The words "bizarre" and "mess" spring to mind. This is a seriously confused film; it doesn't know if it wants to be a dark and gritty like Sin City or light and campy, and ends up in a muddled middle ground. It has its moments, but there's too much lousy dialogue and painful acting to ignore. Samuel L. Jackson is the best thing about the film and even he is in full-on scenery-chewing mode.
VERDICT: Not the complete disaster some made it out to be, but not worth the price of a cinema ticket either.
Hmm. This is an interesting one. It is a good film, that is for sure. However, in my opinion it's nothing more than that. I certainly enjoyed watching it (although labelling it "The feel-good film of the decade" is pushing it considering the dark nature of some of the early scenes), but ultimately the film has become massively over-hyped and isn't deserving of all the awards it has and will receive. I'm actually getting dangerously close to the point where my opinion of the film will start to detriorate simply for this fact, which would be a shame as it is genuinely entertaining.
VERDICT: Watch it, but don't believe all the hype.
Is the acting good? Yes. Is it well made? Sure. Is it compelling? I guess. Does it deserve a Best Picture nomination? Not a chance.
VERDICT: It's alright, but you won't remember it for very long. For a film that deals with a big issue, it has little to say...
I thought this was great - Mickey Rourke is superb and would be fully deserving of an Oscar win on Sunday. I should point out that this isn't an easy film to watch, though - some of the extreme wrestling scenes are cringe-inducing (staple-gun, anyone?) and much of it is painfully sad - Rocky it ain't. Still, it's definitely one of the best films I've seen recently. And Bruce Springsteen was robbed of a Best Song nomination (and win).
VERDICT: Watch it!
This was actually really good, especially when you consider that it ultimately comes down to 2 men sitting down and talking to each other for the best part of the film. The acting is excellent across the board and I was surprised at how emotionally involving it was (certainly more so the Slumdog). This is actually my favourite of the films that were nominated for Best Picture - but that says more about the quality of the other nominees than it does about Frost/Nixon...
VERDICT: Well worth seeing.
This is an entertaining, well-acted, well-directed, but ultimately by-the-numbers Oscar-bait biopic. An excellent performance from Sean Penn is the only element that really stands out here.
VERDICT: Good, but not great.
I really liked this. It's very understated, but equally compelling and at times darkly comic. The acting is superb (Michael Shannon steals the show in 2 scenes on his way to an Oscar nomination) and the writing, direction and cinematography are all of a high standard. It is perhaps not a truly great film, but it would have made a more deserving Oscar nominee than those that actually were nominated.
VERDICT: Definitely worth seeing, but be warned: it's not exactly a "happy" film.
Tom Cruise takes on Hitler with one eye, three fingers and an American accent. I actually quite enjoyed this - it's not high art but it's entertaining enough to pass the time, and director Bryan Singer actually managed to generate a surprising amount of tension considering that we all know that the events depicted end in failure (it is a true story, after all). It's also good for playing Spot-The-Recognisable-British-Actor-Who's-Name-You-Can't-Quite-Remember.
VERDICT: Worth seeing if you've got nothing better to do.
I really wanted to like this. David Fincher is one of my favourite directors and the trailers had looked amazing. Ultimately, however, I was disappointed. It's still fairly good, but at nearly 3 hours it's far too long and most surprisingly, given the subject matter, emotionally very cold. There are scenes towards the end of the film that you would expect to be tear-jerkers, but I was left feeling, well, nothing. As much as I admire Fincher, I can't help but feel that he's just not designed to make sentimental movies.
From a technical standpoint, though, it's stunning. The CGI used to create the "old" Benjamin is truly seamless and utterly remarkable, but I'd argue that the scenes where Brad Pitt is made to look like an 18-year-old are even more impressive.
VERDICT: Decent, but unless you are prepared to give up a serious amount of time I'd think twice about watching.
Given that the vast majority of the films I've seen so far have been dark, miserable and depressing, I was in the mood for some light entertainment, and Bolt didn't disappoint. Whilst not in the same league as the best Pixar films, Bolt is still a lot of fun, with the hamster providing most of the standout moments. And I certainly felt more emotionally involved than I did with Benjamin Button...
As for the 3D aspect... I'm still not convinced. First of all, it still doesn't fully work if you aren't sitting in the right position and in this case I did actually get a bit of a headache. Secondly, unless the film actually exploits the technology by having things point or fly out the screen, you can very quickly stop noticing it, which is what happened with Bolt. Of course, if you do exploit the technology, then ultimately it just becomes a gimmick and detracts from the film. Either way, I don't honestly see the point. So to speak.
VERDICT: Good fun, but don't worry if you don't see it in 3D.
Hmm, that went on a bit longer than I expected... I can't guarantee that my film reviews from here on out will actually be much longer...
No comments:
Post a Comment