Tron: Legacy

20 years ago, ENCOM founder and computing wizard Kevin Flynn disappeared. His son Sam, heir apparent to ENCOM, is more interested in playing pranks on the board than managing the company. One day, he gets a tip off that his father may not be gone forever, and discovered something strange in the old arcade...

Tron Legacy was well received. We watched it in 3D, which I can’t say I noticed too much but on the other hand it wasn’t a bad thing. The glasses this time round were less cumbersome and didn’t want to reshape my nose so much. The best thing, as anyone who has seen the trailers will guess, is the visual element, which is sleek and shiny and glowy and sexy. This, as far as I’m concerned, is box ticked and movie on the ‘good’ pile. The plot, characters and other supporting film elements are all perfectly acceptable. The story, if you are so bothersome as to ask, is ‘blah blah blah GOES INTO AN AWESOME WORLD OMG (something about saving his dad and winning the girl and an evil-twin dad blah).

Seriously, you do not need to know anything except that this is awesome.

My favourite scene I think is when they go to a club owned by a man who is the lovechild of Alex from A Clockwork Orange and David Bowie, because his character is just so cheesy and charismatic (think Austin Powers but good-looking). I know I’m not doing this review much justice but Jim is the one who actually knows anything about the original Tron story so I am confidently leaving him to the serious analysis.

4/5

For a man whose favourite phrase when describing films with heavy special effects (like Hellboy II) is 'all icing and no cake', one might expect me to lean back and scoff snobbishly at Tron: Legacy.

However I think in this film its a case of 'all icing, just enough cake'. The cake consists of the goody characters; Flynn Junior, Quorra Kick-Ass and Terry Gilliam (actually Jeff Bridges although the two look so similar now I swear one day they will coalesce into a single entity) who are all thoroughly likeable and good to look at, in different ways of course and the story, which is enjoyable nonsense, and the sweet father-son sub-plot.

The icing is simply some of the most gorgeous costume, set and effects design in all of cinema history, nostalgic yet still futuristic, every skin-tight costume, glowing machine and ultra-cool cyberpunk background character guaranteed to make techo-fetishests like me drool. Plus we saw it in 3D and it was...well, it was fine. The only down side was watching trailers for awful upcoming 3D digimations, and I won't blame Tron for that.

Most of the old stuff was there, although I was deeply sad that 'The Bit', the flying eletro-puppy which spoke in binary ('Yes' and 'No'), only appeared as an ornament in Jeff Bridge's Ikea-decorated Zen apartment.

So, Bit, are you in the film?

Oh...well, that's a bit rubbish...

There were really only two gripes I had about the film...number one: the ISOs. In case you haven't seen the film (shame on you) these were artificial life forms which spontaneously sprung out of Flynn's virtual grid world. Apparently they held the key to absolutely everything, but were then made nearly extinct by Jeff Bridge's fascist alter ego Clu. They were also one of those sci-fi MacGuffins that is built up/explained just enough to make you ask questions but is too vague to actually answer them. HOW exactly were they the key? And what was Flynn planning to do with them? Harvest their organs and sell them? Nobody knows, and it is this central problem that leads most of Tron Legacy to not make an awful lot of sense. Just like the Matrix, I was niggled by the question of whether average workaday programs are sentient and if so, how this works and how they are different from the messianic ISOs.

Okay, so that was one. Two: I'm pretty goddamn sure Kevin Flynn was NOT a big hippy in the original Tron, and I am definitely going to watch it again so as to be sure. Jeff Bridges, as a friend of mine pointed out, gets a LOT of mileage from acting the big damn hippy, and he is charming in that mode, but it just doesn't fit. As far as I recalled Kevin Flynn was a cynical, sharp witted, jerk-with-a-heart-of-gold whose brilliance had given him a demeanour of swaggering arrogance. Sure, he has given up his fighting ways, but character continuity is important.

Anyway, my advice is this: watch Tron: Legacy, try not to think too much and bring a handkerchief for all that techno-drool.

4/5

IR: Monsters

Monsters left us feeling lifted and dumped at the same time. Lifted, because of the beautiful ending, but dumped because it could have been so much better. The plot is basically that a news photographer is given the task of escorting the newspaper bosses daughter home to America from Mexico, where she has been for some unexplained reason. Perhaps working, perhaps a holiday, we are not told.

The situation is that dangerous aliens have landed on Earth in Mexico, in what are now ‘contaminated zones’, not because of the aliens themselves but because of the gas that the military release there to kill them. Parts of Mexico are still safe (ish) and this is where most Mexicans live. Just as this photographer is given this assignment, the aliens are encroaching on land that has previously been safe and so this has to be sealed off. This land just happens to be the route home. Narrowly missing the last ferry, the pair decide to travel by land through the dangerous zones rather than wait six months for the route to be cleared.

Many of us would rather face aliens than this.

The best element of this film is the character journeys; both begin as unsympathetic characters but become, or reveal themselves as, better people. The man starts off having a drunken one-night-stand with a local girl and getting the lady’s passport stolen, and seems to be very mercenary in his views on getting paid to photograph dead children for the paper. By the end, he has put his camera to one side to engage in the world around him, and is revealed to have a son for whom he cares deeply. The lady starts off with her perfect privileged life all planned out ahead of her, but ends up valuing her experiences more than the cosy certainty that America can promise her.

The reason I say it could have been done much better is because the camera shots are often unimaginative and cheesy, showing us shots we’ve seen over and over before, and also the aliens are literally just giant octopuses with stompy spiders legs and light-up tentacles. How unimaginative. They weren’t completely awful, they did exhibit a few interesting features, but seriously, they had complete carte blanche to make them anything, and they fall back on giant sea creatures on land.

RUN! It's coming right for us!

To sum up; disappointing in areas but a beautiful ending, would recommend if you relish the prospect of criticising it for a long time afterwards with your friends as we did.

3/5


Monsters came highly recommended by a fellow film buff who had seen it in Edinburgh. Sad then that it turned out to be a film I admire much more than like...and most of my admiration comes from what I know about how it was made (on a shoestring, minimal crew, the director personally making all the impressive special effects) rather than the film itself.
Before I start my criticism, the good things: the footage itself is gorgeous, demonstrating the power and potential of high definition video. The central ideas are clever and carried with much more consistency of tone than those of its spiritual cousin District 9. The acting is fairly solid and the special effects really are amazing, blending reality and fantasy with truly remarkable skill. The story structure feels like a real sequence of events, even if the actual elements are rather staid (see below) and its presented well.
However, there are flaws, rather big ones, which I will now outline for you.


First: The Cliches.
Although Monsters had a fair few unique and original bits, there are far too many hackneyed plot points. Reluctant underling escorting the bosses daughter? Check. An unlikely love-or-hate chalk-and-cheese romance? Check. Friendly, partying locals? Check. Friendly, hard-working locals who haven't got much but are willing to let whitey into their homes to patronise them and their kids? Check. Shot where someone is dragged off by a monster into the darkness and then a pause followed by their mangled corpse and/or vehicle spat back accompanied by a loud and scary noise? You'd best believe it. None of these things on their own are bad devices, but I've seen every one of them so often its just predictable and boring. We KNOW from the get go that the main characters will turn out more than friends. We KNOW that the jungle guides are doomed to be eaten, and that man is the real monster. These are not surprises, and it is a shame a film with such an interesting set up gets so boring so quickly. The first few scenes, before our heroes actually begin their journey, are by far the most original.

Second: Treating the audience a bit like they a too dumb to notice a point.
Many films are guilty of this crime, but Monsters contains at least one instance that beggars belief, which I will share with you in brief: Andrew, our photographer hero, actually says 'There's a change in the vibe' at the VERY MOMENT when the music, pacing and feel of the film changes. THANKS ANDREW, WE NOTICED. And don't use the word vibe, this is not the 1970s or the early 1990s when it was ironically cool.

Unlike the Hammer-Man who was ACTUALLY cool.

This is only the worst of many such offences, which you can spot yourself. Gareth Edwards hasn't quite got his head round the fact that working with film means you can SHOW things, you don't have to spell them out, especially with the kind of crowd who want to watch this film.

Third: The central characters and their personal lives.
I feel harsh knocking the acting, or even the writing, since as far as I know the whole thing was improvised on a sort of road trip. But you can't forgive a piece of art or grant it special mercy because of its birth. I has to speak for itself. And so I shall say this: I did not like the main characters, I didn't believe their love story sub plot and I could only care slightly less about their boring problems. Fine, I know that at the first introduction Poor Little Rich Girl and Mercenary Photo-McKodak are supposed to be interestingly flawed, especially Andrew and his awkward drunken come-ons, but for my money they do not redeem themselves nearly enough throughout their road trip. I don't think they are evil, or that they deserve the mass of bad luck and difficulty poured on them by fate, but ultimately they are just rather unlikable. Sorry guys.

Fourth: The zero dirt factor. This is something that ALWAYS irritates me in films; that characters will go through seven kinds of hell, endure masses of physical hardship and still look like they stepped out of a hair advert. Now this was to a much lesser extent than its mainstream counterparts, but seriously, these guys sleep rough for what feels like a fortnight and yet they look fine. Would it kill you to do use a sweat spray or muss some hair? Or was their something in the actors contracts stipulating that they had to look good at all times?

50 bottles of this to be delivered every morning.

Fifth: The Monsters themselves and the final scene (SPOILER ALERT!)
I said the effects were brilliant, and they are. But as for the design...not so much. We have seen the titular monsters a dozen times before; they are wavey-tentacled vaguely aquatic octopus things. Everything from Halo to Cloverfield to certain niche anime series have things exactly like them, not to mention the obvious similarities to Great Cthulhu.
Anyhoo, we see them in all their glowy glory in the final sequence, towering and beautiful, apparently engaged in the act of mating which is far more refined in them than in humans. This truly heart-stopping encounter could provide a valuable insight into the creatures' true nature, making them a thing of beauty to be studied and not feared, maybe saving the lives of those who are in the way of the bombing and chemical poisoning being carried out by the military throughout the contaminated zones. And then Snappy McPictures DOESN'T. GET. HIS. CAMERA. Instead he decides to hold hands and sigh with Pixieboots Lotsacash, who LETS HIM.
Just one photograph could cause a cultural, political and scientific revolution, not to mention setting them up for life. Inexcusable. And seconds later I had to stifle a laugh as they went in for a kiss (gasp! Never saw that coming) and Samantha decides to chew Andrew's incredibly stubbly bottom lip. Maybe she was fantasising she was eating a baby hedgehog.

SPOILERZ OVER!

Despite the problems, what is most important about this film is that it shows real potential. Gareth Edwards and his crew will most certainly have an interesting future career, which I will watch carefully.

2/5

IR: Megamind

When deciding what to watch tonight, Megamind was the obvious choice. The trailers promised a funny, clever hero vs villain story (or should that be villain vs hero?), and we weren’t disappointed! Trumping majestically in the faces of all the crap out there nowadays, Megamind was a well-thought out, twisty, heart-warming, fresh tale of an alien who lands on earth as a baby (like Superman), and decides to play to his strength of evil mastermindedness since the other baby who lands at the same time as him, Metroman, is hogging all the glory as the good-guy. Though he plays the part of the villain, Megamind is really just a huge softie who lives with his all-time best friend Minion and his puppy-like flying brains-in-jars. A spanner is thrown into his comfy routine, however, when he actually manages to kill Metroman and gains all the power he’s been longing for. He soon realises that power isn’t what makes him happy…
I loved this film and laughed out loud at a few bits, which Jim will tell you is rare. Megamind himself is a very cool and ingenious person who is very entertaining to watch, as well as fish-in-mech-suit Minion of course. The role swapping of good guys and bad guys is well thought out and I hope that some kids who watch it get a less 2-D* view of the world because of it. As love-interest lady says, you should be judged by your actions, not by your ‘book cover’.
There’s not much to criticise about it that I can see, I just really enjoyed it and would encourage all adults and children to watch it too.

4/5

*Ironically, we watched it in 2-D...as all good people should! - Jim

Britta and I traipsed over a mile of slippery ice and sat through some truly appalling trailers to see this (Yogi Bear, anyone?); thankfully, our journey was not wasted. Megamind is, like its predecessor, How To Train Your Dragon, much better, wittier and cleverer than you might expect.
Throughout the years we have seen many deconstructions of the superhero, particularly in the medium that spawned it: Watchmen, Empowered, Animal Man, Astro City and atop all of them, in my opinion, Alan Moore and Gene Ha's mighty “Top Ten”, which you can find out about here. A few films, like Kick-Ass (itself a comic book adaptation) and My Super Ex Girlfriend, have covered it too.
However, we have been rather less inundated with deconstructions of the comic book villain (Unless you count Wanted. Which I don't.) This makes a noble attempt, and manages to be accurate to the golden and silver age villains whilst being complete accessible and not really geeky. Megamind is played with charm by Will Ferrell, a bit of a hit and miss actor, and in fact all the voice acting is spot on, especially David Cross (Tobias off of Arrested Development) as Minion, Megamind's servant/best friend/surrogate wife.
With Roxanne (Tiny Fey) the film also does a good partial deconstruction of the hero's girlfriend/damsel in distress character.
The production design is incredible; I am actually terrified at the speed with which digital animation has progressed. The textures in this film are particularly mouth watering, from string to hair to metal to latex (especially the latex. It even had talcum power stains on. That, my friends, is research.). Megamind has the coolest gear since Batman...in fact cooler because Batman didn't have THE BLACK MAMBA (see the film), and Metro City feels like a real place, even though the population spend quite a lot of time keeping out of the way. On second thought, maybe that's because they know the procedure when a hero and villain like to play games in your town- keep away from the shock and awe, and live several stories under ground.
Also Metro City must have a very efficient council, because all the roads seem in a remarkably good state despite taking a continual pounding. Cars, also, the butt-monkeys of the action adventure, are smashed without thought.
In fact this was the one area I really could have done with deconstruction of...while Iron Man is going round smashing cars to bits acting the big hero, no super-hero film either straight or parody has addressed the issue of property damage and civilian casualties.
Enough of that. Megamind has a great script, a fun plot and interesting subtext (some that children...won't get) and spiffy animation. Go see it.

4/5

IR: Mary and Max

Mary Dinkle, an unhappy, lonely girl in Australia, decides one day to write to an American to ask where babies come from in that far off land. She picks at random and gets Max Horowitz, an obese man with Aspegers syndrome. The two form a faltering, unlikely friendship through their letters, and find in each other something that has been missing in their lives.

Having seen the trailer for this, I was very put off viewing it in its entirety because of the ugliness of the character and set design. It was only on Jim’s insistence that we watched it at all, him being a lot more generously tolerant of such things. Mary has tiny pebble eyes and no neck, and Max has sticking out ears and a waist as wide as he is tall, with his ‘back bosom’ constantly revealed. The film is mostly in monochrome, with a few objects in red and yellow and brown, making everyone seem pallid and dull. Despite all this, I was persuaded to watch, and here’s what I thought of it…
The plot itself is quite sweet, telling the story of a young lonely girl who randomly contacts Max because he is American, and she wants to know where American babies come from. The whimsy and idiosyncrasies remind me of one of my favourite films, Amelie, being very much about the two characters and their particular interpretations of the world and comforting habits. Mary is still finding out about life and has to rely on what people tell her, whereas Max is discovered to have Aspergers Syndrome, which makes him unable to read other people easily. They both share a love of chocolate and The Noblets, a cartoon about a community of creatures, who are envied by both for their abundance of friends. I did enjoy this interaction between them, which is done by post with frequent gifts being exchanged, and also their thoughts are explained individually by the narrator, whose opening sentence states that Mary’s birthmark is the colour of poo.
It was much darker than I had anticipated, chronicling near-suicidal meltdowns by both at different times of their relationship. Death and substance abuse feature heavily. However, I thought that this was well done and necessary for it to be a strong film, and it was an interesting insight into mental illness. The ugliness still irked me, but I got used to it and enjoyed watching Mary and Max. I have to admit it, it was a pretty good film after all.

4/5

Its great to see this just after Wallace and Gromit; the differences between the two films are so stark that it demonstrates just how worthwhile frame-by-frame claymation is as a medium, in this age of CGI. Mary and Max is grim, grubby and macabre, treading the line between black comedy and dramatic tragedy superbly. The sculpting and modelling team revel in the textures of grime and decay until you feel you could not only reach out and touch the picture, but would really need to wash your hands after you did.
The plot is rather tiring though, following as it does the unpredictable patterns of life rather than the traditional three act structure...I can truly believe the claim 'based on a true story', so often misappropriated, is completely true for this film. Certain scenes drag whilst others zip by too quickly. It feels more like a documentary than a feature film, which may well be the aim. The portrayals of what must be said are two very depressing lives are sensitive but humorous, and remind us, particularly in a sequence where Max is sent to a mental institution, just how far attitudes towards autism have progressed in the last 30 years (the film is set during the 70s and 80s).
The film is carried 100% by Barry Humphries charming, urbane narration, which makes even the most tragic observations gentle. The two leads (Toni Collette and Philip Seymour Hoffman) are great too, but it is definitely Mr. Humphries who shines brightest.
In conclusion- spectacular, virtuoso animation, some laughs and quite a few tears; a vision of hope in darkness, like the stars Max loves to count in the night sky.

3/5

ID Mass Review 3: Pink Floyd- The Wall

Pink, a rock star, is feeling sick of fame and life in general. Spaced out in his hotel room, he thinks about his life, and the many events that have gone into shaping who he is.

Pink Floyd: The Wall is definitely an important film culturally, and should be watched by anyone of age who isn’t easily upset. I got goose bumps watching it but I’m glad I did. There isn’t one scene in this that isn’t strong and provocative, and much of it is symbolic and metaphorical. We follow Pink from childhood into adulthood and stardom, where he is increasingly troubled by his fathers’ early death in the war, his broken marriage, and the way things are going in England. Film is mixed with animation to powerful effect. The animation style is fluid and grotesque, ever changing between nightmarish creatures. The scenes of the film themselves are usually harsh but sometimes innocent and serene, such as when we see Pink caring for a sick rat. Mixed in with all this was the soundtrack which helped give everything an air of impending misery and doom. I wouldn’t say I enjoyed this film because I spent much of it with eyes wide open feeling very uncomfortable, but it was an interesting watch and there are some things that just should be seen, if only for the morbid fascination.

5/5

As a man whose father was a huge prog rock fan, I was brought up with the likes of Yes, ELP and Pink Floyd playing in the background.
However it was when I stumbled upon the timeless surreal animations of Gerald Scarfe on Youtube to songs like The Trial and Welcome to the Machine that I truly fell in love with the Floyd of Pink. When I read in the ID Fest brochure that the full version of The Wall would be on, I knew that it was that above all else I wanted to see. It did not disappoint.
The richness of detail and the richness of metaphor and meaning, guarantees you will be confused and engrossed from the word go. Phallic flowers, vaginal bats, swollen rats, mincing machines, plastic masks, marching soldiers, fascist rallies, grubby hotel rooms and blood-red swimming pools...the film packs about as much creepily iconic imagery into every scene as Ken Russell, and I doubt if even on the third viewing you could really get a hold on exactly where everything fits in in the landscape of Pink's troubled mind. In the toilets afterwards I heard two gentlemen discussing how Bob Geldof 'didn't mess it up'. They were quite right, he doesn't. There isn't a huge amount for him to do except look apocalyptic and burnt out, but he does it so perfectly that there is no point in complaining.
The thing the film is most akin to is the TV Series The Singing Detective, starring the marvellous Michael Gambon; like The Wall, it is much more about what is happening inside the characters mind, rather than what has really happened in their life.
There are scenes which seem a little out of place, such as the 'Young Lust' scene where shameless groupies do the nasty to get backstage passes (a bit of a wasted effort...turns out Pink isn't really in the mood for fans), but overall the quality is truly stunning. The aforementioned animations get the top prize though. I had the wonderful experience one sometimes gets on the big screen, the sensation that you are somehow falling into the image, when watching the marching hammers in 'Waiting for the Worms'.
It is a pity that,as David Gilmour said later, the album and the film marked the end of the bands ability to work together, because it was and still is an amazing piece of work.

5/5

ID Mass Review 2: Wallace and Gromit Curse of the Wererabbit

Its almost time for the Giant Vegetable competion at Tottington Hall and Wallace and Gromit are making sure that rabbits don't get the local people's prize veg by operating a humane pest control agency. But things go very bad when a Were-Rabbit starts terrorizing the town, and it may not be as easy to catch as its small cousins...

Wallace and Gromit the Curse of the were-rabbit was yet another feat of animation from Aardman Studios. I enjoyed the story and recognising all the references and jokes that they make, which had a few surprising adult ones (of a slightly sexual nature) that I wasn’t expecting in a film which would be seen by large young audiences. I don’t think anyone really minded however, I suppose either children are too young to get it, in which case it’s not a problem, or they’re old enough to get it, in which case they’re mature enough for it not to scar them.
This film, as you may have guessed, is a lot about rabbits. So it’s a shame for me that I didn’t like the way they did rabbits here. They looked too boggle-eyed and annoying for me to find them cute, and I think a lot of the sympathy in this film relied on them being so. And look away now if you don’t want a spoiler, but the ‘Wallace bunny’ (Hutch) was so irritating to look at that the ending was rather spoiled for me, being as I was resentful that my eyes were forced yet again to fall upon this failed attempt at adorableness. He looked like Dobby from Harry Potter, being all short and stupid and needlessly cheerful, and wearing an oversize jumper as a dress.
The aspects I did like, however, were the moments of humour and the trademark ‘wacky genius inventions’ throughout. Gromit’s portrayal of a sexy giant rabbit was rather amusing.
Most people will enjoy this a lot so don’t let my nit picking put you off.

3/5

Curse of the Were-rabbit is undeniable proof that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for people to make bad films, and especially not bad family films. Wallace and Gromit make a seamless transition into their first feature incarnation, which is chock full of mixed laughs...Britta and I were privileged (if thats the word) to be pretty much the only people older than seven in the audience, and so could appreciate which bits made them laugh. Predictably, it was mostly the jokes about burping and suchlike. In fact, I think they probably enjoyed the film more as a straight horror/mystery whereas a lot of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it gags were for adults. The film has some very nice references to things like the Gerry Anderson series and a lot of hammer horror and earlier Wolfman films, but of course the exquisite eye for details is one of the great strengths of Aardman. The film avoided Americanitis despite its joint venture with Dreamworks, and the Britishness is never compromised. One thing I very much liked on this front was the Vicar character, an affectionate but still quite mocking portrait of the C of E, particularly when he claims they are being punished by God for growing large vegetables.
The central partnership are as lovable as ever, with a consistency of character that few series manage to hold up. Their flaws get them into trouble, and their smarts and good old British grit bring them out again. The brilliantly over-complex heath-robinson gadgets are charming, there is plenty of cuteness in the form of rabbits (although the Wallace-Rabbit really hits the uncanny valley for me) and the photography is just beautiful. There is nothing to say about the animation that hasn't been said a hundred times but just for the record, it is perfection.
Take note, all those making films; you cannot get away with crap any more.

5/5

ID Mass Review 1: Dog Soldiers

Its the final of the World Cup footie in 2001, but a section of luckless soldiers are being sent off to Scotland for an apparently routine exercise, pitting themselves against a Special Ops platoon. However, it only takes a few short hours for things to take a macabre turn as they discover all but one of the Special Ops guys have disappeared, their equipment smashed and their blood spilled. It seems some old dogs have taught themselves new tricks...

I’ve seen Dog Soldiers once before but quite a few years ago, so I had an almost fresh viewing of this. It still did a good job of making me jump and grossing me out in the relevant places. I think the best thing about this film is the acting from the soldiers, who are all well developed characters (as well as can be developed over a day or two) and are very humorous and sympathetic and plausible. The lady character, however, has occasional very awkward lines that seem to come out of the blue and which would be nigh on impossible for anyone to pull off naturally. I blame the scriptwriter and the director.
The storyline itself is easy enough to follow until the end, when once again the lady character shamelessly pulls a plot twist out of her arse and rants on about ‘not trusting women’ as if that’s been a story element before. This is just confusing and brings up a lot of questions which don’t get answered. I’m very happy for them to have things go the way that they do but seriously please make motives and such a little more transparent.
Apart from this, the film is well executed and I have no complaints regarding pacing, sound, tone or camera shots. The gore was done nicely, with some quite-convincing innards at one point. It also has a nice twist (before the aforementioned bad twist) concerning the nature of the werewolves. That reminds me; at the start of the story I was disappointed with the obviousness of the way that a solid silver dagger is introduced. It’s just so groan-worthy, like if at the start of a vampire movie someone gifts someone else a crucifix necklace, you just know it’s going to come back as the deciding weapon later on. I’m sure they could have found a more subtle way to put that in. Gripe over, it’s not such a big detail that it ruins the film. Overall, I think it is very good and definitely worth seeing.

4/5

Dog Soldiers plays with the survival horror genre giving the often overlooked werewolves some good screen time. It gives us the great premise of 'what if the protagonists were actually competent'? And it is fun to watch. The section is smart, well armed and experienced. They are also utterly screwed, because werewolves shake off machine gun fire like pond water, but they are badass enough to keep fighting in the face of these circumstances. They are also quick to adapt and, though they don't necessarily start believing in werewolves the instant things gets weird, they do not act like straw man Scullys and claim it must all be a hallucination brought on by light refraction. Or angry badgers, or some such.
The squaddies are great characters, their sweary but affectionate banter making them appeal even to a limp-wristed anti-military liberal like myself. Sergeant Wells particularly, the vitriolic but caring father to his men. In their dialogue, especially exchanges with animal-mudering Special Ops scumbag Captain Ryan who is up to something dodgy, there are some very interesting asides into what makes a 'real' soldier, and the multiple meanings and metaphors contained within the title go very deep if you look closely.
The only person who doesn't give an absolutely top notch performance is Emma Cleasby as Megan, who appears rather to be phoning it in. It might be just how the character is written; her 'posh bird' schtick seems unnatural compared to the salt o' the earth soldiers, and she's just not as well-rounded. She throws out philosophical lines like 'Now consider what you really believe!' without a care for the tone of the scene, which is in usually bullet-riddled ass-kick mode. Also there is a bit at the end where she reveals the true nature of the werewolves which is cryptic to the point of complete incomprehensibility, leaving us wondering whether it was supposed to be mysterious or if the writer just accidentally left out a few important lines.
The cinematography and editing are, I am given to understand, typically Neil Marshall; gritty, action-packed, fast-paced. The film makes this style its own so much that the more artist shots (one I remember is some bullet casings dropping to the floor in perfect focus) seem quite out of place.
The gore is well done and there are some literally gut wrenching scenes of wounding...also, when the monsters turn up on screen they look great, and are shot in such a way as to make them very real.
The locations (not in fact in Scotland, but it looks like it) are great. The house where they end up holding fort is a charming cottage that would not out of place in an adaptation of Wuthering Heights, but here it ends up being part of some kind of demolition challenge, whereby the various characters try to destroy as much as possible using only the implements inside. Could be a good premise for a game show, if it isn't one already. Its slightly explained at the end, but during the film I couldn't help wondering how the wattle-and daub and timber was keeping out the werewolves. Also it was hard to see how the wooden beams that were nailed to the window frames with huge gaps between them could form an effective barrier.
This was a very fun film, more of an action flick that a true horror, but nevertheless a good yarn. Look forward to exploring the rest of Neil Marshall's bloody back catalogue.

4/5

IR: Another Year

A few of days in a year in the life of an aging couple, their family and friends.

Watching Another Year was very interesting because there was always some good acting to study on the screen. Often the camera would linger for a good half minute on someone’s face just to see him or her frown a little more after some thinking. The character Mary was the best for this, being a hyper person in general, so when she wasn’t talking her face was still in action, jittering between sadness and social ness. Most characters were very good in this respect, with the omission of Gerri, whose face was in a constant look of friendly patronising surprise.
The basic storyline is about a stable couple, Tom and Gerri (har har), who are nearing old age gracefully and are leading happy fulfilling lives, being in good heath, employment, owning a good house and car and having a grown up son. They have life so good, in fact, that other people are drawn to their home because it’s so inviting and convivial. However, they end up having to play host a few too many times and sort out more problems than they would really like to.
The story that evolves from this is very watch able if you’re not too squeamish about being presented with the flaws of real life. As Gerri says, “Life isn’t always kind.” I noticed Jim squirming about in his chair, clearly uncomfortable with the car crash relationships that are too familiar already. We internally ‘squeed’ a few times when we noticed locations in Derby that we recognised, and props such as a Derby Rams mug.
It left us both feeling a bit melancholy but it is a very good watch and as I said the acting is remarkable (hence I remarked upon it, so you know it’s true.) I noticed a lot of the older generation seated behind us but I think any audience would enjoy this film.

5/5

Another Year is refreshing in so many ways. With two fantasy films under our belts this week, it was great to see a film which relied 100% on performances, with an excellent, naturalistic script and actors who were interesting to look at, rather than being airbrushed out of existence. Geri, played by Ruth Sheen, was a particular favourite of mine, as her face was magnetic whilst being unabashedly mature and natural. Jim Broadbent too (who I love love love) is great to look at, his blue bagged eyes staring out atop a grizzled beard. The films real star though is Lesley Manville as Mary...she is one of the most cringe making characters of all time, every moment she spends on screen is spiritual agony in the best possible way. Her scenes rival even Todd Solondz Happiness for sheer discomfort. She is monstrous and heartbreakingly sympathetic at the same time, a mass of neurosis held together with wine. Still, singling people out is unfair...everyone is top notch, even those who appear only for a scene or two, including Imelda Staunton who we saw not two days ago in Harry Potter playing a very different role indeed.
The themes of ageing and the loneliness of old age are juxtaposed with the fun and love of remembering youth; they are portrayed with such brilliance I defy any audience, no matter what age or from what culture, not to find something they relate to in the film.
So much of what is said isn't actually said...it is as if the characters have welcomed us into their lives, just as Tom and Geri welcome people into their house, so we can watch them a while and draw our own conclusions. They are by turns loveable and annoying, admirable and irksome, kind and cold. They are in the truest sense, human beings.
The film is photographed with subtle, everyday artistry, and watching it was a special thrill as a few scenes were shot in Derby. I could barely suppress a squee when the action shift to what I thought was one of the streets I had lived in (on reflection, it wasn't, but I definitely recognise it).
Ok, so...this film is worth seeing. I think it should been seen by people of all ages. In fact, I think it would actually be much more beneficial to young people. Its an English Tokyo Story, a portrait of a family which is as enigmatic as it is revealing. Poignant, poetic and as I say, thoroughly refreshing.

4/5

IR: Hellboy II The Golden Army

Elven Prince Nuada is on a mission to awaken the unstoppable Golden Army and destroy humankind; only Hellboy and the BPRD can stop him!

When Jim brought this DVD home for us to re-watch, I was the one most enthusiastic, having as I did selective memories of how sexy Prince Nuada was. When I asked if I could watch it alone since Jim had to be away for one day, he said it was fine, “But remember that it’s a shit film!” My memories told me it was a damn fine sexy film so I ignored this and got down to some enthusiastic viewing the next day.
I don’t know why, but on my first viewing, I’d apparently missed quite how…shit it is. I admit it. It is not a great film. The opening sequence of the old man explaining the myth of the Golden Army to (assumedly?) Young Hellboy is badly acted and completely unnecessary. The film takes entirely too long to get to the action and the main plot, which in my mind centres all around Prince Nuada and his family, and doesn’t include all that flabby time-filling based in the Good Guy House. Liz is pregnant and can’t possibly find a good moment to tell Hellboy until a few days later when it suits the plot to have a dramatic revelation. Take into account he had a dagger lodged inside him and could die at any moment, and she has to wait to be told by a guy in a cave to do the obvious thing. Plus you’d have thought that Hellboy might have twigged that he was missing something important, when Fishboy began to tell him and Liz (conveniently) woke up yelling at him to shut up. All time wasted that could have been spent following sexy staff-wielding Prince Nuada and getting in a bit more character development for him, since all we know from start to finish is that 1) he has a border-incestuous relationship with his sister and 2) he has made it his destiny to start a war or die trying. The one thing I did get right on my first viewing is how attractive he is, but my brain apparently gave him much more screen-time than in reality, which I realise now on second viewing. Ok, so plot: shaky. But there are some other things to merit the film, for example the set design (beautifully intricate) and the character and costume design. By no means a great film, but worth a watch if you either appreciate good scenery, or think guys who know how to use their pole are hot.

3/5

Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a film which disappointed me no end on the first watching. I thought perhaps I had been unjustly harsh to it and in reviewing the DVD I hoped to analyse it more thoroughly. However, it turns out I had a point.
There are lots of things to like in Hellboy II, however they are individual moments, isolated scenes, little ideas, designs and performances which are dotted around the place like someone accidentally left them in there without realising that they wouldn't match the tone of the whole.
In fact, that it what is so wrong, and so confusing, about Hellboy II. It is uneven. The technical variation is, when examined, stunning. How can a scene with such amazing cinematography be followed by a scene where the cameraman seemed to have no sense of composition at all? How can truly breathtaking CGI coexisted with such obvious green-screening? How are fight scenes put together with such panache put up against romance and drama where the only technique the editor knows is apparently a too-quick fade? It makes for a very awkward film, worse in fact than if the level were consistently low.
The dialogue gets the golden turkey for this film though, with the plot a close silver. Even Ron Perlman's Tom Waites inspired Hellboy and Doug Jones' masterful physicality cannot save it from being ill-judged, baggy, clunky, exposition laden tripe. 'He does this for you! YOU! All he's ever done is try to help!' cries Liz, flaunting her D in GCSE Drama for all to see. If I had walked on set and seen Selma Blair, I probably would have place a cup on her head after mistaking her for a coffee table. But Selma isn't to blame for her character being a cliche-spewing non entity. She just does the script the injustice it deserves. Here's a tip: when you are borrowing both your actors and the characterisations of those actors from Muppets in Space, start a new draft.
The BPRD are stunningly incompetent and their entire MO seems to be to copy Men In Black, but with myths instead of aliens. But fear not, at least we have a good baddy. Oh no, wait a minute, we don't. Resident antagonist Prince Nuada is a typical noble vengeance-filled type with some sweet spear moves, who is vaguely less reprehensible than his twin sister, a bug-eyed flake who shares a special bond with him (note: the bond is magical fairy incest).
The plot doesn't follow a structure of...any kind whatsoever, but for a film that tries its best not to make any coherent sense its still surprisingly predictable. Blah blah Hellboy wants to go outside blah blah relationships blah maverick mission blah.
At its best (scenes not involving Hellboy and the BPRD that much) the film is a beautiful celebration of cinematic design, costume, set and visual effects which get the crews full love. At its worst (i.e. all the bits with Hellboy et al.) it is a disjointed clip show from the series finale of the Hellboy and Pals TV Series.
This project should have been split into two: a feature length documentary in which Guillermo Del Toro tells us about all the research he's done on mythology, with some CGI set-pieces (maybe Walking With Myths, BBC2), and 'Hellboy and Pals' where the kookie BPRD can spend a six episode arc exchanging bad dialogue and getting drunk. At least then we'd know what we were getting.

2/5

IR: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Voldemort has returned, fo' rizzle this time. Harry must leave the safe haven of his Aunt and Uncle's house, and fulfil the mission left to him by Dumbledore: find the remaining horcruxes and destroy them.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is an excellent film. The doom and gloom and jumpy scary bits were all done well, as per proper atmosphere requirements for this film. Everyone had fittingly sunken baggy eyes and despair stubble. The Malfoys especially looked wonderfully dishevelled.
The acting was fine, which couldn’t be said honestly about previous Harry Potters. One bit I will spoil for you if I may which I liked especially, was when they Polyjuiced themselves as members of the Ministry and were consequently played by adult actors on screen for a good ten minutes. During this time ‘Hermione’ was especially well played, by a lady who wasn’t afraid to gawk awkwardly and act flustered and scared a la the real Hermione. Harry and Ron were also portrayed well by their counterparts, although I do think having ‘Harry’ as a burly black-haired man and ‘Ron’ as a softer-looking redhead was a bit of a cop-out.
The plot stayed close to the book, and everything was done well enough not to elicit feelings of wrongdoing on my part. This is the crux of any Harry Potter film review: we all know the book was good, but has the film fuxed it up? Previous films in this series have but I am pleased to report that I, at least, was not disappointed. Also Jim but shh I’ll have to let him tell you about that.
One other thing I liked most was the Dirigible Plum tree outside the Lovegood home. Jim put forward the amusing suggestion on the walk home that you could cut one off and stand over it with your mouth open for it to fly in, and then you could eat the whole thing because instead of the stone there is helium, and then you can speak in a high-pitched voice for a while. Brilliant! Also, while we’re here, I had been wondering what the actor playing Ol’ Man Lovegood would be like. I had been kind of hoping for David Bowie to play him (for the intelligent but weird angle) but I was happy enough with their choice.
could take you part by part though the movie and say, “Yup that was done well, that was done well,” but that would be tiresome. Suffice to say Harry Potter fans should definitely see it and enjoy it, and I am looking forward to being equally impressed with Part Two next year!

5/5

It took me a few minutes to get into this film, mainly because the trailers and ads before it were so appalling that it was like trying to eat a main course when you've just vomited your starter into a toilet. And you had to swallow some that was left in your throat. And there was no water.*
But enough of that. From the word go it is clear that the gradual improvement curve of the films is still progressing smoothly. The visual style is an artistic stamp; clever, gothic and brooding. The magic is in general used subtly and sparingly, and the best scenes are by far the ones in normal locations; suburban streets, a coffee bar, a dilapidated house. For a blockbuster with so much money behind it, it is surprisingly arty and like the book it captures perfectly a very family unfriendly sense of bleak, cold loneliness. One scene in particular, where they are travelling across the country, looks like it was lifted from Cormac McCarthy's The Road. It is by far the strongest of the films so far, due almost entirely to the reliance of the plot on the central three characters, all of whom are given really solid performances by messrs. Grint, Watson and Radcliffe.
However, the film is not without its faults. RaLph Fiennes is still hamming it up like a panto dame, though thankfully he is given better lines and little screen-time, Helena Bonham-Carter is still Helena Bonham-Carter and Dobby's Yoda Speak is still only appealing to those suffering from brain damage due to oxygen starvation.
Also the film contains the most ill-advised used of dance since Toby Maguire danced The Jazz Spider in Spiderman 3: Rise of the Jazz Spider.
There are also some scenes that were filmed specifically, I am sure, to moisten the pants of fangirls and fanboys respectively...one early on including Harry-flavoured poly-juice potion and one later involving Bellatrix, Hermoine and some non-magic torture.
Still, all in all the film is an excellent piece of work; the odd scene here and there is weaker, but it is great to see a blockbuster with brains. This has come so far since Harry Potter and the Cash Cow of Cash (aka Philosophers Stone in the UK) and even though it is clear that it was only split into two parts to milk yet more pennies from the money-teats of the public, I am glad that the added run time really gives us a chance to enjoy a more faithful adaptation.
My only regret is that its taken this long to fulfil the movie potential of these novels; bring on the next and final one, I say, and lets get something new.

4/5

*The Green Lantern trailer is like pain and stupidity was made into a trailer. A trailer for an awful, awful film.

IR: The Illusionist

M. Tatischeff, an aging magician down on his luck, travels to the UK to find work. In Scotland he meets Amy, a naive girl who is enchanted by his tricks. They travel to Edinbrugh together, and see what magic they can find.

The Illusionist is a very good film because it captures real life. People are ugly and annoying but not overly so, just like people in real life are. The main guy is a proper old-fashioned gentleman who is generous and polite but seems to have lost his path in life and now struggles to make a living with his magic act. He’s a very sympathetic character and we follow him as he travels from venue to venue, giving performances to small unappreciative audiences. A girl who is impressed by his magic tags along uninvited, pulling her weight with the housework but otherwise quite dependant. She spends most of the time asking for things to be given to her. If we are to believe that she absolutely believes in magic, then she is more blameless than I thought of her as I watched the film, since every time she asks for money and clothes, she doesn’t believe that she’s costing this guy anything. However, the reality seen from his point of view is that he has to go from job to crappy job to afford these luxuries, and she grows increasingly ungrateful and annoying, opening and taking a present without asking and discontent with the first pair of shoes she is given. We watch as the poor magician is increasingly worn down by this begins to tug her away from shop windows. Though, like I said, if she believes in magic then in her mind it’s all free and she wouldn’t understand if she wasn’t allowed something. Gosh I’m painting a rather bad picture of things aren’t I? This is just one side of it. The other side is that it’s friendly and charming and beautifully drawn, and clever in its quietness, and has so many small interesting visuals to look out for. The settings reminded me of the design in Monkey Island 3, since all the rooms are full of interesting things but you can tell which ones will be interacted with and which are just set design. It even has a kind of happy ending. I enjoyed it, but in the bittersweet sad way that I suppose it was intended. I’d recommend seeing it if this hasn’t put you off.

4/5

When I was young, my parents rented videos of Mon Oncle and Monsieur Houlet's Holiday (miss out the aitches, for a French effect). I adored them and though I haven't seen them much since, the charming slapstick poetry of Jacques Tati has stuck with me. That being the case I was even more keen to see the Illusionist, which I was already sold on seeing having been highly impressed with the team's previous work, the Triplets of Belleville, when I discovered it was based on a script of Tati's.
The film certainly has a lot of the master in it– M. Tatischeff the titular Illusionist is based not only on himself, but also on the caricature of him which used to adorn posters. The (near-silent) comedy is as bittersweet as can be and one particular scene, in which Tatischeff attempts to clean a car, is very reminiscent of the scene in Mon Oncle where the Uncle tries to work some of the futuristic devices in the kitchen.
The father/daughter relationship that develops between him and Amy provides the focus of the film; there are many speculations about the real-life parallels going on here, but you can find them out for yourself. Despite the obvious importance of the relationship, its not really what the film is about. It is in the last few minutes the true meaning becomes clear. Times are changing, and the old ways are dying. An old theme, but played with sincerity and class by animators and writers alike.
Speaking of the animation, I must say it's great to be able to compare this to Secret of Kells, which you will remember we saw last week.
While the animation in Kells was gloriously wild and eclectic, The Illusionist, like its predecessor, is about absolute, elegant control. From the rather stuffy, dignified grace of M. Tatischeff to the rolling rollicking of a permanently inebriated scotsman, the movement is pure perfection. Character design is another strength; it is truly a cast of snowflakes. Even the most fleeting of background characters has been crafted lovingly, and the combination of the grotesque and the beautiful is stunningly poignant. The locations and interiors too, have a personality that any live action production would have trouble matching. The whole film captures place and people in hyper-reality, pictures more real than what they represent.
All in all a highly worth while film, a beautiful elegy with a broken heart.

4/5

RR: Avatar

Our first retrospective review, brough to you in glorious MSN transcript!

Britta says: (22:12:42)

hi

Jim says: (22:12:48)

Hello!

Jim says: (22:12:58)

Hiding off line, I see

Britta says: (22:13:03)

yes ^__^

Britta says: (22:13:07)

bwahahaa

Jim says: (22:13:21)

Anyhoo, let me begin by introducing the concept of the Retrospective Reviews

Britta says: (22:13:25)

k

Jim says: (22:14:15)

Well, the feelings a film creates, and the general impression, are probably best judge by what people remember months after

Jim says: (22:14:27)

If you still think a film is awesome after 6 months, chances are it was

Jim says: (22:14:54)

So we're here to review films we watched a while back without revisiting them

Jim says: (22:15:12)

All ignorance is completely genuine, folks

Jim says: (22:15:54)

Well, we're here to review James Cameron's multi-million dollar blockbuster Avatar

Britta says: (22:16:09)

which was damn good

Jim says: (22:16:10)

And as I remember, Britta saw it about a month before I did

Jim says: (22:16:13)

Indeed

Britta says: (22:16:22)

with my family ^_^

Jim says: (22:16:32)

So I think you should give me your low down before my horrible, bitter, cynical viewpoint butts in

Jim says: (22:16:45)

La de da :P

Britta says: (22:17:02)

and then I insisted Jim see it with me, gave me an excuse to see it again :P

Britta says: (22:17:25)

ok, well I thought it was AMAZING and it is the only film I can remember coming out of feeling so strongly about it

Britta says: (22:17:38)

everyone was having to adjust back to reality

Jim says: (22:17:39)

Oh, so that was why?

Jim says: (22:17:47)

Selfish beeyatch

Britta says: (22:17:52)

and feeling a little dissapointed to have to do so

Jim says: (22:17:57)

Aww

Britta says: (22:18:13)

nooooo because it was awesome and I thought you'd want to enjoy the awesomeness too

Jim says: (22:18:17)

Did you want to be a Nar'vee?

Britta says: (22:18:21)

YES

Jim says: (22:18:25)

LOL

Jim says: (22:18:35)

To be honest, who wouldn't?

Britta says: (22:18:37)

tiny humans are rubbish in comparison

Jim says: (22:18:48)

That reminds me of one of the cutest moments

Britta says: (22:18:56)

at the end?

Jim says: (22:19:12)

When Jake's alien squeeze came and rescued his little human body from the caravan in the woods

Britta says: (22:19:18)

yeah :)

Jim says: (22:19:27)

Little human man! He so small!

Britta says: (22:19:36)

and she managed not to recoil in disgust

Jim says: (22:19:38)

I keep him as pet.

Britta says: (22:19:40)

haha

Britta says: (22:19:50)

not that humans are disgusting

Jim says: (22:19:52)

He was cute! About the only time he was, mind you.

Britta says: (22:20:12)

but if you've fallen in love with a big blue thing it's weird to see the little pink thing that he really is

Jim says: (22:20:17)

Okay, something really freaky about the cuteness factor...

Jim says: (22:20:23)

Heh. little pink thing eh? ;)

Britta says: (22:20:27)

hehe yeah :P

Jim says: (22:20:38)

I might prefer a big blue thing, its true

Jim says: (22:20:40)

Anyway

Jim says: (22:20:48)

As you know, I like Sigourny Weaver

Britta says: (22:20:52)

yus

Jim says: (22:20:53)

She am pretty

Britta says: (22:21:05)

she am strong like cheetah

Jim says: (22:21:08)

And all natural, as we found out watching alien

Jim says: (22:21:18)

:D Cheetah with a gun

Britta says: (22:21:23)

tiny pants ^_^

Britta says: (22:21:25)

hehe

Jim says: (22:21:31)

Huge..er..foliage

Jim says: (22:22:02)

Anyway, if someone had asked me what I would have said if I saw a 12 foot tall muscular blue Sigourney weaver

Jim says: (22:22:06)

I would have said...

Jim says: (22:22:10)

Well, probably nothing

Jim says: (22:22:16)

I would have just collapsed on the floor

Britta says: (22:22:20)

just fainted from lack of head blood?

Jim says: (22:22:27)

Yes, exactly

Britta says: (22:22:31)

hmm

Britta says: (22:22:40)

so what did you think when you saw her?

Jim says: (22:22:49)

I was FREAK-ED OUT.

Jim says: (22:22:58)

Her Narvee really hits the uncanny valley for me

Jim says: (22:23:15)

Especially the way her legs move, for some reason

Jim says: (22:23:17)

Is weird

Britta says: (22:23:35)

I never noticed any strange leggage

Jim says: (22:23:49)

But on the other hand, I actually found Jake's Nar'vee quite sexy.

Jim says: (22:23:58)

When in reality he is a potato-faced squadie

Jim says: (22:24:13)

The Strange Leggage of Sigourney Weaver

Britta says: (22:24:13)

yeah I agree he was attractive

Jim says: (22:24:17)

In Cinema's Now!

Jim says: (22:24:39)

Maybe all ugly people are sexy as Nar'vee

Jim says: (22:24:45)

And all sexy people are weird

Britta says: (22:24:54)

maybe his face just suited it better

Britta says: (22:24:57)

meh

Jim says: (22:25:11)

His face definitely suited being something different

Britta says: (22:25:18)

You're being mean

Jim says: (22:25:22)

Poor potato faced Jake

Britta says: (22:25:24)

he's not that unattractive

Britta says: (22:25:32)

you just don't like that he's a soldier

Jim says: (22:25:38)

Like the incompetent carvings of a drunken toddler

Jim says: (22:25:48)

Yes, I really am being mean

Jim says: (22:26:03)

He is fair looking, and I do dislike the military mens

Jim says: (22:26:25)

Especially that guy in the film, actually

Jim says: (22:26:34)

The Colonel, or whatever

Britta says: (22:26:34)

the main bad guy?

Jim says: (22:26:36)

Yeah

Britta says: (22:26:47)

yeah he's far too muscly and gross

Jim says: (22:26:52)

I mean, I know it is supposed to be a simplistic, easy-to-engage with story

Jim says: (22:27:00)

And so it has douchebag bad guys

Jim says: (22:27:09)

But he was a MASSIVE prick

Jim says: (22:27:23)

For 2 english pence, I would have put out his remaining eye

Jim says: (22:27:30)

With my thumb

Britta says: (22:27:31)

not for freeeeee?

Jim says: (22:27:41)

Well, even evil has standards my love

Jim says: (22:27:48)

And I am, as we all know, very evil

Britta says: (22:28:10)

I suppose the 2p would pay for being squeamish about putting your thumb in his eye socket

Jim says: (22:28:24)

Yeah...although eyes are quite tough

Jim says: (22:28:33)

Enough of this grossness

Jim says: (22:28:41)

What else do you remember from the film?

Britta says: (22:29:05)

It was very beautiful, all the glowing fluorescent jungle scenes especially

Britta says: (22:29:52)

and when he's gone small and scrawny from lack of real-life exercise it was a good contrast between the reality and the fantasy

Jim says: (22:30:20)

Yes, I have to agree the jungle was amazing

Jim says: (22:30:46)

The level of care was up to Dark Crystal standards

Britta says: (22:30:20)

and I liked the fact they had to learn their language

Britta says: (22:30:40)

and not just have the aliens learn English, or have a universal translator

Jim says: (22:30:52)

Yeah, good point

Jim says: (22:31:05)

Slightly better sci-fi elements than most gave it credit for

Jim says: (22:31:39)

What about the 3D? I seem to remember you were all for it, like a big populist sheep would be.

Britta says: (22:33:09)

The 3D was good. I thought it worked well and I remember saying it was the first film where the 3D actually blended into the storytelling and didn't seem like a gimmick like in Coraline or Monsters vs Aliens

Britta says: (22:33:53)

I mean it didn't blend perfectly, but it seemed like film-making was on the path to incorporating it in a better way

Britta says: (22:34:34)

like I'm sure when colour and sound first came out it didn't feel natural, but now it's a part of every film

Jim says: (22:34:37)

That is a good way of looking at it

Jim says: (22:34:49)

Although I genuinely can't see 3D becoming like sound and colour

Britta says: (22:35:14)

maybe not quite but certainly not a jolting intrusion

Jim says: (22:35:23)

Because sound and colour are part of our world, whereas 3D on a 2D canvas will always be unnatural

Jim says: (22:35:28)

Hmm...

Britta says: (22:35:42)

what did you think of the 3D? as I recall it gave you a headache?

Jim says: (22:36:25)

Not a headache as such...as you know, I had a lot of trouble with the 3D...I find the glasses uncomfortable anyway, but at the time my eyesight had got very poor, I needed a new prescription for my own glasses and so I had to sit right at the front. It made my eyes ache.

Jim says: (22:36:54)

I'm trying not to be 'cooler than thou' but I really only noticed the 3D when it was irking me

Britta says: (22:36:54)

Sitting at the front makes your eyes ache tis true :(

Jim says: (22:37:23)

:P Having strobing images 10 feet wide makes your eyes ache

Jim says: (22:37:34)

I would much rather have seen it in 2D

Jim says: (22:37:44)

And look forward to doing so when we get it on DVD

Britta says: (22:38:03)

me too ^____^

Jim says: (22:38:24)

Obviously, there's not much to say about the plot that hasn't already been said

Jim says: (22:38:36)

And even then people go on bout it CONSTANTLY

Britta says: (22:38:44)

yup. pretty predictable. let's move on

Jim says: (22:38:56)

I did want to make a point about it as an allegory, though

Jim says: (22:39:32)

Because people often equate it to the plight of indigenous cultures vs. the imperialists

Jim says: (22:39:46)

But it doesn't really hold up like that for one simple reason

Jim says: (22:39:58)

That being that humanity do not trade with the Nar'vee

Jim says: (22:40:09)

And conversly, that the Nar'vee don't want our stuff

Britta says: (22:40:13)

well they want to

Britta says: (22:40:24)

they try to find stuff the narvee will want

Britta says: (22:40:28)

but that doesn't work

Jim says: (22:40:33)

This is so

Jim says: (22:40:41)

But it just doesn't hold up historically

Jim says: (22:41:21)

From the Native Americans to the Aboriginals and the South American peoples, the natives have ALWAYS wanted what the invaders offered

Britta says: (22:41:27)

ooooooo I think in a sequel the narvee should use the technology to walk around as little tube-grown humans!

Britta says: (22:41:44)

yeah that's true

Jim says: (22:41:48)

In fact it was often the trade that softened the way to allow them to be subjugated

Britta says: (22:41:53)

and in this one they're perfecty happy

Jim says: (22:41:53)

Heh :D Not a bad idea

Jim says: (22:42:18)

Surely some of the younger Nar'vee would like guns to hunt with

Britta says: (22:42:31)

hmmm they'd be wrong to u_u

Britta says: (22:42:45)

they need to learn the ways!

Jim says: (22:43:22)

Exactly, but wouldn't that make a better film? The old ones persuading them to keep to the old ways, the young ones more willing to accept humanity's diplomacy?

Britta says: (22:43:30)

maybe

Jim says: (22:43:40)

And one more point on this...the Nar'vee aren't hippies

Britta says: (22:43:57)

but the older ones probably wouldn't allow humans to be talking to their children

Jim says: (22:44:16)

That's why the children would totally talk to them

Jim says: (22:44:18)

Rebellion!

Britta says: (22:44:24)

suppose so

Britta says: (22:44:41)

they aren't hippies indeed u_u

Jim says: (22:44:54)

They are what hippies TRY to be

Jim says: (22:45:00)

And fail to be

Jim says: (22:45:16)

Hippies can't telepathically interface with horses

Jim says: (22:45:26)

If they could, people might like them better

Britta says: (22:45:28)

omg if I could be as hippyish as them

Britta says: (22:45:53)

would be awesome

Britta says: (22:45:56)

yeah

Britta says: (22:46:03)

also take less drugs

Jim says: (22:46:12)

Yus

Britta says: (22:46:26)

(as in, they should. I already don't take any drugs)

Jim says: (22:46:44)

(or interface with horses)

Jim says: (22:46:50)

(despite what some people say)

Britta says: (22:47:17)

just a little clarification for the wonderful internet peoples who do not know me personally

Jim says: (22:47:27)

:D

Britta says: (22:47:30)

but what about what the horses say?

Britta says: (22:47:42)

:P

Jim says: (22:47:45)

You don't interface with them.

Jim says: (22:47:46)

Much.

Jim says: (22:47:53)

So, Avatar...

Jim says: (22:48:04)

Any last points?

Britta says: (22:48:17)

well we haven't actually heard your opinion of it yet

Britta says: (22:48:27)

your scathing review

Jim says: (22:48:31)

Ok :D

Jim says: (22:48:43)

Well after that build up, my review isn't scathing at all

Jim says: (22:48:57)

The one word I consistently used to describe it to others was 'charming'

Jim says: (22:49:37)

I think it is pure fantasy and pure escapism, that people who get to worked up about it in either direction have entirely missed the point of what it is, and that it is very beautiful and well made

Jim says: (22:49:56)

And being the sensitive boy I am, I did cry several times

Jim says: (22:50:05)

Like a school girl would

Britta says: (22:50:11)

:)*

Britta says: (22:50:38)

so what are your criticisms?

Jim says: (22:50:55)

Well, the plot is baggy

Jim says: (22:51:09)

Its too long (my eternal criticism)

Jim says: (22:51:13)

Predictable

Jim says: (22:51:57)

But really these things are beside the point

Jim says: (22:52:06)

Like I said before, its not something to get serious about

Jim says: (22:52:16)

Its just fun; big, good looking, expensive fun

Britta says: (22:53:03)

ooo I've just remembered one thing I really liked :D near the end when Main Girl totally beat Soldier Mans butt, and wasn't wishy-washy and hesitaty about it.

Jim says: (22:53:56)

Heh

Jim says: (22:53:57)

Yeah

Jim says: (22:54:02)

She kicked his punk ass

Britta says: (22:54:27)

she was practical and got business sorted out before she could go save lil pink man

Britta says: (22:54:44)

which I admire u_u much better than the silly girl in Halloween

Jim says: (22:55:16)

Poor little pink man

Jim says: (22:55:36)

I suppose we could go into the portrayal of disabled people in film at this point...

Britta says: (22:55:36)

it's ok, he gets to be one in the end :)

Jim says: (22:55:51)

But I am rather torn on the issue

Britta says: (22:55:55)

??

Jim says: (22:57:21)

Well, some people complained that Jake was seen as useless when he lost his legs...others that he was actually a shining example of how disabled soldiers could rise again

Jim says: (22:57:31)

Either one is flawed really

Jim says: (22:57:52)

Although it is interesting how his Narvee body kind of becomes like a drug

Jim says: (22:57:59)

And his human existence a dream

Britta says: (22:58:01)

well I'm inclined to see it the positive way

Britta says: (22:58:09)

they find him something he can do, and he does it

Jim says: (22:59:26)

Yes, that is the bottom line

Jim says: (23:00:06)

As we mentioned at the beginning, who the hell WOULDN'T be a Nar'vee? If I had perfectly functioning limbs, I'd be all over that shit.

Jim says: (23:00:21)

Sorry human body, you're only second best now

Britta says: (23:00:35)

aww we could still keep it around

Jim says: (23:00:43)

Yeah

Jim says: (23:00:48)

As a spare

Jim says: (23:00:55)

While I'm busy being blue and sexy

Britta says: (23:00:57)

I feel sorry for smaller Jim body

Britta says: (23:00:59)

hehe

Jim says: (23:01:11)

Making blue love with my blue Britta

Britta says: (23:01:18)

^___^

Jim says: (23:01:31)

And on that note...

Britta says: (23:01:37)

hmm?

Jim says: (23:01:50)

I think we ought to wrap it up

Britta says: (23:01:53)

yus

Jim says: (23:02:03)

I mean, how will be reach a higher pinnacle than blue sex?

Jim says: (23:02:12)

No way, no how

Britta says: (23:02:17)

in conclusion, darn good film, everyone must see it

Jim says: (23:02:46)

Yes, if only to see what all the fuss is about

Britta says: (23:03:05)

and then go back to your dreary little lives

Britta says: (23:03:15)

walking through the rain

Britta says: (23:03:37)

talking on your rubbish technology mobile, buying a ready-made frozen dinner

Jim says: (23:03:41)

Eating a sandwich. A dreary, non-blue sandwich.

Britta says: (23:04:04)

entangled in all the demands of everyday life

Britta says: (23:04:12)

why not live in a tree?

Britta says: (23:04:16)

in the sunshine

Britta says: (23:04:25)

it's warm enough that you don't need clothes

Britta says: (23:04:32)

everyone is fit and strong

Jim says: (23:04:35)

And sexy!

Britta says: (23:04:36)

aaaaah ^__^

Britta says: (23:04:43)

Jim I think you're a bit obsessed

Jim says: (23:04:52)

Just telling it like it is

Britta says: (23:04:55)

it is true that they are sexy

Jim says: (23:05:05)

So, yes

Jim says: (23:05:09)

Watch Avatar

Jim says: (23:05:16)

4/5

Britta says: (23:05:22)

5/5!