Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Old-school hardcore sc-ifi
Let's get the one negative out of the way - poor spacesuits. Clearly not pressurized, just lame props.
Otherwise, mindbogglingly good.
Caltech theoretical physicist Kip Thorne, whose work inspired the film, was an executive producer and acted as scientific consultant.
Introduces the concept that gravity can transcend time. (current best scientific thinking).
The film uses this theory (Hollywood style) to indicate that love can thereby time-travel.
Now add a simply killer Hans Zimmer soundscape.
Now add a 4-dimensional scene filmed using old-school methods.
Sure, there's some plot holes.
Right up there with '2001'.
Attack the Block (2011)
Huge missed opportunity
Acting is great from everyone. Some slick camera moves, Kubrick-like setups, great music in parts.
Does not take itself nearly seriously enough.
They were sitting on a goldmine of a gritty/funny/scary/landmark format and missed it.
The first half has large chunks that simply should not be there. Just plain waste material. Some of the early shots linger too long for no purpose.
They should treat the jokes as throw-aways. They don't go overboard here, they just use wrapping paper when they should use none.
In the latter half, the gold glints and you can see what a killer film this could have been.
Too much polish and light in the first half, too much trying to be 'nice'. Not trying to be funny, but ending up being boring and wasteful of time.
I don't think it would have taken any more money or time to make this a much greater film.
I'm thinking of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1973) here.
Stop trying to be a comedy. Stop trying to be British. Stop wasting screen time.
Get a script writer to pull this one apart. Having the writer/director do everything is what killed this. Great script, now make it even better and film it like that.
It's maybe the last 20mins of the film which illustrate what I am trying to convey here. Imagine if they made the whole film like that. Wow!
A missed opportunity, not totally thrown away. A quite nice little film
Quantum Apocalypse (2010)
Some early faults, but it's just a $2million TV movie. Plenty of good points.
A lot of folks are trashing this movie without understanding the context.
a. It's a TV movie b. Budget was an estimated $2.5million With that in mind, I'd like to review this one in a more technical sense for the film students out there, and highlight where I think it was good.
First, some obvious faults.
Some of the special effects are lame, other acceptable. The lame ones should have been seen as such and cut.
There are some sound problems which hint at them having lost on-set sound and having to resort to the audio recorded by the camera. Folks, there is a thing called dubbing. Or at least try to equalise the camera audio.
The casting of Peter Jurasik as the President was insane beyond words. Not because of his acting at all, but he simply does not look the part. Just look at the bit part actors surrounding him, they look the part, he stands out like a sore thumb.
The casting of Gigi Edgley as one of the 'rock-star scientists' was good, and after a very worrying start, she gets into the role and makes good of it. However, simply having a dash of green in your hair and wearing a tie around your neck when wearing a normal dress does not make you a 'rock-star scientist'. It makes the wardrobe and makeup dept look crap.
That's me done with the negatives. Let's review the brighter side...
Other IMDb sections claim this was filmed using a sub $2,000 Panasonic AG-HVX200 HD video camera. Well, I think the result is superb.
Throughout this film, the cinematography is first rate. Lots of very nice camera moves, including several closeups that turn into running tracking shots. Framing and lighting is always good.
The plot may have some holes, but hey, it's a TV movie, so don't take it so seriously.
Lots of location filming, which must have eaten into the budget. This helps keep away from the TV movie format, and keeps the thing moving.
On balance, some big minuses, but for a TV film, very well technically executed on the whole.
About the bad acting. The director, Justin Jones, was not inexperienced. But as Second Unit Director or Assistant Director (57 titles), he perhaps did not have enough experience of spotting and correcting over acting.
That error mainly occurs in the first half of the film, along with most of the other 'faults'.
Conclusion: As a TV film, very well made, and watchable in my view. At no point does it fall apart, although it makes you start to cringe a little early on. I've seen a couple of worse Big Budget films costing far far more.
Life in a Day (2011)
The last fifteen minutes....
I'm going to review this based on just the last fifteen minutes of the film.
I have not seen the whole film yet, just the trailers and the last fifteen minutes.
"My God. Could not be imagined, could not be written, could not have been foreseen.
Astounding ending, but ultimately at peace with life. In a Day. My God."
The film quality is way above what you might expect, as is the sound. This is not a collection of home video, but some astounding shots. The story itself is unwritten, just assembled, but incredibly well.
I think it will take some time for this work to be recognised for what it is.
As will the vision of the people who came up with the idea. The result is surely way beyond what they could ever have imagined.
Battle of Britain (1969)
Watch the restored version on DVD - outstanding
Just seen the restored version on DVD, and of course in widescreen.
Against - Far too many instances of repeated shots in the first half. Crappy editing here.
For - Stunning cinematography, a masterclass in fact. Fully appreciated in the restored version.
Just look for the set pieces - like, every other shot is a set piece.
Pulls no emotional punches, and constantly kicks you in the balls.
Well worth a re-look on the restored DVD version, probably the best viewing of it you've ever had even if you have seen it many times before.
Way more good elements than bad ones
It's best not to look too far below the surface of this film. Just look and enjoy. Many of the scenes are visual set pieces brilliantly delivered.
But the overall plot could have been more thought out and the second half made much tighter and weightier.
Joan Cusack's performance is utterly memorising and quite unique - worth seeing the film for that alone. Robin Williams does not go over the top, far from it.
I think it's time for a rethink and a re-make. Just needs a better plot for the second half.
That, and I would let each of the characters have more time, by cutting the pointless infill work due to lack of a screenplay.
The plot can take on a lot more weight than it is given in this version. Flawed yes, but well worth watching for the good parts which shine out like diamonds.
Fly Away Home (1996)
A film students review
As a film student, I naturally started to fast forward through the opening titles to get to the film. Then I had to rewind.
The viewer gets kicked in the privates in the first minute of the titles. Then again two minutes later.
A lot of the film is shot in the golden hours just after sunrise and just before sunset, making for some great imagery.
The story is pretty adult for a family film. Familiar family issues are not candy-coated in the script.
As for being believable, it is based on a true story, and yes, the amazing fridge is from a real design by the inventor at the heart of the true story.
The final chapter contains simply superb flying shots worthy of National Geographic.
I don't think there was any time wasted on sentimental stuff, just enough to get the point stated, then immediately move on.
Worth seeking out the collectors addition for the extras that explain how close to reality the basic concept is - teaching geese to fly home.
Good film, well made, great acting, superb photography.
Why not a ten? The story was based too much on reality - however amazing. The photography was great, but not ground breaking.