1364 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

Alice in Wonderland - 6,5/10

Just went to it with a couple of friends in the cinema. I didn't know what I was going into at all, oblivious of the fact it is a 3d picture and a part 2/3 of which I never saw part 1 and I never heard the story before either. They hired Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp to play for them typical nutjobs, and as usual neither of them are afraid to dress up in about the weirdest outfit you can imagine . The 3d element wasn't very necessary and seemed more like a forced addition compared to Avatar where it did add an extra layer of depth (extremely bad joke). Overall though, it was a funny little movie with nice effects to bring the Wonderland world into the cinema. Not exactly a worldbeater but fun nonetheless.

[Libains]

One key difference between this and Avatar is that Avatar was filmed strictly in 3D, and then converted for 2D goodness afterwards. Alice in Wonderland, 3D was tagged on right at the end when they saw how well Avatar was doing. It's not a coincidence most of the major blockbusters this year are being turned into 3D ones.

[Chyros]

AJ, on 30 Mar 2010, 2:09, said:

One key difference between this and Avatar is that Avatar was filmed strictly in 3D, and then converted for 2D goodness afterwards. Alice in Wonderland, 3D was tagged on right at the end when they saw how well Avatar was doing.

Yeah, it kind of seemed like that as well.

[Mr.Choppy]

The bounty hunter

1/10

This was a spur of the moment cinema trip without looking at reviews or even the movie poster. I trusted my friends recommendation and went with it (re assuring myself its unlikely to be another Jennifer Aniston rom- com with a butch film title like that!). That friend forgot to tell me it starred Jennifer Aniston doing her friends act and repeatable, hate you, fall in love, hate you and live happily ever after routine. One person is shot hence the generous score.

Lesson learnt = Never judge a film by its title.

Edited by Mr.Choppy, 03 April 2010 - 22:07.

[Libains]

Dear John - 0.1/10

DISCLAIMER: I have watched this film so that you don't have to. Do not subject yourself to this under any circumstances!

Now those of you whom know me will understand that of all the people here, this film is most likely to be up my street. It's emotional, it's heart-wrenching, and it has all of the apparent qualities of a film that takes you on a bit of an emotional rollercoaster ride. The adverts show it as one of those 'true love never dies stories'. Unfortunately, the director saw all of this coming and decided that it would be boring to create a predictable film out of it. Instead, they went down the road of 'lets ruin it'. And boy how they succeeded.

The story is.... weak, to say the least. How they managed to drag the story out into two hours of mind-numbing cinema, I will never know. If you've seen a trailer for this (and if you live in the UK you likely will have considering how much airtime they've been given) then you know the story. Soldier falls for girl during two week leave, girl falls for him, they send letters, he comes back violent, depressed and angry, she dumps him via 'Dear John' letter (Dear John letters are breakup letters sent to military personnel by their wives/gfs). He doesn't cope very well, blah di blah, end of story, congratulations you've now wasted about £6 hard earned cash.

The acting is... feeble, to say the least. Channing Tatum's acting is so bland that they could have used a stunt double for the entire film, then just photoshopped a picture of his head onto the double, and you'd have got more acting and raw emotion from that. He simply can't change emotion at all, whether he's been shot, or whether he's deeply overwhelmed with love for his better half. When I say better half, I don't really mean it. Amanda Seygfried's acting is on par with Tatum's in that it lacks any form of emotion, energy or vibrancy. He accidentally walks into a fire and burns his foot, and her expression is: "whoa" said at about the same volume of a whisper. It's really quite... pathetic. Further to that, the chemistry between the two doesn't exist! I've had more meaningful relationships with my left thumb. And more emotional connection with my right thumb. The supporting cast is also incredibly feeble, and the whole thing just feels like it's been forced together - there's nothing in there that actually holds it together.

The script is... disastrous, to say the least. The acting may be no good, but that is partly down to the script - it just doesn't work, and it all feels awkward and forced. It's just... it's absolutely no good whatsoever. Not worth the paper it's written on.

Finally, the camera/music. This is all that prevents it from being a 0/10. The camera has the occasional high point, but for the most part, you can't do anything useful with the cameras in such a slow film. The music is quite soothing and relaxing on it's own, but in the film it feels pathetic, trying even more desperately to force a tear from your eye while evocative moments happen in the script. When I say evocative moments in this script, the music kicks in every other minute, because the highs of this film are roughly the same level of other films' lows. Example: their first kiss. Followed by EVERY OTHER ONE AFTER.

Oh, and if anyone can tell me how it can suddenly pour with rain and cloud over in thirty seconds from clear blue sky, please, tell me so I can give you a cookie.

At the end of the day, don't see this film. Unless you are in a relationship and want some sympathy sex afterwards. That is all it is good for. Or perhaps we can hand it over to some terrorists to use as a new torture method.

Edited by AJ, 17 April 2010 - 16:15.

[RaiDK]

Wizard, on 29 Mar 2010, 18:30, said:

GI Joe 2/10

If it hadn't been for the fact that there were two rather attractive actresses in this film I would have given it nothing. A perfect way to ruin a much loved childhood series, from which I personally owned every single toy they produced. Horrific storyline, some of the most atrocious acting I have ever seen (honestly I've seen porn with better performances), overused special effects, terrible production values and some of the worst lines in a movie.

Avoid at all costs.

Agreed. What a disappointment that was, everything about it screamed GENERIC ACTION MOVIE GIVEN THE GI JOE NAME AT THE LAST MINUTE. Christ, they even ruined Cobra Commander.

Also, Channing Tatum has to be the most uncharismatic actor ever.

Edited by RaiDK, 19 April 2010 - 13:01.

[Ion Cannon!]

Kick Ass

Yes it looks like a horribly cheesy film, but prepared to be suprised, its good - really good. Apart from some uneccessary guy gets the girl mumbo jumbo this is an excellent film, and even thats dealt with in a humourous way. The acting is brilliant, the plot witty and the fightscenes a treat, whatever you think of this film, it deserves your attention.

9.5/10

[BeefJeRKy]

I've heard nothing but good things about this. Unfortunately I have no idea when this is coming to theaters :(

[Brad]

Oh yes, I watched it quite a while ago, and I can only mirror what Ion said.

Its positively brilliant.

[Major Fuckup]

Ion Cannon!, on 22 Apr 2010, 8:43, said:

Kick Ass

Yes it looks like a horribly cheesy film, but prepared to be suprised, its good - really good. Apart from some uneccessary guy gets the girl mumbo jumbo this is an excellent film, and even thats dealt with in a humourous way. The acting is brilliant, the plot witty and the fightscenes a treat, whatever you think of this film, it deserves your attention.

9.5/10

I would say its a good one to see as well 9/10

[Brad]

Prince Of Persia: 8/10

It would have been a 9 or a 10 if it weren't for the bloody ending; (though I will not ruin it for you).
It builds up to be a brilliant film, and then just completely fucks itself up it's own arse at the end. I do, however, still recommend watching it. As a person who hasn't played any of the games, I enjoyed it very much so.

[WarMenace]

Iron Man 2

8/10 - Too much talking, the fight scenes were either short or at the end.

[Alias]

Too much talking? Some of us actually like plot and character development. And I actually thought that Iron Man 2 didn't have enough development. :|

[BeefJeRKy]

Iroman 2 had too many things going on all at the same time. Lacked enough character development apart from Tony himself.

[WarMenace]

Oh, I got confused, one minute they were

Spoiler

talking about Stark quiting the company and reappointing that hot assistant as CEO

,

Spoiler

Iron Man getting some new life chip in the form of a triangle

, then

Spoiler

that black guy wears one of Iron Man's armor and all of a sudden Whiplash comes out and tries to kill them

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Ghost Town (2010) - 2/10

Awful, awful film. I read the description and I saw cowboy ghosts, my immediate thought was "ugh, this is probably gonna be a load of crap", I was right. In principle period horrors could be pretty awesome, but there are very few good ones out there... let alone cowboy ones. I didn't have much to watch so I decided to give it a whirl, against my better judgement. Excessive amounts of hand-held camera. Extremely bad audio dubbing in places. Stereotypical jock/geek characters that I ended wishing would just die already.

Spoiler

Unfortunately some survived. :(

Predictable romance. Shocking visuals, it looks like it was from the 90's. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Edited by Bob, 28 May 2010 - 14:27.

[Libains]

That one is an 09 film Bawb Took me a long time to find it mind, it's so bad nobody has even bothered with a Wikipedia article on it...

The Runaway Jury:

8/10

I like John Grisham films. I also like his books. They're pacey, but they require a bit of intellect to sit and watch/read, and ofc they do have some pull over me being all legally-based. While a little dumbed down, the Runaway Jury is Grisham at his best - taking a believable legal scenario and distorting it just enough so that it's interesting to the public, but still believable in a legal scenario. And this one has John Cusak in it, along with Gene Hackman (who is as always, epic). S'all good for me, although some of the legal side isn't perfect, so I wouldn't give it more than an 8. If you know bugger all about law, you could probably rank it a little higher.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

AJ, on 28 May 2010, 15:37, said:

That one is an 09 film Bawb Took me a long time to find it mind, it's so bad nobody has even bothered with a Wikipedia article on it...

I know it's an '09 film, but it's set in 2010. It was called Ghost Town (2010) on sky (I'm guessing because there is already a film(s) with that title)

[Libains]

Trying to differentiate it from this one: http://en.wikipedia....ost_Town_(film)

Ricky Gervais, good, but not a great film.

[NergiZed]

Well, I've got three lined up:

How to Train a Dragon:

ok, the movie's title is pretty bad, but everything else about the movie is superb. It's a little thin plot-wise, but there are a few surprises in there, including one that had me stunned because I didn't expect something like that to happen in a Family-friendly film.

All the characters are pretty well developed and unique. The most expressive character in the entire movie however, is the one that can't talk, and this is where the movie shines. It does a wonderful job of conveying ideas and emotions of the dragon Toothless, in a very similar fashion that Wall-e, Stitch and other mute characters did. Throughout the movie, Toothless transforms from a noble, but hostile dragon, to a likable, curious and sometimes absolutely adorable character. Few films have a more likable character, the only regrettable part is that there wasn't more moments where the main character interacts with Toothless.

The designs of the other dragons are rather cartoony/stupid and some of the voice actors are mediocre, including the main-character's love interest, but for the most part, it's a very good movie. Like most good movies out there, it has an underlying theme/moral and it's conveyed pretty well.

All-in-all it's a great 3D film surpassed only by the Pixar greats like Wall-E, Monster's Inc. and Up.

Score: 8.9/10

Ironman 2:

Eh, I don't really need to say much about it. The first movie was made to introduce Ironman into the film industry and to the movie-going crowd, and it did a fairly good job of it. Ironman 2 was made to appease the comic-book reading crowd and has a bunch of plots and characters tied into the movie that would confuse those whom haven't read the comics.

All in all, there's too much going on, and too little time to develop the plot, and the entire movie feels rushed and disjointed towards the end. After watching the movie, I no longer had the desire to watch anything else with Ironman in it.

Score: 6.9/10

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Like any sane person, I walked into this movie with incredibly low expectations. I expected a shit-sandwich served on a plate made of Uranium with rabid ferrets as napkins. To my complete and utter surprise, I got an average burger, served on a normal plate, with standard napkins, and even a drink on the side. However, when I took a bite, it was some weird burger that I've never had before, and the drink is like some sort of weird strawberry mango juice. What I'm trying to say that PoP:SoT is an action movie, that is decent but by no means normal.

It's not very well put-together, but this almost helps it as it is completely unpredictable. There were quite a few instances in the movie where I was completely and utterly expecting a stereotypical movie event to happen (like, the main character and the love interest to kiss in a slow and dramatic fashion) and something else entirely happens. The characters are all over the place, some minor characters are very well developed, whilst some main characters are pretty 'meh' due to mediocre acting, though the prince and the princess are very solid characters. Oh yeah, and there's short-term time travel, I don't think I know of a movie that's done that before. Also, you could probably create some sort of drinking game for whenever the Dagger of Time changes hands. Heh, and then there's the ending, I was seriously like :"Did that just happen? Lol, I got trolled hard."

All-in-all, it's a weird one. I want to call it 'good', but I'm not sure. I think I'll just call it a surprisingly fun movie (as in, it doesn't take itself too seriously and that it's full of surprises). In fact, it's so unique and odd that I recommend it. Whether it's 'good' or 'bad' is for you to determine, but I think you'll walk out of that movie thinking 'I've never seen something like that before'.

Score: 6.9/10

Disclaimer: not all people have the same tastes; I care not for eye-candy and CG-spectacles (which is why I was kind of 'meh' towards Avatar), I'm interested in a good plot, well-developed characters, uniqueness, mind-fuckery, and surprises. Which is proly why I gave Ironman 2 and PoP:SoT the same score.

Edited by NergiZed, 07 June 2010 - 14:10.

[Libains]

Robin Hood (Tha' new one with Russell Crowe and whatnot):

To be honest, it's not entirely what I expected. I wanted more of Gladiator set in a new day and age, and while there are bits of that in this, it's just not all there. Ridley Scott has never been particularly good at storytelling unless it is backed up by a severe ton of action. This was sadly not. The characters also, did not just seem to live up to what we know and love of Robin Hood - Robin wasn't what we know, Maid Marian took the newly typical approach of being the uber-strong woman due to this new wave of feminism that's being dragged around through cinemas at the moment, and the rest of his motley crew (John/Will/etc) just didn't have enough time to develop. The only good part about it was that the enemy were the French, and we do trounce them in the end rather well. But this seems to be a coming-of-age story for robin Hood & Co, and while I can see why it was created in this manner, it just doesn't feel right. I just want the pwnage archer doing a Gladiator-esque kill fest if I'm brutally honest. It's also interesting to note that the incredibly early death of Richard the Lionheart completely rewrites the damn story.

While a good flm, not what I imagine you'll know or expect. 7/10

[RaiDK]

Toy Story 3
10/10

Pixar made it.

[Rai]

Pixar creates really good movies, even though it is mostly aimed at kids like me, it never fails to entertain the teenagers, adults, and older people.
Anyways,
Toy Story 3
10/10.
Worth a watch and there are certain easter eggs hidden in the movie for you to watch it twice.

[Alias]

Once you get older you'll notice a LOT of stuff in Pixar movies you never noticed when you were younger.

[Brad]

Shrek Forever after. 9/10

Spoilers, depending on your definition and manlyness.

Personally, I've always held the belief that the Shrek franchise has a way of appealing to all audiences, and while I wasn't sure when they announced another one for what was a completed trilogy, but I think I've been very pleasantly surprised.
Basically it rips everything away from Shrek and throws him in a new world, in a cliché sort of way, but it does have that unique 'Shrekness' that I have come to love, and I'm sure many others have. The old characters return, with more introductions of 'minor' characters. It also focusses on the changed old ones, except for the likes of Gingy, Pinocchio etc. They do however, add Puss back in as a semi-main.


As for the details, I won't ruin them, but I must say, I did enjoy most of it.

And to finish:
Do the roar.