'Why?' thought Dave, 'Why?.... Why? .... Why?'
Almost every other scene had hugh question marks. The general plot felt like it was inspired by a game of musical chairs. Dave honestly felt like he could write a book on all the finer details which just didn't add up. To avoid any serious plot spoilers, all the examples listed here appeared almost straight away. There are ALOT more as the film goes on...
The film opens with Lord Beckett killing everyone who has any connection what-so-ever to anyone who knows a pirate. Suddenly a child with a coin starts singing, everyone else joins in, someone runs to Beckett and says, "They've started singing!" Beckett announces, "Finally."
Questions:
Why do they all start singing?
What is the coin all about?
Why does Beckett announce, "Finally," in such a confident manner, when five minutes later he seems to have no idea what any of it was about?
This is briefly mentioned again, some vague annoucement that it represents "the call", a completely different coin which looks the same is dangled in front of a pirates ear. The pirate seems unimpressed and the whole singing coin things fades out of the story without any real point.
Next up, good old Will Turner seems to have turned to the dark side. It turns out he doesn't give a monkey's about Jack or anyone else. His mission is to save the black pearl, steal it and use it to rescue his father.
Questions:
Even if we ignore that turning to the dark seemed pretty unlikely for Will, how does he know the black pearl will still be in one piece when they find Jack?
Why is the black pearl still in one piece when they save Jack?
How does owning the black pearl bring him even slightly closer to saving his father?
Will and Elizabeth are refusing to talk to each other.
Why? Their yo-yo relationship starts to get tiresome.
The questions pile on and on.
On the plus side, Captain Jack and the undead Monkey Jack are both pretty cool and the film has plenty of humourous little moments which do help to make the viewer forget about most of the smaller plot holes.
For anyone who watched and enjoyed the first two, go watch it, but lower your expectations and you won't be too disapointed.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Spiderman 3
Spiderman 3. The inner struggle between good and evil. Venom, Sandman and Baby Goblin.
Dave found it physically painful to watch.
That was not to say Dave didn't enjoy it, it was just that Jean would squeeze his arm everytime there was a loud bang and there were a LOT of loud bangs. This helped make the film seem more realistic as Dave could really feel for the characters.
Overall it was a decent film and Dave did enjoy it, although it quite often seemed to try too hard to be dramatic whilst at the same time desperate for action scenes. An easy example, without giving too much away, would be Sandman. Everytime he spoke he was a loving and caring father, he didn't want to hurt anyone, he just needed to get money for his sick child, deep heart filled moments. Everytime he wasn't speaking he was pounding the c**p outa Spidey for no real reason and his moto of "I don't wanna hurt anyone" did not seem to apply to policemen, who after all aren't really people. Surely a guy made out of sand could find a much sneakier and peaceful way to collect a lot of cash in a short amount of time. But the overall pattern of the film seemed to be emotion, check, action, check, logic? need not apply. For example, what do you do when your girlfriend has been kidnapped and very soon faces certain death?
A: Calmly go home, pull out a box containing your good old faithful red spiderman suit and remove the suit very slowly, staring at it for a good minute or two to make sure the audience understands the deep emotional significance of it being a red suit and not a black one.
This was followed quite quickly by a scene straight from Futurama. "Kif, hold up that flag. Wave it a little."
The inner struggle evil Spidey was a bit of a let down. Considering the overall desperate attempt to cram pack the film full of action, they missed a Golden opportunity. Instead of showing some hardcore Spidey action of him catching thieves in his new evil don't really care if they die manner which would have fit in perfectly well with the story and have been cool, they decided to show Peter walking down the street pointing at people not caring that everyone was laughing at him. Well, it is rude to point, you go bad boy.
A final complaint which must be mentioned despite it being clearly too picky and petty, but what happened to Spidey's Spider Sense? Spidey seemed to be bashed in the back time after time and never seemed to see it coming.
Harry was great. Despite the movie being apparently about Spidey's inner struggle, Harry pulled the inner struggle thing off a lot better. Spidey occasionally came across as a bit of a spoilt child, whilst Harry always seemed to have some real issues. Jean really seemed to warm to Harry and therefore, despite his great acting attempt, Dave hated him and thought he should have been cut out of the movie all together.
A guest appearance from Bruce Wayne's buttler Alfred, pretending to be Harry's buttler, was an unexpected twist. His speach however gave him away, "Bruce, sorry, I mean Batman, I've been friends of your family for a long time, I loved your father, I love you, but you have to know Spidey didn't kill your dad, he was shot in a dark alley way by a mugger, who may or may not have been the Joker depending on which story you believe, but it was his own fault. What sane multimillionaire walks down a dark alleyway in a dangerous area at night? No, Spidey definately didn't kill your dad. He just brought your dads dead body home to lie him on the couch for you as a nice surprise for when you got home."
In summary
Emotion, check
Action, check
Logic? Need not apply.
But two outa three ain't bad.
Go watch it.
Dave found it physically painful to watch.
That was not to say Dave didn't enjoy it, it was just that Jean would squeeze his arm everytime there was a loud bang and there were a LOT of loud bangs. This helped make the film seem more realistic as Dave could really feel for the characters.
Overall it was a decent film and Dave did enjoy it, although it quite often seemed to try too hard to be dramatic whilst at the same time desperate for action scenes. An easy example, without giving too much away, would be Sandman. Everytime he spoke he was a loving and caring father, he didn't want to hurt anyone, he just needed to get money for his sick child, deep heart filled moments. Everytime he wasn't speaking he was pounding the c**p outa Spidey for no real reason and his moto of "I don't wanna hurt anyone" did not seem to apply to policemen, who after all aren't really people. Surely a guy made out of sand could find a much sneakier and peaceful way to collect a lot of cash in a short amount of time. But the overall pattern of the film seemed to be emotion, check, action, check, logic? need not apply. For example, what do you do when your girlfriend has been kidnapped and very soon faces certain death?
A: Calmly go home, pull out a box containing your good old faithful red spiderman suit and remove the suit very slowly, staring at it for a good minute or two to make sure the audience understands the deep emotional significance of it being a red suit and not a black one.
This was followed quite quickly by a scene straight from Futurama. "Kif, hold up that flag. Wave it a little."
The inner struggle evil Spidey was a bit of a let down. Considering the overall desperate attempt to cram pack the film full of action, they missed a Golden opportunity. Instead of showing some hardcore Spidey action of him catching thieves in his new evil don't really care if they die manner which would have fit in perfectly well with the story and have been cool, they decided to show Peter walking down the street pointing at people not caring that everyone was laughing at him. Well, it is rude to point, you go bad boy.
A final complaint which must be mentioned despite it being clearly too picky and petty, but what happened to Spidey's Spider Sense? Spidey seemed to be bashed in the back time after time and never seemed to see it coming.
Harry was great. Despite the movie being apparently about Spidey's inner struggle, Harry pulled the inner struggle thing off a lot better. Spidey occasionally came across as a bit of a spoilt child, whilst Harry always seemed to have some real issues. Jean really seemed to warm to Harry and therefore, despite his great acting attempt, Dave hated him and thought he should have been cut out of the movie all together.
A guest appearance from Bruce Wayne's buttler Alfred, pretending to be Harry's buttler, was an unexpected twist. His speach however gave him away, "Bruce, sorry, I mean Batman, I've been friends of your family for a long time, I loved your father, I love you, but you have to know Spidey didn't kill your dad, he was shot in a dark alley way by a mugger, who may or may not have been the Joker depending on which story you believe, but it was his own fault. What sane multimillionaire walks down a dark alleyway in a dangerous area at night? No, Spidey definately didn't kill your dad. He just brought your dads dead body home to lie him on the couch for you as a nice surprise for when you got home."
In summary
Emotion, check
Action, check
Logic? Need not apply.
But two outa three ain't bad.
Go watch it.
Thursday, June 1, 2006
The Dan Brown Code
As Dave read "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, months ago, he thought to himself,
'This will never work well as a film.'
Now, as he sat watching the latest Tom Hanks blockbuster he thought,
'I was right.'
Dan Brown uses a very simple yet effective method of writing. He simply doesn't tell the reader something, then switches subjects and the reader HAS to keep reading or live forever without knowing. It reminded Dave of that old joke,
"How do you keep an idiot in suspence?"
"I'll tell you tomorrow."
When translated onto the big screen, this just makes the film somewhat jumpy. It leaves no time what so ever for the watcher to try and figure stuff out for themselves and probably lost a good deal of it's audience at various points along the way. And yet it was still big enough to get good old Tom.
Dave was, overall, enormously impressed with Dan Brown. If only he could figure out how to write a book which would cause endless amount of talk and documentries and then produce a second book, identical to the first but with a different title, which still managed to cause endless talks and documetries.
He'd be laughing all the way to the bank.
'This will never work well as a film.'
Now, as he sat watching the latest Tom Hanks blockbuster he thought,
'I was right.'
Dan Brown uses a very simple yet effective method of writing. He simply doesn't tell the reader something, then switches subjects and the reader HAS to keep reading or live forever without knowing. It reminded Dave of that old joke,
"How do you keep an idiot in suspence?"
"I'll tell you tomorrow."
When translated onto the big screen, this just makes the film somewhat jumpy. It leaves no time what so ever for the watcher to try and figure stuff out for themselves and probably lost a good deal of it's audience at various points along the way. And yet it was still big enough to get good old Tom.
Dave was, overall, enormously impressed with Dan Brown. If only he could figure out how to write a book which would cause endless amount of talk and documentries and then produce a second book, identical to the first but with a different title, which still managed to cause endless talks and documetries.
He'd be laughing all the way to the bank.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Philadelphia
Saturday night, Dave and Jean snuggled up on the sofa to watch a classic as the sun went down.
Philadelphia, winner of 2 oscars, 9 other awards and 12 nominations, one of Tom Hanks' finest.
Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks), is discrimated against for being gay and having AIDS. Although a fantastic lawer, he is fired without warning when his employers discover his condition. He then seeks justice taking his former employers to court.
-"What do you love about the law, Andrew?"
-"I... many things... uh... uh... What I love the most about the law?"
-"Yeah."
-"It's that every now and again - not often, but occasionally - you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill when that happens."
It was not the first time Dave had watched this movie, he hoped it wouldn't be his last. He could not imagine that there would be any good reason why anyone would not watch a film of such rare calibre.
Outside of the courtroom, a person is holding a banner "(G)ot (A)ids (Y)et? (GAY)". What was truely horrific about such a banner is the confident knowledge that people really would and do go out of there way to hold up such things at times like this in real life. A person is dying, their life cut drastically short and their fellow man will go out of their way to taunt them.
Where did it all go so wrong? What would it take to put it back on track?
The evil and corrupt rise to the top with little effort, the stupid and violent are on every street corner and religions and politics are tearing people apart, in some countries liturally.
"Prove to me," said Jean, "prove to me that good people can still succeed."
What can one man do against the tide?
Andrew Beckett won $5 million + justice, but died trying. That was the happy ending on a movie set.
Dave wasn't in a film.
Where would Dave's life take him?
Philadelphia, winner of 2 oscars, 9 other awards and 12 nominations, one of Tom Hanks' finest.
Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks), is discrimated against for being gay and having AIDS. Although a fantastic lawer, he is fired without warning when his employers discover his condition. He then seeks justice taking his former employers to court.
-"What do you love about the law, Andrew?"
-"I... many things... uh... uh... What I love the most about the law?"
-"Yeah."
-"It's that every now and again - not often, but occasionally - you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill when that happens."
It was not the first time Dave had watched this movie, he hoped it wouldn't be his last. He could not imagine that there would be any good reason why anyone would not watch a film of such rare calibre.
Outside of the courtroom, a person is holding a banner "(G)ot (A)ids (Y)et? (GAY)". What was truely horrific about such a banner is the confident knowledge that people really would and do go out of there way to hold up such things at times like this in real life. A person is dying, their life cut drastically short and their fellow man will go out of their way to taunt them.
Where did it all go so wrong? What would it take to put it back on track?
The evil and corrupt rise to the top with little effort, the stupid and violent are on every street corner and religions and politics are tearing people apart, in some countries liturally.
"Prove to me," said Jean, "prove to me that good people can still succeed."
What can one man do against the tide?
Andrew Beckett won $5 million + justice, but died trying. That was the happy ending on a movie set.
Dave wasn't in a film.
Where would Dave's life take him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)