The Film Review thread ***possible spoilers***

DonDaddyD

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Star Trek Into Darkness: First things first. We saw this at the Imax at Waterloo, in 3D, sitting in the third row. Maybe I'm getting old, but on a number of levels this was less than satisfying. Firstly, row 3 is just too close to the screen. When the subtitles came up, it was a case of having to hunt for them with your peripheral vision and read fast. Second, the 3D added very little to the film. Third, some of the panned shots lost fluency on a screen that large when you're (too) close). And fourth, the fight sequences, shot in the Transformers style of very tight shots and a moving camera, were not terribly satisfying.

Tech stuff aside, the film was enjoyable. Not great, but enjoyable. As an admitted Trekkie I remain ambivalent about the reboot. Some characters work well (Sulu, McCoy). Some are OK (Kirk, Spock), and some just haven't really clicked yet (Scotty). There were lots of nice little touches designed to appeal to hardcore Trekkies (the Daystrom Institute, Section 31, the whereabouts of Nurse Chappell, Carol Marcus, and the recreation and recasting of the key scene from Wrath of Khan), yet I'm not sure that the film as a whole would appeal to hardcore Trekkies. For one, Kirk's transient role as Captain (by my reckoning over the two films: stowaway, booted off the ship, assumes command, demoted to first officer, Captain); for another, the Kirk/Spock relationship hasn't been going long enough to make the reactor scene in Into Darkness comparable to that in WOK.

Overall: 7/10

I would give Star Trek 6/10 - it goes against everything I liked about the series. It is a good space film but other than sharing the same names for things and people, it resembles very little of Star Trek.

Trek was always about progression: The Original Series moved onto the films, the films led towards Next Generation (though the last few films came out during Next Generations existence and even used the same set pieces), Next Generation became Deep Space 9 and DS9 was the starting point for Voyager. Then there was Enterprise and while it had its detractors it still managed to fit within the Star Trek Universe, explaining how Eart helped form the Federation and other things that were ignored for years: like the Klingons missing forheads in the Original Series - a virus, due to genetic testing.

Going full geek: We know that the reboot is a divergent Universe that differs from the main Star Trek universe at the point of Kirks birth; everything that happens after that point will be arguably different, everything before that point is the same. Why is there no evidence of the Eugenics War? Why does no one know who Khan Noonien Singh is? The guy was a main player of the Eugenics War - a war of genetically altered human 'supermen'. Why is there no reference to his obvious greater physical prowess and why does Spock need to go to Future Spock for advice about who Kahn is, when he has the entire Federation database at his disposal. Spock's method for defeating Kahn had nothing to do with Future Spock's supposed advise - because transporting the torpedos wasn't how Kirk defeated Kahn...

Kirk did the transporting trick to defeat of the Klingons in Search for Spock.

Spock should never have been able to go toe-toe against Kahn - look what Kahn did against the Klingons - also genetically altered humans are 5 times stronger than normal humans, Vulcans are three times stronger than humans. Want a visual representation, watch what Malik does to the Klingons in Enterprise (I believe the episode is Borderlands) - and Kahn was described to be the greatest of the genetically altered humans.

Also why does the Enterprise not have shields - so that the phasers of another ship is constantly damaging the hull? Why are phasers depicted as a laser and note a beam.

I really didn't like the film. Better they put the money on developing another Trek Series based on the Mirror Universe.

As a Space film it was alright. I can't wait for JJ Abrams to destroy Star Wars... now that is going to be a rant! :roll:

asprilla

I wish I was in business. On the 35min hop to Manchester there is only cattle class and I'm watching on my iPhone.

I only watch 20 minutes before we landed, have to watch the rest in the hotel this evening.

greg66_tri_v2.0

ST: Into Darkness.

Rantings from a proper Trekkie. Quite funny in parts.

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness- ... -508927844

ETA: DDD, you will enjoy the link...

DonDaddyD

Absolutely everything in that link you provided Greg was spot on!

Best sentence and my biggest issue with the film:

The Enterprise takes more direct hits than it does in the entirety of the original TV series.

Feltup

TED - 7.5/10 much better than I was expecting. Truly hilarious in parts.

Lincoln - 9/10 wow, superbly acted. DDL deserves all the accolades he got.

Argo - 9/10 again well acted, not as good in that respect as Lincoln but it had such a good 80's feel to it that it got a 9.

Premium Rush 5/10 and I might be generous there. Bike messenger in NY evading a Bad Cop. Good fun spotting cycling inaccuracies but that is about it.

sketchley

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

ST: Into Darkness.

Rantings from a proper Trekkie. Quite funny in parts.

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness- ... -508927844

ETA: DDD, you will enjoy the link...

Top Rant, enjoyed that more than the film

Kieran_Burns

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

ST: Into Darkness.

Rantings from a proper Trekkie. Quite funny in parts.

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness- ... -508927844

ETA: DDD, you will enjoy the link...

Top Rant, enjoyed that more than the film

So first Abrams film: HUGE technologically advanced ship blows lots of sh*t up, Enterprise goes to look, member of crew ends up inside, Spock flies around inside, Earth gets saved at the last minute just as the weapon is unleashed.

Second Abrams film: Khan. Fight between 2 Federation star ships. Enterprise only wins by sneaky back-door hack. Carol Marcus. KHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Death by radiation in Engineering.


Now am I the only one seeing a pattern here? I think it's called recycling.. Or something.

sketchley

Shock horror, reboot of star trek with same characters is very similar to original.....

davis

The Raid might be one of the best action films I've ever seen.

No, it's going to win awards for plot or plausibility, but it plays the non-stop action card so well it's frightening.

Don't watch if you don't like ShoutyManFilms.

asprilla

davis wrote:

The Raid might be one of the best action films I've ever seen.

No, it's going to win awards for plot or plausibility, but it plays the non-stop action card so well it's frightening.

Don't watch if you don't like ShoutyManFilms.

I didn't make it to the end. It reminded me of the hammer corridor fight from Old Boy but stretched out for an hour and a half.

davis

Asprilla wrote:

davis wrote:

The Raid might be one of the best action films I've ever seen.

No, it's going to win awards for plot or plausibility, but it plays the non-stop action card so well it's frightening.

Don't watch if you don't like ShoutyManFilms.

I didn't make it to the end. It reminded me of the hammer corridor fight from Old Boy but stretched out for an hour and a half.

Completely rational response. I was actually most of the way through watching it at the time, and heavily refreshed with Chianti. Towards the end I did start to think "ok boys, how about a nice cup of tea and a sit down?"

I'll downgrade my rating to "really good action scenes, with very little room for anything else"

Davdandy

davis wrote:

The Raid might be one of the best action films I've ever seen.

No, it's going to win awards for plot or plausibility, but it plays the non-stop action card so well it's frightening.

Don't watch if you don't like ShoutyManFilms.

I love this film.An absolute rush from start to finish.

Mr Sharky

After Earth

---

Dad with emotional issues and total lack of empathy/feeling (well, he was supposed to be 'fearless' but came across as simply wooden) tries to bond with Son after much time away by taking him on a bit of a road trip (albeit in space) - ship crashes and, fortunately for them, they both survive (the only 2 humans on board to do so) but Dad is badly injured and needs scared Son to travel approx 100km across hostile terrain (it's Earth, 1000 years in the future when everything has evolved to kill humans... although I'm unsure why as most species would never have encountered humans since they left the planet 1000 years before) to set off a rescue beacon. Lots of dodgy CGI animals, some seriously bad acting from the Son (I wanted the animals to win) and a cheesy factor of about 96%. Utter bobbins.


The Iceman

---

Based (loosely) on real events which took place from the mid 60s until the early 80s when Richard Kuklinski was running around killing people for money whilst being a loving, family man to his Wife and Daughters who suspected nothing. Michael Shannon is seriously intense in this and plays the part fantastically. Bit slow in parts, but after reaching an early boiling point it simmers for a while before bubbling over a couple of times before the ending showdown. Worth a watch, IMO.

il_principe

Mr Sharky wrote:

After Earth

---

Dad with emotional issues and total lack of empathy/feeling (well, he was supposed to be 'fearless' but came across as simply wooden) tries to bond with Son after much time away by taking him on a bit of a road trip (albeit in space) - ship crashes and, fortunately for them, they both survive (the only 2 humans on board to do so) but Dad is badly injured and needs scared Son to travel approx 100km across hostile terrain (it's Earth, 1000 years in the future when everything has evolved to kill humans... although I'm unsure why as most species would never have encountered humans since they left the planet 1000 years before) to set off a rescue beacon. Lots of dodgy CGI animals, some seriously bad acting from the Son (I wanted the animals to win) and a cheesy factor of about 96%. Utter bobbins.

Amazed you even went after the reviews. Also anything that M. Night Shyamalan is involved with is to be avoided at all costs. Amazed he continues to find big money backing for his films.

Mr Sharky

More to do with the film times than anything. I have an Unlimited card, and these were the only 2 films that could be seen on the same night (wanted to see The Iceman) to make the trip more worthwhile. The sacrifices we make, eh?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Man Of Steel

Never been a fan of Supes. It always seemed a mistake to make an invulnerable omnipotent character, because then you have to invent artificial limitations to make anything a fair fight.

Like a lot of films now, this one is too long. It's not dark like the Batman films, but it has no humour either. What is does have is an abundance of action sequences at the beginning and end. So yes, the middle sags. But then then action sequences are shit in a style that makes them deliberatively difficult to watch. And the one at the end could be cut in half, at least, and lose nothing.

Ther are some nice differences of approach to the trad Superman story, which work well. But overall it's a film with more misses than hits.

5.5/10.

Mr Sharky

Agreed on Man Of steel.

Was really looking forward to this, but ultimately it's a bit of an overly-drawn-out letdown. The CGI is shite in parts (I'm thinking of a CGI man jumping across a gap onto a burning oil rig to save the day... yeah, that looks a lot like how gravity acts, no, really!) and the jumping about in time to provide some filler backstory of when Clark was a kid (bit strange that they jump straight to him being a man after having just spent quite a while on the whole why-he-was-sent-to-Earth-in-the-first-place premise) doesn't work so well, IMO.

It was all a bit 'Meh'.

6/10 from me.

DonDaddyD

Man of Steel,

Very few films have been this divisive.

Eisner award winning comic book writer, Mark Waid [bibliography] had this to say:

http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel ... you-asked/ - This is so full of spoilers.

”A lot of destruction. A lot of destruction–and Superman making absolutely no effort to take the fight, like, ONE BLOCK AWAY INTO A CORNFIELD INSTEAD OF ON MAIN STREET. Still, saving people here and there, but certainly never going out of his way to do so, and mostly just trying not to get his ass kicked.”

And

“Some crazy guy in front of us was muttering “Don’t do it…don’t do it…DON’T DO IT…” and then Superman snapped Zod’s neck and that guy stood up and said in a very loud voice, “THAT’S IT, YOU LOST ME, I’M OUT,” and his girlfriend had to literally pull him back into his seat and keep him from walking out and that crazy guy was me. That crazy guy was me.”

Where to begin.

Let’s get the formalities out of the way.

I once had a online conversation with Kurt Busiek; his work on Superman and The Avengers is the stuff of legend and fantasy. During our discussion Kurt explained to me why he sold his collection of X-men comics and then went into great detail about the fact that he doesn’t collect comics because to collect something implies that they will be sold on once the value has increased. No, they simply accumulate.

From that point onwards I never considered myself a comic book collector, they accumulate. I have no intention of selling them. However, in fits of fan-rage, I have destroyed a few that have disgusted me– Jeph Loeb’s Ultimates the prime example. DVDs in my possession seemingly accumulate as well, and it is there that the following question resides:

Would I add Man of Steel to my DVD library?

"No"

I enjoyed the film, I clapped at the end but amidst all the excitement born from gargantuan levels of wanton destruction there wasn't much of anything else, just pensive brooding and lots of destruction. Truthfully, had this been a comic book it would have gone the way of Jeph Loeb’s Ultimates, I would have shredded it with heartbroken hatred.

You see Mark Millar's Ultimates - which was the basis for the Avengers movie - had depth, subtance, character development and sub-plots that were contextually different to the tone and texture of the main plot. Jeph Loeb's Ultimates was an abomination and its questionable whether the story was actually about the same characters Millar had wrote about. You could say the same of this film, 'all action, no substance - save for the pensive brooding - and, could have been about any Superman archetype character (Hyperion, Gladiator, Plutonian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_(Robert_Reynolds)]Sentry[/url]) other than Superman.

But wierdly the action was cool and the way they explained Superman's natural ability being a Kryptonian (more on that at the bottom) and his superpowers helped me stomach the film and having all my senses deprived as I was swallowed by 3D probably numbed the pain.

The irony is that while I get Superman, and ramble on, I don't like the character, and I have never purchased the title, save 'The Death of Superman'. But I get Superman and every iteration of Superman. I understand his greater purpose to the DC Universe and the comic industry as a whole.

'Superman is a man without limits who has to live in a World rife with them. He is grounded by his moral compass and thus a paragon of virtue and altruism. He is the epitome of what it is to have power and only use them for good. He is the quintessential Superhero archetype.' - DonDaddyD, 18/06/2013

This film seemingly missed a lot of what Superman represents and chose to explore how difficult it is to be Superman. I can understand why the fans are torn and why many ask,

“Could they have done both?”

And the only answer to that question is that Mark Waid is right: Where was the Superhero?

The Film

[It should be noted that I hate 3D, and this was the first and only film I have ever enjoyed watching in 3D.]

One of the things that has always annoyed me about Superman's origin is why his parents chose to stay on Krypton to die? Jor-El is Krypton's lead scientist; smartest guy on one of the DC Universe’s most technologically advanced planets. He invented the Phantom Zone.

Jor-El finds out that Krypton is 'dying' and he has time, url=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prep time]PREP TIME[/url], to build a star ship for his son. Why couldn't he add an extra compartment for him and his wife? Why couldn't Jor-El and his wife enter the phantom zone via starship and build a control device to exit once he determines it is safe to re-enter normal space?

Anyway, we know Superman's origin and it isn't going to change. The retelling of his origin in this film, the action, special effects and the codex – giving plausible reason for Zod wanting to find him - was all nicely done. I liked it.

Did Superman spend time being Superboy as a teenager? Legalities over who owns the rights to Superboy aside I prefer that he didn’t I like Superboy being a separate character. However, absent of being Superboy this then raises the question,

What did Superman do as a teenager?

I felt that this film set about answering those questions in the right way. I thought the flashbacks were tasteful and didn't harm the pacing of the film. I liked that when we are first introduced to Clark Kent he has yet to find his place in the World, and regardless of how the film turned out this was a great foundation to start on, and to learn what made Clark become Superman. As for the actor... I like my Superman buff, but not overly so – he doesn’t need to be.

What I enjoyed most was that we were treated to a socially and emotionally repressed and stunted Superman, a frustrated Superman. Something that, for me, has never really been explored. Superman however would never have done that to the guys truck. It was a little too passive aggressive for my liking, borderline psychotic.

Passive aggression aside, the whole frustrated Superman does make sense, you’re a teenager trying to find your own identity and place in the World, and on top of all the angst you’re a freaking God compared to humans. It’s going to make for a difficult childhood and in view of that I loved the interplay and relationship between Clark and Pa Kent, I liked the way he died to prove a point – further drumming home the mortal condition and how Superman came to understand it.

Then Superman went to Canada, met Louis Lane, entered a Ship, Zod came to Earth and after deus ex machina after machina, a snapped neck...

From the moment Zod came to Earth I was watching an action movie that should have starred the Hulk. You see, the Hulk is a living weapon of mass destruction. He goes on a rampage and because he is the ultimate victim of circumstance (that being his condition) we accept him as a hero - destruction and all. Had the Hulk caused all that destruction, ala Avengers, that would have been cool! Superman, not so much. Where were the examples of his moral compass, or heroics, or even a demonstration on a conscious level that people were dying as he flew through building after building. Where were the things that we identify as ‘quintessential Superman’? It was all a bit hard to swallow.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved the destruction. I have never seen so much wanton destruction in a film, ever. I imagine the Director walked into the special FX office and as he goes to sit down he undoes his belt, drops his trousers, then Y-fronts and says to the CGI man,

"You see these, I've just let it all hang out. I want you to do the same with this film".

The CGI man, having been inspired by the dangling brashness of the Director, then set about putting some of the best carnage and destruction ever witnessed in a film. I mean, after that could you really even call it Earth?

That said, by this stage, regardless of how cool it may have been, and it was, it wasn’t Superman.

Lastly, Superman also doesn’t kill. Ever.

DDD Vedict: - Torn.

Cast:
Henry Cavill – solid, deserves a second chance at fleshing out ‘his Superman’
Russell Crow and Costner – superb casting as Jor El and Pa Kent
Amy Adams – strong actress, but I did not enjoy her as Louis Lane. Would have made a better Lana Lang.
Michael Shannon – superb as General Zod
Laurence Fishburne – WTF, I mean seriously wtf!? That shit was not cool, terrible miscast.

The Geek bit
Powers
I like how the film portrayed and explained the Kryptonians powers. Naturally, due to Kryptons harsh environment and gravity, Kryptonians are stronger than humans and able to leap small buildings in a single bound.
Due to the radiation of Earth’s Sun, Superman has additional powers, which Zod eventually gained.

I liked that. It made sense my inner-fanboy was appeased.

Power level

Given that he flew up the gravitational beam of World Engine and escaped the black hole pull into the Phantom Zone.... I’d place this Superman's power potential around the Pre-Crisis Superman (or Silver - Age Superman who was basically a God) level but who had yet to realise it.

Superman in the film was also able to talk to his Dad in the vacuum of space. That was kinda cool, I like my Superman being able to do sh*t that actually doesn't make sense, keeps my 'suspension of disbelief' loose.

dondare

BREAKING AWAY.

It's a good film with bikes in it. It's possibly the best ever film ever made with bikes in it. I saw it once a long time ago and I watched it again at the weekend (which was also a long time ago, how is it still only Tuesday?) and I really think that you should watch it soon.

dhope

At the point I decided to see this movie I think it averaged about 80% on Rotten Tomatoes. It's down at 55% now which is approaching accurate.

Man of Steel.

Dear God, what a load of tripe. What Greg said, but I'm not sure how it got 5.5/10.
There's nothing dark or brooding about this incarnation of Superman. He doesn't struggle with his powers or his place in the world. He starts off as a kid wanting to help people but his dad tells him not to (humans are too useless to appreciate him), and then eventually he helps people, and humans continue to be too useless to appreciate him. Until the end, when the US army still don't trust him but he's going to give them a chance because he's American. Yawn.
Plot? See Superman 2. It's the same, almost entirely.
Zod is fleshed out a bit, doesn't just turn up to conquer, but to save his home planet... by destroying Earth. Supes justifies letting his home planet burn with "Krypton had it's chance". Really? Deep. Then they smash shit up for about 90 minutes and he kisses Lois and buys some glasses.

I nearly walked out. Only didn't because I was seeing it with a mate. At the end he mentioned he nearly walked out. D'oh. That's 2 hours I'm not going to get back.

dondare

notsoblue wrote:

Gussio wrote:

DOWNFALL.

Pfft. Who can be bothered to read subtitles for a German movie? They should have dubbed it into English.

http://vimeo.com/36287895

jejv

Photography buffs may appreciate the superior subtitling in this version.

keyser__soze

Okay, it's a trailer, not a film, but this had better be awesome. Sadly I reckon it'll turn out pants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPnY2NjSjrg

DonDaddyD

World War Z, great film. Great film. Silly solution to combat the zombie's (and in my World Zombie's can't run) but still, great film.

rick_chasey

The Hunt.

This film came out last year. It was recommended to my by good friend who's opinion I trust re-films, but I never managed to watch it. Luckily it has only just been released here in the US.

It is, by far and away, the most upsetting film I have ever seen. I left the cinema in a bit of an emotional mess, akin to that dread that rises when you're going through those grim lows in your life. It's extraordinarily powerful.

A danish drama, directed by Thomas Vinterberg (of dogma style Festen fame), about a man who is wrongly accused of being a peadophile.

It's well done. Typically Scandinavian in it's economy without feeling bare or undercooked, it's directed with care and intensity. With one or two minor dips, the writing is strong and particularly convincing, which only reinforces it's emotional power. An extremely strong performance from Mads Mikkelson too. He has to convey an awful lot without having to say much. He captures the dread, the isolation, the sheer awfulness of the situation through his face and body.

There is some light relief, though it's sparse and very short lived. The audience I was with found the light relief a little too funny - presumably through the relief of tension that had risen to unbearable levels.

You'll spend a lot of the film wincing, feeling uncomfortable, and feeling terrible. But if you like powerful and emotionally charged films, you won't find one better.

9.5/10.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Will look out for that. Sounds well worth it. Really enjoy the Scandi film style.

Gussio

We watched The Hunt on LOVEFiLM DVD last night. Agree with everything that you have written - still feeling mildly uncomfortable today. Powerful stuff.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

World War Z, great film. Great film. Silly solution to combat the zombie's (and in my World Zombie's can't run) but still, great film.

Have you read the book?

kelsen

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

World War Z, great film. Great film. Silly solution to combat the zombie's (and in my World Zombie's can't run) but still, great film.

Have you read the book?

I've read the book but haven't seen the film. Having watched the trailers featuring Brad Pitt, I'm thinking there's no resemblance between the two. Am I right?

asprilla

kelsen wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

World War Z, great film. Great film. Silly solution to combat the zombie's (and in my World Zombie's can't run) but still, great film.

Have you read the book?

I've read the book but haven't seen the film. Having watched the trailers featuring Brad Pitt, I'm thinking there's no resemblance between the two. Am I right?

They are both called World War Z.