Rating: D
The biggest problem I had with Part II in what's now the Wolfpack Trilogy was that it was a lazy derivative of the first installment. So I was pleasantly surprised when the movie unfolded and was apparent that this last installment would not be yet another derivative of that first flick.
That being said.... I really don't believe Todd Phillips pulled it off. It was supposed to be an epic finale. I suppose that that was the direction it was headed towards, but it never seemed to actually get there. And that's really the best way of describing this movie. It's neither here nor there. It's not funny enough to be a comedy and it's entirely not epic enough to even be in the vicinity of being epic.
And I know that this last bit is also neither here nor there, but I entirely didn't see enough of Jamie Chung. Haha.
Cheers.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Friday, 24 May 2013
Movie: Star Trek - Into Darkness (2013)
Rating: B
Hrmm....Apparently I didn't write about the first installment of this NEW Star Trek franchise. But I've got to say, I much prefer J.J Abrams at the helm of a movie over his contributions on the small screen.
To boldly go....Where plenty of movies have gone before. There really is nothing new in this movie. That being said, who cares?! This movie is fun, it's well paced, and entirely action packed. While you don't have to be a trekkie to enjoy this film, however, after I watched this film, I went and watched the Star Trek movie from the original movie series and realised its correlation. I think that fans of the Star Trek franchise will love the homage it pays to its predecessor. Absolutely brilliant.
While I always love the easter eggs new movies pay to their predecessors, I'm starting to feel that the scripting is starting to be a little much; to a point where some of the bantering is becoming a little repetitive and becoming rather cliche.
That being said, I've got to say, the more I see Simon Pegg, the more I think that he's a frigging genius. haha. Total hilarity.
Cheers.
Hrmm....Apparently I didn't write about the first installment of this NEW Star Trek franchise. But I've got to say, I much prefer J.J Abrams at the helm of a movie over his contributions on the small screen.
To boldly go....Where plenty of movies have gone before. There really is nothing new in this movie. That being said, who cares?! This movie is fun, it's well paced, and entirely action packed. While you don't have to be a trekkie to enjoy this film, however, after I watched this film, I went and watched the Star Trek movie from the original movie series and realised its correlation. I think that fans of the Star Trek franchise will love the homage it pays to its predecessor. Absolutely brilliant.
While I always love the easter eggs new movies pay to their predecessors, I'm starting to feel that the scripting is starting to be a little much; to a point where some of the bantering is becoming a little repetitive and becoming rather cliche.
That being said, I've got to say, the more I see Simon Pegg, the more I think that he's a frigging genius. haha. Total hilarity.
Cheers.
Friday, 29 March 2013
Movie: Oz The Great and Powerful (2013)
Rating: B-
When you're making a companion piece to something that's been as revered, memorable, and loved as 1939's The Wizard of Oz, you better get ready for some backlash, comparison, and criticism. And while Sam Raimi's prequel certainly has room for improvement, I found it at the very least, entirely serviceable.
The question however, is that when it comes to something that is as revered and memorable, and loved as The Wizard of Oz, is serviceable enough? The budget was big enough. The photography and visual effects were certainly a spectacle. And they certainly tried to capture the aw shucks innocence of the land of Oz. Unfortunately, they were missing something. Something that the great and powerful Oz ended up handing out at the end of the 1939 original to the Tin Man. A heart.
There was nothing in Oz the Great and Powerful that tugged at your heart strings. Was it simply the allure of Judy Garland? Or the mysticism of Technicolor at the time? Or maybe it was 70 odd years of built up expectations? I don't know, but I found the performances of the witches to be lacking. I suppose I could have given Mila Kunis a pass, but I found her "green" face to be rather distracting. It quite simply took away from her performance, made her look more like The Mask; a rubbery caricature.
I also didn't find Michelle Williams' performance to be particularly genuine. I realize that she's the saccharine personification of ooey gooey goodness, but it felt entirely forced. I mean, she was great in My Week With Marilyn, so I have to wonder, was she simply miscast for this role?
(blogger's note: spoiler alert)
I loved how Sam Raimi gives nods to the original while recognizing that we live in an entirely different age now in such a fashion that only Sam Raimi can. In particular, James Franco basically tells the munchkins to shut up in the middle of their introductory song and dance piece.
Finally, the biggest question that I wished that they would have answered was, where did the ruby slippers come from?
~Cheers.
When you're making a companion piece to something that's been as revered, memorable, and loved as 1939's The Wizard of Oz, you better get ready for some backlash, comparison, and criticism. And while Sam Raimi's prequel certainly has room for improvement, I found it at the very least, entirely serviceable.
The question however, is that when it comes to something that is as revered and memorable, and loved as The Wizard of Oz, is serviceable enough? The budget was big enough. The photography and visual effects were certainly a spectacle. And they certainly tried to capture the aw shucks innocence of the land of Oz. Unfortunately, they were missing something. Something that the great and powerful Oz ended up handing out at the end of the 1939 original to the Tin Man. A heart.
There was nothing in Oz the Great and Powerful that tugged at your heart strings. Was it simply the allure of Judy Garland? Or the mysticism of Technicolor at the time? Or maybe it was 70 odd years of built up expectations? I don't know, but I found the performances of the witches to be lacking. I suppose I could have given Mila Kunis a pass, but I found her "green" face to be rather distracting. It quite simply took away from her performance, made her look more like The Mask; a rubbery caricature.
I also didn't find Michelle Williams' performance to be particularly genuine. I realize that she's the saccharine personification of ooey gooey goodness, but it felt entirely forced. I mean, she was great in My Week With Marilyn, so I have to wonder, was she simply miscast for this role?
(blogger's note: spoiler alert)
I loved how Sam Raimi gives nods to the original while recognizing that we live in an entirely different age now in such a fashion that only Sam Raimi can. In particular, James Franco basically tells the munchkins to shut up in the middle of their introductory song and dance piece.
Finally, the biggest question that I wished that they would have answered was, where did the ruby slippers come from?
~Cheers.
Monday, 25 March 2013
Movie: Olympus Has Fallen (2013)
Rating: C
I'll say this. Antoine Fuqua certainly knows how to create thrills and suspense. Unfortunately, Olympus Has Fallen really feels like a feeble attempt to remake the first Die Hard.
If you're watching this movie, the first thing you need to do is to turn your brain off. The scenario is completely absurd and implausible. Just sit back, and enjoy watching Gerard Butler kick some butt and deliver a couple of zingers. But aside from that, it's another attempt at mediocrity.
If you don't turn your brain off, you'll just find all the reactions of the characters don't make sense. I'd tell you what those absurdities are, but I'd just be telling you the whole movie.
~Cheers.
I'll say this. Antoine Fuqua certainly knows how to create thrills and suspense. Unfortunately, Olympus Has Fallen really feels like a feeble attempt to remake the first Die Hard.
If you're watching this movie, the first thing you need to do is to turn your brain off. The scenario is completely absurd and implausible. Just sit back, and enjoy watching Gerard Butler kick some butt and deliver a couple of zingers. But aside from that, it's another attempt at mediocrity.
If you don't turn your brain off, you'll just find all the reactions of the characters don't make sense. I'd tell you what those absurdities are, but I'd just be telling you the whole movie.
~Cheers.
Monday, 4 February 2013
Product: Backbeat Go by Plantronics
Design: 4.5 / 5
Sound Quality (in): 3 / 5
Sound Quality (out): 3 / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
MSRP: $79.99 (USD)
Overall: 3 / 5
Plantronics has long been making great quality mobile headsets, getting attention for both comfort and sound quality. And while I've been a fan of Jawbone products for a long time now, Jawbone has yet to produce a wireless stereo headset. With this in mind, I decided to give the BackBeat Go a try.
So the good news, is that the headset is incredibly light, and will fit into your pocket with little chance of entanglement due to its tangle-free design. So if you are planning a project that will require the use of both your hands, you've got a great device that you can jam on that looks great, and feels rather secure and comfortable too.
That being said, it is unfortunately horrendously light on sound. Not only does Plantronics need to work on the decibel level of the BackBeat Pro, but the overall sound quality is lacking too. While it doesn't sound tinny, it certainly lacks richness and fullness. On top of that, when you're talking into it, people on the receiving end might complain that you sound hollow. Which to me, was a little bit of a shock, since Plantronics has a history and a reputation in this specific category.
So why did I keep it? Because it's "good enough" that it serves its purpose. The fact of the matter is,
I couldn't listen to music on my Jawbone, and I couldn't make a call with my Sennheisers. So I wanted a decent set of headsets for when I go to the gym, go inline skating, go hit some balls off a tee, go hiking..... or...haha....if I go for a jog. I can listen to music, be free of wires, and be able to talk on it without disruption.
Cheers.
Sound Quality (in): 3 / 5
Sound Quality (out): 3 / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
MSRP: $79.99 (USD)
Overall: 3 / 5
Plantronics has long been making great quality mobile headsets, getting attention for both comfort and sound quality. And while I've been a fan of Jawbone products for a long time now, Jawbone has yet to produce a wireless stereo headset. With this in mind, I decided to give the BackBeat Go a try.
So the good news, is that the headset is incredibly light, and will fit into your pocket with little chance of entanglement due to its tangle-free design. So if you are planning a project that will require the use of both your hands, you've got a great device that you can jam on that looks great, and feels rather secure and comfortable too.
That being said, it is unfortunately horrendously light on sound. Not only does Plantronics need to work on the decibel level of the BackBeat Pro, but the overall sound quality is lacking too. While it doesn't sound tinny, it certainly lacks richness and fullness. On top of that, when you're talking into it, people on the receiving end might complain that you sound hollow. Which to me, was a little bit of a shock, since Plantronics has a history and a reputation in this specific category.
So why did I keep it? Because it's "good enough" that it serves its purpose. The fact of the matter is,
I couldn't listen to music on my Jawbone, and I couldn't make a call with my Sennheisers. So I wanted a decent set of headsets for when I go to the gym, go inline skating, go hit some balls off a tee, go hiking..... or...haha....if I go for a jog. I can listen to music, be free of wires, and be able to talk on it without disruption.
Cheers.
Movie: Broken City (2013)
Rating: F
Maybe it's what the director intended. Or maybe it was an unintentional byproduct of filming a movie called Broken City. But this film is broken; from its name, right down to well, the entire movie itself.
With a name like Broken City, you'd expect all sorts of things about the city to be broken, you know, like post-Katrina New Orleans. But it wasn't. You had a couple of corrupt people with hidden agendas and a few knives in a few backs. That's hardly a broken city. It's unfortunate, with a star-studded cast, you were expecting...well...more.
All you ended up with, was a film that was really unbalanced, throwing things in there that really didn't need to be there. The relationship Mark Wahlberg's character had with his girlfriend (Natalie Martinez) was entirely unnecessary, a waste of time, and simply a distraction.
And by throwing in twists for the sake of throwing in twists, it just made the entire movie.... unnecessary. It's like a hockey player doing a dipsy-doodle, spin-o-rama and then not even bother shooting the puck. It's called, trying to be cute / clever without ever being smart.
~Cheers.
Maybe it's what the director intended. Or maybe it was an unintentional byproduct of filming a movie called Broken City. But this film is broken; from its name, right down to well, the entire movie itself.
With a name like Broken City, you'd expect all sorts of things about the city to be broken, you know, like post-Katrina New Orleans. But it wasn't. You had a couple of corrupt people with hidden agendas and a few knives in a few backs. That's hardly a broken city. It's unfortunate, with a star-studded cast, you were expecting...well...more.
All you ended up with, was a film that was really unbalanced, throwing things in there that really didn't need to be there. The relationship Mark Wahlberg's character had with his girlfriend (Natalie Martinez) was entirely unnecessary, a waste of time, and simply a distraction.
And by throwing in twists for the sake of throwing in twists, it just made the entire movie.... unnecessary. It's like a hockey player doing a dipsy-doodle, spin-o-rama and then not even bother shooting the puck. It's called, trying to be cute / clever without ever being smart.
~Cheers.
Monday, 14 January 2013
Movie: The Hobbit (2012)
Rating: B-
Almost a decade after the final installment of The Lord Of The Rings was released, they finally came out with the prequel: The Hobbit. Only... It's to be released in three parts.
Three agonising parts. Quite honestly, the pacing of this first installment feels more like a TV mini series. I could totally see where the networks might want to put commercials in. And it didn't help that the movie was filmed in 48 fps. Yes, it reduces motion blur, but it also makes things all together too clear. Many of the shots felt like it was still in pre-production.
The brilliant thing about J.R.R Tolkien's writings is that they film themselves. He has a great storytelling style, and his descriptions of each and every scene is simply awesome. The picture he ends up painting is so vivid, that really, it takes very little imagination to translate it onto the big screen.
Andy Serkis reprises his role as Gollum/Sméagol, and it is quite evident how far technology has come in motion capture. The new Gollum is significantly more realistic than the 2003 version, when the LOTR team breathed new life in the technology.
~Cheers.
Almost a decade after the final installment of The Lord Of The Rings was released, they finally came out with the prequel: The Hobbit. Only... It's to be released in three parts.
Three agonising parts. Quite honestly, the pacing of this first installment feels more like a TV mini series. I could totally see where the networks might want to put commercials in. And it didn't help that the movie was filmed in 48 fps. Yes, it reduces motion blur, but it also makes things all together too clear. Many of the shots felt like it was still in pre-production.
The brilliant thing about J.R.R Tolkien's writings is that they film themselves. He has a great storytelling style, and his descriptions of each and every scene is simply awesome. The picture he ends up painting is so vivid, that really, it takes very little imagination to translate it onto the big screen.
Andy Serkis reprises his role as Gollum/Sméagol, and it is quite evident how far technology has come in motion capture. The new Gollum is significantly more realistic than the 2003 version, when the LOTR team breathed new life in the technology.
~Cheers.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Movie: Les Miserables (2012)
Rating: C+
Probably my favourite musical of all time, I couldn't wait for Les Mis to come out Christmas Day. The unfortunate thing was that the stars were a little bit of a distraction to an otherwise excellent rendition of Victor Hugo's classic.
This iteration of the musical takes a little while getting used to. Usually, when musicals are put on the big screen, the singing ends up being part of the soundtrack. Instead, Tom Hooper decided that the singing was going to be part of the script. So this does 2 things.
1. On most sound systems, the singing is going to be on the centre speaker and the music on the side/surrounding speakers.
2. You have to act AND sing at the same time.
For myself, I found this to be part of the distraction. Case and point, Anne Hathaway's character Fantine has a big powerful solo that she has to cry through. Ever try crying and singing at the same time? It's not the easiest thing to do, and I do have to compliment her for that. But at the same time, at certain points, it almost seemed like she was screaming. Not so good.
I couldn't decide if Eddie Redmayne (Marius) had a problem acting, or a problem acting AND singing at the same time. His voice was actually pretty good, I mean heck, he DID win himself a Tony award. You see, when you're on stage and doing musicals, you don't act so much with your face as you do with your voice and your body language. And like I said about having the singing as part of the script, it's really hard to do both at the same time.
The biggest distraction however, came in the form of Russell Crowe, who played Javert. Yes, he has his band, 30 Odd Foot of Grunts, but that sort of singing is entirely different than the type of voice you use for musicals. His voice simply pales in comparison. It's particularly evident during his little back and forth with Hugh Jackman, who actually came from the world of musicals.
It's watchable enough for sure, and very well done despite these distractions. But I thought it was rather sad that the supporting cast members seemed to have better voices than the starring cast. Again, distracting.
~Cheers.
Probably my favourite musical of all time, I couldn't wait for Les Mis to come out Christmas Day. The unfortunate thing was that the stars were a little bit of a distraction to an otherwise excellent rendition of Victor Hugo's classic.
This iteration of the musical takes a little while getting used to. Usually, when musicals are put on the big screen, the singing ends up being part of the soundtrack. Instead, Tom Hooper decided that the singing was going to be part of the script. So this does 2 things.
1. On most sound systems, the singing is going to be on the centre speaker and the music on the side/surrounding speakers.
2. You have to act AND sing at the same time.
For myself, I found this to be part of the distraction. Case and point, Anne Hathaway's character Fantine has a big powerful solo that she has to cry through. Ever try crying and singing at the same time? It's not the easiest thing to do, and I do have to compliment her for that. But at the same time, at certain points, it almost seemed like she was screaming. Not so good.
I couldn't decide if Eddie Redmayne (Marius) had a problem acting, or a problem acting AND singing at the same time. His voice was actually pretty good, I mean heck, he DID win himself a Tony award. You see, when you're on stage and doing musicals, you don't act so much with your face as you do with your voice and your body language. And like I said about having the singing as part of the script, it's really hard to do both at the same time.
The biggest distraction however, came in the form of Russell Crowe, who played Javert. Yes, he has his band, 30 Odd Foot of Grunts, but that sort of singing is entirely different than the type of voice you use for musicals. His voice simply pales in comparison. It's particularly evident during his little back and forth with Hugh Jackman, who actually came from the world of musicals.
It's watchable enough for sure, and very well done despite these distractions. But I thought it was rather sad that the supporting cast members seemed to have better voices than the starring cast. Again, distracting.
~Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
