"Now Showing"

[furie]

I still can't fathom why they did three films? Yes, Peter Jackson likes to make things way too long, but Lord of the Rings should have been 18 movies based on size of source material compared to Hobbit. I hate the splitting of books into multipart movies. This trend needs to end.

I'm sure I've said this before.

It's because The Hobbit was released independently of the rest of the Middle Earth stuff, as a kid's book.

As Tolkien expanded the histories and worlds on paper, The Hobbit did fit (and as an important prequel to the LOTR story (remember, Tolkien never wanted a trilogy, but a single book), but never as importantly as it should have done.

So he wrote extra texts and histories. Some were published, others are just for his reference.

Peter Jackson used all the extra material to work out what else was going on at the time of the book and included it. He also then made up some stuff he thought Tolkien may have added if he'd rewritten The Hobbit at a later time. The latter is obviously very dubious and has caused problems with the Tolkien trust.

Anyway, that's part of why the films are much longer. On top of that, it's all about trying to do the world justice. That requires a lot of cinematography and if you skimp, then people will moan that you missed bits (people are still complaining about the fact Jackson cut Tom from Fellowship). So it's trying to walk the lines between producing a film that is generally entertaining and contains as much story you have knowledge of, and integrate into a larger story which has already been told AND keep the fans appeased.

Plus...

I can. It's quite simple really. More money.

Phew.

I watched the new Robocop the other day. I went in open minded and was really happy to see that they hadn't just copied the original story and retold it, but had taken it its own way.

So it started off really promising (as promising as such a far fetched idea can be), but then something bad happened. I still don't quite know what it was. The action scenes were all decent. The performances (as you'd expect) from Jackson, Oldman and Keaton were great. The story was a bit bland, but nothing dreadful.

It was just completely soulless though. I never engaged with the characters, the story or anything. I just couldn't care about any of it. It seemed aware that it was preposterous, but was never tongue in cheek. It tried to be emotional, without being aware that the George Lucas school of love stories isn't a good school to graduate from. Even the baddies didn't seem sure how bad they were meant to be.

It was just characterless and had no personality. It was like it had been made by a goon talking you through every second of a brilliant rollercoaster. You know that there's something good there, but you really don't want it explained to you by that person in that way.

Meh. 5/10

 

[peep]

Saw a couple of films the other night.

On Monday I went with the parents to see Bad Neighbours which was still very funny, both parents also enjoyed it so it must be good.

Sabotage the new Arnie film was alright, it had some good ideas but overall it was rather messy. I think it was trying too hard to seem clever but instead just poorly cuts out things which are actually rather obvious.

Brick Mansions is pretty much a carbon copy of a French film (District 13 (which also has a great sequel)), it even steals one of the leading guys from the original but pairs him up with the late Paul Walker. It's an ok film but the dialogue is rather turdio and most of the action scenes are very shaky to probably help disguise that Paul Walker wasn't as good at the action stuff as the French guy (who was one of the original guys behind park-hour (best I can get to the actual word due to stupid auto-correct)). If you haven't seen the original and you have a couple of hours to spare and like some good action sequences then give it a go.

 

[tomahawk]

Godzilla

I was really really looking forward to this. I expected a "time to **** this city up now" mindless film, but I got so much more. Their is actual character depth, a story, amazing visuals, and of course cities getting ****. I loved how they didn't show all in previews, and the entire movie, it just built to the reveal of Godzilla.

This is a true IMAX movie. The better audio and larger screen are just amazing and it really imerses you in it. Some of the destruction is a bit corny looking, and I'm sure retards on the internet are gonna start with the "Godzilla ate too much McDonalds" jokes on America soon. I really hope oit does well so we can see more of it.

 

[Gavin]

Re: "Now Showing"

^ I think I'll wait for the reboot, like Spiderman and Superman.

 

[Gavin]

Re: "Now Showing"

And Batman. It's been MONTHS!

 

[tomahawk]

Batman v Superman is gonna be absolute dog ****. They need to just call it Justice League. Bad casting left and right.

 

[tomahawk]

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

What a weird **** movie. If it didn't have the stupid "Family Guy moments" as I called them, or his imagination scenes, it would have been much better. It felt like it was looking for its soul the entire time, and it might have found it at the end? It was just an odd movie. Kristen Wiig, who I loathe, actually wasn't awful in this, which was nice for a change.

Worth a Redbox or eventual Netflix watch, but I'm glad I didn't waste my money on it in the theaters.

 

[rtotheizzo17]

Godzilla -

This paid perfect homage to the classics. It had the Japanese scientist who knew way to much about the monsters, it was based off of iffy science to begin with, and it stuck to the Godzilla theme.

The theme of the story the entire time is man vs nature. Man attempts to control what it doesn't understand, and when they cant they try and destroy it. Fortunately for silly man nature has its own balance that keeps things in check.

Most of the critics (and by critics I mean random people on movie forums) dislike it because they miss the point above and one other reason which I agree with... The human element of the movie was a little underwhelming outside of Bryan Cranstons performance. I thought the 3rd Olsen twin made decisions that NO mother would make in an emergency situation (much less one where 3 **** monsters where attacking the city), other than that knock I really enjoyed the movie.

I am interested in the direction of the sequel. Now that this version of Godzilla has been presented I wouldn't mind avoiding the foreplay the current one does and jump right into a more aggressive King of the Monsters. Maybe one who gets pissed off at the ants he just saved?

 

[Gavin]

I've just got back from that new X-men film, whatever it was called.

Was alright. I don't think I've seen any of them since the first two, so I was worried I'd be a bit lost, but it was fine. I'm in no rush to see it again though.

 

[tomahawk]

Blended

Adam Sandler movie, so I expected what every person should expect going into a Sandler movie, a stupid immature comedy. I was entertained and enjoyed it.

X-Men DoFP

Good popcorn movie (even though popcorn was burnt and bland as ****) but it needed more Jennifer Lawrence and less of the body suit and more of body paint. I'll see the next one. Gotta love Dinklage.

 

[rtotheizzo17]

Machete Kills Again

Just as good as the first Machete but with less sex and more violence. Really disappointed that we didn't get an Amber Heard or Sophia Vergara nude scene.

 

[Gavin]

Bad Neighbours

I realised last night that I had a free birthday ticket thing for the cinema, from months ago, which was due to expire on Wednesday. Since I'd just seen X-Men, saw Spiderman ages ago, Godzilla looks s**te and the other 3 films were Chinese, the only option to use the free ticket on was Bad Neighbours.

It was decent enough, but pretty predictable. It's weird watching a comedy with a mostly Chinese audience though. They don't really get the actual jokes, just piss themselves at the crappy slapstick bits. Peasants.

 

[furie]

Managed to grab an hour early off work on Friday and took MMF to see Godzilla

I was a huge fan of the ridiculous original Japanese films and was concerned by the complete lack of Matthew Broderick - could the film be any good?

It's a great monster flick to be fair. It's an excellent homage to the originals, but up to date. It's either not quite serious enough or not quite tongue in cheek enough though. Understanding how it's a modern remake of the originals helps - but it doesn't get the balance right.

So the main human interest characters are useless, one dimensional and pointless. It means there's no real peril, as you don't care about anybody. Let's face it, these are enormous monsters trampling cities - you know everyone is dead... Or should be. You just want to see them stomped on, but it never happens.

As the humans are completely pointless, dull and 1D - everything to do with them after Brian Cranston (who was also 1D but at least in a Brian Cranston way) was meh.

However, the monsters were huge and ridiculous. The destruction was loud and epic. The whole thing was stupid, mindless fun without ever becoming Transformers boring. It was a decent enough way to excuse buying a bucket of popcorn and pail of Ice Blast

8/10 for me, probably 6 or 7 for most people - but I like stupid monster movies

 

[peep]

X-Men: Days of future past

Was really looking forward to this as I love the X-Men films. Although I enjoyed it I felt like there was something missing. You definitely don't get enough of any of the characters, everyone gets so little screen time apart from Wolverine because apparently that's the only character the X-Men films care about. The ending felt a little messy too... actually... scrap that, the whole film felt messy. Hmm, it's an enjoyable action/sci-fi film but maybe lower your expectations a little bit before seeing it?


Godzilla
Thought this looked a bit awful after watching the trailer so I was very pleasantly surprised when I got to the end and found myself really liking it. I think Furie has hit the nail on the head with the characters. I found a lot of the big names just sort of stood around looking a bit confused at the situation rather than saying anything too which was a little odd. Still it was a great action monster flick. The special effects were absolutely seemless, for vfx fans it's worth seeing it purely for that. I thought it just looked great and there were some unusual moments in there that I wasn't expecting. So yeah I was glad I actually saw this film, a great blockbuster. Then again I did really enjoy the directors other film Monsters. He's just been signed up to another big project so I'm looking forward to that now.

 

[Gavin]

Maleficent

Just got back, and it was rather fab. The Disney geeks and the gays (same thing on here) are going to love it. I was under the impression that it focussed just on Maleficent's background, and that it would end where the original story starts, but it's actually just a tiny bit of background - how she came to want to curse Aurora etc. - and then a retelling of the story from Maleficent's perspective.

I would've liked it to have been a little darker, but I guess for Disney it was as dark as they were going to go. It looks absolutely gorgeous throughout though.

Angelina Jolie is fantastic. I can't remember the last time that a role has been cast so perfectly. The iconic scene from the original where Maleficent visits the castle is absolute perfection.

My one gripe; I didn't like the ending:

Spoiler

It's EXACTLY the same as Frozen - true love's kiss doesn't come from the handsome prince but from somewhere unexpected (actually totally expected). They must've been working on both films at the same time, so I can't believe that someone, somewhere at Disney didn't stop and say, "Hang on a minute. We might want to change one of these."

Even more fab than the film is the view from the movie screen exit, which I've never noticed as although I go to the same cinema all the time, I've never been in that screen before:

I **** ing love my neighbourhood.

 

[marc]

Re: "Now Showing"

Going to see it on Sunday but after the crap reviews it got I was worried. They have said it's slow drawn out with a crap start and end.

After your review I have hope

 

[Gavin]

Re: "Now Showing"

^ It is slow, drawn out, with a crap start and end.

But it's Angelina. As Maleficent.

 

[marc]

Re: "Now Showing"

Now lost hope again lol. I heard she was the saving grace of the film, and that's all that saved it from being another big budget disaster.

 

[nealbie]

So, I also saw Maleficent last night and I would give it a 3/10 It was absolutely terrible (Jolie aside), and left me feeling even more disappointed than Shrek 2.

Bit of background: I used to ADORE Sleeping Beauty as a child (Maleficent especially), until it was pointed out to me around aged 10 that she was monumentally angry at Stefan simply for not being invited to a Christening, as well as (despite being the Mistress of all Evil) she only planned to keep Prince Phillip locked away for 100 years before sending him over to break the curse. To then top it all off, she is beaten by a trio of fairies who have several times claimed she is too powerful for them, just by enchanting a sword.

Therefore, Maleficent is a very confusing and poorly developed character in the original Disney film. When this new one was announced I was both excited because it offered an opportunity to give her the story she deserves but also skeptical because Jolie's lips were just not going to cut it. Sufficed to say, the first promo image we saw, changed that completely:-

Awesome! Then we had the Lana Del Ray rehash of Once Upon a Dream, which changed the song from a classical lovey dovey affair to a beautifully dark and twisted adaptation (what we were led to believe the film would be):-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrD_l3juoU[/youtube]

Again, showing competing images of the new film and the original. This was getting ridiculously exciting now!

And then, the film.....

Spoiler

The backstory, I could deal with, fine. I quite liked it in fact. Then we had the infamous castle scene, also fab. But even before she finished the curse, she changes it to sleep (nullifying Merryweather's unspent wish) and herself puts in place the true love nonsense. Ugh. Not only that, but despite showing amazing magical powers, she is unable to transform herself (no Dragon for her) and is unable to transport herself to anywhere she wishes. Double ugh.

What I did like was that she adopted a "Fairy Godmother" role for Aurora and the internal struggle that played out. Unfortunately there were so many poor ideas about what to do with the character being bandied about that we end up with an EVEN MORE confused story than the original provided.

Even as a standalone it's mediocre and very confused at best, but as part of the Disney universe it's insulting to fans of the Mouse and the 1959 classic. Jolie is amazing and so are the special effects, but how on earth did this end up being released?


_____________________

Maleficent

Just got back, and it was rather fab. The Disney geeks and the gays (same thing on here) are going to love it.

Well, no, because Sleeping Beauty.

I was under the impression that it focussed just on Maleficent's background, and that it would end where the original story starts, but it's actually just a tiny bit of background - how she came to want to curse Aurora etc. - and then a retelling of the story from Maleficent's perspective.

The impression I got from the very first trailer and the twisted version of "Once Upon A Dream" was that this would be the same story, but as shown from inside the castle atop Forbidden Mountain. What we got, as you said, was a complete retelling of the story and (devastatingly) because it was made by Disney, this new ending is now canon. Sigh.

 

[Gavin]

Now lost hope again lol. I heard she was the saving grace of the film, and that's all that saved it from being another big budget disaster.

She absolutely does dominate the whole thing, to the point of making all the other actors/characters pretty one-dimensional. She's just got such an amazing presence.

I'm just looking at reviews now, having avoided them, and the general consensus seems to be that it's a "3 star" film, which, while not great, is far from a disaster. Most reviewers seem to be saying the same things as well: the plot could use some work, but it looks gorgeous and Jolie is amazing.