Article ITT I attempt to review every movie I've seen.

Prometheusposterfixed.jpg


Title: Prometheus
Year: 2012
Country of Origin: US
Director: Ridley Scott

Story: A corporate funded expedition is sent to find the origins of man and the answers to some of the most fundamental philosophical questions. But will they like what they find?

Review: So Prometheus is good, not great and most certainly not as genre defining as I had previously hoped. So what went wrong? The best answer is the script. The film tries to delve into philosophical and theological questions like; the nature of faith, who made us and why, and do androids dream of electric sheep? The script isn't smart enough to even begin to explore these questions and the film suffers for bringing them up. Of course we all know why this happened. The film was initially intended to be a straight up prequel to Alien, but mid-production Scott wanted to focus on the philosophy that was present in the script. So a couple of rewrites later we have a script that is not smart discuss philosophy and can't really give any decent scares either.

So what good about the film? First and foremost, its an entertaining film. I was never bored throughout the films run time...which is more than I can say about every Ridley Scott film since Black Hawk Down. The acting a great, with the sole exception of Logan Marshall-Green, who was really miscasted as a scientist. The real star though is Michael Fassbender, as the android David. I am almost entirely certain that without Fassbender, this film would have not been as good as it is now. The direction is pretty good and its technically proficient...I did not see the film in 3D, but it seems like it would have been perfectly fine in 3D.

So the big question; is this a prequel to Alien? Yes, this is a full fledged prequel to Alien, though you do not need to see Alien to enjoy this film...You should still see Alien, like if you get the option to see Alien instead of Prometheus you probably should see Alien. So how does this film stack up? I read on review that equated this movie to 2010, the perfectly watchable sequel to 2001...that just can't quite capture the magic of the first film. I agree with this sentiment, Prometheus is a entertaining film, that is pretty good. It just does not live up to its own potential, and I am not talking about hype here, I am talking about the films potential to reinvigorate the hard Sci-fi genre.

[7/10]
 
A Pillar Review


Immortals_poster.jpg


Title: Immortals
Year: 2011
Country of Origin: US
Director: Tarsem Singh

Story: Theseus is a mortal man chosen by Zeus to lead the fight against the ruthless King Hyperion, who is on a rampage across Greece to obtain a weapon that can destroy humanity.

Review: Let me start by saying that this movie was released with the hype of the "all 11's idea" (It released on Friday, 11/11/11). Not sure if there was something special about the date. The movie starts pretty much near the end. If you really want to get to the brass of this movie, its really all about this 'Epirus Bow' that really centers around the whole movie. Overall, the movie was great. No dead or boring moments in the movie. Near the end was a lil predictable, but that was it. The special effects really highlighted the movie well. The blood splatter effects for the most part were done well. If you want a less sexual version than '300', then I would highly suggest this. I rented the Blu-Ray version, unfortunately the extra features were really lacking (which disappointed me). Acting was top-notch. I would definitely recommend giving this movie a watch.

[9/10]
 
Atlas_Shrugged_film_poster.jpg


Title: Atlas Shrugged: Part I
Year: 2011
Country of Origin: US
Director: Paul Johansson

Story: Who is John Galt?

Review: The adaptation of Atlas Shrugged has been 40 years in the making and quite frankly another 10 years of waiting might have done it some good. I say this because this is not the adaptation that Atlas Shrugged deserves, heck I can't think of any philosophical work that deserves this cheap of an adaptation.

A year or two ago a friend and I were on a road trip up to New York, it was about 1 am when we hit the Georgia border heading north on I-95. I remember this very distinctly because the first billboard we came across in Georgia had written on it in big bold text "Who is John Galt?". I guess I am telling you this story to illustrate the cultural impact of Rand's work. Sure I don't exactly agree with Rand, but her philosophy is worth discussing and debating. It deserved an real big budget adaptation.

Now I have actually read Atlas Shrugged...and The Fountainhead for that matter, so I feel comfortable in discussing where this adaptation went wrong. Now I wont be discussing Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, or the political nature of her work or the film. This is going to be a step by step break down of where this film went wrong:

1. The Setting: Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957 and the plot works well in its 1950s setting. This movie takes place in 2016, which was obviously done to capitalize off the current economic crisis. The issue is that the film focuses on the Train industry and the Steel Industry...both of which would fit great in a 50s setting. But to day, it just seems out of place. Who cares about Trains or Steal? Both of these fell out of the public consciousness after the 1980s. The film simply would have worked better in an alternative history version of the 1950s, where the US went farther left on the political scale. There are more than a few plot points that would have benefited from a non-contemporary setting.

2. The Writing: The book Atlas Shrugged is meandering melodrama that attempts to convey Rand's philosophy in a more palatable form then a straight up philosophical monograph. A talented writer would be needed to adapt this kind of work to the big screen without it coming off as cheesy. Unfortunately the people who wrote the script were the actual producers of the film. One a business man who had never worked in the film industry and the other a producer of B-grade horror films, one of which was Boo...I wish I was joking. Needless to say the film suffers because of this, the dialog is stilted and nothing really clicks in a believable way. Frankly they should have thrown in a product placement from Coke and hired someone who knew how to write a script

3. The Budget: This film had a $20 million budget. It should have had somewhere around $80 to $100 million. Seriously, the fact that they actually tried to do this with a $20 million budget speaks the obtuse stupidity of the film makers. Due to the budget constraints everything looks cheap, from the CGI train to the Rearden Foundry which looks like someones house. For a film that talks about the positives of money and capital...it did not have enough for this production.

So where does that leave us? Well the film is not offensively bad, its just mediocre and more than a little dull. Its a film that should have never happened, heck when I was reading the book the IMDB page for the adaptation stated that it was to star Angelina Jolie and was going to have a massive budget...and that film probably would have been great. Instead we are left with a mediocre film whose ambitions could not beat out its budget or its poor writing.

[4/10]
 
Battlefield_earth_poster.jpg


Title: Battlefield Earth
Year: 2000
Country of Origin: US
Director: Roger Christian

Story: Dutch angle the movie.

Review: Battlefield Earth is an infamous critical and commercial failure that many regard as the worst film of the last decade. Despite the toxicity of the film pretty much everyone walked away from the film with their career intact...except for maybe the director and the writer. So anyway lets discuss what it sucked so bad:

Well first off is the Dutch angles, which means that the camera is on a slight tilt giving a scene a very weird feel. Which is great if your going to do this for one scene...unfortunately the whole film was shot on a dutch angle, which is incredibly off putting. In fact the use of the dutch angle was so ill received that no one dared use it to any extent until Kenneth Branagh used it in Thor. The other technical issues is the ugly blue filter they slapped on the final product and the cheap special effects. On top of looking ugly the acting was ranged from scene chewingly campy to just down right terrible with mediocre performance almost everywhere you look. The plot is reminiscent of Planet of the Apes and Independence Day, but is not as good as either...which is saying a lot considering Independence Day.

So what can else can I say about this film. Everyone already knows that this is a cinematic turd. I guess I could say don't see it, but you could easily find enjoyment taking the piss out of it with a few friends. So whatever I guess.

[2/10]
 
Submarine_poster.jpg


Title: Submarine
Year: 2010
Country of Origin: UK
Director: Richard Ayoade

Plot: Its a story about young love and being a teenager.

Review: This film is about Oliver Tate a young lad who is almost to smart for his own good. His parents are relatively smart individuals, but their relationship is slowly growing more and more distant. Of course what interests Oliver Tate the most is catching the eye of a girl in his class.

The US release opens with a pompous letter explaining the audience that this film takes place in Wales and thanks us for not bombing Wales. It essentially set me up to hate this film...but I couldn't. The film hits all the right places with out trying to hard. It manages to organically capture the feeling of first love. More interestingly is that the film juxtaposes the young relationship the slow disintegration of Oliver's parents relationship. What we have is an incredibly likable "coming of age"/"slice of life" story that has a similar tone to a Wes Anderson film, but manages to stay fresh and original. Its up on Netflix now, so if you get the chance...give it a watch.

[8.5/10]
 
Well damn, I just noticed that I have been doing this for over two years now.

...Yay me I guess.
 
Sunshine_poster.jpg


Title: Sunshine
Year: 2007
Country of Origin: UK
Director: Danny Boyle

Plot: The Sun is dying and it is up to a team of scientists to fix that.

Review: Sunshine is a smart Sci-fi film, well at least for the most part. It sort of turns into a slasher filck near the end, but I guess it needed something. The pacing is slow and deliberate, which does help to draw the audience in the films setting. The plot is decent, but does not do anything particularly special. The acting is great and the camera work is what you'd expect from Boyle. The films score is top notch as well. What this film has going for it is its atmospere, which as the film continues gets more and more clausterphoblic. Frankly, this is worth watching. Its not as good as I would have liked it to be, but it beats out most disaster films.

[7.5/10]
 
Devil's Double

I finally saw it after putting it off for a while, dunno if it was really worth it

edit: and the Grey, which I felt was pretty good
 
Death said:
Devil's Double

I finally saw it after putting it off for a while, dunno if it was really worth it

edit: and the Grey, which I felt was pretty good
Click to expand...

Still need to get around to watching both of those.
 
Networkmovie.jpg


Title: Network
Year: 1976
Country of Origin: US
Director: Sidney Lumet

Plot: This is the story of Howard Beale a veteran news anchor for the number 4 network on television. Burdened with the loss of his wife and a drinking problem his ratings begin to slip...he is summarily fired. The next night he threatens to blow his brains out on national television.

Review: Network is a bitingly cynical dark comedy about the world of television. Most people know it for the famous "I'm mad as hell" scene, but the film has many other amazing rants. This film takes on the exploitative nature of television and the soullessness of the people who run run the network. Well more like soullessness of the new generation, those who were raised on TV. Its a great movie with a pitch perfect cast and a brilliant script. This is a classic that is worth watching.

[9.5/10]
 
Saw the trailer for Premium Rush. Is it supposed to be a comedy movie? I don't get it.
 
Well crap, its been a while. For the four movies mentioned above, I've only seen A Scanner Darkly...so lets review that.


A_Scanner_Darkly_Poster.jpg


Title: A Scanner Darkly
Year: 2006
Country of Origin: US
Director: Richard Linklater

Plot: In the near future an Undercover officer attempts to track down the source of a highly addictive drug called "Substance D".

Review: If there is one theme that runs throughout the film it is paranoia. There aren't many films that pull off the feeling of paranoia this well and the primary reason for this is that our protagonist is a bit of an unreliable narrator. I wont expound on that further, but needless to say the film contains more than a few insane twists. This is an animated film done up in the interpolated rotoscoping style. This essentially means that the film was shot live action on a cheap camera and in post production they animate over the footage. This all gives the film a very distinct look and feel that plays well with the film's scenes of hallucinations and it leads to just the right amount of confusing. This isn't the first time that director Richard Linklater has used this type of animation style, he used it with his film Waking Life...a film that I still need to get around to watching.

Another interesting thing about the film is its supporting cast. Other than Keanu Reeves the rest of the cast has had a past with some serious drug abuse, which is of course kind of interesting given that the film tackles the topic of drug abuse. Everyone does a great job in the film and their performances really help to pull you into the film. I only have one complaint about this film and that is the ending which rings a little hollow. Anyway, this is a smart and innovative film that is well worth watching.

[8.5/10]
 
Silver-Streak-Poster.jpg


Title: Silver Streak
Year: 1976
Country of Origin: US
Director: Arthur Hiller

Plot: During a LA-Chicago train trip a famous art historian is murdered...hilarity ensues.

Review: They don't make movies like Silver Streak anymore. The film starts off as an Agatha Christie like murder mystery and slowly evolves to a buddy comedy action film with a complex conspiracy. Surprisingly enough it all works well enough and is pretty enjoyable as long as you don't question some of the more illogical plot points. This film marks the first pairing of Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor who have amazing chemistry together. Seriously, Wilder and Pryor working together is reason enough to see this one. Frankly the film's plot is a little jumbled with all the plot, but this is a fun way to kill two hours.

[8/10]
 
Ipcress_File_British_quad_poster.jpg


Title: The Ipcress File
Year: 1965
Country of Origin: UK
Director: Sidney J. Furie

Plot: There is something terribly wrong with Britain's scientists, they've either gone missing, defected, or simply left their profession without explanation.

Review: The Ipcress File is the first of the Harry Palmer series, the film was based off of a novel of the same name and was essentially created as an more downbeat alternative to the James Bond character. While the Harry Palmer series contains five films, none are quite as good as this one. The plot is well told and both the director and writer understand the principle of show don't tell. Sure, the plot can be a little outlandish...but this is a spy movie from the 60s, so its understandable. The camera work is interesting, many of the scenes are shot in odd angles, making the film visually interesting. The pace of the film is slow and deliberate which works well with the somewhat methodical nature of the script. The acting is quite good, the whole cast is believable in their roles.

What really makes this film stand apart from the rest is how the concept of espionage and counter-espionage is treated. Harry Palmer is still part of the British army and not MI6 or some other clandestine agency. He is in a massive bureaucracy filled with red tape, forms that need to be filled out at the end of each day and serial numbers that represent forms or security clearance or even an order to call in the cavalry. This lends to the idea that what this film portrays could actually be real. We're not looking at James Bond who jet sets around the world pretty much alone, what we have here is a member of a team who is part of a department who is in turn part of a much large bureaucratic organization. It helps to flesh out the world by showing the complexities of Harry Palmer's universe.

Frankly, I'm willing to say that this is one of the best spy films out so if you get the chance, definitely give it a watch.

[9/10]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top