• The Thing Movies Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-thing-movies-review.htm
  • Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Movies Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/sherlock-holmes-a-game-of-shadows-movies-review.htm
  • Hugo Movies Reviews
     
      http://bartybooks.com/hugo-movies-reviews.htm
  • Arthur Christmas Movies Reviews
     
      http://bartybooks.com/arthur-christmas-movies-reviews.htm
  • The Muppets Movies Reviews
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-muppets-movies-reviews.htm
  • The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 Movies Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-movies-review.htm
  • Miss Minoes Movies Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/miss-minoes-movies-review.htm

The Thing Movies Review

What really made John Carpenter’s The Thing so magical was not its sci- fi elements, its alien movie aspects or even, I daresay, its splendid 1980s animatronic gore. It was the psychological tension! The issue of trust was a horrifying prospect: Who can you trust? Are you who you say you are? How can I tell what you say is the truth? At any moment, someone could be an alien waiting for the opportune moment to burst out and consume the vulnerable person. As a prequel to John Carpenter’s work, The Thing (2011) taps respectfully into this raw suspense from the start, but towards the end loses its direction and falls victim to the Hollywood clichés of a typical alien monster film.

The Thing prequel (for simplicity I’ll call the 1982 film “John Carpenter’s”) covers what happened in the Norwegian base. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited cautiously by Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) to aid in an Antarctic dig of a great scientific discovery: an alien specimen found frozen in the ice near its ship. With the help of Norwegian scientists, they recover the body to the safety of the base, but soon learn that it is still alive… and has the ability to assume the shape of that which it kills.

The first half of the story follows how John Carpenter’s film goes down almost exactly. (I won’t say anything about how it fares against 1951 The Thing from Another World… because I haven’t seen it.) After the alien has proved to infect several humans already, extreme paranoia and distrust breaks out among the surviving crew. Kate quickly assumes the Kurt Russell-type leader, herding the survivors into open areas and investigating methods of exposing the monster. Tensions run extremely high, as they did in John Carpenter’s, and at these moments I felt The Thing prequel had a good thing going for it. The suspense was thrilling and engaging, and aliens were bursting out of bodies at wholly unexpected times. The acting was consistently solid; Winstead did her part well, and the use of authentic Scandinavian actors was an added bonus. Within thirty minutes the film had paid enough homage to the original to be a worthy predecessor – more than I expected it to do in the first place — but then it decided to take its own stylistic turn, which most would consider to be fine but Carpenter fans not so much.

First, the age of animatronics is over. It’s realistic to expect the effects in every Hollywood movie these days to rely on CGI, The Thing (2011) being no exception. So while it lacked that creepy gooey tangible feel of John Carpenter’s animatronics, The Thing prequel had plenty of fast- paced alien sequences while still looking fairly good. The monster design stays pretty faithful, including wiry tentacles and frighteningly random mouths. Of course at this point though, these kind of CGI effects are nothing we haven’t seen before; many times it seemed to be a zombie-type monster rather than Carpenter’s amorphous alien, and in that sense was a bit unbelievable.

Second, the movie switched tone halfway from primarily a psychological thriller to an alien, sci-fi flick. Whilst in Carpenter’s film the alien tended only to burst out into its true form necessarily when discovered, in The Thing prequel it is glorified with an ungodly amount of screen time. The film quickly loses its intensity as it dwindles away into an ordinary monster chase around the Norwegian base.

By measures of any typical Hollywood monster horror film, The Thing is still an engaging and impressive ride. But trying to continue in the same spirit as John Carpenter’s, the film fails to sustain the classic psychological suspense it starts out with. 7.5/10

Hugo Movies Reviews

Upon seeing the trailer for “Hugo”, I wasn’t overly impressed. The blaring emphasis on 3D made me worried it was more spectacle than substance. Still, it was directed by Martin Scorsese, and had Ben Kingsley in it, so I decided to put aside my fears and go see it anyway.

Am I ever glad I did! This is a sweet and gentle tale, full of unexpected warmth and depth. It is the story of Hugo Cabret, an orphan and keeper of the clocks at a train station in Paris. His only connection to his deceased father is a broken-down automaton the two were repairing before his father’s demise in a fire. When Hugo is caught stealing parts for the automaton by the old owner of a toy shop in the station (Kingsley), his booklet of sketches related to the curious mechanical man is taken from him. Attempting to retrieve it, he meets Isabelle, the goddaughter of the aged man. Together, they begin to unravel the mystery behind Kingsley’s character and help bring his true identity to light. (It shouldn’t be that much of a surprise to anyone with knowledge of early film history that has a chance to look at the cast list here on IMDb. Does the name “Georges Méliès” ring any bells?)

Asa Butterfield does capably in the title role, and Chloe Grace Moretz shines sublimely as the precocious Isabelle. Of course, Ben Kingsley gives a terrific performance, powerful and poignant. He plays a broken man anguished by the shadows of the past.

These three are the central figures of the film, yet the side characters are handled equally well. That really struck me. A lesser filmmaker might have let such characters come off as just caricatures, especially in a children’s film. Scorsese doesn’t allow for that to happen. Richard Griffiths’, Frances de la Tour’s and Christopher Lee’s characters are all skillfully imbued with humanity so that the audience feels for them and seems to get to know them in spite of their short periods on screen. Even Sacha Baron Cohen’s silly Station Inspector is more than a one-dimensional figure. In between his cartoonish antics and chases after Hugo, he is shown to be painfully shy, pining desperately for the affections of an attractive woman who sells flowers. We learn also that he was wounded in World War I, and that it was his days growing up without love in the strict environment of an orphanage that so embittered him towards the world. He is not merely some comic antagonist tossed in for the sake of slapstick. Instead, he is a fascinating and well-developed character in his own right. One feels compassion and pity for him, and hopes he will have the courage to speak up and win the heart of his love, that their quirky relationship will blossom into romance.

In short, this is a simply lovely film. There has been some uproar and befuddlement over the director of such films as “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” making a ‘children’s movie’. I must admit I was a little abashed myself upon first hearing it. But “Hugo” shows that a so-called children’s movie doesn’t have to be inane or infantile. This is an intelligent and wondrous work – never sappy or banal. In part a tribute to the magic of cinema, it reminded me why I love motion pictures so much. With its richness and nuance, “Hugo” should appeal to children and adults alike. I realize that saying sounds a little clichéd, but in this case I have faith in the truth of it.


Fast Tube by Casper

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Movies Review

So what’s been happening lately?

There has been a series of bombings and assassinations across Europe and if these activities continue, war will erupt and Europe will become a field of casualties and devastation. And our favorite detective Sherlock Holmes suspects Professor James Moriarty as the mastermind behind all these events.

Meanwhile, amidst the bombings and destruction which are ravaging Europe, Sherlock Holmes’s partner, Dr. John Watson is finally getting married with his fiancée Mary. After being engaged in the first film, they are finally getting married and a short funny wedding scene has been reserved in the film. They’re even going for a honeymoon in Brighton. Or they were supposed to go for a honeymoon.

The train the couple boarded was filled with Moriarty’s henchmen and a loud, explosive battle ensues eliminating any hopes of an upcoming honeymoon. Even though Watson had been planning to retire from adventuring with Holmes after his wedding, he reluctantly becomes Holmes’s partner one more time while his wife is taken care of by Holmes’s brother, Mycroft. And the duo will receive an additional member to form a trio: the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza. Together, they try to stop Moriarty from continuing his cruel schemes and Holmes learns about Moriarty’s plan to start a war in which he will personally benefit from.

There are lots of action scenes that keep the film exciting and keep the film running in a constant, fast pace. The action sequences are louder, much more explosive, and much more energetic than the ones present in the predecessor. They are very loud, operatic, and exuberant. But some of the battle sequences are surprisingly quiet, such as a simple chess game held between Holmes and Moriarty. While you think a chess game would be boring, Guy Ritchie filmed it as if it was a grand battle. The sounds, the atmosphere, and the dialog adds another layer of tension and makes the chess game scene more atmospheric.

Not only the action scenes, but the humor here is outstanding. Most of the jokes and humor come from the titular character himself. His bizarre behavior, regardless of his intelligence add a layer of comedy to the film. His trademark hobby, disguising into several unexpected people is just purely entertaining. If it weren’t for Robert Downey Jr., the humor here would have collapsed and become a disaster.

And of course, the acting and performances by the cast were brilliant and outstanding. Robert Downey Jr. is just brilliant in portraying the titular detective. He is admirable and he is really a man of talent. Don’t worry, Jude Law also plays the role of Dr. John Watson perfectly. Together, they form an excellent chemistry. Also worth mentioning is Noomi Rapace as the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza, who not too long ago played the role of Lisbeth Salander in the original version of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. Stephen Fry plays the role of Mycroft Holmes to perfection.

I’d like to take some time discussing the character of Professor James Moriarty. He is a very compelling villain. His professional life as a criminal mastermind is hidden beneath his profession as a professor in the University of Cambridge. He is much more intelligent, much more cunning, and much deadlier than Lord Blackwood of the previous film. While Holmes seems to be a detective that can do no wrong in the previous film, here, he will make mistakes. Here, he will feel pain. Moriarty is just a very powerful villain and a very suitable opponent for Holmes. (And remember the slow-motion scenes where Holmes elaborates his fighting strategies in his mind, Moriarty can do it too.) And to further compliment this is the performance of Jared Harris. While he may not look suitable as an antagonist, he actually makes a perfect choice.

However, the film uses too much slow-mo effects. This is largely noticeable in one particular scene which has an extensive use of slow-motion. I know the effect is mainly used to make it look more stylish but there is certainly too much of them. Running at a duration of 129 minutes, it could have been shortened if some of the slow-mo effects have been removed.

Not only the slow-mo effects, but this film seems to have lost its trademark element of mystery that is present in the first film. Even though there are some mystery present here, they are not as mind- boggling as the ones present in the first film. In the first film, there are just so many questions that popped up and Holmes really has something to work on. But here, it’s not mysterious. You know the full details immediately.

Nevertheless, “A Game of Shadows” is a pleasant experience and a whole lot more fun than the original film. Its operatic action scenes will entertain the audience and its comedic scenes will add a layer of laughter. With powerful performances from the cast, this film is one not to be missed in this movie season.

Final Verdict: “A Game of Shadows” is a stylish, fast-paced, yet comedic adventure which improves upon its predecessor in several aspects, and surely a highly recommended film.


Fast Tube by Casper


Page 1 of 5912345...102030...Last »

33 queries. 0.463 seconds.