Rodent's Reviews

Loving the True Grit comparison post there, I love the new True Grit and really do think it's one of the best examples of fabulous film making in recent years. Whilst it's not the most thrilling and is a relatively linear story it is just great from the Coens with like you said Bridges but more impressively Hailee Steinfeld give great performances.

I actually started watching the original and was really looking forward to it but for some reason I had to stop and couldn't record it which was pretty annoying, need to get round to a proper viewing some time.

__________________

Even though I gave the same percentage, I'd recommend the original over the remake on a personal/emotional basis, I just found it more enjoyable.
The remake, even though it's a really good movie, it suffers from what it is... a remake.

__________________

I actually found the remake a bit better than the original. John Wayne kinda brings it down for me. Don't get me wrong, the man was a screen legend, but nobody ever really sees a film for Wayne to play a good role. People watch him to play John Wayne. Jeff Bridges completely transformed into Cogburn, and it was a terrific performance. Hailey Steinfeld was also a better point for me cuz of how she portrayed Maddie. I also prefer the grittier version that the Coens portrayed of the story then the more lighthearted version of the John Wayne version. I don't think it suffers from "remake syndrome" like most other films. This one was a damn fine remake in my eyes.

I see your point about Wayne, he's kinda just, well, Wayne... but I think that's what makes the movie work.
I rated them the same based on what the original lacks (acting and grittiness), the remake makes up for...

... but what the remake lacks (originality and imagination rather than Remake Syndrome), is made up for with the original... they're on a very even keel with my percentages ratings, but personally, I prefer the original.

In an alternate 1938, a group of costumed Superheroes appear. Over the years America wins Vietnam, the crisis between America and the Ruskies is in favour of the Americans and thanks to a particular all powerful Superhero, President Nixon is reelected all the way to 1985.
Eventually though, Superheroes and masked vigilantes are outlawed... causing them to go into hiding and lead normal, humdrum lives.

When one of these hiding heroes is murdered in more than odd circumstances, a brutally violent vigilante who refuses to go into hiding called Rorschach, investigates the murder and uncovers something much more disturbing in the process...

... and he must call upon the remaining hiding heroes to help stop a fate that could end in the deaths of billions.


Another slightly odd movie for my thread, Watchmen is a Superhero movie with a difference.
For a start, it doesn't shy away from stylish violence, blood, gore, sexual violence and sheer outright action.
It's also extremely creative and original in the writing and plot departments.

It's certainly not the average Superhero movie in terms of look and set-style either. It's dark, brooding and filed with some great sets and backdrops for the heroes.
Then there's the more fantastical side of things. It's highly comicbook with some of the violence and some of the little gadgets and items that the heroes use, which gives even more variety to the movie compared to other comicbook movies.

One very special thing about the screenplay and plot is the history that it builds during the running time. It adds much more depth to the story that many other films, of any kind, really lack.


The acting is also top notch.
Patrick Wilson is an amazingly normal guy who becomes something different when he gets the suit on. He's a hero with a difference and doesn't fail to capture the audience.
Malin Ackerman also impresses as the sexy Silk Spectre 2. She has an other-worldly quality about her that's rare in Supergirls.

Jackie Earl Hallie as Rorschach isn't actually seen a great deal during the running time but makes a massive impression when he pops up from time to time. His natural onscreen presence is simply awe inspiring.

Billy Crudup as Dr Manhattan is the standout role though. Again, he's not on screen a massive amount but the effects that were smothered onto Crudup's brilliant performance are another essence of originality that makes him shine over all the other heroes. He's also pretty spooky in a calm kinda way.

Backing up the ensemble cast are Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino and Matthew Goode.


The action is also utilised well. It's used to enhance the story really, rather than just pointless fisty-cuffs and bashing pointless heads together. Rorschach in prison is a highlight too.
Even so, it's stylish, doesn't hold back with the blood and teeth and is extremely well choreographed.
Even with some of the more fantastical battles and effects used with Dr Manhattan, they're believeable.

I'll need to watch Watchmen again at some point. Enjoyed it but I think I struggled with my expectations built up from the incredible graphic novel.

Favourite part was definitely the incredible opening credits montage set to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changing"

Wow really, that's very high praise for it.

__________________

I'd have it around the 70 mark tbh. It's pretty good... watching it right now on telly lol!
It'd knock Star Wars 3 off my list, that's for sure.

Hate Watchmen. It's a solid film, but when compared to it's source material (which I do, whether I like it or not), it's a mess. It leaves out too much of the political context and it misses out too much of the subplots present in the graphic novel.

It was just "unfilmable" to begin with.

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

I couldn't tell you which scene or at what time, but this is the only movie where I could clearly see 2 stunt people driving the truck instead of the actors.

I loved Watchmen. I've read some of the graphic novel, and while I admit the film left out a lot, here are a few things I have to say regarding the differences:

- the dialogue had to be different. Writing for a comic book and writing for a film are completely different and has to appeal to the audience of each medium.

- A true-to-form movie version of Watchmen with all exposition and additional content would honestly run at least 4 to 5 hours. Nobody's gonna watch that long of a film.

- I heard people complaining about the squid scene in the graphic not being in the film. That scene was not important to the plot of the novel, in my opinion, so I'm glad they left it out. The only downside for me: the soundtrack. It's a great soundtrack with great songs in it...but not for a superhero film, honestly. It just doesn't sit right with me.

Other than that, it's a great film. I watch it repeatedly whenever I can just because of the unique take on the superhero genre it has. My rating for the film: 4.5 out of 5 stars, if only for the less-than-suiting soundtrack.

Sure they would. The truth is that they wouldn't risk their money making it, as it's unlikely to return a profit.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I love Watchmen and it may lack the superhero movie spirit but that's what makes it so memorable.Both times I saw the final cut which includes "Black Freighter" story but I'm not sure that this is the best cut,movie becomes even more depressive with that story.The funeral scene when "The Sound of Silence"(all music is great in this film) is playing is one of my most favorite scenes of all time.It's gorgeous.
However,as it was mentioned it also think that it's a bit of a mess,so I would give it a 8/10.But subjectively,after Dark Knight,it's my favorite super-hero film.

Ok, has to be done now I have them both on DVD... A rerun of Review #13: John Carpenter's The Thing, and the prequel from 2011.
I've made a couple of additions and edited Review 13 slightly, but haven't removed anything





The movie is based in the Antarctic, a group of scientists find themselves completely snowed in and cut off from the outside world during a heavy storm.
Norwegian scientists from another nearby science base and a husky sled dog all appear at their camp in less than comfortable circumstances, the group are then forced to defend themselves from the two unstable, trigger-happy Norwegians.
Upon checking out the Norwegian base to find out what happened, they find a scene of horror and torture and decide to bring back a terribly mutilated and inhuman corpse to their own camp for analysis...

... then the nightmare that overtook the Norwegian base becomes increasingly realised to the American scientists, as they are plunged into a world of pain, paranoia, sheer horror and a fight for survival against an enemy that can hide in plain sight.


Said by many to be a remake of the 1951 movie "The Thing From Another World", Carpenter's movie is simply based on the same novel "Who Goes There?" by John W Campbell.
The Thing is a closer take on the novel than the 1951 movie, which featured a 'man in suit' monster that resembled more of a giant vegetable crossed with Frankenstein’s monster.

Carpenter's masterpiece is a joy to behold. The tension of the cramped base corridors makes the feeling of being watched all the more potent and the paranoia between the characters can be felt by the viewer, right down to the toes.
There's also fantastic exposition, especially with the use of flashbacks seen on video recordings made by the Nords. It adds an element of untold mystery to the proceedings and gives the events much more depth and realism.


The movie's special effects are absolutely top notch, the collaboration between Rob Bottin and Stan Winston is very, very special.
Utilising animatronics, hand puppets and the very occasional ‘man in suit’ costume, the movie excels at putting the audience on the backfoot.
Only one, partially fake special effect is used in the entire movie in the form of a matt painting combined with Bottin's awesome mechanical effects, the rest is practical, real, juicy and extremely well modelled by the two effects geniuses.

The other thing with the effects and action is that they're used when needed.


The acting is also spot on. Kurt Russell, who is mediocre at the best of times, is wonderfully 'take charge' and tough when needed, his brooding take on the strange sequence of events works brilliantly.

Star turns from Wilford A Brimley, Keith David, Richard Masur and Donald Moffet make the characters work even better, these guys really hit their roles with perfection.
Keith David in particular plays with the audience's paranoia too with his more highly wound temperament.


Mix all that with Carpenter’s spooky, low tone soundtrack (a soundtrack that beats all of his others hands down) makes this another must see movie from me, especially before the ‘prequel’ (based at the Norwegian camp) is released this year.









Set just days before Carpenter's Masterpiece, The Thing follows the exploits of the Norwegian camp a few miles away from Outpost 31.
The team of Nords and a handful of Americans discover what appears to be a crashed ship buried under 100,000 year old ice and nearby, an unidentifiable body too.
Digging up the body, they cart it back to base and try to take a skin sample...

... unwittingly though, they awaken the sleeping creature and all hell breaks loose and the team find themselves facing days of paranoia, fear, gore, horror and grand adventure as they become the first humans to come face to, erm, faces, with The Thing.


What could have been a fantastic build up and a mystery solver for fans of the original, sadly is just an excuse for CG gore, CG violence, CG fire, and CG monsters tearing people apart left right and center.

The movie does however excel in the paranoia stakes. The feelings of distrust in the main group are felt really very well and are an exceptionally good throwback to the original movie. However the well pieced together paranoia is thrown quickly to one side and forgotten about in favour of all out action and gore.


The rest of the film however, is simply badly written and tends rather to go for gory shocks and very little in the way of actual exposition in the storytelling. The main fault is the head cast member, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, automatically knowing exactly what the creature is before it's really even begun to do anything... and most of her explanatory dialogue has been lifted directly from the original film.

Now, ok, anyone watching will know, but surely there should maybe be something new added to the mix... or even some sort of discovery for the characters to go through. Sadly though, it's all explained so unbelieveably quickly by a character that has no knowledge of such a creature until now, that it reminded me of the badly written script of the A Nightmare On Elm Street remake.

Along with Winstead's lifted dialogue from the original movie, there are even a number of scenes that directly mirror the original, just to add that air of authentic-lack-of-imagination.

There's a few little hints of continuity though. Especially with some of the creature remains that are found in the original film but there are also however, some gaping continuity plotholes.


The acting is about the best part of the whole thing.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead does her best. She holds the poor script together really very well and carries the tension of the quieter scenes well too.
Joel Edgerton is also on form. Not top form, but he's there, and does a decent job.

Backup comes from Eric Christian Olsen, Ulrich Thomsen, Adewlae Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Jorgen Langhelle makes a likeable and memorable Norwegian.


The action and effects are really what the movie uses more than anything else and sadly, as I said, is mainly CG with only the odd hint of real puppetry and man-in-suit technology.
It's well rendered and highly glossy and flashy... but sadly, the lack of slime and snot gives the film a disappointing finish in terms of the fright factor.
It's just too fake really for The Thing.

The original soundtrack is used though, which gives a nice touch to proceedings.

Yeah, there was really no reason for that prequel. It was just a rehash of the far superior original.

It would and could and really should have been a lot better. I mean, if they'd have kept to the plot rather than just being a slasher movie, it could have been awesome. There definitely a story there... they just didn't utilise it very well.

Yes, pretty disappointing. I was really excited to see it too. I agree that something could have been done that was pretty special, but it ended up more like a poor remake than a prequel. _

Ok... it's on telly at the minute so I'm in the mood for a Christmas Movie Marathon...

... 5 movies, based in, around, and on, Christmas.




Frank Cross is an incredibly rich and powerful TV Executive... over the years he's become a very grumpy, downbeat and hard faced man and has sacrificed all his relationships with loved ones for his career.
In essence, he's become a bit of a Scrooge.

One Christmas though, while organising his TV Channel to show A Christmas Carol, he's visited by an old friend...


Taking a well known story and tweaking it to a twisted and still recognisable fable, Richard Donner and his team have hit on a very special comedy filled with zany characters and even zanier comedy rather than Dickens' dark, downbeat and eventually uplifting story.

There are some scenes of extremely dark comedy involved throughout too which are a throwback to the original story but with the backdrop of modern money and modern greed really gives a fresh outlook on Dickens' famous tale.

Along with the dark comedy storyline and screenplay there are also some really very well pieced together and genuinely emotional scenes. Some of the scenes contain hints of dark humour and surreal visuals too and the effects involved, when they're used are top notch.

What makes the film work fantastically though, is that it also manages to capture a Christmassy feel which is missing from many other surreal/twisted Christmas dark comedies.


The acting is also great.
Once again, Bill Murray is at his best as Cross (cross, Scrooge... geddit?)... Murray's natural talent at being absolutely anything he wants to be is perfect for the role of slimeball turned nice and even when he's being nasty, he's funny.
Karen Allen is also at her best as Murray's love interest. She's not seen a great deal but it's one of her best roles outside of Starman as a loveable and homely love interest for the hero.

Back up comes from Bobcat Goldthwait, Robert Mitchum, Brian Doyle Murray, John Murray and the brilliant John Glover.

The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future are also a wonder to watch.

Willie is a Santa Claus actor. Every year he dons the red suit and brings joy and wonder to countless kids at local malls.
But Willie and his Elf, Marcus, have a secret. They rob the most successful store in whatever mall they happen to be working in that year. Willie himself is an extraordinary safe cracker too.

Willie has another vice as well, he’s an extreme alcoholic and has little respect for authority and tends to get extremely depressed during the festive season.
This year however, Willie and Marcus will have their friendship tested, their skills as cat-burglars put under scrutiny and Willie will have his morals questioned when The Kid comes into his life, along with a possible girlfriend.


Now, pay little attention to the trailers for this movie… it’s not average humour and certainly isn’t the zany comedy that the trailers made it out to be.
Bad Santa is a highly adult comedy, filled with all the stereotypical characteristics of the alcoholic Santa and lots and lots of bad language, incredibly funny one liners, even funnier slapstick and is packed with some insane and irregular plot devices.

One thing that lets the film down though is that the second half of the second act and first half of the third, is all a bit sappy and full of humane and mawkish moral devices and emotional scenes. It works to an extent but does feel a bit out of place with what was going on beforehand. After that though, the rest of the third act returns to the usual loud and offensive comedy that made the first half so funny and turns the volume up to 11 again as well.

The screenplay does get a little lost though from time to time which is probably down to the almost experimental nature of the story and plot… still though, it’s easy enough to follow.


There’s not a massive amount of action as such, but there is a few hits of slapstick style comedy and the occasional hint of gunplay when the duo get themselves in trouble.


Billy Bob Thornton absolutely shines as Willie/Santa though. If anything, it’s one of Thornton’s best roles. His natural talent for taking what was already a funny script and turning it into something even more cutting is perfect for the role.
Tony Cox also plays well with the script. You get the impression that he and Thornton had an absolute ball while filming too. Their chemistry is awesome and Cox really makes an impression.
Brett Kelley also hits the viewer brilliantly as the dippy, quiet and loveable Kid. It’s also one the most original characters I’ve seen in a long time.

Back up comes from Lauren Graham, Lauren Tom, the late Bernie Mac… and the late and very great John Ritter.
All make impressions on the viewer too, especially Lauren Graham. She’s quite a surprise at how well she holds the film together as almost the voice of reason and the everyman of the cast.

My kind of adult comedy

I love Bad Santa, not a traditional family Christmas film but I really enjoyed it and found it funny