The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

The Thing

Directed by John Carpenter

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e.../THINGREEL.jpg


The Thing is one of my favorite horror films, and in my opinion John Carpenters best. The combination of groundbreaking practical special effects and a great script and cast, make The Thing a true classic. I must have seen the film at least forty times, and every time I've enjoyed it just as much as the first.

The plot follows a scientific research team stationed in Antarctica, who find an alien creature buried in the antarctic ice. Over the course of the film the mysterious creature begins to absorb and duplicate the team members. The tension and suspense builds slowly as the team members begin to suspect each other. They all begin to loose the plot. The lead scientist of the team, Dr. Blair, completely looses it, and destroys all the radios, leaving the group stranded.

The one thing that has made the film stand out over the years is the special effects, which still hold their own against today's CGI laden affairs. The animatronics in the film are some of the best ever seen. The only film that comes close to the The Thing in terms of practical effects is Tremors (1990),another classic.

Kirk Russell plays the strongest character in the film - Helicopter pilot M.J. MacReady. Russell's performance is superb. He takes charge towards the end, and using a test devised by the team's doctor, Dr Copper, he forces the elusive creature out into the open. Slowly, the remaining team members become victims of The Thing, leaving only two left at the end. The film ends on one of the biggest cliffhangers ever.

Thirty years on and The Thing is just as fresh,exiting, and trilling as ever, and is a must watch both for horror fans and others alike.

Great review! I'll keep an eye on this thread. ;)

I watched The Thing a few days ago and I also enjoyed it very much. The special effects are remarkable and the film is absolutely thrilling during the whole ride.

I also thought the ending was absolutely brilliant. I'll write a little bit more about that in my own review of the film. It can be interpreted in a few different ways, but I think I made up my mind because there are too many 'coincidences' that point in a certain direction.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Yep... great film...

Beats any movie of its kind so badly that it's almost a one off. Also my #3 film of all time, rated it 95% too when I reviewed it.

Nice review!

Thanks guys.:)

Oh my god. What is it?

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

It's a Thing.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Oh, Rodent. Perfect opportunity to humiliate me in some way and you didn't go for it.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Another reviewer offering me competition?!!! First nostromo and now you!!! :mad:

No welcome to the reviewing fraternity. :up: Let's see how long you last before I drive you out. :p Nice start.

I really liked Carpenter's Thing, as well as The Thing From Another World (1951) and much less The Thing that was done in 2011, which was a lesser prequel. Carpenter's Thing was closer to the original derivative story, Who Goes There?, the 1938 novel by John Campbell.

I've been somewhat aggravated that nobody in the near future will really go back to the roots and make a decent movie out of At The Mountains of Madness, by H P Lovecraft, the best of these closely related stories. Lovecraft's Mountains was the inspiration for Who Goes There and The Thing but was an epically huge story of the shape shifting remnant of an extrordinarily ancient extraterrestrial Antarctic civilization that would take a big budget and a fertile imagination to render on film. There's much more to it than just a parasite in a frozen wasteland. Cameron's Prometheus was close enough plot-wise enough to suck the air out of a Mountains project that Guillermo Del Toro had wanted to do for some years. All this goes way back to Poe's Narrative of A Gordon Pym, the original "scary Antarctica" story.

http://excursuses.files.wordpress.co...lane.jpg?w=500

American Psycho

Directed by Mary Harron

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...PSYCHOREEL.jpg


Adapted from the dark and brilliant book of the same name, American Psycho is an ironic, dark, and dam right hilarious social satire.

Its central character, Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), is a yuppie of 27 in Wall Street in 1986, obsessed with status symbols, self-confessedly as empty of feeling as his gleaming desk top is of honest labour.
He escorts us through his morning agenda of toilet ablutions, bathroom anointment and wardrobe adornments as if man were the sum of his beauty products.

Feeling alienated by his yuppie lifestyle, he embarks on a psychopathic killing spree: murdering colleges, homeless people, animals, and prostitutes. His wall-flush stainless-steel refrigerator is stocked with a human head, for snacks. Before he teasingly deliberates whether to use chainsaw or nail-gun on his female victims, he treats them to an extended criticism of the CD he feels suits his slaughterous mood. Phil Collins comes off best.

The social satire and subtle critique of the yuppie culture is apparent throughout. Everyone looks the same--perfectly groomed, nice haircuts and expensive suits. They share one interest --money--and that's all they care about. Everyone is having an affair, and getting up all sorts of debauchery in private, but in public they are all respectable, well educated, pillars of society.

However, the facade of respectability is beginning to slip for Patrick Bateman. A detective begins to investigate the disappearance of the college he chopped up with an axe, and his secretory becomes concerned about his erratic behavior.

In the end though, no one suspects him of anything, even after he confesses to his lawyer. Even the detective seems to respect him, and at no point suspects him of foul-play. As far a society is concerned, Patrick Bateman remains a respectable business man. If this film proves anything, its that money talks.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Good review. American Psycho is one that I have almost started at least half a dozen times. It seems to unsettling for my taste but I am sure I will push that play button some day.

The Wolf of Wall Street

Directed by Martin Scorsese

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...1/WOLFREEL.jpg

A fast-paced, three hour long, drug-fueled exhibition of greed and depravity.The Wolf of Wall Street is the story of a young stockbroker Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he arrives in the Manhattan financial world. A 25-year-old kid eager to make it rich, Belfort starts his career at a small firm under the expert guidance of Mike Hanna (Matthew McConaughey).

During a hilarious scene, Hanna gives Belfort some pearls of wisdom that he says will help him in the future, which include masturbating a least 3 times a day and constant cocaine intoxication. It was a shame McConaughey was in the film so briefly because his character was hilarious.

The Black Monday crash of 1987 forced Belfort to seek employment at a tiny Long Island based brokerage firm specializing in "penny stocks". He soon gets into swing of things, making almost 100 grand a month, leaving his colleges in ore of his sales technique and success.

Later Belfort starts his own firm, Stratton Oakmont, with his best friend Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill). This is when they start making BIG money, and with big money come the wild parties, sex and drugs.

Scorsese didn't hold back with the sex in the film (which is a good thing;)). The wild partying of Belfort and his friends produces some of the most hilarious scenes in the film. It seems his whole life is one big party. The atmosphere at the office is no different - drugs, anger, drinking, sweating and f!cking people over for a profit.


The film, in it's own very colorful and over-the-top way, paints a poor picture of the banking industry, which is more than relevant given the current financial crisis; though it's very hard to take anything in the film seriously. With the FBI on his back, things soon began to fall apart for Belfort. Everything comes to a head in the funniest scene in the film, which involves Belfort and Azoff taking too many bad Quaaludes tablets, turning them into groaning, dribbling zombies.

Three hours pass like three minutes when watching The Wolf of Wall Street, such is the hectic pace - things never get boring. Great performances from DiCaprio and Hill, Scorsese was on top form here.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Loving the format. And great review. Look forward to this thread.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Wolf of Wall Street is the first Scorsese film I finished and had to consider whether or not I liked it or not. It was clearly well made, but I found it to be a bit of a chore to get through, and some scenes didn't work at all for me. For instance, the phone scene with Jonah Hill and Leo was over-the-top, and they pushed the bit too far. I liked the direction, I liked the camera-work and editing - Scorsese has mastered his style and it is instantly recognizable to me - but Wolf seemed overstuffed and bloated to me in comparison to his other work.

I will watch it again, but not for a while.

Excellent review, however. :)

Snowpiercer

Directed by Bong Joon-ho

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...1/snowreel.jpg

Snowpiercer is a cross between Elysium and The Raid on a train, and is basically an allegorical reflection of modern society. Everything takes place on a huge train that circles a frozen wasteland earth. Years earlier scientists released a chemical into the atmosphere in an attempt to stop global warming and inadvertently started a new ice-age. Seeing the impending doom of mankind, a genius called Wilford (Ed Harris) designed the huge train, which uses the earths magnetic field for propulsion..

The train has a class system, with the lowest toward the back of the train and highest toward the front. The people in the tail section live in squaller, packed together on cramped, filthy shelves, with the only food available being black blocks of jelly called "protein blocks". Curtis (Chris Evans) is one of peasants from the tail section - sick of the living conditions, constant killings and lack of food, he plans a uprising.

The population of the train is kept under control by periodical sacrifices in honor of the demigod "Wilford". The sacrifices always come from the tail section of course, and the people are often told to be grateful by their rich, well fed oppressors. The revolutionaries are shocked to discover the way that people live towards the front of the train - with a constant supply of meat, fresh fish, vegetables and eggs. They also discover, to their horror, what those "protein bars" are made of.

On there their way through the train, Curtis, and his friends encounter a carriage full of henchmen armed with machetes and axes - this is a brilliant fight scene. With around 100 men cutting each other to ribbons in a tight train carriage with blood spraying on the windows and some nice slow motion edits.

I'm kind of surprised the film has not been criticized the way Elysium was, because it's subtle critique of society is almost identical. Anyway, Snowpiercer is a descent Sci-Fi drama, with great editing throughout, and some solid performances from the main characters.

Only just noticed your latest review. Got to say that I don't think I've even heard of Snowpiercer but it sounds rather interesting. It pretty much got my attention right from your first line which sounds intriguing -

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I hadn't heard of it till I read about it on Den of Geek a few weeks back. It's adapted from the french graphic novel "Le Transperceneige" and is the first descent high budget Sci-Fi film from South Korea. Give it a look, it's pretty good.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Thanks for reminding me about Snowpiercer, I need to see that. I love Kang ho Song . he's been in some great films

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Never seen Snowpiercer, but nice review. :up:

Alien

Directed By Ridley Scott

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e.../alienreel.jpg


Many hours of my youth were spent tucked up in bed watching Alien - with my sheets in hand ready to cover my eyes. Like most kids, I'd watch films my parents told me not to watch, and Alien was one of my favorites, and still is.

This seminal sci-fi-horror released at the end of the 70's, the decade that produced some of the greatest horror and sci-fi films, Alien remains as unique, enthralling and dam right creepy as is was thirty years ago.

The plot is rather simple: a group of workers aboard a commercial towing vessel headed back home have their journey interrupted by a mysterious transmission from a nearby planetoid. They stop to investigate, only to end up bringing an extraterrestrial threat back on board their craft.

The film is basically like a slasher movie set in space. Alien started an entire sub-genre we now know as sci-fi horror, and has influenced countless films with its effective blend both sci-fi and horror, and is a landmark in both genres.

The first hour of the film consists of a slow build up, concentrating on tone, mood and atmosphere. As would be expected on a deep space journey, tensions between the crew members would be inevitable, hence the rather amusing exchanges between Ripley, Brett and Parker. Ripley's relationship with Captain Dallas is also turbulent at times, stemming from Ripley's sometimes pedantic adherence to protocol, but despite their little tiffs you also get the feeling that they are also really good friends.

The film is basically like a slasher movie set in space. Alien started an entire sub-genre we now know as sci-fi horror, and has influenced countless films with its effective blend both sci-fi and horror, and is a landmark in both genres.

The first hour of the film consists of a slow build up, concentrating on tone, mood and atmosphere. As would be expected on a deep space journey, tensions between the crew members would be inevitable, hence the rather amusing exchanges between Ripley, Brett and Parker. Ripley's relationship with Captain Dallas is also turbulent at times, stemming from Ripley's sometimes pedantic adherence to protocol, but despite their little tiffs you also get the feeling that they are also really good friends.

From special effects perspective, Alien was way ahead of its time. The use of practical effects is a rarity in today's world of CGI graphics. Alien along with 'The Thing,1982' are in my opinion the two greatest examples of the use of practical specials effects, and still hold their own even by today's standards. The chest-burst scene remains as shocking and unsettling now, as when I first saw it. If the same scene were filmed today, with cheap CGI blood added afterword, the effect would just not be the same.

The cinematography is dark, moody, and really adds a level of dread to the claustrophobic service tunnels and corridors of the ship. All the sets look fantastic and gives an authentic feel a space vessel, with computers, lights, beeping noises. Everything in the ship has a dark, scratched, worn look to it giving the realistic feel of a well living-in and overworked vessel..

Jerry Goldsmith's score is compelling, and the heart beat like thumping during key scenes is a real nice touch. Ridley Scott provides some superb, subtle directing, showing a real flare for building tension and mood. Alien was the precursor to Ridley Scott's timeless sci-fi masterpiece: Blade Runner, 1982, which shares the dark mood, tension and unique directorial style that has become synonymous.

Seldom has any film been so consistent in design, cast, direction, and out-and-out fear factor.

Directed by Ron Underwood

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...REMORSREEL.jpg

Tremors is a classic B-movie monster movie, and one of my all-time favorite films. Set in a small Nevada town called perfection, the film mostly revolves around to local handymen, Valentine McGee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward). The two soon realize that the residents of the small are not alone in the baron dessert valley, when they discover a giant thirty-foot-long underground worm.

Ward and Bacon suit their characters perfectly, Ward being the grumpy old redneck and Bacon the cocky young cowboy wannabe. My favorite character, however, has always been Burt Gummer (Micheal Gross). A local gun enthusiast who had previously been mocked by the towns folk for his lifestyle, soon becomes their lifeline. My favorite scene of the whole film is the one when one of the Graboids breaks into Burt's basement, and he, and his wife Heather kill it with a hail of bullets from their sizable gun collection, with Burt eventually finishing the creature off with two blast of his Elephant Gun.

The practical special effects in the film were groundbreaking at the time and still look convincing to this day. You won't see any CGI in this film, which is a refreshing change, there's nothing like good honest practical effects. The only film that I can really compare it to in terms of practical effects is The Thing (1982).

The film is a mix of comedy, monster movie, and western - an unlikely mix of genres that works perfectly in this case. The comedy in the film comes from Val and Earls constant wisecracking, and also the over-the-top reactions and statements of the crazy gun-nut Burt. As well as comedy, the film has some genuine 'make you jump' moments, which are well-timed and put together. Everything happens at a brisk pace, maintaining the tension throughout - hence the 90 minute running time.

Tremors is a quick, fun, action comedy horror, which has cemented its place as one the best monster movies ever made (in my opinion).

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Awesome Alien review! Definitely time to revisit that one. Looking forward to reading more of your reviews (I'm new here)

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

The Sci-Fi Slob is a beast !

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I absolutely love Tremors. Nice review Slobby. :up:

The Sacrament

Directed by Ti West

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...ramentreel.jpg

The Sacrament is the third feature from Ti West, and is basically his take on the Jonestown massacre. The film follows two journalists shooting a documentary about a man's attempt to locate his missing sister, they eventually find her in a rural cult preparing for a mass suicide.

The two journalists are airlifted to a remote area in the forest and then driven by truck to the cult's camp. When reach the gate, they are greeted by three angry African men armed with machine guns (which doesn't put them off entering the camp). They are greeting by the man's missing sister, who is happy, a little too happy...to see them.

Soon after their arrival the journalists are invited to a town meeting by the leader of the camp, a man the cult members call "father". At the camp meeting the journalists interview the charismatic cult leader, when he tells them about his belief in the rejection of western values, capitalism and modern technology, and warns the journalists not to give the group a bad write-up in the paper or divulge any info on the camps location. Much like all cult leaders, "father" makes out that the camp is a utopia of sorts where the people are truly free. It turns out, however, that all is not well in utopia.

The one thing that irritated me was the stupidity of the journalists: even after his friend is abducted and killed by the cult leader, one of them remains trying to find the groups photographer and the man's missing sister. A one point he tries to escape on a chopper, only to be fired upon by the armed guards. So where does he flee to..? the woods, to a find a road maybe, the sky, anywhere but back to the dam camp! But that's where he goes.

The acting is pretty good and film was pretty well paced. As powerful as the subject matter is, the found-footage style added to the authenticity. However, the film loose its way and becomes a little predictable towards the end. After the cult members drink their the magic orange juice, it's just a loan survivor left roaming around aimlessly, hunted by the guards for twenty minutes before getting on the chopper.

The characters may have been infuriating at times and the ending all too predictable, but the The Sacrament is a well-made and disturbing edition the Ti West filmography.

love the film strips you've made for each entry
awesome reviews Sci-Fi Slob, keep it up! :up:

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Glad to hear The Sacrament is good, I'm looking forward to it. I'm a big fan of what I've seen by Ti West, House of the Devil is especially fantastic.

Non-Stop

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...n-stopreel.jpg

Flightplan ...I mean Non-Stop, is a fast-paced airline safety propaganda video disguised as a Liam Neeson thriller. Neeson plays an air marshall, who years early lost his daughter to cancer, so became a burnout alcoholic (just the kind of guy you'd want as an air Marshall).

The film starts with him necking some whiskey while sat in his car in front of the airport before proceeding the departure lounge - he is to be overseeing the security of a long-haul London to New York flight. After fifteen minutes of Liam Neeson grunting, and shuffling around the plane looking like a corpse, he eventually receives a troubling text message on his phone. The message is from and unknown source and says that they will kill one of the passengers if Neeson doesn't wire an inordinate amount of money into an offshore bank account. The fact that the would-be criminals would send such a demand to an Air Marshall is completely diabolical.

After a series of mysterious deaths on board the plane, Neeson becomes paranoid and soon begins to loose it. He starts searching passengers for the mobile phone that he has been received the messages from. It seems his only friend on board is Julianne Moore, who was sitting next to him when boarded the plane, though he suspects her at one point. The most unrealistic element of the film is how the passengers put up with Neeson's antics for so long. A crazed looking man running around a plane with a gun searching passengers without giving them any explanation.

The film will have you guessing who the culprits of the extortion/hijack are, and have you suspecting everyone. However, the section of the film where Neeson is searching for the phone is a bit silly, he stands in the middle of cabin looking at everyone to see if they 'look' like they're using a mobile.. Any criminal with half a brain isn't going to send a message while he's stood there.... He even has Julianne Moore and a stewardess highlight suspect passengers with maker pens on a security monitor! Plus, conveniently, Neeson meets a mobile phone programmer on the plane, and they come up with a plan to set up the suspect by send a photo message to his phone causing it ring.

Eventually, everything comes to a head, resulting in some tense stand-off scenes and a truly ridiculous scene involving a floating gun. Neeson and Moore's performances were ok, the rest of the cast were all unknowns and TV actors. Not a bad little thriller, lost it's way in parts, but finished well enough - a genuine three star, late night, drunken Netflix affair.

You're a funny guy, Slob. :laugh:

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Nothing you've said there makes me think three stars... even drunk. :D

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Directed by Peter Jackson

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...hobbitreel.jpg

And so we rejoin the Dwarfs and Bilbo on their journey towards The Lonely Mountain, to reclaim their homeland and slay the deadly, but rather charismatic, Smaug.

It's quite obvious from the start that Peter Jackson stretched the source material to the limit over this near three hour long adventure, resulting in a slightly disjointed story with an underwhelming ending. I don’t know if the special effects budget was an issue, but the CGI in some sequences looked cheap. The scene where Gandalf fights Sauron is the worst of all; the CGI on Gandalf during the distance shots was shocking. The effects were up and down throughout the film. The best sequence was the barrel river escape, and the scenes with Smaug were quite solid as well. One other that I noticed is that not all of the Orcs were actors, but instead cheap CGI versions. I wouldn’t mind if they were just soldiers in a huge battle scene, but these were main characters. The special effects in the final scenes seemed at bit dodgy as well - especially on the molten iron in the mines – it looked T2 T1000ish…

Not only were the special effects a bit ropey, but the dialogue seemed a bit cheesy in parts, especially during Thorin Oakenshield’s pontificating. Well, that’s my gripes out of the way, now to the plus points. Without Legolas and the rest of the elves having such a strong presence in the film, I don’t think it would have been have as enjoyable. The fights scenes with Legolas were the highlights of the film for me, especially the scenes in Lake Town. However, I do think they made his father Thranduil a little bit too camp. Some of the scenes where he was arguing with Thorin made me wonder if he was going to hit or kiss him.

Gandalf plays a more minor role in this film, going off on his own little quest under the instruction of the lady Galadriel, to discover the source of the darkness that hangs over Dol Guldur. As with The Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit is full of interesting minor characters, one of which is Beorn the shape shifter, who takes in Gandalf, Bilbo and the Dwarves and protects them from the Orc pack pursuing them.

When Bilbo and the Dwarves finally reach the Lonely Mountain it is left up to Bilbo to face Smaug. Whilst true to the book, I thought the scenes with Bilbo and Smaug did drag on for a little too long. However, the scenes following this with all the dwarves being chased around Erebor by the dragon, were quite entertaining. The end was a bit of a letdown. I was waiting three hours for a something amazing to happen, and it never did. All in all, a little hit and miss. Hopefully the third film will be the finale Tolkien fans deserve.

The Day The Earth Stood Still

Directed by Robert Wise

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...odstilreel.jpg

The Day The Earth Stood Still was made during the Cold War and directer Robert Wise created a warning message of sorts, and in his own way took the wider view of the global situation, by making one the greatest science fiction films ever made.

When I first saw this film I was taken by the simple yet powerful message it conveyed. It reminded me a lot of one of my favorite books: Childhoods End by Arthur C. Clarke - a tale of an alien race arriving in a giant spaceship on a mission to rid the earth of war, famine and hatred.

The plot is fairly simple and direct: A visitor from another planet has come to warn us that we are too aggressive, paranoid and dangerous to ourselves and the other planets if we continue the nuclear arms race.

Klaatu, the alien visitor (played by Michael Rennie), is an instantly likable character. Having arrived on earth to a less then polite welcome, he escapes the clutches of the military and takes shelter in a guest house, where he befriends a young inquisitive boy and his mother, who eventually help him to complete his mission.

The great old school b-movie soundtrack and radio broadcasts at the beginning of the film set the perfect, foreboding atmosphere. One of the most iconic and memorable characters in sci-fi history is Gort, the giant robot guardian of Klaatu - an 8 feet tall clumsy looking thing wearing size 50 silver clogs - that's fifties special effects for you.

An easily accessible and enjoyable sci-fi classic and easily the best of the fifties, followed closely by Invasion of the Body Snatchers andThem!. The Day the Earth Stood Still is a truly timeless classic and a must watch.

That's a pretty impressive rating on that one. It's a movie I'll probably be watching soon as it's on the top 100 Sci-Fi list.

Godzilla

Directed by Gareth Edwards

Well, where to start? To be honest, I’m still in shock. I was so looking forward to this after seeing the trailer, but what a monstrous disappointment it’s turned out to be (pun indented:D)

The title of the film should have been: Cloverfield Monster vs The American Army plus Godzilla. In the whole 2 hour running length of the film, Godzilla appeared 4 times, and for a total of about 20 minutes. The first half hour involves Bryan Cranston’s character searching the world for the monster that killed his wife when it attacked the nuclear plant she worked at 15 years earlier… He eventually discovers that the mysterious beast is being held captive at secret base, run by an annoying scientist played Ken Watanabe.

Watanabe and his scientific college (an annoying women who looks like a frog) advise the army throughout the film. They both seemed to have contracted ‘locked jaw’ because their response to any crisis or question was to look down at their feet, move slowly and dramatically towards to camera (jaws trailing on the floor), and state the obvious.

Everything happens at a thousand miles per hour leaving no time for character development or a discernible plot of any kind. There were the usual cheesy one-liners, ridiculous American army posturing, and lots of grunting and saluting – what you’d expect from an action film this – only worse.

The only highlights were the battles between Godzilla (in his rare appearances) and the Cloverfield monster. I have to admit, Gareth Edwards actually did a great job with the look of Godzilla . He looked much more like the classic beast we know from the Japanese films, and not like the giant iguana that Roland Emmerich crapped out.

Great monster battles and CGI don’t make up for a horrendous plot, though. And at times, I actually thought I was watching a Transformers film. Gareth Edwards may have been out of his depth with this - seeing as his previous films were low budget indie films - which is a shame because I really liked his first film Monsters. I hope that if there is to be a sequel, they will learn from their mistakes .

That's a big shame in this day in age. I'm still going to give it a try.

Edge of Tomorrow

Directed by Doug Liman

When I first saw the trailer for Edge of Tomorrow pop up on TV, with that cheesy music and slow motion battle scenes, I thought "oh god..not another Battle L.A!". But how wrong I was. This sci-fi action film has come out of nowhere into to my Top 3 films of the year, and will probably stay there till New Year.

Tom Cruise plays the unlikely role of a coward turned savior -- we are normally used to seeing this 5 foot 5 inch action dynamo playing the hero -- so it was a little strange to see him play such a character; his performance, however, was top notch.

Edge of Tomorrow is a rarity when it comes to summer blockbusters in that it is smart, well-written, funny,complex, isn't made by Marvel or DC, and most important, it makes sense. The main point everyone was discussing about the film was the time loop element, which I first thought would have made the film repetitive and boring, but the way it was incorporated into the plot created the opposite effect.

The visuals are outstanding. From the first D-day style battle scene to the thrilling final battle. The design of the soldier suits looks fantastic, giving it all a very near-future feel. I really liked the design of the aliens as well. But where it truly excels is in a handful of action sequences and some stunning set pieces.

The cast was pretty good. Emily Blunt was very convincing as the bad-ass soldier hero and Bill Paxton should of had more screen time - he was hilarious. Cruise was Cruise - great. He may have acted in some poorly written films recently (Oblivion not included), but he always puts in a solid performance.

Edge of Tomorrow is the surprise of the year. A well-made, fun, sci-fi action film, which has cult classic written all over it.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Good review sci-fi. Edge Of Tomorrow is definitely the surprise of the year for me as well. I agree with much of what you said although I rate it about a star lower. It has some third act issues, which is a complaint I use a lot for thrillers and blockbusters, but only because its true.:) I could see it making the tail end of my top ten this year.

That was my biggest concern. I wasn't a fan of Source Code because of the repetitiveness, and I figured the same thing would happen in Edge of Tomorrow. Good to hear that isn't the case.

Edge of Tomorrow received better reviews than I expected and everyone I know who went to see it really seemed to enjoy it. I look forward to watching it at some point.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I guess I need to see Edge of Tomorrow.

Nice review, Slob. I was indifferent to seeing this movie but I'm quite interested now.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Really pleased to see another hugely positive review for Edge of Tomorrow. Was desperate to see that one at the cinema but for one reason or another was unable to.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Your review of The Thing is on the money...the film is one of those very rare remakes that is far superior to the original....my number 2 John Carpenter film, behind Escape from New York.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

It's funny you mentioned the bare-bones script with which this film began production. I do remember reading somewhere that large portions of this movie were improvised.

EDIT: poster is referring to Alien

Directed by Yann Demange

The only other film I've seen starring Jack O'Connell is Starred Up (2014), which, after watching '71, I realize that his talents were completely wasted on.

O'Connell plays a young soldier who is deployed to Nothern Ireland during the troubles of the nineteen seventies. He soon finds himself on a patrol - sent out to search a house for IRA guns - during which time his patrol is attacked by a mob. He is soon on his own, being chased thorugh the backstreets by IRA gunmen.

During his fight for survival, O'Connell finds himself caught up in a web of military corruption and republican duplicity. The film captures perfectly the atmosphere of a civil warzone, both from the perspective of soldiers and civilians alike. O'Connell doesn't know who to trust as his superiors loyalties are unclear and he take refuge in, of all places, an IRA stronghold - a stronghold which plays host to the films tense and thrilling climax.

'71 is probably the best film about Northwern Ireland and the IRA I've seen since Hunger (2008), both films featuring great performances from British actors.

Directed by Clint Eastwood

American Sniper tells the story of decorated navy seal sniper Chris Kyle, who, during his four tours in Iraq, amased a record number of confirmed kills, 160 in total.

After a brief intro into Kyle's pre-military life, the film gets right down to it with his tough navy seal training, to his first deployment in Iraq. The action from the start is gritty and realistic, starting with an opening scene in Iraq which is very reminiscent of the opening scene in The Hurt Locker.

The combat starts with Kyles supporting infantry troops from rooftop positions, then to him taking an active role in the search for a terrorist leader. Along the way he racks up the kills, at which point he attracts the attention of a notorious enemy sniper. The plot takes a three way split: the search for the terrorist leader, the duel with the enemy sniper and lastly, and most irritatingly, the superfluous intervals in the combat when Kyle returns home between tours.

Minor niggles aside, American Sniper is enthralling true story, which highlights both the heroism of our troops serving abroad, and the toll war takes on themselves and their families.

Directed by Olivier Megaton

Liam Neeson returns as Bryan Mills, and yet again he has upset some of the worlds nastiest criminals. This time in the shape of a frankly ridiculous looking Russian gangster.

**SPOLIER ALERT ** As you probably already know, the Russian gangsters kill Mills' wife, thanks almost entirely to his wife's new husband. A this point things go downhill, both for Mill's and you the viewer. When he finds his ex wife's body on a bed in his house, with her throat cut, the police burst in, and Mill's does what any rational person would do: he protests his innocence by beating the crap out of five cops and goes on the run.

Well, the next hour basically consists of car chases, explosions, and Mills, yet again, recruiting his annoying daughter as a CIA operative. We are also introduced to Forest Whitaker's character (quite possibly the most incompetent cop of all-time). When dumbfounded in his search for Mills, he soon resorts to examining Bagels in an attempt to track him down. When he's not investigating bakery products or staking out funerals in marked riot vans, he pretty much gives up, and drives around the city pretending to do something.

I got bored and lost interest after the first half hour. There's nothing new here. It's basically the recycled plots of the first two films set in a different location. I hope they call it quits at the third film, as not only would another sequel be a complete waste of time, it would also do Liam Neeson's talents a great disservice.

Directed by Tommy Wirkola

This low budget Norwegian zombie flick shouldn't really work, but it does. Filled with every single horror movie cliche and trope, it's one of those films that are ridiculous in a good way. The story revolve around a group of medical students on holiday in the remotest part of the Norwegian wilderness they could find.

The characters are the biggest cliche of all, from the deadlocked women who looks like a predator, the quintessential attractive blondes, to the fat film geek guy - who is the source of many a horror movie reference during the film.

After the unlikely group settle in, the not so unlikely drunken party starts, a party which is soon interrupted by a knock of the door of the cabin...The knock is the local weirdo with a scary tail to tell. The man proceeds to tell the group about the legend of a lost Nazi battalion whose evil presence remains on the mountain.

Well it doesn't take long before the man's fears are realized, and the group soon start dropping like flies, and it drops to a few remaining to survivors to face the ravenous army of Nazi zombies. The group of remaining characters, one resembling Ash from Evil Dead, with an amputated arm and chainsaw combo, dispense with the zombie horde in more and more over-the-top and super gory ways.

The special effects are pretty convincing for such a low budget indie film, and each zombie death is more original and mega gory than the next. Dead Snow is good old-fashioned comedy horror fun. A little indie gem which is up there among the best comedy horrors that I've seen.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Dead Snow is great. Have you seen the sequel yet?

Not yet, but it's on my gargantuan watchlist.:cool:

I almost watched Dead Snow a few times but never pulled the trigger. I will next time.

Directed by Luc Besson

Probably the single worst sci-fi film I've seen. Everything starts off with Scarlett Johansson being draw into some kind of shady deal with some Chinese gangsters, resulting in her having a synthesized version of the chemical that a women's womb produces during childbirth implanted into her stomach... Wait the story gets better. She is imprisoned and , as a result of the aforementioned chemical, transforms into the first human being capable of using 100% of her brain, which allows to use some rather unlikely new abilities which include: manipulating electrical and communications systems, telepathy, telekinesis, and greatly increased strength.

While she is going through all these changes Morgan Freeman is performing a lecture on the very possibility of such a thing happening to a person, all of which is interspersed with strange images of animals killing each other, and Freeman coming out with obvious Darwinian explanations for it. The Chinese gangsters seem practically useless and are only used as a starting point for the absurd plot, but they keep popping up just fill in space and give Lucy something to fight against with her ridiculous powers.

The film is over stylized drivel with absolutely no scientific basis. And what happens after Lucy is transformed into this super-human..? She changes, as you would have predicted into..a usb thumb drive... Yes, that's right a usb drive. After all the amazing power she developed during the film, the control she gained over all the worlds communications systems, she ultimately changes into a £20 usb drive protruding out of a pile of black sludge in the corner of Morgan Freeman's computer lab. There have been some pretty bad sci-fi films released during this latest renaissance in the genre, but Lucy is by far the worst. Stay well clear.

Directed by John Pogue

The Quite Ones is one of the most ridiculous films I've seen in a long time. The story is ludicrous. A mad professor and his assistants (two posh boys and a slapper with a nice arse) set out to perform an experiment on a young mentally ill girl, who was recently released from a nuthouse. After losing funding from Oxford University for his ridiculous experiment, the professor moves it out to a large dilapidated country house.

The fact that Oxford Uni would have anything to do with such an experiment is what makes the whole premise of the films plot so ridiculous. A young girl, who has previously attempted suicide, is subjected to a series of invasive experiments, which, according to the professors theory, will summon not only an ancient demon, but also awaken the girls dormant telekinetic powers..

The film tries to pay homage to the vintage haunted house films of the 70's, and succeeded in its style and theme, but ruined it with the inclusion of found-footage.
The films trailer was actually scarier than the film. The were only two scenes that actually made me nervous, but the rest were mindbogglingly tediousness. The found-footage element was unnecessary and only used to create the contrived attempts at jump-scares which were, for the most part, unsuccessful. Lacking any original ideas as regards scaring the viewer, the filmmakers just resorted to strange noises, screaming and cheap CGI effects.

Character development was rushed and forever perplexing, the performances were pretty good, but the characters were just dumb and annoying. The only convincing character was the professor himself (Jarid Harris) who convincingly portrayed a narcissistic madmen. The film culminates with a cheap CGI set-piece, which is as underwhelming as most of the ninety eight minutes proceeding it.

The Quiet Ones is not very original or very scary and has a completely vacuous plot. I'm guessing most hardcore Hammer Horror fans won't be pleased with this mess. That said, it may prove entertaining to the late night Netflix viewers of the world.

Directed by Rupert Wyatt

I don't know what message the directer was trying to get across with this mess but I hope it's remains neatly buried in his lower intestine.

A wealthy and successful writer and university professor, Mark Wahlberg, transforms into a compulsive gambling waster every time he steps foot in the seedy and sanitationaly questionable backstreet gambling dens he frequents in his spare time.

While he's not spewing out his self-opinionated absurdly contrived sewage at his students, he tries his best to lose as much money as possible betting ridiculous amounts on games of blackjack, whilst pissing off gangsters, loan sharks and his millionaire mother in the process. What the motivation is for his behavior is anyone's guess: rebelling against his wealthy upbringing, living inline with his chaos theory-like, nihilistic, bullsh1t philosophy of life..? Whatever his motivation, he comes across as the most loathsome little sh1t imaginable.

To cut a long story short, he pays off his debts and decides he's not a gambler anymore, making most of this terrible tripe a pointless build-up to nothing. I was hoping his creditors would at least castrate or torture him to death, what a shame.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Directed by Nicholas Stoller

Seth Rogen is one of the most annoying men alive - that covers most of this review. The film is ridiculously far-fetched, cliched, colorful and immature teen turd, which makes the more recent American Pie sequels look like deeply thought-provoking artistic masterpieces. 3-foot-long penises....this is a low point for cinema.
The highlights: it ends.

Directed by Nick Cassavetes

It was like watching and extended episode of the The Waltons, Dawnson Creek and Neighbors all in one. I felt like giving up at one point, but I stuck it out. I like romance when it's done right, but this is just corny as hell. This could have ending Mr Gosling's career before it got started..shame.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Directed by Mike Flanagan

As it was partly a WWE production, I was initially skeptical about Oculus, but it turned to be pretty good. Also, as a Doctor Who fan, I was looking forward to seeing Karen Gillan on the big screen, I wasn't disappointed.

The film has a twisted roller coaster of a plot, that I didn't really understand fully on the first viewing. The story plays out in two different time periods: present day, and 11 years earlier, and swaps between them as the film progresses. The plot involves siblings Tim and Kaylie, and starts in the past with older Tim shooting a his younger sister (told you it's a twisted plot). Tim had always blamed his shooting his sister on a mirror in the family living room, which he claimed had some kind of dark power. In present day, older Tim is released from the nuthouse, and is met by his sister Kaylie, who he apparently didn't shoot in the past at all...

The story doesn't make sense at first, but slowly unravels, so stick with it. Kaylie tells Tim that she has purchased to strange mirror again, and wanted to performed a little experiment to find out what happened 11 years earlier. So, if Tim didn't shoot his sister who did he shoot?... He shot his Dad. After the evil spirit of a woman came out of the mirror and drove his parents insane, his dad attacked him, so he was forced to shoot him. While Tim was locked up, Kaylie did some research on the mirror, and discovered that everyone who has owned it in the past has either disappeared or been killed. Who said starbuck was dead..

The film continues swapping between past and present, showing us how Kaylie and Tim's lives play out in both timelines. Once you find out that the mirror has the power to create illusions and can convinced people they aren't where they really are, you will be able to figure out whats really happening (mostly).

Backed up by a great soundtrack, Oculus is a mind-bending ghost story with plenty of tense scenes that will have you on the edge on your seat. There are a few shock scares in there as well, one of which made me spill my beer, lol. As well having a complex and compelling plot, the cast were great too. Karen Gillan was great as Kaylie (I'm looking forward to seeing her in more films). It was also nice to see Katie Sackhoff in a film again, I've been a fan of her's after first watching Battlestar Gallactica.

Most people will watch Oculus and think I doesn't make sense. I thought the same thing about Donnie Darko the first time I saw that, but after a few viewings, it became and still is one of my favorite films. So give it a chance.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I want to rep some of your reviews but I can't. Lucy, The Gamber and Bad Neighbours where all okay films. Ime not saying there excellent, but there still pretty good.

I can live without the reps.;)

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Great reviews SFS. I missed '71 at the cinema but you've reminded me about it now, sounds good specially as you liked Hunger too as I did.
Oculus sounds interesting. I love ghost stories.

Directed by James Cameron

After almost 30 years Aliens remains probably the best sci-fi action films out there. Released 7 years after Ridley Scott's seminal genre defining masterpiece, Aliens sees the return of Lieutenant Ellen Ripley who, after drifting in space for 57 years after escaping the Nostromo and the Xenomorph that slaughtered her crew, is called upon again by Weyland-Yutani, the shady corporation she worked for as a flight officer.

It becomes apparent that Weyland-Yutani have been busy on LV-426 (the planetoid where Ripley's first crew encountered the Xenomorph.) The geniuses have setup a colony on the desolate world and terraformed it with oxygen generators. Low and behold, they loose contact with the colony and Ripley is sent in with a platoon of colonial marines, and a company slime-ball named Carter Burke.

From the start the film has the same dark and tense atmosphere of the first film. And despite having more of emphasis on action, the characters are just as complex and memorable. Corporal Dwayne Hicks is the replacement to Captain Dallas in that that he is Ripley's closest alley in the group of rag-tag marines - and they soon find themselves in the middle of the alien nest, fighting for their lives against the Xenomorph horde.

A few characters in Aliens mirror those of the first film: Bishop the android for Ash, Hicks for Dallas, and Newt the young girl they discover crawling around the air-ducts of LV-426 represents the daughter that Ripley lost during her many years in hyper sleep. So the characters and plot follow on quite closely to the first film, the only different is the style of film. Aliens is an all-out action fest, here as Alien is a slow burner psychological thriller - a big change that some fans didn't appreciate. So really, Aliens can't really be compared with its predecessor to be fare, they are completely different kinds of film. This fact doesn't make the directing any less brilliant.

James Cameron nailed it with Aliens: well designed weapons, props, vehicles and clothing courtesy of the late H.R. Giger; a great script and characters, and, like all of Cameron's films, a great soundtrack. Still James Cameron's best film for me, and I think it will remain in my top five action-sci-fi's for a long time to come.

I didn't hate Lucy like you did, but I thought it was mediocre. It was only worth watching to drool over Scarlett.

Despite your reviews, I still want to see The Gambler and Neighbors.

I also want to see Oculus.

Aliens is one of the best movies ever made, you know that brother!

Directed by Neill Blomkamp

It was a good idea directed badly. For most of the film I kept asking myself if it was all a joke or if I was hallucinating. Surely no one could have intentionally created characters as ridiculous and a script so lame as this. And so the plot goes: Dev 'Slumdog' Patel plays a scientist who has created a robot police force which has cut crime in Johannesburg by 90%. Hugh Jackman plays his rival in the same robotics company who is himself looking for approval to deploy his own much larger robot. It's just like the plot of Robocop, but instead of having Clarence Boddicker and his gang to deal with, the robot police have a collection of unlikely and brightly coloured villains who look like characters from 90's video games.

After an accident, one robot in the factory is due to be scrapped, but Dev Patel saves him and implants his new breakthrough artificial intelligence software into the droid's memory. The mindless automaton becomes self aware but has the mind of a child, at which point the young scientist is kidnapped by a gang of criminals, who intend to use 'Chappie' the newly conscience robot, to pull off a daring heist. Now most of the film is wasted with the attempts of the inept and quite frankly ridiculous looking criminals to teach Chappie how to be a criminal. These bad ass gangsters have an affinity for brightly coloured things, crap haircuts, and even worse tattoos. That, and the acting from the trio of crims leaves a lot to be desired. Hugh Jackman, who looks just as silly as the criminals in this weird film - looking like a cross between Indiana Jones and Steve Irwin - eventually turns bad, and tries to kill everyone in sight with his huge battle robot called 'The Moose'.

If it weren't for the battle scenes I'd have 2-starred this film. The entertaining and impressive special effects during such scenes was just what I was expecting from Blomkamp, it's just a shame that he didn't pay as much attention to the rest of the film. It could have been the new Short Circuit (or a least a very violent Short Circuit.) I liked the ending, which leaves you wondering about a possible sequel. All in all, a bit of a misfire from Blomkamp who, as he proved with District 9, is capable of a lot better.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Nothing about this film tells me I want to see it... But that review has piqued my interest. :D

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Good to see you updating this thread, Slob. Too bad you disliked most of what you've seen lately.

Dead Snow sounds like a lot of fun. I remember reading about it a few years ago and meaning to seek it out, but I had pretty much forgotten about it until Swan recently watched it.

Lucy is one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen.

I don't think I've even seen a trailer or anything for The Quiet Ones, but it sounds like every other PG-13 horror that comes along nowadays. No interest for me.

Despite your scathing response, I'm still somewhat interested in The Gambler.

Personally, I think Seth Rogen's hilarious, but the jokes in Neighbors mostly missed the mark for me. I certainly didn't hate it like you did, but I thought it was a middling disappointment. I remember watching The Notebook with my ex at the time, back when it first came out. Everyone with a vagina used to be obsessed with that movie.

I only skimmed over your review for Oculus, since you started giving away more than I wanted to know. Like The Babadook, the trailer looked pretty lame, but a lot of people seem to really dig it.

Aliens is awesome.

Admittedly, the idea of a "very violent Short Circuit" sounds pretty cool, so it's disappointing that Chappie seems to be such a mess. I'm still looking forward to watching it at some point, but my expectations have plummeted after reading all the negative feedback.

:laugh:

I just saw the trailer for Chappie a couple days ago and thought it looked promising. Unfortunately, it looks like you're not the only one who doesn't care for it.

Directed by Eten Cohen

It's films like this that are ensuring the demise of the comedy.To start with, I don't think Will Ferrell is funny at all. He is one of the new breed of American comedians whose sense of humour and comedic style seems to completely escape me. The new style I'm talking about is present in most American sit-coms, The Big Bang Theory is a perfect example. Obliviously Americans and Brits have differing sense of humour, because our TV show have always been different, but as far as films go there used to be really funny America films; the 80's and 90's where the golden years, and produced some real classics.

This new breed of comedy films are badly scripted and the humour is completely reliant upon completely contrived and extremely unlikely scenarios; everything has to be taken to the extreme just to produce a reaction. I want to go back to the eighties style, with a well-scripted, subtle, and altogether more effective style of comedy - the films of the late John Hughes are a perfect example.

As far a Get Hard is concerned, Will Ferrell is just annoying throughout and the plot is ridiculous. As a millionaire banker who is accused of fraud, he has been given 10 years in prison, and 30 days to prepare before he goes to the slammer. So, he employs the services of a car washer who works in the basement of his office building. The basis for which is the usual racial stereotypes that are strew throughout the film. He transforms his mansion into a prison and learns how to fight... And under the presumption that he will be sexually assaulted in prison, he goes to a gay bar and asks a man if he can suck his appendage. The subsequent toilet scene is just sickening rubbish, typical of these kinds of comedies. Most of the film is the same old ridiculous scenarios and extreme reactions to practically nothing. There are a few laughs along the way, but not many, and I think this will be the last Will Farrell film I will watch. This tripe has put me off watching comedies altogether to be honest.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I see you've changed the layout format at the top of each of your reviews.


Looks very familiar, can't think for the life of me where I've seen it before though :D

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

The director's name sounds awfully familiar if you pronounce it wrongly. ;)

It's a mystery..;:p

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I think I'll like Get Hard. I love will Farrel and I tend to like silly comedy's.

I also believe the 80's were the best time for comedies, but I still find the occasional one I love. I do want to try this one because I like Will Farrell. I think he's been in a lot of crap movies, but Old School buys him a lot of leeway with me.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I think that Get Hard movie sounds good from that review.......

But, the humor absolutely could suck a lot. I've seen some really awful Will Ferrell movies where the humor is just strange and non-existent. But the setup to this movie sounds funny IN THEORY (turning a mansion into a prison to prepare for the real thing).

That actually sounds pretty funny to me.

Usually the trailer will feature the only funny parts in a movie, but even the trailers and TV spots for Get Hard have been terrible. It looks like a movie that was cobbled together quickly without much thought or creativity, like producers just wanted to take advantage of Kevin Hart's current popularity by teaming him up with Will Ferrell. Don't worry about a script or premise. Just throw them on screen together and hope that hilarity ensues.

I generally like Will Ferrell. He was brilliant on Saturday Night Live and I love Talladega Nights. He's funny, but a lot of times his comedies become overly obnoxious and idiotic, like with Anchorman.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I love Step Brothers and that's pretty crap :). I seen that bathroom scene on the trailer and found it funny. Doesn't he try to do a eskimo blow job haha.

Directed by Ingmar Bergman

This was more of an experience then a film. If you take all the emotion you ever felt from the viewing of any film and multiply it by a thousand, then you get close to what I just felt watching Persona. The first five minutes of fast, flashing, introduction of surrealist imagery, which subsequently creates the basis for the plot, are the most unsettling and stomach churning I've seen in a film.

The only way I can explain what this film made me feel is like being trapped in someone else's depressed mind (if that makes sense.) The viewer becomes immediately enveloped in the ever increasing feeling of unease and tension as the nurse and her silent patience's minds become melded in a chaos of self-examination, reverse psychology and dependency. Everything in this film is measured to perfection: the sound effects and camera work are amazing, and I especially liked the kind of intermission crafted from sharp sounds and images used to signal a breaking point in the relationship of the two women.

Toward the end of the film, when the truth is revealed about the silent actresses past and cause of her silence, every scene is amazingly tense, powerful and brilliantly filmed. The drip-drop sound effect, which reappeared throughout the film, is eerily effective and cuts right straight through you. Obviously, I have a lot of unanswered questions, which isn't surprising for a film this complex, which has been studied for years, and will require multiple re-viewings to interpret, (Which I'm looking forward to). At first, I was a little dubious before watching the film, as I thought it might be a little too complex for it's own good (and mine.) But instead it has quenched my thirst for this kind of cinema - a kind I watch far too little of.

I feel like you Slob, I just watched Persona about a month ago, but really think that I have to watch it again soon.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Right on!

Directed by Christopher Nolan

In a word: breathtaking. That's the only way I can describe Interstellar. Set in the not too distant future, the film follows a former astronaut-come farmer, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), as he struggles to keep his crops alive on a dry, desolate and dying world. Whatever the cause, the earth is dying, soon there won't enough food to sustain the remaining population. But a last hope comes in the shape of a strange phenomenon which Cooper and his daughter discover.

Soon they find themselves imprisoned in what turns out to be a secret Nasa base, run by some of Cooper's former Nasa colleges, (an unlikely coincidence which is easily forgiveable, considering how good the rest of the film is). Professor Brand (Michael Kane) has a proposition for Cooper: he wants to take part in a mission to travel through a wormhole in search of a habitable world for mankind to start a fresh on. Cooper obviously excepts an the great quest begins. Backed up by a amazing soundtrack, the film contains elements of many different classic sci-fi books: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Contact, and The Long Earth , creating an altogether more exhilarating experience than Gravity provides - and one of the most awe-inspiring cinematic experiences of my life. The film is also packed with emotion, especially during the time dilation video conversations in which Cooper talks to his now much older children (which had me in tears).

Christopher Nolan took everything that made Inception great, perfected them, and incorporated them into Interstellar. Not just the cutting edge special effects, but the mysterious and surreal dimension crossing which seamlessly melds two styles of science fiction: the space based epics of Arthur C. Clarke and Asimov with the more psychological sci-fi Philip K. Dick. The plot pretty much unfolds in the same way as Inception did, with all the pieces of the mystery slowly coming together to create a nail-biting ending. I don't want to give too much away, but the ending is brilliant and very moving indeed.

Now, whenever a film like this comes along, sci-fi geeks like myself will ask the same question: is it as good as 2001? Well, this is the only film that has come close - so close in fact - that I may have answered yes to that question...maybe.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I love your thoughts/feelings on Persona. Such a hypnotic, mesmerizing film. I'm not going to pretend that I understand everything about the film -- although, like you, I have a strong desire to watch it many more times and take from it as much as I can -- but that doesn't stop me from loving it. Chances are it will be on my 60's list.

Not seen Interstellar yet, but that's some pretty high praise you just gave it.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Great review of Persona, you'll know that I felt very similarly. Like Spaulding I haven't seen Interstellar either, although it's probably the most popular that I missed from last year so I should sort that out. I have it ready to watch, and recent adverts/trailers and your review make me even more interested :) I also like these dividers you've added in to your reviews under the posters and cast list, kind of subtle but very smart.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Would I like Interstellar? Should I get it? I almost did, but I hesitated after reading the confusing plot synopsis on Wikipedia (I sometimes spoil the movie for myself just to see if it's really something I should get -- Interstellar's plot seemed iffy and didn't provoke me to buy the movie).

Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Bible.

That's not the answer I want to hear and you know it.

What I want to know is -- is Interstellar basically Dallas Buyers Club in space?

Errm ..not really.

Okay.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

The thing for me is one of the best sci fi horrors ever made, the whole premise, the whole mood of the film, the setting, from the first minute when u see the helicopter chasing the dog, with that erie music, u feel it's an atmospheric film, absolute classic, i recommend it to everyone, no wonder it has an 8.2/10 rating on imdb, one of the best scifis ever made indeed, it hasn't aged also, which is even more tremendous.

Directed by Dan Gilroy

Featuring Jake Gyllenhall's best performance to date, Nightcrawler is a thrilling and thought-provoking critique of society's desensitisation and thirst for gore. Gyllenhall plays one of the creepiest characters ever - a cold-hearted little sociopath named Louis Bloom - a petty thief turned amateur cameraman..

Bloom witnesses a car accident one evening and sees some amateur cameramen capturing footage of the wreckage, Bloom thinks he can do better, and he stops at nothing to achieve that. He starts capturing his own footage and taking to a local new centre where he sells it. Which is when he meets TV news supervisor Nini Romina (Rene Russo) and develops a controlling relationship with her. Bloom will stop at nothing to capture the most disturbing and goriest footage possible and doesn't mind breaking the law in the process.

The scene where Bloom and Nini have dinner together is probably the finest portrayal of a true sociopath. The way Bloom gains leverage and eventual control over his boss is a thing of beauty -- he even attempts to blackmail her into sleeping with him. The controlling relationships and the way he treats people makes Hannibal Lector seem like a empathic, warm-hearted little soul. His black, dead eyes are really creepy, and at no point does he show the least bit of remorse for the mayhem he causes.

I was on the edge of my seat during the Diner scene and subsequent car chase, and also amazed at the lows that Bloom will stoop to to get the story he needs. Nightcrawler is more than just another story about a sociopath. It's a scathing commentary on a corrupt media where ratings override the basic principles of ethics and morals. "If it bleeds it leads" as the slogan says.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Per your review, I decided to get Interstellar, but I haven't watched it yet.

Saw Nightcrawler last month and gave it the same rating. I also agree about Jake's performance and character. Good one, Slob.

Directed by Ridley Scott

Having seen Blade Runner in its several different incarnations around forty times over the years, I may have been forgiven for getting a little tired of the film. However, after viewing The Final Cut of the film at the cinema last night, I found myself covered liberally in goosebumps and left in awe of the brilliance of what I was watching. The opening scene of a fast, fire-breathing industrial landscape combined with the haunting Vangelis score, had the same effect on me as it always has - amazement.

From the start I was seamlessly immersed in the intoxicating atmosphere of a rainswept, polluted, and over crowded dystopian Los Angeles. Very loosely adapted from the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep the film maintains the basis of the books story and the questions it asks the reader. The question of life to put it simply - what is it, can man create it, should he - questions we will no doubt one day have to answer. Whilst the plot of the film is quite simple, the film is full of ambiguous overtones, both philosophical and ethical. There is one fundamental question asked by this dark dystopian story, where men have practically become gods with their mastery of genetic engineering: what makes us human?

Rutger Hauer’s performance is outstanding. As a replicant seeking to live longer, he ironically seems to be the most alive of all the characters in the film. In contrast with Deckard, who seems to be in a constant state of apathy. The "Tears in the Rain" ending of the film always has an effect on me, but in the cinema it was an altogether different experience - the greatest experience I've had to date.

The combination of dystopian sci-fi and film noir blend perfectly to create a dark, melancholy atmosphere. The city itself has it has a life of its own - probably the most effective vision of a dystopian city ever brought to the screen. In my opinion, Blade Runner is the greatest and most influential sci-fi ever made. It set the benchmark for all proceeding non-space based sci-fi, and remains a timeless masterpiece.

In a world where technology has taken over, we have destroyed the environment and most animals are extinct and corporations have become gods, one can only wonder if Ridley Scott has made an accurate predication of the future.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

Glad to see you got to view it at the cinema. I noticed the BFI did a great job in rolling out a few Sci-Fi classics across the country (I managed to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey late last year). A classic film of course, and it's great to read your personalised review and to hear how much you enjoyed viewing it on the big screen.

The second World War is raging across Europe, millions are dead, and the allies find themselves at a tactical disadvantage, all thanks to the apparently unbreakable German Enigma code. In a concerted effort to break the German code, British intelligence hire the very best cryptographers and mathematicians on the planet.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Turing delivers one of the best performances of recent memory. A nearly two-hour runtime flies by thanks to the tight and masterful script from Graham Morton. The films cinematography has a classic, timeless look especially in the outdoor scenes shot on location in Bletchley Park.

Frequent flashbacks cut back to Turing’s time at a boarding school in which he befriends a boy by the name of Christopher (the name he later gives his code braking machine). As the flashbacks reveal more and more about Turing, he inches closer and closer to building a device that will help break the Enigma code. He faces opposition from his team. Keira Knightly plays Joan Clarke, Turing’s go to confidante for all information both professional and personal. The chemistry between the two is palpable at times.

Ultimately, his story is one that ended tragically, but the film chooses not to focus on that, but instead to celebrate his legacy.The Imitation Game is one of the best biopics I've seen in years. And if it hadn't faced such strong competition, I think it may have won a few Oscars.

Fresh, innovative, groundbreaking,unique are just a few of the words I could use to describe this film - it's a one-off. Birdman is the story of a washed-up middle aged actor who used to play a super hero character called 'Birdman'. Riggan (Michael Keaton), takes us on his roller coaster ride back to the top of the business and to make a amends with his estranged family.

The first thing that hits you right from the start is the cinematography - it's amazing! At first I just thought I was watching a single take long scene, a set-piece to set the film off, but then it just seamlessly continued, not only giving the film its uniques one-take feel, but also succeeding in doing something very few directors would have even attempted. In the entire two hours of the film, there must have been five transitions, tops.

The plot is very funny as Michael Keaton and Edward Norton clash throughout the film. Norton plays an ego maniac actor who is cast in Keaton's new play, and they can't stand each other. Keaton has to put up with Norton's antics because the play is his last chance to save his career. Emma Stone plays Keaton's troubled daughter who supports him along the way, but is at the same time a little embarrassed by him. You get an authentic feel of a fast paced and hectic backstage theater atmosphere, created by the one-shot filming. Not only that, but the sets are very well designed -- from the brightly colored neon lit stage sets and busy corridors, to the dingy dressing rooms -- everything has a fresh, vibrant, metropolitan feel.

The chaotic atmosphere in which he works matches Keaton's state of mind during most of the film. He's looks like he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown most of the time, and he every so often disappears into one of his little daydreams where he takes on the superpowers of his 'Birdman' character, and goes for a fly around New York. The scene when he is locked out of the theater and ends up walking around New York in his y-fronts, had me in stitches. Not only is Birdman a wacky comedy and a cinematic marvel, but it also has some complex and subtle undertones as well. A lot has also been said about the ending -- which I think was a very clever metaphorical and ambiguous scene -- which will have you asking the question: is he flying or is he dead?

The one standout highlight in this otherwise mediocre biopic/drama were the performances of Steve Carell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo. I never thought I'd ever be praising the talents of Channing Tatum, but he was actually pretty good in this, and his chemistry with Ruffalo was spot on as well. The narrative, however, was thin --very thin -- and stretched across the films two hour running time like boot cut jeans over a sumo wrestlers posterior.

The story of Foxcatcher concerns eccentric millionaire John du Pont; heir to the Du Pont family fortune. A life time wrestling enthusiast, Du Pont recruits the Olympic gold medal winning Schultz brothers, Dave and Mark in order to coach Mark to a gold medal at the upcoming Seoul Olympics, and to have the brothers coach young wrestlers at his state of the art training facility.

Du Pont was brilliantly portrayed by Carell; he came across as brooding little momma's boy, who, at every chance he could get, would intimidate his wrestling recruits by flexing his financial muscles. You'd think, though, that a film about an eccentric and unstable, wrestling obsessed millionaire who eventually went mad, would have a bit more action in it, but the film was just uninspiring and boring for the most part; it resembled a history channel documentary with Hollywood stars acting out the reconstructions. It's quite obvious that the film was just monstrously let down by its piss poor script.

In hindsight, I've thought less and less of Foxcatcher since seeing it about a month ago. Boy, did that movie drag.

I thought Birdman was great also.

The Imitation Game is that good, eh? Maybe I'll take your word for it and give it a shot.

Directed by Jennifer Kent

I understand now why this film has received such a warm response, it's a masterclass in subtle and complex storytelling, and is as much a character study on how grief can effect people, as it is an all-out horror film.

The plot is about a widow, Amelia, and her young son Samuel. The boy is misbehaving constantly and becomes obsessed by a pop-up children's book called Mr. Babadook. The book is really creepy with disturbing images, and when it depicts the death of Amelia and Sam, Amelia rips it up, only to find it on the doorstep the next day fully restored. The Babadook stands out from the most recent horror films in that it doesn't rely solely on jump scares, but instead, slowly creates dread and suspense and taps into the audience's emotions through the psychological instability of the main character. The film scares the audience in a more subtle and psychological way, and the closet thing I can compare it to is The Shining

As the main character, Amelia, starts to lose her mind the Babadook appears. The monster's appearances are few and far between but very effective and well timed. The directer has left it the audience the interpret exactly what the Babadook is and what it means. Why own interpretation is that it represents Amelia's inner demons - her depression over her husbands death taking over, which could ultimately lead to her taking her own life and her son's. Amelia's eventual descent into madness is terrifying and chilling, and the ending leaves at lot of unanswered questions.. The performances from the two actors were amazing. The style of the film set the perfect tone and the monster itself was extremely creepy and looked very impressive.The Babadook has cult film written all of it. An unorthodox and well made film which has breathed a breath of fresh air into the horror genre.

I liked it too, but my favorite thing was driving my wife crazy by just saying Babadook Babadook Babadook Babadook over and over again.

Re: The Sci-Fi Slob's Movie Reviews
 

I repped this earlier.


So wanted to catch this after it slipped under the radar and I heard good things about it. I even asked in the Shoutbox a few weeks ago.


Might grab a DVD on Friday based on this review.


Good review bud!

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Much like Joaquin Phoenix throughout the film, I think you would have to be as high as a kite to even write a synopsis for this film, let alone a review; as I imagine Paul Thomas Anderson must have been when he directed it. I tried my best but I just didn't get what the film was trying to do. Playing out at times more like a surreal comedy like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, rather than a noir detective story.

From about twenty minutes in, I didn't know or want to know, what the plot was about, I really didn't care. I also didn't detect any detective story in there; if there was one, then it must have dispersed among the many of Joaquin Phoenix's psychedelic drug binges. Don't get me wrong, the film is hilarious and both Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin are excellent in it. The problem is, I didn't know where the comedy finished and crime drama began. Most of the film felt disjointed and lacked energy, and I almost fell asleep half way through the two and a half hours, which felt like an eternity. I think Inherent Vice is a bit of a misfire by Paul Thomas Anderson - a classic case of a novel not converting well into a film.

The few hilarious moments and great performances are this film's only saving grace. I just hope PTA will be back on form for his next film.

I still want to see it