Since this year is a very good year for superhero fans, I figured this seemed appropriate.
This is the first poll I'm publishing on this blog. Comment either on here or on Facebook, whichever is easier. Rate them from 1 to 10, 1 being the best. I am opening this with a clear statement that it DOES NOT INCLUDE THE AVENGERS, because it is too new and many haven't gotten around to seeing it yet. So my poll won't include it (but it would be top of the list).
10-Batman Begins
9-X-men: First Class
8-X-men 2
7-300
6-Captain America: The First Avenger
5-Batman
4-Kick-Ass
3-Iron Man
2-Spiderman
1-The Dark Knight
Comment and let me know what your top 10 is.
Monday, 30 April 2012
Friday, 27 April 2012
Review of The Avengers Assemble
The Avengers Assemble is a 2012 American superhero movie directed by Joss Whedon. Starring Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evens, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston and Samuel L. Jackson. It a cross over movie including the characters from the movies Iron Man (Iron Man 2), The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America. This review contains mild spoilers. Nothing major.
I'm going to start with the fact that I personally have been excited for this movie since 2008 when it was hinted at at the end of 'Iron Man', so in my mind, it had huge expectation to live up to and it didn't disappoint. It's funny and its overflowing with greatly choreographed action sequences, what more could you ask for in a superhero movie? It is easily the best superhero movie ever made. There's simply no doubt about, the cast works perfectly together, the actions obviously great, the stories alright, the musics brilliant and everything looks epic. I saw it in IMAX (only the fourth film I've seen in IMAX, the others being 'Avatar', 'Tron Legacy' and 'Iron Man 2') and I have to say, it's the one that looks the best. For a post-conversion 3D movie, I was pleasantly surprised. By that I mean that it was actually the best 3D film I've ever seen! Everything was done so well, it gave the picture depth, stuff came flying out the screen (almost, it still could have been more eye popping). It made the sequences look more real.
One of the main concerns with the cast for this film was the fact that they all play larger than life characters whom most have had there own movie prior to this, so straight away Whedon was facing a challenge to ensure that each character had an equal amount of screen time, because obviously we already knew the characters (with the exception of Hawkeye with his first appearance only being a cameo), and every person has their favourite character before they go into the cinema, so he has to cater to everyone's needs. From my point of view, everyone got what they wanted, each character had a good amount of screen time. My main concern was that it was just going to turn into another Iron Man movie, but it didn't, however, some characters didn't get as much screen time as they could have, mostly Thor, Captain America (but I'm not saying that they were left out, they just weren't as much of a major role) and Hawkeye. Hawkeye is a victim of the story, even though part of the story revolves partially around him, he isn't used to the best that he could be.Jeremy Renner plays him brilliantly and the lack of Hawkeye at the beginning is made up by the end because he makes a bow and arrow look extremely cool. The two main stars are Iron Man and Bruce Banner/The Hulk. Downey Jr and Ruffalo are brilliant, both are really funny. Ruffalo's Hulk was the biggest surprise in the movie. He had big boots to fill (no that wasn't a Hulk pun), both Eric Bana (the name worked well for him) and Edward Norton played Banner really well (the movies may not have been brilliant, but they were). Ruffalo provides a fresh perspective on the character. He portrays him as an older, more wise version of Banner, who has came to terms with his condition, he almost understands it (accepted it even), but he still fears his other half. Ruffalo is the first actor to play both Banner and The Hulk in a movie (through the use of motion capture technology), so unlike the other movies, you can actually see the actors manor isms in The Hulk.
Some have complained about apparently Banner seems to just flick a switch and then he can now control The Hulk. I however think that this isn't the case, I think that now that he's older, he's began to understand that The Hulk is a part of him, it saved his life in the gamma accident. At the end of 'The Incredible Hulk' we see that Banner is still in there when The Hulk is unleashed, his mind is just overpowered, and near the end, he doesn't control The Hulk, but he manages to aim him. He directs his attention and anger towards his enemy, before he transforms. So that's what I think happens in 'The Avengers', he directs his anger, which in a way, almost controls The Hulk. Hope that made sense. Also many professional archers have complained about Hawkeyes method with his bow, to be quite honest, it doesn't really matter, it is barely noticeable. Most of his shots are impossible, it's obvious for everyone to see, but you have to bare in mind that this is a superhero movie, they can try and make it as realistic as possible, but that's what it is always going to be, so that gives the feeling of reality a knock before it even starts. Instead of complaining about little things like that, just enjoy it. You're complaining about how he holds a bow, when there's a Demi-God (at least I think that's what he is) fighting along side him, of course it's not going to be that realistic.
The story isn't spectacular, I'll admit that right now, but it doesn't have to be. It has a nice simple story, because the audience isn't going for a movie with a complex story that has to be thought about, they're going to see superheros fighting bad guys (and each other). So with the cast that they have, plus a great action choreographer, Whedon could afford a non-complicated story. It is everything it needs to be, action packed and funny (there are some really good lines throughout the film, some of them had the entire cinema laughing). Naturally with a movie like this, they want to leave it open for a sequel. As could be expected, there is a small scene after the movie to give us a hint as to what we can expect next. Even as a Marvel fan, I was surprised by what I saw. At first glimpse I thought I knew what it was, but then I was thrown by it. I still haven't worked out who/what it is yet. Which is a good thing because we don't want it to be too predictable.
So that is my near enough spoiler free review of 'The Avengers Assemble', hope you all liked it. Like I said, it is now my favourite superhero movie, and that's saying a lot because I never thought anything would top 'The Dark Knight'. It was also my best IMAX experience to date ('Tron Legacy' was very difficult to beat) and although there are a few problems through the journey, by the end, you don't care about them. For what mistakes are made, they are made up for in action by the end. On that basis, I am going to give 'The Avengers Assemble' a 10/10. Round of applause to Joss Whedon, you've done a real good job here.
I'm going to start with the fact that I personally have been excited for this movie since 2008 when it was hinted at at the end of 'Iron Man', so in my mind, it had huge expectation to live up to and it didn't disappoint. It's funny and its overflowing with greatly choreographed action sequences, what more could you ask for in a superhero movie? It is easily the best superhero movie ever made. There's simply no doubt about, the cast works perfectly together, the actions obviously great, the stories alright, the musics brilliant and everything looks epic. I saw it in IMAX (only the fourth film I've seen in IMAX, the others being 'Avatar', 'Tron Legacy' and 'Iron Man 2') and I have to say, it's the one that looks the best. For a post-conversion 3D movie, I was pleasantly surprised. By that I mean that it was actually the best 3D film I've ever seen! Everything was done so well, it gave the picture depth, stuff came flying out the screen (almost, it still could have been more eye popping). It made the sequences look more real.
One of the main concerns with the cast for this film was the fact that they all play larger than life characters whom most have had there own movie prior to this, so straight away Whedon was facing a challenge to ensure that each character had an equal amount of screen time, because obviously we already knew the characters (with the exception of Hawkeye with his first appearance only being a cameo), and every person has their favourite character before they go into the cinema, so he has to cater to everyone's needs. From my point of view, everyone got what they wanted, each character had a good amount of screen time. My main concern was that it was just going to turn into another Iron Man movie, but it didn't, however, some characters didn't get as much screen time as they could have, mostly Thor, Captain America (but I'm not saying that they were left out, they just weren't as much of a major role) and Hawkeye. Hawkeye is a victim of the story, even though part of the story revolves partially around him, he isn't used to the best that he could be.Jeremy Renner plays him brilliantly and the lack of Hawkeye at the beginning is made up by the end because he makes a bow and arrow look extremely cool. The two main stars are Iron Man and Bruce Banner/The Hulk. Downey Jr and Ruffalo are brilliant, both are really funny. Ruffalo's Hulk was the biggest surprise in the movie. He had big boots to fill (no that wasn't a Hulk pun), both Eric Bana (the name worked well for him) and Edward Norton played Banner really well (the movies may not have been brilliant, but they were). Ruffalo provides a fresh perspective on the character. He portrays him as an older, more wise version of Banner, who has came to terms with his condition, he almost understands it (accepted it even), but he still fears his other half. Ruffalo is the first actor to play both Banner and The Hulk in a movie (through the use of motion capture technology), so unlike the other movies, you can actually see the actors manor isms in The Hulk.
Some have complained about apparently Banner seems to just flick a switch and then he can now control The Hulk. I however think that this isn't the case, I think that now that he's older, he's began to understand that The Hulk is a part of him, it saved his life in the gamma accident. At the end of 'The Incredible Hulk' we see that Banner is still in there when The Hulk is unleashed, his mind is just overpowered, and near the end, he doesn't control The Hulk, but he manages to aim him. He directs his attention and anger towards his enemy, before he transforms. So that's what I think happens in 'The Avengers', he directs his anger, which in a way, almost controls The Hulk. Hope that made sense. Also many professional archers have complained about Hawkeyes method with his bow, to be quite honest, it doesn't really matter, it is barely noticeable. Most of his shots are impossible, it's obvious for everyone to see, but you have to bare in mind that this is a superhero movie, they can try and make it as realistic as possible, but that's what it is always going to be, so that gives the feeling of reality a knock before it even starts. Instead of complaining about little things like that, just enjoy it. You're complaining about how he holds a bow, when there's a Demi-God (at least I think that's what he is) fighting along side him, of course it's not going to be that realistic.
The story isn't spectacular, I'll admit that right now, but it doesn't have to be. It has a nice simple story, because the audience isn't going for a movie with a complex story that has to be thought about, they're going to see superheros fighting bad guys (and each other). So with the cast that they have, plus a great action choreographer, Whedon could afford a non-complicated story. It is everything it needs to be, action packed and funny (there are some really good lines throughout the film, some of them had the entire cinema laughing). Naturally with a movie like this, they want to leave it open for a sequel. As could be expected, there is a small scene after the movie to give us a hint as to what we can expect next. Even as a Marvel fan, I was surprised by what I saw. At first glimpse I thought I knew what it was, but then I was thrown by it. I still haven't worked out who/what it is yet. Which is a good thing because we don't want it to be too predictable.
So that is my near enough spoiler free review of 'The Avengers Assemble', hope you all liked it. Like I said, it is now my favourite superhero movie, and that's saying a lot because I never thought anything would top 'The Dark Knight'. It was also my best IMAX experience to date ('Tron Legacy' was very difficult to beat) and although there are a few problems through the journey, by the end, you don't care about them. For what mistakes are made, they are made up for in action by the end. On that basis, I am going to give 'The Avengers Assemble' a 10/10. Round of applause to Joss Whedon, you've done a real good job here.
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Review of The Howling Reborn
The Howling Reborn is a 2011 werewolf horror based off the novel 'The Howling II'. The film is written and directed by Joe Nimziki and was released direct to video on 18th October 2011 in the United States and 9th April 2012 in the UK. The film stars Lindsey Shaw (Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide) and Landon Liboiron (Terra Nova). The film is in no way related to the original film 'The Howling', and from what I've heard, the film actually has very little in common with the novel it is based on, other than the fact that it is about werewolves (not quite sure how that works to be quite honest). Warning, this review contains mild spoilers!
This is my first direct to dvd review. I figured that since it only got released in this country this month, it's classed as a new release so it could be worth a watch. I'm going to straight away put some thoughts on the table before I get started. Firstly, I love werewolf flick, An American Werewolf In London is one of my favourite movies ever made, there is definitely not enough of these movies being made (and the likes of Twilight are destroying the appeal of werewolves). Secondly, I haven't watched 'The Howling' all the way through, when I tried to, it was late, I'd had a long day, and I fell asleep, human error, never quite got around to attempting it again. Luckily for me, as I began watching this film, it became apparent that it is in no way linked to 'The Howling'. Third, and finally, direct to dvd is always fairly low budget, so don't expect any amazing transformations, or end products.
Alright then, lets get started. I liked it. I really did. There's a lot wrong with it, personally I think that all comes down to budget, because most of the scenes that could have been improved, would have cost a bomb. Any werewolf film isn't cheap, due to the need for convincing costumes and special effects.I'm struggling to actually coherently put together a review for this that doesn't just knock the movie for being low budget, and on that note, I'm going to say that the acting is good, Landom Liboiron is a great young actor, it's a shame we don't see enough of this side of him in Terra Nova, and it's nice to see Lindsey Shaw outside of childrens television, a good change of scenery for her. The pair of them have good chemistry, there's a deep love story in this film and these two play it out so well, it shows something that goes much deeper than your typical high school romance film (by the way, it's set in a high school, but don't let that put you off). If I was to sum it up, it's like two people who, suddenly find each other, and have a bond which keeps them together, whilst around them everything is changing, including one of them (sounds very twilighty I know). The film also touches on other issues that child raising and the pressures a teen life. It tries to connect with a teen audience through the main characters narration. I did laugh a bit however, when the main character begins going through his 'changes', it has a very 'Spiderman' feel about it. Trust me, if you watch it you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want to give too much away, because the story in it isn't bad. Some parts you can work out yourself if you're really paying attention, but a few bits do catch you off guard.
Now the part which everybody looks forward to in a werewolf flick, the werewolves themselves. Basically,they look awful. The transformation is nothing to be proud of, I would even go as far as saying that An American Werewolf In Paris had a better transformation than this film (for those who haven't seen it, the transformation in that film is awful compared to its predecessor), and the end product is nearly laughable. Again, all down to budget. I'm not going to completely knock it because there is one point which I really liked about the werewolves in this film, it's something new (kind of); there is a clear difference between the 'ground' werewolves and the 'alpha', and the 'ground' wolves especially gives us almost an original design to look at for a lycanthrope (it almost looks vampirish), whereas the 'alpha' looks more like your tradition werewolf. It looks very much that the one used in the TV series 'Being Human' Another thing I liked was the fact that the 'alpha' werewolf has a tail, you don't see many werewolf designs with tails anymore, I thought it was strange seeing a werewolf on Skyrim with a tail, they should do it more often (just a thought). One thing I always look out for in werewolf film are the feet of the wolf, when it's a costume, the feet and legs are always a big give away and spoils the whole idea of realism. It even happens on big budget film like 'Underworld' (not as much in 'Underworld Evolution'). What I mean by this is that when you look at the feet, when it's an actor in a costume, they make almost no effort to make the feel look like paws, they think you won't notice and they just use trousers covered in fake fur that stretches from the waste down to the bottom of the foot. It just looks really fake. And another thing, I noticed in this film and in 'Being Human' and 'Twilight : Breaking Dawn Part One', they always give the werewolves huge gums. Seriously, it's obvious they're trying to emphasize the teeth, but it looks so stupid, it's like the design team just ran out of enough latex to finish off the snout and lips.
This review appears to have turned into a rant. I hope between the ranting you can see that parts of this film shine through, but it is held back by a low budget, hence is being a direct to dvd release. It was never going to be a blockbuster, but it's a good watch, well worth it if you've got nothing else to do like me. I'd give it a 6/10.
This is my first direct to dvd review. I figured that since it only got released in this country this month, it's classed as a new release so it could be worth a watch. I'm going to straight away put some thoughts on the table before I get started. Firstly, I love werewolf flick, An American Werewolf In London is one of my favourite movies ever made, there is definitely not enough of these movies being made (and the likes of Twilight are destroying the appeal of werewolves). Secondly, I haven't watched 'The Howling' all the way through, when I tried to, it was late, I'd had a long day, and I fell asleep, human error, never quite got around to attempting it again. Luckily for me, as I began watching this film, it became apparent that it is in no way linked to 'The Howling'. Third, and finally, direct to dvd is always fairly low budget, so don't expect any amazing transformations, or end products.
Alright then, lets get started. I liked it. I really did. There's a lot wrong with it, personally I think that all comes down to budget, because most of the scenes that could have been improved, would have cost a bomb. Any werewolf film isn't cheap, due to the need for convincing costumes and special effects.I'm struggling to actually coherently put together a review for this that doesn't just knock the movie for being low budget, and on that note, I'm going to say that the acting is good, Landom Liboiron is a great young actor, it's a shame we don't see enough of this side of him in Terra Nova, and it's nice to see Lindsey Shaw outside of childrens television, a good change of scenery for her. The pair of them have good chemistry, there's a deep love story in this film and these two play it out so well, it shows something that goes much deeper than your typical high school romance film (by the way, it's set in a high school, but don't let that put you off). If I was to sum it up, it's like two people who, suddenly find each other, and have a bond which keeps them together, whilst around them everything is changing, including one of them (sounds very twilighty I know). The film also touches on other issues that child raising and the pressures a teen life. It tries to connect with a teen audience through the main characters narration. I did laugh a bit however, when the main character begins going through his 'changes', it has a very 'Spiderman' feel about it. Trust me, if you watch it you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want to give too much away, because the story in it isn't bad. Some parts you can work out yourself if you're really paying attention, but a few bits do catch you off guard.
Now the part which everybody looks forward to in a werewolf flick, the werewolves themselves. Basically,they look awful. The transformation is nothing to be proud of, I would even go as far as saying that An American Werewolf In Paris had a better transformation than this film (for those who haven't seen it, the transformation in that film is awful compared to its predecessor), and the end product is nearly laughable. Again, all down to budget. I'm not going to completely knock it because there is one point which I really liked about the werewolves in this film, it's something new (kind of); there is a clear difference between the 'ground' werewolves and the 'alpha', and the 'ground' wolves especially gives us almost an original design to look at for a lycanthrope (it almost looks vampirish), whereas the 'alpha' looks more like your tradition werewolf. It looks very much that the one used in the TV series 'Being Human' Another thing I liked was the fact that the 'alpha' werewolf has a tail, you don't see many werewolf designs with tails anymore, I thought it was strange seeing a werewolf on Skyrim with a tail, they should do it more often (just a thought). One thing I always look out for in werewolf film are the feet of the wolf, when it's a costume, the feet and legs are always a big give away and spoils the whole idea of realism. It even happens on big budget film like 'Underworld' (not as much in 'Underworld Evolution'). What I mean by this is that when you look at the feet, when it's an actor in a costume, they make almost no effort to make the feel look like paws, they think you won't notice and they just use trousers covered in fake fur that stretches from the waste down to the bottom of the foot. It just looks really fake. And another thing, I noticed in this film and in 'Being Human' and 'Twilight : Breaking Dawn Part One', they always give the werewolves huge gums. Seriously, it's obvious they're trying to emphasize the teeth, but it looks so stupid, it's like the design team just ran out of enough latex to finish off the snout and lips.
This review appears to have turned into a rant. I hope between the ranting you can see that parts of this film shine through, but it is held back by a low budget, hence is being a direct to dvd release. It was never going to be a blockbuster, but it's a good watch, well worth it if you've got nothing else to do like me. I'd give it a 6/10.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Review of The Cabin In The Woods
The Cabin In The Woods is a 2012 horror film directed by Drew Goddard and produced by Joss Whedon (the pair also wrote the film together). It stars Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford, Jesse Williams, Anna Hutchinson and Fran Kranz. The film was due to release by MGM in 2012, but was delayed due to ongoing financial difficulties at the studio. Eventually the film was bought by Paramount and the film was released on April 13th 2012.
I going to begin with the fact that the timing of this release couldn't be anymore perfect; with the release of The Avengers Assemble at the end of the month this film gives the audience a chance to sample some of Joss Whedon's work before his masterpiece comes to cinemas. We also get a chance to witness a bit more of Chris Hemsworth, who in my opinion, was perfectly cast as Thor and it is a good opportunity to raise some more interest in him before the 26th April.
Now onto the film itself, I have to admit, it was far better than I expected. I went into the cinema expecting a typical slasher mover with what appeared to be a game show type enemy organising the events. I was pleasantly surprised by what I watched. I don't want to spoil the film for people, so I'm going to keep as much as I can about the contents of the film out of this review. This is because an important part of the experience of The Cabin In The Woods is working out what is going on. It's one of those horrors that sets out to be funny, and isn't funny by accident like most horrors are (normally that is down to bad acting and hilarious kills), the whole movie acts like a criticism to its predecessors is the horror franchise. By this I mean that there is a lot in the film that is clearly a reference to an older horror movie. However these little references do not drive the film, it doesn't make it merely a rip off of older films, they are there as a sort of test for fans of horror, as a way of sparking interest (throughout the film I was trying to pin point what came from what movie). It engages the audience in a way that most horrors do not, and that is that we actually witness plans being put into action against the main characters, we see the manipulation that normally isn't noticeable in a horror until the plot is revealed at the end. Naturally there are parts of the story that aren't revealed until the end, just like with any movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised with the ending, it is predictable yet surprising at the same time. Not anti-climatic like most horrors, which over time, have become boringly predictable.
WARNING THIS PARAGRAPH INCLUDES SPOILERS!
One bit of the film that I particularly enjoyed was the scene near the beginning when the main characters are given a little push to go down into the cellar, which turns out to be filled with old relics. This whole idea was brilliant, in that the main characters are choosing their own fates, which shows the potential of an idea like this one (it could provide endless possibilities for outcomes). They pick a certain relic, and the creatures related to that relic are released. It is a fantastic bit of writing.
Continuing with the non-spoiler section of this review. The cast was perfect for this film, Hemsworth and Williams giving the best male performances in my opinion and Connolly leading with the best female performance. The film has the typical chemistry for a horror, with particular cast members playing the typical roles (to a certain extent) and the cabin acting as the center point of events with it being out in the middle of nowhere with no help for miles in any direction (it's perfect!). The main thing that sets it apart from other horrors is the strong story behind it, it's the closest thing we've had to an original horror movie in a long time.
It's an annoying film to review because you don't want to give much away, otherwise to surprise isn't there anymore, but overall the film is definitely worth a watch. I'm not saying that it is the perfect movie, there are definitely some parts that could have been done better, for example it could have been a bit longer, it is only an hour and a half long, which in my opinion is quite short for a feature film (it's the same complaint I have about Underworld Awakening). Overall, it is a lot of fun, not too scary but very entertaining which makes it all worthwhile. I'd give this movie a solid 9/10. It probably won't seem as good if I see it a second time, because the surprise is gone.
I going to begin with the fact that the timing of this release couldn't be anymore perfect; with the release of The Avengers Assemble at the end of the month this film gives the audience a chance to sample some of Joss Whedon's work before his masterpiece comes to cinemas. We also get a chance to witness a bit more of Chris Hemsworth, who in my opinion, was perfectly cast as Thor and it is a good opportunity to raise some more interest in him before the 26th April.
Now onto the film itself, I have to admit, it was far better than I expected. I went into the cinema expecting a typical slasher mover with what appeared to be a game show type enemy organising the events. I was pleasantly surprised by what I watched. I don't want to spoil the film for people, so I'm going to keep as much as I can about the contents of the film out of this review. This is because an important part of the experience of The Cabin In The Woods is working out what is going on. It's one of those horrors that sets out to be funny, and isn't funny by accident like most horrors are (normally that is down to bad acting and hilarious kills), the whole movie acts like a criticism to its predecessors is the horror franchise. By this I mean that there is a lot in the film that is clearly a reference to an older horror movie. However these little references do not drive the film, it doesn't make it merely a rip off of older films, they are there as a sort of test for fans of horror, as a way of sparking interest (throughout the film I was trying to pin point what came from what movie). It engages the audience in a way that most horrors do not, and that is that we actually witness plans being put into action against the main characters, we see the manipulation that normally isn't noticeable in a horror until the plot is revealed at the end. Naturally there are parts of the story that aren't revealed until the end, just like with any movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised with the ending, it is predictable yet surprising at the same time. Not anti-climatic like most horrors, which over time, have become boringly predictable.
WARNING THIS PARAGRAPH INCLUDES SPOILERS!
One bit of the film that I particularly enjoyed was the scene near the beginning when the main characters are given a little push to go down into the cellar, which turns out to be filled with old relics. This whole idea was brilliant, in that the main characters are choosing their own fates, which shows the potential of an idea like this one (it could provide endless possibilities for outcomes). They pick a certain relic, and the creatures related to that relic are released. It is a fantastic bit of writing.
Continuing with the non-spoiler section of this review. The cast was perfect for this film, Hemsworth and Williams giving the best male performances in my opinion and Connolly leading with the best female performance. The film has the typical chemistry for a horror, with particular cast members playing the typical roles (to a certain extent) and the cabin acting as the center point of events with it being out in the middle of nowhere with no help for miles in any direction (it's perfect!). The main thing that sets it apart from other horrors is the strong story behind it, it's the closest thing we've had to an original horror movie in a long time.
It's an annoying film to review because you don't want to give much away, otherwise to surprise isn't there anymore, but overall the film is definitely worth a watch. I'm not saying that it is the perfect movie, there are definitely some parts that could have been done better, for example it could have been a bit longer, it is only an hour and a half long, which in my opinion is quite short for a feature film (it's the same complaint I have about Underworld Awakening). Overall, it is a lot of fun, not too scary but very entertaining which makes it all worthwhile. I'd give this movie a solid 9/10. It probably won't seem as good if I see it a second time, because the surprise is gone.
Friday, 6 April 2012
Review of Titanic 3D
Just like many boyfriends throughout the world, I have a girlfriend whom is in love with Leonardo DiCaprio and the whole love story of Titanic. However, I always enjoyed the movie when it was on TV and I've always wanted to experience more of James Cameron's work on the big screen. Before I get started on this review I am going to state that Titanic is one from my list of five classic movies I want to see in the cinema. These five films being Back to The Future (seen remastered on the 25th Anniversary), Jurassic Park (seen on re-release in 2011), Titanic (obviously seen the 3D re-release), Star Wars Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back and Saving Private Ryan. Also I am not actually going to review the film itself, purely because it has been out so long that anyone who wants to see it, will have seen it by now. I am just reviewing the 3D conversion and the cinematic experience.
Firstly, this film is brilliant in the cinema, the atmosphere enhances the whole experience, the music, the sheer size of Titanic, the crushing forces of the water is magnetized. You feel a lot more involved than you do when you're just watching it on the TV at home. Now the 3D conversion of this film has been done fairly well, obviously the film was never made with 3D in mind, so there's no eye popping scenes with items flying out of the screen (but the scene where the guy falls and hits off the propeller is still highly amusing, and looks great in 3D), so the 3D in this film has been coordinated in order to make the things on screen look more real. This is most obvious in scenes between just two people (Jack and Rose for example), the 3D clearly defines the distance between the two people. Apart from that there isn't much else I can say about the 3D, apart from that it emphasizes the size of the ship, especially when it is sinking.
However, everything that is positive about the film I sore today, is the film itself. The 3D conversion may have made it look good, but for all I know, it probably looked brilliant in the cinemas when it first came out. A 3D conversion wasn't necessary, it was purely a way to make more money out of the film. It was bound to get a re-release anyway because of the 100 Year Anniversary of the sinking, so James Cameron decided to make it 3D like everything else coming out at the moment. Nothing decent ever seems to come out of converting a film into 3D, the only reason we go to see 3D re-releases is because we like the films they're bringing back out.
So in conclusion, it's a good film, one of those films you have to see before you die, the 3D makes it look slightly better, but it's not necessary (they probably would have made just as much just releasing it as it was). I sore the first showing of it at my local cinema, and it wasn't even half full, so it's debatable how successful this re-release will be. As a film, I rate Titanic an 8/10, it's a classic, a bit long (I was knackered by the end of it), but a really good piece of film work; but as a 3D conversion, I would only give it a 4/10 at the most.
Firstly, this film is brilliant in the cinema, the atmosphere enhances the whole experience, the music, the sheer size of Titanic, the crushing forces of the water is magnetized. You feel a lot more involved than you do when you're just watching it on the TV at home. Now the 3D conversion of this film has been done fairly well, obviously the film was never made with 3D in mind, so there's no eye popping scenes with items flying out of the screen (but the scene where the guy falls and hits off the propeller is still highly amusing, and looks great in 3D), so the 3D in this film has been coordinated in order to make the things on screen look more real. This is most obvious in scenes between just two people (Jack and Rose for example), the 3D clearly defines the distance between the two people. Apart from that there isn't much else I can say about the 3D, apart from that it emphasizes the size of the ship, especially when it is sinking.
However, everything that is positive about the film I sore today, is the film itself. The 3D conversion may have made it look good, but for all I know, it probably looked brilliant in the cinemas when it first came out. A 3D conversion wasn't necessary, it was purely a way to make more money out of the film. It was bound to get a re-release anyway because of the 100 Year Anniversary of the sinking, so James Cameron decided to make it 3D like everything else coming out at the moment. Nothing decent ever seems to come out of converting a film into 3D, the only reason we go to see 3D re-releases is because we like the films they're bringing back out.
So in conclusion, it's a good film, one of those films you have to see before you die, the 3D makes it look slightly better, but it's not necessary (they probably would have made just as much just releasing it as it was). I sore the first showing of it at my local cinema, and it wasn't even half full, so it's debatable how successful this re-release will be. As a film, I rate Titanic an 8/10, it's a classic, a bit long (I was knackered by the end of it), but a really good piece of film work; but as a 3D conversion, I would only give it a 4/10 at the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)