Change Your Image
deronny66
Reviews
Ghostbusters (2016)
Good Fun - Haters gunna Hate
It's sad that I can't review this film without the context of the preceding "controversy" surrounding its release. Where have all these 'die hard' ghostbusters fans come from? The original was great, sure, but let's be honest, for most of us it's a very enjoyable 'spooky comedy' rather than a life changing holy grail of cinema. So the overstated enthusiasm for the original at the time of writing is fairly exhausting.
I'll keep it short.
The film 2016 was impressively consistently funny, as evidenced by the numerous collective belly laughs in the cinema I attended. There were some misses too, much in the way an episode of, say, Family Guy has hits and misses, but the laughs outweighed the troughs. Actually, in terms of the audience's reactions to the jokes, I'd go as far as saying it was more consistently funny than your average episode of Family Guy (which has loads of misses all the time). Obviously the humour and style is different, so don't take that comparison as an absolute. But Ghostbusters 2016 was very funny in places.
The film triumphed over the pre-release criticisms that this was pandering to feminism. The issue didn't cross my mind at all. The characters and the actors were enjoyable. There was a decent explanation to all the ghostbusters' reasons for being part of the team. You'd have to enter the cinema wanting to be annoyed at this for it to actually be an issue. I'm a 28 year old male, by the way, as ridiculous as it is for me to confirm that.
The film isn't great though. It starts strong and, somewhere mid-way, begins to approach its climax clumsily. Things go from 'investigations' to 'total apocalypse' very quickly and get resolved equally quickly. Also, all the throwbacks to the original end up feeling forced and a bit awkward. It would be better without the cameos. The failings of this film are not linked to its pre-release criticisms.
If you want to have some fun, like you would when going to see any comedy, then this is worth your time. If you have low expectations, give it a chance and you will probably enjoy yourself.
Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (2014)
Not a Nerd movie, but a B-movie starring the Nerd
Well, it finally arrived, after years of waiting. Sadly for James, it turns out that many people didn't like his character's outing to the big screen. However, I can't help but thinking a lot of the disgruntlement is misplaced. Don't get me wrong, it's not what most people would consider a good film, but I think I should offer an explanation of why it turned out the way it did.
First, this is more of a Cinemassacre feature than an Angry Video Game Nerd feature and you will be more inclined to like it if you have spent your time watching the endless movie reviews on the Cinemassacre website. James is a fan of what a lot of people would describe as trash and a lot of this film contains schlock content - dumb characters, corny jokes and silly special effects. Bad / over the top acting and silly dialogue therefore isn't really the point for this type of film - it's a given. If you don't like this sort of thing, then you aren't going to like this movie, period.
The reality, though, is that people love the Nerd character first and foremost above Cinemassacre and sadly he does suffer mildly in the context of this movie. His dislike of E.T. is taken from an amusing irrational hatred into irrational behaviour and his insistence that he won't review the game is a card played a little too strongly. Still, I really don't think the criticisms that there are ego issues going on here are valid. The Nerd is an enormously popular character and people have flocked to cinemas nationwide across the states to support their hero. James showed his popularity in the movie for the purposes of a joke, being that the fictional public assumed that the Nerd videos are for comedy/fun (which obviously they are), which dismayed the fictional Nerd character who simply hated the games - he is famous for the wrong reason. I think this has been wildly and widely misinterpreted as James stroking his own ego and I think that's unfair. It's driving to the plot point to the film.
The plot, of course, is ridiculous and silly. It's a fun concept but gets bogged down by being the film being too long, which makes the plot too slow. Things do get rather confusing towards the end as the Nerd's companions go off on their own mini-adventures but to no real consequence. People just want to see the Nerd. As for the ludicrous monster that appears towards the end, we are right back in Cinemassacre territory with plastic models and men in rubber suits - the ridiculousness is the point.
Regardless of the target audience, the film is at least partially a comedy and it does raise a few smirks. As the laughs are more frequent and punchier in the Nerd episodes, this has left a lot of people disappointed. What we all love is seeing the Nerd spit venom at "***** games", but he's not doing that here until the credits of the film (which is probably the most entertaining and interesting part). The various cameos and fan moments are kind tributes, but are mostly goofy and unnecessary.
I suppose I can summarise by saying that this is not the Nerd movie many of us were hoping for, but just a B-movie starring the Nerd. It was an ambitious project in which an amateur film-maker had the means to pay homage to the films he loved. Unfortunately this was at the expense of the character that the audience loved, which is what everyone really wanted to see. However, I have a huge amount of respect for the project as a whole. What James has achieved with his Nerd character is impressive and a lot of blood, sweat and tears went into this movie. There's a lot of heart here and that context gives it a special charm. Standing it by itself though, against slicker and meaner films, it's an easy target for criticism. But to do so in the overly aggressive way that others have is to miss the point entirely.
That's what I think anyway.
Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)
A Case 'More is Less'
There have been a string of 'outrageous' and silly films lately, including Planet Terror and Machete. I seem to quite enjoy the genre so I was looking forward to seeing this film. Sadly, it missed the mark so badly I thought I'd had to write this review.
Hobo with a Shotgun is an extremely violent film. And that's about it. It is really, really violent and at times shockingly sadistic. This could be fine if the violence was justified with big dollop of humour, but for the vast majority of the film it's not. The best way to describe this film is if you left a bunch of 14 year olds with a camcorder to make the most 'shocking' thing they could. Have you ever seen that episode of South Park where the children write the book 'The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs'? It's just like that.
The result is a film that tries so hard to be gory and sick that all other elements of the film are almost forgotten, most notably the elements that you probably wanted to watch the film for in the first place - fun and humour. Don't get me wrong, there are some amusing parts of the film, but these are relatively few and far between. Have you ever seen the film 'Brain Dead'? There is a very violent and very funny scene in that film whereby the lead attacks some zombies with a lawnmower. It's funny because of the music, the comic expressions of the actors and subtle silliness throughout. 'Hobo' has almost NONE of the funny part.
What really doesn't help matters is the pacing of the film. It starts of fairly slow, then you get a massive dose of violence to the point where it almost becomes boring. Then bizarrely, the film slows down in a hospital scene that seems to take its mood and music directly from 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace'. This film really dragged for me and my friends - we were not impressed.
I honestly don't understand how they messed this film up. The premise sounds amazing - one hobo with a shotgun. It's not trying to be the Shawshank Redemption, there are few ingredients needed for this pot. How did they get it wrong? By trying to be violent and sick first, then funny and entertaining second.
If you are the type to be easily amused by gratuitous violence then this may float your boat, but for everyone else it remains a really disappointing film. 'More is less' has never been more apt.
See the 2010 film Machete instead, it's vastly superior.
Saw V (2008)
Its the track on your favourite album you don't like
I don't normally like reviewing films in merely one word. But it is totally fair for Saw V. Here it is:
'Meh'
Meh says everything you need to know. Instead of the weaving in and out of Saw 3 and 4, we are treated to an artificially extended Saw film which has a different, tired and worn out vibe to it than the previous four.
The traps are uninspired and confusing. The twist is non-existent. The plot, needless filler.
Its a film of filler. Its the track on your favourite album you don't like.
Meh.
The Thing (1982)
A Classic Horror Film
What makes 'The Thing' such a great film is that you appreciate it more and more every time it is viewed. What sounds like a fairly average monster confrontation, it achieved so much better due to its way of thinking:
"Less is more.... but when you want more, you go over the top!"
It may not be expected but there are actually few monster scenes during 'The Thing'. Suspense is drawn and a huge amount of time is given for the characters to develop, particularly the way they interact with one another. As well as each member being very believable, you can imagine that such a team actually exists. As with the more well known 'Alien', seeing the characters goof around by eating, playing pool and the like draws you into the experience far deeper than just letting an actor play a stereotype. Some of the script is also hilarious, such as the captains suggestion on the couch.
Once the scene has been set, the fairly sedated start wakes up with one hell of snarl. You have never seen any monsters before like this, not ones which look so realistic. Todays audience is constantly bombarded with CGI effects, to the point where we can instantly tell when they are being used. 'The Thing' is 'Old School' with its effects, displaying some truly unbelievable anamatronics. For todays audience, we are able to spot the flaws in these effects, but at the time I imagine that the audience would of been absolutely stiff in their cinema seats. To put it straight, these are some of the best effects ever to grace a film. Its worth bearing in mind that 'The Thing' was beaten to the Oscar for special effects by 'E.T, the Exrta-Terrerestral'. Hmm.
Saying this, we all know effects don't make a film. But they certainly add to the atmosphere. If the film was remade with CGI effects, it just wouldn't have the same effect. The film also stands head and shoulders over other horror films due to the 'Who did it?' element that is maintained throughout. You will be constantly guessing who 'The Thing' really is, adding another physiological element to the film.
However, there are some aspects which stops 'The Thing' from being truly great. The music throughout is fairly dire, and laughable when you give it attention. The ending to the film is also quite a disappointment, snatching a satisfying conclusion just from the viewer at the last minutes. When viewing the film as a whole however these points are particularly minor, especially considering what this film has going for it.
'The Thing' is a film that will not leave the viewers memory for a long time, and is one you will certainly be telling your friends you watched last night. There isn't anything else out there quite like it, which is a crying shame. If all horror films were more like 'The Thing', the world would be a better place...
King Kong (2005)
Over-hyped, Overlong, Over-indulgent
From a conversation with a friend, I have decided it is unfair to judge a film such as King Kong differently from a film like the Shawshank Redemption. A lot of people had said 'This is supposed to be an entertaining film, stop being so critical' but I think thats a very poor way to judge. Why shouldn't I expect such a high calibre film in the first place? King Kong stumbles at many points before it falls completely head over arse. Given the sheer weight of Kong himself, you can see the comedy value of this, but I don't give films credit for being unintentionally humorous.
Firstly, I admit that the film is very well set up. The 1930's vibe is given perfectly by the introduction, and when we are introduced to Jack Black's character the whole buzz and excitement of shooting an exciting film is captured. From this however, the film begins to sag due to several factors, starting with two that contradict each other.
The problem is with King Kong that not a lot actually happens. Secondly, a huge problem for this film is that far too much happens. This probably makes no sense, so let me explain. The film has three main chapters it can be broken into, New York, Skull Island, back to New York. Whilst the first as already stated is impressive enough, the second is quite a painful adventure to say the least. The film feels like it has been artificially extended with filler material, or putting it another way its like ordering a huge steak only to find its mostly gristle. What the audience is treated to is a number of boring CGI sequences and chases that occur one after another, most of which is not relevant to progressing the plot in the slightest. I am fed up of CGI sequences in films, they just make you instantly think 'I'm watching a film'. Jurrasic Park was far more convincing, and it still is, not to mention Jurrasic Park is over ten years old now. One chase scene involving running dinosaurs in a canyon has the ever increasing in number party weaving through their legs. Not only was I embarrassed at this, but I couldn't help thinking if the scene wasn't so over the top it could of been far more dramatic (ala the jeep chase in Jurassic Park). On the other hand, this chase has one of the most unintentionally funny moments in film history, which is when the dinosaurs fall over on top of one another. Think those 'funny' home movie shows showing people falling over on an ice rink set to epic 'lord of the rings' music, and you might get the same sort of idea of 'Trying to be epic / exciting' but failing miserably.
Remember when I said 'Too much happens?', well this is what I meant. It's like the film 'xXx', just one long continuous mind numbing stunt. Too much of just about everything is forcibly crammed into the long 3 hours that makes you care far less about the outcome. Imagine a horror film with someone dies a 'gruesome' death every 3 minutes. Not nearly as suspenseful or scary as a film with hardly any deaths is it? A case of 'less is more' was needed with this film, and Peter Jackson failed to realise that.
The film is filled with many horrible continuity errors which add to the disappointment of this film. For a starter, how many people can they fit into those two rowing boats they journey to skull island on? More and MORE people keep showing up to have some boring / gruesome death. You can almost pick out who is going to die from the start as well. The whole 'captain' and 'prodigy' relationship is painfully predictable. Also, where the hell did the natives go? All disappeared apparently.
I guess my biggest problem with the film is that is the one which is most obvious. If you can't tell already, its an incredibly boring film that could be easily cut down to under the 2 hour mark. Its purely self indulgent of Peter Jackson to string it out so long when there was so little to say. I was almost screaming "Why wont you DIE?!" at the screen in its final sequence, which is strung out so long I discovered I had in fact grown a beard by the time it had finished.
Speaking on its behalf, its fair to say when back in New York, I did have a fair bit of sympathy for Kong when he was chained up, and I did get the feeling that man was the true monster after all. So something went right when this movie was made. However, this is nowhere near enough to save it.
Over-hyped, overlong, over-indulgent are just some words I would use to describe this film. I guess one thing can be said about this film to sum it up: This film would of been canned by the critics if it wasn't a remake.
You have been warned...