Reviews
How the scoring system works
I have a pretty simple scoring system:
1 Star - Watch it on TV if nothing else is on
2 Star - If it's on TV, get some popcorn and check it out
3 Star - Rent it on DVD
4 Star - Buy it on special and add it to your DVD library
5 Star - Preorder on Blu-Ray or Triple Play for day of release. Lock yourself away and watch it AND all the extras
1 Star - Watch it on TV if nothing else is on
2 Star - If it's on TV, get some popcorn and check it out
3 Star - Rent it on DVD
4 Star - Buy it on special and add it to your DVD library
5 Star - Preorder on Blu-Ray or Triple Play for day of release. Lock yourself away and watch it AND all the extras
Pacific Rim (2013)
Directed: Guillermo del Toro - Screenplay: Travis Beacham & Guillermo del Toro - Story: Travis Beacham
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Robert Kazinsky, Max Martini, Ron Perlman
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Robert Kazinsky, Max Martini, Ron Perlman
Giant robots and no Michael Bay involved?
SOLD But seriously - what the Hell was going on with the Transformers movies? Terrible drivel - that's what! |
Who doesn't like a giant robot movie?
Ok, let me rephrase that; who doesn't like a film about fighter aces, because basically that's what this film is - but thankfully not Memphis Belle! Ok, simple premise: humans come into contact with aliens who ravage the Earth. But they arrive not from the sky, but through a rift in the ocean floor. Humanity is unprepared, and as the monsters sent through the rift get bigger, humanity builds giant robots to fight these monsters in hand-to-hand combat.... or, more precisely |
So you've seen the trailer and honestly there isn't much more to it - there's the typical jock who learnt his lesson, and unlikely band of misfit pilots, the grizzled veteran on his last legs, the dickhead who makes our hero's life difficult, the rookie who knows how to fight but has no combat experience and the hard-as-nails Russians. It's all there!
I won't really touch on the story because it's pretty cliche - the things that do stand out though make it really quite interesting.
1) In the whole film there isn't one "God Bless the USA" moment.
2) This is a real international film with the major events happening in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney and a small UK reference.
There was no "We must save New York!" moment or the US saving the world - in fact quite the opposite.
3) The detail they went to in sets and the back story behind the iconography.
I'm a sucker for concept art, and when a small detail like nose art on the mechs (like on aircraft and tanks in WW2) is carried across onto the backs of the leather jackets of the crew (like this WW2 example), the access doors to the hangars - it's small but clever. It shows the attention to detail and thought that all these mechs have a personality and the civilian population treat them as quasi-celebrities..
Now, I'm a fan of this universe they create.
It's a universe undiscovered in ways. The back story and Prologue is amazing and so rich. I can see a prequel, I can see a cartoon.
Here's just a few shots to give you an idea.
I won't really touch on the story because it's pretty cliche - the things that do stand out though make it really quite interesting.
1) In the whole film there isn't one "God Bless the USA" moment.
2) This is a real international film with the major events happening in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney and a small UK reference.
There was no "We must save New York!" moment or the US saving the world - in fact quite the opposite.
3) The detail they went to in sets and the back story behind the iconography.
I'm a sucker for concept art, and when a small detail like nose art on the mechs (like on aircraft and tanks in WW2) is carried across onto the backs of the leather jackets of the crew (like this WW2 example), the access doors to the hangars - it's small but clever. It shows the attention to detail and thought that all these mechs have a personality and the civilian population treat them as quasi-celebrities..
Now, I'm a fan of this universe they create.
It's a universe undiscovered in ways. The back story and Prologue is amazing and so rich. I can see a prequel, I can see a cartoon.
Here's just a few shots to give you an idea.
|
|
|
|
To just give a further illustration of the depth - have a look at the Russians.
In any typical Hollywood film, they would have their own style of mech and that would be it - but no.
The Russians are using the oldest type of mech, a Type 1. Now in the movie it's the only one you see in any great detail (no spoilers) but if you look at the background to the universe online you'll see that they have both other countries versions of the Type 1.
In any typical Hollywood film, they would have their own style of mech and that would be it - but no.
The Russians are using the oldest type of mech, a Type 1. Now in the movie it's the only one you see in any great detail (no spoilers) but if you look at the background to the universe online you'll see that they have both other countries versions of the Type 1.
|
Here's the Russian brother and sister team of pilots.
Have a look at their archaic armour and Kroenen-esque helmets (last seen in Del Toro's Hellboy film). They're not hi-tech as much as usable-tech. Heavy, strong, practical. This suited the character of the mech and therefore the look of the pilots. |
|
|
|
|
|
So in closing -- this film, this universe, is one worth getting involved in.
Is it perfect? No. But the cast isn't bad - the awesome Idris Elba is again so present he carries every scene he's in - and it's nice to see Australia playing a part and being central to some events. Now here's my question - is this part of the Cloverfield universe? Is this part of the Godzilla universe? It would fit in perfectly! Score: 5 stars. For all the work and an interesting inclusive vision of the world that's not US-centric and the amazing amount of work put into the concept. Oh and Michael Bay - THIS is how a robot movie is done! 
|
August 2103
Red Dawn (2012)
During the height of Cold War paranoia under the watchful 'fatherly' gaze of Ronald Reagan, the US was actually afraid they would be invaded by the USSR. This despite the fact that the US administration at the time knew the USSR had given up any intentions to do so in the 1950s. But it was convenient to keep the populace afraid of imminent invasion. it keep them looking at the USSR instead of the government that governed them.
It was into this environment that the original Red Dawn (1984) was born - and in 2012, with North Korean aggression again a handy distraction from US politics it was time for another Red Dawn..
The basic premise of the Red Dawn 'franchise;' is a foreign power invading the US and crushing all organised resistance. In the original it was the Cuban/ USSR coalition, in the new one it's the North Koreans back by the Russians.
In the light of no organised resistance, students in a small American city rise up to fight the oppressors using terrorism and local know-how.
(The irony of this is lost on America who demonise the people of any country they invade for standing up to them using the same techniques, despite the fact they actually mention it in the film...)
So this new film starts in the usual way, a local football game with the returned vet (Chris Hemsworth) watching his brother (a really crappy 28 year old actor playing a teenager) being a loner on the football field - and losing the game. It's here we are introduced to his dad (Brett Cullen), the local sheriff, and in time to his brother's girlfriend (the horribly spray tanned and completely ineffectual Isabel Lucas).
So we've set up our archetypes - now enter the bad guys...
Blackouts have been ravaging the small city, and waking up from a night-long one, our returned vet and douchy brother walk outside the find North Korean transport planes dropping paratroopers into their suburban street, and the mayhem begins... well, so you'd think.
Due to some very poor sector control, a mottly band of kids manage to escape the North Koreans (including the main bad guy, who instead of capturing the city centre is in the 'burbs harassing civilians) and flee into the hills, blah blah blah.
So you get the rest - explosions, rah-rah America, foreigners on 'our streets' and a bit of sexual tension - the end.
Now let's have a quick look where the original went so right, and how the new version went so wrong!
As I said at the top, 1984 was an era ripe with the possibility of imminent Soviet invasion, so to have this movie now seems not only illogical, but also pretty outdated. But despite that fact, the truth is the first film was so full of actual clever thinking.
It was into this environment that the original Red Dawn (1984) was born - and in 2012, with North Korean aggression again a handy distraction from US politics it was time for another Red Dawn..
The basic premise of the Red Dawn 'franchise;' is a foreign power invading the US and crushing all organised resistance. In the original it was the Cuban/ USSR coalition, in the new one it's the North Koreans back by the Russians.
In the light of no organised resistance, students in a small American city rise up to fight the oppressors using terrorism and local know-how.
(The irony of this is lost on America who demonise the people of any country they invade for standing up to them using the same techniques, despite the fact they actually mention it in the film...)
So this new film starts in the usual way, a local football game with the returned vet (Chris Hemsworth) watching his brother (a really crappy 28 year old actor playing a teenager) being a loner on the football field - and losing the game. It's here we are introduced to his dad (Brett Cullen), the local sheriff, and in time to his brother's girlfriend (the horribly spray tanned and completely ineffectual Isabel Lucas).
So we've set up our archetypes - now enter the bad guys...
Blackouts have been ravaging the small city, and waking up from a night-long one, our returned vet and douchy brother walk outside the find North Korean transport planes dropping paratroopers into their suburban street, and the mayhem begins... well, so you'd think.
Due to some very poor sector control, a mottly band of kids manage to escape the North Koreans (including the main bad guy, who instead of capturing the city centre is in the 'burbs harassing civilians) and flee into the hills, blah blah blah.
So you get the rest - explosions, rah-rah America, foreigners on 'our streets' and a bit of sexual tension - the end.
Now let's have a quick look where the original went so right, and how the new version went so wrong!
As I said at the top, 1984 was an era ripe with the possibility of imminent Soviet invasion, so to have this movie now seems not only illogical, but also pretty outdated. But despite that fact, the truth is the first film was so full of actual clever thinking.
"Would you like fries with that, Comrade?"
|
Now here's a classic example from 1984. This shot shows Soviet troops outside an occupied McDonald's - an iconic piece of middle America - easily identifiable and I'm sure to most Americans, sullied by the idea of Soviet troops occupying it..
This is far from the only example in the original Red Dawn. When the Soviet troops landed, not unlike in the remake from transport planes, instead of cordoning off a suburb, they shot up the school! These guys meant business, We the audience were "WTF, yo?!" and got a real sense of who the bad guys are. In the 2012 remake, all we get are soldiers hassling civilians, shooting at Police (as you would in an invasion) and defending themselves against attacks from - let's be honest here - terrorists! In fact the North Koreans promise an end to corruption in government and equality for all. |
|
Now let's talk characters and acting here.
The same archetypes exist that existed in the original, but the characters in the original weren't playing out a soap opera, it was what their life had become. In one scene in the 2012 remake, one character mentions how the rest of the team want to "not do this any more". |
|
And that's just the point - you have to keep going because there isn't an alternative! Your home has gone, your family may be dead, there's soldiers taking over your country and you're fighting - you may be the only ones fighting for all you know.
In the remake, it seems like it's something they are doing, but the sense of isolation just isn't there, the sense of desperation and being against the odds just isn't there - and frankly the characters are unlikable.
Where in the original they had their flaws, in this film they seem self-serving or selfish, stupid and without leadership.
I get they're kids (or supposed to be), but there is no evolution in their reaction to events. They are the same people at the end of the film as they are in the start.
And as for the bad guys - what the Hell? Nothing going on at all!
We have vague appearances by Russian special forces, North Koreans who aren't terrible and one of the main character's dad is the collaborating Mayor. Do we get any story about the kid fighting the enemy and his dad forced to collaborate?
Nope - it's all about the loner and his douchey brother.
Bad call!
Now before I get controversial - here's a trailer comparison
In the remake, it seems like it's something they are doing, but the sense of isolation just isn't there, the sense of desperation and being against the odds just isn't there - and frankly the characters are unlikable.
Where in the original they had their flaws, in this film they seem self-serving or selfish, stupid and without leadership.
I get they're kids (or supposed to be), but there is no evolution in their reaction to events. They are the same people at the end of the film as they are in the start.
And as for the bad guys - what the Hell? Nothing going on at all!
We have vague appearances by Russian special forces, North Koreans who aren't terrible and one of the main character's dad is the collaborating Mayor. Do we get any story about the kid fighting the enemy and his dad forced to collaborate?
Nope - it's all about the loner and his douchey brother.
Bad call!
Now before I get controversial - here's a trailer comparison
|
|
|
Now one does have to admit - the 2012 trailer is a ripper!
Now here's where it get's controversial - Red Dawn (2012) is a rip off of the 2010 Australian movie Tomorrow When the World Began.
Now you may say to me; "But that came after the 1984 version of Red Dawn...", and you would get a gold star for being smart at maths - however, visually this film is not only an American remake of Tomorrow When the World Began but so similar in bits, it may as well have used the same director.
The way we see the enemy invade, the jet sweeping in low over the kids in the house, the prison yard for captured civilians and the list goes on.
Yes, Tomorrow When the World Began (book series) is a premise lifted directly from the 1984 Red Dawn, but the 2012 Red Dawn is in itself a rip off of the film of Tomorrow When the World Began. (Never, BTW, have I wished for Tomorrow When the World Began to be called something else - it's so laborious to type!)
Now you may say to me; "But that came after the 1984 version of Red Dawn...", and you would get a gold star for being smart at maths - however, visually this film is not only an American remake of Tomorrow When the World Began but so similar in bits, it may as well have used the same director.
The way we see the enemy invade, the jet sweeping in low over the kids in the house, the prison yard for captured civilians and the list goes on.
Yes, Tomorrow When the World Began (book series) is a premise lifted directly from the 1984 Red Dawn, but the 2012 Red Dawn is in itself a rip off of the film of Tomorrow When the World Began. (Never, BTW, have I wished for Tomorrow When the World Began to be called something else - it's so laborious to type!)
|
Tomorrow When the World Began is not a great film, in fact it'd be a great series of films (like the books from what I'm told).
It suffers from all the bad elements that Red Dawn (2012) does in regards to characters and development - but what it does have is a plausible motive - it's even stated in the trailer (right) - "we know this country better than they do... etc etc" so lets use that to our advantage. In Red Dawn (2012) these kids are so out of their element in the wild it's stupid - they may as well have stayed in the city and fought, they'd be better resourced and have more food (which seemed oddly plentiful in the 2012 film). It just doesn't ring true in any way. When the North Koreans go full force to hunt them down, it still ends up with them not maturing. |
|
There is a great surprise towards the end I wasn't expecting - so I won't ruin that and that vaguely redeems the film, but frankly if the North Koreans had shot them all at the start of the film, I wouldn't have minded.
In the end the characters and the acting let it down.
Josh Peck who plays the dickhead brother is just shit! He constantly looks like he wants to cry. Isabel Lucas is wooden and annoying with a dreadful spray tan. The only adults amongst the group of kids act like children, while two of the kids act like adults. Funnily enough, the US soldiers who turn up (as in the original) are so stereotyped they have to be real.
If you go into this expecting Red Dawn, you won't get it.
This is a 2012 copy of a 2010 Australian film, copied from an Australian book, heavily influenced by a Cold War film from 1984.
The cultural relevance of this kind of film has to be questionable.
Score:
3.5 stars
Rent it and see if you like it - if so buy it and add it to your DVD library
In the end the characters and the acting let it down.
Josh Peck who plays the dickhead brother is just shit! He constantly looks like he wants to cry. Isabel Lucas is wooden and annoying with a dreadful spray tan. The only adults amongst the group of kids act like children, while two of the kids act like adults. Funnily enough, the US soldiers who turn up (as in the original) are so stereotyped they have to be real.
If you go into this expecting Red Dawn, you won't get it.
This is a 2012 copy of a 2010 Australian film, copied from an Australian book, heavily influenced by a Cold War film from 1984.
The cultural relevance of this kind of film has to be questionable.
Score:
3.5 stars
Rent it and see if you like it - if so buy it and add it to your DVD library
June 2013
The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey [2012]
It should be written above the title "From the man who brought you 'Lord of the Rings'"... but the question is, which man?
Peter Jackson or JRR Tolkien...
First off, I am a MASSIVE fan of the "Lord of Rings" films. I saw them multiple times at the movies, I own the Theatrical and Extended Cuts on DVD and also the BluRay Boxed Set. So as much as I'm a fan of the "Lord of the Rings" movies... the book left me bored and unimpressed.
Now look, I might be stupid or spoilt in an era of Epic Fantasy so nothing surprises me, or maybe the writing style just wasn't accessible - whichever, the book wasn't my thing!
For me, "Lord of the Rings" is Peter Jackson's vision of it rather than Tolkien's.
"The Hobbit" filled me with nervous anticipation, so I bought the book and started to read it having not done so for over 25 years and I have to say - I really like it.
There's no tricky word play, there's no odd verse or meandering - it's just there. Thus I was even more excited for this film.
At the outset, if you've read "The Hobbit" recently, don't expect to see that on the screen.
They already used parts of it for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (wasn't that a surprise upon reading "The Hobbit") and as this smallish book is going to be 9 hours of cinema - they're going to flesh it out.
And flesh it out they do!
In the book, when the group head out of Hobbiton, it says something like "and they ventured through strange lands and met many people...". In order to make the film longer - this is what they did. We meet some of the strange people, we see glimpses of the impending evil in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and there is character development not in the book - all I might add done very well.
The way they integrate "The Hobbit" (no spoilers) with the "Lord of the Rings" films, while also giving back story, is handled very very well. In fact better context than the book in many ways.
There were negatives though.
The subtlety of the book was lost - especially in the scene with the trolls. It was very long and not at all faithful to the book which was disappointing.
There is also a scene where they are stuck on the side of a mountain as stone giants throw boulder around. Now in the book, I read this as being a metaphor for the heavy storm and landslides - in this it is quite literal.
Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins is very good - BUT - if you've seen "Lord of the Rings" he has obviously not based it on Ian Holm's Bilbo, which I think is a shame. Holm was an interesting Bilbo, where Freeman is more animated and certainly more expressive. Personally I think Holm was great, Freeman - not sure!
The scenes altered from the book really don't matter too much, or the addition of characters, as the action is fast and intense - really probably better than "Lord of the Rings" in terms of pace and action. Peter Jackson will be a very good action director in the future, mark my words!
Now, in terms of visuals, I saw the HFR (High Frame rate) version of the film to see the ultra-HD, and I have to say, I wouldn't do it again.
For me it looked, at times, like HD TV. It lacked that movie magic.
If I was to see it again, I would see normal 3D, which by the way, was handled very well. Some of the best I've seen.
In terms of watchability - see it! See it at the movies too.
This can be a DVD film, but at trhe movies it is an event and larger than life!
Lastly, if you want to be a dick and all 'purist' about the book-to-film aspect - you won't like the film.
If you like the universe and enjoyed the other films - you will like "The Hobbit".
There are laughs, good action, beautiful scenery and well paced.
Look out for the cameo voice actors too.
Score:
4.5
Will buy on Blu-Ray on release day
Peter Jackson or JRR Tolkien...
First off, I am a MASSIVE fan of the "Lord of Rings" films. I saw them multiple times at the movies, I own the Theatrical and Extended Cuts on DVD and also the BluRay Boxed Set. So as much as I'm a fan of the "Lord of the Rings" movies... the book left me bored and unimpressed.
Now look, I might be stupid or spoilt in an era of Epic Fantasy so nothing surprises me, or maybe the writing style just wasn't accessible - whichever, the book wasn't my thing!
For me, "Lord of the Rings" is Peter Jackson's vision of it rather than Tolkien's.
"The Hobbit" filled me with nervous anticipation, so I bought the book and started to read it having not done so for over 25 years and I have to say - I really like it.
There's no tricky word play, there's no odd verse or meandering - it's just there. Thus I was even more excited for this film.
At the outset, if you've read "The Hobbit" recently, don't expect to see that on the screen.
They already used parts of it for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (wasn't that a surprise upon reading "The Hobbit") and as this smallish book is going to be 9 hours of cinema - they're going to flesh it out.
And flesh it out they do!
In the book, when the group head out of Hobbiton, it says something like "and they ventured through strange lands and met many people...". In order to make the film longer - this is what they did. We meet some of the strange people, we see glimpses of the impending evil in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and there is character development not in the book - all I might add done very well.
The way they integrate "The Hobbit" (no spoilers) with the "Lord of the Rings" films, while also giving back story, is handled very very well. In fact better context than the book in many ways.
There were negatives though.
The subtlety of the book was lost - especially in the scene with the trolls. It was very long and not at all faithful to the book which was disappointing.
There is also a scene where they are stuck on the side of a mountain as stone giants throw boulder around. Now in the book, I read this as being a metaphor for the heavy storm and landslides - in this it is quite literal.
Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins is very good - BUT - if you've seen "Lord of the Rings" he has obviously not based it on Ian Holm's Bilbo, which I think is a shame. Holm was an interesting Bilbo, where Freeman is more animated and certainly more expressive. Personally I think Holm was great, Freeman - not sure!
The scenes altered from the book really don't matter too much, or the addition of characters, as the action is fast and intense - really probably better than "Lord of the Rings" in terms of pace and action. Peter Jackson will be a very good action director in the future, mark my words!
Now, in terms of visuals, I saw the HFR (High Frame rate) version of the film to see the ultra-HD, and I have to say, I wouldn't do it again.
For me it looked, at times, like HD TV. It lacked that movie magic.
If I was to see it again, I would see normal 3D, which by the way, was handled very well. Some of the best I've seen.
In terms of watchability - see it! See it at the movies too.
This can be a DVD film, but at trhe movies it is an event and larger than life!
Lastly, if you want to be a dick and all 'purist' about the book-to-film aspect - you won't like the film.
If you like the universe and enjoyed the other films - you will like "The Hobbit".
There are laughs, good action, beautiful scenery and well paced.
Look out for the cameo voice actors too.
Score:
4.5
Will buy on Blu-Ray on release day
