I was quite looking forward to this years blockbusters. I decided early on that all of them would be crap, by varying degrees, and that the worst would be Transformers.
When the first Transformers movie came out I really wasn't looking forward to it. I had a friend who was all over it like a rash, I but was all like, meh. But when I saw it I actually rather enjoyed it. It seemed honest, and the action sequences and CGI were pretty good.
At the start of the year I decided that the sequel would be rubbish. More of the same. A lot more, and that would be it. But then the trailers appeared and looked pretty good. It all looked a bit Cloverfield.
And then I went to see it, and my early assumptions were proved correct. This WILL be the worst film of the year, I'm sure of it. Michael Bay obviously gave a checklist to the fanboys of the first film, asking what they did and didn't like, and then simply produced a film with more of what people wanted, regardless of how this affected any narrative.
More Megan Fox in shorts, pouting? Check.
Lots more Transformers, even if their reason for being is unclear? Check.
Bigger explosion (lots more shit getting blown up)? Check.
More of the parents, they were funny dude? Check.
That FBI bloke, but make sure he's even more of a comedy character? Check.
Slo-Mo fight sequences, with the sun reflecting off the Autobots? Check.
Oh, dump the plot, it just gets in the way. Check.
We loved that Terminator that could turn into different people - can we have some of that? That was a different film, but ok, we'll see what we can do.
Did we say more explosions? Yes, but we'll add some more in just in case.
Michael Bay inevitable gives us set-piece after set-piece with minor lulls inbetween. I've never seen so many action sequences in one movie. The film literally goes EXPLOSION - talking - EXPLOSION - talking - EXPLOSION - EXPLOSION - talking - EXPLOSION ad infinitum. No wonder it ended up a bum-worrying two and a half hours long - there are enough action sequences for three God-awful films, let alone one. Someone really needed to tell Michael Bay to step away from the camera and edit this shit down to a sensible length. Either that or not even bother with the lulls. Just cut them out - give the audience a few 5 minute breaks throughout. You know, have an action sequence and then a blank screen with "You now have 5 minutes to pop to the loo or get more chocolate". I mean, it's not like the lulls further the plot.
Speaking of which, we actually get to about two thirds of the way through when some sort of "Plot Alert" alarm obviously went off in Michael Bay's office reminding him to shoe-horn something in. Up until that point there's seriously nothing apart from explosions and people running and shouting, and some comedy with the parents. Oh, and Megan Fox auto-pouting as soon as a camera sweeps past her. Then suddenly an old robot appears, comically with a walking stick, to literally tell us the entire plot of the film in a two minute burst, and then miraculously teleport the cast to the correct spot on the planet for the climax. Handy.
Urgh! Can you tell I didn't enjoy it?
It would have been ok, with some serious editing, and about, oh, six less action sequences. Oh, and a decent script. I know we didn't go along for Shakespeare but jeez, this is embarrassing.
Oh, I forgot to tell you about the good bits.
...
Oh, ok, the effects are pretty good.
So, in summation; I can't stress enough how you're not to go and watch this movie. Seriously, go and see anything other than this. As one review put it "It manages the incredible feat of being the fastest, loudest movie ever but simultaneously ridiculously dull. Like watching paint dry whilst being hit round the head with a frying pan".
The Boyf and I, as is often the way with married couples, managed to sum it up using the same word at the same time. The word was "nadir". It even makes "Terminator: Stagnation" look good. I need say no more than that.
UPDATE: This movie has had the second highest 5 day opening in history, behind "The Dark Knight". I'm ashamed to have contributed to it's success.
Showing posts with label Uninformative Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Uninformative Movie Review. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Thursday, August 07, 2008
OMO At The Movies: "WALL-E"
Have you noticed how often I'm going to the pictures (aw! Quaint) these days? Frankly, it's all I'm doing. No, I'm not going to moan again about my social life being dull. But it IS dammit! Anyway, after a slightly false start where I drove us to the wrong Multiplex (!) I finally got around to seeing WALL-E last night, a film I'd been looking forward to since I read the premise last summer.
So, was it any good? Indupitubly, yes. I loved every moment, and rather obviously ended up crying. (I looked around at everyone else, and yes, I was the only one in tears. Again). I'm having a bad few weeks, ok.
I won't bore you with the story, but the whole thing is a rather touching love story set against the back-drop of an abandoned Earth, after humans have managed to dump so much waste it has become uninhabitable. The female of the middle-aged couple sitting behind us was heard to comment (about 15 minutes in): "I think there's a message in here somewhere". Sheesh, do you think Lady?
I found the first 30 minutes incredibly touching, as we're introduced to our unspeaking titular hero and his world purely by the visuals and his actions. Being an overly romantic, slightly melodramatic gay, I felt his loneliness keenly within my soul. Jeez. I saw The Boyf look at me, "You're going to cry in a minute aren't you?". Apparently I'm all too obvious.
The second part of the film takes on a more obvious action slant, a la Toy Story, to keep the kids hooked, and it never really reaches the intelligent and moving heights of the first part. As a whole the film's very well paced, and short, the result being that it all seems to be over a bit too quickly.
I found it interesting that the humans are less detailed visually and have less emotional depth than any of the robots, and WALL-E in particular is beautifully rendered. He passes off as more life-like than almost anything in Spiderman 3. Yeah, yeah, here I go about Spidey3 again. The animation is really beautiful, and is perfectly set off with the score, which consists of a melding of new music and songs from "Hello Dolly!".
Criticisms? Yeah, I didn't want it to end. Apart from that the whole "Man is killing Earth" thing is shoved in our face at every available opportunity, but then I mustn't forget this is a kids film first and foremost.
On the whole it reminded me of why as a child one of the most moving films I remember is "Silent Running", which is the adult version of WALL-E when all is said and done. I'm just amazed that there's been no mention of a remake, in this day and age.
In two weeks I really think I've seen the best two films of this year, and I'd be very surprised if anything else comes close to this and "The Dark Knight".
So, was it any good? Indupitubly, yes. I loved every moment, and rather obviously ended up crying. (I looked around at everyone else, and yes, I was the only one in tears. Again). I'm having a bad few weeks, ok.
I won't bore you with the story, but the whole thing is a rather touching love story set against the back-drop of an abandoned Earth, after humans have managed to dump so much waste it has become uninhabitable. The female of the middle-aged couple sitting behind us was heard to comment (about 15 minutes in): "I think there's a message in here somewhere". Sheesh, do you think Lady?
I found the first 30 minutes incredibly touching, as we're introduced to our unspeaking titular hero and his world purely by the visuals and his actions. Being an overly romantic, slightly melodramatic gay, I felt his loneliness keenly within my soul. Jeez. I saw The Boyf look at me, "You're going to cry in a minute aren't you?". Apparently I'm all too obvious.
The second part of the film takes on a more obvious action slant, a la Toy Story, to keep the kids hooked, and it never really reaches the intelligent and moving heights of the first part. As a whole the film's very well paced, and short, the result being that it all seems to be over a bit too quickly.
I found it interesting that the humans are less detailed visually and have less emotional depth than any of the robots, and WALL-E in particular is beautifully rendered. He passes off as more life-like than almost anything in Spiderman 3. Yeah, yeah, here I go about Spidey3 again. The animation is really beautiful, and is perfectly set off with the score, which consists of a melding of new music and songs from "Hello Dolly!".
Criticisms? Yeah, I didn't want it to end. Apart from that the whole "Man is killing Earth" thing is shoved in our face at every available opportunity, but then I mustn't forget this is a kids film first and foremost.
On the whole it reminded me of why as a child one of the most moving films I remember is "Silent Running", which is the adult version of WALL-E when all is said and done. I'm just amazed that there's been no mention of a remake, in this day and age.
In two weeks I really think I've seen the best two films of this year, and I'd be very surprised if anything else comes close to this and "The Dark Knight".
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
OMO At The Movies: "The Dark Knight"
Now, if you want to see a dark movie this is the one for you. Considering the constraints of it being a superhero movie I think they've done a marvellous job of creating something with real depth and interest. Sure, you've got to have the chase scenes, and the explosions, and you've got to have lots of fighting, but it never feels like a film which is purely built around its set pieces. With so many films of this type you can see the ham-fisted ways of teeing up the fight scenes, but with this they feel properly integrated into the plot. It doesn't feel like a number of set pieces held together with flim-flam.
Believe everything you read about Heath Ledger as The Joker - he's truly outstanding. Utterly mesmerising, you find yourself drawn to him. He creates a Joker which is genuinely scary - a psychopath, totally unhinged but considered and reserved, he never camps it up or chews up the scenery, as so many actors would have done (hello, Jack Nicolson). He totally deserves an Oscar nom, if not the award itself. I really didn't rate him before, but then I'd not really watched many of his performances. In Brokeback Mountain I think he crossed over from being repressed to just looking a bit surly, but perhaps I need to reappraise that role, and that film in general, now that the hype's died down. Certainly he was evidently capable of far more than I ever gave him credit. Such an absolute shame.
The rest of the cast pale beside Heath, but Aaron Eckhardt holds his own, and the rest perform admirably. If anything one of the least interesting characters (aside from Maggie Gyllenhal's Rachel - who isn't really given anything to do) is Batman himself. His character is fleshed out more by what others say of him, but Christian Bale is always pretty watchable. He gets on with the job, mainly as the foil to Harvey Dent and The Joker, and he's certainly the best Batman to date, even if he does lack something. He seems a little bland, but then he would be up against The Joker, and that's one of the film's questionable issues.
What interests/bothers me is the films intentions regarding violence and the nature of terrorism. Sure, The Jokers actions are always stated as being reprehensible and wrong, but Heath manages to inject enough pathos into the character that you find yourself willing him on. Surely, out of every character in it he seems the most alive and true to himself. And there seems to be an overriding lesson in the inherant darkness of humankind, as if we need to be told that we're all evil and just need a little push.
The Boyf hated how unrelentingly dark the whole thing was, and in truth there was almost no let up from the depressing feeling that pervades it. Even the ending, which I won't give away (unusually) doesn't give even a glimmer of real hope, and sets us up nicely for a third instalment. I have to say that it looks like it will play out into a very good trilogy, but after that there are going to be problems.
Technically it's a marvel too. Wonderfully shot, with the CGI kept to a minimum where it would enhance rather than bludgeon the film to death. Oh, Spiderman 3, see how it's done?
Criticisms? It's too long, a common fault these days. They should start paying editors by the amount of stuff they cut out. Chop 30 minutes out of it (the visit to Hong Kong seems unnecessary) and it'd all be much punchier. As I've stated, The Boyf thinks it's all too grim, but in that we disagreed. It's certainly not The Fantastic Four, and thank fuck for that.
The overriding impression for me is that this is a real film, dealing (or at least highlighting) real issues, which just happens to have a man with a cape in it. If you go to see one film this year make it this one (but don't forget to take a cushion).
Why so serious?
Believe everything you read about Heath Ledger as The Joker - he's truly outstanding. Utterly mesmerising, you find yourself drawn to him. He creates a Joker which is genuinely scary - a psychopath, totally unhinged but considered and reserved, he never camps it up or chews up the scenery, as so many actors would have done (hello, Jack Nicolson). He totally deserves an Oscar nom, if not the award itself. I really didn't rate him before, but then I'd not really watched many of his performances. In Brokeback Mountain I think he crossed over from being repressed to just looking a bit surly, but perhaps I need to reappraise that role, and that film in general, now that the hype's died down. Certainly he was evidently capable of far more than I ever gave him credit. Such an absolute shame.
The rest of the cast pale beside Heath, but Aaron Eckhardt holds his own, and the rest perform admirably. If anything one of the least interesting characters (aside from Maggie Gyllenhal's Rachel - who isn't really given anything to do) is Batman himself. His character is fleshed out more by what others say of him, but Christian Bale is always pretty watchable. He gets on with the job, mainly as the foil to Harvey Dent and The Joker, and he's certainly the best Batman to date, even if he does lack something. He seems a little bland, but then he would be up against The Joker, and that's one of the film's questionable issues.
What interests/bothers me is the films intentions regarding violence and the nature of terrorism. Sure, The Jokers actions are always stated as being reprehensible and wrong, but Heath manages to inject enough pathos into the character that you find yourself willing him on. Surely, out of every character in it he seems the most alive and true to himself. And there seems to be an overriding lesson in the inherant darkness of humankind, as if we need to be told that we're all evil and just need a little push.
The Boyf hated how unrelentingly dark the whole thing was, and in truth there was almost no let up from the depressing feeling that pervades it. Even the ending, which I won't give away (unusually) doesn't give even a glimmer of real hope, and sets us up nicely for a third instalment. I have to say that it looks like it will play out into a very good trilogy, but after that there are going to be problems.
Technically it's a marvel too. Wonderfully shot, with the CGI kept to a minimum where it would enhance rather than bludgeon the film to death. Oh, Spiderman 3, see how it's done?
Criticisms? It's too long, a common fault these days. They should start paying editors by the amount of stuff they cut out. Chop 30 minutes out of it (the visit to Hong Kong seems unnecessary) and it'd all be much punchier. As I've stated, The Boyf thinks it's all too grim, but in that we disagreed. It's certainly not The Fantastic Four, and thank fuck for that.
The overriding impression for me is that this is a real film, dealing (or at least highlighting) real issues, which just happens to have a man with a cape in it. If you go to see one film this year make it this one (but don't forget to take a cushion).
Why so serious?
Monday, July 21, 2008
OMO At The Movies: "Mamma Mia!"
Yeah, so I was going to mention "Mamma Mia!". I do love it when they put an exclamation mark in the title of a film to remind us that we're all supposed to be having fun.
I'm going to go utterly against common public and critical feeling and say that this is one of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to sit through.
Now, there are a lot of awful films out there. You know, the sort of thing that's shown on ITV on a Wednesday afternoon, invariably with a mother with a debilitating illness, or an athlete overcoming an accident to win a race. I don't count those as bad films because they know what they are - cheap. A bad film for me is one which has had a lot of money spent on it and then falls short of it's hype. Thus, "Sketch Artist II: Hands That See" is kinda watchable, whilst "Independence Day" is a load of old tripe.
So, "what's wrong with "Mamma Mia!" apart from the exclamation mark?", I hear you say. It's amateurish, for a start. Amateurish and lazy beyond belief. Where the stage version just about gets away with cornily shoe-horned in Abba songs because it's all a bit of a giggle and because you feel somewhat involved, the film version just comes across as ill-conceived and childish. And SO literal; "When the pretty birds have flown" (in "Take A Chance On Me") is accompanied by some doves taking off from a roof - I mean, COME ON! And the dance scene where the villagers join in just looks like a cheap Olivio advert.
The casting is awful. Only the daughter seems suitable for her part. It's oh so obvious that they've cast people for who they are, not for any discernible ability. "Oh, wouldn't it be nice to have Pierce Brosnan". "Can he sing?". "Who cares, it's Pierce Brosnan!". Even he admitted in an interview that he didn't realise he was going to have to sing. What, noone told him it was a musical when they cast him? He's the worst offender on the signing front, but Meryl Streep isn't far behind. She annihilates "The Winner Takes It All", and puts in an odd, manic performance in which she looks like the HRT has kicked in and she's forgotten her Tenna Lady.
Elsewhere, Julie Waters does exactly what it says on the tin. She puts on a Northern accent and stumbles about a lot, in a parody of every performance she's ever done before. I took to saying "Miss Babs" at the end of every line she uttered, and it fitted perfectly. Every other member of the cast appears ill at ease or seems to be phoning their performance in from the safety of their motorhome. Most of the song and dance routines have that same car crash feeling as when you're Mum and Dad get up to do "The Time Warp" at a wedding reception.
The whole thing looks cheap and childish, and the actors appear to just be mucking about in front of a camera whilst expecting us to enjoy it all. And no thought's gone into translating it from stage to screen - they obviously just found somewhere which looked like the stage scenery and plonked the whole lot there without any thought as to how to make it work on celluloid. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Oh, and the editing and sound are awful too.
Can you tell I didn't like it? It was only the second film I've nearly walked out of, the first being "Batman & Robin".
As a final indication of how bad it was, I can say one thing which I cannot forgive it for. I grew up listening to, and loving, Abba, but "Mamma Mia!" has crushed all that love and affection. I don't think I can stand listening to Abba for a while, and that angers me.
I'm going to go utterly against common public and critical feeling and say that this is one of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to sit through.
Now, there are a lot of awful films out there. You know, the sort of thing that's shown on ITV on a Wednesday afternoon, invariably with a mother with a debilitating illness, or an athlete overcoming an accident to win a race. I don't count those as bad films because they know what they are - cheap. A bad film for me is one which has had a lot of money spent on it and then falls short of it's hype. Thus, "Sketch Artist II: Hands That See" is kinda watchable, whilst "Independence Day" is a load of old tripe.
So, "what's wrong with "Mamma Mia!" apart from the exclamation mark?", I hear you say. It's amateurish, for a start. Amateurish and lazy beyond belief. Where the stage version just about gets away with cornily shoe-horned in Abba songs because it's all a bit of a giggle and because you feel somewhat involved, the film version just comes across as ill-conceived and childish. And SO literal; "When the pretty birds have flown" (in "Take A Chance On Me") is accompanied by some doves taking off from a roof - I mean, COME ON! And the dance scene where the villagers join in just looks like a cheap Olivio advert.
The casting is awful. Only the daughter seems suitable for her part. It's oh so obvious that they've cast people for who they are, not for any discernible ability. "Oh, wouldn't it be nice to have Pierce Brosnan". "Can he sing?". "Who cares, it's Pierce Brosnan!". Even he admitted in an interview that he didn't realise he was going to have to sing. What, noone told him it was a musical when they cast him? He's the worst offender on the signing front, but Meryl Streep isn't far behind. She annihilates "The Winner Takes It All", and puts in an odd, manic performance in which she looks like the HRT has kicked in and she's forgotten her Tenna Lady.
Elsewhere, Julie Waters does exactly what it says on the tin. She puts on a Northern accent and stumbles about a lot, in a parody of every performance she's ever done before. I took to saying "Miss Babs" at the end of every line she uttered, and it fitted perfectly. Every other member of the cast appears ill at ease or seems to be phoning their performance in from the safety of their motorhome. Most of the song and dance routines have that same car crash feeling as when you're Mum and Dad get up to do "The Time Warp" at a wedding reception.
The whole thing looks cheap and childish, and the actors appear to just be mucking about in front of a camera whilst expecting us to enjoy it all. And no thought's gone into translating it from stage to screen - they obviously just found somewhere which looked like the stage scenery and plonked the whole lot there without any thought as to how to make it work on celluloid. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Oh, and the editing and sound are awful too.
Can you tell I didn't like it? It was only the second film I've nearly walked out of, the first being "Batman & Robin".
As a final indication of how bad it was, I can say one thing which I cannot forgive it for. I grew up listening to, and loving, Abba, but "Mamma Mia!" has crushed all that love and affection. I don't think I can stand listening to Abba for a while, and that angers me.
Monday, June 23, 2008
OMO At The Movies: "The Incredible Hulk"
Frankly, a pleasant surprise. I really wasn't expecting anything, and I guess therein lies the reason I enjoyed it so much.
I mean, I fucking hate the last Hulk film, and this one didn't look any better from the trailers. But actually it's better paced, nicer to look at and the CGI is better, although still not great (especially The Abomination, which looks like it was drawn on by a child, blind-folded. With Parkinson's Disease. Sitting on a washing machine during its spin-cycle).
Still, the Hulk is totally hot. I'd so do him, especially when he's sitting on that rock in the rain. And he's obviously a bottom. You can just tell. Those big Americans are all the same. All gruff and muscular when you meet and then as soon as you get them home they fall face first onto the bed and flutter their eye-lashes at you.
So, all in all, a surprising thumbs up. Again, don't go expecting to have to use your brain. You knew that already, right?
Oh, and make sure you watch Iron Man first, that's all I'm saying...
I mean, I fucking hate the last Hulk film, and this one didn't look any better from the trailers. But actually it's better paced, nicer to look at and the CGI is better, although still not great (especially The Abomination, which looks like it was drawn on by a child, blind-folded. With Parkinson's Disease. Sitting on a washing machine during its spin-cycle).
Still, the Hulk is totally hot. I'd so do him, especially when he's sitting on that rock in the rain. And he's obviously a bottom. You can just tell. Those big Americans are all the same. All gruff and muscular when you meet and then as soon as you get them home they fall face first onto the bed and flutter their eye-lashes at you.
So, all in all, a surprising thumbs up. Again, don't go expecting to have to use your brain. You knew that already, right?
Oh, and make sure you watch Iron Man first, that's all I'm saying...
Thursday, June 19, 2008
OMO At The Movies: "Iron Man"
The Boyf and I have been to see three films in quick succession, so I'm only going to do a very small review of each.
First up it's "Iron Man"...
Ok, so I have a "thing" for Robert Downey Jr and I don't know why! There, I said it. Again. I know he's not all that, but I like his cheeky charm, and even forcing myself to (partly) sit through "A Scanner Darkly" didn't detract from it. Never did manage to get all the way through that film...
I really enjoyed "Iron Man". And yes, I know I like superhero movies. Ok, ok, give me a break. When I go to the pictures - a phrase which sounds like the films could very well be in black and white and come accompanied by a guy rising from the floor on a Whirlitzer - I go to be entertained. I go to eat chocolate, suspend disbelief and relax for a couple of hours. I generally don't go to see films which are going to be hard work. Those I reserve for when I'm at home.
So, with that in mind; was I entertained? Unreservedly yes.
Was it all a bit ham-fisted? Oh yes.
Was the plot so thin it resembled Paris Hilton on hunger strike? Indeed.
Well thought out, three dimensional characters? Er... no.
Does Gwyneth Paltrow possess any discernible talent? Absolutely not.
If you like your movies fast-paced, fun to look and like to not have to think for 90 minutes at a time then you'll like it.
One question though. How on Earth did Tony Stark manage to build the original Iron Man suit whilst imprisoned a cave, using bits of old scrap, without anyone noticing even though he was under constant surveillance, and utilising technology he couldn't get to work in a lab? Oh, and why did he have the plans for the suit on him in the first place?
Answers on a postcard to OMO Towers...
First up it's "Iron Man"...
Ok, so I have a "thing" for Robert Downey Jr and I don't know why! There, I said it. Again. I know he's not all that, but I like his cheeky charm, and even forcing myself to (partly) sit through "A Scanner Darkly" didn't detract from it. Never did manage to get all the way through that film...
I really enjoyed "Iron Man". And yes, I know I like superhero movies. Ok, ok, give me a break. When I go to the pictures - a phrase which sounds like the films could very well be in black and white and come accompanied by a guy rising from the floor on a Whirlitzer - I go to be entertained. I go to eat chocolate, suspend disbelief and relax for a couple of hours. I generally don't go to see films which are going to be hard work. Those I reserve for when I'm at home.
So, with that in mind; was I entertained? Unreservedly yes.
Was it all a bit ham-fisted? Oh yes.
Was the plot so thin it resembled Paris Hilton on hunger strike? Indeed.
Well thought out, three dimensional characters? Er... no.
Does Gwyneth Paltrow possess any discernible talent? Absolutely not.
If you like your movies fast-paced, fun to look and like to not have to think for 90 minutes at a time then you'll like it.
One question though. How on Earth did Tony Stark manage to build the original Iron Man suit whilst imprisoned a cave, using bits of old scrap, without anyone noticing even though he was under constant surveillance, and utilising technology he couldn't get to work in a lab? Oh, and why did he have the plans for the suit on him in the first place?
Answers on a postcard to OMO Towers...
Thursday, June 12, 2008
OMO At The Movies: "Sex And The City"
Fuck me, this film seems to go on forever. Wouldn't they have been better just making a 2 part mini-series? Oh no, of course that wouldn't have made as much money. Silly me.
One good thing's come out though; I've now taken to flying to New York to hire a fabulously gauche new hand-bag every week rather than having to constantly buy them to keep up with the latest fad.
We went on a Thursday night, and I honestly can't remember the last time I saw our local cinema completely packed out mid-week. The only problem was that in an audience of a fair few hundred only 4 of us were men. The place resembled a massive hen-night. A cheap hen-night at that. You know, the sort of hen-night that attracts that type of girl you often see hanging out of a limo' sunroof near Piccadilly Circus - invariably wearing bunny-rabbit ears and/or angel-wings - screaming obscenities at unsuspecting men on the pavement, with the sound of 10 drunk girls within wailing along to "I've Had The Time Of My Life" from Dirty Dancing only barely muffled by the thankfully blacked-out windows.
In short, it was the type of hyped-up crowd which I imagine you get just before the Chippendales come on stage. You could quite literally smell the oestrogen in the air. A hush descended over the crowd as all heads swung round in our direction. I'd read about this with sharks; they could smell blood for miles and would come to investigate, circling the prey. As soon as one finally went for the kill a huge feeding frenzy would begin, with anything in the vicinity likely to be eaten. The Boyf and I eyed each other nervously. "Act camp", I whispered, "it's the only way we'll get out of here alive".
The Drag Queen - who we'd taken along as cover and body-guard - pushed us up the aisle and into some seats, where we had to scramble over discarded accessories. I don't think I've ever seen so many bags and coats and jumpers in my life before. What is it with women and having to have everything with them all the time? And shoes! Why had they all taken their shoes off?
The women talked all of the way through the trailers, so much so that I couldn't hear the trailer for The Dark Knight, which I'd been looking forward to. The Drag Queen also chatted throughout - to us and any girl in the vicinity, as girls have want to do. Apparently trailers are a boy thing.
Then the film started, which I thought would be a mercy until I began to realise how long it was going to be, and that the audience were going to cheer/sob/laugh/applaud etc at every unfolding event. I say "unfolding event" like it had a plot. Basically it's this (here come the spoilers); Carrie and Big are getting married, Steve cheats on Miranda and they split up, Big jilts Carrie at the altar, Carrie implores Miranda to learn the meaning of forgiveness thereby learning it herself and forgiving Big, Big and Carrie get married. Between these major events are Samantha's reluctance to get old (still), and Charlotte being pregnant, which apparently has had the same effect on her as a frontal lobotomy. The whole forgiveness thing is given a further push by Jennifer Hudson's character, which is shoe-horned into the proceedings with little to do other than labour the point, just in case the Miranda/Steve situation wasn't already obvious enough.
Interspersing the whole thing is a veritable cornucopia of hideous frocks, bags and shoes.
And was it even filmed in New York? We get to see precious little of the city they so love (apart from the steps up to Carrie's apartment). I guess the title doesn't actually state which city, so perhaps they thought they'd film any outdoor scene which didn't involve Central Park in Vancouver.
So, my conclusion? Yes, amazingly I did actually enjoy it, but only because I liked the series in the first place. Ok, Sex And The City never set the world alight, but it was always an easy watch, and the film's exactly the same. It's the movie equivalent of Heat magazine. No reason to catch it on the big screen, but if you are a fan then no doubt you'll want to see it at some point.
One good thing's come out though; I've now taken to flying to New York to hire a fabulously gauche new hand-bag every week rather than having to constantly buy them to keep up with the latest fad.
We went on a Thursday night, and I honestly can't remember the last time I saw our local cinema completely packed out mid-week. The only problem was that in an audience of a fair few hundred only 4 of us were men. The place resembled a massive hen-night. A cheap hen-night at that. You know, the sort of hen-night that attracts that type of girl you often see hanging out of a limo' sunroof near Piccadilly Circus - invariably wearing bunny-rabbit ears and/or angel-wings - screaming obscenities at unsuspecting men on the pavement, with the sound of 10 drunk girls within wailing along to "I've Had The Time Of My Life" from Dirty Dancing only barely muffled by the thankfully blacked-out windows.
In short, it was the type of hyped-up crowd which I imagine you get just before the Chippendales come on stage. You could quite literally smell the oestrogen in the air. A hush descended over the crowd as all heads swung round in our direction. I'd read about this with sharks; they could smell blood for miles and would come to investigate, circling the prey. As soon as one finally went for the kill a huge feeding frenzy would begin, with anything in the vicinity likely to be eaten. The Boyf and I eyed each other nervously. "Act camp", I whispered, "it's the only way we'll get out of here alive".
The Drag Queen - who we'd taken along as cover and body-guard - pushed us up the aisle and into some seats, where we had to scramble over discarded accessories. I don't think I've ever seen so many bags and coats and jumpers in my life before. What is it with women and having to have everything with them all the time? And shoes! Why had they all taken their shoes off?
The women talked all of the way through the trailers, so much so that I couldn't hear the trailer for The Dark Knight, which I'd been looking forward to. The Drag Queen also chatted throughout - to us and any girl in the vicinity, as girls have want to do. Apparently trailers are a boy thing.
Then the film started, which I thought would be a mercy until I began to realise how long it was going to be, and that the audience were going to cheer/sob/laugh/applaud etc at every unfolding event. I say "unfolding event" like it had a plot. Basically it's this (here come the spoilers); Carrie and Big are getting married, Steve cheats on Miranda and they split up, Big jilts Carrie at the altar, Carrie implores Miranda to learn the meaning of forgiveness thereby learning it herself and forgiving Big, Big and Carrie get married. Between these major events are Samantha's reluctance to get old (still), and Charlotte being pregnant, which apparently has had the same effect on her as a frontal lobotomy. The whole forgiveness thing is given a further push by Jennifer Hudson's character, which is shoe-horned into the proceedings with little to do other than labour the point, just in case the Miranda/Steve situation wasn't already obvious enough.
Interspersing the whole thing is a veritable cornucopia of hideous frocks, bags and shoes.
And was it even filmed in New York? We get to see precious little of the city they so love (apart from the steps up to Carrie's apartment). I guess the title doesn't actually state which city, so perhaps they thought they'd film any outdoor scene which didn't involve Central Park in Vancouver.
So, my conclusion? Yes, amazingly I did actually enjoy it, but only because I liked the series in the first place. Ok, Sex And The City never set the world alight, but it was always an easy watch, and the film's exactly the same. It's the movie equivalent of Heat magazine. No reason to catch it on the big screen, but if you are a fan then no doubt you'll want to see it at some point.
Friday, January 11, 2008
OMO At The Movies: "I Am Legend"
This year is going to be a year of going to the cinema, so we started the proceedings early with "I Am Legend".
So, what's it like? Well, it's like 28 Days Later with a bigger budget.
I won't bore you with one of my huge plot synopses, but what I will say is that a deserted New York is brilliantly realised, whilst the Infected aren't. In fact, amazingly they're some of the worst CGI I've seen since Spiderman 3, and that's saying something (ok, ok, I'll shut up about Spiderman 3 now). Why they didn't just use real people in make-up I don't know. It would have been much more believable, and would have greatly added to the tension, which disappeared as soon as we saw the cartoon "Zombie/Vampire/Infected" thingy.
Will Smith does a good enough job of commanding the screen (Will Smith does exactly what it says on the tin), although the dog steals every scene it's in. Having not read the book I can't comment on some of the plot and how it differs, however we were disappointed at the way God, as protector, was suddenly shoehorned in to the proceedings. Ah well, such is the way with American movies at the moment. And it seems as though the film-makers thought it enough to rely on the Wow! factor of a deserted New York rather than concentrating on the story. In effect it really doesn't have much of a plot - it relies purely on trading on the "Last Man On Earth" premise without delving deeper.
Yes, it's worth seeing, but don't hold out for any great social comment - it's a much flimsier film than that. I have a feeling that the book on which it's based is much deeper, and this depth has been eliminated to make the movie more of a blockbuster. That's a shame.
So, what's it like? Well, it's like 28 Days Later with a bigger budget.
I won't bore you with one of my huge plot synopses, but what I will say is that a deserted New York is brilliantly realised, whilst the Infected aren't. In fact, amazingly they're some of the worst CGI I've seen since Spiderman 3, and that's saying something (ok, ok, I'll shut up about Spiderman 3 now). Why they didn't just use real people in make-up I don't know. It would have been much more believable, and would have greatly added to the tension, which disappeared as soon as we saw the cartoon "Zombie/Vampire/Infected" thingy.
Will Smith does a good enough job of commanding the screen (Will Smith does exactly what it says on the tin), although the dog steals every scene it's in. Having not read the book I can't comment on some of the plot and how it differs, however we were disappointed at the way God, as protector, was suddenly shoehorned in to the proceedings. Ah well, such is the way with American movies at the moment. And it seems as though the film-makers thought it enough to rely on the Wow! factor of a deserted New York rather than concentrating on the story. In effect it really doesn't have much of a plot - it relies purely on trading on the "Last Man On Earth" premise without delving deeper.
Yes, it's worth seeing, but don't hold out for any great social comment - it's a much flimsier film than that. I have a feeling that the book on which it's based is much deeper, and this depth has been eliminated to make the movie more of a blockbuster. That's a shame.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
OMO At The Movies: "The Golden Compass"
We don't seem to have been to the pictures for ages. Not since OBM#2 and I sloped off to see Transformers for the second time at the IMAX. It wasn't as good the second time round I have to say. Oh well, I got to spend some time with my best friend on our own, which is always nice.
Anyway, The Golden Compass. Here's a quick synopsis (lots of spoilers included)...
We are introduced to Lyra, our heroine, by way of seeing her running through fields and climbing across rooves with the local ruffians, known as "Gyptians", which we assume is a shortening of "Egyptian" even though they look like the chimney-sweep kids from Mary Poppins. We are obviously being told, in a very ham-fisted way, that Lyra must be a free spirit and head-strong. We immediately don't like her, not because she's naughty, but simply because she's deeply annoying. Also, we don't like her Daemon, which is explained as being her soul in the body of an animal which follows her around. I immediately start to wonder what clubbing and sex would be like with a load of animals getting in the way. In fact, isn't everything going to be really difficult if you have an animal with you? Imagine Sainsburys on a Saturday! And supposing you end up with an elephant. You're not going to be able to go anywhere!
Anyway, then Daniel Craig appears with a beard and all thoughts of anything else disappear. Sigh. Christ that man's sexy, for some unfathomable reason.
Then there's a 10 minute section in which an awful lot of words are said which don't really mean anything in an attempt to shoehorn a large amount of plot into a short space of time, leaving us wondering what's actually going on. Some of these words may or may not have been borrowed from Harry Potter.
Then Lyra's best friend suddenly states that children are disappearing, and she promises to save him if he's taken. We wonder if his disappearance could have been set up in a way which didn't feel like you were having someone shout it in your face.
Nicole Kidman arrives, in a shot from behind as she sashays into a large dining room. She's lacking the hips to be wiggling like that, frankly. She's introduced to us as another free-spirited woman, and someone to be weary of. She does this by demonstrating that everyone is afraid of her, for reasons we don't understand. She is thus very enigmatic and we go "Ooooooo, enigmatic". She invites Lyra to come to the "north" with her - we presume she doesn't mean Sheffield - and although Lyra only met her 2 minutes ago she accepts, and therefore deserves any trouble she gets into.
Lyra is given the last remaining Golden Compass to look after. Christ knows why, as clearly she's not to be trusted. The Golden Compass is a device who's purpose was explained to us at the start of the film at breakneck speed and without detail, and whilst we were still trying to get comfortable and juggle our icecream, popcorn and jumbo Pepsi. We therefore have no idea what it does.
Lyra's best friend disappears. Shock! She doesn't seem to care and heads off with Nicole regardless.
By this time Daniel Craig has gone "north" and has been captured, and is not to be seen again until the final 5 minutes of the film. Thus for most of the duration of the movie we're left wondering how his capture has moved the plot on, even though it turns out it hasn't.
There is a sequence which goes a bit "My Fair Lady" where we're treated to shots of London with the buildings stretched and plumped via the wonders of CGI, and where Nicole tries to turn Lyra into a mini version of herself with the cunning use of a new dress and a brush through her hair. Something fishy is going on and we're not entirely sure it's going to be explained very well at any point during this movie.
Lyra runs away and is aided by the Gyptians, who now look like pirates and live on a boat, causing us further confusion. Lyra reveals to the Gyptians (rather too quickly, like everything else in this film) that she's in possession of the Golden Compass. The filmmakers, apparently aware that we weren't paying enough attention in the title sequence, decide to have a Gyptian explain the device again, withouth actually explaining it properly. Again. We are led to believe that the Compass is incredibly difficult to read and noone can do it anymore. Imagine our surprise when Lyra manages it first time!
They travel "north" to look for the captive children, which turns out to be somewhere inside the Artic Circle. Not sure how they know the children are up "north". Perhaps I blinked and missed that part, in the same way that I missed the relevance of a random witch turning up on the boat and then leaving again. Once north they have the fortune of running into both Sam Elliott (not looking as sexy as he used to) and a talking Polar Bear both of whom have nothing better to do than help them - I love it when that happens. Lyra helps the Bear to gain his rightful crown as the Polar Bear King, which involves a fight sequence, and this has nothing to do with the rest of the film. Lyra and the Bear head to where the children are being held but are separated using the age-old "bridge which is only strong enough for one person and thus collapses behind our hero(ine)" routine. Lyra continues on her own. I'm sure she would have frostbite by now and lost her fingers and toes, but never mind. Perhaps next time they could CGI her some stumps. On a vaguely related note; did you know that for years after seeing Forrest Gump I believed that Gary Sinise was actually an amputee?
Anyway, Lyra makes it to the captive children and figures out what's going on. We don't. We're still a bit confused as to why they're separating children from their Daemons. What's the point? Soulless children? Surely there are enough of those in Bermondsey as it is. And why are they only doing one child at a time rather than trying to do it on a much larger scale. However, we understand that it's all about puberty because they tell us in a particularly clunky way.
There's a big reveal in which Nicole turns out to be Lyra's mother - like we didn't see that one coming - and Daniel Craig is her Dad. I wonder aloud what it would be like to call Daniel "Daddy". Lyra escapes and frees the children and then there's a big-ish "Lord Of The Rings" style battle sequence where a load of witches turn up to help for no real reason. Presumably they have some time off between other fantasy movies. The children flee across the ice to what we presume is safety although we're not told. They could quite easily have succumbed to the cold or been picked off by various predators, fallen off cliffs etc, but we're not privvy to that information. Lyra and her Bear fly off with Sam Elliott and one of the witches in his airship thing, even though she barely knows them. Presumably they're heading off for another adventure at breakneck speed in which everyone knows what's going on in the blink of an eye, and during which there will be an awful lot of characters who don't really do anything to further the plot.
Oh, and I've entirely missed mentioning the Magisterium. I think they're only there so that we equate them with organised religion and thus go "Oooo, them bad!". And there's mention of "Gobblers" which we found very amusing.
Amazingly I did actually quite enjoy it, but it is hugely derivitive. It's like a little bit of Harry Potter, a smidgeon on Narnia, and a dollop of Lord Of The Ring. And a touch of Star Wars for good measure ("Lyra - I am your Mother"). There just doesn't seem to be any fresh ideas. And the pace is just ridiculous. It cracks along at such a speed we never feel like we know what's going on or why, and the characters don't have a chance to flesh our who they are. And if Lyra died at any stage I honestly wouldn't mind one bit. But until the next Narnia film comes out it's enough to keep us entertained for a couple of hours, even if you'd never want to see it again.
Anyway, The Golden Compass. Here's a quick synopsis (lots of spoilers included)...
We are introduced to Lyra, our heroine, by way of seeing her running through fields and climbing across rooves with the local ruffians, known as "Gyptians", which we assume is a shortening of "Egyptian" even though they look like the chimney-sweep kids from Mary Poppins. We are obviously being told, in a very ham-fisted way, that Lyra must be a free spirit and head-strong. We immediately don't like her, not because she's naughty, but simply because she's deeply annoying. Also, we don't like her Daemon, which is explained as being her soul in the body of an animal which follows her around. I immediately start to wonder what clubbing and sex would be like with a load of animals getting in the way. In fact, isn't everything going to be really difficult if you have an animal with you? Imagine Sainsburys on a Saturday! And supposing you end up with an elephant. You're not going to be able to go anywhere!
Anyway, then Daniel Craig appears with a beard and all thoughts of anything else disappear. Sigh. Christ that man's sexy, for some unfathomable reason.
Then there's a 10 minute section in which an awful lot of words are said which don't really mean anything in an attempt to shoehorn a large amount of plot into a short space of time, leaving us wondering what's actually going on. Some of these words may or may not have been borrowed from Harry Potter.
Then Lyra's best friend suddenly states that children are disappearing, and she promises to save him if he's taken. We wonder if his disappearance could have been set up in a way which didn't feel like you were having someone shout it in your face.
Nicole Kidman arrives, in a shot from behind as she sashays into a large dining room. She's lacking the hips to be wiggling like that, frankly. She's introduced to us as another free-spirited woman, and someone to be weary of. She does this by demonstrating that everyone is afraid of her, for reasons we don't understand. She is thus very enigmatic and we go "Ooooooo, enigmatic". She invites Lyra to come to the "north" with her - we presume she doesn't mean Sheffield - and although Lyra only met her 2 minutes ago she accepts, and therefore deserves any trouble she gets into.
Lyra is given the last remaining Golden Compass to look after. Christ knows why, as clearly she's not to be trusted. The Golden Compass is a device who's purpose was explained to us at the start of the film at breakneck speed and without detail, and whilst we were still trying to get comfortable and juggle our icecream, popcorn and jumbo Pepsi. We therefore have no idea what it does.
Lyra's best friend disappears. Shock! She doesn't seem to care and heads off with Nicole regardless.
By this time Daniel Craig has gone "north" and has been captured, and is not to be seen again until the final 5 minutes of the film. Thus for most of the duration of the movie we're left wondering how his capture has moved the plot on, even though it turns out it hasn't.
There is a sequence which goes a bit "My Fair Lady" where we're treated to shots of London with the buildings stretched and plumped via the wonders of CGI, and where Nicole tries to turn Lyra into a mini version of herself with the cunning use of a new dress and a brush through her hair. Something fishy is going on and we're not entirely sure it's going to be explained very well at any point during this movie.
Lyra runs away and is aided by the Gyptians, who now look like pirates and live on a boat, causing us further confusion. Lyra reveals to the Gyptians (rather too quickly, like everything else in this film) that she's in possession of the Golden Compass. The filmmakers, apparently aware that we weren't paying enough attention in the title sequence, decide to have a Gyptian explain the device again, withouth actually explaining it properly. Again. We are led to believe that the Compass is incredibly difficult to read and noone can do it anymore. Imagine our surprise when Lyra manages it first time!
They travel "north" to look for the captive children, which turns out to be somewhere inside the Artic Circle. Not sure how they know the children are up "north". Perhaps I blinked and missed that part, in the same way that I missed the relevance of a random witch turning up on the boat and then leaving again. Once north they have the fortune of running into both Sam Elliott (not looking as sexy as he used to) and a talking Polar Bear both of whom have nothing better to do than help them - I love it when that happens. Lyra helps the Bear to gain his rightful crown as the Polar Bear King, which involves a fight sequence, and this has nothing to do with the rest of the film. Lyra and the Bear head to where the children are being held but are separated using the age-old "bridge which is only strong enough for one person and thus collapses behind our hero(ine)" routine. Lyra continues on her own. I'm sure she would have frostbite by now and lost her fingers and toes, but never mind. Perhaps next time they could CGI her some stumps. On a vaguely related note; did you know that for years after seeing Forrest Gump I believed that Gary Sinise was actually an amputee?
Anyway, Lyra makes it to the captive children and figures out what's going on. We don't. We're still a bit confused as to why they're separating children from their Daemons. What's the point? Soulless children? Surely there are enough of those in Bermondsey as it is. And why are they only doing one child at a time rather than trying to do it on a much larger scale. However, we understand that it's all about puberty because they tell us in a particularly clunky way.
There's a big reveal in which Nicole turns out to be Lyra's mother - like we didn't see that one coming - and Daniel Craig is her Dad. I wonder aloud what it would be like to call Daniel "Daddy". Lyra escapes and frees the children and then there's a big-ish "Lord Of The Rings" style battle sequence where a load of witches turn up to help for no real reason. Presumably they have some time off between other fantasy movies. The children flee across the ice to what we presume is safety although we're not told. They could quite easily have succumbed to the cold or been picked off by various predators, fallen off cliffs etc, but we're not privvy to that information. Lyra and her Bear fly off with Sam Elliott and one of the witches in his airship thing, even though she barely knows them. Presumably they're heading off for another adventure at breakneck speed in which everyone knows what's going on in the blink of an eye, and during which there will be an awful lot of characters who don't really do anything to further the plot.
Oh, and I've entirely missed mentioning the Magisterium. I think they're only there so that we equate them with organised religion and thus go "Oooo, them bad!". And there's mention of "Gobblers" which we found very amusing.
Amazingly I did actually quite enjoy it, but it is hugely derivitive. It's like a little bit of Harry Potter, a smidgeon on Narnia, and a dollop of Lord Of The Ring. And a touch of Star Wars for good measure ("Lyra - I am your Mother"). There just doesn't seem to be any fresh ideas. And the pace is just ridiculous. It cracks along at such a speed we never feel like we know what's going on or why, and the characters don't have a chance to flesh our who they are. And if Lyra died at any stage I honestly wouldn't mind one bit. But until the next Narnia film comes out it's enough to keep us entertained for a couple of hours, even if you'd never want to see it again.
Friday, July 27, 2007
OMO At The Movies: "Transformers"
Transformers,
Girls toys in disguise...
So, last night The Boyf and I, plus OurBestMates, went to a preview showing of Transformers at the new O2 Vue cinema at the Dome, where we mingled with rather alot of bears who were in the vicinty for the Scissor Sisters concert. I was once mistaken for BabyDaddy you know. It was in a bar in Birmingham (as unlikely as that is), and everyone seemed to be treating me very oddly. There was lots of whispering and furtive glances, and finally one of the barmen asked The Boyf whether I'd mind being pestered for my autograph. I've never gone out again in that red satin jumpsuit. In any case, it was a bit of a nightmare to accessorise with, and I couldn't wear underwear with it cause of the VPL, so going to the toilet when drunk was always a dangerous operation, what with that zipper.
So, Transformers then. I really rather liked it. Sure, I couldn't really discern any particular plot rather than goodie vs baddie (there was something about a Cube but it was never explored in too much detail lest it get in the way of the kick-ass action). Basically it boiled down to; Decepticons get Cube = Bad, Autobots get Cube = Good. Who cares about anything else, let the CGI begin!
Speaking of which, the CGI was very good. The robots seemed to have real weight to their movements and seemless integration into the shots, unlike Spiderman who always looks like he's been superimposed. Badly.
What else can I tell you? Well, it's actually quite funny in places, much more so than I would have imagined, some of the shakey camera work, although not a new idea, was surprisingly gritty and reminded me of "Children of Men", and the action is pretty relentless, as befits something with a flimsy plot and no real character development. But hey, we're not here to see "Notes On A Scandal". We want explosions, and we get them.
On the downside it's too long, as seems to be the way with everything this year. In particular the final action piece should have been cut down some, good though it is. Also, someone please tell me why the military, whilst being chased by the Decepticons, would decide to stage the final battle in the middle of a densely populated city, rather than staying in the desert? Oh yeah, it's because there's more chance for kick-ass CGI. Silly me.
All in all, I loved it. If you love Boys Toys, lots of explosions and don't feel like using your brain I thoroughly recommend it. OBM#2 and I are going to see it again, and that doesn't happen very often.
Girls toys in disguise...
So, last night The Boyf and I, plus OurBestMates, went to a preview showing of Transformers at the new O2 Vue cinema at the Dome, where we mingled with rather alot of bears who were in the vicinty for the Scissor Sisters concert. I was once mistaken for BabyDaddy you know. It was in a bar in Birmingham (as unlikely as that is), and everyone seemed to be treating me very oddly. There was lots of whispering and furtive glances, and finally one of the barmen asked The Boyf whether I'd mind being pestered for my autograph. I've never gone out again in that red satin jumpsuit. In any case, it was a bit of a nightmare to accessorise with, and I couldn't wear underwear with it cause of the VPL, so going to the toilet when drunk was always a dangerous operation, what with that zipper.
So, Transformers then. I really rather liked it. Sure, I couldn't really discern any particular plot rather than goodie vs baddie (there was something about a Cube but it was never explored in too much detail lest it get in the way of the kick-ass action). Basically it boiled down to; Decepticons get Cube = Bad, Autobots get Cube = Good. Who cares about anything else, let the CGI begin!
Speaking of which, the CGI was very good. The robots seemed to have real weight to their movements and seemless integration into the shots, unlike Spiderman who always looks like he's been superimposed. Badly.
What else can I tell you? Well, it's actually quite funny in places, much more so than I would have imagined, some of the shakey camera work, although not a new idea, was surprisingly gritty and reminded me of "Children of Men", and the action is pretty relentless, as befits something with a flimsy plot and no real character development. But hey, we're not here to see "Notes On A Scandal". We want explosions, and we get them.
On the downside it's too long, as seems to be the way with everything this year. In particular the final action piece should have been cut down some, good though it is. Also, someone please tell me why the military, whilst being chased by the Decepticons, would decide to stage the final battle in the middle of a densely populated city, rather than staying in the desert? Oh yeah, it's because there's more chance for kick-ass CGI. Silly me.
All in all, I loved it. If you love Boys Toys, lots of explosions and don't feel like using your brain I thoroughly recommend it. OBM#2 and I are going to see it again, and that doesn't happen very often.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
OMO At The Movies: "Zodiac"
Going to the movies alot recently, huh? We made the most of Orange Wednesday and dragged along OBM's to our local cinema. What we saved on the 2 for 1 offer we ended up spending on food - OBM#2 managed to get through a hotdog, large popcorn, nachos, drink and a large tub of Ben & Jerry's all by himself. He's a big lad though. I limited myself to only a large tub of Ben & Jerry's, which, true to form, I immediately threw down myself. Luckily OBM#2 also threw ice-cream down him, and then stepped in the nachos tray he left on the floor, catapulting salsa over his trainers and up his legs. We looked like we'd had a food fight. Hmmm, there's a thought....
Sigh.
Anyway, about the film. It's long. Very long. Like 2 hours 40 or something. Have all the Hollywood editors gone on holiday at the moment? Are they all on a beach somewhere laughing at their dastardly plan to bore everyone in the world to death with over-long movies?
It's a pretty good film, especially if you're into a ridiculous amount of details, in a way similar to JFK (although that film didn't hold my attention as well as Zodiac). I'd suggest taking a notepad. The central performances are good, even if Mark Ruffalo seems to be a cross between Columbo and Poncherello from CHiPs. As usual I found myself strangely drawn to Robert Downey Jr (who plays Paul Avery). He's SO not my type, but I SO would.
I'd suggest waiting til it's out on DVD rather than enduring a numb arse down the local Multiplex. Definitely worth a look though.
By the way, this is my 150th post. Who'da thought it?
Sigh.
Anyway, about the film. It's long. Very long. Like 2 hours 40 or something. Have all the Hollywood editors gone on holiday at the moment? Are they all on a beach somewhere laughing at their dastardly plan to bore everyone in the world to death with over-long movies?
It's a pretty good film, especially if you're into a ridiculous amount of details, in a way similar to JFK (although that film didn't hold my attention as well as Zodiac). I'd suggest taking a notepad. The central performances are good, even if Mark Ruffalo seems to be a cross between Columbo and Poncherello from CHiPs. As usual I found myself strangely drawn to Robert Downey Jr (who plays Paul Avery). He's SO not my type, but I SO would.
I'd suggest waiting til it's out on DVD rather than enduring a numb arse down the local Multiplex. Definitely worth a look though.
By the way, this is my 150th post. Who'da thought it?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
OMO At The Movies: "28 Weeks Later"
I actually went to see this a few weeks ago, but completely forgot to tell you about it and spoil the plot for you. I say "plot" like it has one worth spoiling. I mean, in a nutshell, lots of people get eaten. The end.
So, what happens? Well, it goes a little something like this. Er, this contains the entire plot, so if you don't want it utterly ruined I'd stop reading.
Dad and Mum hide in house. The infected get in. Dad runs away and leaves Mum to get eaten. Charming. Some week later - 28 in fact - all of the infected have died of starvation so the Americans turn up to start the clean-up and re-population. With lots of guns, as per usual. They create a safe zone, and we are treated to aerial shots of Canary Wharf, which looks like the start of The Apprentice. We spot our home in one of the shots and point at the screen so that the whole audience know where we live.
(This is where I really start to spoil things)
The Dad's two Children are allowed back into the country to be re-united with him (they were away when the outbreak occurred). Dad tells Children that Mum was dead before he ran away. He lies. Children want keep-sake to remember Mum by so venture out of heavily guarded safe zone perimeter (have you noticed that guards NEVER pay enough attention in films) and go to their old home. Mum's there, clearly not as dead as everyone thought. Americans turn up and drag everyone back to base.
Mum turns out to be a carrier of the virus. Dad goes to see her to say sorry for leaving her to get eaten, like you do. She kisses him, he gets the virus and goes on a biting spree. Civilians are herded into a basement (apparently there are 15,000 people in the safe zone, although it looks like only a couple of hundred at most), where Dad breaks in and starts to chow down. The lights conveniently go into "strobe mode" - apparently this basement is normally used as a nightclub - so you don't get to see much of the action. Epileptics in the audience start to froth at the mouth. Civilians break free and flee, chased by a growing number of the infected. Americans decide to just kill everyone and be done with it. Like in Vietnam. A small group of civilians, including the Children, manage to flee into Central London, where they're picked off one by one in the most gory fashion that the film's makers could think up. There are lots of chases, and the Dad turns up in lots of improbably coincidental places. The shakey camera work is starting to make me want to puke. We get to see parts of London looking deserted that we didn't get to see in the first film. "Cabaret" is on in the West End, we note. The Boyf and I have a quick chat about how good it was whilst the characters continue to run around screaming.
Eventually everyone is dead apart from the two Children, who are finally rescued by an American with a helicopter. Apparently they let him into the army after he got out of Oz. And he can walk again! The Boyf hasn't seen Oz so didn't understand this reference at all. They fly to France where the Children, who are obviously carrying the virus, infect the locals. Clearly they've forgotten that they told us that mainland Europe was infected in the first film. For some reason France being infected results in a cheer from certain members of the audience. Those from Bermondsey in all likelihood.
The End.
So, is it any good? Well, what does it matter - I've just told you the entire plot so you don't have to see it.
Actually I did rather enjoy it. It's like the first film only with more killings, has more parts of London looking barren (which we like), and it doesn't turn crap 2/3rds of the way through like the first one did. And it's short, which is an oft-overlooked bonus. Please take note the makers of Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean et al.
Next up I spoil the plot of "Zodiac". Er...
So, what happens? Well, it goes a little something like this. Er, this contains the entire plot, so if you don't want it utterly ruined I'd stop reading.
Dad and Mum hide in house. The infected get in. Dad runs away and leaves Mum to get eaten. Charming. Some week later - 28 in fact - all of the infected have died of starvation so the Americans turn up to start the clean-up and re-population. With lots of guns, as per usual. They create a safe zone, and we are treated to aerial shots of Canary Wharf, which looks like the start of The Apprentice. We spot our home in one of the shots and point at the screen so that the whole audience know where we live.
(This is where I really start to spoil things)
The Dad's two Children are allowed back into the country to be re-united with him (they were away when the outbreak occurred). Dad tells Children that Mum was dead before he ran away. He lies. Children want keep-sake to remember Mum by so venture out of heavily guarded safe zone perimeter (have you noticed that guards NEVER pay enough attention in films) and go to their old home. Mum's there, clearly not as dead as everyone thought. Americans turn up and drag everyone back to base.
Mum turns out to be a carrier of the virus. Dad goes to see her to say sorry for leaving her to get eaten, like you do. She kisses him, he gets the virus and goes on a biting spree. Civilians are herded into a basement (apparently there are 15,000 people in the safe zone, although it looks like only a couple of hundred at most), where Dad breaks in and starts to chow down. The lights conveniently go into "strobe mode" - apparently this basement is normally used as a nightclub - so you don't get to see much of the action. Epileptics in the audience start to froth at the mouth. Civilians break free and flee, chased by a growing number of the infected. Americans decide to just kill everyone and be done with it. Like in Vietnam. A small group of civilians, including the Children, manage to flee into Central London, where they're picked off one by one in the most gory fashion that the film's makers could think up. There are lots of chases, and the Dad turns up in lots of improbably coincidental places. The shakey camera work is starting to make me want to puke. We get to see parts of London looking deserted that we didn't get to see in the first film. "Cabaret" is on in the West End, we note. The Boyf and I have a quick chat about how good it was whilst the characters continue to run around screaming.
Eventually everyone is dead apart from the two Children, who are finally rescued by an American with a helicopter. Apparently they let him into the army after he got out of Oz. And he can walk again! The Boyf hasn't seen Oz so didn't understand this reference at all. They fly to France where the Children, who are obviously carrying the virus, infect the locals. Clearly they've forgotten that they told us that mainland Europe was infected in the first film. For some reason France being infected results in a cheer from certain members of the audience. Those from Bermondsey in all likelihood.
The End.
So, is it any good? Well, what does it matter - I've just told you the entire plot so you don't have to see it.
Actually I did rather enjoy it. It's like the first film only with more killings, has more parts of London looking barren (which we like), and it doesn't turn crap 2/3rds of the way through like the first one did. And it's short, which is an oft-overlooked bonus. Please take note the makers of Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean et al.
Next up I spoil the plot of "Zodiac". Er...
Thursday, May 24, 2007
OMO At The Movies: "Spiderman 3"
I finally got around to seeing it, and wished I hadn't bothered.
Here's my review, as informative as ever. I'll try not to spoil anything. Frankly, I don't need to - the movie spoils a perfectly good franchise all on it's own.
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Then there was a break where we find out that all French restaurants have to have a comedy Monty Python style Maitre'D, that Peter Parker's somehow managed to squeeze in piano and dance lessons (you think his schedule would be tight enough), and that the CGI is less convincing than the animated Spiderman tv series from the late 60's. Oh, and the audience is subjected to a plot hole big enough to land a plane in. A badly realised CGI plane though it may be.
Then it's back to...
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
And then we get to the end where the final twists actually negate much of the movie you've just uncomfortably sat through, along with a large chunk of Spiderman 2 to boot.
Can you tell I wasn't impressed?
Here's my review, as informative as ever. I'll try not to spoil anything. Frankly, I don't need to - the movie spoils a perfectly good franchise all on it's own.
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Then there was a break where we find out that all French restaurants have to have a comedy Monty Python style Maitre'D, that Peter Parker's somehow managed to squeeze in piano and dance lessons (you think his schedule would be tight enough), and that the CGI is less convincing than the animated Spiderman tv series from the late 60's. Oh, and the audience is subjected to a plot hole big enough to land a plane in. A badly realised CGI plane though it may be.
Then it's back to...
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
Ow! Girder!
And then we get to the end where the final twists actually negate much of the movie you've just uncomfortably sat through, along with a large chunk of Spiderman 2 to boot.
Can you tell I wasn't impressed?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
OMO At The Movies: "300"
Your poor little OMO had to go to the cinema on his own on Friday night. The Boyf refuses to watch anything with gore, and even the hot humpies weren't luring him in to watch "300". So I took advantage of him going out for an end-of-term meal with his colleagues to slink off to the cinema. I took along all the necessary provisions that I thought I'd need; pecan ice-cream, popcorn, jumbo Pepsi Max, lube, Nexus prostate stimulator, poppers and a box of tissues. The foodstuffs came in useful. The rest of my wares, not so much.
Here are my thought processes throughout the film (note how monosyllabic I am when I think):
Ooooh, men.
Ooooh, muscles.
Ooooh, more men.
Ooooh, more muscles.
Hmmmmmmmm, Daxos. Yum
(Then there was some fighting, during which time I managed to throw pecan ice-cream down my shirt and trousers, so I missed much of the action whilst trying to ensure it hadn't left any marks, otherwise when the house lights came on it would have looked like I'd spunked everywhere)
Oh! Daxos gone. Others dead. Bugger.
The End.
Improvements to the film are simple, and two-fold. Chest hair and cum. Some acting might have been nice too, but then if I wanted such trivialities I'd have gone to see "Notes On A Scandal", and Dame Judi Dench doesn't look anywhere near as good with her chest out. One supposes.
The remainder of our weekend was spent painting a wall in our main room a deep dried-blood red. Officially it's called "Arabian Red" by 1892 (a paint company who specialises in authentic "period" colours i.e. Victorian). Apparently "Dried Blood" didn't look so good on the tin.
And that's about it really. No sex or dancing or getting trashed. Yikes, this middle-aged business is weird.
Here are my thought processes throughout the film (note how monosyllabic I am when I think):
Ooooh, men.
Ooooh, muscles.
Ooooh, more men.
Ooooh, more muscles.
Hmmmmmmmm, Daxos. Yum
(Then there was some fighting, during which time I managed to throw pecan ice-cream down my shirt and trousers, so I missed much of the action whilst trying to ensure it hadn't left any marks, otherwise when the house lights came on it would have looked like I'd spunked everywhere)
Oh! Daxos gone. Others dead. Bugger.
The End.
Improvements to the film are simple, and two-fold. Chest hair and cum. Some acting might have been nice too, but then if I wanted such trivialities I'd have gone to see "Notes On A Scandal", and Dame Judi Dench doesn't look anywhere near as good with her chest out. One supposes.
The remainder of our weekend was spent painting a wall in our main room a deep dried-blood red. Officially it's called "Arabian Red" by 1892 (a paint company who specialises in authentic "period" colours i.e. Victorian). Apparently "Dried Blood" didn't look so good on the tin.
And that's about it really. No sex or dancing or getting trashed. Yikes, this middle-aged business is weird.
Friday, March 23, 2007
OMO At The Movies: "Premonition"
I forsee... a mediocre film.
Quick review for you, film fans. Last night we went to see "Premonition", on the grounds that there wasn't anything else to see that we agreed on.
So, the plot goes like this (try to read this in an uninterested deadpan voice):
Oh no, my husband is dead.
Oh, actually he's alive.
Oh no, he's dead again.
Nope, alive again.
Whatever.
By the end of the film neither Sandra Bullock as the wife, nor either of the children, seemed to care much whether Julian McMahon was alive or dead. And if they didn't care, how were we to as an audience?
The premise is a good one: what would you do if you had a premonition and knew that your partner would be killed. How could you not interfere to stop it? But what if there were other factors that stayed your hand? Hardly original though, so the film tries to up the ante by giving us a disjointed timeline.
Trouble is that there are a few plot holes, and the film's not quite as clever as it likes to think (it tries for Memento but lands somewhere near Gothika). However, it's nicely shot (muted tones), the score's pretty, and Sandra tries valiantly to revive a comatose script.
At the end of the day, it's an ok film, I just wouldn't run out to see it. But on a wet autumnal Sunday it'll be perfect sit-on-the-sofa-under-a-duvet fair.
Have a good weekend, Dear Reader.
Quick review for you, film fans. Last night we went to see "Premonition", on the grounds that there wasn't anything else to see that we agreed on.
So, the plot goes like this (try to read this in an uninterested deadpan voice):
Oh no, my husband is dead.
Oh, actually he's alive.
Oh no, he's dead again.
Nope, alive again.
Whatever.
By the end of the film neither Sandra Bullock as the wife, nor either of the children, seemed to care much whether Julian McMahon was alive or dead. And if they didn't care, how were we to as an audience?
The premise is a good one: what would you do if you had a premonition and knew that your partner would be killed. How could you not interfere to stop it? But what if there were other factors that stayed your hand? Hardly original though, so the film tries to up the ante by giving us a disjointed timeline.
Trouble is that there are a few plot holes, and the film's not quite as clever as it likes to think (it tries for Memento but lands somewhere near Gothika). However, it's nicely shot (muted tones), the score's pretty, and Sandra tries valiantly to revive a comatose script.
At the end of the day, it's an ok film, I just wouldn't run out to see it. But on a wet autumnal Sunday it'll be perfect sit-on-the-sofa-under-a-duvet fair.
Have a good weekend, Dear Reader.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Monday Morning BlogBite - "Casino Royale"
Went to see the new Bond film at the weekend, and very good it was too. I shudder at the very thought of using a word such as "re-imagining", but that's basically what it is; it's a back-to-basics Bond.
Daniel Craig is superb, as we hoped he would be. With the amount of crap that was thrown his way when he was cast we'd been waiting months to see if he could shut everyone up, and he certainly sticks his fingers up to the naysayers.
It's gritty, the stunts are so much better for their lack of CGI, and the interplay between Craig and Eva (as Vespa Lynd) is brilliantly written.
On the downside it's a good 20 minutes too long. The Boyf had even managed to run out of popcorn - he has a family sized bucket on his own and growls at me should I have the temerity of wanting any. Also, trying to work out who's the bad guy/girl and why made my head hurt, but then I was still getting over an illness. Oh, and try to ignore that bloody awful theme tune. Just sing "Goldfinger" very loudly over the top when it comes on like we did.
Altogether it certainly has the OMO Seal of Approval. Go see it.
Daniel Craig is superb, as we hoped he would be. With the amount of crap that was thrown his way when he was cast we'd been waiting months to see if he could shut everyone up, and he certainly sticks his fingers up to the naysayers.
It's gritty, the stunts are so much better for their lack of CGI, and the interplay between Craig and Eva (as Vespa Lynd) is brilliantly written.
On the downside it's a good 20 minutes too long. The Boyf had even managed to run out of popcorn - he has a family sized bucket on his own and growls at me should I have the temerity of wanting any. Also, trying to work out who's the bad guy/girl and why made my head hurt, but then I was still getting over an illness. Oh, and try to ignore that bloody awful theme tune. Just sing "Goldfinger" very loudly over the top when it comes on like we did.
Altogether it certainly has the OMO Seal of Approval. Go see it.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
OMO At The Movies: "The Night Listener"
So, I was going to say something about "The Night Listener" wasn't I?
Ok, "The Night Listener"; don't bother. I mean, it's an Ok film, but just felt rather flat. The whole 'twist' in the story felt very under-done, it wasn't thrilling, it wasn't creepy, and it wasn't a great character study. Toni Collette was pretty good, but on the whole the characters needed fleshing-out more. Robin Williams aimed for "confused and pertubed" but hit "plain bored looking". The Boyf has read the book and said it has far more atmosphere. I'd say if you want to see it then wait for the DVD; there's no reason to see it on the big screen.
Ok, "The Night Listener"; don't bother. I mean, it's an Ok film, but just felt rather flat. The whole 'twist' in the story felt very under-done, it wasn't thrilling, it wasn't creepy, and it wasn't a great character study. Toni Collette was pretty good, but on the whole the characters needed fleshing-out more. Robin Williams aimed for "confused and pertubed" but hit "plain bored looking". The Boyf has read the book and said it has far more atmosphere. I'd say if you want to see it then wait for the DVD; there's no reason to see it on the big screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
