Tag Archive for 'Rent'

Review: Kick Ass

Published on May 16, 2010 in Review. Closed Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Not only seeing this movie, but finding the time to write this review has been a difficult task. It took almost two weeks for us to actually get to go see Kick Ass, but once we had our pet hedgehog managed to escape. No one, nowhere had pre-informed us that hedgehogs are escape artists, had we known we would have probably kept with the original idea for his name of Harry, instead we have Henry, apparently Houdini reincarnate.

We also had a fun visit from my wife’s cousin, and spent this weekend attending another one of her cousins weddings, all amongst a regular schedule that doesn’t usually include time for review writing. We also saw the Nightmare on Elm Street during this time, which will be receiving a dutifully short review (for better or worse), and I will be keeping this review as succinct as possible. Anyway, onto the movie.

What I liked:

Well pretty much everything. Matthew Vaughn is one of my favorite directors and despite a very short directing list, I’m anticipating his future works (another by the writer of the Kick Ass and Wanted comics). He has a great ability to make scripts Hollywood-acceptable, without making the content Hollywood. An eleven-year-old girl kills, maims and dismembers people and people showed greater concern over her characters potty mouth.

I’m sorry, I’d have more problem with my children being mass murderers before hitting pubity than hearing them use ‘cunt’ in an insult. Perhaps my moral values are off from society, but I generally rate vulgarity below violence on the ranking of character vices to avoid. I would have thought the religious right would be with me on this, Blasphemy is not as big a sin as Murder, and vulgarity isn’t explicitly a sin in and of itself. It’s also worth noting the 3rd commandment isn’t a proclivity against swearing as in vulgarity, but against oath swearing under the name of the lord.

The action scenes were awesome, especially Hit Girl’s main scene. The choreography was great, and the first-person view through her night-vision goggles is possibly the only fan-play to FPS gamers that was executed in a good way, usually any first-person perspective in a film is horrific even when it’s not done artistically as fan-play.

What I disliked:

Was honestly virtually nothing. I would have preferred Mark Millar’s ending to the story, however that ending isn’t well suited to film. I can understand why Vaughn would use a more commercial ending, after all he does need to earn a living and he’s selling to an American market, not the British market where unfortunate endings are more accepted.

My other problem with it was that the flow of the film died a little bit with the sequel setup, which I know was in the original material, but could have really been cut out for the film. Although, story wise, I can understand the inclusion because it’s an illustrating point that’s often discussed in comic works that the existence of Super Heroes/Villains will cause need for the rise of the other.

Overall: 9/10

This is one of the greatest movies I’ll see all year, and I don’t even need to know what else is coming out to claim this. However, it certainly isn’t going to be the greatest movie I’ll see this decade, although I don’t preclude Vaughn taking that title.

Judgement: Buy it, rent it, watch it in theaters, whichever you choose, it’ll be worth it.

Review: The Crazies

Published on March 6, 2010 in Review and Uncategorized. Closed Tags: , , , , , .

I went into this movie with zero preconceptions, all I knew about this movie was that it was a remake of a George A. Romero ‘not quite a zombie’ movie.

What I liked:

There was lots of great things about this movie. The cast was great, I recognized all of the main trio and most importantly they were all decent actors. The lead male Timothy Olyphant I recognized instantly from Deadwood and Hitman, and any remote horror movie fan should recognize Radha Mitchell from Silent Hill and Pitch Black.

The premise was different for a zombie movie, however while it was likely very original on the initial release it is now occasionally used. An unmarked plane crashed far upstream of the towns water supply and it was carrying a toxin (technically a toxicant as it was man made and introduced) designed to destabilise the population. What’s not explained is that the condition the toxin creates is allegedly itself infections, however this seems to get contradicted in the movie itself.

What I disliked:

The pacing in the beginning was excellent, however it began to degenerate towards the end, with the movie itself ending about 30 minutes beyond the optimal ending, for those who don’t want to know why, skip the next paragraph!

Spoilers Follow (I’ll try to keep it light): The town breaks out in full on Crazy fever and the military intervenes, sorting the healthies from the crazies and ships the healthies away, however anyone running a fever is locked up in a crazy camp. David (Timothy) the town sheriff is shipped of as healthy while his pregnant wife is locked up to be tested and his deputy is put in a holding cell. A rescue attempt saves David’s wife and they make it out of town, running into a few problems along the way, however this is where the pacing slows down. The perfect ending for this movie would have been their escape past the military lines, however it took about 30 minutes longer than this of very slow semi-action. Spoilers End.

Beyond the pacing, nothing was really bad, which is surprising. However, I must stress it, the pacing was really bad. The plot was believable, however this believability likely contributed a lot to the dead pace. They could easily have cut out a secondary character and skipped about 15 minutes, which would have helped greatly. For those who see this movie, you’ll instantly know who I mean and how easily she could have been removed (for a great increase in shock-factor).

Overall: 7/10

If a few pacing issues had been resolved, it could have been excellent, definitely a 9/10. However this would have made it a 60 minute movie, and no one would pay the exorbitant theatre price for a little over an hour of film. In the film it appears like a section is stripped from the original script, right where David turns the towns water supply off, which could have provided a good extra 20 minutes (that a certain secondary character hogged) of conflict between the Sheriff and the towns mayor and populace. In fact, it would likely have been an ideal way to display how widespread the infection has gotten in the populace, however this chance wasn’t taken.

The 60 minutes of this movie that had perfect pace, great cast and original story were gold. However, the extra 40 minutes were slow and relatively useless, especially in the present day where the ending likely didn’t have the same dramatic effect the original likely had on its release in ’73. For horror fans, it’s certainly worth a watch, and I’ll have no hesitation to rewatch it, however for the majority of people it’s likely a watch once film, so definitely not a buy.

Judgement: Rent it.

Review: Shutter Island

Published on February 27, 2010 in Review and Uncategorized. Closed Tags: , , , , .

A Martin Scorsese, no shit Sherlock.

Here’s what I liked:

The biggest surprise here is that DiCaprio was perfect for the role. His character feels as far from his role in The Departed (another Scorsese) as that role did from Titanic. I never expected the versatility that DiCaprio is displaying, which is always pleasantly surprising.

I can’t say much on the matter of story except that it was great, due simply to the fact that there’s numerous hints to the several twists. Aside from saying it’s a psychological thriller about an FBI agent whose wife passed away reviewing an escape from a psychiatric facility for the criminally insane, anything else is quite literally a spoiler.

The acting was great by everyone, and the same can be said for the setting. The story is set on a sort of psychiatric Alcatraz, where nefarious experiments are believed to be taking place on its residents.

What I disliked:

While I loved the acting, the film by its nature was rather devoid of emotion, which is sure to be a killer for many people wanting to watch this. Also like many psychological thrillers, it’s likely not worth more than one or two viewings, simply because a puzzle isn’t as fun once you know the answer.

The one thing I personally disliked about the movie was the very end. Not the ending, and not the final twist mind you, but quite literally the last minute or two. The ambiguity in that final moment is normally used to great effect in psychological thrillers, however it just struck me as very anticlimactic. The storyline hints to DiCaprio’s character making a very stupid decision at the end, I took it as clear as day, however it doesn’t happen. With Scorsese directing it could have been an adrenaline filled flash in the pan ending. However, quite sadly, it wasn’t. What happens or what is implied (depending on how you take it) drain a ton of the pent-up energy the storyline created, which is certainly going to stop me telling people to go see this movie in theatres.

Overall 8/10

This was a brilliant movie, and well worth watching. However, you’re only likely going to watch it once, which flat out means this is a rent-it movie. Secondly the major anti-climax in those last few minutes knocked a whole point off its score for me, it could have been a very climactic last minute, but it wasn’t to be. Finally, the coldness of the movie is going to kill it for a lot of people out there.

If you like Scorsese, then you’ll love this movie. If you like psychological thrillers, then you’ll love this movie. If you just want to see a good movie, then you’ll love this movie like the one-night stand it is. However, for most I’d recommend renting this on blu-ray or dvd, because unless you already think you’re going to love this movie then it isn’t worth the ticket price in the theatres, and it certainly isn’t worth the cover price of the dvd.

Judgement: Rent it.

Game Review: Borderlands

Published on January 26, 2010 in Review. Closed Tags: , , , , , , , , .

I have hard feelings on this game, because I personally liked it very much, however despite being a great game and fun to play, it pissed me off beyond acceptability.

Here’s what I liked:

The game was fun to play. The graphics had a cartoonized edge that helped with the humour in the game. The non-serious environment really made it a delight to play the game, despite its flaws.

However, this is a game exclusively about its weapons. Most FPS games have, possibly, a dozen weapons, maybe you’ll get a thirty or so and a handful of mods thrown in if you’re lucky. The last I heard, Borderlands has over 17 million unique weapons, and likely counting with DLC. My favourite pistol in the game, for instance, managed a quad-shot. It may sound somewhat pointless to some that the game features so many weapons, or why people would care. However, it’s sort of like Pokemon, where the last iteration I played (Diamond) had almost five-hundred.

Now what I disliked:

I’m a man who when he says no, he means no. Borderlands however has no ability to understand the ‘no’ button included in its mission selection menus. When you get prompted with a new story mission, you have the option of choosing to take it or refusing, however if you refuse it you’re given the mission anyway. Not only is this frustrating, but it also introduces all the mission orientated bad guys to the level, most of which are way overpowered.

The games inability to recognize no only enhances another problem, which is that every boss is wholly overpowered. By the time side missions are introduced you’re fighting tooth and nail to win a fight. One mission I had to climb a rock where the enemy couldn’t reach me, jump up and down so their snipers couldn’t target me and pick them off. I was a sniper-orientated character, with the best sniper available and a damage bonus and I had to hit my opponents with several head shots to kill.

This wouldn’t have been such a problem if you could say no to the story and take some of the side missions. However you can’t, you have the choice of superpowered story bad guys running amok, or story bad guys and side-mission bad guys.

It seriously hurts the games experience when you can’t beat a single mission without retrying it a half-dozen times to whittle down the enemies, because thankfully most of your opponents don’t respawn. Most.

Overall: 7/10

This game had major potential, and as an avid gamer I can play it. However, most people won’t be able to play this game past the 10th mission without hitting the frustration wall. I’m a Strategy and RPG fan, the frustration wall is usually so far behind me when playing a game that I’ve ceased noticing it. However, I can’t in all good faith recommend a game that’s bat-shit crazy and takes no’s as yes’ so it can pit you against demonic bosses with ridiculous health, shields and a superior weapon. It also seriously doesn’t help that the grenades aren’t particularly useful compared to other games.

The good can outweigh the bad, however when you have so many noticeable flaws it might be worth reconsidering some parts. I’m unsure if Borderlands had some publisher pressure to release or what, but someone dropped the ball and released a game with great potential marred by so many flaws.

Judgement: Rent it, if you must.

Review: Daybreakers

Published on January 22, 2010 in Review. Closed Tags: , , , , , , , .

I went into this movie with some hesitation. Vampire movies have been hitting heights recently, and the literature market is being flooded with vampiric effluence, so it’s really only a short time before a flood of poorly made vampire movies flood the market. Having seen the trailers, I saw that clichés were abounding.

I was pleasantly surprised that I actually enjoyed this movie, here’s why:

Horror movies are inevitably funny, usually due to their low budgets and the fact they usually take themselves overly serious certainly doesn’t help. Daybreakers feels like it was doomed to this track, however the Spierig brothers appear to have realized somewhere along the way that their script for a serious vampire-sci-fi movie (yes, a very bad combination to begin with) was hilarious. All credit must go to Willem Dafoe who made this movie entertaining. He arrives roughly halfway through, and the seriousness slowly converts to humour, just in time for most of the actual action.

Surprisingly the duality in the picture works well. The seriousness in the beginning aids in making the scenes jumpy and tense, while the relaxed-humour towards the end makes the inevitable gore festival of an 18A a laugh-fest.

Here are the reasons why I didn’t like the movie:

Clichés abounded throughout, and to name a few: No reflections in mirrors, seriously? Sadly yes. Vampires set on fire in sunlight, but I’ll forgive this one as it is actually used for an interesting and unique plot point. Vampires explode when they die, but apparently not when they burn to death.

The ending isn’t a cliff hanger, it isn’t even an ending. Nothing is resolved, there’s no feel of accomplishment for watching through an epic-adventure. I suppose this is to leave it open for a sequel, however it could have been done much better. It was a very ungratifying end.

Overall: 7/10

For fans of Willem Dafoe or comedy-horrors, this movie is worth watching. For the rest of the general public, it certainly isn’t worth the ticket price in the theatres. If you like seeing things on the big screen, perhaps look to see if your local theatre has a slow-day deal, like popcorn and drink included in the ticket price as at least you’re getting a little more for your money.

This is definitely a movie to rent, it’s an enjoyable watch and doesn’t feel like you wasted an unrecoverable 98 minutes. The ending is a bit weak, but the rest of the movie is definitely strong, and doesn’t suffer from a killer slow-period in the middle, in fact the movie as a whole is very well paced.

Judgement: Rent it

© 2010-2012 Nik Gregory All Rights Reserved