I recently had some form of an 'arguement' in concerning a movie called Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon. In it I mentioned the bad reviews the film is currently recieving and my hate for the director Micheal Bay. Some point in that arguement, I was noted that you shouldn't trust critics and their reviews, however I beg to differ.
Now I will try to keep this arcticle as unbiased as possible.
Now before I begin, I need to make a point about the statement; "check your brain at the door before you see it". Now I have several problems with that statement. Firstly, why should you check your brain at the door? If your watching a dumb film, you don't need to "check your brain at the door" to enjoy it. Just look at the people who enjoy B and Z grade movies; the Grindhouse movies. Those people accept and acknowledged what they are watching. You don't need to leave your brain behind.
Now onto the the topic of critics, whether they're right or wrong. First thing one person should note is that, who is reviewing the movie in question; then what movies do they review and how do they review it. One of the most praised critics around is Roger Ebert. When he reviews movies, he generally looks at the expirence the movie in question, vibes and intends to give out. He is very self aware of who made the film, who stars in it, and the fans the movie may gain. Now while I don't always agree with his reviews, Ebert is the essential critic to all movies reviews.
Ebert had a partner called Gene Siskel of who reviewed movies on their tv show up until Siskel's death in 1999. Siskel, unlike Ebert often nitpicked the pros and cons of a movie. Something many critics of today do. Following Siskel's passing, (my favorite) critic Richard Roeper was introduced and filled in Siskel's shoes until the shows cancellation. Roeper, unlike both Ebert and Siskel, nitpicked a movie, but also was aware of the experience intended for a film. I would suggest watching or reading Roeper's reviews as an alternative to Ebert.
Now while I've just mentioned only a few names and their methods here, one medium is always needed for a review, and that is the film. On the topic at hand, how I view it is that; you cannot just have your own opinion on a film and that all. Yes its the most honest to oneself, however it is also very shallow at the same time. When I look at reviews, I always have a few names and sites in my mind when I look for a review. Mine are Ebert, Roeper, Spill.com, Amazon UK, YouTubers and MetaCritic. All of which differ from each other. The best part of having multiple reviews of varying backgrounds is that, if there was a bad review, it could be challenged and discussed.
On the subject if reviews should be trusted if one wanted to see a film, If the vast majority of a review tends to be negative, It would be an easy answer, however if one believed that all that negativity could be challenged, then one should see it in order to make that argument.
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Kung Fu Panda 2 Review
Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting, those cats were fast as lighting...
Kung Fu Panda 2 is the sequel to the 2008 film, however is it better than the first, or does it fall into the other category.
This 2011 sequel introduces a new villian; a peacock by the name of Lord Shen; whose aim is to rule the country with fireworks and cannons, of which may result in the end of Kung Fu. The story also dives into the reasons why our friendly panda character's father is a duck.
Firstly with the good. The film is funny as hell. I frequently laughed out loud several times throughout. The funniest moments of the film were between characters Po and Lord Shen. What also makes it stand out is that the chemistry between them is well match and very entertaining to watch.
The voice acting is amazing, the animation is amazing, the 3D is amazing. Every character in this film has their own charming personality, helped out by the fact the voice overs and the animation is superb. I also particully liked the CG anime sections of the film as they were a breath of fresh air for me but also helped the narrative in its own sence. The use of 3D was well immplemented as it gave more character towards the cities, it also made the action sequences funnier to watch.
I must say the film is darker than its predecessor as it does feature some darker themes such as murder, so be warned.
Onto the bad (or weaker sections), I did feel that the film did get a bit repeative towards the end as actions scene would stop then start then halt then resume.
Overall, a great and enjoyable fun filed movie to watch, like the film Rango which was released eariler this year; this film does have some minor problems, luckily they are not large enough and most people would just see past it.
My Rating
4.5/5
Kung Fu Panda 2 is the sequel to the 2008 film, however is it better than the first, or does it fall into the other category.
This 2011 sequel introduces a new villian; a peacock by the name of Lord Shen; whose aim is to rule the country with fireworks and cannons, of which may result in the end of Kung Fu. The story also dives into the reasons why our friendly panda character's father is a duck.
Firstly with the good. The film is funny as hell. I frequently laughed out loud several times throughout. The funniest moments of the film were between characters Po and Lord Shen. What also makes it stand out is that the chemistry between them is well match and very entertaining to watch.
The voice acting is amazing, the animation is amazing, the 3D is amazing. Every character in this film has their own charming personality, helped out by the fact the voice overs and the animation is superb. I also particully liked the CG anime sections of the film as they were a breath of fresh air for me but also helped the narrative in its own sence. The use of 3D was well immplemented as it gave more character towards the cities, it also made the action sequences funnier to watch.
I must say the film is darker than its predecessor as it does feature some darker themes such as murder, so be warned.
Onto the bad (or weaker sections), I did feel that the film did get a bit repeative towards the end as actions scene would stop then start then halt then resume.
Overall, a great and enjoyable fun filed movie to watch, like the film Rango which was released eariler this year; this film does have some minor problems, luckily they are not large enough and most people would just see past it.
My Rating
4.5/5
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
The Hangover Part 2 - Review
There is something similar concerning the American Pie films and the two Hangover movies. Both film series practically repeat the same material with every release. Is it a bad thing? It really depends on the person.
Me? I have no problem with film series (providing its comedy only) repeating the same old formula which made the first (few) film(s) funny. The Hangover Part 2 is no different, yet, I still laughed out loud. The transsexual jokes and song sung by Stu (Helms) was the highlight for me.
The jokes asides, The Hangover Part 2 is well acted and well paced throughout. While it featured its own set of cameos throughout, I did feel that Mike Tyson's cameo just didn't work.
Overall a funny and entertaining film to watch, even thou it is the same formula as the predecessor.
My Rating
3.5/5
Me? I have no problem with film series (providing its comedy only) repeating the same old formula which made the first (few) film(s) funny. The Hangover Part 2 is no different, yet, I still laughed out loud. The transsexual jokes and song sung by Stu (Helms) was the highlight for me.
The jokes asides, The Hangover Part 2 is well acted and well paced throughout. While it featured its own set of cameos throughout, I did feel that Mike Tyson's cameo just didn't work.
Overall a funny and entertaining film to watch, even thou it is the same formula as the predecessor.
My Rating
3.5/5
Monday, 6 June 2011
Microsoft's 2011 E3 Review
Note this blog was written simutaniously with the live broadcast. So mistakes may follow.
Microsoft Openned their E3 with Modern Warfare 3. The man playing had some controller problems at first, but what is shown for MW3 looks very simular to Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. Their 'love child' maybe?
The game began with an underwater section which eventully lead to a war torn New York City.
"In the Intrest of time"
The soilder you would be playing breaches a rooms and steals some missle code. What happens next is a boat chase, ending with the boat sailing into the real end of a chopper.
Activision
"oh thank you thank you, we can't wait for November 8th 2011"
I highly doubt MW3 will get more than 95 on metacritic. Something Activision aims to recieve.
Wellcome to E3 says the spokesperson.
Next up is Tomb Raider reboot. Boy the game looks dark, nothing at all like TR Ledgends or Underworld.
Lara does like to moan in the reboot. I know shes a younger, inexperance character but she moans too much.
after raiding the tombs, enter EA Sports. Whats funny is that the spokemen for EA forgets the Moto EA has. WOW that is weak.
enter Mass Effect 3. the game surports Kinect. Begin the demo;
the dioulouge branchs could now be operrated by voice, as to with giving team members orders. Enter possible boss battle, end Demo.
The devolpers promise Mass Effect 3 would be the best game of the series.
Ghost Reacon Future Soilder is the next title. The clip show of the game does look cool. The game also supports Kinect. during the demo the crowd cheer during the kinect weapon customisation. So far Ghost Reacon has gotten the biggest response.
Also all future titles under the Tom Clancy name will feature Kinect.
Xbox Live section. I can still see Microsoft still has the bad actors for the demos.
YouTube is also coming to Xbox Live. BING is also coming to Live.
"You say it, Xbox does it"
Then we get a cheesy advert for Xbox Live
Gears of War 3, the biggest crowd response has changed to Gears. (its an exclusive)
My complaint is that who ever is working sound. They have ruined "War Pigs".
demo demo demo
What is shown of Gears3 is the (co op) campain. The game so far looks more comedic than the first 2 games.
Enter Halo theme tune.
"that was ten years ago, this is now"
its Halo Combat Evoled Anniversary. the very original game Remastered. in HD
the show has reached its one hour mark. I'm getting quite bored now. Microsoft better show something wanting or intresting.
enter Fable The Journey
the guy playing Fable looks very disintrested.
I'm getting really bored now.
Minecraft is being ported to Xbox and is playable with Kinect. Yawn
Kinect has Experiance Disney World via Xbox, omg, why not just visit disney land for real
Now I feel like killing myself. Fucking Child actors.
Kinect Star Wars, as much as I low the original trilogy, your E3 Microsoft has hit rock bottom. The game looks bad. I swear, Microsoft better return to form by the end.
Seseme Street Kinect same ol same ol
I wish I was high as these child actors are doing my head in.
Then the show came to a close with a trailer for Halo 4.
Overall Opinion.
the show started off great with titles in which are worth investigation. However by the halfway mark, the show began to sag and then came Kinect. Once the show enter Kinect terroirty, the show sucked. It went on too longs, was boring to watch and increadibly painful to the eyes and ears. Even a reveal of Halo4 couldn't save the show from rock bottom.
Rating 4/10
Sony and Nintendo's shows better be good.
Microsoft Openned their E3 with Modern Warfare 3. The man playing had some controller problems at first, but what is shown for MW3 looks very simular to Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. Their 'love child' maybe?
The game began with an underwater section which eventully lead to a war torn New York City.
"In the Intrest of time"
The soilder you would be playing breaches a rooms and steals some missle code. What happens next is a boat chase, ending with the boat sailing into the real end of a chopper.
Activision
"oh thank you thank you, we can't wait for November 8th 2011"
I highly doubt MW3 will get more than 95 on metacritic. Something Activision aims to recieve.
Wellcome to E3 says the spokesperson.
Next up is Tomb Raider reboot. Boy the game looks dark, nothing at all like TR Ledgends or Underworld.
Lara does like to moan in the reboot. I know shes a younger, inexperance character but she moans too much.
after raiding the tombs, enter EA Sports. Whats funny is that the spokemen for EA forgets the Moto EA has. WOW that is weak.
enter Mass Effect 3. the game surports Kinect. Begin the demo;
the dioulouge branchs could now be operrated by voice, as to with giving team members orders. Enter possible boss battle, end Demo.
The devolpers promise Mass Effect 3 would be the best game of the series.
Ghost Reacon Future Soilder is the next title. The clip show of the game does look cool. The game also supports Kinect. during the demo the crowd cheer during the kinect weapon customisation. So far Ghost Reacon has gotten the biggest response.
Also all future titles under the Tom Clancy name will feature Kinect.
Xbox Live section. I can still see Microsoft still has the bad actors for the demos.
YouTube is also coming to Xbox Live. BING is also coming to Live.
"You say it, Xbox does it"
Then we get a cheesy advert for Xbox Live
Gears of War 3, the biggest crowd response has changed to Gears. (its an exclusive)
My complaint is that who ever is working sound. They have ruined "War Pigs".
demo demo demo
What is shown of Gears3 is the (co op) campain. The game so far looks more comedic than the first 2 games.
Enter Halo theme tune.
"that was ten years ago, this is now"
its Halo Combat Evoled Anniversary. the very original game Remastered. in HD
the show has reached its one hour mark. I'm getting quite bored now. Microsoft better show something wanting or intresting.
enter Fable The Journey
the guy playing Fable looks very disintrested.
I'm getting really bored now.
Minecraft is being ported to Xbox and is playable with Kinect. Yawn
Kinect has Experiance Disney World via Xbox, omg, why not just visit disney land for real
Now I feel like killing myself. Fucking Child actors.
Kinect Star Wars, as much as I low the original trilogy, your E3 Microsoft has hit rock bottom. The game looks bad. I swear, Microsoft better return to form by the end.
Seseme Street Kinect same ol same ol
I wish I was high as these child actors are doing my head in.
Then the show came to a close with a trailer for Halo 4.
Overall Opinion.
the show started off great with titles in which are worth investigation. However by the halfway mark, the show began to sag and then came Kinect. Once the show enter Kinect terroirty, the show sucked. It went on too longs, was boring to watch and increadibly painful to the eyes and ears. Even a reveal of Halo4 couldn't save the show from rock bottom.
Rating 4/10
Sony and Nintendo's shows better be good.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
A Good Man Goes To War Review
Series 6 of Dr Who is AMAZING. I forgive you Steven Moffat for the shortcomings of the 5th series.
A Good Man Goes To War is the 7th episode of Series 6 and while it isn't The Doctor's Wife, this episode is among the best of the series so fat. I UNDERSTAND Everything: The Idenity of River Song; Why Rory and Amy's baby has time load genes in her. Every refrences from previous episodes I caught, and those from the original series I also caught...
The acting throughout was strong as all roles were very convincing with the right amount of emition and proviking response present. The Doctors introduction fo the episode was also increadible. I LOVE SILHOUETTES, I'm going to listing to some BohRhap now...
My Rating
10/10
A Good Man Goes To War is the 7th episode of Series 6 and while it isn't The Doctor's Wife, this episode is among the best of the series so fat. I UNDERSTAND Everything: The Idenity of River Song; Why Rory and Amy's baby has time load genes in her. Every refrences from previous episodes I caught, and those from the original series I also caught...
The acting throughout was strong as all roles were very convincing with the right amount of emition and proviking response present. The Doctors introduction fo the episode was also increadible. I LOVE SILHOUETTES, I'm going to listing to some BohRhap now...
My Rating
10/10
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Hollywood's Digital Dilemma...and a suggestion on how to fix it.
Source: THR & Spill.com
The times they are a-changin'. It's no secret that video-on-demand and online streaming video sites are the new big thing. Maybe it's due to skyrocketing ticket prices (thanks again 3D!), maybe it's just because we humans tend to be almost magpie-ish about new technology, snapping it up like crack fiends when something new comes out (*coughApplecough*). Maybe it's because people prefer to watch films in the comfort of their own home, on their own time, without having to cram into a fold-down seat next to a hideous-smelling fat guy and eat their stale $14 popcorn while a frayed single mother yells at her wailing human worm spawn throughout the entire film. Whatever the reasons for it's growth and sustained popularity, streaming video is going to stick around for the forseeable future, and it's causing a bit of a rift among Hollywood studios and celebrities.
In a recent announcement, Lionsgate CEO John Feltheimer has decided to embrace the new trend: "We view Google, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon and other new digital media players as partners, not adversaries”. Citing increased growth in Asia, Latin America, and Europe, as well as increasing demands for VOD and digital content delivery, Lionsgate films has signed a deal with Netflix to distribute their hit AMC series 'Mad Men' through the service, paving the way for future releases through the company or through other companies in foreign markets.
In another massive move, Miramax just unveiled a joint venture with online streaming site Hulu to showcase films from their vast library of titles, such as 'Pulp Fiction', 'Trainspotting', and 'The English Patient'. The deal will bring hundreds of classic films to Hulu's premium service (Hulu Plus), as well as rotate up to 15 of their titles a month through Hulu's ad-supported free site. CEO Mike Lang also recently spearheaded a similar deal with Netflix saying, "From day one, we’ve been very clear about the importance of digital and our desire to respond to the significant pent-up demand for our films - delivering to consumers whenever and wherever they want".
However, the new move towards digital content seems to be rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. While few would argue that allowing old films to be immediately available via digital streaming is a bad idea, the current trend may be extending out into actual theatrical releases, which has upset a large population of creative professionals. Christopher Nolan ('Inception') and Jon Favreau ('Iron Man') are the latest directors to openly oppose a new DirectTV VOD service that would allow people to download and view brand new movies only two months after their theatrical release for only $29.95. Joining forces with other Hollywood directors like James Cameron and Quentin Tarantino, they are arguing that shortening the theatrical lifespan of a film can be detrimental to the "moviegoing experience". Even theater chains are getting in on the argument - Regal Entertainment and AMC Entertainment have struck back by cutting down the number of trailers from companies who support DirectTV's new service including Disney, Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.
It's not an argument that will be won, or even partially settled any time soon. As long as there's money to be made and a demographic to be taken advantage of, studios will continue to pursue new forms of revenue and promotion for their films. Likewise, Hollywood professionals and theater chains will not willingly choose to cannibalize their theatrical runs to chase a new digital market. Weigh in, Spillios! Would you rather see companies move away from theatrical releases towards a strictly digital market? Do you like the way things are now, where a movie is released in theaters, and then is released on Blu-ray at the same time as it's available on demand? Would you like it to be released earlier on one form of media or the other? Let us know!
HERE IS A SUGGESTION ON HOW TO FIX IT.
While seeing a film in the cinema or at home has its own Pros and Cons for example,
This idea, in theory would 1, make their films stronger as the filmmakers has more to loose, so naturally the amount of effort placed during the making of the film would be stronger and more passionate. 2, People would have to go the cinema if they wanted to see a certian film. It would also elimate piracy.
I might even take a simular route when I begin making and releasing the films I make.
Richard.
The times they are a-changin'. It's no secret that video-on-demand and online streaming video sites are the new big thing. Maybe it's due to skyrocketing ticket prices (thanks again 3D!), maybe it's just because we humans tend to be almost magpie-ish about new technology, snapping it up like crack fiends when something new comes out (*coughApplecough*). Maybe it's because people prefer to watch films in the comfort of their own home, on their own time, without having to cram into a fold-down seat next to a hideous-smelling fat guy and eat their stale $14 popcorn while a frayed single mother yells at her wailing human worm spawn throughout the entire film. Whatever the reasons for it's growth and sustained popularity, streaming video is going to stick around for the forseeable future, and it's causing a bit of a rift among Hollywood studios and celebrities.In a recent announcement, Lionsgate CEO John Feltheimer has decided to embrace the new trend: "We view Google, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon and other new digital media players as partners, not adversaries”. Citing increased growth in Asia, Latin America, and Europe, as well as increasing demands for VOD and digital content delivery, Lionsgate films has signed a deal with Netflix to distribute their hit AMC series 'Mad Men' through the service, paving the way for future releases through the company or through other companies in foreign markets.
In another massive move, Miramax just unveiled a joint venture with online streaming site Hulu to showcase films from their vast library of titles, such as 'Pulp Fiction', 'Trainspotting', and 'The English Patient'. The deal will bring hundreds of classic films to Hulu's premium service (Hulu Plus), as well as rotate up to 15 of their titles a month through Hulu's ad-supported free site. CEO Mike Lang also recently spearheaded a similar deal with Netflix saying, "From day one, we’ve been very clear about the importance of digital and our desire to respond to the significant pent-up demand for our films - delivering to consumers whenever and wherever they want".
However, the new move towards digital content seems to be rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. While few would argue that allowing old films to be immediately available via digital streaming is a bad idea, the current trend may be extending out into actual theatrical releases, which has upset a large population of creative professionals. Christopher Nolan ('Inception') and Jon Favreau ('Iron Man') are the latest directors to openly oppose a new DirectTV VOD service that would allow people to download and view brand new movies only two months after their theatrical release for only $29.95. Joining forces with other Hollywood directors like James Cameron and Quentin Tarantino, they are arguing that shortening the theatrical lifespan of a film can be detrimental to the "moviegoing experience". Even theater chains are getting in on the argument - Regal Entertainment and AMC Entertainment have struck back by cutting down the number of trailers from companies who support DirectTV's new service including Disney, Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.
It's not an argument that will be won, or even partially settled any time soon. As long as there's money to be made and a demographic to be taken advantage of, studios will continue to pursue new forms of revenue and promotion for their films. Likewise, Hollywood professionals and theater chains will not willingly choose to cannibalize their theatrical runs to chase a new digital market. Weigh in, Spillios! Would you rather see companies move away from theatrical releases towards a strictly digital market? Do you like the way things are now, where a movie is released in theaters, and then is released on Blu-ray at the same time as it's available on demand? Would you like it to be released earlier on one form of media or the other? Let us know!
HERE IS A SUGGESTION ON HOW TO FIX IT.
While seeing a film in the cinema or at home has its own Pros and Cons for example,
- At Home, the viewer is able to adjust there own comfort when viewing the film where as the comfort in the cinema is somewhat fixed.
- At Home, the cost of seeing the film is cheaper compared to the cinema.
- At the cinema, the quality of the films (video, audio) watched is better due to lack of compression and artitfacts which plague home viewing.
- The experiance for viewing the film is stonger. The higher cost of viewing plus the fact the viewer has made that journey to see the film makes his/her opinion on the film more genuine.
This idea, in theory would 1, make their films stronger as the filmmakers has more to loose, so naturally the amount of effort placed during the making of the film would be stronger and more passionate. 2, People would have to go the cinema if they wanted to see a certian film. It would also elimate piracy.
I might even take a simular route when I begin making and releasing the films I make.
Richard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)