Savy with an in-house novice critic?
(PS if I posted it in the wrong place please move it for me
Blackmegabyte's Movie Reviews
-
Blackmegabyte
- Kishin - Fierce God
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:53 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Blackmegabyte's Movie Reviews
So at first I thought I should post this in "anything"----------------- but its not just anything its movie reviews! So then i thought I should post this in REVIEWS---- but they're more personal than that (and the majority isnt anime)--- I mean Im not a world-renowned critc or anything but i DO watch an awful lot of recent movies, or as many as I can and I do like to critique em---- so i thought it'd be easier just to clump all of my ramblings in one post, which will expand for ever and ever until movies are no longer made.
Savy with an in-house novice critic?
(PS if I posted it in the wrong place please move it for me
Savy with an in-house novice critic?
(PS if I posted it in the wrong place please move it for me
Keep on keepin' on Dilandau.
-
Blackmegabyte
- Kishin - Fierce God
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:53 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe
A surprise greeted me as I entered the theatre. There were only around a dozen people for the first showing. I immediately recalculate my original opinion about how much opening gross Narnia stands a chance at over the weekend. I approached Narnia knowing that a great deal of skeptcism and publicity was centered around many critics who seemed to object to the idea that Narnia, as a movie and a book is a Christian allegory.
The worst review comment I have heard about this movie is this
“Thankfully, it suppresses its underlying Christian message.” This and several other critical reviews have approached Narnia saying that the idea of looking at it as a Christian allegory is faulty and only a matter of coincidence. What a thing to say, considering this is far from being a religious movie and is clearly a fantasy but anyone who sees this movie will lead to the conclusion that the parallels are undeniable. But enough about the religious aspects---- just enjoy this movie for what it is, which is actually a well-crafted fantasy tale.
Whereas the last Harry Potter movie, Goblet of Fire, was grim in nature, Narnia is very uplifting. Everything takes place in a sugary sweet natured, good-hearted manner, as opposed to Lord of the Rings' gritty boldness.
Four British kids are shipped off to live in a safehouse, during WW2 bombing raids. The youngest (Lucy, who is very well acted) discovers a way into a magical world and shows it to her brothers and sister. It's not long before they're all off on adventures in Narnia.
A power struggle is on between good Aslan, a Lion who plays a Christ-icon because he is resurrected from the dead, and the white witch (very icey played by Tilda Swinton) who keeps the place on ice (very good acting all around, especially by Edmund and Lucy, the youngest children).
The effects in this movie are very very good. I am not regularly impressed movie FX but I'd have to agree with the sentiment that in Narnia its like looking around and seeing dozens of creatures as real if not more so than Gollum all over the place.
The Director, Andrew Adamson who also did the Shrek movies, is very skilled at combining humourous and scary moments. There's lots of laughs, but some scenes with wolves will scare kids and one humiliation seuqence is unbearably saddening. It pushes the edge of the PG, considering all the fighting. What really works in Narnia's favour is the subtle moments (Peter getting distracted by the sight of young soldiers, the casual visual gag signs posted around, Lucy's expression in her first visit to Narnia and each of Aslan's looks is astounding).
So if you're feeling dowbeat because of the outcome of the last Harry Potter, this should remedy you in no time. It's a very good fantasty adventure with great action, fx, acting and story.
PS: DO NOT walk out after the credits start rolling--- I almost did and nearly missed an additional coda that says a sequel will happen if this movie make money.
A surprise greeted me as I entered the theatre. There were only around a dozen people for the first showing. I immediately recalculate my original opinion about how much opening gross Narnia stands a chance at over the weekend. I approached Narnia knowing that a great deal of skeptcism and publicity was centered around many critics who seemed to object to the idea that Narnia, as a movie and a book is a Christian allegory.
The worst review comment I have heard about this movie is this
“Thankfully, it suppresses its underlying Christian message.” This and several other critical reviews have approached Narnia saying that the idea of looking at it as a Christian allegory is faulty and only a matter of coincidence. What a thing to say, considering this is far from being a religious movie and is clearly a fantasy but anyone who sees this movie will lead to the conclusion that the parallels are undeniable. But enough about the religious aspects---- just enjoy this movie for what it is, which is actually a well-crafted fantasy tale.
Whereas the last Harry Potter movie, Goblet of Fire, was grim in nature, Narnia is very uplifting. Everything takes place in a sugary sweet natured, good-hearted manner, as opposed to Lord of the Rings' gritty boldness.
Four British kids are shipped off to live in a safehouse, during WW2 bombing raids. The youngest (Lucy, who is very well acted) discovers a way into a magical world and shows it to her brothers and sister. It's not long before they're all off on adventures in Narnia.
A power struggle is on between good Aslan, a Lion who plays a Christ-icon because he is resurrected from the dead, and the white witch (very icey played by Tilda Swinton) who keeps the place on ice (very good acting all around, especially by Edmund and Lucy, the youngest children).
The effects in this movie are very very good. I am not regularly impressed movie FX but I'd have to agree with the sentiment that in Narnia its like looking around and seeing dozens of creatures as real if not more so than Gollum all over the place.
The Director, Andrew Adamson who also did the Shrek movies, is very skilled at combining humourous and scary moments. There's lots of laughs, but some scenes with wolves will scare kids and one humiliation seuqence is unbearably saddening. It pushes the edge of the PG, considering all the fighting. What really works in Narnia's favour is the subtle moments (Peter getting distracted by the sight of young soldiers, the casual visual gag signs posted around, Lucy's expression in her first visit to Narnia and each of Aslan's looks is astounding).
So if you're feeling dowbeat because of the outcome of the last Harry Potter, this should remedy you in no time. It's a very good fantasty adventure with great action, fx, acting and story.
PS: DO NOT walk out after the credits start rolling--- I almost did and nearly missed an additional coda that says a sequel will happen if this movie make money.
Keep on keepin' on Dilandau.
-
Blackmegabyte
- Kishin - Fierce God
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:53 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Syriana
I was lucky to catch a double-billing of Narnia and Syriana and both movies showed me how wide the scale is between positive and negative, fantasy and realism. But both are fictional stories and both are powerful in many ways. I'd have to say Syriana is the one that most satisfied my expectations and generated a lot of internal discussion.
Syriana is one of the most realistic depictions of the tie-in between the US Government, CIA, Middle-East/American oil companies embargoes and dirty corporate dealing. To say it is merely serious and finely detailed does not do this labyrinth pseudo-documentary justice.
It begins as if it is already in the middle of a movie and ends as if there is another movie to follow, I suppose to illustrate that business will continue to go on as it has always been doing since the dawn of the economy (business ethics= "Corruption is our protection!").
The best way to summarize this fantastic film? If you liked the movie Traffic, and I did very much, replace the theme in Traffic (drugs) with the theme in Syriana (oil companies). That's exactly what kind of movie this is- bound in grounds of realism yet unpredictable.
The lives of seemingly random but somehow connected players from all walks of life within the screws of the oil industry, from the US to Iran. That is what Syriana is at the core and that's the best description I can give without going hardcore into detail (yes it's that complicated).
The characters include CIA agent George Clooney, businessman Matt Damon and Jeffery Wright as a sharp corporate lawyer--- again these three are recognizable but there are many many players in this game. The full host of actors and the range of characters is astounding. Every single performance in this movie is good if not great.
The plot is too complicated to understand- the director knows this. We start out with so many questions and as the movie goes along we are led on a need-to-know answering schedule-- even at the end some big-fish Q's are left open and the ending itself begs more questions.
If we allow ourselves to accept the movie and be taken along on the linear stream of events that occurs within it you will really like and appreciate this movie (Crash very is similar to this film---- Syriana simply wants you to fill in the blanks yourself without explaining everything in ABC drama).
My understanding of what is going on (without ruining the point of the movie) is that a merger has occured between a large oil company and a seemingly minor, though up-and-coming one. The merger is being brought under investigation and somehow involves the heads and lawyers of each oil company, the CIA's investigations in Iran, the Iranian ruling class and even members of the 3rd world muslim youth converts.
To list much more would damage the sense of discovery the director is trying to establish with the audience.
The acting, as stated already is great--- Clooney's best performance to date (the torture scene is unforgettable and NOT, repeat NOT for the squeamish).
A very noticable problem is it's lack of answering everything. Even in Traffic we see what happens to the characters we started out with and how they deal with the outcomes of the situations they started in. In both movies some are right back where they started---- while others are changed forever. In Traffic, however, the ending is a little more arced, a little more defined.
Nonetheless, I do declare this is one of the BEST movies I've seen all year and a guaranteed Oscar nominee . It's smart, involving and educational.
I was lucky to catch a double-billing of Narnia and Syriana and both movies showed me how wide the scale is between positive and negative, fantasy and realism. But both are fictional stories and both are powerful in many ways. I'd have to say Syriana is the one that most satisfied my expectations and generated a lot of internal discussion.
Syriana is one of the most realistic depictions of the tie-in between the US Government, CIA, Middle-East/American oil companies embargoes and dirty corporate dealing. To say it is merely serious and finely detailed does not do this labyrinth pseudo-documentary justice.
It begins as if it is already in the middle of a movie and ends as if there is another movie to follow, I suppose to illustrate that business will continue to go on as it has always been doing since the dawn of the economy (business ethics= "Corruption is our protection!").
The best way to summarize this fantastic film? If you liked the movie Traffic, and I did very much, replace the theme in Traffic (drugs) with the theme in Syriana (oil companies). That's exactly what kind of movie this is- bound in grounds of realism yet unpredictable.
The lives of seemingly random but somehow connected players from all walks of life within the screws of the oil industry, from the US to Iran. That is what Syriana is at the core and that's the best description I can give without going hardcore into detail (yes it's that complicated).
The characters include CIA agent George Clooney, businessman Matt Damon and Jeffery Wright as a sharp corporate lawyer--- again these three are recognizable but there are many many players in this game. The full host of actors and the range of characters is astounding. Every single performance in this movie is good if not great.
The plot is too complicated to understand- the director knows this. We start out with so many questions and as the movie goes along we are led on a need-to-know answering schedule-- even at the end some big-fish Q's are left open and the ending itself begs more questions.
If we allow ourselves to accept the movie and be taken along on the linear stream of events that occurs within it you will really like and appreciate this movie (Crash very is similar to this film---- Syriana simply wants you to fill in the blanks yourself without explaining everything in ABC drama).
My understanding of what is going on (without ruining the point of the movie) is that a merger has occured between a large oil company and a seemingly minor, though up-and-coming one. The merger is being brought under investigation and somehow involves the heads and lawyers of each oil company, the CIA's investigations in Iran, the Iranian ruling class and even members of the 3rd world muslim youth converts.
To list much more would damage the sense of discovery the director is trying to establish with the audience.
The acting, as stated already is great--- Clooney's best performance to date (the torture scene is unforgettable and NOT, repeat NOT for the squeamish).
A very noticable problem is it's lack of answering everything. Even in Traffic we see what happens to the characters we started out with and how they deal with the outcomes of the situations they started in. In both movies some are right back where they started---- while others are changed forever. In Traffic, however, the ending is a little more arced, a little more defined.
Nonetheless, I do declare this is one of the BEST movies I've seen all year and a guaranteed Oscar nominee . It's smart, involving and educational.
Keep on keepin' on Dilandau.
-
Cloud
- Himajin - Get A Life
- Posts: 14443
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:36 pm
- Location: Cyberspace
- Contact:
Interesting. Not many people say both.
The Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
-I, Robot (Asimov)
-
Blackmegabyte
- Kishin - Fierce God
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:53 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
-
Cloud
- Himajin - Get A Life
- Posts: 14443
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:36 pm
- Location: Cyberspace
- Contact:
Really. got a bit of a ring to it admit it is?
The Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
-I, Robot (Asimov)
-
Cloud
- Himajin - Get A Life
- Posts: 14443
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:36 pm
- Location: Cyberspace
- Contact:
Thanks for your support. Be less specific 
The Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
-I, Robot (Asimov)
-
Cloud
- Himajin - Get A Life
- Posts: 14443
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:36 pm
- Location: Cyberspace
- Contact:
Makes sense to me.
The Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
-I, Robot (Asimov)
-
Blackmegabyte
- Kishin - Fierce God
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:53 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Finally I'm getting back into the swing of things---- get back from vacation, srot out University work---- see NEW movies and REVIEW!
Firewall
Predictability never ceases to amaze: the poor writings on the firewall
Harrison Ford’s latest film has his performance propping up an otherwise uninteresting motion picture. Star power is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, so is the script in this movie. Firewall, aside from having a title that is utterly meaningless to the content it contains, resorts to pretentious computer lingo to play itself as being more intelligent than it actually is. Firewall contains one of the most overdone plot ideas floating around Hollywood these days: the innocent man is forced to do bad things in order to protect his family.
This movie is a predictable by-the-numbers thriller for the first half of the running length. You will feel almost like a psychic after guessing everything that comes next. Any interesting plot changes in this movie stem from information that is deliberately withheld from the audience.
The opening is told in hyperkinetic edits in order to grab our attention and say “look this is a cool movie, watch what happens.” I feel saddened to say it but Harrison Ford is miscast, playing a role that is meant for someone clearly younger. Fortunately, Ford still possesses a charisma that makes him, as always, a noticeable presence onscreen. He plays Jack Stanfield, the head of security for a bank that's about to merge, a subplot that helps to introduce the main characters. Paul Bettany plays Bill Cox, a businessman who quickly turns Jack's lovely mansion into a base of operations for his nefarious plans. Cox and four hired thugs kidnap Jack's wife, daughter and son, leaving Jack forced to either infiltrate his bank’s electronic security system, thereafter stealing $100 million, or live to see his family killed. The idea of a group of thieves taking families hostage is a plot device used in such films as Hostage, Panic Room and Don’t Say A Word. If you enjoyed any of those movies, Firewall should be the next visit you make to a cinema.
Only after Cox has revealed his plans and kidnapped Jack’s family does the movie finally generate a breadth of tension, albeit a small one. Jack is forced to rob his own bank and, like any hero in a thriller of this nature, try to outsmart the bad guys without getting killed. Then, just when things appear likely to pick up in the third act the movie stalls and becomes a factory-made cliché vehicle with better actors than it deserves. The third act isn’t even worth mentioning as the studio chiefs believed they could make up for the sloppy transitional dialogue by throwing in a forced burst of action, gunfire and the most Disney-like “everything’s now okay ending” since The Lion King.
There may be nothing ingenious or original about Director Richard Loncraine's movie, but it does create a group of detestable bad guys. Paul Bettany is ruthless as the British baddie, eating cookies and watching The Flintstones one minute and threatening to break the knees on Ford’s son the next.
Loncraine, who helmed the refreshingly underrated romantic comedy Wimbledon, is clearly confident in his vision on how events will unfold. Seeing as the screenplay is choked with implausibility, Loncraine succeeds in generating some suspense because of well-crafted editing. Firewall is flawed, but it is recommendable to anyone who enjoys thrillers that provide a little escapism but require a large suspension of disbelief. What Firewall tries to do is replicate the same energetic but brainless formula used in Air Force One, another thriller starring Ford. What it succeeds in doing is creating yet another formulaic thriller we didn’t need. Whereas most bad movies would overstay their appeal, Firewall thankfully clocks in at only hour and a half. It will likely disappear from memory the moment you leave the theatre.
Firewall
Predictability never ceases to amaze: the poor writings on the firewall
Harrison Ford’s latest film has his performance propping up an otherwise uninteresting motion picture. Star power is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, so is the script in this movie. Firewall, aside from having a title that is utterly meaningless to the content it contains, resorts to pretentious computer lingo to play itself as being more intelligent than it actually is. Firewall contains one of the most overdone plot ideas floating around Hollywood these days: the innocent man is forced to do bad things in order to protect his family.
This movie is a predictable by-the-numbers thriller for the first half of the running length. You will feel almost like a psychic after guessing everything that comes next. Any interesting plot changes in this movie stem from information that is deliberately withheld from the audience.
The opening is told in hyperkinetic edits in order to grab our attention and say “look this is a cool movie, watch what happens.” I feel saddened to say it but Harrison Ford is miscast, playing a role that is meant for someone clearly younger. Fortunately, Ford still possesses a charisma that makes him, as always, a noticeable presence onscreen. He plays Jack Stanfield, the head of security for a bank that's about to merge, a subplot that helps to introduce the main characters. Paul Bettany plays Bill Cox, a businessman who quickly turns Jack's lovely mansion into a base of operations for his nefarious plans. Cox and four hired thugs kidnap Jack's wife, daughter and son, leaving Jack forced to either infiltrate his bank’s electronic security system, thereafter stealing $100 million, or live to see his family killed. The idea of a group of thieves taking families hostage is a plot device used in such films as Hostage, Panic Room and Don’t Say A Word. If you enjoyed any of those movies, Firewall should be the next visit you make to a cinema.
Only after Cox has revealed his plans and kidnapped Jack’s family does the movie finally generate a breadth of tension, albeit a small one. Jack is forced to rob his own bank and, like any hero in a thriller of this nature, try to outsmart the bad guys without getting killed. Then, just when things appear likely to pick up in the third act the movie stalls and becomes a factory-made cliché vehicle with better actors than it deserves. The third act isn’t even worth mentioning as the studio chiefs believed they could make up for the sloppy transitional dialogue by throwing in a forced burst of action, gunfire and the most Disney-like “everything’s now okay ending” since The Lion King.
There may be nothing ingenious or original about Director Richard Loncraine's movie, but it does create a group of detestable bad guys. Paul Bettany is ruthless as the British baddie, eating cookies and watching The Flintstones one minute and threatening to break the knees on Ford’s son the next.
Loncraine, who helmed the refreshingly underrated romantic comedy Wimbledon, is clearly confident in his vision on how events will unfold. Seeing as the screenplay is choked with implausibility, Loncraine succeeds in generating some suspense because of well-crafted editing. Firewall is flawed, but it is recommendable to anyone who enjoys thrillers that provide a little escapism but require a large suspension of disbelief. What Firewall tries to do is replicate the same energetic but brainless formula used in Air Force One, another thriller starring Ford. What it succeeds in doing is creating yet another formulaic thriller we didn’t need. Whereas most bad movies would overstay their appeal, Firewall thankfully clocks in at only hour and a half. It will likely disappear from memory the moment you leave the theatre.
Keep on keepin' on Dilandau.
-
Cloud
- Himajin - Get A Life
- Posts: 14443
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:36 pm
- Location: Cyberspace
- Contact:
Who did Cox and four hired thugs kidnap Jack's wife daughter and son leaving Jack forced to either infiltrate his bank’s electronic security system thereafter stealing $100 million or live to see his family kill? Interesting deduction. Some days are better than others. Now that is saying a mouthful.
The Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
-I, Robot (Asimov)
-
Blackmegabyte
- Kishin - Fierce God
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:53 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
SILENT HILL
Silent Hill is and is not what I expected it to be.
The buzz surrounding its early reports had me feeling it was going to be a great adaptation of a popular video game.
As a horror movie, it has only two noticeable qualities:
Technical Aspects: Fantastic! Visually speaking, it's great storytelling. The Cinematography, set design, makeup, visual effects- all the elements that make you feel as if you are inside a world of Hell, are very well put together. Director Christophe Gans is a genius at making a horrible nightmarish video-game enviornment real and claustrophibic. In short it's got great atmosphere. You'll be amazed by the sheer number of unique locations in this movie, each evoking the image a post-apocalyptic hellhole. The movie also moves along at a breakneck pace, I can't remember it dragging for a second. We're bombarded with events. Sound is very well done. The visual effects are some of the best I've seen in a horror movie, especially the final barb-wire monster.
Horror: It's other key element are its shock! moments.
As the movie moves along the foes become nastier and more disturbing until we reach the penultimate symbol of terror: the thing known as PyramidHead. Mind you, he's not even the grand tomalee in this movie, but damn he's going to become a horror icon. Generally I found scenes (and there's only 3 or 4) involving PyramidHead to be nauseating, terrifying and attention-drawing. I wish we'd learned more about "him." It seems bloody awkward to see such a monstrosity wreck such carnage and then just dissapear leaving us to wonder what the hell that was all about.
Silent Hill is one horrifying moment after another. You can't help but be completely freaked out during several unbelievable action-horror-scenes. It's remarkable how the gore level is inventively upped with each new sequence.
PyramidHead commits perhaps the single-most scarring act in the movie, something you'll be stuck thinking about as you leave the theatre. When I try to recall Silent Hill now, I can only see the half-dozen scenes that were designed to shock the hell out of you.
SO, it's well-put together in terms of horror and style. If you're here to enjoy the horror or get scared/sickened it succeeds. But most of what's left in this movie isn't great.
Roger Avary? You co-wrote Pulp Fiction, didn't you? Didn't you!? Why is there so much idiotic dialogue? Couldn't you have come up with something a little more different? Sad to say it, but there's moments where you'll end up laughing at what people say. The viewers in our theatre certainly were.
Only one person in our group had actually played the games and his conclusion after viewing the movie was that it was the best video game adaptation he had ever seen. Therein lies, what I suspect is the problem. I believe they have made a movie more for the fans of the game. This is why it wasn't what I expected it to be. The movie felt, honestly, like I was watching a live action game unfold. There isn't a huge plot to speak of. The filmmakers chose to go with a single point and see how far they could run with it while distracting us with gore. The movie is about a family. Radha Mitchell and Sean Bean love their adoptive daughter, who keeps having horrid nightmares. Mitchell decides to take her to the place she's been calling out in her sleep- the town of Silent Hill.
Sean Bean wasn't told of this plan and spends the rest of the movie trying to find them. The plot of the movie is basically Mitchell, losing and trying to find her daughter while avoiding being butchered by creatures from a different dimension. The final 15 minutes crams an awful lot of backstory into the movie. And the very, very end felt like a letdown. It wasn't scary, nor did it tie anything up. I'd say it totally leaves the door wide for a sequel.
In terms of acting, Sean Bean deserves better roles. I liked Radha Mitchell though, she knows when to scream and I thought she was more believable to me as a mother trying to find her daughter than Julianna Moore in The Forgotten and Jodie Foster was in Flightplan (also with Sean Bean).
In summary, if you want to see some effectively horrific gore, this movie's the ticket. Better than DOOM? Yes! But still not, quite as great as I hoped it would be. One could argue that the great atmosphere and shocks balanced out the damnating story, but I still left feeling dissapointed.
PS:
I'm going to have time to see two more movies before I leave United 93 and M:i:3. I look forward to them because I cannot doubt they shall be better than this.
Silent Hill is and is not what I expected it to be.
The buzz surrounding its early reports had me feeling it was going to be a great adaptation of a popular video game.
As a horror movie, it has only two noticeable qualities:
Technical Aspects: Fantastic! Visually speaking, it's great storytelling. The Cinematography, set design, makeup, visual effects- all the elements that make you feel as if you are inside a world of Hell, are very well put together. Director Christophe Gans is a genius at making a horrible nightmarish video-game enviornment real and claustrophibic. In short it's got great atmosphere. You'll be amazed by the sheer number of unique locations in this movie, each evoking the image a post-apocalyptic hellhole. The movie also moves along at a breakneck pace, I can't remember it dragging for a second. We're bombarded with events. Sound is very well done. The visual effects are some of the best I've seen in a horror movie, especially the final barb-wire monster.
Horror: It's other key element are its shock! moments.
As the movie moves along the foes become nastier and more disturbing until we reach the penultimate symbol of terror: the thing known as PyramidHead. Mind you, he's not even the grand tomalee in this movie, but damn he's going to become a horror icon. Generally I found scenes (and there's only 3 or 4) involving PyramidHead to be nauseating, terrifying and attention-drawing. I wish we'd learned more about "him." It seems bloody awkward to see such a monstrosity wreck such carnage and then just dissapear leaving us to wonder what the hell that was all about.
Silent Hill is one horrifying moment after another. You can't help but be completely freaked out during several unbelievable action-horror-scenes. It's remarkable how the gore level is inventively upped with each new sequence.
PyramidHead commits perhaps the single-most scarring act in the movie, something you'll be stuck thinking about as you leave the theatre. When I try to recall Silent Hill now, I can only see the half-dozen scenes that were designed to shock the hell out of you.
SO, it's well-put together in terms of horror and style. If you're here to enjoy the horror or get scared/sickened it succeeds. But most of what's left in this movie isn't great.
Roger Avary? You co-wrote Pulp Fiction, didn't you? Didn't you!? Why is there so much idiotic dialogue? Couldn't you have come up with something a little more different? Sad to say it, but there's moments where you'll end up laughing at what people say. The viewers in our theatre certainly were.
Only one person in our group had actually played the games and his conclusion after viewing the movie was that it was the best video game adaptation he had ever seen. Therein lies, what I suspect is the problem. I believe they have made a movie more for the fans of the game. This is why it wasn't what I expected it to be. The movie felt, honestly, like I was watching a live action game unfold. There isn't a huge plot to speak of. The filmmakers chose to go with a single point and see how far they could run with it while distracting us with gore. The movie is about a family. Radha Mitchell and Sean Bean love their adoptive daughter, who keeps having horrid nightmares. Mitchell decides to take her to the place she's been calling out in her sleep- the town of Silent Hill.
Sean Bean wasn't told of this plan and spends the rest of the movie trying to find them. The plot of the movie is basically Mitchell, losing and trying to find her daughter while avoiding being butchered by creatures from a different dimension. The final 15 minutes crams an awful lot of backstory into the movie. And the very, very end felt like a letdown. It wasn't scary, nor did it tie anything up. I'd say it totally leaves the door wide for a sequel.
In terms of acting, Sean Bean deserves better roles. I liked Radha Mitchell though, she knows when to scream and I thought she was more believable to me as a mother trying to find her daughter than Julianna Moore in The Forgotten and Jodie Foster was in Flightplan (also with Sean Bean).
In summary, if you want to see some effectively horrific gore, this movie's the ticket. Better than DOOM? Yes! But still not, quite as great as I hoped it would be. One could argue that the great atmosphere and shocks balanced out the damnating story, but I still left feeling dissapointed.
PS:
I'm going to have time to see two more movies before I leave United 93 and M:i:3. I look forward to them because I cannot doubt they shall be better than this.
Keep on keepin' on Dilandau.
-
Blackmegabyte
- Kishin - Fierce God
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:53 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
UNITED 93
I was there on September 11th. Not literally, I wasn't even in the USA at the time, but I witnessed it unfolding on TV, in real time. Didn't most of us? Didn't we all feel affected by the events?
My radio alarm went off at 6am, Vancouver being several hours behind NY time, and mentioned something about a serious plane crash. I watched the towers crumble as I had breakfast and all I could think was, could this really be happening? Things seemed too unbelievable to be true.
So now we have a feature length movie about September 11th.
The first thing I can say about United 93 is that it's never going to be shown as an inflight movie. Ever. It's nail-biting and packs an emotional wallop with a fairly accurate portrayal of that unforgettable day. I could feel the chills mounting with each minute of this superbly crafted film, which pays respect to the memories of the passengers on flight 93.
On September 11th, four planes were hijacked. Two of them were used to destroy the World Trade Centers and one of them hit the Pentagon. The fourth plane was believed to be targeting either the White house or the Capitol. It was the only one that didn't reach its target and the film presents several ideas as to why: delay in airport traffic, apprehension of the hijackers. In the end, one point is made clear beyond a shadow of a doubt; thanks to the timing, bravery and sacrifice of the passengers onboard, that plane was prevented from reaching its destination.
Movie Critic Peter Howell began his review with the comment, "Those who say it is too soon for a film like United 93 should ask themselves if fear is keeping them from the truth." That's a bold statement to make and I can see why he'd make an effective critic. I personally believed it was too early for a film like this, not out of fear but out of practicality; tragic history makes fine fodder for films and I was worried they'd screw up one of the most unexpected calamities in recent, modern history in order to make a quick buck.
Instead, Director Paul Greengrass surprised me, by creating a film that adheres to what Gillo Pontecorvo called, a "Dictatorship of Truth." United includes guidelines that are used by one of the most amazing movies ever, Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers. What this means is that Greengrass sought to avoid using easy, "profitable" cinematic effects, which helped to not divert credibility from the film's overall goal.
Greengrass strives for realism by refusing to include hidden influences or afterknowledge of the event. As Roger Ebert puts it, "The entire story, every detail, is told in the present tense." We learn as much as the protagonists do, nothing more.
The use of actors is one example of Greengrasses confidence in his ability to tell the story. There are no big-name stars and no individual protagonists with their own personal stories. We are introduced to them in a quick, simple and believable manner.
Some of the characters are concrete examples that the movie strives for ultimate realism. Greengrass went so far as to have real-life FAA Director of Operations Ben Sliney, the man who made the call to ground all of the planes, playing himself, verbatim, as he actually behaved and responded on 9/11. This move was similar to Yacef Saadi's portrayal of himself in Algiers; he was a real-life Organizer of the Arab Resistance.
Our knowledge of 9/11 is increased as we learn the story of people on the ground, the FAA controllers. They were the first to realize the planes had been hijacked. As I watched the credits roll, I saw nearly a dozen names of people who had played themselves. They were actually in the FAA control centers and NORAD during September 11th and their presence in the film provides an uncanny degree of authenticity. They help us to identify with what Pontecorvo called the Choral Protagonist, feeling the pain of an entire people, the genuine emotions that harkened me back to how I felt on that day too. The real test will be to see how future generations, who never witnessed 9/11, react to seeing such emotional reenactments.
Greengrass uses a brightly-lit, shakey, pseudo-documentary style of cinematography to make you feel as if you're right in the thick of the action. This was a technique similar to Pontecorvo's mimicing of 60s newsreel footage in Algiers. The use of hand-held cameras allows you to follow the actor's movements and expressions and adds a realistic feel to the film.
Despite the attempt at the Dictatorship of Truth, there are moments where I feel the filmmakers have sneaked in certain creative liberties.
There's a moment, where a passenger speaks up about being obediant to the hijackers and has to be restrained by fellow passengers, to stop him giving away their attack plan. From what I've read this was another creative liberty. The blackbox scripts can be found here http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/law/ ... index.html. However, I found these instances to be few and far between and in no way detracted from my overall experience.
"You don't watch Titanic without knowing the ship sinks in the end." Despite the foreknowledge of the conclusion, the ending's a real tearjerker. I'd go so far as to say heartbreaking for some; people were crying in our theatre.
This movie shouldn't be mistaken for a Documentary. It clearly has a dramatic structure and has increased my anticipation for Oliver Stone's upcoming World Trade Center. I would also reccomend Battle of Algiers because it's a fantastic classic and Bloody Sunday, which I feel is going to be viewed by more people based on the strength of Greengrasses' current film.
I was there on September 11th. Not literally, I wasn't even in the USA at the time, but I witnessed it unfolding on TV, in real time. Didn't most of us? Didn't we all feel affected by the events?
My radio alarm went off at 6am, Vancouver being several hours behind NY time, and mentioned something about a serious plane crash. I watched the towers crumble as I had breakfast and all I could think was, could this really be happening? Things seemed too unbelievable to be true.
So now we have a feature length movie about September 11th.
The first thing I can say about United 93 is that it's never going to be shown as an inflight movie. Ever. It's nail-biting and packs an emotional wallop with a fairly accurate portrayal of that unforgettable day. I could feel the chills mounting with each minute of this superbly crafted film, which pays respect to the memories of the passengers on flight 93.
On September 11th, four planes were hijacked. Two of them were used to destroy the World Trade Centers and one of them hit the Pentagon. The fourth plane was believed to be targeting either the White house or the Capitol. It was the only one that didn't reach its target and the film presents several ideas as to why: delay in airport traffic, apprehension of the hijackers. In the end, one point is made clear beyond a shadow of a doubt; thanks to the timing, bravery and sacrifice of the passengers onboard, that plane was prevented from reaching its destination.
Movie Critic Peter Howell began his review with the comment, "Those who say it is too soon for a film like United 93 should ask themselves if fear is keeping them from the truth." That's a bold statement to make and I can see why he'd make an effective critic. I personally believed it was too early for a film like this, not out of fear but out of practicality; tragic history makes fine fodder for films and I was worried they'd screw up one of the most unexpected calamities in recent, modern history in order to make a quick buck.
Instead, Director Paul Greengrass surprised me, by creating a film that adheres to what Gillo Pontecorvo called, a "Dictatorship of Truth." United includes guidelines that are used by one of the most amazing movies ever, Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers. What this means is that Greengrass sought to avoid using easy, "profitable" cinematic effects, which helped to not divert credibility from the film's overall goal.
Greengrass strives for realism by refusing to include hidden influences or afterknowledge of the event. As Roger Ebert puts it, "The entire story, every detail, is told in the present tense." We learn as much as the protagonists do, nothing more.
The use of actors is one example of Greengrasses confidence in his ability to tell the story. There are no big-name stars and no individual protagonists with their own personal stories. We are introduced to them in a quick, simple and believable manner.
Some of the characters are concrete examples that the movie strives for ultimate realism. Greengrass went so far as to have real-life FAA Director of Operations Ben Sliney, the man who made the call to ground all of the planes, playing himself, verbatim, as he actually behaved and responded on 9/11. This move was similar to Yacef Saadi's portrayal of himself in Algiers; he was a real-life Organizer of the Arab Resistance.
Our knowledge of 9/11 is increased as we learn the story of people on the ground, the FAA controllers. They were the first to realize the planes had been hijacked. As I watched the credits roll, I saw nearly a dozen names of people who had played themselves. They were actually in the FAA control centers and NORAD during September 11th and their presence in the film provides an uncanny degree of authenticity. They help us to identify with what Pontecorvo called the Choral Protagonist, feeling the pain of an entire people, the genuine emotions that harkened me back to how I felt on that day too. The real test will be to see how future generations, who never witnessed 9/11, react to seeing such emotional reenactments.
Greengrass uses a brightly-lit, shakey, pseudo-documentary style of cinematography to make you feel as if you're right in the thick of the action. This was a technique similar to Pontecorvo's mimicing of 60s newsreel footage in Algiers. The use of hand-held cameras allows you to follow the actor's movements and expressions and adds a realistic feel to the film.
Despite the attempt at the Dictatorship of Truth, there are moments where I feel the filmmakers have sneaked in certain creative liberties.
There's a moment, where a passenger speaks up about being obediant to the hijackers and has to be restrained by fellow passengers, to stop him giving away their attack plan. From what I've read this was another creative liberty. The blackbox scripts can be found here http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/law/ ... index.html. However, I found these instances to be few and far between and in no way detracted from my overall experience.
"You don't watch Titanic without knowing the ship sinks in the end." Despite the foreknowledge of the conclusion, the ending's a real tearjerker. I'd go so far as to say heartbreaking for some; people were crying in our theatre.
This movie shouldn't be mistaken for a Documentary. It clearly has a dramatic structure and has increased my anticipation for Oliver Stone's upcoming World Trade Center. I would also reccomend Battle of Algiers because it's a fantastic classic and Bloody Sunday, which I feel is going to be viewed by more people based on the strength of Greengrasses' current film.
Keep on keepin' on Dilandau.