I’m starting to believe that Dungeons & Dragons is to film what Macbeth is to Theatre: cursed. Invoke the name and you spell disaster. Perhaps you’ve seen the 80’s cartoon series or Dragons of Autumn Twilight? They were bad, to be sure, but this is worse – far worse than you can possibly imagine. Which, believe it or not, is sort of it’s charm; it keeps you watching with morbid fascination to see just how bad bad can get.
Blue lipstick? Bugger me!
The movie’s tag-line was ‘This is no game,’ and truer words were never spoken. The classic role-play game is only conspicuous in it’s absence from the production that bears it’s name. A few scant elements were incorporated from the source matter, but those inaccurately, so what was intended as fan service comes across as a kick in the teeth.
Kick-Ass is an irreverent pulp-style movie you’ll either get extremely offended by or like… a lot. It’s in-your-face, non-pc, and ultra-violent. So basically, if that’s not your bag, stay well clear. The film was independently produced by Matthew Vaughn alongside Mark Millar’s creator-owned comic book, so there is bags of creator input and cross-over with zero interference or censorship.
Unfortunately in some countries Kick-Ass was rated PG-13 and promoted in trailers as a light-hearted teen flick. This is outrageously misleading and I don’t know who in their right minds would classify it as anything less than an 18. We’re talking graphic violence and something like 250 hardcore profanities. It’s adult content; kids should not see it. Period.
Ben X is an emotional and thought-provoking ride by first-time Belgium director Nic Balthazar. Watching the trailer you might be forgiven for thinking this is a movie about the dangers of online gaming. In fact MMORPGs are portrayed realistically and in a positive light. Logging on every day is the one uplifting thing in Ben’s otherwise bleak world. He is being bullied mercilessly by his peers because he is different – he suffers from Asperger Syndrome – and online escapism helps him to cope. It’s also a way for him to express his feelings and make friends in a way he can’t in the real world.
Coraline is a Children’s horror film and, unsurprisingly, has been quite controversial within parental forums with some arguing it is too scary for it’s PG rating. The Nightmare Before Christmas – also directed by Henry Selick – provoked a similar reaction yet is a firm family favourite with a strong cult following. It’s very different from a regular children’s film, which may account for its success. Likewise Coraline is a refreshing break from the same-old same-old and pushes the envelope on children’s entertainment. It’s frightening in a surreal, psychological way evocative of nightmares with a sprinkling of creepiness. But by embodying these intangible childhood fears it also tackles how to deal with them, and is ultimately empowering and uplifting.
Coraline is a stop-motion animation and the hand-crafted feel is particularly appropriate to its theme. With the introduction of computer-generated animation stop-motion, which is a painstakingly slow process, is becoming increasingly rare. Coraline’s visuals are breathtaking with minute attention to detail in every frame. It’s a work of art with beautiful, atmospheric scenery and luscious, touchable textures. I could forgive a multitude of sins for something this pretty.
The cleverly named ‘A Dog’s Breakfast’* is an independent comedy written, directed and starred in by David Hewlett – whom you may recognise as Dr. Rodney McKay from Stargate: Atlantis. In fact there are more than a few cameos from the Atlantis cast including Hewlett’s real-life sister Kate (Jeannie), Paul McGillion (Dr.Beckett), Christopher Judge (Teal’c) and Rachel Luttrell (Teyla) – all in different roles of course!
Hewlett plays the obsessive-compulsive Patrick who lives reclusively in the house of his birth and relies on constants in his life to remain stable; these include his dog Mars, his sister Marilyn and the spiders that live outside his sitting-room window. When Marilyn introduces her fiancé, Ryan, Patrick becomes convinced he is trying to murder her and that the only way to stop him is to kill him first!
I have seen Avatar twice at the cinema, both times in 3D. The first time I found the 3D distracting, probably because I am not used to it. True, the three-dimensional effect is not ‘in-your-face;’ it is used to enhance the movie and create greater immersion, a feeling of ‘being there;’ however there are a few scenes with soldiers milling about and I had to keep checking that this was part of the film and not people walking around the cinema itself! Yes, the 3D is that good! It makes you believe you can reach out and touch things (the illusion only ruined when you try)!
The CGI is groundbreaking in itself; the alien race, the Na’vi, are so convincing, so realistic, the only way to tell them apart from real people is… they’re blue. Likewise the terrain, plants and animals that make up the planet of Pandora are breathtakingly realistic. You could not do better if you dropped a man off on an alien world with a video-camera.
I have seen Avatar twice at the cinema, both times in 3D. The first time I found the 3D distracting, probably because I am not used to it. True, the three-dimensional effect is not ‘in-your-face;’ it is used to enhance the movie and create greater immersion, a feeling of ‘being there;’ however there are a few scenes with soldiers milling about and I had to keep checking that this was part of the film and not people walking around the cinema itself! Yes, the 3D is that good! It makes you believe you can reach out and touch things (the illusion only ruined when you try)!
The CGI is groundbreaking in itself; the alien race, the Na’vi, are so convincing, so realistic, the only way to tell them apart from real people is… they’re blue. Likewise the terrain, plants and animals that make up the planet of Pandora are breathtakingly realistic. You could not do better if you dropped a man off on an alien world with a video-camera.
This film is bad. Really bad. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly bad it is. I mean you might have been appalled by The Crystal Skull but that’s just peanuts to this. Listen…
I read the Dragonlance books as a teenager and am, even as we speak, playing through the AD&D Modules. I was dead excited to hear there was a film and even enjoyed watching it for the first ten minutes. It begins at a quite relaxed pace, introducing the characters with some humorous banter and bloodless action. But this is soon replaced by break-neck pacing. The plot feels as if it is on fast-forward, with a lot being told in exposition and chunks of the story being missed out altogether. With a large cast of characters they get no more than a handful of lines each, and several are left standing around with very little to do. Ultimately 90 minutes just isn’t a sufficient run-time to do the story justice.
The animation is mostly 80s style 2D, with the jarring addition of 3D CGI for the Dragons and Draconians. The two styles just don’t mesh and make the production look amateurish. The bloodless action is replaced by amazingly inconsistent gore. One moment we are looking at Hobgoblins dying in pools of blood, the next the ground is perfectly clean! Continuity errors like this persist throughout the film, almost every time the viewpoint changes, and their lip-synching is about as good as mine!
So I was enormously disappointed and appalled to think that this might be anyone’s introduction to Dragonlance. So do yourself a favour and don’t let this film ruin what could be a wonderful experience. Read the books.
This film is bad. Really bad. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly bad it is. I mean you might have been appalled by The Crystal Skull but that’s just peanuts to this. Listen…
I read the Dragonlance books as a teenager and am, even as we speak, playing through the AD&D Modules. I was dead excited to hear there was a film and even enjoyed watching it for the first ten minutes. It begins at a quite relaxed pace, introducing the characters with some humorous banter and bloodless action. But this is soon replaced by break-neck pacing. The plot feels as if it is on fast-forward, with a lot being told in exposition and chunks of the story being missed out altogether. With a large cast of characters they get no more than a handful of lines each, and several are left standing around with very little to do. Ultimately 90 minutes just isn’t a sufficient run-time to do the story justice.
The animation is mostly 80s style 2D, with the jarring addition of 3D CGI for the Dragons and Draconians. The two styles just don’t mesh and make the production look amateurish. The bloodless action is replaced by amazingly inconsistent gore. One moment we are looking at Hobgoblins dying in pools of blood, the next the ground is perfectly clean! Continuity errors like this persist throughout the film, almost every time the viewpoint changes, and their lip-synching is about as good as mine!
So I was enormously disappointed and appalled to think that this might be anyone’s introduction to Dragonlance. So do yourself a favour and don’t let this film ruin what could be a wonderful experience. Read the books.
I watched JJ Abrams’ Star Trek on my Birthday. I’d read some positive reviews – unprecedented given Treks usual reception – but I was still anxious. Resurrecting this mostly-dead franchise could have been no easy task. Failure would have been the final nail in the coffin – Star Trek rest in peace. But could it be reborn, be popular even, without sacrificing everything that made Star Trek special? The answer is “Yes.”
Now, this film is by no means perfect. Indeed I could nit-pick it to pieces, but if that ruined our enjoyment of Star Trek we’d have been on a bad trip since ‘The Cage.’ Continuity errors and implausible science almost make it feel more genuine!
In respect to all that has come before this Star Trek is not a clean reset; Leonard Nimoy’s Spock appears to pass the torch onto this new cast and crew. The plot incorporates Trek lore accurately and appropriately. I had the impression that the creators had not only watched every episode in existence, but read the books as well. I recognised elements from Diane Carey’s ‘Best Destiny’ – a novel about Kirk’s tearaway youth and his relationship with his father. On further investigation (namely Wikipedia) I discovered this, and others, had indeed been an influence. It’s rewarding to see all that wonderful material put to good use.
‘Yesterdays Enterprise’ stylē the plot involves changes in the timeline creating an alternate reality. (It was cool then; it’s cool now). This neatly explains why the characters are a little different from the originals and injects a sense of danger that would otherwise be lacking. We can’t sit comfortably, safe in the knowledge that Kirk dies on Veridian III and Scotty spends 75 years in a transporter. The future is uncertain. Some, like Tasha Yar, might get the chance to live again whilst others have their lives cut short…
Kirk regrets taunting Spock with “Your Mom!”
The interior design is probably the most jarring thing for Trekkies. Unlike the Enterprise exterior – which seems like a ‘best bits’ version – it borrows very little from its progenitors. It has a sleek, touch-screen, Macintosh feel to it that’s hard to relate to the 1966 design. It looks futuristic, but not distinctive. Personally I’m a bit bored of monochrome sci-fi look. I’d have loved to see some bold primaries in there.
The actors do a great job, especially the leads, and are believable younger versions (though Yelchin’s Chekov is too close to Wesley Crusher for comfort)! The youthful element sets a different tone than we are used too. This film is exciting and entertaining with more humour than there’s been in the last four Trek moves put together. It’s a clear, self-contained story for Trek virgins with plenty of background details and in-jokes that die-hard fans will appreciate. I really enjoyed watching it – it doesn’t suck.
Blue lipstick? Bugger me!
