Saw this film at an early screening. Very strong performances all around, orchestrated by first time director Will Jewel. The film is a tense, slow burn thriller with very current political themes. The understated cinematography really stands out too. The only downside for me was the pacing was maybe a bit off at times. Overall great film though; more of a thriller with social themes than a horror like the poster and the frightfest association would make you believe.
Reviews
6 Reviews
My Little Pony: The Princess Promenade
(2006 Video)
We do not deserve such a movie
15 November 2009
Words cannot begin to convey how truly miraculous this movie is. Despite being a published author, anything I could possibly write would ultimately prove clumsy, insufficient and defamatory to this untainted 50 minutes of sheer genius. Never in all my years did I think I might come across a work of art so awe-inspiring that praise itself would become insulting; but I thank God that I have. Embark on a journey with some of the most convoluted and interesting characters the movie, nay the entire fiction industry has provided. People have been searching for the meaning of life since the dawn of Humanity, I daresay this movie provides just about the closest thing to an answer any of us could ever hope for. All I can say is that My Little Pony: The Princess Promenade will, in every sense of the word, astound generations to come – and that too sounds feebly slanderous.
Doomsday
(I) (2008)
... all that humanity is left with is instinct
27 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I must say, I'm quite new to zombie/post-apocalyptic movies (and other media). Apart from a few cults, their remakes, 28 Days Later, the Walking Dead, a few funny-but-actually-garbage movies; I know nothing about this genre. I am in no way a conaisseur in the arts.
Having read a few comments on Doomsday, I am led to believe that there are other movies like this one, like Dog Army, The Descent (or something among those lines). But I have seen none of these so this movie was the first to show me a new perspective.
This being said, there is always a general pattern that is followed, however blunt:
1) Disease spreads out, usually unknown source, failure to contain
2) Survivors fight off the infected/zombies/mutants with a wide variety of weapons for our entertainment
3) (insert end of movie here); they usually all die, one by one, or a select few survive and have to face an even grimmer future.
Now this pattern can be applied to Doomsday; a disease spreads out through Scotland and infects a large portion of the population. However, this is where it varies: THE INFECTED DIE. I'm not talking a horrible death by decapitation, being lit on fire or a shotgun blast to the face by the protagonist (all of which we DO get to see, fear not)... what I mean is the infected die of the infection. So that's definitely good points for originality...
Now what is left to kill? People. The people that are still alive from the quarantine. This is interesting now because the survivors, who are totally sane, take on the role of the infected/mutant/zombie. There is no point in the movie when these people have lost what makes them human. They still talk, eat (other people?), have some sort of social conduct, have humor, etc. So this is obviously a factor that has to be taken into account, they are no longer shooting, hacking, burning mindless, slow creatures, but people that could be you or me (you preferably...).
This movie is also interesting because it shows how society would evolve after an apocalyptic event. A society and culture that have taken centuries, if not millenniums, to set up are destroyed instantaneously, and all that humanity is left with is instinct. This may sound Ted Hughes-esquire, but apart from a distant memory of a past civilization, these guys have to start from scratch. Also interesting because although these "savages" still have knowledge of the past society and culture (one dude even quotes MacMillan), they disregard it.
These are people that, just a few decades before, lived like we did, yet now they decide to dress up in medieval clothing and ride horses; either that or they eat other people. It sort of echoes Lord of the Flies in some ways, they're acting like a bunch of children, acting on instinct, without laws or order; all I'm waiting for is the dude from the navy to make them realize how truly retarded they were acting... perhaps the hot, main character's role at the end of the movie?
Which brings me to my final point: the end of the movie. This follows the main guidelines that a select few survive. Two of them will lead to a cure for the disease, subsequently saving England and possibly the world, whilst the bom-chicka-wah-wah main character stays in Scotland to lead the pack of cannibals whom she just defeated. Now this for me doesn't bode too well, in a weird way, it's too much of a happy ending; there's no grim future. Further emphasized by the fact that the bom-chicka-wah-wah main character duped the evil Prime Minister into showing his true intentions to the world, leading to his probable incarceration. And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling, cannibal killing kids.
+ sides:
original story
cannibalism
gore
interesting Heavy-Metal type swords and blunt objects
interesting philosophical, though probably unintentional, aspects
-sides:
weak acting
simple directing
easy, hard to believe ending
people dressed like their in a renaissance fair (or a gay robin hood)
Having read a few comments on Doomsday, I am led to believe that there are other movies like this one, like Dog Army, The Descent (or something among those lines). But I have seen none of these so this movie was the first to show me a new perspective.
This being said, there is always a general pattern that is followed, however blunt:
1) Disease spreads out, usually unknown source, failure to contain
2) Survivors fight off the infected/zombies/mutants with a wide variety of weapons for our entertainment
3) (insert end of movie here); they usually all die, one by one, or a select few survive and have to face an even grimmer future.
Now this pattern can be applied to Doomsday; a disease spreads out through Scotland and infects a large portion of the population. However, this is where it varies: THE INFECTED DIE. I'm not talking a horrible death by decapitation, being lit on fire or a shotgun blast to the face by the protagonist (all of which we DO get to see, fear not)... what I mean is the infected die of the infection. So that's definitely good points for originality...
Now what is left to kill? People. The people that are still alive from the quarantine. This is interesting now because the survivors, who are totally sane, take on the role of the infected/mutant/zombie. There is no point in the movie when these people have lost what makes them human. They still talk, eat (other people?), have some sort of social conduct, have humor, etc. So this is obviously a factor that has to be taken into account, they are no longer shooting, hacking, burning mindless, slow creatures, but people that could be you or me (you preferably...).
This movie is also interesting because it shows how society would evolve after an apocalyptic event. A society and culture that have taken centuries, if not millenniums, to set up are destroyed instantaneously, and all that humanity is left with is instinct. This may sound Ted Hughes-esquire, but apart from a distant memory of a past civilization, these guys have to start from scratch. Also interesting because although these "savages" still have knowledge of the past society and culture (one dude even quotes MacMillan), they disregard it.
These are people that, just a few decades before, lived like we did, yet now they decide to dress up in medieval clothing and ride horses; either that or they eat other people. It sort of echoes Lord of the Flies in some ways, they're acting like a bunch of children, acting on instinct, without laws or order; all I'm waiting for is the dude from the navy to make them realize how truly retarded they were acting... perhaps the hot, main character's role at the end of the movie?
Which brings me to my final point: the end of the movie. This follows the main guidelines that a select few survive. Two of them will lead to a cure for the disease, subsequently saving England and possibly the world, whilst the bom-chicka-wah-wah main character stays in Scotland to lead the pack of cannibals whom she just defeated. Now this for me doesn't bode too well, in a weird way, it's too much of a happy ending; there's no grim future. Further emphasized by the fact that the bom-chicka-wah-wah main character duped the evil Prime Minister into showing his true intentions to the world, leading to his probable incarceration. And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling, cannibal killing kids.
+ sides:
original story
cannibalism
gore
interesting Heavy-Metal type swords and blunt objects
interesting philosophical, though probably unintentional, aspects
-sides:
weak acting
simple directing
easy, hard to believe ending
people dressed like their in a renaissance fair (or a gay robin hood)
Wanted
(2008)
From a 7 to a 4
1 February 2009
I saw this movie when it came out ages ago. I only just read the graphic novel out of curiosity. As a movie, it's watchable, and even enjoyable. Just like everyone else said, it's a worse version of Matrix, but it's still a pretty decent movie. But compared to what Mark Millar managed to do, it's a load of sh*t(head). What happened to the mass-murderer Wesley? the one that kills and rapes for fun? The amazing plot line of the graphic novel has nothing but NOTHING to do with the movie's. Where did they get the idea of threads? Seriously, where does that come from?
The movie has nothing to do with the GN and if you despised the movie, give the book a shot. I had so much more fun reading the GN than watching the movie. I give it a 4 for butchering the story.
The movie has nothing to do with the GN and if you despised the movie, give the book a shot. I had so much more fun reading the GN than watching the movie. I give it a 4 for butchering the story.
Stuck in the Suburbs
(2004 TV Movie)
Is this what Disney Channel Original Movies have come to?
26 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I grew up in the 90s; therefore, you must understand that i witnessed firsthand the premiers of the greatest DCOMs. I was there when Brink! appeared, Zenon, Halloweentown, Johnny Tsunami, etc, These movies constitute my childhood. When these movies came on, not only myself but whoever I was watching them with would stand completely in awe for 1h30, talk about it for the week to come and catch it again the next weekend. I don't think words could express the amount of excitement Zoog Disney brought.
Even when I watch them now, the dialog doesn't seem that bad (so effective in fact, that I actually remember parts of conversations literally word per word, from movies I saw over ten years ago). The characters are believable, funny, granted a little stereotypical but that's what makes Disney's charm...
I sat my little brother down in front of the Disney channel to try and convey and make him understand my feelings for DCOMs. Enter Stuck in the Suburbs... my brother looked at me slightly puzzled, asking me if I had always been gay. I feel more disappointed and betrayed now than, what could I compare this to?, when Han Solo found out Lando sold him out to Vader...
Half the movie, and I'm not exaggerating, is flashbacks. There is no talent in these young actors (some of which are older than I am) whatsoever. The plot is ridiculous; it feels like a bunch of old rotting corporate people over at Disney sat around a table and asked themselves "How can we seem hip to these youngsters?" OK, maybe all the DCOMs were like that, but they at least made a little effort to not let us realize they think we're complete idiots.
And apparently this type of movie works... Stuck in the Suburbs is rated almost as much as Zenon or Airborne. How is this possible? DCOMs got even cheesier and people prefer them now? (though apparently the lack of curse words is enough to give it 10/10 for some people) Christ, it's a completely different generation.
Even when I watch them now, the dialog doesn't seem that bad (so effective in fact, that I actually remember parts of conversations literally word per word, from movies I saw over ten years ago). The characters are believable, funny, granted a little stereotypical but that's what makes Disney's charm...
I sat my little brother down in front of the Disney channel to try and convey and make him understand my feelings for DCOMs. Enter Stuck in the Suburbs... my brother looked at me slightly puzzled, asking me if I had always been gay. I feel more disappointed and betrayed now than, what could I compare this to?, when Han Solo found out Lando sold him out to Vader...
Half the movie, and I'm not exaggerating, is flashbacks. There is no talent in these young actors (some of which are older than I am) whatsoever. The plot is ridiculous; it feels like a bunch of old rotting corporate people over at Disney sat around a table and asked themselves "How can we seem hip to these youngsters?" OK, maybe all the DCOMs were like that, but they at least made a little effort to not let us realize they think we're complete idiots.
And apparently this type of movie works... Stuck in the Suburbs is rated almost as much as Zenon or Airborne. How is this possible? DCOMs got even cheesier and people prefer them now? (though apparently the lack of curse words is enough to give it 10/10 for some people) Christ, it's a completely different generation.
Feast of Love
(2007)
a sturdy 3/10
15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
OK, let me just start off by saying that if you aren't 15 and madly in love or in a mid-life crisis, this movie will seem extremely extremely cheesy...
By cheesy, I mean "I wanted to feel in my body as much pain as I feel in my heart" (get over yourself)... and the actor is meant to say this without laughing. Seriously though i found some parts of the dialog excruciating. As well, who talks about their recently turned lesbian ex-wife to a complete stranger?
Also the story itself seems to have been written by either a 15 year old or a midlife criser. It's just so cliché... the young couple with a tragic end, the alcoholic father, the cutely naive 40 year old who gets his heart stomped on over and over again, and above all, the wise old black man. I think it's about time for Morgan Freeman to find other parts to play... It's also cliché in that everyone falls in love at first sight, somehow confusing lust for love.
The acting was overall OK, though sometimes Kinnear makes you raise an eyebrow. Truly, I think the producers noticed the movie wouldn't have cut it, so they decided to throw in a few naked chicks and I guess it works, I mean i stayed till the end. The only reason i stayed though was for Alexa Davalos (bom chicka wah wah).
This could have been a really really good soap opera.
By cheesy, I mean "I wanted to feel in my body as much pain as I feel in my heart" (get over yourself)... and the actor is meant to say this without laughing. Seriously though i found some parts of the dialog excruciating. As well, who talks about their recently turned lesbian ex-wife to a complete stranger?
Also the story itself seems to have been written by either a 15 year old or a midlife criser. It's just so cliché... the young couple with a tragic end, the alcoholic father, the cutely naive 40 year old who gets his heart stomped on over and over again, and above all, the wise old black man. I think it's about time for Morgan Freeman to find other parts to play... It's also cliché in that everyone falls in love at first sight, somehow confusing lust for love.
The acting was overall OK, though sometimes Kinnear makes you raise an eyebrow. Truly, I think the producers noticed the movie wouldn't have cut it, so they decided to throw in a few naked chicks and I guess it works, I mean i stayed till the end. The only reason i stayed though was for Alexa Davalos (bom chicka wah wah).
This could have been a really really good soap opera.
Tell Your Friends