iReviewFilms's Reviews

Final Destination 5 (2011)

iReviewFilms Review: Final Destination 5

28 August 2011

The first Final Destination (the one with the plane) was a very original piece of work that had most of us enjoying some horror and gore in a novel and new way. By the time the second came out (the motorway pile up) in 2003 it could still be classed as a popcorn movie but they really raised the ingenuity of the death scenes making it a reasonable way to waste an hour and a half. By number 3 (roller coaster) and 4 (Nascar) I didn't see the point in them anymore as you had to sit through an identical plot for 5/6/7 death scenes that, if truth be told, were not great. So when I heard the announcement of a fifth, I really didn't get it. Perhaps they are jumping on the 3D bandwagon like everyone else?

As expected it duly delivered not a lot in the way of entertainment. In Final Destination 5, a group of co-workers set off for a weekend of team building exercises. However on the way to their destination, a bridge that they are crossing collapses and kills all of them. Unbeknownst to the audience this was just a premonition of the event (ironically I never saw it coming...) and after a commotion Sam (Nicholas D'Agosto) manages to convince some of his fellow employees to get off of the bus. The bridge then collapses and their lives are saved. Over the next few days though the survivors start to die in strange circumstances as Death tries to restore order to the world.

The only way I thought it might work as a rehashed concept was if they immediately got into the story of the survivors trying to live but it is a good 20 minutes before the bridge collapse and even longer before they realise that Death is stalking them. The trailer also hints at if they kill someone else then they will steal the time their victim had left and balance out the books. Unfortunately although playing its part in the plot, so much more could have been done with this idea and it felt rather wasted.

The problem is that with no story to tell due to its appearance four times before (and lets face it if you are going to watch Final Destination 5 then there is a strong probability that you have already seen some or all of the prequels) the film is relying on the death scenes to drag it to above average movie status.

This film leaves me asking myself what's the reason for watching it? I already know what's going to happen and I basically know how it is going to end so the only reason to go and watch the film is purely for the death scenes which are a mixed bag. On the positive, they do remain a challenge to work out how the characters might die with Steven Quale throwing in many varied possibilities and it also leaves you with a bit of suspense and that cringe worthy 'ooo that looked like it hurt' feeling coursing through your body. However the scenes never live up to the standards set in previous films and I don't think any would make my top 10 Final Destination death scenes list. Given that you have to sit through the writers setting up the movie and trying to make us care about the characters, it hardly seems worth it. Why not just give us a 10 minute film with all the deaths to save wasting more time than is necessary.

It is clear that the 3D factor was a large reason in the return of this movie and it certainly goes over the top during the film especially in the opening credits which are 3 minutes of things being throw at you. As a person who does not yet see the point in this 3D malarkey, the effects based around this concept are pointless when watching it in 2D which I think will be a large contingent of the audience so why do it?

It never captures the enjoyment or even black comedy (think BBQ death at the end of the second) factor that the first two had and when compared to 3 and 4 well, they are all as equally poor so the less said the better. If you feel like going to watch this then may I recommend choosing something else to save you from wasting your time.

PS. Has Death never heard of a heart attack?

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.ireviewfilms.com

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Cowboys & Aliens

26 August 2011

Finally my prayers to the Hollywood top dogs for a bit of originality have been answered in the form of Cowboys & Aliens, a sci-fi thriller (which puts me in even more of an optimistic mood due to it being one of my preferred genres of choice). Yes it is based on a graphic novel and yes technology in the wild west has been implemented before but this isn't a sequel/prequel and as a concept is very fresh.

Daniel Craig plays Jake, a cowboy who wakes up in the middle of nowhere with no recollection of who he is, where he has been or how he got there. In fact the only clue given to him is a strange metallic bracelet that he is unable to remove from his arm. After making his way to the nearest town he soon makes himself known to the locals and is identified as a dangerous and wanted man guilty of several crimes including stealing gold from local rancher Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). After being arrested and readied for transport, alien spaceships appear out of nowhere and start snatching people away and blowing up the surrounding countryside. Jake's bracelet transforms itself into a weapon and he is able to drive the aliens away.

Now forced to work together to save the people who were kidnapped from them, Jake and Woodrow team up with the other remaining survivors from the town and set off to find out how to put a stop to their common enemy.

The greatest emotion I felt while watching this was one of indifference, mainly directed towards the plot and structure of the movie. Favreau couldn't be more obvious with his intentions for the film as hinted at by the title. Cowboys & Aliens merges the two separate worlds of the wild west with gun-slingers, bandits and Indians with the technologically advanced alien species resulting in no more than a series of confrontations between the two which climaxes in, well, a final confrontation between the two. Where is the interest for the audience with this concept that can only be taken so far?

The story never developed and just had the characters running around with horses doing cowboy things leaving them to remain as two dimensional as the drawings they once were. This is despite the best efforts of Ford and Craig to draw me in. The most impressive part being that as well known for other characters (Jones and Bond) as they are, the two are still able to make you forget this fact and make the characters their own, even when Ford dons a Indiana-esque cowboy hat.

This is a perfect example of the money men of big studios backing the concept rather than the actual story. I'm sure like most of you initially this film sounds like a movie with promise but come the end I didn't feel as though I had been taken on an adventure more rather led from scene to scene as a means to an end. In addition, the CGI could have been better when considering the other films that have already been released this year and the budget that Cowboys & Aliens had to play with but instead they also fail to impress.

I can't emphasise how disappointed I was with this. Given the plethora of talent in the writing department (Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof etc. think Star Trek, Iron Man, Children of Men, Lost (TV)) for this movie it came up well short of what it should have. Turns out originality may not have been what I was looking for after all! Rating: C-

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

17 August 2011

It's been 10 years since the last Planet of the Apes film and looking back, it is fair to say that the years have not treated it too well- the ape costumes are verging on amusing rather than scary. This latest reboot brings us an origins story painting a picture of the beginning of the end for the human race and the start of dominance for the apes on Earth. They have brought back this franchise again with a movie that isn't really part of said franchise. All other Planet of the Apes movies are set on a mystical planet whereas this is set on present day Earth and as such, although I understand why they did it (money money money), would have been better to disassociate with the Planet of the Apes brand.

Will Rodman (James Franco) is a researcher for a pharmaceutical company working on a cure for Alzheimer's- a disease close to his heart due to his father's (John Lithgow) battle with the disease. When his leading test subject breaks free and 'goes ape' she is put down along with the rest of the project. However Will discovers she was only protecting her newborn child who he takes home and raises as part of his family. It soon becomes apparent that the drugs subjected to the baby chimp's mother have been genetically passed on to him gifting the ape with extremely high levels of intelligence.

I'm not sure what I was wanting going into this movie and I'm not sure if what I saw was what I was expecting either. The success of the film hinges on the baby ape Caesar and his transformation from a curious and innocent ape to an older one who realises that no matter what his intelligence, he will never truly be accepted as more than an animal to those around him. As such, most of the film is based on the apes and Caesar's plight which puts the human cast into the background. This muddies the waters giving the film no clear answers as to who it wants you to get behind and support- the apes or humans.

Its been a long time since the love story of any film wasn't pushed and for once this has been achieved. So much so that I'm not really sure of the purpose of Caroline (Freida Pinto) at all. Tom Felton aka Malfoy lands a role so similar to his last that I was surprised he was not handed a cape and wand. If he was trying to shake his old persona this was not the way to achieve it. Ironically the one character I connected with and believed was the ape Caesar. Andy Serkis (aka Gollum, King Kong) has once again shown that body movement and facial expressions can trump speech any day and you really end up getting behind his story.

The movie links into the older franchise briefly and comes neatly to an end so why did it leave me longing for more. Not a longing in the sense that it was so good I needed my next hit but rather it felt as if it came to an end prematurely or at the very least they could have packed in a bit more humans Vs. ape action. The title in this sense is misleading. I would have gone for 'Minor Nuisance in a Local City District of the Apes' not quite as catchy you'll agree but certainly nearer to what you can expect. What I'm getting at is the film builds and builds and builds just to the point when your leaning on the edge of your seat then 5 minutes later the credits start rolling.

I feel like I've been left with a bit of a quandary as on the one hand I did enjoy the film, it was well acted, the script was very strong and the CGI exceptional but on the other it left me feeling somewhat unfulfilled that more was not done with the storyline. If a second movie follows then that's what I was expecting this one to be and it will certainly be near the top of my wish list for the future.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Smurfs (2011)

4/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: The Smurfs

14 August 2011

Despite me trying to be as neutral as possible before settling down to watch a film I found myself preparing for the long haul when I decided to watch The Smurfs. As a kid I never really got into them but did occasionally catch a TV show or two so wasn't flying completely into the unknown like some of the more recent comic book characters that I have reviewed.

Upon entering the world of the Smurfs we find the blue critters relaxing in their mushroom metropolis preparing for the special Blue moon festival. But all is not well- the evil wizard Gargamel (Hank Azaria), after years of searching, has finally found their village. In the ensuing chaos he chases some of the Smurfs out of their village where they are sucked through a vortex and into our world. Determined to capture them so he can harness their Smurf goodness, Gargamel and his cat follow them through. So begins the race to get back to their world before they are captured.

Given I was expecting the absolute worst, the film managed to lift itself above that lowly bar and not bore me to tears within 20 minutes. Also, somewhat surprisingly, there were a couple of times where my preprepared grimace transformed itself into something resembling a smirk. This was in most part down to the performance of Azaria. It's no Oscar worth performance but is probably the highest you can go whilst acting in something that has so specifically be designed for an audience whose age can be counted on one hand. This brings me to my next point...

Why does Hollywood think that just because they are making a film for children that it can forego any form of quality. They seem to take the stance that just because their audience is young no effort will be required to keep them entertained and who cares if it's rubbish as it's only a kid's movie- just fill the screen with bright colours and hey presto instant success. I'm not sure if the fact that they think this represents entertainment or that the public actually accept it as such is more worrying to me.

One thing that slowly ate away at my sanity during The Smurfs is their habit of making sure at least every sentence has the word smurf in it whether it is being used as an insult, during a joke or just replacing a generic word. Most of the time it was used as a tool to get the Smurfs cursing away without affecting the film's U certificate. And if that doesn't worm its way into your head then I challenge even the most anti Smurf amongst you to escape from this film without humming their catchy Smurf tune at least a couple of times after leaving the cinema.

This is Katy Perry's (Smurfette) first major voyage onto the big screen and I was not convinced much like many of the other voices behind the blue faces. I also don't understand why they felt it necessary to squeeze in her singing part of one of her songs either given that it won't make 5 year old go out and download it. The non CGI cast wasn't much better with the casting guys plan to throw in successful TV actors not having the desired effect as they failed to impress in their roles on the big screen. Neil Patrick Harris especially didn't work as the doting husband.

The animation just about held up but there were some points when it became obvious that the actors were interacting with themselves rather than the Smurfs particularly when being held or embraced and at other times the Smurfs looked a bit too fake. I can't understand why, if your going to make yourself a CGI fest Smurf movie, you set it in the real world. I'm sure that it would have been a much more enjoyable film if they had stayed in 'Smurfland' and battled Gargamel there.

As for the story, it was atypical for a children's film keeping the plot quite simple whilst throwing in a sprinkling of slapstick comedy and funny characters to get most of the laughs. I was expecting the adult audience to be completely disengaged but there were some moments that hit the double entendre mark and would have woken the adults whilst flying over the heads of the rest. Don't get me wrong, this is still geared 95% to a kid audience but I was expecting 100% so was pleasantly surprised at the inclusion of a few adult themed jokes.

The only reason you are going to want to pay to see this would be if you've got yourself a couple of kids as they are bound to enjoy. As for the rest of us, although it wasn't a complete waste of time (think Garfield, Alvin and the Chipmunks) I'd rather go and smurf a smurf. (Let your imaginations run wild- answers on a postcard).

Rating: D+ For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Good Neighbours (2010)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Good Neighbours

6 August 2011

Warning: Spoilers

Good Neighbours follows three people who live in the same apartment building in Montreal over the course of Winter in 1995. Spencer (Scott Speedman) is a wheelchair bound introvert who spends all of his time in his flat on the first floor; Victor (Jay Baruchel) who has recently moved to the area since returning from China; and finally Louise (Emily Hampshire), a waitress at a local restaurant who spends most of her time either socialising with her pet cats (Tia Maria and Mozart) or reading up on the local serial killer who is running riot near to where they live.

Each of them is flawed in their own unique way so much so that I found myself asking the question why are any of them friends at all? Only the nervous Victor seems to be capable of something resembling social skills despite the uncanny ability to put his foot in everything time and time again and yet on several occasions they all sit down to dinner together when it's extremely obvious that they would be somewhere else.

The film took such a long time to get going and was so slow paced to begin with that I began to lose interest rather quickly. And although it did begin to pick up just past the hour mark I was only kept partially intrigued to see how the characters were going to play out once they had each laid their cards on the table. The acting was average, nothing shockingly bad but nothing exceptional either, with Hampshire the best of the bunch in her portrayal of the disturbingly cat obsessed Louise.

The most shocking moment in the film for me came after I finished watching it and realised that this was supposed to be part comedy albeit black humour. That small titbit of information only made itself obvious to me after I started to research it which gives you some indication of how funny I felt Good Neighbours to be. If that cryptic message was too much for you let me spell it out- it wasn't funny... not in the slightest. Black comedies do tend to be more subjective than other comedies but I'm normally a fan quick to laugh at the disturbing and down right wrong. So (except for one line I've just remembered after some strenuous thinking) I had on my poker face.

Whoever made the trailer for this should be out of a job. Is a spoiler considered to be a spoiler if it's included in the trailer? If you're ever planning to watch this then I recommend giving the trailer a miss as it destroys what little intrigue there is supposed to be for one of the years most obvious and predictable plots. I'm usually quite good at seeing where a film is going but for Good Neighbours even if you've only got your head half screwed on I doubt the twists and turns will remain hidden from you for long.

I have the feeling that if you are able to get into this film near the beginning then there is a reasonable chance that enjoyment is there to be had but I found it so hard to do this that a potentially decent storyline has gone to waste and a sense of disappointment surrounded me once the film had finished. Not watching the trailer might also make for slightly better viewing. If you see it on the TV one day then maybe you should watch it.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

7/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

28 July 2011

Set during World War II, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) a poorly yet determined man has only one goal- to join the army so that he can serve and protect his country. Due to his illnesses and diminished stature though he is rejected and turned away by every recruitment station he visits. A chance encounter with Dr. Erksine (Stanley Tucci) changes his fortunes and leads him to be accepted onto a secret project codename Project Rebirth where his honour and integrity gain him the chance to become a super soldier. He undergoes the transformation and becomes capable of near superhuman acts.

Meanwhile in Germany, Johann Schmidt aka the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), head of the Nazi exploratory research department HYDRA is building and army and technology that threatens to not only usurp Hitler but destroy the world. Captain America is tasked with stopping Schmitt and bringing the war to a premature end.

I was looking forward to seeing Evans in his role as Captain America as I'd wanted to see if he had what it takes to be the leading star in a film rather than the supporting roles he's more used to. He passed with flying colours making the character his own from a skinny nobody to the patriotic propaganda spinning Captain America. The rest of the cast also performed well with Weaving a convincing bad guy (despite me wanting him to say Mr. Anderson) and Tommy Lee Jones adding his unique charisma to the hard as nails Colonel. I was less convinced with Hayley Atwell playing the love interest Peggy Carter as the chemistry wasn't there and she never really extracted any emotions from me good or bad.

The action taken as a whole was good but I'm not sure that there was enough from Captain America. Sure he swung his shield and sent the opposition flying but I never felt that he was getting down and dirty for his cause. Some of the fighting scenes felt rushed and tended to be over before they had even begun. Also I understand Captain America's improved metabolism/regeneration properties cover up the fact he always looks like he's just walked out from make-up room #1 but I would still have liked to see him a bit beaten up and then recover for the next scene rather than looking as if he's just going for a stroll through the park. He never felt in peril which instantly removes any suspense that I should have been feeling for him.

The story of his origins seemed to take president over the action and to a certain degree that's understandable- there is no movie without a plot, but I would have liked a smidge more action and a tad less talking. Luckily the film didn't give off that all American vibe that I thought it might with the patriotism healthily present rather than all engulfing. Likewise, the comedy flowed at a decent level with many short (as in height) jokes and other such one liners hitting their mark. Although for me, I found Red Skull to be the funniest merely for his appearance- he was not scary and just looked like he'd forgotten to lather himself in suntan lotion before a trip to the beach one day.

The ending certainly adds its clout to The Avengers film due out next year. (You may want to hang around at the end for another post credit scene and a teaser trailer for said film). So where does this go in my list of Summer comic book heroes? I think it slots in nicely behind X-Men, just pipping Thor into second and is comfortably ahead of the Green Lantern.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

27 July 2011

12A - 130mins - Adventure/Drama/Fantasy - 15th July 2011

Hopefully everyone is aware of the storyline by now but for the nomads amongst us the eighth and final installment sees Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) along with his friends take on the evil wizard Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). In order to give themselves a fighting chance they have to hunt down the remaining Horcruxes before Harry can square up against him for the last time.

So let me dive right in. Was it a fitting ending? Yes I do believe so and it was certainly one of the best of the films released. Is it that good that it deserves all of the credit currently being flung its way? No not by a long shot. The majority of the reviews have fallen into the good old trap of media hype. Don't get me wrong, it was very enjoyable and certainly entertained me for its entire duration but that doesn't make it one of the best films of the year or worthy of any great accolades.

It certainly continues the trend of becoming darker than all of those before it (of which I am a fan) and with them having completely cut the massive battle scene at the end of the sixth film this more than made up for it with CGI and explosions galore. Although I knew that it would never happen, I'd always hoped for the last film to have a rating of at least 15 so they could unleash the evil and make it all just that bit more manic. Regardless, Fiennes and the rest of the crew impress with their acting abilities and even the main trio look a far cry from the original mediocrity of their first outing.

With a film of this stature you are going to get the people who are disappointed because if failed to stick to the book rigidly and missed out key details. Of course it did, it's an adaptation of the book not an exact replica! If they included everything it would be 14.5 hours long and people wouldn't go and watch it. The most important thing to ask was did they cover it in sufficient detail or did the variations from the book cause the film to suffer? Considering the average length of the Potter films so far has been 2h 30m I am slightly surprised that this comes in at only 2h 10m when 2/3 more scenes would have been all that was needed to keep the avid fans happy.

Although it was necessary for it to be put in for some sort of closure, the epilogue felt out of place with the rest of the film and the attempts to age the cast was something short of farcical. Considering the budget available you would have felt they could do more than just add some hair gel, a cushion around the waist and making all the actresses look extra frumpy. But what do I know?

Overall I enjoyed this both as a individual film and as I closure to the series. Despite it having several flaws and at times feeling like they were trying to see how many cameo appearances they could fit into the 130 minutes rather than telling the story, I would recommend this to most. Just be warned, it's not quite the flawless and perfect film that most would have you believe.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Stake Land (2010)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Stake Land

25 July 2011

Stake Land is set in a post apocalyptic world where a vampire epidemic has spread over the whole country leaving only small pockets of people left to fend for themselves. One such group consists of Martin (Connor Paolo), just an ordinary kid before the vampires, and Mister (Nick Damici), a vampire hunter, as they travel north through infected America to the promised land of Canada where rumours are of a safe zone called New Eden. As Martin and Mister travel, they run into new people and communities both good and bad who each have their own unique ways of coping with the disaster.

For a film with the title Stake Land you might think you know what you are letting yourself in for but the enemies are rather ambiguous and are what I would call the offspring of a vampire (only come out at night, need to be staked etc) and a zombie (brain dead drones, don't get bit or you will turn etc). Whatever they might be though, they still do their job of looking evil and warrant a wide berth if survival is the aim of the game.

Fleeing to the only safe patch of land left while being chased by zombies/vampires/the diseased/(insert appropriate evil entity here) has been covered rather exhaustively of late hence Stake Land will be getting no bonus marks for originality. But it is by no means a bad attempt despite having been done better by others before it and is certainly one or two notches above the swathes of budget horror flicks out there. This is mostly due to the film not solely relying on the vampire gore factor to sell it to the audience. The actors are capable and the script and direction from Jim Mickle leaves me wanting to see the characters make it through the ordeal without dying- not an emotion I usually have when watching a horror.

In many respects it sets itself up in a similar vein to The Road with a similar feel to it as a small group set out against everyone else to try and overcome their troubles. The pace of the film is slow highlighting their efforts to journey across the country and the bleak music and well constructed post-apocalyptic sets with signs declaring that all hope is lost succeed at pulling you into the world that has been created.

When compared to its counterparts, I found that it toned down the scare factor and action was more of a premium than you might expect for a film of this nature. It seemed to dabble more with the emotional turmoil that the characters were going through focusing on character development rather than setting out to make you require a change of underwear- although it still has its moments.

I was not blown away but it was refreshing to watch a horror movie that had a bit of depth focusing on communities coming together to help each other in times of hardship as well as filling my requirement for action, blood, gore and religious fanaticism.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Running with Scissors (2006)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Running With Scissors

23 July 2011

Strange one this. Augusten Burroughs (Joseph Cross) was born into a dysfunctional family. With his father (Alec Baldwin) an alcoholic and a mentally unstable mother (Annette Bening) who lives in a delusional world where her belief that she has what it takes to become the world's greatest poet is only surpassed by her attempts to achieve her goal, it's unsurprising to find that his life has been impacted greatly from a young age.

As he grows into a teenager, his mother signs him away into the custody of her shrink, Dr. Finch (Brian Cox) an equally eccentric man who it seems treats his children as more of an experiment than an actual family. From here it seems that instead of normality, Augusten has leapt from the proverbial frying pan into a immensely large fire. He befriends the two daughters, Hope (Gwyneth Paltrow) and in particular Natalie (Evan Rachel Wood) as well as Neil (Joseph Fiennes) the most damaged of all of Finch's children.

If I'm honest, I'm not sure exactly what to make of this film. Is seems intentionally set out to confuse the viewer but then deals with some serious topics amongst all of this. Each individual character is damaged and has serious character flaws that need to be addressed, some more than others. Although I have never read the book of the same name, I hear it sticks to the content closely and is all based on the real life events (I'm assuming more in part than in full) of Augustun Despite this, because of it's tendency to be so random and with so many things going on it is hard to ground yourself and actually believe that these are real people and not just extreme characters. This made it hard to relate with the characters.

Black comedies of this nature can be rather subjective to the viewer and this will be one of those films that will split the general populous. It's even fighting a battle in my own mind as write this trying to work it out. I was a fan of the comedy that throws you from one topic to another while the characters remain completely serious, talk about deeply emotional feelings and yet still manage to draw laughs at the same time. For that alone the script and direction have to be commended.

The performances of Benning and Cross also deserve a mention. Benning truly seems engulfed in her own world as she struggles to cope with herself let alone the environment around her and the casting of Benning worked in my eyes as he struggles to better understand himself.

I suppose that if I had to summarise the plot I would call it as a coming of age story albeit a rather warped one. I think the movies tagline says it best- he's looking forward to a memory he won't have to suppress and although the film leaves you asking more questions than it answers, something I can't quite put my finger on made me enjoy it. Not so much that I want to watch it again next week but give it a year or so and I'm sure I will want another dose of Augusten Burroughs and his alternative life.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cars 2 (2011)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Cars 2

19 July 2011

Cars 2 picks up several years after the first with Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) ruling the Piston Cup. This leads him to be invited to the first World Grand Prix where he can pit himself against the best of the rest and in particular Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro) the cocky Italian stallion F1 car. McQueen's crew led by Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) gather together and set out on the trip of a lifetime to Japan, Italy and England to fight for the right to be named the best in the world. While McQueen is off racing, Mater finds himself caught up in the secret world of government spies and espionage.

First off the graphics and world in which Pixar create is stunning with no little detail overlooked. Bringing some of the scenes into real world venues also helped to show off the talent of the people at Pixar. It was also interesting to see how cars go about your average human tasks such as flying on a plane and even going to the toilet with the phenomenal background detail dragging you into the film- plane pigeons were one of many nice touches. It sounds strange to say but at some points you almost forget you are watching cars.

The comedy level was good throughout and with a good (although somewhat predictable and disjointed) plot that hugged the Bond style template closely this has many things going for it. I don't think it's an out and out kids movie and would probably stick it in the young adult section but as with most Pixar, it transcends all the age boundaries.

The real problem I found with the film is that although the environment is great, it's quite hard for the graphics team to be overly expressive with the cars themselves which lead me to not connect with the characters as much as I would have liked. If you don't feel for the characters then the rest of the film starts to fall away beneath you. Also the plot is split into two separate stories so that at some points it feels like you are watching two movies rather than one.

Mater, while he worked well as a bit character in the original seems to be the main character for this which is a role less suited to him. He is a simple minded car who gets most of his laughs through slapstick which works well in small doses but not so much for the entire film. The lack of progression in character development from the first to this one also lets the film down with the lessons merely being relearned by the same characters again.

Out of all of Pixar's creations, I have always felt that the Cars franchise was the weakest of the group and Cars 2 has failed change my opinion. Yes the graphics are some of the best yet and the world is very immersive but as characters go something was lacking and the whole idea of the film didn't gel. Considering this is their 25th anniversary, I would have expected the cream of the crop but instead was only treated to a just above average performance. The graphics drag it into a higher rating.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Wave (2008)

8/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: The Wave

7 July 2011

A foreign film today all the way from Germany that takes a look into autocracy and dictatorship but with a slight twist- it is set in a school.

Loosely based on the true experiment undertaken by a history teacher in the USA during 1967 which was then written as a book, the film follows unorthodox high school teacher Rainer Wenger (Jürgen Vogel) as he is forced to teach autocracy rather than his preferred choice of anarchy during a school project week in modern day Germany. Deciding that a more hands on approach would help stimulate the uninterested students, he engages with his class in an attempt to show that under certain circumstances the potential for a dictatorship is not as far fetched as some of the students believe it to be. He is elected as a leader by the class and begins to enforce the rules required for an autocracy. The students take to the project emphatically and the experiment soon begins to spiral out of control.

Parts of the film shout out stereotypical teen school and if anything the social groupings are played upon even more than usual as the writers use these differences to enhance the eventual unity that is required for a dictatorship to form. They are not necessarily exaggerated but we are continually reminded 'look, these kids are different from those ones' when this fact is rather obvious from the start and does not need emphasis.

Being based in Germany there are obvious references to the Nazi regime and this is unsurprisingly brought up during the movie as a theme. It gives the emotions that extra edge and enhances the plot making it easier to believe that something like this could happen again.

The film becomes more sinister as it progresses and manages to deliver a heavy topic for discussion in a very involved and entertaining fashion getting you to think into the chances of something like this happening, how it would happen and would you be dragged in under a similar scenario? It manages to achieve this without preaching it's message as well which I always approve of.

In summation, this is a good foreign movie that is able to make you forget that it's being spoken in German and lets you concentrate on the story. I'm always impressed when a foreign film can do this and so the scriptwriters must be complemented along with the rest of the crew for making it possible. The acting is good from all involved, I really appreciated the cinematography and it got me thinking. A solid film all-around.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

7/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

5 July 2011

Our summer of sequels continues with the Transformers returning to the big screen with their third outing. After the rather disappointing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen I have to say that my hopes were not particularly high for this one.

Dark of the Moon is set several years after the second movie where Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is struggling to get a job and return his life to normal and yet this still hasn't stopped him from bagging the most attractive girl in the city- Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley). At the same time, the Autobots discover that a Cybertronian spacecraft crash landed on the Moon during the 1960's and race against the Decepticons to reach it first and protect the secrets that it holds. The two story lines overlap and voilà the plot is born.

As always the visuals impress and are the best in the franchise so far but I ended up asking myself how is this different from the previous two and it led me to this answer- there isn't that much of a difference at all. Bay has upped the ante somewhat in regards to the amount of CGI he has crammed into the movie so expect more fighting, more action and a whole lot more slowmo. While many will think great more action, I see it as part of the problem though. There is only so many times that I can be impressed with a vehicle transforming into something else, in slow motion, before it becomes repetitive and I felt like I reached my limit in this film.

Aside from the first 10 minutes which dealt with the space race of the 1960's, it took a while for the film to get going. For the last hour or so though, I was enjoying what the film had to offer where it took on a Black Hawk Down kind of persona during battle scenes in the city.

Several issues I had: at 157 minutes the film tended to drag in several places and led to a rather rushed final scene that should not have been; the comedy element was greatly reduced despite a cameo from Ken Jeong aka Mr Chow from The Hangover; the new love interest did not impress with her acting skills at all and was more than likely brought in merely as token eye candy for the viewers, which she did succeed in; and most importantly, the plot had more holes in it than a Swiss cheese being used as target practice on a shooting range. And that is an understatement. Also there has been zero continuity between the trilogy of films so far which does not go down well with me.

I was more impressed than I thought I was going to be but as I said expectation had been lowered due to the extremely poor second film. I have to be careful here because I think the impressive graphics have partly blinded me to the rest of the cracks that appear in the film. All I can say is if you enjoyed the first movie or like good visuals then you will enjoy this one and if you didn't or want an involved and interesting plot that develops itself and the characters as the movie progresses then you won't get that here.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bridesmaids (I) (2011)

7/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Bridesmaids

2 July 2011

Many people have been describing this as the female version of The Hangover. Those people however forgot to do one tiny thing- watch both films! Yes both films revolve around the preparation for a wedding and contain their fair share of low brow comedy but that is where the similarities end.

Bridesmaids follows Annie (Kristen Wiig), the maid of honour for her best friend Lillian's (Maya Rudolph) wedding. While she is preparing for the big day though, the rest of her life is falling apart around her. Her love life is in tatters and she is struggling to keep on top of the bills. All the while she has to set up the wedding, organise the bride and compete with the other eccentric bridesmaids to keep things on track.

The main thorn in her side comes from Helen (Rose Byrne), one of Lillian's new friends and bridesmaids who Annie feels is taking her friend away from her just when she needs her the most. Add to that the other colourful Bridesmaids of Megan (Melissa McCarthy), Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey) and Becca (Ellie Kemper) with the continual flow of jokes and situations and you get one decent comedy.

What I liked about Bridesmaids was the fact that it did not shy away from all the gruesome details just because the characters were female. Usually women in films are depicted more prim and proper so it was refreshing to have this change. Some might consider some of the scenes to go a little too far or continue for just a bit too long (one scene in particular did start to drag for me) but I felt overall it just about hit the nail on the head.

Wiig, along with her co-stars, impresses throughout the film showing us that she has a place as a comic actress and the addition of Chris O'Dowd as the love interest worked well.

If I were to pick fault with the movie then I would have to say that some of the characters didn't make me want to care that much about what happened to them (but then again this is primarily a comedy not a drama) especially the bride who I never felt had that was enjoying her wedding at any point. Also there were probably a few too many sub-plots and side stories that could have been shaved of to drag the time under 2 hours. Apart from that, I was pretty impressed.

This may be one set out for the females in the audience but it is very much a guys film as well. There is a bit of a romcom element but it takes a backseat to the main female character driven comedy. Some will find the jokes distasteful and not rate the movie because of this but I was chuckling away on more than one occasion. Guys, if your going to be dragged along to one 'chick flick' this year then make sure it's this one.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

13 Assassins (2010)

7/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: 13 Assassins

29 June 2011

Being the film buff that I like to pretend I am, I am still yet to see Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai- a work that has supposedly spawned many films since and is widely regarded as one of the first films to introduce plot structures such as recruiting a group of characters to to accomplish a specific goal and having a main hero undertake a task unrelated to the main plot. 13 Assassins leans on this movie which it has clearly been influenced by.

The story follows the efforts of a group of samurai as they aim to assassinate the evil Lord Naritsugu (Gorô Inagaki) whose malevolence and monstrosities against his people know no bounds. Unable to touch Naritsugu due to his links with the former and current shogun , a senior politician realises that he has to be stopped before he obtains a higher rank and becomes an even more dangerous threat. He secretly enlists the help of a trusted samurai Shinzaemon Shimada (Kôji Yakusho) to gather a group of samurai together with the task of eliminating Naritsugu.

Despite me not being the best judge of the way of the samurai, I was not born in the 1840's in Japan, I felt that 13 Assassins portrayed what it could well have been like during that time. Setting the film in a time of relative peace was a good choice as it meant many of the samurai had no real life combat experience or know-how which gave them more depth- they are trained killing machines and yet for some of them, they have never even killed.

The main draw of this movie is the combat sequences and action shots which are impressive to say the least. The whole movie is basically enacting out one long battle scene with the first half setting up the characters and the last hour being dedicated to the massive battle scene. There is quite a bit of gore to keep an eye out for in both the fighting scenes and others with many limbs being severed and plenty of guts on show. The fighting scenes are well done although if I had to find fault, I would say at points it did feel as it the samurai were fighting wave after wave of enemies leading to it feeling a bit 'samey' and instead of heading straight for Naritsugu the samurai felt compelled to slash their way through the footmen first when they could have gone for him straight away. But that's just me nitpicking.

The number of unfamiliar Japanese names being mentioned along with the fact that the samurai are all wearing similar attire and have the same haircut whilst having to spend time reading subtitles rather than watching can lead to some confusion. This does fall away though while the movie progresses as the characters take on more individual personalities especially within the samurai group.

Credit must go to director Takashi Miike who not only has created a beautiful movie in terms of cinematography and direction but also has brought the honour, tradition and way of life of the samurai and Japanese culture to the viewer in emphatic fashion. Awesome fight scene, solid acting and the ability to not shy away from the gore lead me to wanting to watch this again.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Troll 2 (1990)

1/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Troll 2

27 June 2011

Warning: Spoilers

WOW. Where to begin with this one. This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life bar none and I've seen a lot of crap. Let me just set the scene before I even move onto the, ahem, 'plot'. This review has spoilers in it but unlike most films, knowing what happens won't affect your enjoyment of it.

Troll 2 ahh the sequel to Troll 1 I hear you say? Nope, of course not. The distributors, concerned with the ability for the success of the film (and rightly so) renamed it to try and link it to a successful film, Troll, released 4 years prior. Along with that the artwork cover above was designed by someone who had seen neither of the films and as a result everything see on it has absolutely no relation to anything that happens... I mean he's drawn a werewolf for Christ's sake and that's not even the same kid.

Troll 2 was the brainchild of Claudio Fragasso who co-wrote it with his wife both of whom were native Italians not well versed in the language of English. In fact they spoke no English, hired an Italian film crew to do their bidding and to save from any confusion brought in American actors. A cunning plan if I do say so myself! Despite all this though the film was somehow shot and completed successfully so onto the 'plot'.

Troll 2 of course revolves around the mystical creatures known as trolls. Well... actually no, no it doesn't. Throughout the whole 90 minutes the word troll is mentioned a grand total of zero times. The film Troll 2 is actually about goblins. Whilst on a house swapping holiday in the small village of Nilbog (a gold star for anyone who can spot why it's called this) a family- mum, Diana; dad, Michael; sister, Holly; Joshua; and the vision of Joshua's dead grandfather Grandpa Seth discovers the village is inhabited by goblins that plan to eat them. They are of course vegetarian goblin's though and so first need to turn them into vegetable people by feeding them poisoned food. You couldn't come up with this even if you tried and yet somehow Fragasso has managed it. To add to the fun, Holly's boyfriend Elliot tags along in his campervan with his three friends Arnold, Drew and Brent.

This poisoned food is worryingly green and looks like it's come out of a cows rear end, so of course the family gather round the table to eat it. But Joshua's Grandpa's ghost appears from nowhere to save the day by warning him that the food is bad as it's been made by the evil Goblins. So how does our Josh save the day? The only way he knows how, he gets up onto the table and pisses all over the food of course prompting one fantastic line from the dad.

The special effect is stunning and ranges from a lightning bolt effect to a lightning bolt effect and the goblins are terrifying showing off what must have at the time been the cutting edge in how to make costumes from things found in a dumpster and potato sacks. The music sets the scenes and is composed entirely from a keyboard synthesiser probably with a couple of keys missing. O and before I forget, the acting is appallingly atrocious.

The weirdest thing about this film is the continual ream of continuity fails and unexplained scenarios. For example, we see Nilbog milk but never find out why it's there, no one in the town drinks it, surely it would go off? We never learn about grandpa Seth's special powers- why is he helpless to stop the family from eating the food but can hack a goblin's hand off with an axe through a mirror or create a Molotov cocktail out of nothing to fling at the nearby Nilbog residents. (No I'm not making this up!) Why does the mum have such freaky bug-like eyes? What was the purpose of turning Arnold into a tree instead of just eating him? What is up with that random girl running through the forest? Why is Arnold unfazed when he first sees the goblins? Who the hell is Creedence? What happens to her face at the end of the movie and has she never heard of chapstick? How do 'the powers of goodness' eliminate the goblins? Now I've only scratched the surface of this film with so much more to see including the best weapon ever used in the history of film. You will have to watch it to find out what it is but I'll give you a clue- it comes in paper bag and shares it's name with an Italian city and a former English Lord.

The scariest part of this movie is when you realise that not only is it hilarious to watch but it's addictive and at some point in the future you are going to put yourself through the ordeal that is Troll 2 again! I'm proud to announce that I survived Troll 2, even if a bit of me and my brain died with it.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Green Lantern (2011)

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Green Lantern

25 June 2011

12A - 105mins - Action/Crime/Sci-Fi - 17th June 2011

First off, I have to say my knowledge of the Green Lantern extends as far as knowing that somewhere along the line a ring, a lantern, lots of green and a rhyme are involved and that's about it. Before the film I didn't even know our hero's name so in that respect I know not if this did the comic justice and stuck closely to the ideas and themes or it varied wildly. On the plus side this means I get to learn about a whole new character from scratch and that's what I love about the movies.

The story follows Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) a jet fighter test pilot following in the footsteps of his father. However his life is turned upside down when he finds himself face to face with an alien who gives him a ring which bestows unto him magical powers that enable him not only the ability to fly but allow anything he imagines to materialise. He is not the only one with a ring though and but part of a larger collective known as the Green Lanterns who are tasked with looking after the universe and protecting it from evil.

Unfortunately I found the action somewhat disappointing not only in its quantity (there wasn't much) but also in respect to its quality. The options available to our green lanterns are endless, whatever you can think can become real, it's a scriptwriters dream as anything is feasible as long as they could think of it and yet we are treated to an array of shields and various guns where just a bit more thought could have given us so much more. CGI was a massive factor in this movie as well and for the first time in while I noticed it with the effects feeling slightly incomplete on occasion.

In the supporting cast there was one impressive performance with Mark Strong as Sinestro who should have had more screen time and no poor ones as the cast went about their parts with a minimum of fuss. Reynolds does not quite suit the superhero role but that could just be because I cannot see past him as any character other than a comedic Van Wilder type.

My main gripe with the film though was the characters who were mostly underdeveloped- Hal's friend picks up Hal in his car and says wow when he sees him showing off his suit. That was it, no other point to him at all. Even stranger, Hal's sibling's and nephew were in the start of the movie and then completely cut from the script never to be seen or even heard of again. Also Hal's love interest Carol (Blake Lively) added looks but no real emotional connection with Hal questioning the inclusion of her at all.

As enemies go Parallax never had me worried and I never felt Hal was in real trouble. The Green Lantern has no weaknesses- Superman has kryptonite, Spiderman has limited powers but the Green Lantern can create anything and go anywhere which led me to never be concerned and so for a rather average viewing experience. I'm assuming in the lifetime of the comics, there were better villains that could have been used for the big screen than Hector Hammond (the giant head) (Peter Sarsgaard) and Parallax (the giant smoky head)?

I think that if this had been released before Thor or X-Men: First Class then it might have faired slightly better but it never captivated me in the same way those movies did. It seems set slightly more towards the younger generation with a few too many plot holes for my liking and I just hope that if a sequel does come about from this, who am I kidding, WHEN a sequel is made, more effort is put into developing the characters. It seems a bit like I hate this movie but it's not a bad film (remember Catwoman and Daredevil?), it's just I'd rather save my cash and go with something else instead.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Swimming with Sharks (1994)

7/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Swimming With Sharks

19 June 2011

Swimming With Sharks is set in the cut throat world of the film industry although this doesn't dictate the plot as much as you might think. It follows Guy (Frank Whaley) who is a clean-shaven enthusiastic new recruit into this unique world landing himself a job as the personal assistant to Buddy Ackerman (Kevin Spacey) an expletive throwing repugnant studio executive whose addition to your CV opens every door imaginable but is counteracted so much by his demeanour that many would find it not worth the trouble.

Guy seems to have the determination to see it through helped by script writer and love interest Dawn (Michelle Forbes) but after working for the man for over a year, cracks begin to surface and Guy is finally pushed too far showing up at Buddy's home in the middle of the night intent on revenge. What plays out over the 100 minutes is a mixture between the past year of his life and the present unfolding situation.

This was George Huang's first (and it would seem only notable) foray into the world of writing and directing and credit must be given to him. The script is impressive with Whaley engrossing himself into the character topped only by Spacey's exceptional performance where he looks set to star in a similar, albeit toned down, role in Horrible Bosses. He not only excels in many of his 'throwing a tantrum' scenes but somehow brings sympathy and compassion to a character that we should not feel anything for. Even when being held hostage he emits a certain smug arrogance that would be misplaced in any other character apart from this one.

I felt conflicted given the knowledge at the beginning that Guy kidnaps his boss. It somewhat limits the sympathy you can show towards him regardless of finding out what Buddy did to drive him to such lengths.

I wouldn't class this as a comedy per say as this is not going to have you laughing a great deal but rather an extremely dark satire of life in Hollywood and the means required to keep your head above the water. It shows us that the calling of the bright lights can change a man with only a few have what is required to make it. Add all of this together to an unexpected ending and it makes for an interesting watch.

Yes there are moments where I felt things were not quite working and the relationship between Dawn and Guy lacked that believability factor but Swimming With Sharks certainly made the time fly and has enough to keep it fresh in the mind for a couple of days at the very least.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Something Borrowed (2011)

4/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Something Borrowed

16 June 2011

Something Borrowed follows Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) as she meets Dex (Colin Egglesfield) at university where they become best friends with feelings clearly developing but neither of them acting on said feelings. So when Rachel's best friend the selfish and obnoxious Darcy (Kate Hudson) shows up and asks Dex out, Rachel gives her blessing, Dex says yes and several years later they are engaged to be married.

This leaves Rachel distraught for letting Dex slip through her fingers and with the cowardly and wimpish Dex (I'm sure just what ladies look for in a man) still conflicted as to what to do next. After Rachel's birthday celebrations though, she and Dex end up sleeping together and supposed hilarity ensues as they try yet again ignore the chemistry between them and just let life run its course.

Thank god for Ethan (John Krasinski) Rachel's friend who gave a voice of reason to proceedings by at least attempting to beat some sense into the main characters who seemed to be oblivious to everything around them. I think my main fault with the movie was the storyline and the way we are supposed to feel for Rachel despite the fact that she didn't make a go of it with Dex, everything that happened to her was self inflicted and she has slept with her best friend's fiancé; and given that Darcy isn't a very nice person to say the least that either of them hung around with her in the first place.

The supporting cast outside the four main characters didn't add to the film in any way shape or form. With some movies you get the token celebrities who show up for 10 seconds, say a line and then leave again and this is how the rest of the cast felt to me for the entire movie. They were just written in for one line and then would disappear never to be seen or heard from again.

Apart from a few witty remarks here and a bit of slapstick, there was not much comedy in the film with the overall feel of it leaning more towards a drama with a bit of comedy rather than the other way around which I feel is the better mix for this genre. There was nothing wrong with the acting with Goodwin and Egglesfield doing their jobs and creating some chemistry but it was merely a minor consolation which can't cover up the rest of the issues highlighted.

As romcom's go this was one of the worse that I've seen so much so that even if your an avid fan of this type of movie you'll have a hard time getting any pleasure out of watching it. Time to forget about this and move onto another one.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father (2008)

9/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Dear Zachary: A Letter To A Son About His Father

14 June 2011

The last time I cried in any movie was a few years back at the end of The Green Mile and that was a good 5 plus years ago and the time before that was probably The Lion King when I was 7 so it's fair to say that it's quite rare for me to get all emotional during a film. This film though had me blubbering like a schoolgirl who had just lost her favourite teddy.

Dear Zachary follows the true story of Andrew Bagby, a medical resident who was murdered in 2001 shortly after having broken up with his girlfriend Shirley. She then announces she's pregnant with Andrew's child which leads his closest friend Kurt Kuenne to make a film about Andrew as a gift to the child so he will know what his father was like whilst he was alive.

The documentary jumps between these past events and the present in real time so we find out what is unfolding at the same time as the family and friends. The film can be very fast paced and a bit full on especially at the start but this tends to immerse you into the life of Andrew and his family and you become one of them rather than this approach inhibiting the story. There is a lot of focus on Andrew's parents, Kathleen and David, as they go through the emotions of not only coming to terms with the loss of their child but also the challenges in seeking justice for the murderer and fighting for the right with Shirley to see their grandchild.

This movie perfectly sums up an emotional roller coaster ride as the emotions I felt varied wildly from sadness to anger, frustration, hope, inspiration, humour and everything in between whilst watching it. I found it even more intense because I knew nothing about the case or this movie coming into it and I recommenced that if you can keep curiosity under control (don't even watch the trailer below) to watch it without prior knowledge of what happened, hence why this review might be slightly vague in places.

The fact the documentary is personal to Kuenne brings about a certain objectivity that could not be achieved by another film maker. We get an insight into their life as they grew up in the form of home made movies they did together and family occasions. In some cases this is beneficial as he knows his subject matter better than anyone while in others it's less so as we meet Andrew, the man who has done no wrong in his life (but this bias is understandable, especially considering the intended viewer of the documentary).

Movies are supposed to elicit an emotion from you and for this fact alone, Dear Zachary was able to climb its way into my category for one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. Granted the technical film side may not be the best you are ever going to see but boy it has a story to tell and it's well worth listening to.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

7/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Kung Fu Panda 2

14 June 2011

Po (Jack Black) returns in another kung fu animation adventure which sees our ever hungry panda face up to a new and devastating threat in the form of angry albino peacock (Gary Oldman) Lord Shen. Having been cast out by his parents years before for his atrocities, Shen has been biding his time returning with a new technology that threatens to enable him to conquer China.

Po is joined once again with the Furious Five as well as a few new characters to try and save not only the local people but also the very fabric of kung fu and all that it stands for. Aside all of this, we also learn about the childhood of Po and how he came to be at the doorstep of Mr. Ping (James Hong) and his noodle restaurant. This film definitely takes on a darker feel when compared to the first and will surely give the younger kids in the audience something to keep them awake at night. It also has more packed into its story with extra depth and variety than the first did not necessarily have ie. lineage and upbringing and the effect that has on us as adults.

The animation is fantastic and despite not hitting the heights of a Pixar movie is up there with some of the best that I have seen to date. My favourite scenes are the fighting scenes in particular one where they are assaulting Shen's stronghold. The combination of action with the impressive visuals drags you right into the fight alongside the characters.

Po can get a bit annoying/repetitive at some points as the Jack Black from within is released and a torrent of 'awesome' and similar such catchphrases are rattled off one after the other but this did seem to be toned down slightly from his usual self so I began to think of Po as Po rather than Black in a panda costume.

I think this is a case of the sequel running the original very close and I would be hard pushed to say which one I preferred. Whereas the first was original and purely a kids flick this builds strongly on the first opening it to a wider audience with more of a slapstick feel to it which has me just siding with this one as the better of the two. Why don't you make up your own minds as it's definitely worth a watch on the big screen.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Arthur (I) (2011)

5/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Arthur

11 June 2011

Now for a guy who takes an immediate disliking to Russell Brand the prospect of watching him for nearly 2 hours did not fill my heart with joy especially when he was to be acting as a rich layabout. But I buckled on down and watched away hoping to be pleasantly surprised and I have to say, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be (still nothing special mind).

Arthur is a remake of the 1981 film of the same name and follows Arthur (Russell Brand) the a rick drunken playboy whose only worries in life seem to be how to top his last stunt or where his next lay is coming from. To help him through life Hobson (Helen Mirren) his nanny and Bitterman (Luis Guzmán) his chauffeur are there to look after him. Despite this help, he still gets into trouble at every turn which leads to the company in which he is the sole heir becoming nervous about the future.

So when his mother (Geraldine James) becomes sick of his attitude, she gives him an ultimatum that he can either marry Susan (Jennifer Garner) who would ease the shareholders concerns or be cut off from the family fortune and live out life in the real world. The only problem being he has finally met the girl of his dreams Naomi (Greta Gerwig) and so faces a dilemma.

I have only seen some of the original not all of it and in that respect, Brand seems to capture some of the charm and essence that Dudley Moore brought to the role but I still find it hard to relate or feel anything towards the main character. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the billionaire who finally has to make a decision and do something with his life? O boohoo! First and foremost thought, it's a comedy so did it make me laugh? In general no but I have to say there were at least a few jokes that got me smirking but over the length of the film, which was too long in my opinion, were few and far between. Brand plays the drunk well (not that surprising) in a more toned down version of his usual characters which won me round- I'm still not a great fan but his performance was solid.

Arthur partly entertained and when not compared to the original gives the opportunity to zone out for a couple of hours and be mildly entertained. If there was another choice available then I would probably go for that but there are definitely worse comedies around than this one.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

X: First Class (2011)

7/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: X-Men: First Class

7 June 2011

One problem that every prequel has to overcome it the ability to keep interest despite us knowing the eventual outcome of the movie. If you have seen any of the previous four films then it's quite probable you can piece together how this movie is going to end and how the characters are going to turn out. This therefore needs to be compensated for and is done so successfully by the introduction of plenty of new characters to keep our interest and the actual discovery of how two men who used to be friends come to be enemies.

X-Men: First Class follows the exploits of the first mutants to be discovered, primarily that of Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr aka Magneto (Michael Fassbender). It begins with a 12 year old Charles meeting Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) and their friendship as they grow up and a young Erik undergoing the hardship of Nazi Germany and the anger that this instils in him. Moving forward, Charles graduates from Oxford with his PhD in genetic mutation and is brought into the US government to help with a mission to locate someone whereas Erik is hunting down the man responsible for separating him from his mother during the regime twenty years earlier.

Both of their paths then cross when we discover they are after the same man, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and the mutant henchmen that he has surrounded himself with. Erik and Charles team up to recruit new mutants to teach them to use their mutations in order to prevent the Cuban missile crisis from unleashing the next World War and bring Shaw to justice.

The two main plots of this movie are based on finding out about the relationship between Charles and Erik and the actual storyline tied into the Cuban missile crisis and an impending world war. The trailers emphasised that this was the film where we could witness the beginning of the X-men and it doesn't fail to deliver with a good script not only providing the answers but achieving them with a well crafted dialogue.

As with most of the action movies nowadays, the action sequences are both impressive and well shot using a multitude of CGI effects especially during the final scene which was a particular highlight. The acting was also first class (poor pun intended) with McAvoy and Fassbender leading the way, their characters playing off each other perfectly but by no means outshining the rest of the cast.

Placing the whole film during that of the Cold War was a great choice by director Matthew Vaughn and co as it provided not only an impressive backdrop but used these historical events to enforce its points. In fact Vaughn impresses once more leading to a film that makes you invest in the characters before building to a action packed end.

In comparison to it's Summer sequel/prequel compatriots it has certainly taken the lead as the best so far and in terms of where it sits with the other 4 X-Men movies, well I'd put it in the top 2. Worth a trip to the cinema? Definitely, especially if you were already a fan of the franchise.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Tourist (I) (2010)

5/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: The Tourist

5 June 2011

Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie, star in this action romance as Frank and Elise. Whilst on a vacation to Italy to recover from a broken heart, Frank a maths teacher, is minding his own business on a train when Elsie sits opposite him. They strike up a bond and Frank thinks its his lucky day when he runs into her later. Unfortunately for him, this is not a chance encounter but rather a scheme by Elise to use him as a decoy as protection for her lover Alexander Pearce who is a wanted man.

As no-one knows what Alexander looks like Frank finds himself in the middle of an intentional misunderstanding that puts him in the firing line of mobsters, from whom a large sum of money has been stolen and the British government for tax evasion led by Chief Inspector Jones (Timothy Dalton) and Scotland Yard's John Acheson (Paul Bettany) The main flaw is that this movie contains the top A-list celebrities of Hollywood, director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and is all set in the lovely city of Venice implying that it will be a feast to behold. The standards have been set high. Yet not only did I find the movie to be obvious in its direction- I was never sitting on the edge of my seat waiting or even wanting to see what was going to happen next but there was no chemistry between Depp and Jolie at all.

It was good to see Depp as a 'normal' character and by that I mean he wasn't draped in make-up and he did not see to have any extreme character flaws or quirks that usually accompany his other roles. He was the one who kept the movie interesting for me. However, I didn't fully understand Bettany's character. Granted he has some sort of vendetta against Pearce but he just didn't seem believable and was overly obsessed to the point he would have been issued with some gross misconduct charges.

The action scenes are well done and the settings impressive but you get the sense that the film hasn't worked out if it's a comedy, action or a romance. Yes a movie can be all three but The Tourist fails to seam them altogether leading to the viewer becoming somewhat detached from the storyline. And why they found it necessary to put Jolie in a stunning dress for every scene with people gawping at her is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I like a bit of eye candy but it turned the movie into something more akin to a perfume commercial or catwalk show instead of a film.

At the end, although I was reasonably entertained whilst watching it, I now feel no real desire to see it ever again. Venice and its buildings add a nice visual appeal to the film but I needed more than that to keep me interested. Wait for it's appearance on the TV if you have any desire to see it.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)

8/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: Tucker & Dale Vs Evil

2 June 2011

A bit of a breath of fresh air is this in a low budget and yet well produced comedy horror that gives Død Snø and the likes a run for their money. Tucker & Dale Vs Evil follows two redneck hillbillies- Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) who head into the woods in the Appellation Mountains so that they can drink some beers, do some fishing and fix up a worn down cabin to turn it into the holiday home of their dreams.

At the same time a group of preppy college kids are on a camping trip into the same woods also to have a good time. After a couple of run ins with the hillbillies, they assume that they must be your stereotypical inbred manic chainsaw wielding killers right out of Deliverance or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. So when one of the kids Allison (Katrina Bowden) is rescued from drowning by the hillbillies, prejudice and paranoia reign supreme with the others mistaking it as her being hauled away in a kidnapping attempt. So they embark on a mission to rescue her from her saviours with hilarious consequences.

Despite the premise of the movie being based on one long running joke of a massive misunderstanding, the story remains fresh and the scenes extremely funny for the majority. I'm not aware of any other movie that has done this type of role reversal with hillbillies in this type of scenario and managed to blend in the right amount of comedy with horror and gore. In fact across all the genres, it is not often that you get to see the perspective of the 'bad guys' (far from it in this film).

The best moments come from the writing as we follow the bickering between Tucker and Dale as a bromance emerges on screen. Both Tudyk (aka Steve the Pirate from Dodgeball) and Labine impress making the characters extremely likable and charming so that by the end you really do care what happens to them. Bowden plays her part solidly as well and definitely brings some eye candy to the film! Most of these types of films tend to lose their drama element but this keeps the anticipation and as I said, you end up really caring about what is going to happen to the characters. However, the only major fault that I can pick out is that despite all this, it does begin to fade as a spectacle in the last 15 minutes as they focus a bit too much on the back story and tying up loose ends when what they were doing up to that point was more than enough in my books.

It's usually hard to combine the right amount of comedy and horror without creating a somewhat tacky result so credit must go to the new guy on the block- director and co-writer Eli Craig. If you are looking for a unique comedy horror that has a chance of hitting cult status/topping Shaun of the Dead then you need look no further than this.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hangover Part II (2011)

5/10

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: The Hangover Part II

1 June 2011

Hot off the heels of The Hangover, a massive summer success in 2008, The Hangover Part II reunites the wolfpack and the adventure begins all over again in another country and city.

This time around the setting is Thailand and Stu (Ed Helms) is the lucky groom to be. With the wedding taking place in Thailand to help Stu get along with his new relatives, the rest of the gang- Phil (Bradley Cooper), Doug (Justin Bartha) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) head out planning for a more relaxing version of their Las Vegas debauchery. This time however there is another party goer in the form of the brides 16 year old brother Teddy (Mason Lee).

Suffice to say the unthinkable happens and they wake up in the middle of Bangkok and each sporting a very impressive hangover again. Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) also returns and is given a more prominent role in this one with his extreme character providing some of the films more amusing moments.

The writers and director seem to have stuck to the same winning principals of the last film almost identically which you might consider to be a good thing. Yes it is more vulgar and over the top than the last one and they have tweaked it slightly but there is no real variation whatsoever from the original. The tiger is now a monkey, the broken tooth is now a tattoo, a character goes missing etc. This results in a very disappointing movie as not only are you getting the same jokes in the same order with the same characters but you can work out exactly what is going to happen next.

The original won us over due to it's outrageous and original scenarios, this just increases the outrageousness/nudity and thinks that's all that's required to create another success. Completely wrong. In fact most of the best moments come from the characters reminiscing about what they got up to in the first movie. If it wasn't for the nostalgia and likability of the characters that was build up from the first film, I would have struggled to laugh more than once or twice.

Although I wasn't expecting it to be as good as the first one, I was still hoping for an entertaining movie that could have at least tried to break slightly from the template of the first. Alas it fails to achieve this and the result is a distinctly average film that's just been rehashed. I'd rather have just watched the first one again to be honest.

For further reviews feel free to check out: http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

iReviewFilms

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed