RE: Balanced out the average

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha - 1/12/2009 12:01:05 PM

Pigeon Army

Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

The law spares no man. Not even if his name is fierce-hairdo.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to drews)

Post #: 31

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha - 1/12/2009 12:15:00 PM

broonie

Posts: 866
Joined: 30/9/2005

Right, we all know and agree that people are entitled to thier opinions, god knows plenty of mine have been shot down on these forums but thats ok.

However, the purpose of a "Film Reviews" forum is for people to post what??? "Film Reviews!!!"

So for f*** sake people, stop giving reveiws of films that you haven't seen!!!

_____________________________

Do you want to run this ship?
Yes!
Well,...you cant!

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 32

- 2/12/2009 8:57:55 AM

ivanahump

Posts: 96
Joined: 6/2/2009

this looks fantastic, that guy can direct anything
beautifull lead, great plot, oscar winner

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 33

RE: - 2/12/2009 2:00:44 PM

Wrathschild

Posts: 36
Joined: 2/3/2007

Christ. If you're going to threaten to sue for libel then I'm out of here.

suppose I'll have to buy smelly Total Film now. (can I refer to Total Film as 'smelly'? I mean allegedly smelly. disclaimer.)

Mummy, the big boy scared me

(in reply to ivanahump)

Post #: 34

RE: The Lovely Bones - 2/12/2009 7:43:46 PM

Timmy_Brisby_05

Posts: 2675
Joined: 16/11/2005
From: Grim up North

Until now four bland IMDB user reviews!?

_____________________________

Bolt: [gets up and looks up at the cats] Hello, hairballs.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 35

RE: The Lovely Bones - 4/12/2009 1:13:30 PM

Jasper_29

Posts: 294
Joined: 22/8/2009

This is rotten at the moment, only 17 reviews of course, but still.

Rotten.

Who'd have thought it?

_____________________________

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 36

RE: The Lovely Bones - 4/12/2009 1:37:06 PM

Prophet_of_Doom

Posts: 727
Joined: 15/2/2006

I was massively disappointed and there were some really clunky plot issues but I didn't think it was THAT bad. It was perfectly reasonable and relatively enjoyable. But then again, you'd expect far more from Jackson.

(in reply to Jasper_29)

Post #: 37

RE: The Lovely Bones - 4/12/2009 2:03:56 PM

Jasper_29

Posts: 294
Joined: 22/8/2009

He's worked on this for... four years? That's exactly the amount of time between the filming of Lord of the Rings and the release of Return of the King.

_____________________________

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)

Post #: 38

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha - 4/12/2009 2:17:28 PM

directorscut

Posts: 9862
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: londonnut

The Grandma (Susan Sarandon) is simply there for inappropriate comic effect

Is she a dwarf?

_____________________________

Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to londonnut)

Post #: 39

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha - 9/12/2009 1:43:24 AM

Jasper_29

Posts: 294
Joined: 22/8/2009

After making three epic adventure films winning a dozens of Oscars, Peter Jackson could be forgiven for allowing his knack for visual wonder to go up his own arse with King Kong. That could have happened to anybody. But to take Alice Sebold's intimate novel about a dead 13-year-old girl who was robbed of her innnocence and attempt to turn it into a similar effects-driven family picture, that's another thing entirely.

_____________________________

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

(in reply to directorscut)

Post #: 40

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha - 3/1/2010 7:18:28 PM

jamesheal

Posts: 4
Joined: 22/11/2005
From: London

I have to agree with londonut - well maybe not as strongly as I haven't read the book, but having read a run through of the differences in the book compared to the film it does seem like PJ cut out some of the more interesting plotlines. I thought visually the film was good, as PJ's films always are, however the mix of real world and the inbetween world were a bit of a mess - early on that mess worked, as it matched Susie and her family's conmfusion, but later on it became distreacting and jolted from an extended thriller to fantasy to (almost) slapstick comedy with Susan Sarandon.

I thought Mark Wahlberg was ok, not amazing, but obviously Tucci and Ronan stole the show. Imperioli and Sarandon were wasted, no wonder if they're a bit peeved.

This film seemed to lack some focus - confusing who the central character was. If the 'Lovely Bones' is about the whole family rather than one central character then there wasn't nearly enough grandma/mother/son involvement.

From personal taste I also found it a little shmaltzy in places, i.e. a lot of the fantasy world - I was really looking forward to that element of the story, looking down from heaven, but it turned out the best moments were in the real world.

Having said that - it was an interesting film and definitely worth a watch to pick apart the good bits, which there are numerous, unfortunately a very flawed piece of work.

_____________________________

"Go back to your home on whore island"

(in reply to Jasper_29)

Post #: 41

RE: The Lovely Bones - 4/1/2010 3:17:40 AM

maffew

Posts: 2806
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: chester

I only got half the book read before I saw the film, but its pretty clear they cut down on a lot of the family stuff, and I was a little disappointed the film shied away from the violence of the first act - but they're about my only negative points.. I thought the film played out great with one of the most intense cat and mouse moments in recent memory, beautiful in-between worlds, and iconic performance from Tucci and a wonderful score..

****

_____________________________

"Now i don't know much about security lighting, but i'm guessing they'll be using 180-degree dispersing halogens with motion sensors"

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 42

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha - 4/1/2010 3:37:23 AM

Tank Boy

Posts: 203
Joined: 24/7/2008
From: Dublin, Ireland

This review caused me some concern. Not that I was expecting it to be a masterpiece!

_____________________________

Chuck's Culture Carnival!

(in reply to drews)

Post #: 43

Disappointed - 4/1/2010 12:09:30 PM

sonofjor-el

Posts: 74
Joined: 4/10/2005
From: Lincoln

One of those rare films, where I wish I hadn't read the book first. Watered down, and thinned out, which is surprising coming from Jackson. Stunning cinematography though, and some of Jackson's close up direction is superb. The floor board scene is absolutely fantastic.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 44

Good, but kind of disappointing. - 7/1/2010 4:19:45 AM

nc_jj

Posts: 662
Joined: 20/2/2008
From: Manchester.

While visually stunning this film is kind of a let down. Specially because a story that should've been brutal is told, in the movie, in a very mild way. The performances are impressive and the direction is superb, but the screenplay is a little flawed. For the visuals and direction Peter Jackson is the ideal man for the job, but as it comes to the screenplay it seems like a job that Michael Haneke or Quentin Tarantino should've done better. I'm not saying that this movie totally sucked up, but I would've loved to see a more, you know, complex and just-like-the-book movie.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 45

RE: Good, but kind of disappointing. - 7/1/2010 10:26:26 AM

robwillphill

Posts: 393
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Maidstone

A visual treat with imagination and flair. Although the story is disturbing and brutal, the way in which it is told is very mild, not hard-hitting enough and the screenplay is slightly flawed. The acting is superb and there is some stunning cinematography. Certainly worth watching, even though it should be more like the book and have slightly more detail & complexity to give it a full 5 stars.

9/10

_____________________________

http://youtube.com/audience

Check out my latest films:
- http://youtu.be/Z2zrRi06Rb0
- http://dai.ly/fSojJ3

---------------------------------------------------

Stewie: We're playing house
Lois: But that boy's tied up
Stewie: It's Roman Polanski's house

(in reply to nc_jj)

Post #: 46

RE: Good, but kind of disappointing. - 10/1/2010 9:21:14 AM

relativelyrelative

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: Plymouth

So....Here's the thing.

When it comes to adaptations, when you take story elements and plot devices out, the whole point is to make them unnoticeable to an audience who probably largely haven't read the book (count me amongst those people) - I had seen the trailer months ago; saw the peter jackson spiel on there, some of the visualisation, and thought: 'yeah. ok, I'll give it a shot when it comes out.' It came out, and I have to say that I don't think I've ever seen something so excrutiatingly painful in all my life. The special effects were clumsy and far below the par of something that WETA should proudly lay claim to, and the story itself was an incoherent jumbled mess - far too frenetic for me to be able to sit there and enjoy.

Trust me, I'm the kind of guy who loves Ed Wood and Troma movies - I know bad when I see it, but this isn't a bad movie in that sense - it comes across as a frustrating, 2 odd hour psychotherapy session, that isn't even redeemed by Stanely Tucci or Rachel Weisz. Wahlberg was uniformly awful to the point that I honestly have no idea how the guy gets acting jobs outside of celebrity reality shows or porn, and to me, the only saving grace was that of Susan Sarandon; Not worth seeing JUST for her, but she proves conclusively that she can be funny when she needs to be, even now.

At the moment, I'm reconciling it in my mind that Jackson either gave the whole job to the second unit director because he got bored, or that he let a fifteen year old direct, because it's the only way I can fathom him allowing a script so epically poor and uniformly inconsistent grace the big screen. In short, let your sky movies subscription bear the cost of watching this, because the only way it's going to look ok is on a 32" + sized screen. Should have been direct to DVD.

(in reply to robwillphill)

Post #: 47

Amazingly Beautiful - 17/1/2010 1:34:59 AM

Lordjozz

Posts: 1
Joined: 3/12/2007

One of the most touching, moving and unique films I have seen in a long time, something different in certain ways to anything i've seen before. I don't understand what half of the previous viewers in this thread are talking about, yes it was graphically stunning and sometimes strongly effects orientated, but this completely added to the experience and made the whole film a beautiful masterpiece rather than the voice-over detective piece it would have been without it all. I feel the main strength in this piece is most definitely the acting, with amazing performances from Saoirse Ronan playing Susie, Rose McIver playing Lindsey and Stanley Tucci playing George Harvey, who are all perfectly cast and do complete justice to the difficult characters they have been chosen to portray. Yes Mark Wahlberg is not the strongest actor in the world but even he cannot detract from the piece, handling his scenes with dignity and completely believable emotion. All in all my ultimate judgement of this film was whether it was as good as the book and this is why ultimately I am giving this film 5 stars, because the book and the film, although different at points, have now both made me laugh, cry and think about certain aspects of life in a strangely different way.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 48

Underrated - 25/1/2010 6:15:24 AM

monkeyhumour

Posts: 254
Joined: 12/2/2006

What held it back was the direction. But that's just snobbish, it was brave and visually audacious. I forgot I was in thne cinema at many moments and the acting was tremendous. Weisz, Tucci, Ronan, Sarandon, Wahlberg, Imperlioni

Peter jackson is a gift, show you respect

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 49

- 25/1/2010 7:15:05 AM

Jokershideout

Posts: 5
Joined: 25/11/2009

I liked it quite a bit. The afterlife drama told so lightly by our young teen victim is wonderfully complimented with a fab music score and sweeping camera shots and stellar cinematography. The close up of the sister's fingernails on the wood was remarkable.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 50

Uhhhhhhh - 25/1/2010 8:26:47 AM

jcallan

Posts: 94
Joined: 26/9/2006

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 51

- 25/1/2010 8:37:30 AM

hatebox

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008

Other reviews for this have been tepid - but Empire's love affair of anything Peter Jackson continues in earnest.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 52

A Mess - 25/1/2010 9:26:51 AM

beaudie85

Posts: 31
Joined: 28/3/2006

A horrible mess of a film. They should have kept Susie's thoughts as narration once she'd died instead of showing her in heaven (with her mate who couldn't act). Stanley Tucci was brilliant as was Susan Sarandon.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 53

RE: A Mess - 28/1/2010 2:23:40 PM

maahinkeelhaulisaiah

Posts: 105
Joined: 31/10/2005

Saw this at the BFI preview the other day.

While I thought it was well made, I don't think Peter Jackson was the right director to adapt it. He put so much emphasis on the effects of the 'in-between' it kinda draws attention away from the story, making it all seem a lot less... sad than it is. If it had been a little simpler, it would have been much more engaging. There's so much to process in terms of what's happening on Earth, and Susie's thoughts, the effects just feel so unnecessary. I'm not saying there shouldn't have been any. Just tone it down a little. I know Paramount delayed the movie for award season, so Jackson had time to add to the effects. I really wonder if they had released it as it was then, if it would have been better.

Having said all that, I think the changes he made to the book worked well. Performances were good, especially Stanley Tucci. I thought Rachel Weisz's wasn't all that though.

Over all was disappointed, but that's probably because I was looking forward to this for a long time.

(in reply to beaudie85)

Post #: 54

pretty good - 28/1/2010 7:44:05 PM

dfooster

Posts: 21
Joined: 13/8/2008

movies are not books so people shouldnt expect every plotline to be in the film given the difference in running times between both mediums.

this film was really touching at times and made you think about how fragile life can be and reflect on your own mortality and family. I was gripped to the story throughout and the imagery was dreamlike with good special effects. (dont believe what someone said about them being poor)

if your thing is transformers or wolfman then i wouldnt recommend you see this until you have matured a bit, but if you have a soul and prefer character and story to explosions then this is probably for you.

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 55

Read the book, miss the film - 9/2/2010 10:01:27 PM

robefel

Posts: 2
Joined: 9/2/2010

Many people will probably think this is a wonderful film. Touching and heartbreaking. Why would they need to go read the book?
Well for starters it bears minimal resemblance to what was trying to be told in the book.
This should have been a beautiful montage of the characters involved, their traumas & growing pains in the years following the murder instead of the indulgent imaginings of what the 'inbetween' would look like and the drawn out efforts to solve the murder. That was surely just the tinder for the main fire of Alice Sebold's unbelievably touching book.
You never expect a film to replicate what you read but this was just such a disappointment. Especially when I saw the running time. I thought great, over 2 hours, show me the emotion that just poured off the pages. Alas no such luck as I was subjected to what felt like more than an hour of 'inbetween' special effects guff.
I would only call it imaginative because it imagines something completely unrelated and courageous much for the same reason.
And Tucci for an Oscar?! Not for me. Good performance but not that good. I can only assume they picked names from a hat to make up the numbers while Christoph Waltz picks up all the awards.
Anyway, off at a tangent there. Completely frustrating film. Could have and should have been so much more.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 56

- 15/2/2010 12:43:22 AM

ARmy2510

Posts: 107
Joined: 21/4/2008

First 20 minutes are magical. Rest of this movie is just BAD. 2.5/5

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 57

Am I missing something ? - 15/2/2010 4:32:00 AM

THERAHMAN

Posts: 14
Joined: 28/6/2006

OK, the guy did Lord of The Rings, but this was a really patchy film. Tucci was fantastic in it. I was enthralled by the first half hour or so, but it failed to live up to it's opening. And as for some of the visual effects. Seems like Weta or whoever did them were all high on hardcore drugs because they were sh*t.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 58

Not PJ's Film - 15/2/2010 6:33:58 AM

VincentWire

Posts: 36
Joined: 27/2/2006

Having only got half way through the so far very good book, I can already tell this is not for Peter Jackson. It would've been ideal for Sofia Coppola to return to her Virgin Suicides-type aesthetic and actually have protagonists with something worth being miserable about for once, or it would've been a great vehicle for a certain Mr Spielberg to finally return to top form. I'll still go see it and no doubt get something out of it, but I can already tell this is a wasted opportunity.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 59

Really!? - 15/2/2010 6:44:48 AM

PsychicClown

Posts: 11
Joined: 9/2/2008
From: Ireland

Have you even read the book? This is the fines example of a butchering of something magnificent. The movie aimlessly moves from key point to key point with very little in between character wise. The mothers character (which is brilliant in the novel) gets reduced to nothing. Same with the grandmother being summed up by a montage. It was a travesty of a movie in regards to everything from the heaven scenes to how it chickened out of the substantial moments in the book. When the father breaks the bottled boats it's a heavy moment where he sees Susie and finally shows his grief just to her. In the movie it's just flashy cgi nonsense. The rotten rating is right and i'm shocked at yer review. The movie was terrible. Terrible.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 60