Movie Reviews to Annoy and Infuriate 2014 (Chamber Film Reviews)
[gallery columns="4" orderby="rand"]
Product Features
Product descriptions
Description : This is a collection of film reviews. A sample:
Brick (2005)
It was good. Far from perfect though. The idea (40s detective noir in a modern day high school) was very interesting and was mostly well done. It worked. More or less. The story wasn't brilliant but it was convoluted enough and full of funny and weird moments. I didn't really understand the whole story, but I didn't expect to anyway. Not on only one viewing. The execution had a few problems. The already cryptic dialogue was often mumbled by the actors so it was very hard to follow what anyone was saying. A lot of dialogue was lost on me as it was a difficult combination to follow. Also some of the directing was poor. In his attempts at being stylish he sometimes made bad decisions that were awkward and annoying. Howard Hawkes said that the definition of a good director was someone who didn't annoy the audience. This director failed in that regard. Some of the camera angles looked terrible (the VP's office with Roundtree is a terrible looking scene with extreme low angles) and some of the editing (lots of jump cuts, or rapid cuts during fights) simply didn't work. I get the impression the script would be more fun to read than to watch the final filmed results as you can luxuriate in the weird words at your own pace.
7 out of 10
White House Down (2013)
The first half hour is one of the most pointless, worthless, most redundant bits of film ever made. It's paint by numbers, cheesy Hollywood edition, nonsense. The makers never met a clich? they didn't love (I laughed out loud when a pocket watch saved someone's life when they were shot in the chest). It's so contrived, fake and obvious. Insultingly bad. It makes you feel stupid just watching it. Why is a twelve year old kid smiling to herself in that way when she watches helicopters? Reality never got within a million miles of this shit. If you've ever seen a movie before, any movie, then you will learn nothing you couldn't guess for yourself. Everything is so standard and obvious. They should have cut the whole first half hour and opened the movie with the explosion. We learn nothing important in the awful half hour - it was pure cheesy bloat. Once the action finally gets underway the film turns from absolute shit into something that is mildly entertaining. It's big budget mayhem done with competence and there was the odd arresting image because of the setting. The CGI was quite poor. Emmerich has no concept of the real world and is totally lost to the glossy, fake Hollywood version of the world. He is not a 'good' director - if stripped of his massive budgets his films would be unwatchable. The movie was shit, but it became watchable shit once the explosions and mayhem started happening. The first half hour is some of the very worst, most clich?d film-making I've ever seen. Skip the first half hour, it's pointless and boring. The film is beyond parody.
3 out of 10
Synecdoche, New York (2009)
Very hard film to love. Some of it's quite funny with plenty of weird moments. It would be a substantially better movie if it was half an hour shorter. The first three quarters are quite good with interesting scenes and ideas. After that it's played out most of its good ideas and becomes repetitive and overstretched. It disappears up its own narrative backside (on purpose?) and outstays its welcome quite badly. It just stops being engaging. The last ten minutes are excruciatingly overextended. It becomes pretentious (and not in an audience friendly way) with Diane Wiest doing a voice-over that has nothing of interest to say. The final stretch is really hard going. I think it's probably better written than directed. It might have been a funnier movie with a director with a lighter touch. It could have been a lot better, and the last quarter does a lot of damage to it overall.
4 out of 10
Komentar
Posting Komentar