All that comes with it Rotating Header Image

Movies

Movie Review Smackdown: The Borrowers vs. Arrietty

Aug 24th, 2011
by Dan.
2 comments

The Borrower series of books by Mary Norton were always a favourite of mine as a child. Recently I’ve had the opportunity to watch two movies based on the books – The Borrowers (1997) staring John Goodman, Jim Broadbent, and Mark Williams which I saw streaming on Picturebox, and also Arrietty (2010) which is a Japanese animated film Studio Ghibli which was showing in cinemas a few weeks ago.

Arrietty

Japanese Arrietty posterOf the two movies Arrietty was by far the best. As with all the Studio Ghibli movies that I’ve seen so far, watching it was as much akin to a spiritual experience as a piece of entertainment. It was just so bloody beautifully drawn and animated. The storyline was much more faithful to the original source material too.

The characters of Arrietty were crafted just as expertly as the artwork was. I especially enjoyed the Borrower family – the feisty, brave, and intelligent Arrietty and her parents Pod and Homily. The film makers were able to capture a wonderful sort of sad claustrophobia to their lives as the sole Borrower family left in a big old house, unsure if there were any more of their kind anywhere else in the world.

I saw Arrietty alongside Amy and Evan, and they were as entranced by the film as I was. They both even commented on how wonderful the artwork was, which isn’t usually very high on the list of priorities for seven and four year olds.

I can’t recommend this movie highly enough, and that view is echoed over on Rotten Tomatoes where it currently has. a 100% fresh rating. Unfortunately it’s gone from the cinemas in the UK now, although in the USA it hasn’t been released yet (it’s coming out on the 17th of February 2012). Looking at Amazon however it looks like the DVD and Blu-ray will be out in November.

The Borrowers

John Goodman Borrowers After seeing Arrietty Amy and Evan were hungry for some more Borrower action. Over the summer holidays Picturebox has been showcasing a lot of kids movies, the 1997 movie The Borrowers being one of them. So last night we sat down and gave it a whirl.

There is nothing actually wrong with The Borrowers. It’s a perfectly serviceable Hollywood kids movie with some good special effects for the time. It is very interestingly set in a sort of blended world of times and cultures which is never referenced or explained, but sits in the background. The TV’s are old style and black and white but have remote controls, the cars are 50′s style but there are mobile phones, and due to the 50/50 mixture of American and English actors you’re never actually sure which country the movie is set in. This mish-mash of worlds is very innocent and sweet, and I found it charming.

Also charming were the sets and props. One of the best thing about the Borrowers is the way they use everyday household items to their own purposes. Unfortunately for this film however is that I’ve recently seen Arrietty – and while The Borowers handles the concept well, Arrietty handled it superbly.

But it was the general plot and tone of The Borrowers that really let it down. It replaced the subtlety and beauty of Arrietty with bawdiness and Home alone style slapstick. Which is OK in itself, but as I say – I’ve been spoilt.

The Borrowers is an OK kids movie, and one that most adults will be able to find some enjoyment in. However Arrietty is a stunningly beautiful work of art that children will appreciate just as much as adults do. No contest really.

——

Picturebox is a an online service that streams movies to your PC, Mac, iPad (and even a Samsung Internet-connected smart TV, whatever the hell that is). They asked me if I’d like to test out their service for a year and review some of their movies on the blog. Usually picturebox costs £4.99 a month for access to a regularly rotating range of 28 movies. However I get it free, because I’m ace.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2

Jul 27th, 2011
by Dan.
6 comments

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 posterI’m just that little bit too old to be able to benefit from the full force of the Harry Potter phenomenon.

I enjoyed the books of course, and to a lesser extent the movies. But the people most profoundly affected by the series are those who grew up alongside Potter. Who’s own childhoods ran in parallel to his. I was 21 when the first book came out, and as far as I can remember didn’t jump on the bandwagon until around book two or three. So I was a touch too old to be able to fully identify myself with the young wizard.

I bear the franchise or it’s fans no ill will however. They are nice little stories told with a lot of heart, albeit set in a world that doesn’t hold up to any kind of detailed ethical scrutinisation (I’m particularly uncomfortable with the status of “muggles” within the stories. These second class citizens are at worst despised or at best looked on with patronising fondness by the superior race of the wizards).

I, like everyone else, bought the hardcover books the week they were released. I’ve watched all the movies, and even listened to big chunks of the audio books. I’d probably draw the line at describing myself as a fan though, but I certainly have affection for the series.

Over the past four or five weeks Kerry and I have been slowly making our way through all 7 of the previous Harry Potter movies in order to get ourselves in the right frame of mind to properly enjoy the final movie.

This has been a pleasurable, although sometimes a little arduous task. Emma Watson’s acting in the first couple of films is so bad it makes my teeth shudder. And Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire has a sort of none stop tedium to it that makes it very difficult to focus on. However on the whole it’s been a pleasurable experience, and it was nice to reacquaint myself with the various denizens of Hogwarts.

Harry Potter Movie Posters

So, with my Potter-lore nice and refreshed I trotted off down to the cinema to watch Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2.

And look. The film did it’s job. It told the story, tied up the loose ends, and wrapped it all up nicely. There were no points where I felt it was badly made or thought through. The cinematography was good, special effects were satisfactory, acting pretty reasonable considering some of the cast’s previous performances.

It was OK.

It wasn’t magical though. Not like the earlier movies. It didn’t feel special or wide eyed and wondrous. But that’s not a fault of the film – the issue there is in the source material. Over the course of the franchise wands, spells, and magic slowly turned from being a ingenious, imaginative and quirkyly creative way of enriching the Potterverse with a sense of wonder, into being a pretty box standard substitute for guns. I used to really enjoy some of the ludicrously laterally thought out solutions to everyday problems that magic entailed – but as the franchise progresses magic gradually becomes something that you just point at your enemies and shout ”BANG!”.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 isn’t a bad film. I’d even say it’s a pretty good film. But for a movie about wizards I feel it didn’t have much magic to it.

Podcast Roundup

Jul 14th, 2011
by Dan.
3 comments

Things may have been pretty quiet round here recently, but we’re still going great guns over at the Midnight Movie Podcast if you’ve been pining for your regular dose of Dan.

Currently we’re slap bang in the middle of our Indiana Jones festival. So far we’ve geeked out about Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and our Last Crusade episdode is already in the can and will be out next Wednesday

Of course we now have to go and watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in order to round off the theme , but all great artists myst suffer for their art.

In addition I’ve also just made my second guest appearance on the LAMBcast where I’m talking about the five most marvelous movie mustaches. You can listen to that here.

Movie Review: Transformers 3 – Dark of the Moon

Jul 13th, 2011
by Dan.
5 comments

It’s true what they say – Transformers 3 isn’t half as bad as Transformers 2.

The main reason for this is that the action sequences are handled much better. First of all, you can tell what’s going on rather than Transformers 2′s blur of grey robot limbs flashing across the screen. Secondly there were some pretty damn impressive action set pieces – a whole scene set in a toppling building being a prime example. And thirdly, the majority of the action concentrated on the human good-guys vs the Decepticons, something which I know some view as a weakness but I quite liked.

So, it’s not as bad as Transformers 2. But that’s hardly a ringing endorsment. The real question is, is it worth going to see?

Well, no. Probably not.

Because unfortunately by the time you get to the admittedly great action sequences you’re soul has been crushed by the complete turgid shit that is this movies first hour and forty five minutes.

And the most turgid of all the shit is the “acting” by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. I have never, ever seen anything as bad as her performance as Shia LaBeouf’s love interest. Never. She is Awful. Bloody awful.

Yes yes, I’m sure a few will say “well I wasn’t looking at her acting, just look at that arse!” or something similarly laddish. And yes, she is attractive in that rather dull kind of FHM type of way.

But honestly, no amount of titillation is worth enduring two and a half hours of her on the screen. Trust me.

The only thing that kept me from walking out of the movie in the first hour was the appearance of two of my favorite comedy actors in the world Ken Jeong (Senor Chang from Community) and Alan Tudyk (Wash from Firefly). Their inclusion was completely pointless mind you and padded out the movie needlessly. But I appreciated it never the less, because for a short while I could pretend I was watching another movie. I also was amused by the appearance of Buzz Aldrin. How the mighty have fallen.

So, Transformers 3. Basically, I wouldn’t bother unless you’re willing to sit through nearly two hours of crap in return for some pretty decent explosions and giant robot battles at the end.

Movie Review: X-Men First Class

Jun 8th, 2011
by Dan.
7 comments

Recently on the Midmoclub Podcast I mentioned that out of the dozens of superhero movies coming out this year I was looking forward to X-Men First Class the least. I said that the characters didn’t inspire me, I was unhappy with the inconsistancy of the X-Men in Marvels universe, and nothing I’d seen in the trailers for the movie had made me excited about it.

Well it’s time to eat my words. X-Men First Class was bloody awesome.

First of all, the characters were absolutely spot on. Michael Fassbender was fantastically intense as Magneto and James McAvoy suitably pompous as Professor Xavier. Like Jeff I had a few problems reconciling the movies version of Mystique with the character that appeared in the earlier films, but to be honest I much preferred this one and I make a point of fastidiously ignoring X-Men 3 anyway. The only person I found to be a bit dull was Emma Frost – but I’ve never really got her character anyway. She always seems to be wearing far too little clothes.

There were enough explosions in the film to keep me happy, but this film was far more than a mindless action flick. I very much enjoyed how they intertwined the plot with the real life events of the Cuban missile crisis; and the regular X-Men themes of prejudice and genocide reverberated throughout the movie and provided thinking material long after the closing credits had rolled.

There were some very amusing moments too, not least the fantastic cameo which was almost worth the price of admission itself.

Ian mentioned over on twitter that people had been talking about the movie as being comparable to Nolan’s Batman films. While I certainly wouldn’t go that far, I do understand where they are coming from. X-Men First Class is a superhero movie that works on both a popcorn and a cerebral level, and you can’t ask for much more than that.

PictureBox Review: The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie

May 15th, 2011
by Dan.
6 comments

Recently I was approached by PictureBox, an online service that streams movies to your PC, Mac, iPad (and even a Samsung Internet-connected smart TV, whatever the hell that is). They asked me if I’d like to test out their service for a year and review some of their movies on the blog.

I said yes, obviously.

I’ve said it before, but services like Picturebox are the future. For £4.99 a month you get access to a range of 28 movies. Every week they replace 7 of the available titles with 7 new ones, so there is a steady rotation of fresh movies to watch.

In an ideal world of course I personally would like a few more movies to choose from – like every single one that’s ever been made. But that level of service is not going to happen any time soon (although I remain convinced it will eventually) so £5 for a pretty well rounded section of movies is pretty good. You can check out what’s currently showing on their site here.

The quality of the streaming is pretty damn impressive too. I have my Mac Mini hooked up to my TV so I can watch stuff on the big screen – and there’s been absolutely no discernible difference in picture or sound from regular TV that I can see. And there was no juddering as the streaming caught up either. Technology has come a long way baby.

So for my inaugural venture into reviewing for PictureBox I thought I’d go all highbrow. I’m reviewing the SpongeBob Squarepants Movie.

We’ve never really watched SpongeBob here at Hughes towers. I’ve been aware of it of course, and know a fair few adults who love it more than their kids do. And as we all know, I’m not a man who shies away from a good cartoon.

My first impression was that SpongeBob obviously owes quite a lot to the Ren and Stimpy school of animation, but to be fair so do many modern cartoons. And far better to copy the post modern anarchic humor of Ren and Stimpy than the humdrum low production values of Hanna-Barbera. However Spongebob isn’t quite as dark or perverse as Ren and Stimpy, which is just fine with me.

The movie’s story, such as it is, concerns itself with SpongeBob and his friend Patrick’s efforts to recover King Neptune’s crown. It’s a perfectly serviceable plot, and even has a nice little message at the end of it about being yourself. However it’s not really the main strength of the movie – that lies in the deliciously silly set pieces scattered throughout the film.

My very favorite moment is the point when they use David Hasselhoff as a speedboat. Unfortunately I can’t find a video for it, so you’ll just have to take my word for it – It’s bloody genius. In fact I was giggling to myself throughout all the movie, and so was Kerry beside me.

My one criticism is that it did go on a fair bit, and I did begin to get a little tired of it towards the end. I suspect that the character suits 20 minute cartoons far better than feature length movies. But the director managed to hang onto the audiences interest by his fingernails and rounded it all off nicely.

So I admit it, I’m a SpongeBob convert. I may be late to the party, and all the cool kids have moved on somewhere else – but at least I turned up.

Movie Review: King of Kong

May 12th, 2011
by Dan.
7 comments

Like many people I’ve been steadily moving away from consuming broadcast TV and radio. Instead I get my entertainment through dvd box sets and podcasts. I love the fact that I have the opportunity to select my own evenings programming rather than being forced to swallow whatever lowest common denominator bear baiting is being churned out by the networks.

There are some disadvantages to this however. While over all the quality of my viewing/listening has vastly improved, being completely in control of my own personal programming schedule does mean that my beam of focus has become very narrow. . At the moment I’ve sort of penned myself into a little bubble of geeky culture. I listen to geeky podcasts, watch geeky TV shows, and read geeky blogs.

This isn’t a problem in itself, and my proclivities have always leant that way anyway. But I am a little sad that because I rarely consume any broadcasted media I longer accidentally stumble across unexpected hidden gems outside my field of interest.

In particular I feel I’m missing out on documentaries. One of the beauties of Radio 4 is that if you leave it on in the background you sometimes encounter a documentary that, while you’d never actually pick out of a listings guide as being of interest, ends up capturing your imagination and proving fascinating. A similar phenomenon exists with BBC 4.

Last night I tried to rectify that and inject some factual programming into my cultural life. Granted, on the face of it it was geeky factual programming, but you have to build up slow on these things.

King of Kong is a documentary film that premiered at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival. It follows Steve Wiebe as he tries to take the world high score record for the classic arcade game Donkey Kong from reigning champion Billy Mitchell.

Now that synopsis makes the film sound both dull and incredibly nerdy – but trust me, it isn’t. It is as moving, exciting, hilarious, and ultimately uplifting as any Hollywood scripted movie out there. And has masses of cross appeal. This film has something for everybody in it – from your 8 year old son to your 80 year old grandma.

I can honestly say I’ve never been as engaged and invested with any documentary as much as I was with King of Kong. In fact, I struggle to think of many conventional movies that have engaged me as much. It was just awesome.

The ultimate strength of the film is the everyman underdog nature of challenger Steve Wiebe and the apparent despicable awfulness of his opponent Billy Mitchell. I say despicable as this is a documentary, not real life, and the power to shape the narrative and audience sympathies lay firmly at the feet of the director and editor rather than the subjects. Never-the-less, by the end of this movie you’ll want to punch this guy in the nuts:

I really can’t emphasise enough how much you should watch this film. Just do it – you’ll not regret it.

Movie Review: Thor

May 5th, 2011
by Dan.
28 comments

I finally found somewhere where Thor was playing in 2D at a reasonable time. This wasn’t my usual cinema – Huddersfield Odeon, who in their wisdom didn’t have a single showing other than overpriced 3D. For shame Huddersfield Odeon, for shame.

Anyway, I went to Showcase cinema in Leeds and have now got one of their discount membership cards (which let me get in for £4.50 – bonus!) so that’ll teach them. No doubt the CEO of Odeon is furiously hauling their employees over the coals as I type.

Anyway, Thor.

I was quite disappointed. Not because it’s a bad film – it certainly isn’t. But all the positive reviews I’d been reading had given me high expectations and unfortunately the movie didn’t meet them.

First the good – Chris Hemsworth was bloody awesome as Thor. He was incredibly charismatic and absolutely perfect for the role. And he was so good looking that when he took his shirt off even I felt stirrings in my ovaries.

The supporting cast was great too, aside from the guy playing the swashbuckler Fandral who looked like he had his beard superglued on his face (I demand authenticity in my beards). This film was the first one I’ve ever seen Natalie Portman in that I’ve found her attractive. I also liked the fact they had a Nordic actor in the mix – Stellan Skarsgard, who I’m very ashamed to admit I knew previously as “that one that’s not famous from Mamma Mia”.

There was nothing wrong with the plot of the movie either.

Except…

Now look, I’m aware that this isn’t the movies fault, but I’ve never really been happy with mythical superheros like Thor and Hercules. I just don’t feel they fit. And this prejudice marred the film for me.

I loved the fish out of water stuff set on earth, but the Asgard sections left me cold. The CGI didn’t help either to be honest – the Frostgiants and the architecture of Asgard looked more like a video game cut scene to me rather than a movie. Perhaps I should have seen it in 3D after all (ha!).

I’m basically having trouble reconciling the Thor film as being in the same universe as the Iron Man, Hulk, and upcoming Captain America movies. Those three stories are based in “science” and Thor is based in magic. Yes, yes I know that the point is that its actually technology advanced to a point that it just looks like magic to us – but there is still the whole nine realms thing and tree of life and whatever. It just all feels crowbarred in.

I knew that I had these problems with Thor when it was first announced, but I allowed the hype to nudge that out of my mind. But it’s just something that when I actually sat down and watched the film I couldn’t get past.

Don’t get me wrong, I still liked the movie and think it’s well worth watching. I just wished I went in with lower expectations, as I would have enjoyed it more.

A Fast Five review that turns into a rant

Apr 29th, 2011
by Dan.
35 comments

I went to the cinema to see Fast Five yesterday (or Fast and Furious 5: Rio Heist as I think it’s known in the US).

It’s a completely ridiculous movie. It has massive gaping plot holes, completely unnecessary supporting characters, and some action sequences which were so ludicrous that they made my brain hurt.

I bloody loved it.

I had intended to make a day of it and remain at the cinema to see Thor too, but there was only one inconveniently timed showing of the movie in 2D and I flat out refuse to pay the extra to see it in 3D.

This morning Simon Pegg, the patron saint of all geeks, tweeted:

New Harry Potter trailer is absolutely cracking. Shame it’s in 3D though. So doesn’t need it. Talk about gilding the Lily (Potter).

Marketing types worry that if a film isn’t in 3D it will appear somehow old fashioned and so cinema continues to die of a corporate tumor.

It’s like some kid has discovered some old gizmo in the attic and decided to flog it to his mates like it’s new. It’s not new, it’s old.

I think Simon is being a little too generous. 3D isn’t about marketing people worrying about seeming old fashioned, it’s about the movie studios trying to squeeze as much money as humanly possible from the consumers.

And they are idiots. Because it’s completely the wrong way to go about things. Media should be getting cheaper, not more expensive. Because if it doesn’t then the people who produce it are going to find themselves in rather deep trouble.

Pirating is a problem, and is morally wrong. But its fast becoming one of those offences that no one really considers to be a “real” crime. The best way to deter pirating is not by draconian and privacy invading legislation, but by reducing prices. People no longer are willing to pay £40 for a box set of Mad Men if they can get it from Pirate Bay for free. But they’re probably willing to pay a fiver.

And people aren’t stupid either. They know that selling digital downloads costs the producers a hell of a lot less than distributing physical copies. So the fact that online outlets are trying to sell things at the same price as you can get them in the shops just makes people pissed off (I’m looking at you Apple and Amazon).

If you want to beat piracy you are going to have to do it by

  1. Reducing prices in the short term and then
  2. Moving to a system where no one actually buys their media any more, they just buy the right to access it from an online cloud system.

I’d gladly pay £30 a month to be able to watch what I want whenever I want. But I’m becoming increasingly less willing to pay my £30 to Sky TV in order to watch whatever lowest common denominator shit they feel like putting in front of me and my family.

So, going back to the original point, 3D movies are just the industry’s desperate effort to try and claw back some of the money they are losing. But the reason they are losing it is because they are not reacting quickly enough to shifts in society. They are using 20th century technology to try and combat 21st century problems. And people are going to get bored with it very soon.

Do you know anyone out there who actually thinks 3D is a good thing? Aside from maybe Avatar, has there been a single film where you can honestly say that it’s improved your viewing pleasure by the 30% extra you had to pay for it? I’m genuinely interested – is there anyone out there aside from the movie executives, TV manufactures, and cinema operators who feels 3D is the way of the future?

Personally I doubt it.

Bah.

Movie Review: Yogi Bear

Feb 16th, 2011
by Dan.
10 comments

What is it with Ghostbusters and classic cartoon revivals? First there was Bill Murray in Garfield, and now Dan Aykroyd in Yogi Bear. What’s next? Harold Ramis as Penelope Pitstop?

Actually Aykroyd does a damn good Yogi impersonation in this film. And Justin Timberlake does a pretty passable Boo-Boo as well, believe or not.

The plot, such as it is, revolves around a power hungry politician attempting to sell off the Jellystone National Park in order to turn the town’s financial deficit to a surplus. I must admit that this took on a rather unforeseen satirical edge in the light of the UK governments current efforts to sell off state owned woodland.

Unfortunately I suspect there will be no smarter-than-the-average-bears to save our own precious forests.

Look, this is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s shallow, predictable, and misses the comedy mark about twice as often as it hits it. But all that aside, it’s not half as bad as I anticipated it would be. I certainly don’t think it deserves it’s 14% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. A 40% would be far more fair.

One performance that did stand out was that of the mayor, played by Andrew Daly. His running gag with the electric windows of his car made me genuinely giggle. He’s best known apparently for playing Principal Terrence Cutler in Eastbound and Down. I really must check out that show.

All in all Yogi Bear is not one of those films that you’re going to want to see if you haven’t got children. There’s nothing in here that elevates it from matinee status. But it is a movie that will give you the occasional moment of entertainment if you find yourself there with the kids, and that’s better than nothing.

Plus it’s got a 5 minute short cartoon before the main feature, which is both cool and nostalgic. Of course the cartoon is shit (it’s a unfunny CGI travesty of Roadrunner and Wile E Coyote), but I appreciate the sentiment.

I saw this movie in 2D and, after seeing it, can’t think of a single reason why you’d benefit from forking out the extra cash to see it in 3D. Just say no.

Page 1 of 212