It’s not that Alice in Wonderland is a bad film. Hehe, that’s probably my favourite phrase, I don’t like saying films are bad… but… Alice just wasn’t as brilliant as I wanted it to be. Then again I don’t know what I expected. I mean it looked good… and the story definitely seemed to follow the Alice canon… it just wasn’t as magical as I thought it would be. It wasn’t as fairytale or as wonder-filled as I thought it would be.

I think we could (and should) have spent more time with the Wonderland characters. There was all this stuff at the beginning that I just didn’t care about. I know you need a certain amount of exposition but it didn’t even really seem to tell us where she was coming from and seemed to go on for ages and then when we got to Wonderland we got introduced to a whole load of other characters but we never spent a lot of time with any of them.

In particular I was disappointed by the lack of Mad Hatter or even the White Rabbit, at least there was a bit of the Red Queen… Mostly the film seems to sweep through the supporting characters without giving them much of a chance to leave an impression. I didn’t hate the Alice character but she wasn’t half as much fun as the others so I would have liked more time with them.

Visually, it was beautiful but it wasn’t incredible. I’m starting to wonder if Avatar has spoiled things a bit. Certainly I didn’t feel like the 3D in this was up to much. It was more than you’d see in say, the Toy Story 3D adaptations, but it still wasn’t great. Also the Avatar world was beautiful but also so it was so immersive; in a way that Wonderland here is not…

…But I could be giving Avatar too much credit here as well. It’s entirely possible that Tim Burton just didn’t do that good a job with this. Actually I’m more inclined to believe that… he failed to make me care that much and it wasn’t weird enough to blow me away.

I will say this and I’m not sure if it’s really in its favour – I do think it’s suitable for children. It’s not dark like Burton’s other films. Maybe not for very young children, like those under 6, but certainly for other kids I would think it should be fine. There’s nothing in it that’s worse than what’s in the books, so if you’re fine with your kids hearing those kinds of stories then this will be grand.

I just don’t really know what to think of Tim Burton any more. I think he needs to stay with the fantastical type of stuff but leave the kids stuff behind. An adult version of Alice in Wonderland would have been a better choice for Burton and, I think, for the rest of his cast. I like to think it would have been a lot more engaging and we wouldn’t have gotten all tied up with PG storytelling we didn’t really need.

So, I’m not going to say don’t see it. I know there’s plenty people out there who’ll love it, and certainly bring your kids along. Don’t expect some twisted dark version of Alice, this isn’t what the film is.

6.5/10

Personally, I had been rather apprehensive about this whole Avatar business. I can’t remember the last time a film promised so much (well… maybe Snakes on a Plane but that was really a different kind of promise). It’s been 12 years since James Cameron made a feature film… 12 years is a long time. Of course that film was the highest grossing movie of all time ($1.8 billion worldwide, just so you don’t have to look it up)… but then again, not everyone looks back kindly on Titanic. I actually liked and still like Titanic, but the idea of Titanic in space with a load of blue monkeys? Uh… I just wasn’t so sure about that. And of course Cameron also directed Terminator, Aliens and True Lies. All great films but I just don’t know how this all fits together.. what kind of films does James Cameron do? What kind of film was Avatar going to be? And there’s so much riding on Avatar – Cameron’s reputation of course, but the way it’s being sold, the future of 3D cinema as well. This film is supposed to push 3D out of kids films and horror and into the mainstream. It was too much, too puzzling, I just couldn’t get behind this film wholehartedly.

I’m almost hesitant to tell you what I thought of it. I think you’d be better off if you go see it yourself first. Stop reading now if you haven’t seen it… or read on if you’ve seen it, or if you prefer to hearing other people’s opinions before you see a film… it’s up to you, just don’t say I didn’t warn you, but I do think it’s one that you might want to keep your ears and eyes closed about it beforehand.

If you are still reading on then I think Avatar is going to be a bit of a divisive one, particularly because I think there’s a chance it’ll draw in more than a few people who don’t watch movies a lot… I hope it does anyway. Which is not to say that I think people who don’t watch movies a lot will particularly love it or hate it. Some will and some won’t. I just mean that there’ll be more people talking about it than your average genre film. For example, I doubt My Bloody Valentine was particularly divisive. Not many people who don’t like horror would go to see such an obvious horror/slasher film so it’s not like there’d be many arguments about it. Avatar on the other hand is being sold very wide, wider than I think the genre/s fit. I’m not sure exactly what genre it is but it’s definitely being sold outside it.

Mind you, the genre is irrelevent in a way… I think everyone should see this film. Not everyone will like it but I definitely think everyone should see it. There will be people out there who just aren’t going to buy into the big blue aliens. There’ll be other people who just don’t like sci-fi. There’ll be sci-fi fans who aren’t happy because it’s not sci-fi enough… that doesn’t matter. The fact is, it looks amazing… let me say it again, AMAZING. I could go on with a few more superlative adjectives but it’s not worth it, you’ll just think I sound nuts. Amazing I tells ya. You just have to go see it. It is worth it…. Even if your brain hates it your eyes will enjoy the feast. I liked the 3D in it too. It was used very effectively, there were a few “coming out of the screen at you” moments but a lot of it was giving depth to scenes, just making things look more realistic. It was different from the other 3D I’ve seen. Then again, it’s a very different film from the other 3D films out there.

Will it revolutionise cinema though? I don’t know. First of all, I don’t how much this kind of thing costs and let’s face it, big budget film making is all about the money. But also I don’t know how well it would work with other films. I can see it with the big summer blockbusters, certainly Transformers and Star Trek would benefit from it but I still don’t think that it’s worth it in every case. I guess it really depends on the maths…

In general though, it’s not a great film, it’s a good film but not a great one. Or at least I wouldn’t put it up there with the rest of Cameron’s work. I think in another review, I mentioned that I don’t particularly watch individual films in the context of a director’s overall work. And that’s true. But in this case it’s easier to reference his because… well… I’m just finding it difficult to find a genre to review it in. It’s not really a sci-fi film. Sure, it’s in space and there’s aliens all over the place, but it’s really just a normal drama set against the backdrop of an alien planet. But, you couldn’t compared it to something like… I dunno, Almost Famous or something. I was very much reminded of The Lord of the Rings trilogy watching it. It truly is an epic film. Cameron has created a whole world for us, so I can’t say it wasn’t great because it was a bit of a corny love story. It’s like saying The Lord of the Rings films are just three films about a very long walk. That’s just bollocks.

Ok anyway, this film has really got me waffling. Let’s get down to it. Avatar is a good film but it’s a bit mainstream for my taste. It’s not really entirely a straight up love story like Titanic but it’s more than half way there. The pacing is reasonable but it’s slightly long (about 2 hours 40 mins) and I found the music more than a little annoying (it’s comments like that that are the reason you should watch a film before reading the reviews – now when you watch it you might be listening out for the music and this isn’t a film where you should be worrying about the music… but anyway…). That said, it’s not like the music spoiled it for me, it was just annoying. Characterwise, it’s ok. I wouldn’t say they are well developed but it’s not that kind of film so it doesn’t matter. Acting is fine, a bit shaky in places and the best actors probably aren’t on screen for long enough – I’m pointing at Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi here – but there’s nothing painful or shocking about it. The plot is predictable… but again, that’s just the type of film it is. Some films are predictable, it’s not a bad thing, it’s just a thing. It’s not awful though, it’s engaging enough and generally sustains itself across the 160 minutes or so.

All these complaints aside though it’s still a good film. In fact it’s almost a great film. I found myself immersed in this alien world and if a film can do that then it can’t be bad. It is thanks in no small part to the visual effects but also it’s pretty much a full realised world. The Na’vi are a distinct culture and they are a believable culture in my eyes given the world they inhabit.

Anyway I do urge you to go and see it if you haven’t already. It does look AMAZING and yes, it is worth it just for that. And do spend the money on seeing it in 3D. This kind of work deserves to be seen the way it was designed to be seen. Just don’t expect too much from the story. In that respect it’s competent but it’s not worthy of those superlative adjectives I didn’t use to describe the visual effects.

8.5/10

Share

I may as well start by saying that I’m not actually a fan of the Final Destination. I saw the first one years ago, probably about a year after it came out and I didn’t like it. In the interests of full disclosure I have to admit… I didn’t like it because I didn’t realise it was meant to be funny… I just thought it was the stupidest film I’d ever seen. Later I watched through different eyes as it were and yes, it was good fun.

But anyway, the original Final Destination came out in 2000 and there have been a 2 and 3 between this 2009 version and the first. It isn’t a remake of the first so I don’t know why they didn’t call it 4 – beyond the fact that Final Destination 4 3D might have been a bit confusing – but surely they could have come up with something else. Anyway that’s neither here nor there. The point is that it’s quite an old franchise at this stage so they really needed to do something to keep it fresh and they didn’t.

This is a lazy lazy movie which pretty much pares back anything that was good about the Final Destination films I have seen. It wasn’t funny, it wasn’t clever, the deaths weren’t that outrageous and I didn’t even hate the characters that much. (insofar as there were characters) At least if I hated them I would have been happy to see them die. As it was I just didn’t care. Didn’t care at all.

Ok, it wasn’t the worst film I’ve ever seen (I save that honour only slightly unfairly for Reeker). It wasn’t really offensively bad, it was just plain bad. And boring. I did actually like the opening scene though and I thought the 3D was very good, for that bit, I don’t really remember much of it in most of the rest of the film.

Anyway I don’t think I have anything else to say about it except that you shouldn’t bother going to see it. You’d be better off watching one of the older ones, at least there are a few good deaths and a few good laughs there.

Actually, I just remembered that I saw the trailer for Pandorum before this, that looked like a bit of a laugh… kind of like Event Horizon and Aliens smooshed together. So I suppose one good thing came from watching this film.

4/10

But is Monsters vs. Aliens a good film?

Yeah. I enjoyed it.

Then again, I enjoy all films. I can say this though, while I enjoyed it at the time, it didn’t stay with me at all. Two days later and I’m having trouble remember what the characters were like at all. That might have to do with the fact that I have a bit of a headache at the moment, but I doubt it. It has more to do with the fact that the characters weren’t particularly well defined. It didn’t bother me that much though, it’s a kid’s film so it was only about 94 mins long. Which is probably a bit long for a kid’s film to be honest.

If I were to criticise it I would say that it was a bit glossy. Not that you want gritty in a kid’s film. I guess I mean it was a bit teflon coated, it slides in through the eyes, slips through the brain and out the…. mouth I guess?… when you tell people about it later. OF kind of like B.O.B. and his ball – you’ll get it if you watch.

Anyway what’s good about it? Seth Rogen’s character B.O.B. is very funny. It’s a funny film, in a light way. Also I really appreciated the Dr. Strangelove references. I hope war rooms really do look like that.

All in all there isn’t that much to say about the film. It’s grand ol’ romp with a few odd looking creatures and a giant woman and if you have to go see a kid’s film you could see worse. I wouldn’t particularly recommend it if you don’t have to see a kid’s film though. I’m sure there are better films out there – Watchmen, Gran Torino and Marley & Me, to name three. I’m still gonna give a decent rating though for what it is, it was better than Bolt 3D anyway.

6.5/10

I know I gave it 7/10 on twitter but that was when I was walking out of the theatre, I’m downgrading it a little now on reflection.

I wasn’t expecting much after the crappiness of the last 3D film I saw (Scar). Let’s face it, you always have to be wary with the slasher flick but actually… it was pretty decent! It helped that Jensen Ackles is in it… honestly, there are only two reasons Supernatural is still on TV… But that aside, it genuinely is good fun.

Aside from the fact that I had a good laugh at it there really isn’t a massive amount to say about the film itself. I may as well summarise the plot for you… On St. Valentine’s Day a load of people are massacred by an evil miner. 10 years later, a spate of similar murders occur, is the evil miner still alive? It is what it is really. Standard whodunit with buckets of blood thrown in.

What puts it ahead of some of the others in the genre is that it doesn’t skimp on the blood and guts, they’re all over the place. Too many times I’ve watched horror films and there’s scarcely a dead body in sight. All over the place in this one, blood flying everywhere. Also the 3D is a welcome addition (unlike in crappy crappy Scar). While you wouldn’t necessarily jump at the pickaxe swingin’ at you, it does make the experience more fun. There’s also a reasonable amount of guesswork involved in working out who the killer is – it’s not too obvious but it’s not too difficult either – you wouldn’t want to be thinking too much though, it would interfere with the popcorn eating.

So anyway, to sum up – it was good laugh and an entertaining 2 hours.

7.5/10

As I’m sure I’ve mentioned a few times in the blog, I like my horror films. I don’t scare particularly easily and I’ve no problem watching buckets of fake blood so it’s all good. The problem with liking horror films is that you end up feeling like you have to try them all out… So many people don’t like horror films that you kind of feel like you have to stick up for the genre sometimes. It was this particular feeling that led me to Scar 3D recently. That and the fact that it had 3D in the title. I’ve only seen one 3D feature film before (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and it looked great so I was interested to see what 3D could do for a horror film.

I should mention that I had been under the impression that Scar was made for 3D, I hadn’t realised that that it was just normal film that was turned into 3D.

The story is fairly standard fare. A women, who had been held prisoner in her teens by a serial killer but managed to escape, returns to her home town many years later. Next thing you know, young good-looking people who happen to be friends with her good-looking niece start turning up dead. There’s really not much point in talking about the plot. It’s unbelievably predictable. In fact if anyone wants to guess then write and comment and I’ll let you know if you’re right.

The blood and violence is nothing over the top – I mean it’s not particularly pleasant but it’s nothing more or less than you’d expect from your average horror/slasher film. Normally you’d expect a thriller element to a film like this… there isn’t really anything thrilling about it. And actually… the good-looking people aren’t that good-looking. So on the whole this is really a nothing film. There’s just nothing going on with it.

So what about the 3D? I hear you ask. Well… to be honest it wasn’t great. While watching the film I thought it was just me. I have a lazy eye and I did find in The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D that when things were particularly far away or close up then they looked a bit double. However I asked my two mates with normal vision afterwards and they said the same thing, there was a good bit of doubling in the picture and for some reason some parts of the picture looked reflective or something. It was really very strange. It did work a bit though in that it was 3D however the best 3D effects were in the title sequence… and that should hardly be the highlight of a night in the cinema.

I learned two things that night at Scar 3D…

1) Don’t be tempted by any old horror film.
2) 3D does not make a crap film interesting.

3/10