 |
Green Lantern (DVD)
by StormchaserHat
2011 was a big year for Marvel Studios, with Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger and X-Men: First Class all wowing audiences worldwide. Not to be outdone, DC Comics stepped up to the plate with the cinematic debut of Hal Jordan, aka: Green Lantern. But did it pay off?
Green Lantern follows ... slacker-yet-somehow-military-test-pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), chosen by a mysterious dying alien to become his successor in the Green Lantern Corps, an interplanetary police force of exceptional individuals from across the galaxy, receiving a power ring that allows him to harness the emerald energy of willpower. Meanwhile, an ancient evil entity, Parallax, is released from his ancient prison and threatens to destroy everything. Can Hal Jordan master his new powers and earn the respect of his new comrades before Parallax annihilates the human race?
If this summary of the film seems confused and short on actual explanation, that's because the film itself is confused and short on explanation. This movie is simply a series of badly connected chance encounters that don't really fit together. While exposition abounds, it rarely actually explains anything, with many 'plot-points' resting on little more justification than "because the plot says so". As such, it's hard to relate to Hal or any of the other characters here, because we simply haven't been given any reason to care about them. There's also a bizarre side plot involving the current leader of the Green Lantern Corps, Sinestro (Mark Strong), which has no payoff other than a short post-credits teaser for a sequel that will almost certainly never come. This movie tries so hard to get your attention but it doesn't seem to understand that simply bombarding people with ACTION!!! and SPECIAL EFFECTS!!! is just not enough, especially when you're CGI is this terrible. There's also a really strange green/yellow lighting motif that persists throughout the movie which is incredibly distracting and serves no purpose. There are one or two scenes and set-pieces which are legitimately impressive, but for every one of those there are at least a dozen moments of simply jaw-dropping awfulness that make this movie a disappointing, incoherent mess from beginning to end.
In summary, Green Lantern goes all out and falls flat on its face. Hard. If you want to watch a terrible movie, go ahead, but this is so bad as to be almost insultingly bad, especially considering how much money went into making it. Definitely one to miss.
Read the complete review |
 |
Moon (DVD)
by giksy21
== One small step ==
Moon is a modern day miracle. A low budget film, from a debut director, that not only cuts the mustard, but creates it's own flavour as well. Duncan Jones has boldly gone further than any other first time director has done for some time. Not surprising that he was so good at telling a story in space ... since he is the original space oddities son.
== One giant leap ==
Any self respecting son of David Bowie's has to be out there to a certain extent, and Jones' style certainly is different. He creates a very claustrophobic atmosphere that is perfect for this film. Although early days in his career, he seems to have a great future in film, and if he is half as successful as his old man, then he will go far. The fact that he admits taking influence from the film 'alien' and using it in his own work stands him in good stead.
== Cast ==
Sam Bell - Sam Rockwell
GERTY - Kevin Spacey
That is all!
== The plot ==
Sam Bell has been harvesting a renewable energy source from the dark side of the moon for almost three years. His shift is almost up, and he wants to get back to his other half, and his little girl. Having been stuck up here on his own, with no direct link to back home since the transmitter went down, Sam is quirky to say the least.
Things are weird after the accident. He finds a man who looks just like himself. He's called Sam Bell to. Strange. At least the computer, GERTY is there to keep him sane. If it wasn't for him, then that other Sam might try and take over. But at least he's company for Sam. We'll just have to keep an eye on him.
== My two cents. ==
The problem with being the only on-screen actor is, that you have no-one to fall back on. Your performance is everything. Thankfully Sam Rockwell is fantastic. He has a unique talent for being able to portray several emotions at once, and he was perfect for this role. The obvious cabin fever Sam is experiencing needs a certain type of madness on screen. His performance is a powerful one, and it is that alone that makes this film work.
The setting is typically bleak, and as such it is beautifully obsolete in the film. It does add somewhat to the claustrophobic nature of the film. As does the clinical set. No fun to be had here. Just the already small walls closing in on you. All this creates a great atmosphere, which combined with Rockwell's superb performance has you really feeling for Sam. His madness, and childishness has you really wanting to look after him, and compelling him to be OK.
The plot is a good one, and the twist is unexpected and different. This type of film is not a common one, and so it will be new ground to most who watch it. That in itself will keep you watching, as it drags you along with it. There will be obvious comparisons to space 2001, especially with the computer role of GERTY.
Kevin spacey has no on screen part in the film. He is the voice of the station computer. That said, he actually does this very well, and his overwhelming calmness contrasts well to Rockwell's frantic mania. I love the little screen on GERTY's front. It is a little smiley face, the expression of which matches the computers mood. This can lead you to plot twists, and also adds a little bit of dark humour to proceedings.
Overall, Moon is a very enjoyable watch. It is not one for lovers of action, as there is not too much to see here. It is a mood film, that will keep you watching due to your empathy for the lead character. Its went largely under the radar on its release in 2009. I only heard about it a few months ago, and only got round to watching it now, but it was worth the wait. If this is what we are to expect from Duncan Jones, then I am looking forward to seeing more. Five stars.
Read the complete review |
 |
Monsters [2011] (DVD)
by SWSt
Back in 2008, everyone seemed to go crazy over J J Abrams monster movie Cloverfield, except me. I thought it was little more than a cynical marketing exercise designed to hype up what was a weak and disappointing film. With Monsters, Brit director Gareth Edwards shows how it should have been done.
Six years ago, aliens arrived ... on Earth and ended up in the forests around the US-Mexico border. Attempts to eradicate them failed and a huge wall has been built to keep them out of the USA, with nightly airstrikes launched against them. Travel between the Mexico and the US is now extremely dangerous and limited, but some desperate people still choose to take the unofficial route through the Infected Zone where the aliens are concentrated. Having lost their passports, Andrew and Samantha have no choice but to try this route in order to get back to America.
Rather like Cloverfield, Monsters did divide opinion on release and I can fully understand why some people thought it rather boring. It certainly proceeds at a very languid pace (it's over 30 minutes before the pair set off into the Infected Zone and a further 25 before they are left alone). There's also no real action to speak of. The monsters are rarely seen and, up until the ending, there is nothing even approaching a "monster" attack. If you are lured into watching this film by the title, and expect something akin to a Godzilla movie, then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
Take it on its own merits, though, and you will find a gripping tale about two people slowly discovering what's really important to them... No! Wait! Come back! That description makes it sound rather worthy and dull, or some sort of cack-handed life-affirming rom-com. It's not. True, it's an acquired taste - the lack of action will not suit everyone - but it's an incredibly atmospheric story. Despite the lack of action, despite the relative lack of monsters, I was absolutely gripped by this simple tale. It's hard to know why, because if you try and explain Monsters it's almost impossible to capture just why it is so good. But trust me; if you give it a fair crack of the whip and shift your mindset away from big Hollywood special effects blockbuster to low-budget Brit flick, then you will uncover something special.
The photography and direction on this film is simply superb. The film is full of bleached, washed out colours which give a real sterile, unwelcoming feel not just to the quarantined zone, but to the world in general. Lighting and scenery are used to incredible dramatic effect. Some might complain that the film is nothing but a sequence of "arty shots", but Edwards' stark imagery is an essential part of establishing atmosphere. Ruined buildings stand starkly on hilltops, entire towns are deserted and the world generally has gone to hell. Sure, this vision of a near-dystopian future has been done dozens of times before, but rarely has it been used so effectively and been as instantly recognisable as something our own world could be in just a few years time.
Characters and character development are also well integrated into the film. The two central characters, Andrew and Samantha initially look as though they are going to be rather standard fare. He is a selfish photographer, out near the infected zone to try and get a photograph of the monsters that will earn him big money and establish his reputation - the only two things he really cares about. She is the rich daughter of Andrew's current employer who is having some personal issues with her stifling lifestyle.
Now, at this point, you are probably thinking "Oh. How predictable. They'll hate each other at first before slowly coming to respect each other and finally falling in love." I know you're thinking that, because that's exactly what I thought, too. But no. Or rather, yes. Sort of. Sure, that general character arc occurs, but it's handled so well by both actors and director that you scarcely recognise it as being the clichéd approach we are expecting. It's done subtly and gradually, and it's only right at the end that you realise your initial prediction was actually correct; by which point, you no longer care.
It's helped by the fact that the two main actors, Scootch McNairy and Whitney Able are a deeply likeable pair. They have a very natural way, they act as if they are just "ordinary people" and thanks to their subtle, underplayed performances, you completely believe in their characters. There is also a very strong and easy-going sense of chemistry between the pair (probably helped by the fact they are married in real life) which doesn't hurt.
Apart from the languid pace which may deter some, the only other real criticism comes from the ending, which is incredibly abrupt and will leave people scratching their heads and going "HUH?!" I'm all for open endings that make the viewer think, but this took "open" to whole new levels, rendering it somewhat anti-climactic after the superb atmosphere established by the rest of the film.
Monsters is very much one of those Marmite films and I really think you need to watch it for yourself to decide. Personally, I have no hesitate giving it four stars, but I've spoken to other people who would hesitate to give it one. Like the USA depicted in this film, it is divided and the only way to find out which side of the wall you stand on is to give it a go.
Basic Information
------------------------
Monsters
2010
Director: Gareth Edwards
Running time: approx. 94 minutes
Certificate: 12A
(c) Copyright SWSt 2013
Read the complete review |
