PeterVincent's Reviews

So I thought i'd join the many others who have movie review threads, it looks fun and I'd love to share my thoughts on certain films. I was considering starting off with The Dark Knight Rises, but instead, I think I might go with Amazing Spider-Man.





When I first heard they were rebooting Spider-Man, my thoughts were mostly negative. As a child I grew up with Sam Raimi's films and I didn't mind Spider-Man 3. But here we are with the Spider-Man reboot...And it isn't too amazing.

The films tagline is 'The Untold Story' and right from the start you can tell that this is the same story with only a few minor adjustments, and the movie knows this. As a matter of fact the movie begins to tweak and rush familiar and iconic scenes to the point that it is almost awkward and uncomfortable to watch (the 'new' Uncle Ben power speech and his ultimate demise is the most noticeable). I have heard nothing but good stuff about Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, but to me he is less traditional Peter Parker and more generic teenage Peter Parker, to the point in which he is rude to almost every adult that crosses his path.

Though the film has plenty to like also. Emma Stone is great as Gwen Stacy and Rhys Ifans as Curt Connors is fantastic, even if his screen time is maybe 20 minutes tops and his CGI stub is distracting. The film is pushed up by it's occasional extraordinary scenes (such as when Peter is in the sewer with his giant web) and great cinematography.

Overall however the film is unnecessary and is probably my least favourite of the Spider-Man film adaptions. Andrew Garfield manages to become somewhat likeable by the end of the film and the finale is impressive if not 'amazing' (cough, cough). The Amazing Spider-Man is definitely worth a rent at least, though don't be in a rush to see it.

__________________
Oxfords not brogues.

I'll probably wait for DVD release or maybe Blu Ray.

Not much of a Spiderman fan. Gonna wait until this one comes to DVD.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

Lets do one of my favourites from the 80's...



Fright Night (1985)

Hey PeterVincent? What's your favourite vampire movie? Well, it's probably the one in which there is an actual character called Peter Vincent.

The film centres around a schoolboy named Charlie Brewster, who after peeking through his window at his new neighbour discovers that vampires exist and his neighbour Jerry is one of the creatures of the night.

What makes this movie so good? Or bad? Well it's the 80's style, over-the-top acting and special effects that make the movie what I call a 'guilty pleasure'. The film has more cheese than a Joel Schumacher movie, and yet manages to entertain from start to finish.



One of the best things about the movie is Peter Vincent played by Roddy McDowell, a TV show host who is paid by Charlie's friends to help him. The character is funny, cheesy and somehow kicks vampire hide even at an old age.

The film is filled with some of the best practical effects i've ever seen (mainly the wolf transformation towards the end) and the remake is well worth a look too.

Overall Fright Night is a very entertaining movie, and bring your nachos because there is plenty of melted cheese with this 80's flick.

I'll probably wait for the dvd release of the new Spiderman movie as well.

I was forced to watch this film series recently, and there is another instalment on the way, so here's my review for:

Resident Evil



There still isn't a good video game movie adaption in my opinion, and this film is a prime example. It's a melon scratcher...why was this movie made? But what's even more puzzling is the fact that these movies keep on coming and coming. So lets talk about where it all began.

The film starts with Jason Issacs letting you know about the horribly evil Umbrella Corporation, and right from the start you know this won't be a good movie. Maybe it was the horrifyingly annoying techno/videogame soundtrack or the cardboard acting by Milla Jovovich, but this movie goes from bad to worse faster than the sequels came.



Now some people in the world may argue that it's the greatest movie of all time because it has 'zombies and a hot chick' but trust me...the zombies and the 'hot chick' make it worse. Milla Jovovich fumbles around and delievers a majority of her lines the same way, she has an emotionless stare and even her 'mysterious backstory' manages to be simple and boring. The zombies seem intriguing for the first five minutes, but disappear and reappear whenever the script requires them to.

The 'ultimate villian' of the film is some form of super zombie, rendered by very poor CGI and would probably look much better if they went with a practical approach, the appearance of the super zombie is so ridiculous and video game typical that you can't help but laugh whenever it appears on screen.

Though not everything about the movie is awful, Michelle Rodriguez gives a likeable performance, as well as some of the other supporting cast, though the most interesting characters are killed off before any type of connection can be made with them. But the strangest and worst part of the film is the ending, which manages to confuse and anger me even now. Though this film is not nearly as bad as the sequel.

Overall Resident Evil is a dreadful mess and probably should be avoided unless you really want to watch a horrible attempt at a video game film, it's not the worst movie I have ever seen, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a bad movie.

And who can ever forget the unintentionally hilarious zombie dog fight.

I love Resident Evil, cool movie I'd of give it .

The only good thing about Resident Evil is the cool Slipknot song on the soundtrack.

Okay so I did Resident Evil, so while it is still fresh in my mind, lets do:

Resident Evil: Apocalypse



Now after watching the first movie I pretty much assumed this was going to be bad, but I had no idea it was going to be THIS bad. The movie starts exactly where the last one left off, right in the toilet. Alice (still played by Milla Jovovich) wakes up in Raccoon City which has been taken over by zombies infected with the deadly T-Virus. Joining her in the battle for survival is the most inappropriately dressed excuse of a police officer I have ever seen AKA Jill Valentine. The plot is incredibly unclear for the first 20 minutes, as the film tries to show you why the word 'Apocalypse' is in the title, and I know why...because the movie is the equivalent of an apocalypse.

There is not one single thing about this movie I can honestly say is good, the plot is bizarre, the characters are generic stereotypes (especially the gangster character), Alice gets the most forced and obscure subplot ever, the zombies become boring fast (5 minutes of zombie entertainment at most) and the movie takes any opportunity to cram in a videogame character. When the Umbrella Corporation summons Nemesis (I still don't know why) the movie plummets below the first film and into a new level of awful.

Overall I rarely hate films, but Resident Evil: Apocalypse is a film that I can confidently say I hate. The one good thing this movie did was lower my expectations for the next film to such a degree I actually liked the third instalment, but this movie is bleak, boring and extremely bad. It still isn't the worst movie in the world, but it's probably on my list.

Resident Evil: Extinction

The bar literally could not be any lower, but this series must have the T-virus, because even when it seems dead...it comes back to life. To my amazement, I actually liked the movie, maybe it was because the second film was so bad?

So the movie starts off...where the first movie started? But in the desert? Anyway, the beginning of the film had me groaning and preparing for the worst, until the villain spoke his first line of dialogue and I shot up in my seat, Is that an actual ACTOR in a Resident Evil movie?.

But it didn't stop there, the directing was better, the action was better, the acting was better and almost everything was better than any of the other instalments, though that isn't saying much.



I like the movie, it's my favourite of the dreaded franchise and in my opinion the most watchable...but it still suffers from the same problem the others have, it's a videogame movie.

The film had me sold for a while, I was invested in what was going on and even accepted the ludicrous plot (Alice has mental powers and somehow an evil corporation can still be evil...when the apocalypse has happened?). But when the climax began and the villain starts to leap out of his character and into some kind of generic videogame boss, as per usual in the Resident Evil films, I began to lose interest and brain cells.

Overall the film is (in my opinion at least) the best in the franchise (isn't saying much) and has some decent performances and action sequences...but the zombie dogs? Again?

I found the second movie alot better than the third.

Okay lets finish off the Resident Evil series with the most recent:

Resident Evil: Afterlife



You ever heard the expression 'turn your brain off at the door'? Well be sure to rip it out of your head and feed it to some zombies because Resident Evil: Afterlife raises more and more questions by the second and answers none.

So the original director is back and judging by the tone and style of the film it seems he just discovered The Matrix, because this entire movie echoes it. The movie relies very heavily on slow motion action scenes and a horrible villain who appears to be doing his best Hugo Weaving impression...which is incredibly obvious.



The plot takes off in Tokyo where the evil Umbrella Corp. is somehow still operational and still evil...despite...you know...the apocalypse and all...again. Alice and her clones attack the Umbrella HQ all Trinity style like in The Matrix Reloaded and are conveniently stopped. The original Alice follows Agent Smith...oops...I mean ahem 'Wesker' (the villain) into some sort of airplane thing and has her mental powers removed...also very conveniently. Then after and explosion nobody could have survived, especially without psychic powers, Alice pulls a little plane out of her a** and flies to where the convoy from the last film was headed. See what I mean about no explanations?

Alice makes a habit of documenting and updating her vlogs on her camcorder (where did this come from? How is she charging this thing?). But she runs into one of the characters from the previous film, who has been given a mind control device in the form of a spider or something (see what I mean...nothing is explained).

After the basic plot is set up Alice heads to a prison, which inside houses survivors and...the dude from Prison Break? In an actual prison? And he knows a way out when the plot requires it? Okay...Oh and he has a useless plot twist.

The zombies can now do strange things like grow tentacles out of their mouths and dig, but this was never explained? Why is this happening? But what's worse is the traditional videogame boss, a huge zombie with a giant axe...now where in the world did that come from and why? Also...the zombie dogs are back yet again, and they can split themselves in half...at least they're a different breed.

What's good though? The ensemble is actually entertaining and despite the overuse of slow motion, the action scenes are decent. You can tell that there's been a huge budget increase.

Overall Resident Evil: Afterlife is a mess of unexplained devices and a plot that relies on convenience. All that said, the action is greatly improved and it lets go of the silly 'mental powers' plot...though it's replaced with a sillier ending which still makes me angry. The film is kind of fun and reminds you why The Matrix is a great movie.

The Dark Knight Rises



If there's one thing audiences seem to love, it's Batman, and so do I. He is far from my favourite superhero, but The Dark Knight is my 7th favourite film of all time (so far), so my expectations for this film were pretty high.

The film starts off eight years after the previous movie and from the first 10 minutes, you can tell that this is quite a different film when compared to The Dark Knight.

Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne/Batman and gives a great performance, successfully showing a broken man who just wants to die, and as usual the rest of the ensemble cast is great.



The villain of the film is Tom Hardy as Bane, and in my opinion Mr. Hardy is one of the best actors in Hollywood right now, but Bane is no Joker. Hardy does a fantastic job but it's hard to act when a majority of your face is covered up. All that being said, the expressions of Tom Hardy's eyebrows and eyes usually tell you his expressions and emotions...or what they would be.

Anne Hathaway appears as Selena Kyle/Catwoman and does a good...maybe great job, though she is usually overshadowed by the more experienced actors onscreen. Anne successfully portrays a woman with a dark past who has a heart of gold, however I still prefer Michelle Pfeiffer as the Cat.



Christopher Nolan does a good job as usual, showing us fantastic sets and beautiful locations, however the film suffers from strange editing. The characters jump from location to location, with massive time lapses, and at one point almost three months goes by!

The film also relies heavily on events that have already transpired in the two previous films and it is noticeable, so if you haven't seen Batman Begins and/or The Dark Knight...it's probably best you see those before you view this film.

Overall I was happy and entertained with the film, though in my opinion it is the weakest of the trilogy. A majority if not all of the performances are great and Christian Bale proves himself a hero, I admit I cried...Three times. Though my personal favourite thing about the film is the Cillian Murphy cameo. A solid if not great movie from one of the best trilogies in the last twenty years.

Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief



Harry Potter has done a lot of good to children around the world, but like anything huge in Hollywood, there will be an endless wave of wannabe films that attempt to start a big franchise but just end up failing...usually miserably (Eragon, Golden Compass, The Seeker, this movie etc.). Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief is the better of those movies and my personal favourite. The film is based on a very popular series of books (of which I also enjoy) and is directed by Chris Columbus, the guy that brought us the first two Harry Potter films (ironic?).

I first watched this movie about two weeks after seeing Clash Of The Titans (the remake) and I was dreading it, but after about ten minutes of crazy greek meets modern day madness, I was surprised and happy with the way the film was going.

The film (and to be honest, the books) are very similar to the Harry Potter franchise, and unfortunately that is a constant comparison that cannot be shaken off, but if you can accept it, you might like the movie.

Percy Jackson (played by Logan Lerman, who is pretty mediocre in the role) is a young man who discovers that the Greek Gods have been watching over humanity for centuries, until Zeus' lightning bolt is stolen and everybody suspects Percy, as he is the son of Poseidon...and Zeus likes to point the finger at Poseidon? I don't know, just go with it.

The ensemble is great, the film is crammed with Hollywood cameos and stars, Uma Thurman appears as Medusa for 5 minutes and Pierce Brosnan is fun as a Centaur.

Though the film is severely dragged down by two cardboard characters that follow Percy around for most of the film, Grover and Annabeth. Grover (Brandon T. Jackson), who in the book is a shy teenager with orange hair, is now a jive-talking Will Smith impersonator who is the Jar Jar Binks of this film...and he takes any opportunity to be annoying comic relief. Annabeth (the actress' name escapes me) on the other hand is the most unexplored and wooden character in the whole film, what this movie needed was a good sit down between a character, maybe Pierce Brosnan's, and Annabeth so they can actually explore the way she approaches being a demigod...she might just be an interesting character.



There are two major standouts in this film however, Steve Coogan's Hades and Jake Abel's Luke. Steve Coogan appears about and hour-and-a-half into the movie and doesn't just chew up scenery, he lights it on fire...pun intended. Jake Abel pops up every so often as Luke, the son of Hermes, a senior member of the camp that Percy must now call home. Jake Abel acts well and is very noticeable as the only one with talent, especially when Percy and the gang visit him in his cabin...I couldn't help but laugh as the main three cast members were outshone by a supporting cast member every single time he appeared on screen.

Overall Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief is a dodgy Harry Potter wannabe, but somehow stands on it's own. It's fun and the special effects are actually pretty impressive. If I had a gun pointed at me and I had to choose between this or The Hunger Games...I'd choose this...it's easier to watch (sorry Hunger Games fans). The sequel (which is surprising) is scheduled to be released next year with Nathan Fillion playing Hermes, I'm actually excited.

Last one for today...

Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance

Upon first hearing that Ghost Rider will be getting a sequel my immediate response was...why? The first film most was far from a good film and I for one assumed Marvel would pretend it never happened...apparently not.

The directors of Crank take the directors chair (or chairs) for this film to give us an adrenaline filled wreck, it's pretty much Crank meets Ghost Rider, and it is so bad it's funny.

Nicolas Cage is back as Johnny Blaze (he is noticeably the only actor to return from the first film) and is joined by Idris Elba (probably the best thing about the film), an alcoholic French priest.

The villain (excluding the Devil) is played by some strange Kurt Russell look alike with a very similar power to Wes Bentley in the previous film. He jumps around corroding people with a cheap iMovie special effect for almost no reason at all...though I have to admit there is a twinkie joke that made me laugh.

What's good about the film you say? The first 30 minutes are actually kinda likeable, the look of Ghost Rider has been improved greatly, he's covered in CGI tar and I always get a rush of adrenaline rush when he bursts people into flame. After a very impressive action scene involving a flaming crane however the movie plummets downhill. Johnny Blaze is required to escort the son of the Devil to a church somewhere and the film (very poorly) attempts to make a fathery-son relationship between Blaze and the boy, but it seems forced and odd (also very similar to the relationship in T2) and even the film gets bored and inserts a strange CGI piss scene to try to keep the audience entertained...I know.



Overall even though they finally made Ghost Rider look kinda cool and added more action and less cheesy story the film falls into the fire. The movie fails to make you care about it's characters and even insults you with it's horrible dialogue at points. Although...It's pretty funny when the Devil uses a paper mache' flamethrower metaphor to explain being Satan to a kid.

Norman



50/50 was an entertaining cancer comedy, but Norman (in my opinion) is a better film about cancer with a cast of relatively unknown actors (at the time) and features well written characters.

Meet Norman Long, played very well by Dan Byrd, a quirky teenager who witnessed his mothers death and is also watching his father slowly die of cancer. Noman only has one friend in the world and is constantly contemplating suicide, until a new student Emily arrives and shows an interest in the poor boy. After a night of huge stress and an argument with his friend, Norman decides to lie and say that he is dying of cancer, the news spreads fast across the school and soon everybody starts to treat Norman differently. It's Easy A with cancer.

The characters are well written and the cast is great, and I only have two complaints about the film. First off, Adam Goldberg appears every so often as Norman's teacher, and it isn't his character that's annoying, it's simply his presence and the way he appears and moves. Whenever he pops on camera, he usually has some part of his body be cut off screen (his huge hair for example is usually only half visible) or is walking out of the shot, it doesn't happen very often but it is noticeable. My second complaint is the directing, while this movie obviously had a tiny budget and was meant for film festivals, the directing is very amateur and it's very obvious that this is probably the director's first film, the camera is usually in one spot for most of a scene and it rarely pans or moves at all.



Overall Norman is a very entertaining drama about a boy who is sick of the world, the movie jumps around different themes and even explores places you wouldn't expect. It's a hard movie to find though, but if you see it on the shelf at a store for a good price, definitely go for it.

Never heard of this. I might have to check it out.

It's hard to find in store apparently, I won it from Empire magazine so i'm not sure where to find the movie, though JB Hi-Fi has it. But it's pretty damn good.

Green Lantern



Sometimes, just sometimes, I disagree with a majority of people. Green Lantern was released last year and I must admit, I am a fan of both the comic books...and the movie.

Unfortunately not everybody liked Green Lantern as much as I did and it was considered to be a box office flop and an overall bad movie. I for one, disagree.

The film centres around cocky test pilot Hal Jordan (played by Ryan Reynolds, who's probably more suited to play The Flash), who is chosen to join the Green Lantern Core, an intergalactic police force.

A majority of the film follows Hal Jordan's life on Earth, which is probably what pulls the movie down the most, because every so often we see Oa (Green Lantern HQ), the coolest and most entertaining part of the whole movie.

The standout performance in this film is certainly Mark Strong as Sinestro, one of the most respected Green Lantern's in the Core. Strong doesn't have a lot of screen time, but whenever he appears on screen, the movie slowly becomes better and more entertaining with each line of dialogue that slips through is moustache.



An odd choice though was pitting two villains against Hal Jordan, Parallax and Hector Hammond. Parallax is essentially a giant cloud, though don't worry, he's much more entertaining than Galactus from Fantastic Four 2. Hector Hammond however is a normal human who is mutated by the fear energy of Parallax (sounds silly, I know) and had a grudge against his father (played by Tim Robbins). Both villains however, are not particularly threatening at all.

The pacing of the film changes constantly, from boring scenes on Earth to absurdly entertaining training and action sequences on Oa, this makes it all the more difficult to determine whether you like or dislike the movie, and after careful consideration, I went with like.

But possibly the most surprising thing about the movie is that it is directed by Martin Campbell, the guy that did Casino Royale. If his name hadn't popped up during the credits...I would never had known he'd directed.



Overall Green Lantern plays out more like a 90's superhero movie rather than a modern day one (like The Dark Knight or Ironman), but if you're a fan of some of the older Batman films or the first Spider-Man movie, than you may enjoy this. The entire cast give a great performance (although Blake Lively...isn't very ahem...lively as a love interest).Green Lantern is a good time if you're bored or looking for some form of entertainment while you wait for Man Of Steel or something.

Centurion

Oh man, if there's one thing I can't get enough of, it's Michael Fassbender. The man just radiates talent, he exhales awesome and he always stands out...even in Jonah Hex

Centurion is a film by Neil Marshall, and right from the beginning you can see that the film is low-budget with poor special effects (especially the blood, and there is a lot of blood), but the best thing about Centurion is...you don't notice any of the problems until the movie finishes.

The film centres around Quintus Dias (Fassbender), a soldier of Rome who joins up with the 9th Legion led by Dominic West after escaping...some form of scottish folk?

The film is essentially a gigantic chase scene and is filled with both entertaining and boring moments, and some of the more complex characters are killed off way too early, which is very disappointing.

Perhaps one of the best parts of the film and yet the most questionable is when Michael Fassbender and co. meet an exiled 'witch' played by Imogen Poots, and you can probably predict what will happen between those two. But the age gap between Fassbender and Poots is incredibly noticeable and I was never able to shake it off, it just seems creepy.

The films climax is disappointing, and it is very noticeable that there wasn't much of a budget to play around with, so the climatic fight is considerably fast and poorly constructed and the resolution is way too rushed.

Overall Centurion is fun and entertaining if you're into Lord Of The Rings, 300, etc. but don't be looking for anything huge or epic...or else you will be disappointed.