Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (3D): Film #164 of Film 365

Sunday 1st July 2012

Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Year: 2012
Stars: Benjamin Walker, Dominic Cooper, Rufus Sewell, Anthony Mackie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Lots of my friends have been rather sceptical about this movie. I, for one, was more than happy to see it. It sounded fun to me. So when my husband and I were looking for a movie to go and see on our wedding anniversary, this one just beat the competition. Although I'll admit that the competition wasn't that strong - it is the middle of the summer, after all. I was mildly surprised to find my husband willing to sit through it. Although his acceptance wavered a little when we discovered we had to watch it in 3D, and it was therefore going to cost us a hideous amount of money (this being a Sunday, not a Wednesday with its Orange 2-4-1 offers).

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does exactly what it says on the tin. Amazingly, it's adapted from a novel - but it's all about a world where Abraham Lincoln goes off killing vampires. Oh, there's a bit in the middle where he stops and fights slavery (turns out the vampires are responsible for that, too), because doing both at once would be, well, silly. It's all very tongue-in-cheek, and although the movie plays it straight, it must know this. It doesn't try to be anything it isn't. Although the scene with the stampeding horses did have me almost laughing out loud for its sheer ridiculousness...

If you know what you're getting, and are willing to accept it, this is a pretty fun movie. I enjoyed the hour and a half by simply taking the movie for what it was. And the 3D was, for me, surprisingly effective. Sure, all the usual "vampires jumping out at you" tricks are employed, but what I really liked were the early scenes where the 1800s are given a hazy, washed-out summer tone, and the 3D makes the figures seem almost unreal.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (I enjoyed it, but I'm willing to admit that it's not an example of cinema at its best)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II (3D): Film #56 of Film 365

Wednesday 27th July 2011

Director: David Yates
Year: 2011
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Matthew Lewis, Tom Felton, Michael Gambon, Evanna Lynch, Warwick Davies, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Bonnie Wright

I'm having a bit of a Harry Potter-themed film-a-thon at the moment, it seems (although there are whole weeks between me watching the movies - I'm not doing at all well with this whole one-a-day thing. Or even one-a-week thing, come to that)! 

I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about this movie - the end of franchises often have an excitable feel to them, but they're also often something of a letdown. I have to say though, the final Harry Potter didn't feel like a let-down at all. I really enjoyed the first Harry Potter 7, but I'm happy to say I think this is even better. After watching both of the final movies, I really don't have a problem with them turning it into a two-parter.

During this movie I didn't once feel like things were being included unnecessarily - it rushes along at a ripping pace; exactly what you want from a final, battle-ridden movie. Having said that, it still found time to stop and follow Harry, Ron and Hermione as they figured things out and behaved like, well, 17-year olds. Even the ending, which, just before it began, I thought was unnecessary, won me over (health warning here though: if you haven't read the book, it is cheesy).

Overall, a really satisfying end to an enjoyable series. Now I'm off to watch them all in order (barring the first one, which I saw last week), as ITV are showing one per week.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Wednesday 14th July 2010

Shrek Forever After (3D)

Director: Mike Mitchell
Year: 2010
Stars: Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas (voices)

I was 90% sure I wanted to see this movie. The first two were so good, and the reviews for this one gave the impression it was, if not as good, at least much better than the (truly awful) third instalment.

Thankfully, the reviews were correct. It helped (in my opinion) that I went to see it in 3D, as it really is the kind of film where seeing it in 3D makes it more enjoyable. This time around, Shrek wishes for one day as a bachelor - a wish that the evil Rumplestiltskin is more than happy to grant him. The rest of the film deals with the fall-out from this (unsurprisingly unwise) deal Shrek makes with Rumplestiltskin...

Perhaps not as funny as the first two films, but there are still laugh-out-loud moments and it's a welcome distraction from the real world. I have no hesitation in recommending it as a fun evening out.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Saturday 20th March 2010

Alice in Wonderland (3D)

Director: Tim Burton
Year: 2010
Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway

I've wanted to see this since it came out, being a fan of most Tim Burton and Johnny Depp films, whether they are collaborations or made independently of one another. I'd heard mixed reviews though - some people feeling it was a bit too obviously "blue-screened", and others saying if you liked the book you wouldn't be so keen on the film. Thankfully, I've never liked the book so had no problems with any poetic licence they wished to take.

The film tells the story of Alice (Wasikowska), who (as you will probably know) falls down a rabbit hole and ends up in Wonderland. There, she has to decide whether or not she can fight the jabberwocky so that the White Queen (Hathaway) can take her rightful place as Queen of Wonderland. On the way, she meets a host of other characters including the Mad Hatter (Depp), the Chesire Cat (voiced by Stephen Fry), the White Rabbit (voiced by Michael Sheen) and Dormouse (voiced by Barbara Windsor). And yes, there is a lot of British vocal talent in there!

The most notable thing about this film is it's style. That's not a criticism - it's just an incredibly visual film, and looks stunning. Without this, the film just wouldn't work as well as it does. There is a plot, but it's not really better than many other films. I loved the 3D touches, which I thought really made the film look as good as it could, but there was some disagreement amongst those I was with as to whether or not it was really necessary. I guess the only way to really know that is to watch it in 2D as well!

Rating: 4 out of 5

Wednesday 6th January 2010

Avatar (3D)

Director: James Cameron
Year: 2009
Stars: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting a lot from this. I wanted to see it at the cinema as I thought it would be the only place you would get the complete experience - and judging from the sold out theatre, I wasn't the only one with that opinion.

I have to say, I was quite pleasantly surprised. Now, this may well be due to the fact that I was expecting a pretty awful plot, but it wasn't actually all that bad. It's a long movie (2 hours 40 minutes), but there is enough plot in there so that the running time feels justified. Basically, human beings travel to Pandora (another world) to try and access that world's resources - but the natives (Nav'i) aren't willing to let them take it. It's Jake Sully's job to "become" a Navi and convince them otherwise... resulting in a love story, lots of blowing things up and some moral dilemmas.

The best thing about this film is how it looks. Perhaps that was always going to be the case, but it is stunning. The world of Pandora looks simply beautiful, and it's clear why this took so long to make. Without that (which is, of course, amazing in 3D) this would probably just have felt like a run-of-the-mill action type movie to me. But the look of the film gives it at least one extra star.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Friday 27th November 2009

A Christmas Carol (3D)

Director: Robert Zemeckis
Year: 2009
Stars: Jim Carrey, Colin Firth, Gary Oldman

I wasn't sure what to expect from this. I wanted to see it because, well, it's Dickens' A Christmas Carol, and I love it. Plus it's Christmas, right? Well, nearly.

First off, the 3D elements in this are beautiful. After Coraline, it's (so far) my favourite 3D movie. It looks stunning - from the incredibly real looking candles and holly to the snowflakes that feel as if they are actually landing on you, to flying scenes that really work in a Christmas movie (this is want The Snowman needed!), to things that are scary and dark enough to actually make you jump (well, I did).

A lot of the movie is also great. Lines are quoted direct from the Dickens novel, and in some respects the movie is incredibly faithful to the book. Of course, there are reimagining's of some scenes, but that's fine. For a story with so many adaptations, there has to be something to make it feel fresh.

However, there are problems too. First off, when kids watch this as their introduction to the world of Scrooge, Dickens and all that is wonderful about Christmas (yes, I'm biased, and no, I don't care), please point out that in the book a) no, Scrooge doesn't fly to the moon and b) no, he isn't chased by mad horses down dark alleys (or turned into a tiny squeaky thing for that matter).

Secondly, what was the point of making Jim Carrey play Scrooge and all the ghosts? He's great as Scrooge, and until the ghost of Christmas Past arrived in the story, it was an amazing movie. But then a rubbish looking candle with a Jim Carrey face and an awful "Irish" accent turns up, and I'm wondering if all the ghosts are going to be this bad... thankfully they improve. The ghost of Christmas Present looks much better (although still with a nasty Scottish accent), and the Ghost of Christmas Future is actually really impressively done. Always my favourite ghost, but here beautifully re-imagined.

The one other thing that bothered me a little was the use of stop motion. My opinion here may well have been influenced a little by a review I read a couple of days before seeing the movie, but certain characters just look odd in stop motion - Colin Firth being the most obvious example. It sort of looks like him, just a kind of creepy version. However, for many of the characters (Carrey as Scrooge for example, where they'd given him the traditional Dickensian nose and chin) I could see why they'd used it, so having the film in stop motion is less of an issue, more of a point I want to make.

Final point: the movie is somewhat creepier than you might expect. There are places where you'll jump, and small children are likely to be quite scared, especially in the first and last 15 minutes. It makes it hard to know exactly who the film is being aimed at, but I suspect it wasn't young kids!

Rating: 4 out of 5 (although I admit one of those points may be because I'm biased and love the story - but then if they'd really ruined it I'd have been very angry, so maybe it's a far score after all).

Wednesday 28th October

Partly Cloudy

Director: Peter Sohn
Year: 2009
Stars: n/a

This is a Pixar short that is being shown in the cinemas before the main feature, Up. Having seen it at the cinema I thought I'd review it here, along with Up. It tells the tale of a lonely cloud that makes babies (which a hard-done-by stork then carries) for the less cute creatures of the world, which have a tendency to attack the stork. Engaging and fun, it's a good introduction to Up and the world of Pixar.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Up (3D)

Director: Pete Doctor, Bob Peterson
Year: 2009
Stars: Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordon Nagai, Bob Peterson

And onto the main feature... the first 10 minutes of this are brilliant. Drawing you straight into the story, you'll wonder how you've managed to be emotionally manipulated quite so quickly.

In a sense, the less you know about the story before it starts, the more you will enjoy it. So suffice it to say that the plot involves an old man and a young boy, and a house that flies - all things you probably already know from the trailer.

The film looks beautiful, and whilst the remainder of the movie might not draw you in quite like the first ten minutes, it's still incredibly enjoyable. Amazingly, even when all the characters are being annoying, you'll understand why and still like them. Well, I did.

The only problem I have with Up is that it's not really necessary to watch it in 3D. Of course, that takes nothing away from the story, but why make something in 3D if you're not really going to use it? Pixar said they didn't want to use the usual tricks of having things jump out at you, and I fully respect that. But most of the beauty of the film would be apparent in 2D - it doesn't use the 3D. After having seen the way Coraline used 3D, this just isn't quite up to standard.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Wednesday 8th July

Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs 3D

Director: Carlos Saldanha, Mike Thurmeier
Year: 2009
Stars: John Leguizamo, Queen Latifah, Denis Leary, Simon Pegg

After having watched Coraline in 3D I had high hopes for this. However, I did recognise it was the third film in a trilogy, so may well be a little disappointed.

First off, the film isn't bad. If you're a five year old, you'll probably quite enjoy it. There were even jokes in there that made me titter. But it's nothing special, and the 3D elements are absolutely not utilised to their full effect.

Of course, there's no way that dinosaurs can exist in a world after cavemen existed. Ice Age 3 does at least attempt to get around this by claiming there's a whole other world under the ice. It's perhaps not the best explanation, but at least it is one. Otherwise the story is pretty predictable - the gang loses a friend, and has to go and rescue him. It's never quite that simple (it is Ice Age, after all) but that's the basic idea.

It takes a while for the story to pick up (a 90 minute film having boring bits is surely a sign that the franchise has reached it's end), and all of the 3D elements involve racing down snow slopes or things running at you - and even these don't happen all that often.

Watchable, but only if you have nothing better to do. And if you want an amazing first 3D experience, this isn't it.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Wednesday 20th May

Coraline 3D

Director: Henry Selick
Year: 2009
Stars: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French (voices)

I really enjoyed this. The story is pretty good, engaging and, whilst creepy (I'm pretty sure a 5 year old would be having nightmares), still fun to watch. There were a couple of times when I felt the plot was moving a little slowly, but this didn't matter - mostly because I was watching it in 3D.

I was a little dubious about seeing Coraline - it sounded good, and it seemed to look good, but it was directed by the same guy who bought us A Nightmare before Christmas. When I first saw that film, I hated it. I admit, I was only 13 at the time, and I'm still not sure if it's because it really was as dull as I found it then, or because I simply didn't "get" it at that age. Either way, I've not yet had the courage to sit through it again. So Coraline truly did come as a pleasant surprise.

The story is based on the book by Neil Gaiman, about a girl who moves to a new house with our parents. She finds a secret door, and through it, her "other mother and father". Everything seems perfect there, until she discovers her other mother wants to remove her real eyes and sew buttons in their place. Yes, it is as creepy as it sounds - and the film makes no apologies for it. Just one of the things that meant I enjoyed it!

I have to admit though, 50% of my enjoyment came from watching it in 3D. It's the first "real" film I've watched in 3D, one of the new cinemas in our area having installed the technology to show 3D films when it was built last year. It really was like a new cinema experience for me - which I found very exciting! There are no more red and green glasses like you used to get (still glasses, but stylish black ones - and after 30 mins I forgot I was wearing them), and the 3D element really does work quite well. I was impressed. Coraline doesn't really use 3D to "come at you" like I expect a number of other films do (apparently Bolt, one of the first recent 3D films, does this), but it does use it remarkably well to draw you in. For example, it's especially stunning for watching such simple things as the flowers growing.

I'm not sure I would have enjoyed Coraline quite so much in 2D, for which the film loses a star. But as a 3D experience, it was an excellent film and a great night out enjoying something that felt incredibly new and fresh. Not an experience I think it would be easy to create in my living room either, giving me another good excuse to keep going to the cinema! I'm not saying I think all films should be 3D, but after seeing this, I'm really quite pro the concept.

Rating: 4 out of 5