Tag Archives: Owun Birkett

Drive {Film Review}

Posted on by

There is nothing quite like a film by Nicolas Winding Refn to be compared with! The strange eerie blur of reality and surrealism, often combined together to make a bizarre and ever-lasting experience. Drive, which is based on the novel of the same name by James Sallis, was an experience like you take a scenic route in the calm areas and then get assaulted with its throttled engine when speeding up the highway. If there’s anything these type of movies that get it right, it’s from the writing and directing. I can also say it was a damn good experience to watch!

The story is about a nameless person, only goes by the name of ‘Driver’ (Ryan Gosling); during the day, he’s a part-time stunt performer and mechanic at an auto-repair shop (owned by Shannon, played by ‘Breaking Bad”s Bryan Cranston) but by night, he serves as a getaway driver for heists. Meanwhile, he slowly gets to know Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio. The ‘Driver’ gets involved into another job but it, unfortunately, goes horribly wrong.

Ryan Gosling delivers a subtle performance as the man with no name, you can sense there is something much deeper in him than you may think. He is motivated on the simple things in life, never regrets anything and keeps on going on living. The interactions between Gosling and Mulligan may have little to no dialogue but it is sweet and gentle. It doesn’t resort to conventional smutlzy romance we’re all accustomed to, it comes off something natural and Mulligan brings the heart to the film. Though the scene-stealer is from Albert Brooks, who plays the brutally honest Bernie Rose. He’s not the stereotypical mobster, he’s the type of man who’d kill someone if he had to but would do it as a last resort. The rest of the supporting cast are all superb in their own right, have little screen-time but all have their own importance to the story.

Newton Thomas Sigel’s cinematography is absolutely gorgeous to look at, from the various night shots of L.A. to the car chases (only two of them through-out the duration). There are moments where you are transfixed to its beauty and you are also tensed when it comes to the chases. The editing is very put together, not too fast paced so we get a clear idea on what’s going on within the scene. It all makes homages to the classic 60s/70s car chases of ‘Bullitt’ etc. It all just puts the ‘Fast and the Furious’ franchise into shame and Refn just shows how it’s all done. The soundtrack is equally as superb, capturing the essence of its pulpy story-line but also delivering this dreamy quality that maybe represents the ‘Driver’s’ psyche.

Overall; easily one of the best movies of 2011 and such a unique film that serves as both art-house and pulp cinema! Refn is one of the best living filmmakers to date and should get recognised for his direction in this film. It doesn’t rely on the spectacle, it relies on the craft of the writing and performances.

4 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Posted on by

*WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

After ten years, the end of the Harry Potter saga has finally come to an end. It is one of the most anticipated summer blockbuster movies of 2011 and it is just as insanely popular when the book was released at our local bookstores. The result is just as exciting as you’d expect a movie finale.

The story continues as Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue to destroy Voldemort’s last remaining Horcruxes (each individual item Voldemort has put his soul to make himself immortal). Meanwhile, Hogwarts is under the control of Death-Eaters and Dementors. The story is just continues straight from Part 1 and you can really feel Harry’s struggle to destroy the last remaining Horcruxes. Even showing Voldemort slowly, and eventually, growing more vulnerable as the story progresses. For those who have read the books, it won’t come to any surprise with the few twists here and there (i.e. Ciarán Hinds as Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth Dumbledore). A lot is at stake and director David Yates really dwells on that very well! The only problem I have is the time duration; Part 1 was 2 hours and 26 minutes, this film is only 2 hours 10 minutes long. It feels a lot shorter than it says, when it honestly should have been a lot longer to really show the epic story and scale of the production.

The performances from the three main leads are nothing to write about but they have improved over the years during the film series run. The film features an amazing British ensemble cast; Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Julie Walters and even David Yates collaborator Kelly Macdonald (State of Play mini-series and The Girl in the Café) gets an appearance as Helena Ravenclaw. As much it is fantastic to see such huge names in a film like Harry Potter, the time duration comes to affect and limits their screen-time. Fiennes, however, does show he is having a lot of fun playing Voldemort but also shows a twisted charismatic presence you don’t get a lot from villains nowadays.

The production value is top-notch, you can see a lot of effort and care has been put on this epic finale. The sets look fantastic, the visual effects look dazzling and the orchestral score (by Alexandre Desplat) really brings the emotional core to the story and overall film. The final battle between Harry and Voldemort is rather intense but it all feels rushed and quite lacking compared to other epics (The Lord of the Rings). Though Warner Bros. doesn’t pull any stops and really does deliver quite an event.

Overall; it is the film Harry Potter fans want from a finale and it is the best in the series. Not quite as the big bang it was anticipating but still has enough to keep you satisfied through-out. You can’t deny the Harry Potter film series will have Hollywood keep its eye on British filmmaking and finding talent overseas. An immensely well made production, strongly recommended.

4 out of 5

Transformers: Dark of the Moon {Film Review}

Posted on by

*WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Back in 2007, Michael Bay admitted he originally did not want to make the first Transformers movie, calling it a “stupid toys movie”, until Steven Spielberg changed the premise to “a kid and his car”.

It suggests that Bay was unsuitable to take the reins of a live-action Transformers movie. Despite this, the first film was a huge hit, considering it was during the year of threequels (Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and The Bourne Ultimatum). The follow-up, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, was plagued with a script that was barely finished, thanks to the writer’s strike, and although resulting in a complete mess, still made $800 million worldwide. So now the inevitable conclusion to the trilogy has come around and, as much it is a slight improvement to Transformers 2, it’s still no good.

The plot starts off with Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) making a monologue (you know, like he did with the last two movies) about the war of Cybertron (which could’ve been a potentially better movie if explored further). It’s revealed a ship managed to escape, but lands on the moon, heavily damaged. John F. Kennedy (worst rotoscoping effects I’ve ever seen) authorises Apollo 11 to land on the moon and document footage of the crash site.

Flash-forward to the modern day, Optimus Prime learns about the ship and finds his mentor, Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy). Sentinel mentions his mission was to take the pillars away from Cybertron, so it’d be out of the Decepticon’s reach. Though we eventually find out the Decepticons raided the ship long before, while also revealing Sentinel made a truce with the Decepticons, betraying the Autobots for the survival of Cybertron.

The problem with these movies (a flaw since the first film), is the Transformers feel more like supporting characters, but shouldn’t they be the ones leading the movie? They barely get any screen-time whatsoever. Instead, Bay focusses on the human characters; Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), Lennox (Josh Duhamel), Simmons (John Tuturro), Epps (Tyrese Gibson) and Ron and Judy Witwicky (Kevin Dunn and Julie White). We’re also introduced to a whole new bunch; Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), Mearing (Frances McDormand), Bruce Brazos (John Malkovich), Dutch (Alan Tudyk) and Dylan (Patrick Dempsey).

The problem with 11 characters vying for screen time is that they too get very little development. So, in essence, we have a film where we don’t have anything or anyone to relate to. We just don’t care about anyone. Live, die, I’ve dropped my popcorn – emotionally,  it all feels the same.

Anyway, it starts off with Sam having a hard time finding a job, but also bothered that he’s been awarded a medal by Barack Obama for saving the world twice (though technically once, since he did squat in the second film). The man clearly has angst, yet still barely makes any contribution to the narrative.

Meanwhile, the character of Carly feels it was originally written for Megan Fox’s Mikaela, but with the name changed at the last minute. Rosie’s previous “acting” experience was being a Victoria’s Secret model (also being in a VS commercial, directed by Michael Bay). It’s no surprise then, that her purpose in the film seems to be none other than to exploit her looks in the most juvenile way possible. Her performance in this film is terrible. She really brings down the film and she’s just as bad as Megan Fox (early contender for Worst Actress, put my money on it!).

The scenes involving Sam working for Malkovich could’ve easily been cut out, as could The NEST team (led by Lennox). Their sole purpose is to allow Bay to exploit his fetish for everything military. All of these characters act like cardboard cut-outs and deliver lame attempts of humour. Especially Ken Jeong’s character, Jerry Wang, who at one point locks Sam in a toilet stall and says to him “Deep Wang” (just to really force it down your throats, he says it three times and then says: “Get it? Deep Throat”). One for the kids, that.

In fairness, the action sequences in this film have been improved – no longer shaky-cam or close-up, but wide enough to see. The climactic battle at the end of the movie is very well done, but is literally the only thing worth watching. However, 90% of the battle is focused on the humans and barely on the Transformers. As much as it features Autobots and Decepticons beating the living daylights out of each other, Bay wants to have his fix by having soldiers parachuting out of a plane in flying squirrel suits and gliding down in Chicago (which was such a good plan that only one plane out of six made it).

The other problem is, as mentioned before, you just don’t care if any of the characters die in this big, winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost shoot out. Plus, the tone in the film is all over the place. For example, Carly gets kidnapped and Sam is forced to spy for the Decepticons. It’s a scene where Sam grapples with the decision to betray his friends, only to go straight into pure slapstick humour. If you looked up the words ‘killing a scene’, it’d have a link to this film next to it.

A live-action Transformers movie could’ve gone any other way, but Bay decided to take this route and we’re supposed to accept what we have in front of us. The phrase people say when going to go see this movie is ‘leave your brain at the door’. Well, I honestly think it comes across as having too low standards and being easily amused. Don’t get me wrong, I like blockbusters as much as the next person, but I DO have a brain (we all do!).

Inception proved that you don’t need to dumb down your movie to attract mainstream audiences and become a box-office hit. You can bring good story-telling with some amazing set-pieces, instead, we just get a movie that’s all style and no substance. I don’t expect everything to be a Terrence Malick movie, but I at least expect a blockbuster that entertains and doesn’t insult our intelligence. If only Bay had watched X-Men: First Class.

Overall, a typical Michael Bay movie. Loud, incredibly dumb and exploitative as hell (in the worst sense)! The characters are bland and pointless, the Transformers are treated with no respect (especially Optimus Prime) and the plot is nonsensical. The worst summer movie of 2011 and one of the worst movie series ever made!

2 out of 5

 

The Tree of Life {Film Review}

Posted on by

Terrence Malick has been a unique filmmaker, always distancing himself from conventions to bring his own artistic license. From his 38 years of being in the industry, he has only made five films. It took him a full 20 years from Days of Heaven (1978) to The Thin Red Line (1998). He is infamous for shooting footage the length of a football field and also not being part of the publicity spot-light. The Tree of Life is his new movie since 2005’s The New World, barely any details were released for the film. Only two posters and a trailer were only shown to various multiplexes. It finally got screened at 2011 Cannes Film Festival, and it was received mixed reactions of boos and applause. I, however, thought it was worth the wait.

The Tree of Life is quite simply a breathtaking experience, a beautifully crafted film that doesn’t really give you straight answers but really makes you think. The film will be, inevitably, be compared to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey but it also reminded me of Koyaanisqatsi. The film deals with questions that the characters imply through-out; what is the meaning of our existance? What is our purpose in life? The story revolves around Jack (Sean Penn), who works as an architect in modern day America. He starts to think back during his childhood during the 50s, with his parents and going through different phases in his life. His parents are played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, who resemble two things that runs the theme during the duration; nature and grace. Nature is unpredictable and harsh, which Pitt tries at one point make his sons strong and confident. Grace is the complete opposite, it is elegant and calm as Chastain becomes supportive to her sons. Young Jack (Hunter McCracken) is very conflicted from the two, he leans towards nature but as an adult, he starts to feel more empathetic (shown through his sub-conscious walking through a desert and eventually ends up in a beach)

The performances from the entire cast is superb. They are barely given any dialogue, but their natural reactions and expressions are subtle. It is the meaning of the phrase; show, don’t tell. McCracken impresses as the Young Jack, showing the childhood curiosity and frustration everyone deals with. Such as a scene where he walks with his mother in town and notices police officers taking convicts away in their patrol cars. Looks up to his mother and asks in a worried tone if he’ll ever be like them? Sean Penn doesn’t get as much screen-time but he makes a presence when he’s thinking about his childhood experiences.

The film has a non-linear narrative, often cutting away from Jack’s story to shots of the formation of the universe and how the planets are created. Then it views when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, continuing Malick’s trademark on showing nature as a major element. All of these sequences are shot beautifully. Legendary special photographic effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull (who was responsible for the effects in 2001 and Blade Runner), was a consultant on the effects of this film. The effects in this film look organic and believable, a film to be big in scale requires believability (especially when dealing with a theme about creation and existence) The scenes with Jack’s family comes across as a family home movie, a sense of nostalgic memorabilia.

There is not much I want to say to reveal too much of the film, it really is something to see to believe. To put simply; if you are fan of Terrence Malick or want a film that has a deep message that is subtle, there is no excuse not to miss this film.

Overall; The film may divide opinions; some may find it pretentious, others may find it as a work of art. I, however, find it to be a meditating and philosophical film that is just as beautiful to watch. A huge change from the summer blockbuster season and strongly recommended.

5 out of 5

Green Lantern {Film Review}

Posted on by

*WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

Marvel has been long releasing their most cherished superheroes – X-Men, Spider-Man, Blade, Punisher, Fantastic Four, Iron Man and recently, Thor. Most have been successful and spawned many sequels (unlike Daredevil, which wasn’t well-received by critics and audiences, but led to the Elektra spin-off,  which did worse). So it was about time Warner Bros./DC Comics finally brought a superhero of theirs to the big screen who wasn’t Batman or Superman. Enter Green Lantern.

Created by Bill Finger and Martin Nodell in 1940, there have been many Green Lanterns, most notably the first, Alan Scott (1940) and John Stewart (1972). But it’s 1959’s fan-favourite Hal Jordan who makes the Emerald Crusader’s live-action movie debut.

The movie begins with an expositional monologue by Tomar-Re (voiced by Geoffrey Rush), explaining about the planet Oa, the Green Lantern Corps, the ring they wear that harnesses the power of will and how they are spread out among 3,600 sectors in the universe.

He explains that one of their warriors, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison) fought against Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown) – an enemy who absorbs and uses the power of fear from living beings – and defeated him. Parallax is imprisoned in the Lost Sector (Sector 666. . . . foreshadowing much?), but it all goes downhill when an alien spacecraft crash-lands where Parallax is kept and he escapes (shouldn’t they have made that sector a no fly zone if they had the most dangerous being in the universe?).

Six months later, Parrallax attacks Abin Sur and mortally wounds him. Abin Sur luckily escapes, crashes on Earth and commands his ring to find a successor. Enter Ryan Reynolds playing our main protagonist, Hal Jordan.

Jordan is a cocky fighter pilot who just happens to have daddy issues (father died in a fighter jet accident) and thus causes his fear. Unfortunately, since Reynolds is known for comedy roles, it’s hard to take him seriously when he tries to bring dramatic weight in a scene. It’s not terrible by any means, but it doesn’t feel convincing enough. Most of the time he’s smiling at the camera and joking around (which really makes the tone of this film go off at times).

Blake Lively plays Jordan’s childhood friend/love interest, Carol Ferris. She works for her father’s company and is also a fighter pilot. Despite apparently having the chops to fly aircraft, she is still shamefully used as the damsel in distress at times. But it is amusing when she quickly realises Hal Jordan is Green Lantern (thereby trashing the ridiculous notions of heroes using a small mask to conceal their identity).

In the blue corner, Peter Sarsgaard plays our antagonist, Dr. Hector Hammond. You can see he is having fun playing the role, but comes across as hammy and chewing the scenery. Instead, the most impressive performance in the film is from Mark Strong as Sinestro (it was the 50s, having unimaginative evil names made it straight-forward). He gives much more emotion and conviction but unfortunately, doesn’t get enough development or screen-time.

What about the rest of the cast, you say? Tim Robbins? Angela Bassett? Michael Clark Duncan as Kilowog? Barely get enough screen-time to make them memorable or worth caring about. The problem with this film is that it goes at such a quick pace, there’s not enough time to take it all in. Bassett’s character vanishes near the end of the second act never to be mentioned again! Even the main characters are barely developed, so new information springs out of nowhere, such as Hal, Carol and Hector all apparently knowing each other as kids.

Ah, now. The visual effects. I have never seen a comic book movie that looked so fake and artificial since Fantastic Four in 2005. I was desperately optimistic about the CGI Green Lantern suit, but whenever Hal Jordan’s touring Oa, I couldn’t help but see Ryan Reynolds’ head just floating in a sea of digital imagery, which became really distracting. Even the sets on Earth looked cheap, especially the scenes between Hal and Carol.

The climactic battle was severely lacking entertainment. Yeah, the sequences where Hal springs a fuel truck in the air and then forms an AA gun to blow it up in front of Parallax was creative, but there was no excitement, jeopardy and no feeling about the possibility of Hal dying.

Overall; hugely disappointing! Martin Campbell has done some seriously good films in the past (GoldenEye, The Mask of Zorro and Casino Royale) but here, it seems he has absolutely no idea what to do with the character. It is upsetting that Warner Bros./DC Comics only have this film this year, when Marvel has Thor, X-Men: First Class (both really good films, worth watching) and still have Captain America: The First Avenger waiting in the wings. I guess DC fans will have to wait for their old favourites in The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel next year.

Worst comic book hero film in 2011 summer blockbuster season.

2 out of 5

Thor {Film Review}

Posted on by

Thor was going to be the most difficult to adapt out of all the Marvel heroes. Yes it is based on Norse mythology, but this is straight from the Marvel creation by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in 1962. This could’ve come off as being unintentionally hilarious but luckily a sophisticated filmmaker came on-board and made it all (somehow) work!

The story is about Thor (Chris Hemsworth) who’s the son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins), who simply defies his father’s orders by breaking a truce between the Asgardians and the Frost Giants. Through his arrogance and war-mongering, Odin takes Thor’s godly powers away and exiles him to Earth. He lands in New Mexico, where scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), accompanied by mentor Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and assistant Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings), encounters with Thor (through an unnatural storm). Through-out Thor’s banishment, he is humiliated the way they treat him and doesn’t believe he is the god of thunder. Meanwhile, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) plots a scheme to keep Thor banished and take over the throne of Asgard. Thor tries to retrieve his hammer, Mjolnir, but with no success (Odin cast a spell only the worthy can wield it).

Chris Hemsworth as the titular hero really does stand his two feet. You may recognise him as Kirk’s father, George Kirk, in J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek. He makes the character strong, charismatic and out-right likable from the very start. Back in the 80s, muscle-bound men were usually cast as mighty heroes (although as Movie Bob has mentioned in his review of The Expendables, action movies got better with professional actors learning how to fight than just cast someone who looks good in a tank-top) but Hemsworth really does buff up for the role and dons the costume well. Anthony Hopkins redeems himself from being in some poor choice of films (The Wolfman and The Rite), retaining his authoritative presence and stature. His Odin is more a shouting leader but not nearly as annoyingly obnoxious than Leonidis in 300. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is superb, a villain who’s sympathetic and quite complex. The reveal makes you understand his frustration, and causes interesting family drama. Natalie Portman is sweet and affecting as Jane Foster, although he character isn’t anymore than being Thor’s love interest but you believe she’d be falling off her heels with a charming person as Thor. The biggest controversy is Idris Elba as Heimdall, simply because the character he plays is originally caucasian but Elba is a very talented actor (see The Wire for proof) and even a short role in this film, he makes a huge presence. Unfortunately not everyone has been given a great deal of screen-time, a common case in films based on comic books (only Christopher Nolan’s Batman films; Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, were able to give everyone an equal amount). Renne Russo, who hasn’t been in anything for the past six years, stars as Thor’s mother, Frigga (yes, it’s a bit silly) but she barely gets any screen-time that you’re wondering if it has been left on the cutting room floor.

The design of Asgard really impressed me, creating this fantasy world that its only limit can be from someone’s imagination. The world is magical and full of wonder, I absolutely love any type of mythology and Kenneth Branagh has done a wonderful job on creating Asgard on an epic scale (as it should be!). The costumes could’ve brought down the whole film, as looking at people in costumes of any kind could make people sniggering but it all works! Thor’s costume mostly resembles both the classic and modern design of Thor in the comics. You can see why Branagh was hired to the project, bringing that theatrical sophistication into the story and look itself. The story is very basic, but doesn’t fall short on spectacle, humour and light-hearted fun! The only complaint I’d make is Thor’s banishment is quite brief, and doesn’t feel he’s learnt a whole great deal or, if he did, it certainly didn’t show it. Again, something I’d like to see if they release an extended cut of the film (only time will tell).

Overall; a great start of the blockbuster season of 2011, both Marvel and Branagh should be applauded on adapting Thor well on-screen. Both Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston will become instant stars, and will looking forward to see them both in The Avengers. Next up, The First Avenger: Captain America!

4 out of 5 stars!

Copyright © 2011 A New Dawn in BC (http://newdawninbc.wordpress.com/)

Sucker Punch {Film Review}

Posted on by

Ever thought Inception was lacking on imaginative sets for the dream sequences and weren’t too bizarre enough? Well Sucker Punch may answer to your prayers. Zack Snyder has had a tendency to produce films that look visually stunning, that if you pause it at any moment; it’d look amazing as your computer wallpaper!

Although where the visuals soar; the story/characters, however, fall flat! The characters in this film have barely anything to work with and hardly have any characterisation through-out the entire duration. Our main protagonist is Baby Doll (Emily Browning), and her story seems ripped off from Cinderella (one of her biological parents dies, so her step-father can inherit her will. Though slight difference is he doesn’t, and decides to get drunk and commit incest! The step-father is so cartoonish, that you feel he should have a mustache so he can twirl with his finger and laugh manically) and Alice in Wonderland! The problem I have with Alice in Wonderland (including last year’s Tim Burton’s take) is it doesn’t have a story. It’s just Alice going through a world and bumps into bizarre stuff that happens out of nowhere. This film has a barebones plot; Baby Doll gets committed to a mental institution after nearly killing her step-father, finds out (not too discreetly) she’s going to be lobotomised and plans to escape with four other female patients.

The girls are Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung). Again, barely have anything to work with from a script by Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya. As soon Baby Doll arrives at the institution, she imagines it as a brothel (follow me so far?). This basically turns into Moulin Rouge but mixed with Showgirls. Not something you would want to mix together! Their psychiatrist/dance teacher, Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino), really hams her performance as it sounds like a hilariously clichéd Transylvanian accent. Jon Hamm is completely wasted in this film, he barely has screen-time to be considered a character! Scott Glenn plays as the Wise Man, he plays the archetype old wise man Fu Manchu (though saying that lightly). Some of the dialogue he’s given are cringe-worthy (i.e. “Don’t ever write a check with your mouth you can’t cash with your ass.”), it just sounds like rejected fortune cookie lines and just dumb!

The whole escape plan sounds like a video game, and this film would’ve worked better as a video game! They have to collect five items; Map, Fire, Knife and a Key. The fifth thing is a mystery (although you can see it coming a mile away!). This is where the action sequences that were the eye-candy in the trailer(s) come in.

The action sequences are shot very well, and can see Zack Snyder is a very competent action filmmaker. Although in order for your action sequences to feel exciting; you have to show your characters have their lives at stake or something that could jeopardise their goal. The action sequences in this film feel like it’s there for the sake of it! The characters jump out of a helicopter with no parachute, and smash to the ground like concrete. So there’s barely any moments where you feel worried for them because they just go through it like it was nothing. The worse part of it is it’s boring! There was not a single moment where it made my jaw-drop. Remember the hallway fight scene in Inception? Where they actually filmed with a real set and did it with no CGI? Well this is the complete opposite. We’ve dealt with films that have excessive CGI and have done better (The Lord of the Rings, Avatar etc.). This would’ve been great if it was a short film but having it stretched to a feature-length film with barely a story developed; you’re just asking yourself “what’s the point?”.

I know I shouldn’t think in a movie like this, but it just doesn’t make sense! For example; why do they use contemporary weapons, although this is set in the 50s/60s? How would Baby Doll come up with a futuristic setting with these anime robot-mechs? It looks cool, but logistically it doesn’t make sense in context with the time period it’s set in.

This is an unfortunate case where you give too much money (only estimated $82 million) and creativity to a filmmaker than sadly wastes it. This will without a doubt be an early contender for Worst Picture. Hopefully his next film, Superman: Man of Steel, will be a huge improvement because he’s going to need it!

Overall; If you’re easily amused to go see a film for the visual effects, beautiful looking girls in scantily-clad clothing and fighting against nazi zombies and dragons; then this is will be a treat. If you’re looking for any decent story-line or characters you give a damn; then I’d avoid this movie. A strong case of ‘style over substance’, and have had one too many of those (along with not only Alice in Wonderland but also Tron: Legacy).

2 out of 5

Top Most Anticipated Movies of 2011

Posted on by

As we came to a close of 2010 and the awards season have been gone and dusted, I’ve decided to make a list of films that I’m looking forward to this year. I expected this list to be quite long, but there’s not a lot I’m looking forward or consider to be really excited to quite frankly. So I’m going to reveal my top 3 most anticipated films of 2011;

Sucker Punch: I’ll admit, I’m not a fan of Zack Snyder but I don’t hate him as well. His Dawn of the Dead remake back in 2004 was pretty decent, considering the shamelessly Michael Bay produced horror remakes we’ve been getting every year or so. Then he adapted Frank Miller’s 300, visually faithful to its source material but lacked on being a memorable movie altogether. Watchmen was the high-point of his career, especially since adapting Alan Moore’s 400+ page comic book had been in development as long you could remember! While some bits hit the mark (visual style, costumes, performances from Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earl Haley), some completely missed (both Malin Akerman and Carla Gugino gave bland performances and some of the choice of music). Of course, his trademark is his heavy use of slow-motion. If you’d take a drinking game whenever the slow-motion was used, you’d either be in the hospital or the morgue!

Now Zack Snyder has decided to come up with something original, rather than being a remake or based on a comic book. It is inevitable to label it as ‘Alice in Wonderland meets Inception’ (or as Snyder describes it, Alice in Wonderland with guns) but Snyder at least has shown he’s not loosing his creative edge. The film looks fantastic, even more so than his previous films. Although slightly bizarre that the film is set in the 1950s psychiatric ward and they come up with anime-alike robot mechs, giant samurais with a mini-gun, futuristic city and transport that hasn’t existed yet! Maybe I’m thinking about it too much than needed, but this does stand-out from most other blockbusters this year. (Released on March 25, 2011 in USA and April 1, 2011 in UK)

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: Probably the most controversial choice on this list, as the Swedish original was praised by critics and audiences (even went to win a BAFTA for Best Film not in the English Language and 2 nominations including Best Actress – Noomi Rapace). The reason I put this relatively high on this list is because of David Fincher. I am a huge fan of David Fincher, and I personally think The Social Network is the best film made in the past decade. This sort of material is right in Fincher’s alley; a dark mystery thriller, the sort he’s done with Zodiac and Se7en.

The film stars Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist, an interesting choice to play the troubled journalist and is accompanied by Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. Mara worked with Fincher in The Social Network, as Mark Zuckerberg’s fictional ex-girlfriend. It is a bizarre choice but it really have to admire a beautiful actress as Mara to transform a character that looks both gothic and punk. If you have not yet seen the published photos of Mara’s transformation, I strongly you have a look before you make an judgements (http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2011/02/rooney_mara_girl_with_the_dragon_tattoo_lisbeth_salander_ss#slide=3). She looks other-worldly and makes me fascinated how she’d portray the character that’d be different what we’ve already seen. Steven Zaillian is adapting the novel, which he has done very good movies in the past with Schindler’s List, Gangs of New York and American Gangster. So I am very optimistic on this English adaptation. (Released on December 21, 2011)

The Tree Of Life: This film being a complete mystery intensifies my anticipation levels through the roof! It’s slightly odd that a non-blockbuster such as this movie would be my number 1!? The synopsis on IMDb is only given very briefly; The story centers around a family with three boys in the 1950s. The eldest son witnesses the loss of innocence.

Probably a few reasons being that it is written and directed by Terrence Malick, who is known to shoot an unimaginable amount of footage and has made films such as Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line and The New World. Another reason is it features my favourite actors; Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. There’s not much to say about the film, except if you know Malick’s work then there’s everything to be excited about it. I strongly suggest to check out the trailer, the only preview of the film thus far! (Released on May 27, 2011)

If you’re excited about these films as I am or looking forward to any other films that didn’t make this (very short) list, send comments below!