Change Your Image
tomb_92
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Gravity (2013)
One of the most beautiful experiences of any art form. Unlike anything I have ever seen
I wasn't sure really what to expect from Gravity. I did have high expectations and it's clear from Alfonso Cuaron's last film Children of Men that he is an exciting director and makes interesting films. Gravity is way beyond that. It is unlike anything I have ever seen. At heart it is a film about an individual's endurance and shear will to survive, nothing we haven't seen before, but it's the almost perfect execution that makes this film a masterpiece. First of all, this is a visual film. Every visual element comes together like cogs so that the finished product looks (and feels) extraordinary. The way the camera moves (pace, directionality, the way the focus shifts), the way the film is lit, the set pieces, all add up to what is visually speaking the film equivalent of an opera. And I never thought I'd say this but the 3D makes up one of those cogs, sometimes not quite moving in quite close harmony with the others, but very rarely was that the case. 3D for me has rarely been immersive, and never would I have described an entire 3D film as being that, until now. Rarely does a shot look noticeably out of focus, such is the norm with 3D. The vast, vast majority only adds to the beauty and wonder of the overall visual experience. Cuaron gets 3D, the slow-moving shots allow for an adjustment of focus that is seamless. In fact I'd go as far as to say that to see the film in 2D would be to miss a large part of what makes the film so stunning. Secondly, while I'll admit that the plot itself and dialogue are perhaps clunky at best, I didn't care. The lack of any sort of plot isn't an issue, the film is following the character on a short journey and as explained above you really do feel like you're right there, in space, watching. There are plenty of films where there is a lack of narrative. That is not an issue. The dialogue in this film needs to serve only as a commentary on what is going on, to fill in any blanks, which I'll admit people may have a problem with, and it does get a little cheesy. I didn't care. I was rarely listening to what was being said. I was more interested on what I was watching, yes the stunning visuals, but also the plight of the character, which was enthralling. Also, Sandra Bullock does enough to make the character come alive right here in the present so that the dialogue is largely redundant anyway, and any backstory not necessary. I found I was emotionally invested in George Clooney's character as soon as any threat began because it felt so real, not just because of the visuals but because of the weight of the acting and the threat itself. Lastly, I'll say that I haven't been as emotionally exhausted by a film in a very long time, if ever. I certainly have never felt so emotionally up and down watching a film. I probably laughed, cried and felt anxious short of having a heart attack several times in several different orders in the space of just 10 minutes of the film. The threat feels real and while I'll admit that people might find the continued frustration the film makes you feel annoying, I do think that is the point, the film sets out to be frustrating, it is part of the constant emotional roller- coaster (cliché I know but it's also an appropriate way to physically describe the film) you feel like you're sitting on while watching it, and only adds to the realism of the threat. Importantly, Gravity doesn't feel like a typical sci-fi film. It could be set anywhere where there is sustained mortal threat, and I'm sure there are numerous films one could cite to show that in terms of narrative and theme it does nothing new. It does not pretend to be profound, or even particularly clever, but it does exactly what it sets out to do- show the plight of an individual though sustained trauma, alone and terrified- and I can't fault the result for what it is (though maybe I'm missing something). I tend to be overly critical of almost every film I see and I could count of two hands the number of films I have ever considered to be 10/10 films. I genuinely think this is one of them. From the opening shot I was in awe of the visuals, I have never seen anything that comes close to the spectacle of Gravity. From the moment the threat began I was scared, frustrated, happy, depressed, overjoyed, not necessarily in that order and several times over. I consider it almost mandatory that a film provokes some sort of emotional response, whether laughter, crying, happiness or even depression. One of the worst things a film can make you feel is cold. Gravity provoked emotional response and involvement in abundance, and it makes me love it even more. I will say that I'm sure that it would be different on a small screen in my own home in 2D, than in a cinema in 3D, and that would impact the entire experience of the film, though I'm sure that this is true of almost every film these days, but probably never as true as with Gravity. I left genuinely feeling a sense of having had all of my emotional limits tested one by one unrelentingly in such a small space of time on top of having witnessed the most stunning visuals I had ever seen as well as every aspect of the film (with the possible exception of the dialogue) having come together to form something that most closely resembles opera. I hate to use the word "experience", it sounds too cheesy, but it best describes how I think of the way Gravity plays in a cinema in 3D. For that experience- 10/10
The Avengers (2012)
Essentially a dumb, loud, explosive action film, but a dumb, loud explosive action film done well.
I had my reservations about Avenger Assemble for a long time- it is not my sort of film. The only previous films in the saga I saw before this were Iron Man (which I didn't like) and Captain America (which I did). What made Captain America for me was that it was interesting that is was set against the backdrop of world war II, and the redeeming feature of Iron Man was the witty dialogue between Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow. So the task is, how do they make a film with all of these stars, with so much back-story, set in the modern era, without it turning into Iron Man 2.5 (which it does in places), that lives up to the MASSIVE hype? Let's face it, since the film has been building up people's expectations for that long and with so many huge stars competing for screen time and the best dialogue it was never going to be anything but a little bit of a mess. What it is though is an enjoyable mess. They don't go down the route of the Transformers films (Revenge of the Fallen in particular) and just spend 2 hours making 2 dimensional robot characters smash each other up. Avengers Assamble is enjoyable because of the characters involved. It is to its advantage that the back-stories for most of the main characters have been established already, it means that we can just get on with the film and not spend to much time discussing the wherefores and the hows. It is also good that despite having only seen 2 of the previous 5 films I was able to understand perfectly well what was going on the film. The story is very simple and not at all confusing (unlike Transformers ROTF) and requires very little thinking. If you do take anytime to actually think about the film it is clearly just a "slot A into tab B" affair- very predictable and formulaic- but if you take it for what it is and enjoy the ride it is very entertaining. It is the characters that make the film. Unlike the Transformers films the characters are all unique and well rounded. They all seem to have their own part to play (apart from Black Widow, who aside from looking good and being the token female seems to have nothing to do and no real superpowers). It does turn a little into Iron Man 2.5 at times, after all it is clear he has the best powers and Robert Downey Jr. is the biggest star so it is hard not too. Some of his lines do get a little less witty and a little more silly at times but it is never really too much of a problem. Each character does have their part to play and it was interesting watching their interplay on screen. The film as a whole was nothing more than a formulaic affair, going from confrontation to confrontation without much to link it together, but this is not really a problem. It relies heavily on special effects, which is OK since they work well in the context of the film. The final huge CGI fest that was the end battle was done very well, with each character getting a similar amount to do (with the exception of Black Widow) and it was consistently interesting (unlike the climaxes of the Transformers films which were just dumb smash 'em up's for an hour). I do take issue with one thing though- a tiny amount of CGI in the climax battle was quite poor (Scarlett Johansson flying on the hover-bike thing)- almost unforgivable in a film that relies to heavily on special effects and which has such a big budget. The actors do a great job, for me Mark Ruffalo stealing the show with his unhinged, unstable Banner, though Tom Hiddleston was great too. It is this that makes the film so watchable. Without such interesting characters the film would just be a big dumb mess. In the end the film is nothing more than formulaic but a very well done formulaic film. The director Whedon clearly knew exactly what he was doing at every scene of the film. I think it is very commendable that with the amount of hype surrounding the film and the number of stars competing in the film that he has formed anything other than a complete mess. When it comes down to it Avengers Assemble is an enjoyable film, made so by the characters and the actors portraying them. It is very funny at times and surprisingly never boring. It's not particularly clever but it know's how to appeal to a wide audience and fans alike and it is an achievement.
Ghost Rider (2007)
A comic book adaptation that in the middle of the craze flops phenomenally
Practically everything about this film was a waste of time. The whole thing just felt so dingy- but not in a good way, in a way that made it boring. I kept thinking- come on! Get a move on! I normally quite like Nicolas Cage, but he really does disappoint in this. He is miscast, you just can't help but see Nicolas Cage and not the character. The plot is so stupid, and stupidly slow. To top it all off there are so many clichés and the bits that seem original are just silly, which all adds up to one pointless film capitalising on the success of other comic book adaptations. Watch Hellboy or Constantine instead. Boys of about 9-13 might enjoy it.
Crash (2004)
Heartbreaking, unpredictable and shockingly real
I want to start by saying that this was never on my list of films I needed to see before I die, and yet in hindsight I feel that it should have been. It has a great deal to say about modern racism in a number of forms. The writing is excellent, I really do feel that its Oscars were well deserved. The film puts across a number of really interesting points which you begin to realise- with horror- that most, if not all of them are very much real. I loved Don Cheadle, as always, as well as Brendan Fraser, but I must say that the show is stolen by Matt Dillon, who's heartbreakingly tragic character is the portrait of the modern-day working class white urban American white man. At times I felt I knew where the film was going, but it twists completely around to shock yet again. And the mixture of sad and happy endings will satisfy and shock.
Collateral (2004)
Brutal and tense. A really decent thriller
I really enjoyed this. It was great to see Tom Cruise in a different role than the usual action hero and I thought he did villainous contract killer rather well. The show was stolen by Jamie Foxx, as always he gave a brilliant performance. I found the premise to be really interesting and different- almost Hitchcockian (man gets into a taxi- he's an assassin). To add to that, the whole film was consistently so tense it really felt like Strangers on a Train or even Rear Window, especially the final showdown. It was a shame how the "message" of the film felt a little shoehorned in, in the long monologues of Foxx and Cruise, but they were well delivered. The brutal and tense tone made it a real experience to watch and you really can never predict what is going to happen, or who is going to die, next.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Surprisingly really funny. Well worth a watch
As a rule I don't like Will Ferrell, it fact I don't find him funny at all, so I was really surprised by how funny I actually liked this film. Maybe the context of this film, the 70s setting allowing the sexist jokes to be satirical rather than tasteless, made it for me. Maybe Ferrell is just funnier in this. In fact I kind of forgot it was actually Ferrell as I found his performance truly brilliant- and hilarious. Having said that I think Steve Carell, who I normally hate even more, stole the show. His character and the way he played it was really funny. Maybe it just fitted in with the ludicrousness of the film's setting. The whole set-up was an interesting one, which led to some interesting dialogue about sexism, not too serious, but enough to be noticed. Finally, after Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Tim Robbins, Jack Black, and others popped up for cameos I was gone. I really enjoyed it.
Utomlennye solntsem (1994)
Interesting, and beautiful to watch. But nothing more.
I'd never actually seen an Academy Award Best Foreign Language winner until I saw this and my hopes were pretty high. I have to say I was a little disappointed. Firstly, the film was beautiful to watch. The locations really showed off the sheer beauty of Russia (I presume it was shot in Russia, and secondly the whole thing really did feel like a piece of art- carefully crafted and lovingly put together. I applaud the making of. However, the acting quality was inconsistent. Mikhalkov was very good at the lovable "uncle Jo" figure. Every moment he was on screen his presence felt commanding despite the kind jolly figure he played. I think that Oleg Menshikov stole the show. His portrayal of a bitter, vengeful man started off very subtle until he built it into something of a madman at the end, was brilliant. Mikhalkova was also wonderful to watch as the young girl, innocent and sweet, yet curious and smart. I do feel that some of the supporting cast were a little pointless, a few of them need not have been there perhaps, it added to the confusion of the film. Next, the story was really gripping, once it got going. I have no problem with a film starting slow and moving and a slow pace but this film of just over 2 hours felt like well over 2 and a half. I did thing the story was really interesting and once I got into it I really did feel the terror of Stalin's brutal regime. It was also an interesting film morally, I constantly felt myself drawn between the two main characters, not sure who to root for, which I felt was wrong because it was kind of obvious, I felt, who was supposed to be the villain. The ending also felt a little odd. With all of the build up that finally got going I felt that the ending was too underwhelming. I felt a little let down, I kind of got the message about Stalin but I felt that after all the build up it kind of didn't go anywhere. It was still a really good film and well worth watching for the performance of the leads and the scenery.
An Education (2009)
Interesting principles, great acting and wonderfully written
It's great to see such a widely released film with such interesting things to say. I love that this can be enjoyed on a number of levels. On one level it is a drama about a young girl seduced by an older man and consequently has to work very hard to get what she wants in life. On another it is a social commentary about life and values, even the class system in the early 1960s. If you watch it for a second time you begin to see the subtleties with which the characters are introduced and played out. This film is extremely well written. The characters are written so well and the casting is wonderful. Highlights include the fantastic Carey Mulligan as the lead and Alfred Molina as her Dad. The film invokes all types of emotions; happiness, hurt, betrayal, love, hope... that is just the tip of the iceberg. This is such a refreshing piece of work because it is barely longer than 90 minutes so you don't have to set aside half a day to see it and it makes you think. It has morals, values and for once lets the plot be carried forward by the characters.
Eastern Promises (2007)
Interesting but not for the faint-hearted
I really did not know what to expect from this film. The story is a blunt and brutal telling of the presence of the Russian Mafia in London from the point of view of an English nurse. As the film progresses it gets darker and darker and is, at times, quite graphic. This film is for a particular audience. If you like seeing well written, well acted (Viggo Mortensen is great) in serious films that hold nothing back then this is definitely for you and you will not be disappointed. If you are easily offended or like some happiness with your films than stay clear. I really enjoyed it, you never know what's round the next corner and the sense of anxiety is so very real. I hear a sequel is around the corner- bring it on.
Fool's Gold (2008)
Twee and unbelievable but it isn't terrible
First off I can't stand Matthew McConaughey, and Kate Hudson is annoying in this type of role. It's kind of difficult to get where this film is coming from. It isn't funny enough to be a comedy nor is it serious enough to be a pure action-adventure, and it's a little too adult to be classed as family (but not that bad). The result is a kind of light-hearted tongue-in-cheek adventure-comedy, not bad if that's what you were expecting. If you're expecting a more serious film like National Treasure (even though that's also for young people) you will be disappointed. The story is simple, if not a bit all over the place, and requires little to no thinking, perfect for a relaxing afternoon film, shame I can't stand the leads.
Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)
Enjoyable, light-hearted fun
I quite liked this. As a Jim Carrey fan I am glad to see that he is showing off his acting skills lately instead of just doing that silly thing he did in Ace Ventura (which is funny, but I realise not to everybody's taste). Carrey does act in this but does a little of what he does normally, like in Bruce Almighty. Tea Leoni does what she always does but is also funny and has good chemistry with Carrey. The plot is simple but funny. I have to say I did laugh a good few times and if you don't laugh I think you will be hard-pressed not to smile at the ending. Sure it's not the funniest or wittiest comedy ever but it is enjoyable and fun to watch with all your family.
From Russia with Love (1963)
I know in my heart that this is overrated and yet I can never explain why
I have always been slightly negative towards the Bond films of the 60s and as a Bond fan this is heresy, yet I can never explain why. Maybe this means that I'm wrong, that they are in fact the best ones and that they are just not for me. I can't say it's because they're old and slow, I like a lot of films from the same era and I am a big fan of the books. This raises another question, why then do I not enjoy the Connery films that much when these are the films that are the closest to the books? To be honest the Bond franchise' stories were at their best when they were taken directly from the novels. The more they change them generally the more stupid they become. From Russia With Love is interesting, it is almost a direct translation of what Fleming wrote and the story is a good one. The characters are interesting, the film is thrilling, the villains are creepy. The plot is overcomplicated, but for good reason, the film company didn't want to use Soviet villains so they added the SPECTRE terrorist organisation in instead. This does complicate things but I understand why it was done. I think the problem lies in the time period it was made. Because of the 60s Bond has become too soft. The Bond of the books was a hard, unforgiving danger-loving, sexist man who loved to drink, fight and gamble. The Bond of the films is essentially the same but watered down a lot until he is virtually unrecognisable. It is only recently in Casino Royale when I think they finally got it right. Connery plays this "soft Bond" and I am not too keen on his portrayal, but it was the 60s and they probably weren't allowed to do anything worse than they did with regards to violence etc. I do like this film, Connery is good, the setting is interesting and the plot it done well. It is enjoyable to watch but I just feel that it doesn't quite do the book justice.
Fracture (2007)
A very modern Hitchcock
I realise a lot of film-fans will want to lynch me for saying this but Fracture reminded me a little of old Hitchcock films, without the style of the 50s and 60s. I enjoyed Fracture not least because I thought is was extraordinarily clever and lets face is, anything with Anthony Hopkins in is worth watching. I never saw the twist coming at the end and all the way through the film I was never sure whether the good guy or the bad guy was going to triumph. It is an inferior film to a lot of Hitchcock film because the thing about Hitchcock is that not only does he make clever films but he charms you along the way. Fracture does that but only to a point. It has none of the stylish filming that Hitchcock had and yet I can't help thinking that Fracture is perfect for the modern day. It pleased me as a film-fan and as an ordinary guy just relaxing and watching a film. It was clever, well written, well acted and just really thrilling to watch.
For Your Eyes Only (1981)
The best Roger Moore Bond film, and somewhat underrated
I actually quite like this film. As a Bond film it stands as the best of the early eighties and the best of Roger Moore's Bond films. I'm not a big fan of Moore as Bond but this is the closest he comes to nailing the character. He's violent, somewhat unforgiving, loving the thrill of danger and yet he is a gentleman. The story is taken right out of Fleming's short story Risico and was basically remade in The Living Daylights 6 years later (which incidentally is better). I enjoy the fact that this film no longer makes fun of itself, it no longer makes a joke out of the character whom we all love and admire. The Moore films (through no fault of his own) for me are not what Bond is supposed to be and have warped many people's minds to what Bond is and yet For Your Eyes Only is a little oasis in between the shenanigans of Moonraker and the boredom of A View to a Kill. Julian Glover is good as the villain, but the main reason why I love this is the story. It is intelligent without being complicated and it keeps you interested. We'll forget about the fiasco of an opening, and sure this isn't a brilliant film but it does all the right things.
Failure to Launch (2006)
I thought comedies were supposed to be funny
I hated this film. Firstly, I can't stand Matthew McConaughey or Sarah Jessica Parker and to see them together on screen was like my worst nightmare. Neither brought anything to the film and the characters that they played were repulsive and unlikable. The script was not funny at all, worse than that I can't even see which bits were supposed to be so it can't have just been that I didn't get it, it just isn't funny. The plot was a terrible idea, who's parents would be so heartless to hire a woman to make their own son fall in love just to get him to move out? The obvious inevitability is that his heart will be broken. The plot is not only unconvincing but totally horrible. The whole things add up to selfish, arrogant people doing heartless things to each other, and it isn't fun to watch. I did find small bits involving Zooey Deschanel funny, but more because it was weird and stupid rather than because it was witty and well-written.
Death Race (2008)
Enjoyable, guilty pleasure
There are a number of reasons why I should hate this. It's the typical boyish, sweary, loud, plot less, car-filled, action flick that I'd normally hate, but while the "Death Race" scenes were too long I actually started to enjoy them. I cared about the main character, I actually wanted him to get out of the prison and back to his daughter. There's something about Jason Statham that I just like, he kind of charms me and I could watch him in almost anything. He plays a kind of no-nonsense action hero who gives the bad guys what they deserve without losing the human touch or going too far, and he always gives them a chance first. The villain in this film, the prison warden, was drawn purely from The Shawshank Redemption, and there were numerous other clichés throughout, but overall I enjoyed it.
Falling Down (1993)
Shocking, thrilling and generally quite frightening. Surprisingly good
I was expecting more of an average thriller out of this, but when I found out that it was directed by Joel Schumacher I had more hope, I have been impressed my some of Schumacher's work, he knows how to do tense films (see Phone Booth). Michael Douglas gives a really strong performance as the lead, but I think that the star of the show is Schumacher. His direction is really something. All the way through you have the feeling that something really bad is about to happen, and when bad stuff is happening you get the feeling it's about to get worse. The tension is incredible. Despite the setting in the streets of L.A. Schumacher still makes you feel extremely claustrophobic, like you can't get away. It's the perfect length and the plot moves along at a decent pace. I can overlook the slightly predictable ending because the film obviously has a lot to say socially. It is essentially a psychological analysis of an everyday man who has snapped under the pressures of society. Other social outcasts are also featured, though in different ways- young gangsters, victims of economic downturn, and even one Nazi. Despite all this I still managed to laugh at times, and this does well to cover up what could have been a really nasty film and made it more enjoyable to watch.
Avatar (2009)
Some very impressive visuals make this worth watching despite flaws
Normally if a film has an underwhelming plot it takes a lot to make up for it. Visuals, for me, contribute little when weighing up pros and cons. In the case of Avatar thought it is safe to say that the visuals are something special. I knew that they were good after hearing other reviews, but they really blew me away, they have to be some of the best I have ever seen. Marks also have to be given for the sheer imaginative genius involved. The story isn't particularly brilliant or original for that matter, but the amount of effort that has obviously been put into the creation and the design of world kind of makes up for it. The story obviously draws on influences from fiction and real life. There is some Pocahontas in their as well as some Star Wars, and it obviously has something to say about conflict, especially in the wake of recent military campaigns in the Middle East. I did enjoy the film, even if the plot sometimes did move at a snails pace despite the action sequences running at full speed. I sometimes felt as though nothing had happened to further the plot for a good while, but I was still generally interested in what was going on, it could have done with being maybe half and hour shorter.
Dear John (2010)
Not what I expected at all. Really don't bother
I wasn't particularly looking forward to this film, yet I did like The Notebook, a film also along the same lines and by the same author. The reason The Notebook works is that it tells a story of love and human emotion over the course of a lifetime- something not really done by many films, but not just that, it's a heartwarming film. It's not necessarily realistic, and yet it's the story of true love above and beyond all else, something most couples like to relate to. The problem with Dear John was not the storyline. I thought the story was very appropriate, given the circumstances the armed forces find themselves in at the moment and I was intrigued by the situation. The problem was thus, apart from the war and a couple of other things throughout the film nothing much happens. The problem is lack of plot. The Notebook was a story about a man telling a story about lovers, which worked because it was interesting and there was always a sense of mystery. In the case of Dear John the story is virtually none existent. They fall in love, he leaves, and that's just the set-up, and it takes a while for that to get going, after which nothing much of any interest happens. It is nowhere near as emotional as The Notebook, mostly because the characters in Dear John just aren't as likable, I actually started to find one in particular very annoying. The acting isn't great in Dear John either, in complete contrast to The Notebook. I have already mentioned that The Notebook is the definitive story about a story above and beyond all else. In the case of Dear John, I just wasn't feeling that at all. It was actually very depressing at times. The Notebook deals with one very difficult subject, yet I think it does it very well, Dear John just made be think- why go to see thins film? You will get nothing out of it, and the ending, whilst realistic, is not satisfying at all for the genre. I did enjoy the subplot about the boy's autistic father, whose acting is the one good exception. If you want to see a story about autism though you watch Rain Man, not this. The only people I can see enjoying this is a very few girls between the ages of 12 and 15 maybe. Otherwise it is an extremely pointless experience.
Per qualche dollaro in più (1965)
Really enjoyable. Beautifully crafted, bits of it took my breath away
I was very surprised at this film. I was impressed with A Fistful of Dollars, but For a Few Dollars More was just wonderful. The plot was better, and more interesting, though the film was slightly too long for my liking. The chemistry between Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef was fantastic to watch, but the thing I enjoyed most about this film was the villain. This character was wonderfully realised as a sadistic maniac who was thrilling to watch. The film was surprisingly emotional, especially the scenes involving the villain and the musical locket. It was more thrilling, more interesting and more engaging than it's predecessor, and some scenes in particular took my breath away.
Per un pugno di dollari (1964)
Classic western, classic film
I'd never seen a western before watching A Fistful of Dollars. I had preconceptions that they were slow-paced, boring and far too long. A Fistful of Dollars certainly wasn't, well it might have been slow-paced, but that's not a criticism. It wasn't boring, the plot was simple, and yet it worked. Every scene was well crafted and directed so carefully so that I was consistently interested in what was going on. Clint Eastwood definitely isn't the most terrific actor in the world but he is well cast in this part of the classic hero attempting to liberate innocent townspeople- and make some money in the process. I enjoyed this, and it certainly made me want to foray further into the western genre and Sergio Leone's works.
Finding Nemo (2003)
Magical and beautiful. One of Pixar's best works.
It's not necessarily one of Pixar's most funny films, that title certainly goes to Toy Story 2. Yet I think that Finding Nemo has to be one of their most magical. One thing that Pixar does brilliantly apart from the script and the characters is to create new worlds. Toy Story creates a world in which toys come to life. A Bug's Life creates a world in which bugs run a society similar to that of our own, Finding Nemo creates a world in which sea-life interact similarly to humans- a remarkable feat that they pull off extremely well. It's an adventure story in which a dedicated father sets out to find his only relation. the character development is remarkable for a children's film- Pixar never underestimates their audience. The result is a beautifully created, wonderfully written piece, that maybe goes on a bit longer than it needs to, but it is funny in places and certainly will keep kids and adults interested.
Evan Almighty (2007)
Without the magic of the original it just feels dead
What do you get if you take Bruce Almighty, take away Jim Carrey and Jenifer Aniston, take away the magic that made it so wonderful to watch, move the setting to Washington D.C. and involve lots of politicians in suits? Evan Almighty. The original was so good. It was laugh-out-loud, it was emotional, it showed morals in an interesting new way, it was magical. The problem with Evan Almighty is that it is none of these things. In the original Steve Carell played an annoying supporting character, but it worked because his character was supposed to be annoying. The problem here is that Carell's character is still annoying, and he's the main character! The result is an unfunny main character, an unfunny script with an unfunny plot that just doesn't have the depth of the original at all. Young kids might like it, but the film distances itself from them too by including politics heavily in the plot. I think I laughed twice in the whole film.
4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Boring, uneventful, stupid and just unlikable
I didn't like the original Fantastic Four very much but I thought it did a good job of reinventing the superhero genre for a younger audience. This film is just bad. It starts off with the clichéd doomed marriage and progresses through a mire of bad acting, unlikable characters, a stupid plot and a terrible script to what has to be one of the worst films I've seen in a long time. The original was unbelievable, but in superhero films that's OK, but there should be a certain degree of reality, and here there is nothing. The characters were just unlikable to the point where I just didn't care about them, and don't even get me started on the acting. The only plus was the impressive special effects, but to be honest there is no other reason to watch this film.
Fantastic Four (2005)
Not terrible, but not the worst film ever. Enjoyable at times
The problem with the superhero genre is that it has seemed have developed into a genre for the early teenager. Films such as The Dark Knight, Spider-man to some extent, Ghost Rider, Hellboy and Iron Man do not look to 7-11 year olds as their primary audience. That is certainly one thing that Fantastic Four does well. It doesn't take itself totally seriously and it has a laugh. The characters are stupid and annoying at times and the whole thing is way over the top, but this is great for a younger audience than what the superhero genre normally targets itself towards. I didn't particularly enjoy it but I can see why people did. It does well for its target audience.