Reviews of films, DVDs and documentaries along with discussion of the current state of the film industry.
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Friday, 17 May 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness Review: How far into the Darkness can they go?
Yet J.J. Abrams managed to succeed in giving old and new fans exactly what they want. A film that both respects the legacy of the previous shows, not to mention the one it's based on, and still manages to bring something to it that doesn't require new fans to understand everything about the previous version to enjoy it. J.J. Abrams has often said about the new Star Trek movies that he wanted to bring a sense of Star Wars to the Star Trek universe (a statement that some consider controversial, particularly now that he has been hired to helm the new Star Wars movies) and I think he succeeded on a certain level while maintaining what was great about Star Trek.
Personally, I've always been more of a Star Trek fan then a Star Wars fan. I enjoyed both but what attracted me to Star Trek was the sense of morality that was inherent to the way the shows worked. In the 60s, Star Trek was most often about the morality of race relations and the sense of threat that nuclear weapons posed in the face of the Cold War. With Star Trek: TNG, it focused a lot on the post-Cold War mentality, with DS9 there was talk of religious conflict and uncertainty, Voyager was most often about maintaining ideals without the structure to keep them in place, and Enterprise was about where that type of morality begins.
The first J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie never really had that moral compass behind it that I recall. I watched it again recently and I wasn't able to figure that part of it out. Thankfully, Star Trek Into Darkness didn't have that problem. It had a clear message of morality to it that was the beating heart of the story. Much like the first one however, it kept that sense of adventure and simplicity to it that made the first one a joy to watch regardless of the level of knowledge you have about the characters and the history that it comes from. It also manages to maintain a sense of humor about itself and that history which long time fans will absolutely love.
Particularly when it comes to one aspect of the story which I will not ruin for you and maintain your reason for going to see it if you're a long time Star Trek fan. Suffice to say there are expectations that people have about this film no matter what your level of interest in Star Trek is which are both met and in my opinion exceeded. For the second time J.J. Abrams has created a film that is funny, smart, action packed and emotionally honest. He understands the audience he's catering to and he's not afraid to give them what they want, but he's also not afraid to do the unexpected. He flips some expectations on their head and within the context of the story he's telling it's the best thing he could do.
I was concerned that given the title that they were going to take the story into a dark place and shift things to a place where the things I liked about Star Trek don't really apply. With the exception of a noticeable reduction in lens flairs, they haven't done it and thank god for that. There's a reason why J.J. Abrams is one of the hottest directors in Hollywood right now and Star Trek Into Darkness is proof of exactly why.
How far into Darkness can they go? Just the right amount to give us a great film that's a worthy addition to the Star Trek legacy.
Check out the trailer below:
Saturday, 4 May 2013
Iron Man 3 Review: Is the 3rd time the charm?
Any decent film franchise will try to recover from a failure if the potential upside outweighs the downfall. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Like most people, I wasn't a big fan of Iron Man 2. It had its moments and some great characters, most notably Scarlett Johansson in a skin tight suit kicking butt and taking names. Not to mention any movie that involves Samuel L. Jackson always gets a bump in credibility with me. That man can read the phone book and make it fascinating. Oh, and did I mention Scarlett Johansson in a skin tight suit? Even that can't save a badly told story from a weak script. As a friend recently told me, a good story can make people forgive bad production value but the reverse isn't necessarily true.
Thankfully, Iron Man 3 has a good story and good production value. Whereas Iron Man 2 was more wrapped up in setting the scene for The Avengers and the preceeding Captain America and Thor movies, this movie is about the aftermath. How does Tony Stark live with what he's seen and done? What does a scientist do when his perception of the world has been shattered and he realizes that the world is much bigger and more deadly then he could have imagined? Can a hero even operate under that kind of environment? That's the reality that Tony Stark is living with at the beginning of the film and the theme of the whole movie.
It's a powerful theme and something that's pretty common in the superhero film genre, particularly in today's world. Doing it well and in a fresh way takes a lot of planning and a good foundation. The best part about adapting a comic book character with as many years behind it as Iron Man, you have a lot to draw from. Particularly when your audience may not be as familiar with the character's history as most hardcore fans. The first film raised the profile of the character but I'm guessing that the fans of the first two films didn't go out and read all the best comics of the character. I can count myself among such fans.
Still, I know enough to know what makes a good superhero film for the bigger fans. This film has a lot of those elements but doesn't require you to go out and read through every comic book to understand the context. It also refocuses the story on the main character, something sorely lacking in a film that has such a self-centered hero. In the end though, I think most people will be very happy with the latest installment of the Iron Man franchise. It's smart, funny and has a lot to say about the world we live in. The way a great movie of this type of film genre should do things. Even better is the fact that we know that this franchise is far from over. They have Thor and Captain America 2 coming out and while the film doesn't appear to set up anything for them, it does leave you with room to do another chapter if the folks at Marvel want to.
And with the sucess they have been having lately they most certainly will. Unlike other film trilogies, the character's story isn't entirely wrapped up but many elements which have been carried over through the three films do get a resolution of sorts.
Is the 3rd time the charm for Iron Man? I was definitely charmed by it and I look forward to seeing more from the character and the Marvel Universe.
Check out the trailer below:
Monday, 11 March 2013
Earth Review
Short film makers of today much like those making a feature film, try to replicate that sense of amazement in a much shorter time and it does not always work. It is extremely difficult to pull off a film like this, I am well aware of that. Any type of animation is extremely difficult, particularly with so much film entertainment out there these days, but I think it is because of how much is out there that filmmakers do not have much of an excuse to do it badly.
If you are going to make an attempt at filmmaking, you have to do it right or do not do it at all. Earth is a film that tries to do it right but I do not think hits the mark. Claymation animation is very difficult but with so much out there why would you not put a little more work into it to stand out from the pack, or at least show that you are up to the standards of animation that exist? According to the filmmakers description they were trying to put forward a sense of adventure in the simplest of things in the world. I don’t know that they necessarily achieved that.
The fact that there was an alien there who could do so much and had so many powers kind of took me away from the simplicity of the objects and made me think of the animation that went into it. The best type of films which attempt to push the greatness of every day things often have the aliens be a reflection of us. Alien yes, but generally not powerful beyond belief. There are exceptions to this obviously but by and large this is the reality. Which I do not think was properly achieved.
Feel free to disagree with me by checking it out below or find more on Film Annex.
Friday, 1 March 2013
TiM Review
Tim Burton has a particular type of style. When he first came onto the film scene and people noticed him, it was definitely something we hadn’t really seen before. He brought us dark tales of stories we had previously thought we understood so well. Some might say it even changed the way we are making movies today. He might have even created his own film genre. Most would agree that he was a power house in the film and entertainment industry once upon a time, a title that might not really apply to him today.
The fact that he was so prolific made him saturated and sought after. As a result, people aren’t as interested in what he does anymore. But needless to say his saturation inspired a whole group of young people to go into filmmaking. His work in animation in particular managed to get people to take the art form seriously in a way that hadn’t been.
One such person appears to be the writer of TiM. A cute little film very clearly inspired by the great Tim Burton. A black and white stop motion animation piece with an obvious understanding of what made the Burbank native great. The voice over poetry being used is both smart and simple enough to get to both an adult audience and a younger or child focused audience.
The short is simple in its story about a young boy who just doesn’t fit in with other people. Any child watching this would either understand exactly what Tim is going through or learn to treat their classmates better. But they do a great job making it great for older filmmakers as well. The rhyming of the poetry as a voice over is fun and not repetitive the way some poetry can be.
Overall it is a great little film that anyone who is looking for a good animator should get involved with. I say see it.
You can also find more at Film Annex.
Monday, 11 February 2013
Grosse Pläne Review
Which is not to say that you can not use it for anything, only that it is a bad idea. People see stop motion animation they tend to think of Wallace and Gromit. A family show aimed at a young audience. They think Chicken Run, again aimed at a young audience but made for families. These are the kind of things that are in people's minds. Going against that takes a great risk.
So when you do a stop motion animated short like Grosse Pläne, you have to know what you are doing. Thankfully, Irmgard Walthert appears to know this. The film is based on a childhood memory of theirs and a very cute one at that. It is a simple idea with simple intentions and that's the way it should be. Reaching an audience of younger viewers needs simplicity.
But simplicity does not mean that it is not smart, animated films like Monsters Inc and Shrek prove that. And I think this is where Grosse Pläne fails. It has many good elements and has insight into something smarter and more complicated but does not fully develop them.
Of course, 4 minutes is not a lot of time to develop an idea but that is where script becomes so important. Knowing the point you are trying to make from the get go informs the way the script develops. Even in a film with no dialogue, script is key. I am not certain that enough script development is what they have done.
It comes off more like a scene from a memory. Which it is, but that is not really a film. At least in my opinion.
Agree? Disagree? Find out below:
You can also find more at Film Annex.
Kyle Review
Not only do you have the task of learning all sorts of information and figuring out what you want to do with the rest of your life, but you have the added stress of trying to figure out people. School is a proving ground for more than just test scores and knowledge. It is a proving ground for life.
Which is why it is so difficult. It is why there are so many films about the school, and particularly the high school experience. Juggling the two can be hell. Doing it on film can be even harder to figure out. You have to find a way to compress a story of what is most often a romance into an incredibly short period of time. Anyone who has attempted it knows it is a lot harder than it seems.
So I applaud Amy Hill for making the attempt. Although I am not entirely sure that she pulled it off. She appears to have fallen into a trap that many have in their attempts. I have fallen pray to it myself. The idea of having a particular scene in mind and writing to that. In this case it is a scene of two young school chums walking home together.
What the film lacks is a progression of character and dialogue. From the get go it is unclear as to what each character is doing and why they are there. The implication at one point is that they had made plans to walk home together or that the young girl has agreed to be walked home. This has not really been set up properly and thus we run into problems.
There are certain elements to the characters which are interesting. Their family lives and what they plan on doing when they grow up, but it feels like this has not entirely been thought out and the characters are designed to find reasons to talk rather than to actually attract the audience and keep them engaged for the full 12 minutes.
Still, the concept is pretty cute and worth looking at. I look forward to seeing what else the filmmaking has out there. To see what I am talking about, check it out below:
You can also check out more content at Film Annex.
Pinhead Review
Reaching the limits of tension is part of the premise of Pinhead. An assistant working late at night for his boss tries to let off some steam, much to the chagrin of his boss who wants him to stay focused. To keep him that way, the boss has gone to extremes. The type of extremes that involve black magic and voodoo. Unorthodox, yes, but clearly effective.
I am not one to generally watch silent films, I generally prefer the kinds of films which attack as many senses as possible and that usually requires dialogue. On occasion though, you get one that manages to grab my attention. Pinhead is one such film. The animated film has enough energy and cool visuals to keep me interested and the characters evolve in such a cool way that it is worth seeing what will end up happening to them.
Who will win? Who will lose? Check out the film below and find out.
You can also check out more content like this at Film Annex.
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Zero Dark Thirty Review: Where were you at Zero Dark Thirty?
There has been a lot of talk about the film and controversy surrounding it, most notably regarding the torture and detainment of prisoners as a way of finding him and the representation of it in the film. I have to say, that the scenes in the film were hard to watch. Anyone who can watch this type of thing and not cringe should be examined by a psychiatrist. Which is not to say necessarily that the scenes were overly gory or violent. By the standards of some films out there in the torture porn genre, these scenes are pretty tame. They don't really push the envelope in any serious way of cinema.
I would say that the reason why there is so much controversy around this film is because we know that where in most films the characters being tortured or killed are entirely fictional. Given that this is based on a true story, it is harder to imagine that these people aren't real. It is more than possible that the characters in these films really existed. Their names and physical attributes might be different but there really could be someone out there in the world who was on the receiving end of this type of treatment, and that rubs people the wrong way. Very much rightfully so in fact.
Despite that though, I think that the scenes are necessary exactly for that reason. As much as Seal Team 6 should be commended for what they did, the people who were hurt along the way deserve to be allowed their place in history. As disturbing as it might be and uncomfortable as it is to watch they played a part in what happened and the ultimate result. If we are going to be outraged at the prospect of torture let's make sure we actually understand what it is that means. A lot of people in the Western world talk about having standards and only doing things which are morally right but they don't really understand the true extent to which people go through.
More to the point, if it was used in the process of finding and killing Bin Laden then let's not sugar coat things and gloss over it. Put it out there where people can see it and decide for themselves. Let's present ourselves as who we are rather than who we want to be. I may not like torture being used and I certainly wouldn't want it used on myself, but I don't presume to be morally righeous about whether we should use it or not. I'll leave that up to the people in a position to decide whether to use it. Voicing my opinion is one thing, but I will neither condemn or support those who I voice it to. Nor will I do that to Kathryn Bigelow for putting it in her movie.
Where were you at Zero Dark Thirty? I may not remember where I was, but this movie should be remembered and for more than just the torture being used.
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
The Expendables Review: What do you need to turn a group of 80s action stars into Expendables?
I've never been a big fan of 80s actions movies. Rambo never interested me, Demolition Man and Cliffhanger weren't even on my radar. I'd seen a few of Schwarzenegger's movies but most of them in his appeal to kids phase until I went back in the 90s and saw a few of his more popular films. Die Hard with a Vengeance was probably the only of the series that reelly spoke to me for a long time. So it's not as if I haven't seen my fair share of movies from that era but they never really did much for me as films. I never had that "Wow that was so cool I want to do that moment." that a lot of filmmakers have with them. Maybe it's because as a child of the 90s I spent a lot of my 80s years watching John Hughes films and the huge swath of comedies from that era.
Yet when I heard about The Expendables, I was somewhat intrigued. Despite my lack of affinity for their heyday they had never really been in the same place all at once before and so I was very interested in seeing what would happen. Not as it turns out enough interest to actually go see the film in theatres. I had enough misgivings about the film to wait until it came out on DVD to see it, and in doing so I realize that I was right. The film, like many of the era these films harken back to, just doesn't have enough juice in it to sustain a whole hour much less the under 2 hours the film actually has. The characters are underdeveloped and some are basically useless plot devices, the villain is basically half assed and under used, and the only decent story worth telling was given to a secondary character and not followed through on.
Charisma Carpenter and Giselle Itie had the best stories to tell and yet the majority of screen time went to Stallone and his rag tag band of mercenaries who basically spent all their time standing around looking old and shooting people. You gotta do more with your characters then complain and destroy things to keep modern audiences interested and the only two ladies of the bunch provided the depth and emotional honesty necessary to make the extended action scenes work. Unfortunately depth and emotional honesty are not the point of a film like this and so they get relegated to C plot devices when the A and B plots haven't been any more secured then the plan to liberate an island by blowing up a single part of it with barely any of the army which is holding it hostage inside.
What made most of the 80s action movies work was the buddy cop scenario or the damsel in distress scenario, both of which are present in The Expendables but neither of which are particularly well used. You would think with this many 80s action stars in one room who have played out the stories numerous times would know a thing or two about what works and what doesn't work about a film like this and insist on making it better. Stallone in particular given that he is one of the only of the group to win a Best Picture Oscar. But no, the film is a hap hazard attempt to give many of its stars who have been relegated to direct to DVD content a chance to shine on the big screen. Unfortunately they don't really shine all that brightly, if at all.
What do you need to turn a group of 80s action stars into Expendables? You put them in a movie together with a barely there plot and tell them to act like it's 20 years ago.
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Does Arrow hit its mark?
The final pilot that I managed to see in the recent 4 day weekend of fandamonium that is FanExpo was Arrow, the newest show based on a DC Comics superhero character after the end of Smallville which chronicled the story of a young Clark Kent as he grows up to become Superman. Many attempts to get something else off the ground in television have been tried since the success of that show and so naturally they are often compared to Smallville and I am sure that many will be in the years to come. Attempts were made to do a Smallville spinoff of the Supergirl character which appeared on the show, as well as an unconnected Robin story which follows the same formula of a young Dick Grayson before he came to be trained by Batman. All of which seem to have fallen by the wayside. So the fact that Arrow managed to make it as far as it did is something of a feat in and of itself.
What I think contributed to Arrow getting itself off the ground is that it didn’t try to trade off the success of Smallville in the same way that previous superhero origin story attempts have. Despite the fact that the character of Green Arrow appeared in Smallville and would eventually become a main character in its final years, Arrow doesn’t seem to take the easy way out. It cast new actors in the roles of Oliver Queen and Dinah Lance when it could have easily brought them over and pleased the fans of both Smallville and many comic book fans as well, but it didn’t. The show attempted to stand on its own and tell its own story in its own way. For that, people should be grateful.
This is not to say that I am not a fan of the idea of a shared universe or that I don’t want to see what I like about characters I have followed for a long time represented on screen. I do. But as a writer I understand that this isn’t always the best way to go. Part of developing a TV show or a movie which has a built in audience is making sure you don’t alienate any potential new fans you can create by telling a story not steeped in too much history. That’s one of the fundamental lessons of a show like Smallville. The story of Superman is not a new story, people know the origin and they have seen it represented in so many different ways. Smallville took what that history and gave it a different tone, a different viewpoint, and weren’t afraid to have a sense of humor about it.
In watching the pilot of Arrow, I think that seems to be a lesson which the creators seem to have learned well from and taken to heart. They seem to have great respect for the character’s history in comics, as well as his importance on Smallville, but it’s by no means an ode to the fans who love him already. Fans of the character and of DC Comics characters in general will definitely appreciate the show and the respect the character is given, but there are all kinds of aspects which even a casual fan or someone who isn’t a fan at all can enjoy. You have the hero with the cause worth fighting for, an unrequited love story, the importance of family and the question of how that is defined, and most of all you have humor.
All of these elements are portrayed quite well by Stephen Amell, and yet the other characters are no less interesting or well thought out. Each of the characters have their own problems and their own struggles to face that don’t rely on Oliver Queen to be told, but ultimately I think what will make the show work is how his alter ego the Green Arrow will interject himself into those problems and help them solve them to come out better for it, much like the show seems to have done.
So does Arrow hit its mark? With pin point accuracy.
Friday, 17 August 2012
Who wants to get Buried?
I’ve had the opportunity to rent a few DVDs recently and catch up on quite a few films that slipped through my gaze in the past few years. So I thought I would take a moment and review them. The first film of the bunch that got buried in my sub-conscious is the aptly named “Buried”, a film that seems ambitious from the get-go.
For those that didn’t hear about it when it came out, the film stars Ryan Reynolds as a truck driver in Iraq whose convoy gets attacked and they bury him so that he can be used for ransom by his kidnappers. What’s most ambitious about the film is that it takes place entirely within the coffin that Paul Conroy (the obviously stressed Ryan Reynolds) was in. There are a lot of film directors who focus on creating the right shot and for the right emotion, with the right lighting and colors to create that shot. In most movies that’s a fundamental aspect for the storytelling process, and to some extent that’s true of this film too. More important though in Buried is the performance of Ryan Reynolds. Truly this is a film built for an actor’s study.
How else do you explain a film about a man in a 6 foot box fir over 90 minutes being such a riveting piece of film? It’s a terrifying thing, watching a man struggling to deal with the reality of his situation. He starts off bound and blind to what happened to him, much as we, the audience, are coming into this. Slowly but surely we watch as, even trapped in a coffin buried under mountains of dirt and rock, things keep getting worse for him. Watching the truth of the situation unfold is unlike most films out there today. Many films, particularly horror films, rely on what’s just around the corner or the unknown to tell a story, and to some extent so does this film. But the beauty of “Buried” is that in some ways they are both the same thing. The uncertainty and the danger of the situation Paul Conroy is in, exists entirely in your head and where it might go stays there on the edge of your seat with you.
It goes without saying that Ryan Reynolds can be viewed as an unusual choice for a role that relies so heavily on the acting chops of the main actor. His most well known roles tend to be the romantic comedy kind and people don’t really associate them with great acting. But in this film, he proves that he is up to any challenge that might come at him. Does that mean he will always choose the right film or that the script will be up to the standards necessary to bring out such a performance? No, but when that great script does come along that lets him punch above the weight of other actors, boy does he have it in him.
It’s unfortunate that a film such as this seems to have flown under the radar for as long as it did, there are a lot of great things about it. But I can kind of understand why because of how uninteresting a film like this can seem to most people. Single shot movies tend to have the same problem so I can see how a film shot in a single location could have trouble finding an audience, not to mention the huge blockbuster that is Green Lantern (in the sense of money spent, if not in box office returns) which Ryan Reynolds also starred in which was released around the same time.
Who wants to get “Buried”? You should, or at the very least you should go looking for the film and dig it up from wherever it might be hiding.
Sunday, 20 May 2012
The Avengers Review: That Avengers Thing - Movie Reviews, Film Reviews, Film Entertainment, Entertainment, S.H.I.E.L.D., TV Reviews, Television, Television Reviews, Superheroes
I identified with the character on a personal level, along with many of the other characters on the show and what they were going through as teenagers. Then came Angel, Firefly/Serenity, Dr Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog and Dollhouse. All of which I could identify with on some level. So when I say that I'm a fan of his work, you understand what I mean.
That being said, I am also a fan of superheroes. Always been more of a DC fan then a Marvel fan, Superman, Batman and so many others. But I have an appropriate affinity for the Marvel characters too, Spiderman, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America. They are all characters that I have admired and enjoyed on some level or another. I saw all the Marvel movies in theatres when they came out. So much like with Joss Whedon, when I say I'm a fan of superheroes and the Marvel characters in The Avengers, you understand what I mean.
Now here's the thing, I didn't really like The Avengers. As a fan of Joss for years, I had always wondered and hoped that one day he might be given a multi million dollar budget and access to some of the biggest and best actors and actresses of this generation and show the world exactly what he can do. But what happened? He failed.
And I hear you saying, what are you talking about? It was fantastic. It's making millions at the box office (in fact recent numbers suggest that the film broke the bank with a billion dollars the second weekend in theatres), how can you say it's not a good film?
Well firstly, box office success doesn't always mean good. There are any number of films in recent years that have been a success at the box office but have been terrible films. The most obvious of which is the Twilight series. Poorly written, poorly filmed, and a terrible message to its young tween audience.
Now by no means am I comparing The Avengers to the Twilight films. Compared to Twilight, The Avengers is a well oiled machine of filmmaking. But it still isn't a very good film when held up against its predecessors and Joss' other works.
So again I hear you asking, why?
When you watch a superhero film, there are certain things you do. Particularly when it's a team up film like this, and in some sense the film accomplishes them. Most of the characters are well established in the film, we know who they are and where they have been since their solo films. Although I think a few of the characters (Thor and Captain America come to mind specifically) could have used a little more establishment.
For all the time spent in this film on the characters, I never felt like they got to the core of the characters emotionally or as heroes. Often the characters feel like pale reflections of what they are supposed to be, larger than life heroes who stand for what's right no matter what.
There's a scene towards the middle of the film where they are all in the same room together, the truth of what S.H.E.I.L.D. wants has been revealed and the heroes are arguing about the morality of the situation and the scene breaks down into a mostly indistinguishable argument meant to establish the fact that they don't get along, and all I could think is that what should have been going on is establishing what they have in common. That despite their differences, one thing that they should all agree on is that they need to help people and save the world from whatever is coming. But instead it was implied that their arguing was a result of the villain's staff. Something that never really came to anything down the line.
This entire scene, if it were done properly would have been the result of the villain, not the staff. As a supremely confident bad guy, trapped in a cage should be the perfect opportunity to attack them psychologically much like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. But instead there's like two scenes between Loki and the heroes, and not all of them either.
This of course brings up another issue that I have with the film, the villain. A good villain is larger than life and supremely powerful, not to mention incredibly confident, but at numerous points during the film Loki is castrated as a villain, first with the reveal that his future is dependant on a bigger villain which is revealed way too early in the film. Secondly with the art gallery/social event that has an incredibly large amount of innocent bystanders for use by Loki and a magic staff that could turn them into his willing slaves and human shields against the coming heroes but instead he allows himself to be captured. Any decent hero would have picked up on that and not brought Loki back to the heroes' main source of power.
Then comes the obvious (paraphrased)...
Loki: "I am a god, I will not be..."
SMASH! BANG! CRASH!
Hulk: "Puny God!"
Yes, it was funny but it was the exact wrong moment for humor.
And this in the middle of the big epic finale that should've been more epic. Which is another problem. The heroes dealt with a major alien invasion way too easily. Not only did the aliens invade from a single point making it easier to fight them off, but they were way too easy to destroy. For a race that knows it's going to be attacking with a bad strategy, one would think that they would shore up their defenses to take over an entire planet.
There are all kinds of moments in the film like this that just don't work in the greater scheme of things and I couldn't help but notice them throughout the film. Particularly as someone who has seen Joss Whedon tell a story without these glaring flaws in them.
Now admittedly, I may not have seen the movie in the right emotional context. I hadn't slept very well the night before and wasn't in the best mood at the time. It saddens me to see so many people loving this movie when all I can see is what is wrong with the film, but I plan on seeing it again just in case a second viewing will improve my disposition about it.
At least, that's my opinion on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)