious arc, but he is affecting and memorable. In all the flash bang wallop, he is likely to be what you will remember most about the story, because he sells it to you.
Not that the flash, the bang, nor the wallop should be dismissed as Blomkamp proves his talent with the effects. This is after all, technically a low-budget effort, so the CGI and model work could easily have been a low point, but they're excellent across the board. The convincingly organic and frequently gory "Prawns" (given a nice twist with very human attitudes) are very much characters with personalities. And their technology is satisfyingly hardcore with several storming set-pieces, especially the finale and a suicidal assault on the offices of the corporate villains. The sharply contrasting palettes and a subdued, dirty landscape, come to life on Blu-Ray. It's a real feast for the eyes.
Blomkamps decision to use a lightly hand-held documentary style really helps those effects. The willingness to not focus and treat them as "real" was possibly first seen in Joss Whedon's Firefly and then Serenity. It's a brave thing to do, to spend significant time on effects and then not show them properly, but it makes it so much more convincing. Along with Wall-E creating traditional camera defects on purpose despite it being animation, this has created a small, but significant step for cinema that shouldn't be underestimated.
It isn't perfect. Repeat viewings will reveal multiple plot holes and the inconsistent documentary style may jar that the fast pace largely disguises, but it's such enthusiastic fun you will watch it over and over again anyway. It's a loveable b-movie, complete with the poignancy and heart that those classics had too. I just hope that Blomkamp doesn't forget those nutty roots for the sequel and learns from the fate of the Pitch Black and Matrix franchises.
What a great series, I used to watch it on TV years ago, it's a great laugh. They need to bring out series 1 on DVD!
Many were ready to love Bright Star, Jane Campion's beautifully filmed biopic of poet John Keats, when it was released last autumn. Some did love it, savouring its dark beauty and intelligent handling of Keats' relationship with Fanny Brawne - a woman who went from neighbour to lover to fiancée, only to have her soul mate snatched away from her by a deadly disease. But some critics inevitably had issues with this difficult work, and to be fair I can see why. The movie is very slow in coaxing out the crux of the story - Keats' and Fanny's love for each other - and sometimes becomes too caught up in tedious details than actual human emotion. But there really is a lot to like here, as Campion's direction always gives you something to think about, even if she gives you too much time for you to do it in.
In the past I have complained that some films don't let their viewers breathe. They just plough on, forgetting that the audience may want to stop a minute, take a rest then continue. Modern dramas are frequently guilty of this; Richard Eyre's Notes on a Scandal, although a film I like very much, seemed content in bludgeoning its audience into believing its controversial story instead of letting them come to terms with it their own way. The Road, a remarkable film in many ways, always had an atmospheric but relentless soundtrack of grinding strings, refusing us the luxury of soaking up the look and feel of the picture without constant noise. So this is why I respect Bright Star a lot more than it probably deserves - it really does let one think about the action onscreen. And the action - or character play - really is achingly, melancholically, heartbreakingly beautiful. The 19th Century countryside seems so real, so vibrant yet so sad. The rooms full of crumpled sheets of paper where Keats has scrawled substandard poetry in an effort to make some money - all these are shot with the same sadness as well. In fact, the whole imagery of the film seems to be crying in chorus. It's an immersive experience (James Cameron, take note), but also an incredibly tiring one. As you may have guessed, it's a difficult film to judge.
Australian actress Abbie Cornish is fine as Fanny Brawne: the tough young woman who aims to become one of the top dressmakers in the country. But her accent is at times shaky, and she is constantly eclipsed by a wonderfully understated performance from Ben Wishaw as Keats. I regard Wishaw as one of our country's best young actors (if this sounds like hyperbole, take a look at him in Criminal Justice and you'll see what I mean), and he brings a perfectly judged vulnerable charm to the much-loved, and never resorts to the lazy "artist in crisis" performance many actors keep stashed in their cupboards.
There are some very memorable scenes between the two leads, the most notable being the one and only kiss the two share. But I'm sad to say that this is also one of the few moments the we are allowed to feel involved in their love, whereas for the rest of the film it feels as if we are kept at a great distance with a veil of "beautiful photography" clouding our vision.
It's obvious from the start how John and Fanny's doomed romance is going to pan out, and Campion gives us a suitably morbid closing scene which sees a grief-stricken Fanny reciting her fiancée's poetry as she walks on a winter morning. It is an evocative, if depressing end, but feels weird coupled with the voice-over poetry reading that is played over the closing credits. This is a very odd film. When it gets hysterical, you want to tell it to calm down. When it is calm, which is about ninety percent of the running time, it threatens to become turgid and (I know, I feel bad saying it) possibly a little boring. Campion may have an eye for imagery, but she also assumes her viewers have a lot of patience and are ready to forgive her weaknesses.
Michael Haneke will probably never make a romantic comedy or direct the third entry in the Sex and the City film series, so it seems pointless to moan that his most recent film is one of his grimmest yet. For those that don't know him, he's the talented Austrian director who made one of the best films of the last decade (Hidden) and remade one of the nastiest films of the previous decade (an English language version of his own shocker Funny Games). He is a man that brings to his films all the appeal of a rusty penknife, but quite often leaves more of a lasting impact on the viewer than many much-praised English or American filmmakers.
This tricky little film was one of the biggest critical successes of last year, and received two Oscar nominations. I didn't like it as much Hidden or a number of his other films. It's far too long, and although containing many interesting ideas, I'm not wholly convinced they are translated well from Haneke's brain to the screen.
For me, The White Ribbon was one of the oddest films of 2009. Set in a German village on the eve of World War I, it looks at a series of disturbing events which subtly escalate as the many story strands play out. A man falls from his horse as a result of some trip wire placed neatly across his daily route. A budgie is murdered. A handicapped boy is tortured. The harvest food is destroyed. Then a barn burns down. All these worrying events involve the children or young teenagers of the village, giving the haunting impression that youth itself is fighting back against the suffocating dullness of the surroundings. But don't worry. This isn't an art-house Harry Brown. Michael Caine doesn't turn up to gun down the little tikes. No, something even more sinister is at work here, something which becomes clear when the film is put into the context of its time; a semi-twist that can be sussed out before the end, but is realised for sure during the closing scene of the movie. I'll warn you now; it doesn't end with all the villagers skipping round hand in hand with the recent traumas becoming distant memories. If anything, it seems as if the real horror is yet to come.
For the average member of the public, The White Ribbon will be as unwelcome as an evening spent in a youth detention centre. You get to spend two and a half hours with children you could never like while their parents behave beastly towards them and each other. And it's all shot in piercing black and white. If you see a high definition print like I did, you'll feel like the greys and sharp white images are permanently engrained into your retinas. This isn't easy viewing, but it isn't meant to be, and those who have the time and patience for such an unforgiving film will enjoy soaking up the menacing atmosphere and sickly characters.
Although I speak of a potential twist, this could be read as an entirely ambiguous piece of filmmaking, simply there to exist as an in-depth study of human behaviour. It does pose more questions than it answers, but following the same contradictory trend as many of Haneke's other efforts, it isn't supposed to offer a tidy and happy resolution. The title comes from the act of tying a strand of white ribbon to a child's arm or wrist to remind them of the need for purity and good conduct. It represents both an advisable lifestyle and the restraints adults impose on their children. One of the elder boys in the film, Martin, gets into trouble after he and his friend masturbate, and his father tells him his body will grow weak as a result of his actions. So, his dad ties his hands to the bed at night to stop him doing the forbidden action to himself, but also to teach him that he should be listening to another force other than his own teenage sexual desires. He should be listening to the guiding words of God and abstain from such practice to honour the body the lord has given him. This is one of the most interesting parts of the film, with Haneke possibly hinting at a parallel link between the enforcement of parenthood and the guidance of religion.
A disquieting masterpiece or pretentious artistic drivel? An example of meticulous and intelligent direction or just two and a half hours of boredom? Depending on the way you fall cinematically (or rather, if you are prepared to indulge directors even when you don't like what they are telling you), this could either be your best or worst movie experience of recent years. Typically for me, it was neither, but I was impressed by its analytical (in the true sense of the word) approach to creating a thoroughly unpleasant atmosphere. I'm just not sure it is an experience I would recommend to any normal cinemagoer.
I love two pints! This is by far the best series of all. Once you start watching you just can't help but watch more and more! Totally addictive!
Series 4 of waterloo road is a fantastic, exciting, well written series. The storylines this season have been very griping, especially the spring term. The return of Kim Cambell was such an exciting thing to watch and her storyline was really gripping. The romance of Rachel and Eddie was also excellent and really dramatic and sad to see it end. This was Chlo and Dontes last season and I think they went out with a bang and a very exciting story behind it. We also saw the departure of Davina, which was sad and upsetting to watch. These 10 episodes were the best waterloo road has been and the storylines were phenomenal. Very excellent season worth buying, absolutely fantastic you won't regret it!
Doctor Who's fifth season, so far, is fantastic and you can count on the rest of the season being brilliant too.
The stories are thrilling, the characters are exciting and the look and sound of the show is superb (Check out that new theme tune).
The show has grown consistently year upon year and just keeps gets better and better.
The Characters
The Doctor (Matt Smith) - The Timelord Is back and better than ever, with a new look, a new Tardis and even a new Sonic Screwdriver. Matt Smith has really stepped Into David Tennant's shoes well, and David Tennant left some big boots to fill; Matt Smith is shaping up to be my favourite doctor. The Doctor's the same man, but with a new face, a new attitude and way of working. He's more reckless and fun than ever, and he's got his trusty companion to help him out.
Amy Pond (Karen Gillan) - The trusty companion, the sidekick, the Watson to a Time travelling Sherlock. Amy Pond Is shaping up to be one of my favourite companions, she's smart, capable, Independent and fun, and not to mention a match for the doctor. She has a depth to her which you'll find fascinating.
The Writing
The stories are amazing, and well written. Russell T Davies (Ex Head Writer) left some big shoes to fill as well, but Steven Moffet (Head Writer), the man behind the Blink episode, has out done himself, the episodes he has written so far (Eleventh Hour and The Beast Below) have been fantastic, fast, quirky, Intelligent and exciting; all things Doctor Who should always deliver In spades, and always has done. Also Mark Gatiss wrote the fantastic Victory of the Daleks, an episode that can be watched over and over again; they all can, and have been to be honest, I can't get enough of this new Doctor Who.
The Eleventh Hour
An awesome start to the new series, and you'll just be wanting more. It's the first episode for Matt Smith as the Doctor, and the first episode for Amy Pond as his sidekick. The episode Is fast, strong, clever and darn right genius. The episode shows off what this new Doctor can do, and leaves us with a thread similar to that of Bad Wolf, the one that keeps you guessing. "Who da man!!"
The Beast Below
You'll be smiling like a Smiler by the end of this episode, it's great. It's the second outing for our heroes, but this time Amy Is a fully fledged member of the Tardis, and truly out does herself; the episode focuses on Amy and shows us just how much of a match for the Doctor she Is. "Forget".
Victory of the Daleks
The title says it all, the Daleks are back, and without spoiling anything, they're bigger, stronger and smarter than ever; a true change of colour. "Would you like some tea?" (In the voice of a Dalek)
Overall Series five of Doctor Who Is shaping up to be one of the best, and with the return of many fan favourite foes (The Weeping Angels and The Cybermen), new enemies to face (The vampires of Venace and The Silurians) and a host of Guest Stars (James Corden and Bill Nighy, to name a few), the rest of the series Is going to be fantastic.
So completely exterminate other shows from your mind on a Saturday night and watch Doctor Who If you don't already, it's truly brilliant.
There are many genres in cinema, some great, some not so great. They range from Westerns all the way up to Comedy and I think Denim, but A Sound of Thunder is none of those. It falls somewhere in the range of completely terrible and utterly garbage. Ray Bradbury's story is hung drawn and quartered on screen and it brings tears to my otherwise dry science fiction loving eyes. What makes the film so bitter to digest is the strength of the short story the film was based on. Filled with a fantastic set of ideas straight from the creative sardine tin that is Ray Bradbury's mind, it should have been a brilliant, intelligent piece of cinema. But what we have is a poorly produced excuse for a film which I am positive Ray would be spinning in his grave over...That's if indeed he had one.
The short story A Sound of Thunder was fascinatingly whimsical. The film...Nowhere close. Focusing purely on the short story, the 'plot' follows a prehistoric safari. And if the words prehistoric safari hasn't got you intrigued then I don't know what will. Regardless, in the year 2055 a hunter named Eckels (first name sadly not Christopher) embarks on what he believes will be an enthralling experience. Without giving too much away, the trip is eventful as Eckels believes, but not at all for the 'right' reasons. The film takes this basic synopsis and does what Hollywood does best to many a bold story...What's the word I am looking for here? Ruin? Disgrace? Soil? All three are perfectly acceptable words to use in this situation.
I love a good analogy; even if they are religious, and as I result I racked my brain or is it wracked my brain for a lovely analogy for this movie. And the end result of that is nothing. So to pass that creative blimp off as a simple idea stutter and to mask it in a cloak of secrecy, the line - This film does not deserve one, will come to my rescue...This film does not deserve an analogy and to be honest it really doesn't..
But why is A Sound of Thunder so bad? Well for one thing the acting, along with the special effects are atrocious. This is bordering on cliché now, but the effects look as though they have been both drafted and drawn in Paint or the equivalent to the drawing application Mac users have. Now don't get me wrong, you can make some lovely things in Paint. Some beautiful, quirky and dare I say it cutesy little pieces of art can be produced in Paint but this film is just drab and lifeless. One scene the immediately springs to mind involves two of the 'actors' in this film walking down the street in 2055. Now anyone with an imagination could picture a vision of the future. There may be a flying car here, a few bits of silver here and a re-imagining of a mullet everyone now sports. There is certainly something of interest to catch your eye. With A Sound of Thunder you wish to remove those very eyes.
This movie is reportedly to have cost 80 million dollars which is substantially more than the glorious visual piece that is Blade Runner. What irks me even more is that Blade Runner was made in 1982. A Sound of Thunder was made in 2005. In the 23 years between the two films, technology has advanced. Filming techniques have progressed to such a level that things deemed impossible before are now almost effortlessly achievable. Films now-a-days should not look this bad, or cheap with such a budget. Student films that have little to no budget look absolutely fantastic in comparison to this. The acting however between the two may be on par. A cat during its experimentation phase in feline recreational enjoyment has more spark and panache than a number of individuals in this film.
Do yourself a massive favour and use these two sites available to you - find-dvd.co.uk and find-book.co.uk to help you get the best alternative. Films like Blade Runner and Brazil are cheaper than the junk that is A Sound of Thunder. And to fully get the brilliance of the short story without having to subject yourself to over an hour and a half of what can only be described as torture, use the book site to help track down Ray Bradbury's short story. And you will then be able to pretend to yourself that the film did not exist, a privilege that has since evaded me...
In summary, A Sound of Thunder truly is awful. So why even give it a star I hear you ask. Well the answer to that is quite simple really - Gandhi.
This film is one of the best ever films I have seen in my life, it draws in viewers by the darkness, contrast and excellent storyline, a must watch, whoever hasn't seen it, BUY IT!!! You won't regret it!
Fantastic haunting film!!!
Spiritual sci-fi epic, damning indictment of U.S. foreign policy and now the most successful film of all time, yes: its 'Avatar'.
When I first saw a T-800 cybernetic organism crush a human skull beneath its shiny, metal foot, I knew there and then; that director James Cameron was somewhat of a cinematic visionary. Needless to say, I dived headlong into 'The Abyss', witnessed 'T2: Judgement Day' was denied the slow burn dread and horror of Ridley Scott's 'Alien', thanks in no small part to having watched Cameron's bullet strewn sequel first: For how could I ever appreciate a softly, softly stroll through 'The Nostromo' when I'd seen Ellen Ripley brandishing an ammo-counting M41-A assault rifle with jungle taped flame thrower and pump action grenade launcher?
'The Terminator', 'Aliens', 'The Abyss', and 'T2' were, and still are, some of my favourite movies of all time. My tastes have changed considerably from then to now but the aforementioned films still enjoy an exceptionally high play rate on a variety of mediums (I even occasionally watch 'The Terminator' VHS for it's original futurist font subtitles absent on the DVD release).
Long before Cameron proclaimed himself 'King Of The World' he was, at the very least, the action prince of Hollywood. But then he made 'True Lies'. And thus began, for me, a schismatic turn of events best summarized by that euphemistic cliché: creative differences.
'True Lies' temporarily turned Jimmy C into an ultracrepidarian, Israeli mouthpiece but 'Titanic' turned him into something marginally worse: A schmaltzy, self-aggrandising little Spielberg. The 'Titanic' buzz soon died down to a distant hum with Cameron's movie now taking some serious retrospective hits; roundly booed for its overblown pomposity, already dated CGI and bad acting.
Thus in his second year of self-imposed exile, Cameron began producing; and gave unto the world Jessica 'eye candy' Alba in short-lived sci-fi TV series 'Dark Angel' before fronting some cash for Steve Sodenbergh and George Clooney's cerebral, chin-stroking remake of 'Solaris' (2002).
And now, over a decade since he last directed, James Cameron returns with 'Avatar': 2154 A.D. native blue alien tribe the Na'vi are fighting for survival on their home planet Pandora. Colonized and pillaged by U.S. troops on behalf of corporate America, the occupiers aim to displace and pacify the Na'vi in order to loot Pandora's natural resources, namely it's precious mineral ore: "Unobtanium" (must've taken Jim all of five minutes to come up with that name). Maimed U.S. marine Jake Sully (man of the hour Sam Worthington) agrees to become Na'vi via an avatar programme led by sarcastic scientist Dr. Grace Augustine (a welcome return by Sigourney Weaver). Sully, reluctant substitute for his late twin brother; a scientist who shared Dr Augustine's progressive, integrationist sentiments, strikes a secret deal with deranged warmonger Colonel Miles (Stephen Lang) to infiltrate and spy on the Pandorans in exchange for an operation that'll restore his ability to walk.
But Sully's no stooge and the corporation's nefarious schemes soon go awry, as Jake begins to empathise with the indigenous Na'vi. Learning their spiritual and ancient warrior ways, Sully risks going native on the eve of war and must decide whether he wants to serve the American invaders or join the Na'vi resistance.
I have mixed feelings about the epic, 14 year endeavour that was 'Avatar', on one hand; its an exceptional, albeit narratively convoluted, achievement, on the other hand; the eye can't fool the mind too often; so despite some groundbreaking, photo-realistic CGI, there're a number of scenes where you'll wish for a greater sense of tangibility. For example; the reason I'll always prefer puppet Yoda from 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return Of The Jedi' to CGI Yoda from 'Attack Of The Clones' and 'Revenge Of The Sith' is that whilst the former was limited in his movements and could never have fought duels like his prequel successor: He was real, lift him you could, put him in your knapsack and see the nuance of each expression as you tried to raise a dilapidated X-Wing from the swamps of Degobah using only The Force.
And tangibility is such an important aspect of the visual medium that you only realise exactly how vital an element it is when you're faced with a CGI behemoth like 'Avatar'. Now don't get me wrong; CGI in 'Avatar' is the best anyone's ever seen anywhere on Earth so far; and though there're long periods of time when you're at one with the rich, bio-luminous flora and fauna on display, I still longed for a scene as real as the opening shot in 'Apocalytpo' (2006) or a brief glimpse of lush and foreboding rainforests like those seen in 'The Mission' (1986). Some of Pandora's creatures and landscapes evoked memories of computer games like 'Riven' and 'Myst' whilst all that 'Tree of Souls' nonsense is highly dubious, Kabbalist proselytising; so the less said about that the better, I'm also going to pretend that I've never seen or heard of 'Marvel' comic's 'Timespirits' September 1985 issue...you know; the one with 'Neytiri' ON THE COVER.
Speaking of Neytiri, 'Avatar' proves that the lovely Zoë Saldana ('Star Trek') is an incorrigible over actor, even in CG, but her character; Princess Neytiri still makes for a fierce and enigmatic Na'vi. And what profound, metaphysical insights did James Cameron have to offer about how he envisaged this magnificent and complex warrior?
"Right from the beginning I said, 'She's got to have tits', even though that makes no sense because her race, the Na'vi, aren't placental mammals". Fascinating.
Unjustly maligned action director Renny Harlin ('Die Hard 2') gets a lot of flack for having helmed dismal pirate flop 'Cutthroat Island' (1995) and whilst that particular movie was undeniably awful, critics and audiences tend to forget his sterling efforts on underrated Shark attack picture 'Deep Blue Sea' (1999). For the manner in which Harlin utilized CGI, reality and animatronics was second to none and had Cameron, with his obvious strength in action, taken a similar route; 'Avatar' would've been even better. Imagine how good the N'avi would look if they were human in close up, animatronics in mid-shot but moved with CG speed and accuracy; shuffle that schematic deck every so often and it'd create a seamless and totally immersive environment that'd retain its connection to reality but offer the same level of otherworldly escapism.
And as the credits rolled, it'd be fair to say that my 'Tsahaylu' hadn't quite reached the point of full penetration, thus I doubt I'll be sticking my USB braid, or any other cord for that matter, into the 'Avatar' universe as deeply as some. So as much as I enjoyed 'Avatar' (in 2D and 3D), as awesome as the final battle and Ikran mountain top scenes were; the only phrase I'm curious to learn in Na'vi is: 'Get over it, it's just a film'. Anyone know? Answers on the back of a Great Leonopteryx.
We've waited a long time for a Seth Lakeman DVD and now it's here, it has been well worth the wait!
Other than a few reservations apropos of lighting and camera angles, this DVD captures the energy and enthusiasm of Seth's live performances perfectly. Magnificently and dramatically staged (at the Minack Theatre in Cornwall), the music is nothing short of inspirational. An excellent introduction into the world of Seth Lakeman for those who have yet to make the journey. I can't wait for the next one!
When the latest Pixar film comes out the trailer proudly proclaims "From the Makers of Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo, Monster's Inc, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up!" That's quite a list of modern classics they've got there. When the latest DreamWorks film comes out, they say "From The Makers of Shrek!" DreamWorks are still milking the success of "Shrek", a modern classic no doubt, and some would argue its better than the majority of Pixar films, but DreamWorks have never truly perfected Pixar's faultless recipe for a winning film that's funny, heart-warming and darn right brilliant. Pixar adamantly follow the words of Disney himself: "For every laugh there must be a tear". "Up" is a prime example of this; it had audiences balling in the first five minutes. It's not that "Monsters Vs Aliens" is a bad film, it's just that the bar set by Pixar, and, what the hell, "Shrek" is still a spec in the sky. There are one or two very funny gags, but it's not these laughs that will linger in the audiences memory it's the one's that fall flat; and there are two many of them to even bother counting. However its Seth Rogen's "Bob" (The Blob; geddit?) who delivers his lines perfectly, it's not until he did this that we realised how mind bogglingly hilarious his voice actually is. But even this comical genius can stop "Monster's Vs Aliens" boldly going where many animations have boldly gone before; where Pixar makes its humans real and believable, they are clearly caricatures; DreamWorks just looks unrealistic and nicked from a kid's computer game. It's not just the laughs that fall flat though; the 3D is nothing special, aside from an opening "Ball comes at you" bit, the film feels like a wasted opportunity 3D wise: we're seeing giants stepping on us, blobs throwing their eyes at us, and missing links lunging into the audience. But the most we get is a ping-pong ball. Great. "Monsters Vs Aliens" passes time, and kids will most likely love it, but we certainly won't be seeing it on any DreamWorks trailers in the future.
Much better than Friends - incredibly funny and yet full of pathos. Each episode is extremely well written, and you grow to empathise with each character, even the more difficult or annoying ones. If you have never seen it before it is worth starting with series one, just because to start with series 8 will indeed spoil your enjoyment of the series inbetween. However, if you didnt see series 6 and 7, they were not as good as previous series, and you can go straight to series 8 without spoiling your enjoyment.
As far as family viewing is concerned, it really depends on your attitude to sex. There is lots of realistic discussion about sex between the characters, but no vulgarity. We let our 13 year old watch it and he thinks it is hilarious.
Verdict
Excellent, funny and full of pathos.
This site uses cookies.
More details in our privacy policy