Rodent's Reviews

Review #52: From Dusk Till Dawn.

Two brothers, on the run for the brutal murder of innocent people and police officers, kidnap a family while on the road and force them into driving across the America-Mexico border where they have promised to let them go free.
Upon crossing the border just before nightfall, they stop at an out of town strip club where they find a world much more dangerous than anyone could have ever imagined.

It’s another extremely well made movie from Rodriguez and Tarantino. The storytelling is absolutely brilliant with character design and dialogue placement.
The second half of the film is another original point, the viewer never sees it coming (which is why I'm leaving this review relatively bare with smaller details, in case there are people reading who have never seen the film).

There’s also expansion with the characters and their pasts and a coming-to-terms plotline for most of them too, for instance with a faithless preacher who must rediscover his faith and the losses and gains that all of the characters experience throughout the film.
There’s a massive amount of Rodriguez’s stylish violence too. It’s loud, fast, brutal and gory and contains a lot of humour throughout the action scenes too, which give an extra level of authenticity to the action. It’s also really well choreographed.

The acting is another massive thumbs up.
George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino as the brothers are brilliantly contrasting. Clooney is tough and take charge and extremely calculating and intelligent, where as Tarantino is the perverted, slightly dumber ‘follower’ and a bit of a loose cannon. The audience even begins to care for the brothers toward the end too, which is a brilliant piece of writing and acting.
Juliette Lewis is fantastic as the daughter of the family, who is out of her depth in the circumstances who has to toughen up toward the end.
Harvey Keitel as the father of the family and faithless preacher, is also absolutely spot on. Keitel really lifts the troubled character from the page.

It’s hard to find any faults with the film really.
Maybe the special effects at the end suffer a touch with the low budget, but it’s barely recognisable as a fault. More of a Ghostbusters fault i.e; The effects have their own low budget style, but yet, fit the film.

All in all, it’s a brilliantly written, funny, gory, stylish and violent film with some great twists and even better acting, and all on a relatively low budget.
It’s also very underrated, though my rating is still up there... at 95%

__________________

Nice review of the Turtles by the way. My favourite film as a kid and still a strong favourite even now. So much so that I placed it at #20 I think on my top 100 list.

And I've also always been a fan of Evolution even though it doesn't get a lot of love

Just wondering what you mean by this though

__________________

Tmnt source material being exactly that: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

It's such an odd idea and so far out there, that to make a film that is as good as it is, that is by far one of the best films of its genre, time and well, time, is absolute genius.

To the point: It is a rare piece of filmmaking.

http://www.movieforums.com/community...d.php?p=776705

Watch the sequel, I thought it was one of the worst sequels ever, curious to know what you think.

__________________

I was pretty disappointed by 30 Days of Night. I didn't hate it exactly.... it just felt mediocre and shallow compared to its premise, which I thought was really cool.

My main problem with it was that they bungled the passage of time in the film so badly, it never felt like the epic struggle for survival that it should have been. Also, the acting was less than engaging. Not exactly bad... just predictable.

I would watch a remake if it had more interesting players, and was a longer movie that spent more time on build-up, characters, and didn't rush through the weeks after the vamps slaughter most of the town just to get to some trite "exciting" predictable climactic showdown.

I have nothing to say about the sequel other than it looks cheap.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

I don't know. I really liked the cinematagrophy in 30 Days OF Night and Josh Hartnett wasn't bad. The sequel was not as good.

Oh, I liked the look of the film too, and the vamps were great. I just think the execution didn't live up to the potential, story-wise.

Review #53: I, Robot.

Based on Isaac Asimov’s short stories, a murder investigation draws a police detective into a secret experiment that was carried out by the man who was murdered.
Within the experiment is a robot named Sonny, who is more than he seems. Along side is a computer ‘psychiatrist’ who will help the detective with the mystery of ‘apparent killer robots’ and the officer in question is also, more than he seems.
However, there are more powerful entities in their way and the mystery of the ‘killer robots’ is much more deadly than they had first feared.

It’s a good piece of writing for a Hollywood story though as usual with Hollywood, it utilises an original idea from the past, in this case from 1950, and updates it with CGI, gimmicks and flashiness.

The CGI however doesn’t disappoint, it’s absolutely bang on the money and doesn’t fail in any way, but sometimes it gets a little too much.
More practical effects could have been welcome in the film, it feels too separated from reality. It goes for more flash than substance.

The storyline and plot itself is another good point, it’s easy to figure out straight from the start, but it keeps its tension and mystery throughout which isn’t easy considering the audience can see the reveal right from the very start.
The elements of comedy within the dialogue and occasional hints of character expansion are a welcome addition, but sadly, there’s just not enough to keep the viewer fixed to the screen for the running time.
It’s extremely 123 with the plot and story. Typical of Hollywood.

The main problem lies with the fact that Asimov’s original writings are pretty much ignored throughout, only the basic plot point are used are the Three Laws Of Robotics and a scene where Sonny attempts to hide in a crowd.

It’s not the only fault either, Will Smith is relatively type-cast as the hero: The line "…You’re a cat, I’m black…" says it all.
Smith is very ‘1990s Fresh Prince’ and nowhere near the futuristic society character the movie strives to achieve.
Smith however, is an enjoyable Lead Actor as usual, and does his thang in his style.
The rest of the acting however, is pretty standard for the CGI laden epic it tries to be.
Alan Tudyk as the voice and motion capture of ‘Sonny’ is a brilliant piece of filmmaking and acting. He's extremly believable and very well modelled.

I will say though, after all the bad points, is that the action scenes are extremely well choreographed, very exciting, fast and explosive. They’re by far the best thing about the film.

Other than that, all in all, it’s an enjoyable film for anyone who hasn’t read the short stories, and for teenagers who want to see exciting CGI action. Anyone else may find themselves digging dirt out of their fingernails during the running time.
My rating 60%

Review #54: Spielberg’s War Of The Worlds.

Ray, a divorcee and lazy and absent father, has his two kids pushed onto him for the weekend when his ex-wife goes away with her new hubby. His son hates him and his daughter treats him like his ex-wife used to.
Out of the blue, a massive lightning storm hits his hometown and shorts out every electronic gizmo in the area. Cars, phones, watches, everything is shorted out.
Before the trio is able to gather their thoughts on the mysterious event, an alien attack hits and they are thrown into a fight for survival where Ray must now become a protective father to his kids and they in turn must do as their father says.
Cue lots of odd trio situations and mild humour amongst the fall of mankind.

It’s an interesting take on the WOTW storyline. The absent father and broken family fixing all their problems is a typical Spielberg trait and mixing it to a remake of a 1950s sci-fi classic.

Sadly though, it feels just as lazy as the lead character Ray.
It is literally that, a remake of the original movie, but with the added sub stories and plot changes, it feels even farther removed from the original source material of Wells’ book.
It’s just another alien attack movie and not a very good one either.

I will say though, that the CGI is pretty good, it’s rendered well and the aliens themselves are (albeit nothing like the original film or the book) pretty original and well rendered. The aliens are quite spooky at times too.
What lets the CGI down, especially the tripod machines, is that they’re barely threatening and, near the beginning they’re hidden behind sun flares in the camera lens.

The other thing missing is any mention of the planet Mars, instead using a lazy, last-minute-thought 'twist' on where the aliens come from.

What the film really lacks is any depth. It tries to get it using Tom Cruise’s character Ray having to go through the emotional battle of being a dad for the first time but, sadly, it’s Tom Cruise in the lead role.
He does an apt job, the filmmakers were quoted as trying to "De-Tom-Cruise, Tom Cruise", but I can’t take Cruise seriously outside of anything other than a pearly-toothed-romantic-comedy-hunk, or, a full-on-brainless-action-hero role.

Dakota Fanning is good as the daughter, she has an old soul about her, though she does little but squeal and shout, throw tantrums and cry throughout the entire film, which gets a little tiresome by the end.

All in all, it’s mainly a miss affair and certainly not worthy of the title it carries, but is a half decent movie in its own right. It will appeal to anyone who wants a non-threatening CGI adventure with a Spielberg-esk family subplot as a backdrop. Personally, if I wanted that sort of film, I'd watch Close Encounters.
My rating is a mid 50%

Review #55: Blade Runner.

I said last night that I’d ping up a review for Blade Runner. So here it is.
A group of genetically engineered androids, known as Replicants, return to Earth illegally in search of their creator. Replicants are perfect imitations of life, whether it be human, or animal.
A retired cop called Rick Deckard, who was once a Blade Runner (basically a hunter/killer of malfunctioning Replicants), is brought back into action to stop the droids as they have been deemed as malfunctioning and classed as dangerous after they begin killing people in their search of their master.

The story, as a whole, is an absolute masterpiece from Ridley Scott. It contains almost every part of the movie world’s genres: Humour, satire, morals, humanity, sci-fi, sex, violence, exciting action, everything. It even adds the aura of mystery with the characters too, especially the Replicants. Are they truly just imitations of life?
It’s extremely well written in terms of storyline too. It’s a basic premise: Robots searching for their creator, who in turn are being hunted.

But around this premise, Scott, using Phillip K Dick’s original writings and has created an entire Universe around it.

It’s also a very grounded movie in its self as well.
Yes it’s laden with futuristic sci-fi, but like with Scott’s other sci-fi marvel Alien, it feels real in the way it looks and plays out.
There’s no superhuman quality to the ‘hero’ Rick Deckard, he’s not some super-robot-hunter, he’s human and has weaknesses. The Replicants ‘powers’ are very drawn back into reality too, they’re not superduper, megapowerful machines like, say, Sonny in I, Robot.

It makes for an extremely enjoyable and yet also haunting movie that makes you look at mankind and technology in a philosophical way.
For anyone who wants guns out action, it has that too. Which is something missing from modern movies of this genre.

The acting is another marvel of creation.
Harrison Ford is brilliant as Deckard. As I said before, he’s very grounded and real, dirty, grimy and human. Yet has a tough side to him that gives an impression of learned skills rather than just being a tough guy who is written as just simply being a tough guy.
Rutger Hauer as the Replicant ‘leader’ called Roy Batty, is another mark of genius from the filmmakers. Hauer is wonderfully enigmatic and has a fantastic other world quality to him. His character’s programming, acted by Hauer, gives the character a completely different ‘human’ level, not found in many movie characters since, if ever.

Some of the special effects are a little old by today’s standard but they add to the film it their own way and the action scenes are brilliantly choreographed.
Again they’re based in a ‘reality’ rather than just being an all-out-jumping-100-feet-in-the-air-robots-vs-humans-actioner-with-battle-armour.

All in all, it’s another movie that has shaped the future of movies since it’s creation and is certainly a must-own on home cinema.
My rating is an easily given 100%

I see. I thought you may have been talking about the 80s cartoon/Archie comics in particular as the source. And I was going to point out that it actually started with a fairly dark and gritty black and white indie comic series.


Oh and I actually really like I, Robot. One of those films that is on TV a lot and that I frequently end up watching when I stumble across it.

Ah, I've miswritten what I actually meant. Yes I meant the original comics as the source material, but I meant mainly the actual premise of the thing: Mutated turtles who are trained in martial arts.

To make a full motion picture that is that good on that premise is the genius.

Review #56: Armageddon.

A massive asteroid is heading for earth, it’s big enough and ugly enough to cause the death of every living thing on earth, including bacteria.
Bruce Willis, an oilrig millionaire and his team of employees are called into action by NASA to prep a drill team so they can land on the asteroid and drill a hole, then drop a nuclear bomb into the hole and save the world.
Cue lots of fish-out-of-water humorous training montages and full on explosive CGI action.

It’s a typical Michael Bay film, loud, brash, and explosive with elements of boyish humour and contains very little in the way of real life and has very outlandish plotpoints.
It’s well written in terms of dialogue and storytelling and expands the characters and their lives relatively well.

The CGI is also extremely well rendered, the practical effects are seamlessly mixed in and it’s exciting in the action stakes, but really, at its core, it’s a brainless actioner smothered in special effects.
Some of the scenes are quite disturbing too, one scene in particular shows the New York Twin Towers being hammered by meteors. Most TV stations remove said scene when airing the movie.

The main fault is the actual premise: NASA sending oilrig workers into space as astronauts after a week of training, because genuine astronauts can’t be trained to use a drill properly. Even Ben Affleck has been quoted putting the film down.

The other problem, is Michael Bay’s timing. It’s very similar to Transformers, daytime one minute and night-time the next, then suddenly it’s two days later. It loses the audience, you never know what’s happening or why.

The acting is probably the best thing next to the CGI. The all play their parts as good as they could and are very engaging.
Oilrig boss, Bruce Willis, is decidedly grumpy and take-charge, occasionally showing a softer side toward the end.
Ben Affleck is probably at his best, most of the time his acting is wooden and nauseous but he’s actually very likeable as Willis’ rebellious soon-to-be-son-in-law.
Billy-Bob Thornton steals the show as the NASA big-knob who calls Willis and his men into action. He encapsulates the character brilliantly and really draws the audience into his scenes.

All in all it’s an action movie that will appeal more to teenagers and has the occasional hit of teary tragedy and touches of loud humour.
It’s a very enjoyable film but if you’re after a meteor/disaster movie that has a bit more storyline, better characters and depth (ahem), watch Armageddon’s release-date-rival called Deep Impact.
My rating 70%

Yeah, I prefered Deep Impact, too. That's a proper disaster movie.

Up until recently I'd have gone with Armageddon (and I think I actually voted for that in one of the movie fight threads), but after seeing that again a year or two ago and Deep Impact a few months back I would now definitely go with Deep Impact.

For me, Armageddon isn't a disaster movie, despite having a title that'd make you think that. Deep Impact, on the other hand, most definately is.

Review #57: Signs.

An ex-priest who is now a farmer and his family, awake one morning to find that their cornfield has a crop circle.
As more and more unusual things happen around the local town and county, animals acting strangely and shadowy, fast moving and unseen figures sneaking around people’s properties, the family begins to realise that something isn’t right in the neighbourhood.
When odd lights appear in the night sky above major cities around the world, their worst nightmare and unbelievable truth dawns on them.

Shyamalan, using his usual techniques, magnificently pieces the simplistic story together using humour, shadows, bump-in-the-night-noises and slowly unveiled mystery.

It’s certainly one of his best works in terms of storytelling too, though, as I said, it’s simplistic, but the cast chosen for the film make it even more of a joy to watch and discover the strange goings on throughout.

Another good point of the film is the title: Signs. There are many subtle levels to the meaning of the word that are used throughout the film, the audience has to watch out for them all too which gives you a sense of participation.

As for the acting, Mel Gibson is extremely likeable as the ex-preacher. His backstory is pieced together in an ABC-123 set of flashbacks but they play a key part in the future of the movie.
Joaquin Phoenix as Gibson’s younger brother and live-in-home-help is another good casting. He’s believable as a brother to Mel in the way he looks and, personally I think it’s Phoenix’s best acting outside of Gladiator.

Abigail Breslin steals the show though as the daughter of Gibson. At such a young age she really holds the role and the screen. She’s by far the best actor in the film.

The bad point of the movie is the ending, not the story part of it though, it’s the reveal of the creatures that lets it down. The CGI is by far some of the worst of modern day film. The small glimpses you get throughout the running time are extremely well conceived and there are many jumpy and mysterious moments too, but bad computerised effects shoot them down.
It’s sad really after such a fantastic build up.

All in all, though it’s a marmite film for movie goers, it’s still a relatively deep movie and has its fair share of jumps, sci-fi, mystery, comedy and tragedy and is Shayamalan’s best written work next to Unbreakable.
My rating 80%

^ I really liked Signs, it is my favorite Shayamalan movie, a lot of my friends did not like it but like I believe i've said before, I need to get new friends.

Yeah, Signs is a wonderful movie, I think.

I prefer Signs to all his others. Unbreakable comes in second.

Don't really rate his others except Lady In The Water, that was interesting.