Sorry everyone that I'm a bit late to the game on this, my hiatus ended up being a bit longer than I'd anticipated. While there are a few reviews out there talking about D-BOX, ain't no one giving you the truth the way I deliver it (cue evil, maniacal laughter).
D-BOX isn't new anymore. And I'm sure that most cinema enthusiasts/aficionados have already gone ahead and tried it. But for those of you who haven't tried it yet and are considering it, here are some things to consider.
The Price (Cineplex Prices before taxes)
Let's talk about what's important to all of us. In Toronto, here is the range of tickets (I'm not including Cineplex VIP into this post).
Regular Movie Ticket: $13.50
3D Non-AVX Movie Ticket: $16.50
3D AVX Movie Ticket: $18.50
3D D-BOX Movie Ticket: $24.50
It's almost double the price of a regular ticket! Outrageous right? I suppose it depends on who you ask, and what their priorities are. But if you're budget conscious, $24.50 is pretty painful.
The Experience
So the powers that be have decided that D-BOX should take, pretty much the best seats in the house. They're positioned in the centre section of the theatre, and just a few rows down from the back. Down to just above the middle of the room. Why are these seats optimal? The first one is obvious, it's in the middle of the room width-wise. But, they're also the most optimal in terms of viewing angle also. You're not looking down, you're not looking up; you are looking straight from your seat to the screen.
So the video above already shows you the motion sensitive chair and how it rumbles and sways. If you're not prone to motion sickness, it's actually quite fun. For certain films ("Star Trek" and "The Perfect Storm" come to mind), it does enhance the experience of the film. I mean, let's be real here. You probably don't need your seat to rumble around for a movie like "Black Swan".
While I did/do enjoy the D-BOX experience for certain movies, I actually also find the seats to be pretty uncomfortable. It could be because I'm somewhat vertically challenged, but the seats are angled a bit higher at the edge than regular seats and so your feet (well, mine at least) do dangle off a bit. After about 30min into a movie, I find that my legs get fairly uncomfortable. So I spend the rest of the movie shifting my weight from one side to the other, trying to sit one way, then another.
The Options
D-BOX seats are generally found in AVX rooms. So if you don't absolutely need to rattle and roll with what's happening on screen, and still want excellent seats in the house? I say the best bang for buck AVX seats are in the row just in front of the D-BOX seats. You're still in the middle of the room width-wise, and you're still up high enough that your line of sight is still comfortable. There are a couple of added benefits (not including price) to this row also. The arm rests in AVX rooms are adjustable, so you can push it up for a better huggle with your S.O (Significant Other). D-BOX seats , because they move independently, there is some space in between. And because the D-BOX seats also go to and fro, they also provide plenty of leg room. This means that there's almost no chance of some seat kicking douche bag sitting behind you trying to get you to take a whiff of their toe jam.
The Verdict
I tend to choose the alternative that I just mentioned for MOST movies. But, there are certain movies that I don't mind paying the extra bucks for to maximise the viewing experience (the upcoming "Star Wars" movie comes to mind). There is however, actually one more situation where I'll choose a D-BOX seat. AVX tickets for opening weekend for a big blockbuster tends to sell quickly, especially in that centre cluster of seats. D-BOX seats tend to sell a touch slower than the other seats in the house. So when the S.O isn't available and I want to get a good seat close to the show time, there's a chance that there's a D-BOX seat that someone hasn't taken yet.
Bottom line, it's a good choice if you want/need a bit extra to get you immersed into the movie, but it's not entirely necessary.
If y'all are interested in the more detailed technical aspects behind D-BOX, here's a video of their "Motion Code"
Cheers.
Showing posts with label Movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie. Show all posts
Friday, 1 December 2017
Monday, 27 November 2017
Movie: Justice League (2017)
Rating: C
If you want to watch this movie, stop reading the reviews (I suppose, that DOES include this one). Not so much because reviews inevitably include spoilers, but reading reviews for this movie actually spoils the movie.
If you don't go in to this movie with any expectations, it's not too bad of a movie. It's entirely watchable. Too many people reviewing this movie include all the issues they had during the production of the movie. I'm just here to talk about what happened on screen.
Sure, there are plot holes, missing bits to this movie, and some spotty CG, but it's still watchable. It's pretty good stylistically, they've done well portraying the characters, and there are some pretty awesome action moments (notice I did not say sequences).
I've always thought that DC does a pretty good job of tackling psychological struggles of its heroes, and Justice League does kind of try to attempt this. The biggest problem with this movie is that the major players in this movie really didn't get enough of a backstory.
I was fine with that with them doing this with Wonder Woman in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) because she was a bit of a mystery to Batman and Superman. I'm also fine with them doing this with The Flash here because his story hasn't really begun and he was more of a bit player this time around.
But Aquaman and Cyborg are pretty big parts of this movie, and there is just a cursory introduction to their characters. You don't feel any attachment to them whatsoever. They feel like they were just dropped into the story.
The DCEU needs to stop rushing to catch up with Marvel, and just do their own thing. They built up each of their major characters before putting them all together for a team up.
If you want to watch this movie, stop reading the reviews (I suppose, that DOES include this one). Not so much because reviews inevitably include spoilers, but reading reviews for this movie actually spoils the movie.
If you don't go in to this movie with any expectations, it's not too bad of a movie. It's entirely watchable. Too many people reviewing this movie include all the issues they had during the production of the movie. I'm just here to talk about what happened on screen.
Sure, there are plot holes, missing bits to this movie, and some spotty CG, but it's still watchable. It's pretty good stylistically, they've done well portraying the characters, and there are some pretty awesome action moments (notice I did not say sequences).
I've always thought that DC does a pretty good job of tackling psychological struggles of its heroes, and Justice League does kind of try to attempt this. The biggest problem with this movie is that the major players in this movie really didn't get enough of a backstory.
I was fine with that with them doing this with Wonder Woman in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) because she was a bit of a mystery to Batman and Superman. I'm also fine with them doing this with The Flash here because his story hasn't really begun and he was more of a bit player this time around.
But Aquaman and Cyborg are pretty big parts of this movie, and there is just a cursory introduction to their characters. You don't feel any attachment to them whatsoever. They feel like they were just dropped into the story.
The DCEU needs to stop rushing to catch up with Marvel, and just do their own thing. They built up each of their major characters before putting them all together for a team up.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Movie: The Hangover Part III (2013)
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.
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.
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
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.
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Movie: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Rating: B+
Probably the most anticipated movie of 2012 also contained the most IMAX footage ever used in a feature film. Sure, plenty of movies, including this year's The Avengers, was converted into IMAX, but director Christopher Nolan actually used IMAX cameras to include over an hour of actual IMAX images for The Dark Knight.
The result is palpable. So if you do get a chance to see the movie in IMAX, it's definitely worth giving yourselves a treat to fully experience the clarity, vividness, and perfection that is IMAX.
But that being said, while I absolutely loved the movie, it really bothers me when there are plot holes. I'm going to try to say this without issuing a spoiler alert. Batman's injuries vs. recovery. Just doesn't add up. Another thing that bothers me is when symbols are overused that it becomes trite. Without giving away too much of the 2h45min movie, was it really necessary to have the ENTIRE national anthem sung? Granted, DC Comics really does cater to a more patriotic crowd, but this was overkill.
I love watching Christopher Nolan's movies and I think he's a great director. But if you watch the first two in this particular Batman trilogy, Gotham is a much different place. Yet, in THIS finale of the trilogy, Gotham City looked decidedly like New York. I just thought that the inconsistency was too great. Of course, did it detract from the movie itself? No. Just me being picky.
And my final problem with the movie. It really might have been a good idea to include subtitles when Bane spoke. And he spoke a lot. With the muffled mask, it was very difficult to understand him at times.
Aside from these things, the finale was everything that we've come to expect of Christopher Nolan's movies. I must say that I really enjoyed some of the character twists that they provided, ie, using the Selena Kyle character...you know, before she was officially the "Catwoman".
~Cheers.
Probably the most anticipated movie of 2012 also contained the most IMAX footage ever used in a feature film. Sure, plenty of movies, including this year's The Avengers, was converted into IMAX, but director Christopher Nolan actually used IMAX cameras to include over an hour of actual IMAX images for The Dark Knight.
The result is palpable. So if you do get a chance to see the movie in IMAX, it's definitely worth giving yourselves a treat to fully experience the clarity, vividness, and perfection that is IMAX.
But that being said, while I absolutely loved the movie, it really bothers me when there are plot holes. I'm going to try to say this without issuing a spoiler alert. Batman's injuries vs. recovery. Just doesn't add up. Another thing that bothers me is when symbols are overused that it becomes trite. Without giving away too much of the 2h45min movie, was it really necessary to have the ENTIRE national anthem sung? Granted, DC Comics really does cater to a more patriotic crowd, but this was overkill.
I love watching Christopher Nolan's movies and I think he's a great director. But if you watch the first two in this particular Batman trilogy, Gotham is a much different place. Yet, in THIS finale of the trilogy, Gotham City looked decidedly like New York. I just thought that the inconsistency was too great. Of course, did it detract from the movie itself? No. Just me being picky.
And my final problem with the movie. It really might have been a good idea to include subtitles when Bane spoke. And he spoke a lot. With the muffled mask, it was very difficult to understand him at times.
Aside from these things, the finale was everything that we've come to expect of Christopher Nolan's movies. I must say that I really enjoyed some of the character twists that they provided, ie, using the Selena Kyle character...you know, before she was officially the "Catwoman".
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Movie: Underworld: Awakening (2012)
Rating: C
One thing I really like about flights these days. It's a great opportunity to catch up on movies. Especially movies that you weren't quite sure that you want to spend money on at the cinema. Especially movies that cater to some guilty pleasure. Particularly true, for movies like Underworld: Awakening.
Like the rest of the sequels in this series, it's not a very good example of cinematic brilliance. It's not even an example of cinematic mediocrity. What it is, is just fun to watch.
Fun to watch Kate Beckinsale kick some butt in her skin tight black leather (well, probably faux leather). If you're expecting anything else from this movie or its franchise? You might want to get your head examined. You're delusional.
Granted, she's young. Granted, she's green. And granted, this role doesn't allow for her to fully explore her acting abilities, but the role of Eve, played by India Eisley was fairly lacking. It really felt like they just plucked a girl out of a crowd and put her into the movie. Of course, she only has but a few titles under her belt, so who knows...maaaayyybee she'll grow into it. Maybe. I guess we'll see huh.
~Cheers.
One thing I really like about flights these days. It's a great opportunity to catch up on movies. Especially movies that you weren't quite sure that you want to spend money on at the cinema. Especially movies that cater to some guilty pleasure. Particularly true, for movies like Underworld: Awakening.
Like the rest of the sequels in this series, it's not a very good example of cinematic brilliance. It's not even an example of cinematic mediocrity. What it is, is just fun to watch.
Fun to watch Kate Beckinsale kick some butt in her skin tight black leather (well, probably faux leather). If you're expecting anything else from this movie or its franchise? You might want to get your head examined. You're delusional.
Granted, she's young. Granted, she's green. And granted, this role doesn't allow for her to fully explore her acting abilities, but the role of Eve, played by India Eisley was fairly lacking. It really felt like they just plucked a girl out of a crowd and put her into the movie. Of course, she only has but a few titles under her belt, so who knows...maaaayyybee she'll grow into it. Maybe. I guess we'll see huh.
~Cheers.
Monday, 23 July 2012
Blogger's Note: 15,000 Page Views!
Woah....! 5000 page views in a month! Wow....thanks so much you guys! Thanks for showing this little blog love and support so far. I certainly hope that it continues to receive such awesome love and support so that it can flourish and grow and mature.
And....Sorry, I'm not generally so ready to toot my own horn, but.....WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! My little post about IMAX vs. UltraAVXis now the TOP Googled result!
Since this 15,000 page view landmark only took about a month to reach (from 10,000), the next token of appreciation be at 30,000. Same rules apply. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 30,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Thanks again so very very much. And please...keep tuning in....and more importantly...spreading the love! =)~
~Cheers.
And....Sorry, I'm not generally so ready to toot my own horn, but.....WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! My little post about IMAX vs. UltraAVXis now the TOP Googled result!
Since this 15,000 page view landmark only took about a month to reach (from 10,000), the next token of appreciation be at 30,000. Same rules apply. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 30,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Thanks again so very very much. And please...keep tuning in....and more importantly...spreading the love! =)~
~Cheers.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
Movie: Brave (2012)
Rating: C+
I don't understand how other people have given this movie such amorous reviews. Is it simply because it's a Pixar movie? While it was entertaining enough to watch, it's yet another movie that languishes in mediocrity, without taking any risks, or any attempt to follow through what the first part of movie suggests that this movie about. Both the introduction of the movie and the trailers suggest this is a movie about a young girl's quest for independence. Instead, it turns out that this movie is entirely about teaching the values of family and that mom really does have your interest at heart.
It really does seem like Pixar's lost its mojo after being bought by Disney. Even the jokes are losing their bite. The first couple of Pixar movies offered something different, something new; giving you the perspective of the toys as opposed to the kids playing with them. Or the turmoil that a monster needs to go through in order to have their place under your bed / in the closet. Or a different type of an "adventure" through a trip on a bajillion helium balloons. But Brave fails to do anything different. Oh, you'll enjoy it if you like the Pixar / Disney formula, but don't expect anything else.
Aside from a few belly laughs, the movie is awkwardly paced, there doesn't seem to be any breakthrough with the animation technology, nor does there seem to be any real artistic creativity (blogger's note: I really liked the flashback art in KungFu Panda 2). Everything is formulaic. A decent formula, but formulaic nevertheless.
~Cheers.
I don't understand how other people have given this movie such amorous reviews. Is it simply because it's a Pixar movie? While it was entertaining enough to watch, it's yet another movie that languishes in mediocrity, without taking any risks, or any attempt to follow through what the first part of movie suggests that this movie about. Both the introduction of the movie and the trailers suggest this is a movie about a young girl's quest for independence. Instead, it turns out that this movie is entirely about teaching the values of family and that mom really does have your interest at heart.
It really does seem like Pixar's lost its mojo after being bought by Disney. Even the jokes are losing their bite. The first couple of Pixar movies offered something different, something new; giving you the perspective of the toys as opposed to the kids playing with them. Or the turmoil that a monster needs to go through in order to have their place under your bed / in the closet. Or a different type of an "adventure" through a trip on a bajillion helium balloons. But Brave fails to do anything different. Oh, you'll enjoy it if you like the Pixar / Disney formula, but don't expect anything else.
Aside from a few belly laughs, the movie is awkwardly paced, there doesn't seem to be any breakthrough with the animation technology, nor does there seem to be any real artistic creativity (blogger's note: I really liked the flashback art in KungFu Panda 2). Everything is formulaic. A decent formula, but formulaic nevertheless.
~Cheers.
Monday, 2 July 2012
Movie: Ted (2012)
Rating: B+
Let's call a spade a spade. Is Ted an artistic masterpiece of biblical proportions? No. It's crass, it's boorish, it's inappropriate; the story line is cliched, and really nothing new. But....it's SUPPOSED to be crass. It's SUPPOSED to be boorish, it's SUPPOSED to be inappropriate. And how do you get around a cliched storyline? Make fun of the storyline itself. The result is some seriously extended inappropriate hilarity.
(The is the red band trailer. View discretion is advised)
The interplay is fantastic and Seth MacFarlane reunites some of his cast members from Family Guy, including Alex Borstein, Mila Kunis, and yes....Patrick Stewart. Look for a tonne of cameo work, which totally makes this movie work. In particular, the scenes with Patrick Warburton. Quite honestly, there isn't a whole lot to say about this movie. If you're looking for laughter and a good time, and don't mind some totally refreshing, politically INcorrect humour, go watch it.
For me, there was an added bonus to this movie. I went to school at Boston University, and I haven't been back in over 10 years. Seeing some familiar streets, neighbourhoods, parks, and in particular the Citgo sign really brought back memories and moments of nostalgia. So you'll have to excuse me if I have a bit of a soft spot for this movie, knowing full well that while the movie runs for about 115min, only about 30min of it was comedic genius and the rest was just tepid drivel.
~Cheers.
Let's call a spade a spade. Is Ted an artistic masterpiece of biblical proportions? No. It's crass, it's boorish, it's inappropriate; the story line is cliched, and really nothing new. But....it's SUPPOSED to be crass. It's SUPPOSED to be boorish, it's SUPPOSED to be inappropriate. And how do you get around a cliched storyline? Make fun of the storyline itself. The result is some seriously extended inappropriate hilarity.
(The is the red band trailer. View discretion is advised)
The interplay is fantastic and Seth MacFarlane reunites some of his cast members from Family Guy, including Alex Borstein, Mila Kunis, and yes....Patrick Stewart. Look for a tonne of cameo work, which totally makes this movie work. In particular, the scenes with Patrick Warburton. Quite honestly, there isn't a whole lot to say about this movie. If you're looking for laughter and a good time, and don't mind some totally refreshing, politically INcorrect humour, go watch it.
For me, there was an added bonus to this movie. I went to school at Boston University, and I haven't been back in over 10 years. Seeing some familiar streets, neighbourhoods, parks, and in particular the Citgo sign really brought back memories and moments of nostalgia. So you'll have to excuse me if I have a bit of a soft spot for this movie, knowing full well that while the movie runs for about 115min, only about 30min of it was comedic genius and the rest was just tepid drivel.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Movie: What To Expect When You're Expecting (2012)
Rating: F
I suppose I know what the director Kirk Jones was trying to do. But What to Expect when You're Expecting is the perfect example of what happens when you try too hard to do too much. And in this case, trying to cover every single possible outcome of how a pregnancy might turn out into a single movie.
This movie fails at every turn. The characters are weak, the script is forced, the jokes seem canned, and the interplay between the characters isn't believable at all. Babies take 9 months to be born. It seriously felt like this movie took 9 months to watch.
Despite the fact that Elizabeth Banks seems to be in every other movie and in every single genre this year, this particular performance was just empty. Her's should have been the most compelling story in this whole movie, and yet I wanted to gouge my eyes out every time she was on the screen.
Quite honestly, the only saving grace to this movie was Anna Kendrick for no reason other than the fact that I thought she looked entirely too cute. haha.
~Cheers.
I suppose I know what the director Kirk Jones was trying to do. But What to Expect when You're Expecting is the perfect example of what happens when you try too hard to do too much. And in this case, trying to cover every single possible outcome of how a pregnancy might turn out into a single movie.
This movie fails at every turn. The characters are weak, the script is forced, the jokes seem canned, and the interplay between the characters isn't believable at all. Babies take 9 months to be born. It seriously felt like this movie took 9 months to watch.
Despite the fact that Elizabeth Banks seems to be in every other movie and in every single genre this year, this particular performance was just empty. Her's should have been the most compelling story in this whole movie, and yet I wanted to gouge my eyes out every time she was on the screen.
Quite honestly, the only saving grace to this movie was Anna Kendrick for no reason other than the fact that I thought she looked entirely too cute. haha.
~Cheers.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Blogger's Note: 10,000 Page Views!
Wait...What...? Wow! We got to 10,000 page views! 10K! Thanks everyone for the support! Quite honestly, I never thought I'd reach this little milestone, and during my little hiatus, I really wasn't sure if I was going to continue. But here we are, at TEN FREAKING THOUSAND! WOOT WOOT! From here on in, the milestones are going to be a little more spread out.
And a bit of ADDED pride? My little post about IMAX vs. UltraAVX is a top 10 item on google's search engine! Woot Woot!
The next token of appreciation will be at 15,000. Same rules apply. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 15,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Wow. 15,000. I can hardly imagine. I wonder if I'll reach it before G.I. Joe: Retaliation comes out. HAHA. While a few of you are following this little blog of mine, I really wish I knew who the rest of you were so I could thank you all personally. So please, feel free to comment lots and often! Thanks again!
~Cheers.
And a bit of ADDED pride? My little post about IMAX vs. UltraAVX is a top 10 item on google's search engine! Woot Woot!
The next token of appreciation will be at 15,000. Same rules apply. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 15,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Wow. 15,000. I can hardly imagine. I wonder if I'll reach it before G.I. Joe: Retaliation comes out. HAHA. While a few of you are following this little blog of mine, I really wish I knew who the rest of you were so I could thank you all personally. So please, feel free to comment lots and often! Thanks again!
~Cheers.
Movie: Men in Black III (2012)
Rating: B
Most sequels come out a couple of years after the previous on. But the first sequel to Men in Black (MIIB) was so bad that even after watching the preview again, I can't remember what it was about. It was so bad, that I almost didn't watch this rendition. It was so bad, that I think majority (myself included) of people who have critiqued this movie have pretty much given it a free pass. Men in Black III was finally produced and released 12 years after MIIB.
Thankfully, Men in Black III delivers as a serviceable follow up. Will Smith reprises his role as J, the smart alec MIB agent. And Tommy Lee Jo--- well... Josh Brolin playing the role of (young) Agent K. And I have to say, Brolin was amazing. At no point did I think that Brolin was Brolin. Totally believable as the younger version of Agent K.
The humour's a little different, and perhaps that was in part because the bulk of the movie was placed in 1969. The movie's a bit more mature, seemingly catering to an older audience, which makes sense, since younger audiences probably wouldn't connect with the 60s anyway.
It's not QUITE as silly as its predecessor, but still funny nevertheless. The interplay between Brolin and Smith is really, almost as good as it was between Smith and Jones in the original.
~Cheers.
Most sequels come out a couple of years after the previous on. But the first sequel to Men in Black (MIIB) was so bad that even after watching the preview again, I can't remember what it was about. It was so bad, that I almost didn't watch this rendition. It was so bad, that I think majority (myself included) of people who have critiqued this movie have pretty much given it a free pass. Men in Black III was finally produced and released 12 years after MIIB.
Thankfully, Men in Black III delivers as a serviceable follow up. Will Smith reprises his role as J, the smart alec MIB agent. And Tommy Lee Jo--- well... Josh Brolin playing the role of (young) Agent K. And I have to say, Brolin was amazing. At no point did I think that Brolin was Brolin. Totally believable as the younger version of Agent K.
The humour's a little different, and perhaps that was in part because the bulk of the movie was placed in 1969. The movie's a bit more mature, seemingly catering to an older audience, which makes sense, since younger audiences probably wouldn't connect with the 60s anyway.
It's not QUITE as silly as its predecessor, but still funny nevertheless. The interplay between Brolin and Smith is really, almost as good as it was between Smith and Jones in the original.
~Cheers.
Monday, 11 June 2012
Movie: Prometheus (2012)
Rating: B-
The prequel that isn't a prequel that really is a prequel to Alien. If you're watching this movie as a fan of the 1979 movie with Sigourney Weaver and looking for answers, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed. The movie's screenplay is co-written by Damon Lindelof, one of the writers/creators of the hit TV series, Lost. So before you even step in to the cinema, you should be prepared to come out with more questions than answers.
There are certainly many Easter Eggs that pay homage to the 1979 film, but to call this an official prequel is a little bit of a misnomer. What it is, is the introduction for a new series based upon the Alien creature. The curious thing is, the way that this story is written, the Alien creature doesn't even have to be involved as this particular story moves forward, which makes it pretty interesting.
The cinematography and set design in Prometheus was astounding; as was the performance of Michael Fassbender. The story moves along with thrills and scares and all the things you find in a Sci-Fi Thriller/Horror film. But Prometheus tries too hard to do too much which just simply leaves too many holes for me to give it a better grade. Without including spoilers to this movie, the trials and tribulations of Noomi Rapace's character is so far fetched that it was no longer believable.
While I could point out all the plot holes and things that really don't make a lot of sense, I would be giving too much away. But given all the issues with this movie, why is it still a B-? There's enough there to give you a thrill ride. There are enough questions left unanswered for there to be a viable sequel. And there is certainly enough there to make you squirm in your seats and make you wonder if space exploration might not be such a great idea.
Casual fans of the movie might not want to stay until the end of the credits, but for y'all die hard fans, there is something there that you might want to stick around for. But don't blame me if you do. haha.
Here's an interesting TED talk video related to the movie that's rather interesting:
~Cheers.
The prequel that isn't a prequel that really is a prequel to Alien. If you're watching this movie as a fan of the 1979 movie with Sigourney Weaver and looking for answers, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed. The movie's screenplay is co-written by Damon Lindelof, one of the writers/creators of the hit TV series, Lost. So before you even step in to the cinema, you should be prepared to come out with more questions than answers.
There are certainly many Easter Eggs that pay homage to the 1979 film, but to call this an official prequel is a little bit of a misnomer. What it is, is the introduction for a new series based upon the Alien creature. The curious thing is, the way that this story is written, the Alien creature doesn't even have to be involved as this particular story moves forward, which makes it pretty interesting.
The cinematography and set design in Prometheus was astounding; as was the performance of Michael Fassbender. The story moves along with thrills and scares and all the things you find in a Sci-Fi Thriller/Horror film. But Prometheus tries too hard to do too much which just simply leaves too many holes for me to give it a better grade. Without including spoilers to this movie, the trials and tribulations of Noomi Rapace's character is so far fetched that it was no longer believable.
While I could point out all the plot holes and things that really don't make a lot of sense, I would be giving too much away. But given all the issues with this movie, why is it still a B-? There's enough there to give you a thrill ride. There are enough questions left unanswered for there to be a viable sequel. And there is certainly enough there to make you squirm in your seats and make you wonder if space exploration might not be such a great idea.
Casual fans of the movie might not want to stay until the end of the credits, but for y'all die hard fans, there is something there that you might want to stick around for. But don't blame me if you do. haha.
Here's an interesting TED talk video related to the movie that's rather interesting:
~Cheers.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Movie: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2012)
Rating: A-
What happens when you put a star studded veteran cast together with a touching story and a semi-decent witty script? You get The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.
Even with just a few too many cliches and too many storylines for a 2 hour movie, the movie is held together brilliantly by the performances of the likes of Judy Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, and company.
The movie is thoughtful and funny, with a lot of heart and humanity. And while you'll likely connect better if you've had a few years under your belt, it's entertainment for all ages. I really can't say enough about the cast and their performances as they really had you connect with them. Each character with stories that are entirely believable and touching in their own way. You end up sharing in their joys and heartbreaks. Easily one of the better movies of 2012.
~Cheers.
What happens when you put a star studded veteran cast together with a touching story and a semi-decent witty script? You get The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.
Even with just a few too many cliches and too many storylines for a 2 hour movie, the movie is held together brilliantly by the performances of the likes of Judy Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, and company.
The movie is thoughtful and funny, with a lot of heart and humanity. And while you'll likely connect better if you've had a few years under your belt, it's entertainment for all ages. I really can't say enough about the cast and their performances as they really had you connect with them. Each character with stories that are entirely believable and touching in their own way. You end up sharing in their joys and heartbreaks. Easily one of the better movies of 2012.
~Cheers.
Saturday, 2 June 2012
Movie: Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
Rating: B-
Visually scintillating, Rupert Sanders directorial debut wasn't bad as far as fairy tales go. With the exception of some pretty odd pacing, and a couple of absolute brain farts, it was actually quite watchable if you're a teenager.
Before I write anything else, I have to mention a couple these brain farts because they were some really obvious and serious gaffes in my book. These two were particularly obvious. Some of the others might simply be me being picky.
- Once upon a time, in a kingdom far far away is no place for the 'Our Father'.
- Just because it's a fairy tale, doesn't mean you can just magically make a horse appear ever so conveniently
While Charlize Theron and Chris Hemsworth played their roles brilliantly, majority of the rest of the roles I felt were entirely miscast. You had wonderfully talented actors playing bit parts as dwarves and bit actors playing significantly larger roles. They could have easily given the opportunity to any number of pretty talented little people for the 7 dwarfs.
I do however, have to give HUGE ups for the movie visually. Absolutely stunning.
~Cheers.
Visually scintillating, Rupert Sanders directorial debut wasn't bad as far as fairy tales go. With the exception of some pretty odd pacing, and a couple of absolute brain farts, it was actually quite watchable if you're a teenager.
Before I write anything else, I have to mention a couple these brain farts because they were some really obvious and serious gaffes in my book. These two were particularly obvious. Some of the others might simply be me being picky.
- Once upon a time, in a kingdom far far away is no place for the 'Our Father'.
- Just because it's a fairy tale, doesn't mean you can just magically make a horse appear ever so conveniently
While Charlize Theron and Chris Hemsworth played their roles brilliantly, majority of the rest of the roles I felt were entirely miscast. You had wonderfully talented actors playing bit parts as dwarves and bit actors playing significantly larger roles. They could have easily given the opportunity to any number of pretty talented little people for the 7 dwarfs.
I do however, have to give HUGE ups for the movie visually. Absolutely stunning.
~Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
