I might be conforming to the general consensus here, but yes, this film had a great concept but it was not executed well.
For the budget it was shot on (about $500K) and the prosumer equipment used, this film does look like an understated Hollywood sci-fi epic. The cinematography and camerawork is beautiful, and the CGI is for the most part quite convincing. The musical score is also an added bonus, as it is rather subtle and builds at the appropriate moments.
However, the film's positive qualities can't quite overshadow shortcomings. The story is middling and drags along, making its hour-and-a-half running time seem twice as long--any interesting scenes are scarce and sporadically spread throughout the film. In fact, we rarely ever get to see the "monsters" that seem to be the film's center point. Obviously, they didn't show the creatures very often so as to build up suspense, but the film fails to even do that effectively. And to top it all off, the acting is just terrible and the characters' dialogue is for the most part unimportant and unneeded. Though it could be argued that this corresponds with their self-centered characters, it leaves the audience feeling bored and very uninvolved.
Monsters attempted to ride the District 9 wave and aimed to be a great piece low-budget, indie, sci-fi fare, but ended up simply being an amateurish road movie with the occasional alien appearance. Is it absolutely terrible? No, but when there are so many films superior in quality it is hard to recommend.
Absolutely brilliant. It's a combination between an emotional family drama and a whodunit courtroom mystery. Acting and writing was top-notch, and the directing was excellent, as well. The character development was interesting, as well, because you were never able to support one sole character. Just when you were rooting for one character, they did a complete turnaround and you ended up rooting for their rival. It's that kind of drama and storytelling that keeps you on-edge. Just a great film.
When I had first seen the trailer, I thought: "Wow--I'm not a big fan of Zack Snyder but this trailer looks awesome! And seeing as this is his first original story, this could be a worthwhile experience." I really wanted to like it, I really did. But, alas, I didn't--and this was even after watching the Director's Cut.
Apparently this film was supposed to be a critique of the sci-fi fantasy geek fandom and the sexism that is a rather rampant quality of the male-dominated realm. Sadly, the film fails to do such a thing as it instead embodies what it is trying to satirize. The female leads are all acted quite poorly (especially Baby Doll, played by Emily Browning) and their characters are very underdeveloped--not exactly helping the supposed cause. They are reduced to being mere sexual images that must resort to entering their imaginations in order to gain any willpower to fight back against their oppressors. I don't consider myself a feminist at all, but this film becomes quite misogynistic at times and that is a bit uncomfortable.
The visual style is intoxicating--and not necessarily in a good way. All of the computer-generated effects look pristine and sharp, but they are coupled to action sequences that are over-abundant and boisterous, leaving the audience with little breathing room in-between each one. What should've been exciting and fun turns dull and irritating.
The story jumps around from dream world to dream world so much that the fantasies start to blur in one's mind. It becomes random, an unregulated mess of segments thrown together to appeal to those with a short attention span. Honestly, I haven't seen a sci-fi fantasy geek's wet dream bigger than this since Heavy Metal.
Also--this may just be a personal gripe--but I dislike Zack Snyder's use of slow-motion. It wasn't as bad in this film as it was in some of his previous works, such as his adaptations of "300" and "Watchmen", but he seems to use it whenever possible and it becomes tedious to watch as you just want the story to keep moving along.
That being said, the film was a laudable attempt. Failed, yes, but laudable, especially for a director who's been trying so hard to appeal to the geek fandom and finally had enough of their harsh criticism. In addition, the music is surprisingly enthralling. Most of the songs are not original but are redone in a captivating way that tries its best to set the mood for the trainwrecks of scenes they accompany.
In conclusion, Sucker Punch is a film that had potential but got lost in its illusions of grandeur. It's all about the style and lacks the substance. Is it the worst film ever? No, but it is far from being good.
I felt like this was trying to be an epic drama but at times descended into triviality.
Though the topic of race relations was obviously prevalent in the film, it wasn't put up to much scrutiny or analysis. A lot of people have been drawing similarities to The Blind Side, which is in some ways true because it refuses to delve into the issue more and the characters are very flat and not prone to change of any kind. The dialogue was also very sparse at times and had a hard time keeping me interested.
That being said, I enjoyed how they did take on another topic more thoroughly, and that's how the lives of suburban mothers rotates solely around gossip and every person seems to be constantly on their guard, waiting to point out something that they find irritating amongst their fellow neighbors. I don't think I've seen a film cover that topic successfully since 2006's Little Children.
There were also some good performances in the film, including those of Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, and--even though her character was very one-dimensional--Bryce Dallas Howard. Thomas Newman's score was also brilliant--prevalent when it needed to be and subtle the rest of the time.
Is it perfect? No. Will it please the wider audiences? Most likely.
I think this is a great film that takes a serious and realistic look at high school life. The characters mumble and show little emotion in an effort to blend in to their surroundings and not stick out, yet they all hide their own dark secrets and personality flaws from the rest of the world. They adapt voyeuristic tastes and view the troubles of others instead of deal with their own, whether through watching cell phone videos of student fights on YouTube or making such spying videos of their own. The acting does get a bit dull at times and tedious to follow along with, and the quiet audio and super-steady camera shots may start to drag on one's patience. But for the most part that fits along with the amateurish, voyeuristic mood of the piece. And the performances, for how plain they were, do captivate the audience in a neo-realistic sense. This is a director to keep an eye on in the future.
The greatest aspects of this film were Joe Wright's frantic, stylistic directing and the Chemical Brothers' pulsating musical score. Great film--so far my favorite of the year.
Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Movie comment on Monsters
MrFilmnatic
I might be conforming to the general consensus here, but yes, this film had a great concept but it was not executed well.For the budget it was shot on (about $500K) and the prosumer equipment used, this film does look like an understated Hollywood sci-fi epic. The cinematography and camerawork is beautiful, and the CGI is for the most part quite convincing. The musical score is also an added bonus, as it is rather subtle and builds at the appropriate moments.
However, the film's positive qualities can't quite overshadow shortcomings. The story is middling and drags along, making its hour-and-a-half running time seem twice as long--any interesting scenes are scarce and sporadically spread throughout the film. In fact, we rarely ever get to see the "monsters" that seem to be the film's center point. Obviously, they didn't show the creatures very often so as to build up suspense, but the film fails to even do that effectively. And to top it all off, the acting is just terrible and the characters' dialogue is for the most part unimportant and unneeded. Though it could be argued that this corresponds with their self-centered characters, it leaves the audience feeling bored and very uninvolved.
Monsters attempted to ride the District 9 wave and aimed to be a great piece low-budget, indie, sci-fi fare, but ended up simply being an amateurish road movie with the occasional alien appearance. Is it absolutely terrible? No, but when there are so many films superior in quality it is hard to recommend.
5/10
Movie comment on Jodaeiye Nader az Simin
MrFilmnatic
Absolutely brilliant. It's a combination between an emotional family drama and a whodunit courtroom mystery. Acting and writing was top-notch, and the directing was excellent, as well. The character development was interesting, as well, because you were never able to support one sole character. Just when you were rooting for one character, they did a complete turnaround and you ended up rooting for their rival. It's that kind of drama and storytelling that keeps you on-edge. Just a great film.Movie comment on Sucker Punch
MrFilmnatic
When I had first seen the trailer, I thought: "Wow--I'm not a big fan of Zack Snyder but this trailer looks awesome! And seeing as this is his first original story, this could be a worthwhile experience." I really wanted to like it, I really did. But, alas, I didn't--and this was even after watching the Director's Cut.Apparently this film was supposed to be a critique of the sci-fi fantasy geek fandom and the sexism that is a rather rampant quality of the male-dominated realm. Sadly, the film fails to do such a thing as it instead embodies what it is trying to satirize. The female leads are all acted quite poorly (especially Baby Doll, played by Emily Browning) and their characters are very underdeveloped--not exactly helping the supposed cause. They are reduced to being mere sexual images that must resort to entering their imaginations in order to gain any willpower to fight back against their oppressors. I don't consider myself a feminist at all, but this film becomes quite misogynistic at times and that is a bit uncomfortable.
The visual style is intoxicating--and not necessarily in a good way. All of the computer-generated effects look pristine and sharp, but they are coupled to action sequences that are over-abundant and boisterous, leaving the audience with little breathing room in-between each one. What should've been exciting and fun turns dull and irritating.
The story jumps around from dream world to dream world so much that the fantasies start to blur in one's mind. It becomes random, an unregulated mess of segments thrown together to appeal to those with a short attention span. Honestly, I haven't seen a sci-fi fantasy geek's wet dream bigger than this since Heavy Metal.
Also--this may just be a personal gripe--but I dislike Zack Snyder's use of slow-motion. It wasn't as bad in this film as it was in some of his previous works, such as his adaptations of "300" and "Watchmen", but he seems to use it whenever possible and it becomes tedious to watch as you just want the story to keep moving along.
That being said, the film was a laudable attempt. Failed, yes, but laudable, especially for a director who's been trying so hard to appeal to the geek fandom and finally had enough of their harsh criticism. In addition, the music is surprisingly enthralling. Most of the songs are not original but are redone in a captivating way that tries its best to set the mood for the trainwrecks of scenes they accompany.
In conclusion, Sucker Punch is a film that had potential but got lost in its illusions of grandeur. It's all about the style and lacks the substance. Is it the worst film ever? No, but it is far from being good.
3/10
Movie comment on The Help
MrFilmnatic
I felt like this was trying to be an epic drama but at times descended into triviality.Though the topic of race relations was obviously prevalent in the film, it wasn't put up to much scrutiny or analysis. A lot of people have been drawing similarities to The Blind Side, which is in some ways true because it refuses to delve into the issue more and the characters are very flat and not prone to change of any kind. The dialogue was also very sparse at times and had a hard time keeping me interested.
That being said, I enjoyed how they did take on another topic more thoroughly, and that's how the lives of suburban mothers rotates solely around gossip and every person seems to be constantly on their guard, waiting to point out something that they find irritating amongst their fellow neighbors. I don't think I've seen a film cover that topic successfully since 2006's Little Children.
There were also some good performances in the film, including those of Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, and--even though her character was very one-dimensional--Bryce Dallas Howard. Thomas Newman's score was also brilliant--prevalent when it needed to be and subtle the rest of the time.
Is it perfect? No. Will it please the wider audiences? Most likely.
7/10
Movie comment on Afterschool
MrFilmnatic
I think this is a great film that takes a serious and realistic look at high school life. The characters mumble and show little emotion in an effort to blend in to their surroundings and not stick out, yet they all hide their own dark secrets and personality flaws from the rest of the world. They adapt voyeuristic tastes and view the troubles of others instead of deal with their own, whether through watching cell phone videos of student fights on YouTube or making such spying videos of their own. The acting does get a bit dull at times and tedious to follow along with, and the quiet audio and super-steady camera shots may start to drag on one's patience. But for the most part that fits along with the amateurish, voyeuristic mood of the piece. And the performances, for how plain they were, do captivate the audience in a neo-realistic sense. This is a director to keep an eye on in the future.Movie comment on Hanna
MrFilmnatic
The greatest aspects of this film were Joe Wright's frantic, stylistic directing and the Chemical Brothers' pulsating musical score. Great film--so far my favorite of the year.