wibble

Brothers Grimm (imdb)
My rating: 3 out of 5

Very much all the fairy tales that you grew up with, rolled up into one is the best way to describe this film. Heath Ledger looks unrecognisable (to me, anyway) from A Knight’s Tale, whereas Matt Damon is Matt Damon no matter how much you try to change his appearance

Speaking of A Knight’s Tale, Brothers Grimm reminded me of that film. I don’t know why as they are by different directors, but the feeling/atmosphere of the film seems the same.

However, the film is enjoyable and has some laughs, and moves at a decent pace. The film is basically a fairy tale - as the characters say - that is real and happening to them. The formation of the gingerbread man is something to watch!!

At least this did better than Terry Gilliam’s previous attempt at film-making and was actually made and released…

Serenity (imdb)
My rating: 4 out of 5

Serenity, for those that don’t know is the name a spaceship. Not just any spaceship, but in particular a Firefly class spaceship. Yep, that’s right, this is the movie version of the short-lived Firefly television series which was cancelled after one season.

The transition to the big screen has largely been beneficial to Firefly. More budget is available, so more effects shots, space shots etc are used - without going too far over the top. Some of the fights were difficult to follow at times, but that might be due to the dodgy cinema we watched it in.

The beginning of the film was good, in that it consisted of one shot lasting about 4 minutes, in which you got to see most of the ship, and how all the rooms that you had seen before in the series now all fitted together and how they led to the rest of the ship. (There must be lots of engines in there as there wasn’t that much room space shown!)

The film did answer a few questions left over from the series, and showed a bit more back history (eg how River was snatched from the government), although it’s not easy to work out how long after the series the film takes place - my guess is about a year based on one of Kaylee’s comments.

The ending was sad, as two characters from the series will play no further part - if there are any more movies to be made - but at least you know that in the end they just carry doing what they always have. Speaking of in the end, it must be a Joss Whedon speciality that there’s a massive fight at the end in which nearly all the characters die or get incapacitated. Look at the end of Angel and the end of Serenity, both end in major battles and one character is lost…

Overall, it was a good film, especially if you liked Firefly, as it’s just more of the same. It goes along at a tremendous pace, with plenty of action but also some quieter bits to let you take stock of what’s going on.

The Island (imdb)
My rating: 3 out of 5

This film is meant primarily as a comment about cloning, stem cell research, etc, and the perils of doing such a thing. This is taken to extremes in some ways in the film in that the ‘body parts’ have their own lives, even if it is in a very Orwellian environment where everything is monitored so that the clones are in perfect condition when they are required.

During the film there are some way over the top scenes, for example falling down the side of the building, and some awkward camera angles when the characters are running around, which does make it hard to work out what’s going on sometimes, but it’s mostly OK. There’s also many product placements during the film, some of which look out of place, for example the XBox logo while playing the holographic fight. Some of the technology also seems out of place for only 15 years in the future - eg trains that don’t run on tracks. For this to happen these days I think they’d need more than 15 years to get ‘track’ made up from the middle of nowhere.
(It was supposed to be set in 2050, but was brough forward because of the current interest in cloning, so they must have changed some things and either left in, or overlooked, others.) The film is slightly too long, although the large amount of action going on does make up for this.

Madagascar (imdb)
My rating: 2 out of 5

OK, not too sure about this film. There were funny bits and all the usual one-liners that you tend to find in kid’s films, but overall I’m not sure whether I liked the film or not. For me it really didn’t seem to get going. Sure, the penguins were good, but most of their scenes appeared in the trailers weeks before. The lion’s gradual decline to type by the changing of his mane was a nice touch though.

Not much else to add really…

Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (imdb)
My rating: 5 out of 5

The 1971 version, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, was a marvellous film, showing all the eccentricity of Willy Wonka himself. Although the effects of the time were not like the CGI-fest most films are these days, the film managed to still portray the ‘madness’ of the factory and the workings of it. In the new Tim Burton version, film technology has moved on by 30 years and is therefore even more colourful and madder.

The size of the factory has increased and rather than just going through a ‘tunnel’ to get around, everyone gets to go on a rollercoaster ride from place to place, with chocolate swirling around everywhere. the oompa-loompa(s) are still just as good however, and because they all look the same it adds another bit of fun to the film. (He apparently filmed 100 roles for all the various scenes…) The glass elevator is how a glass elevator should be - see through on all sides, as it travels through the CGI scenery at great speed.

Johnny Depp is brilliant as Willy Wonka, once you get used to him playing the role differently to how Gene Wilder did. Johnny’s Wonka is a bit darker, and there is more background story to how he got to be the Willy Wonka everyone knows. He does seem a bit odd in that he seems to dislike children, and just puts up with them - unless he knows beforehand that he’ll end up with Charlie. In general there are more background stories in the film overall, but as I’ve not read the book, I’m not sure if these have been added, or are in the book as well.

The film has many funny scenes and there are plenty of laughs, and it’s probably a film I would go to see again to see if there’s anything I missed in the background! If you’re a fan of the original film, you should enjoy this one as well - it’s the original brought up to date, with a bit extra thrown in.

War Of The Worlds(imdb)
My rating: 4 out of 5

Having been a fan of Jeff Wayne’s musical version of War Of The Worlds, I went into the cinema with some ideas of what I expected the film to be. Of course, that was a different interpretation of the book, without the Spielberg treatment. I did find myself, however, waiting for events to happen that are in the musical version, and which didn’t happen (eg no Parson). What you do get though is a fairly typical ‘war-type’, ‘alien-invasion’ movie, with mass panic and the general breakdown of civil order, (shades of Independence Day) with everyone fending for themselves, and therefore ending up making things easier for any aliens by all being in one place at the same time. (ie the ferry)

Obviously, the film being done over a hundred years after the book, the pace of the film is much faster than a book could be, so things tend to move a lot faster. For this reason, I did not find myself getting bored at any part of the film. (Always a good sign!)

Little bits that I liked:
- The way the aliens (never referred to as Martians in the film) were portrayed, still like a tripod but much bigger than anything else surrounding them
- The heat ray was done nicely, and used indiscriminately. Obviously special effects have come a long way since the last War Of The Worlds film of the 50’s, so the vapourisation of human flesh is instant (interesting that clothes are left behind though)
- The alien cry - the Ul-la - was done more as an industrial sound, and not really sounding like a voice. Think of some of the low notes in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and you know what I mean.
- The ‘unscrewing’ of the first alien was nicely done. Buildings crack and move slightly sideways before the alien makes its appearance. (After that buildings are no obstacle for massive monsters any more )

All in all, it was very enjoyable, and despite a few minor niggles, (for me too much screaming, and I don’t see the point of the opening scene) I would recommend it.

Note: during this review I kept wanting to refer to the musical version. I don’t remember reading the book, so I guess it’s time I did

Batman Begins(imdb)
My rating: 4 out of 5

Went to see Batman Begins last night. As other reviews suggest, this one is way better than the last Batman offerings. None of the corny Arnie one-liners, and altogether more serious. And although it is more serious, the set is not as dark as the previous films. Gotham City is a lot lighter, and looks more like a city. From my recollections of the previous films, I seem to remember a lot of the film being at night, with very strange architecture. The film does explain quite nicely how Bruce Wayne became Batman, how he gets his moves and his technology.

Overall, I enjoyed the film, and even though it felt long, I didn’t get bored at any point of the film.

Now for a few ’spoilers’ if you haven’t seen the film… (no plot spoilers)

While the ‘tank’ looks as though it handles like a proper car, I think it’s unlikely that you could use it to bash through walls etc, as the tyres, suspension etc are not protected in any way. That’s the first part of the car that would be damaged and make it useless!
I like the effects of the drug on the inhabitants when it gets released across the island. The sight of Batman flying above you looking like a devil would probably be enough to tip people over the edge