Movie Reviews 2.0

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Interesting article about why all big movies are coming out of the same mould.

Why all moves are the same:

It’s not déjà vu. Summer movies are often described as formulaic. But what few people know is that there is actually a formula—one that lays out, on a page-by-page basis, exactly what should happen when in a screenplay. It’s as if a mad scientist has discovered a secret process for making a perfect, or at least perfectly conventional, summer blockbuster.

When Snyder published his book in 2005, it was as if an explosion ripped through Hollywood. The book offered something previous screenplay guru tomes didn’t. Instead of a broad overview of how a screen story fits together, his book broke down the three-act structure into a detailed “beat sheet”: 15 key story “beats”—pivotal events that have to happen—and then gave each of those beats a name and a screenplay page number. Given that each page of a screenplay is expected to equal a minute of film, this makes Snyder’s guide essentially a minute-to-minute movie formula.

 

[Mariner]

Interesting article about why all big movies are coming out of the same mould.

Yeah, it was interesting when Chalnoth posted it yesterday as well.

It certainly does go some way to explaining why the modern blockbusters are so appallingly predictable these days. It's a real pity that Hollywood is run by groups of execs who obviously haven't had a truly creative thought between them for decades.

That said, the fact that the screenwriters are so happily following this formula reflects on them poorly as well.

It's no surprise to see some of the modern TV shows eclipsing the movies in so many areas.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Yeah, it was interesting when Chalnoth posted it yesterday as well.

Oops, my apologies, I saw it linked elsewhere, and thought it would be of interest here. Too late though.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Gravity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4pcg7bXgmU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV-UEca2W9U

We're gonna need some extra equipment in the theaters.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Nitpicking you are I had same thoughts during some of action scenes. I also wondered why they used plasma canon only single time against most monsters (presumably needing long charging) and then fired it up dozen times to kill monster Level 5.
But all this is just nitpicking ... I enjoyed this move quite a lot!

It was so satisfying and you could feel the impact of some of dem blows right into the Kaiju's head I think the actions scenes were absolutely a blast to watch. The background music also made it feel more epic. On top of that, I could actually make out what the robot was doing while it was fighting the monsters unlike transformers which was quite literally a mess during fight scenes (maybe due to the slow motion? think it was a good idea).

But during the movie, I was wondering.. if they could build giant robots.. couldn't they make giant guns/weapons too?

 

[Billy Idol]

Pacific Rim was a blast, so funny, so stupid! Cool!

But hell I was impressed by the tec...phantastic CGI work...astounding!

My personal tec highlights:

- some of the water is sucked into the turbine-heart of the major mech...nice little detail, made me grin!

- unfortunately, cavitation is missing in most of the scenes...would have looked great under water...but, I again was happy during the large final battle, with the big water wave...they had cavitation in! Cool!

Other highlight: elbow rocket. Need one of those!

 

[nutball]

Mrogan it's a 7/10 if you love totally brainless action, it's a 3-4/10 if you have standards

Well then it's probably a 6/10 for me. I do like brainless action. The missus has a major thing for Morgan Freeman so I'm going to have to watch it anyway. And that other movie he's in this summer.

I was wrong. Olympus Has Fallen - 3/10. Oh dear. Though I was drunk when I watched it, so maybe I missed something subtle in the plot.

Next up - White House Down. Because Hollywood is so full of original ideas.

 

[WhiningKhan]

IMDB ratings are strange, at times.
Just saw the new Wolverine, which has 7.3/10 currently. I'd rate it at around 4, in the context of ratings of other movies of the genre. Weakest of X-Men franchise so far, even the first Wolverine movie was clearly better.

 

[Billy Idol]

IMDB ratings are strange, at times.
Just saw the new Wolverine, which has 7.3/10 currently. I'd rate it at around 4, in the context of ratings of other movies of the genre. Weakest of X-Men franchise so far, even the first Wolverine movie was clearly better.

I liked it. But then, I am a Wolverine fanboy..,

 

[John Reynolds]

Sit thru the credits if you see Wolverine. I haven't seen the movie yet, but there's a Days of Future Past teaser if you wait for it.

 

[NRP]

Wolverine sucked ass. Total disappointment.

 

[Acert93]

Pacific Rim: Relive your childhood daydreams... but only better.

How do you rate a movie like this? For a popcorn flick they avoided all the things I have not liked about Transformers, Battleship, and the like. Gone are all the really, really cheesy scenes. Sure, Marshall and the scientists offer some cheese moments but it seems to fit with the movies tone. The story is not deep but it is surprisingly lucid and stays on track. There are no big stars but the actors fit their roles. As the movie knows what it wants to be (a serious, but not overly dark, man vs. monster flick) the script isn't horrible. The film could have easily squeezed in a misplaced love story but it surprisingly avoids the "Megan Fox" treatment (demographic studies be damned!) and comes away with a more sincere message of caring than the other big flicks present (not that this is deep people, but refreshing). None of these elements is good, let along great, by movie standards but as a whole they don't fall into the GI Joe vortex of childhood memories resurrected from the dead only to be murdered on screen.

All that "stuff" is really the supporting cast for 2 hours of some of the best CGI ever done. And it is CGI that beats your brains in over and over--and you love every moment of it. Pacific Rim does what similar movies like Real Steele failed to do: offer a great popcorn flick without any of the heavy handed mishandled aspects holding back the best part of the movie.

So my review/recommendation would be this:

If you like seeing things go boom go watch this movie. Like now.

If you are looking for a "good" movie you probably should steer clear of this one as it is all eye candy.

 

[Billy Idol]

Sit thru the credits if you see Wolverine. I haven't seen the movie yet, but there's a Days of Future Past teaser if you wait for it.

Yeah, quite cool X-Men teaser at the end

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Pretty well put, Acert. Exactly how I see this movie, it's what many annoying summer blockbusters should have been... and too bad that it doesn't make as much money.

Avengers is better, sure, but there's like 1 Avengers in 10 summer movies.

 

[Cornsnake]

I saw Pacific Rim yesterday. Very enjoyable movie. The only minor complaint I have is the use of Glados' voice. It felt very out of place. I always expect her to say something funny, but of course none of her personality has carried over. IMO they shouldn't have used her voice.

 

[Davros]

Wolverine - slow paced and boring

 

[Gubbi]

I think you'll find there's Dalek emperor named after me

Peter Capaldi is the new doctor

Cheers

 

[Alexko]

Peter Capaldi is the new doctor

Cheers

This is the greatest fucking news ever.

 

[Mize]

I was rooting for the dude from Luther (aka Stringer Bell), but I'm sure he was too expensive...

 

[Sigfried1977]

Pacific Rim

If you are looking for a "good" movie you probably should steer clear of this one as it is all eye candy.

I think it is legitimately good actually. There was just enough character development for me to get invested in the action scenes, yet never so much that it hampered the film's snappy pace. And while the movie is indeed full of cliches, it does use them to its advantage (like Avatar did). This is not at all an easy thing to accomplish (look at 90% of all the other summer movies for proof), and I feel the film deserves better than back handed compliments.

Anyway, saw Oz - The Great and Powerful this weekend and I quite enjoyed it. I think James Franco made for a pretty decent carvival conman (the performance was kinda stiff and stilted, but I thought it worked quite well for the character), I also really liked the witches (Rachel Weisz's performance in particular was delightfully camp) and the CGI sidekicks worked surprisingly well too (the flying monkey was consistently funny and every moment involving the chyna girl was adorable and/or deeply touching). It did drag a little at times, but unlike in Tim Burton's Alice movie, Sam Raimi found a fitting end to this particular fantasy tale and it didn't involve handing the main character a bloody sword. It also looked like I thought Oz should look like, i.e. bright and magical, whereas Burton's Wonderland looked like someone dropped a nuke on it.