• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

TST Film Review Thread

Went to see The Amazing Pretty Good But Not Particularly Outstanding Spiderman earlier today. As you can tell, I quite liked it but it didn't particularly blow me away.

I guess it was hard not to compare it directly to Raimi's version, but I'll first of all say that the setting and visuals were wonderfully done, the acting was mostly good on the whole and I'd put a few of the blunders down to a mediocre screenplay if anything however the film is pretty slow paced. It really does feel like it drags on (albeit not quite to the extent of Return of the King) and I was shocked the film only turned out to be two hours long, not the three and a half it felt like.

The beginning, which delves deeper into Peter Parker's origin more than Raimi's film, is particularly slow but it picks up about 45 minutes in. I think the important parts of the film, the characters, the action scenes, the special effects, the lack of Toby Maguire all make the film superior to its predecessor (and particularly the dreadful sequels it spawned). Emma Stone was particularly gorgeous as Gwen. :p

It definitely had a very Batman Begins vibe to it, but didn't quite have that level of darkness to match up to it. I also felt that it lacked some light-hearted scenes which were more apparent in Raimi's Spiderman, so overall the film was stuck in a sort of limbo where it doesn't quite know what mood and atmosphere it wants to create. Saying that, if it indeed does end up being like "Spiderman Begins" I think we can expect good things from the sequel. There is a very short, extra scene during the end credits worth watching which shows a promising premise for the next film, although I'm probably not going to be jizzing all over it when it does come out.

Overall I thought it was a good watch, a pretty typical superhero film really and in my opinion a much more satisfying watch than Raimi's version. I'd also recommend it in 3D, it really shows how good 3D can be when it is filmed properly!
 
Avatar is currently on Film 4. I've sat through the first 45 minutes of it, and so far it is the most pointless, boring tripe I have ever seen. I simply CBA to endure another 2 hours of it.
 
Shaun of the Dead

I like it, but it really is overrated. I just don't find it as funny as everyone else seems to. Hot Fuzz is much better.
 
Prometheus

Spoiler free incase anybody is still to see it, but I'm guessing i'm pretty much the last now it's been out so long ha.

Well, i'm a massive fan of the Alien movies and when the first rumours came about that Ridley Scott was returning to the genre I flipped. When it was confirmed it wouldn't be a narrowminded straight up prequel, but a standalone film set in the same universe as Alien I flipped out even more. So after about 3 years of waiting and epic trailer after epic trailer I finally went to see it last week. Oh boy am I split in two with this film.

First off I always liked the films name and the symbology behind it, I was looking forward to see how it fitted in with the film (it's why I used it as a username on here, Prommy was on my mind 24/7 when TST was born) however this film took that symbology and went places that I really did not like. Darn!

I thought the first hour was fantastic, it had a decent pace, story was beginning to set up nicely, stunning visuals, a good tense atmosphere. I was glued to the screen. Then we get to the second hour of the film. Plot holes that were unforgiveable, creatures that weren't in the least scary, pointless subplots, oh my I was gutted. I heard people mumbling and moaning about all questions and no answers, that didn't bother me when I left the cinema because it has been mentioned many times by the writers that this is the first of up to 3 films in total. However looking at the box office takings just now Im thinking we may not get a second film to answer any questions, eeek.

I think as visual art, Ridley was on top of his game and the film is just gorgeous to look at. As a story it just crashes and burns after the first half, I felt empty and unineterested by the end, gutting because that second half had all the potential in there, you could see it, bubbling underneath. Ridley Scott admitted that this film was done very quickly, very fast script alterations, too quick IMO. I think some very bad plot choices could have been reversed if they'd gone slow slow slow in the earlier phases of development.

I'm going to be harsh with the score. Brilliant first hour, quality up there with Alien & Aliens. Unwatchable second hour, quality down there with Alien vs Predator 2 IMO.

5 / 10 :'(
 
I was meaning to write a very long essay about Prometheus, but never got round to it in the end. No one's a bigger fan of the franchise than I am, but this film doesn't sit right with me. At first I thought it was pretty good, weird and frustrating, but a more than worthy prequel, but I soon started to think less and less of it. The whole concept is full of mistakes and damages the aura and mystery of the alien, watering it down to just being a weapon and the overarching concept to commentaries on technology, humanity and creation.

I don't think the second half was a 'disaster', but it's rather pointless and daft, not to mention a bad attempt to copy the original and make it more 'blockbuster-y' (and what the hell where they thinking tacking the chest burst scene on the end?!). It's really sad how rushed it was, surely after waiting so long they should have waited to make it perfect without needing sequels which may not happen.

I'm just really frustrated because the film looks incredible and has some nice ideas, but there's so many things wrong with it, so any stupid decisions made. Maybe it's because I'm a fan of the franchise, maybe even we shouldn't see it as an Alien film, just disconnect it from the others entirely, but even taken just on its own, it's still just, not right, and it really upsets me.
 
I couldn't agree more with you. Frustrated is a good word for it and it becomes more frustrating as time goes by. Yep I think we probably should disconnect it from the Alien franchise, it has damaged parts of those original films IMO.

Things that should have been left untouched were handled poorly and new things just felt wrong or at least they didn't feel right for the Alien universe. Indeed to make the Alien creature fodder for some overreaching storyline about gods and their technology seemed criminal. That final scene was horrendous.

All that aside, can't wait for a sequel if it happens, just for more of those gorgeous visuals. ;)
 
Magic Mike

Went to see this with some of my friends last night. It's clear that the film Has a particular target audience, because we counted five guys there in total - all of which had been dragged there by their girlfriends. Because of that, I was expecting the film to be nothing but softcore porn, which it really wasn't at all. Surprisingly, there wasn't much nudity (except for Channing Tatums ass, which seems to be shown at the most random times), and the film was more serious than I expected. There was a part in the middle/towards the end where it tries to be dark, but then not much happens, and the film ends quite abruptly.

If you watch it expecting loads of gorgeous guys dancing and stripping, you might be disappointed because it doesn't happen anywhere near as much as it should. Regardless, it's still a good film, and it's refreshing to see strippers in a film that don't have breasts.
 
The Dark Knight Rises

What can I say, films that carry so much hype in their wake usually falter at the box office - but in my opinion Chris Nolan has got this one spot on. This film is the perfect conclusion to what is most probably the greatest superhero trilogy in film history - everything is brilliant, from the cast to the storyline. Tom Hardy was sublime as the brutal Bane, Anne Hathaway surmised Catwoman perfectly whilst Marion Cotillard plays an interesting character with a huge twist in her usual classy style.

As for the plot, the film is 2 hours and 45 minutes yet doesn't feel long enough to justify the number of threads of stories that have been weaved throughout the other two films. It couldn't have been any longer though, and for this reason I think that it was the best Nolan could do given the circumstances. The DVD director's cut of this film I imagine will be far more satisfying than the presumably cut final version.

I highly recommend seeing this, even if you don't like superhero movies - I guarantee that this will not fit your usual stereotype.
 
The Dark Knight Rises

Saw it this morning in IMAX.

Incredible.

Superb ending to what I think is the greatest trilogy ever made. I feel sorry for the guy who has the task of following it up. I don't think we'll ever see a better set of Batman films.

A shame we'll never get to see Nolan's interpretation of The Riddler either.
 
Ted

It's crap.

For the past two months, friends of mine have been overrating it and praising it, saying it looks funny as hell. I laughed on very few occasions and it really wasn't as good as I was hoping.

Sorry Seth, go back to Family Guy which is what you are good at.
 
Nineteen Eighty Four

Wow. Very powerful and intense film. Superb perfomances from Jon Hurt and Richard Burton. Feel a bit depressed now, had a tear in my eye at the end of it..

Hmmm, I think I need a laugh now.

*Goes and puts on The IT Crowd*

Overall..
9.5/10

:)
 
Well, my Batman obsession got the better of me recently and I went to the cinemas to re-watch

Batman Begins 8/10
Batman The Dark Knight 9 / 10

Batman The Dark Knight Rises 9.5/10
The only poor point was the stupid voice of Bane and a few continuity errors
 
Oli said:
Well, my Batman obsession got the better of me recently and I went to the cinemas to re-watch

Batman Begins 8/10
Batman The Dark Knight 9 / 10

Batman The Dark Knight Rises 9.5/10
The only poor point was the stupid voice of Bane and a few continuity errors
Click to expand...

I disagree, TDK was better than TDKR. I know it's been said a lot but Heath Ledger made that film what it was - it was almost perfect.
 
Danny said:
Ted

It's crap.

For the past two months, friends of mine have been overrating it and praising it, saying it looks funny as hell. I laughed on very few occasions and it really wasn't as good as I was hoping.

Sorry Seth, go back to Family Guy which is what you are good at.
Click to expand...
You had me up until then. Family Guy is lazy, pointless and unintelligent. American Dad is much smarter, both in comedy and in style.

:)
 
I went to see Dark Knight Rises and I must admit, although I enjoyed the film, I did feel a bit let down.
Though the pacing was better than Dark Knight, where it seemed like the film was wrapped up but they'd forgotten about Two Face, I found that it dragged slightly.

Bale's batman voice is ridiculous. I could understand him in BB and DK but in DKR, I missed a fair bit of his speech as it was simply a throaty gurgle.
Bane, I didn't struggle to understand that much, his voice was pretty clear though I missed some sections entirely as I found that you would have to focus completely when he was talking.

The performances were fantastic, but for me it just seemed to be lacking something.

I'd rate it 7/10, the bottom of the trilogy for me.
However, I've seen the other films into double figures so when I've watched DKR again a few times, maybe my opinions will change.
 
Ok, so, The Dark Knight Rises. (Serious spoilers from here).

It doesn't disappoint. Entirely. To be more specific, it's an excellent film and fitting conclusion to the series, but it's more ridiculous, bombastic and at times, and a little too 'Michael Bay'. It doesn't jump the shark, but it does bend it's knees in preparation at times. Nolan could have settled for a remake of the previous film, or worse, just make a lazy, cookie-cutter, by the numbers, 7/10 film and got away with it, but he didn't. His ambition must be praised for creating another insane spectacle that sits right at the top of the list of 'best threequels ever'. Terminator and Alien fell apart at film number 3, but Nolan has steered Batman well away from such disasters. But that's not to say he's bettered The Dark Knight. I once read a review of TDK that said Nolan may as well give up making films, because he's never top TDK. That may ring truer than expected.

First things first, Bane is excellent. Much praise for Tom Hardy, he's incredibly menacing and steals the screen. The perfect villain for the film. His performance will forever be overshadowed by Heath Ledger's Joker, and to be honest, rightly so. Ledger's performance in TDK is one of the finest pieces of acting I've ever seen. He's astonishing. But Hardy isn't far behind. Like The Joker was the perfect villain for TDK, Bane is the perfect villain for this film. He's a tank of a man, an invincible, unstoppable, almost comical monster, which suits the film better than another Joker style character would. The football stadium scene is terrifying, an amazing bit of film making which truly captures his madness and fully articulates how menacing Bane is. I wish his death was a bit less throwaway. I wonder what came first, the style or the villain? I'd be interested to know if Bane was chosen to fit the insanity level terrorism that is unleashed, or whether Bane was chosen first and the film built around the character.

Bale on the other hand, not quite so much. His Batman character doesn't get enough screen time outside the action sequences to get into his head, and as Wayne, he doesn't do much but shout in pain and get pissy with Alfred, once again played perfectly by Caine.

I was impressed by Catwoman. Hathaway's slinky, sexy performance is intriguing, exciting and, down right hot. I just wish they toned down the whole 'I am the 1%' and 'wanting a new start' things, and her 'change of heart' and dramatic last minute rescue made me cringe. It was obvious, cheesy, and lowered the film into 'ordinary' blockbuster territory.

Plot wise, I wasn't so impressed. The prologue was spectacular but daft, it viewed like an attempt to recreate The Joker's iconic introduction at the start of The Dark Knight, but didn't quite achieve it. I did take some issue with Batman disappearing for eight years due to injury. At the end of TDK, Gordon says Batman is a 'watchful protector' and all that, so I expected the time between the films to have been spent with Batman watching and occasionally intervening when things got bad, while at the same time running from the police, rather than becoming a crippled recluse, moping about Rachel.

The not-quite-sex scene was pointless and unneeded, as it didn't provide any insight to the characters and is long forgotten by the time the 'surprise' twist comes near the end (spoiler: it's not a surprise). I also felt the film spent too long in the prison, I think it would have been better if they edited it down to two escape attempts. It doesn't look good for Batman that he spends half the film with a broken back, trying to crawl out of the ground. The timing was a bit 'coincidental' as well. The bomb has five months before becoming unstable, and Batman just so happens to sneak back into Gotham the day before. Hmm.

Likewise, Oldman's subplot felt weird and Gordon was too involved, I thought. I was also uncomfortable with having him in hospital for the first half. For some reason Oldman's voice sounded weird in the second half of the film as well. More so for Fox. I don't see why Freeman's character needed to be so involved.

I'm not sure what to think about the green energy and philanthropy bits either. I thought it was a bit unnecessary emotional context, especially for Blake. The environmental bit started off pretty bad, but as it developed into the main plot it became more acceptable, even if the idea of stealing a nuclear reactor and turning it into a bomb is a bit silly for the realistic tone of the films and was already badly done by Bond a while ago (which also had an invincible baddie, but I'm sure that's unintentional).

I thought it lacked the intelligence of TDK, it didn't seem to have anything philosophical to say, compared to, for example, the issue of morality with the sonar device and having to break your own rules to succeed. But maybe on repeat watchings I'll see more of this. Instead it just seemed to be about explosions rather than the intelligent blend that the others, particularly TDK had.

I suppose though, that's maybe the point. With this film, they're bringing it to a conclusion, each film before has been more and more bold and spectacular (was anyone really threatened by Scarecrow? Was Ra's involved long enough as a villain to be worrying), so it makes sense for this film to just be balls-out ridiculous, to be the culmination of the escalation of the threat to Gotham. In this case I suppose it makes sense, but I wonder whether it will fit alongside the other films easily, my initial feeling was it doesn't quite feel like a Batman film, possibly because Batman doesn't see to be in it enough, possibly because so much is shot in daylight, possibly because it's more straightforward and silly (The Bat was just daft. Granted it serves a real purpose at several points in the film, and each one has introduced a new vehicle, but it felt like a cop out to get around certain plot issues and make it more palatable to people who thought TDK was too slow and intelligent and wanted to see a Statham film), probably a mix of all of that. It just seemed a bit too big for it's boots and too grandiose. It feels weird saying that about a superhero film, and it's probably just an initial reaction that I'll get over after watching it a couple more times. After all, the others aren't exactly The King's Speech either.

Not to say I didn't enjoy or like the TDKR. It's bloody exciting and very watchable. It seems better paced than the last film and doesn't so obviously suffer the same issue of scenes being cut short just as they get going. I really liked it from start to finish, apart from the actual ending. I seem to be a pretty lone voice in this but I thought it was annoying, obvious and cringey, but again, it was necessary to tie everything off without killing Batman off as a symbol.

So, that ending, most people have been quiet about it, but I'm nothing if not thorough (Even bigger spoilers ahead). The faked death was pretty silly and implausible. We're to believe in 90 seconds, he was able to fly his broken helicopter thingy well over 6 miles into the bay, eject at a safe distance unseen, while the bomb goes off and radiates the city's water supply. It was a bit daft, with the whole 'look at Batman's sad eyes as he goes to his death' only for him not to.

I did like the scene where Alfred sees Wayne again in the way he always hoped, again, a little sentimental, but I thought it was nice, although I'm not sure I'm happy with the fact they simply nodded at each other considering the last time they saw each other they rowed and parted company, and Alfred had thought Wayne had died. Just having Wayne mouth 'thank you' or something would have worked, but I suppose it's what Alfred wanted.

Wayne passing the mantle onto Blake was always going to happen, but I'm not sure how that works. Blake doesn't have the training or skills, won't have a mentor or an Alfred. And did they really have to call him Robin? Really? My cheeks are still glowing, I was that embarrassed and cringed that hard.

I suppose though, it's the ending it needed. Everything is tied up and set right, Batman still exists to watch over Gotham and everything is peaceful. Apart from Gordon, who's still estranged from his wife. (Obviously in films saving your family's life and twice helping stop terrorists destroy the city isn't enough to stop your wife leaving you. As much as I liked his character, I'm glad he didn't get a happy ending, as that would have pushed the cheese factor too far.) I saw something that said "it's not the ending we deserved, but the ending we needed". Not sure what the ending we 'deserved' was, but I like that.

So I'm giving it a high score. I've been very critical on it, because it had a lot to live up to and because Nolan is a genius film maker, but despite everything I've said against the film, it's still an excellent blockbuster, the final fist fight between Batman and Bane alone could once again get them the Oscar for best sound editing, and as ever with a Nolan film, the cinematography is breathtaking. The football stadium scene is amazing. As daft as the event is, it has to be seen to be believed. Possibly my favourite moment in the film. There's even a few humourous one liners, especially in the first half. The Dark Knight is still the best film of the three, but The Dark Knight Rises is still a superb film the rounds off the greatest superhero series of all time.

8.5
 
Despite knowing I was going to see The Dark Knight Rises last night I started reading Blaze's review ignoring the spoiler warning, thankfully I remembered to stop before reading too far in. Just came back to finish reading it today and although I agree with the points raised most of them didn't bother me at the time. The Robin bit I actually guessed during one of the earlier scenes so it didn't make me cringe, the Nuclear Bomb did though. Why did it need to be Nuclear? Why not some new scientific energy bomb that doesn't have the radiation and fallout that should have technically destroyed the city anyway.

Anyway I felt the film was excellent. Not quite Dark Knight but I think I found it more engaging than Batman Begins. Unfortunately I can’t really say more than that as the cinema I was at had air conditioning issues. I could stand the heat but when the projector started playing up it made the last climatic hour hard to watch. As such I kept getting knocked out of the experience and just felt it was dragging on for too long, something I probably wouldn’t have felt without the interferences.
 
I didn't guess the Robin bit, but I did guess the twist with Cotillard's character, which I thought was a bit daft and too 'normal blockbuster' rather than what I'd expect from a Nolan blockbuster, especially with the pointless emotional connection between her and Wayne that served no purpose.
 
TBH it was a very lucky guess. I just thought he looked like a more adult version of some of the previous Robins. I didn't get the Talia al Ghul* character reveal like you did which I think made it a bit more effective. Actually I was kicking myself for not working it out as I only read the Wiki page for that character a week or so ago.

* No I don’t know that off by heart, I looked it up.

I just watched The Dark Knight again as well. I see your point about it being philosophical as there are several points in that film were you do have to ask yourself what you would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top