Reviews

Just got back from the midday screening of Warcraft here in the UK and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The soundtrack is awesome, and even though there is a fair amount of lore (which might be a bit confusing for those not familiar with any of the history), the story is still very good and surprisingly complex. It does a great job of portraying both sides as having both good and evil,and in particular actually spends time with the Orcs in exploring their cultural and political processes, so they feel like real beings and not just mindless monsters. This means that despite its rather straight laced high fantasy appearance, the more complex narrative gives the movie quite a modern feel.

The action itself is great, the Orcs in particular are awesome, and there's a bunch of cool Easter eggs. The CGI can be a bit jarring at first, but I think that's because you're used to CG trying to be photo-realistic (and it is very good, very detailed), but once you realise it's trying to be more stylised, closer to the animation style of the game, you kind of "get it" and it's not really an issue anymore.

I'm not a hardcore fan either. The last time I logged into the game was about 4 years ago, and even when I did actively play I wasn't in a clan, I didn't go on raids. My highest level character was about 70 from over several years. Just a casual gamer. So I would advise any fans of the games, past or present, to go and see this movie and make up your own minds. I was skeptical myself having seen some critical reviews, but I actually really liked it.

For the Horde.

I'm quite a casual fan of Marvel comics and their movies, so I didn't know much about Guardians of the Galaxy going in nor was I expecting much.

The blend of action and humour was great. The tone of the film, which I think is balanced very well, was perfectly set in the opening sequence. The comedy especially was actually funny. I think this is largely down to the fact that the characters were so thoroughly well established, with each character having decent screen time. None of them felt underdeveloped and you felt connected to all of the main cast.

By and large the acting was very good, stand out being Chris Pratt. A very strong performance as well as delivering on the comedy. The movie is really hinged on him as a central protagonist, and he did a great job of leading the narrative as well as standing out as a character in his own right. Even former wrestler Dave Bautista did a good job. He didn't exactly have a huge range to deal with, but he delivered the serious parts and he was also pretty funny. The writers definitely played to his strengths which showed.

The writing in general was very good. It is a well structured film, and is kept moving along at a reasonable pace. The dialogue is expertly written, with great gags and jokes delivered in great timing.

The cinematography and visual fx were fantastic. It's a very good looking film, easy to watch and choreographed well. It had a great blend of sci-fi almost Spielberg-esque visuals, which I think gives the film a distinctive look from the other Marvel movies. The CGI was generally very good. Groot and Rocket especially looked fantastic. The only downside here was you can tell that the large portion of time was spent on the main characters CGI (and rightly so), but it means that tertiary CG characters tended to be a bit lacking and not look up to standard.

Unfortunately I felt Lee Pace's performance as main villain 'Ronan' to be quite one dimensional and wooden. He shouted a lot, and put on a deep voice, but what presence was built up around his character I felt fell flat when he actually started speaking.

Also, his character motive was basically him being a religious fanatic. While being topical, I felt that his core motivations was quite a simplified notion of "West vs East" as apparent in the two warring cultures of the Kree Empire vs the Xandarians, to the point where I felt it was exploitative of post 9/11 anxieties and leaning towards patronizing.

Overall though, a very entertaining and most importantly funny movie. Quite different from any other modern Marvel movie, which is a good thing. Recently I've found that some of the post Avengers Marvel releases (with the exception of Days of Future Past) to be feeling quite stale. This film has definitely got a unique and distinct personality which I think sets it apart from the rest, in a good way.

I have to say now though that it is probably in the top three Marvel movies alongside 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' and 'The Avengers'.

First off, I want to say that I am for all intents and purposes a Ricky Gervais fan, I like (most) of his stuff, and his other new series 'Life's Too Short' was, in my opinion, brilliant.

'Derek' however, is terrible. I mean, really bad. First off Gervais goes in for another of the 'mockumentary' style, a format of television he is pretty comfortable in, and has had spectacular success in with series such as 'The Office', 'Extras' and 'Life's too Short'. However whatever charm or resonance these series has, 'Derek' has a severe lack of.

Ricky Gervais performance as the titular character 'Derek' is laughably bad. Truly, its awful, he literally just puts on a greasy wig and screws up his face. Honestly, it reminded me of Ben Stiller in Tropic Thunder in his ill fated 'Simple Jack'. It really is that hilariously bad. I think disabled people should be offended, not that Ricky Gervais is portraying disabled people for comedy, but that 'Derek' is Ricky Gervais's perception and interpretation of a disabled person. Seriously? I mean just look at him in the promotional picture, i hope for his sake that Gervais will look back upon this series with a personal shame and disgust.

Karl Pilkington is fine, though really he only just plays himself, but he is the only part of the whole series which really works. He comes out with a few quips and Pilkington-esque rants which might raise a chuckle or too, but thats the only source of comedy.

What most annoys me, is what people have labelled as 'profound'. Putting some piano music over a sad scene is supposedly the source of this profoundness. Oh but wait, hes so friendly and simple isn't that wonderful that hes sad. My god people, a nutless monkey (another Tropic Thunder reference) could have written this television pilot, its simple, mushy, sentimental rubbish. Gervais has literally thrown together some 'profound' or 'tocuhing' elements together and made this monstrosity, i'll name them right now. Disabled, Old Age, Death, Stupidity, Poverty, social awkwardness, romance. Seriously, watch the episode (if you can honestly bear it) and see that the entire plot rotates around this sentimental mush.

Instead of making a funny, tongue-in-cheek, enjoyable and charming series, such as 'Life's Too Short', the result is this grotesque, laughable and embarrassing attempt at a television series. I'm really not surprised this hasn't been picked up for a full series, it is truly, truly, awful.

I think I'm gonna do a first here and NOT relate how good the movie was with how good the special effects are.

With that now abundantly clear, the best thing about this movie is the mythology. I found myself most engrossed in the movie when the mythology was being explored, and the powers of the mythical characters was being shown. This is a bit of a cheap screen writing trick though, so not too much credit can be given to the writers.

The first act is sloppy, and the third act is equally so. Which is surprising considering the second act is usually the weakest, but i think that was the part of the movie where they were able to have fun with the characters, Thor in Nex Mexico -"Delicious! I will have another!", rather than trying to establish and resolve a complicated universe and weak narrative.

The action was average. At times the only thing you could see on screen was a mess of blurring motion. The were times when i got excited, but it was all rather disappointing. The anti climatic ending felt just felt like a cheap pay off for action rather than any serious resolution.

I think for the most part of this movie i was marveling at the expected power of the characters, but when i actually saw them in action, it was kind of a let down. The hype was good, the reality was bad. And whats with the giant robot man, GORT rip off anyone?!

Having said all of this, it is a good pop corn movie, and a bit of fun, if all a bit silly. Kenneth Brannagh, whom i greatly admire, holds it together in the best way i think he possibly could, and thats the reason i think the mythology is so interesting, Brannagh's Shakespearean background has given him the ability to handle it, and i applaud the Marvel/Paramount suites for picking the right man for the job.

No doubt hordes of Americans will flood to the cinemas, and vast quantities of popcorn will be thrown down their necks to contribute to their already bulbous waste lines. A sequel is inevitable, but thats not necessarily a bad thing.... if you like popcorn.

Before seeing this film, i heard in an interview that Clarke wrote this film as a reaction to accusations of sexism in his films. Upon seeing the film it became painfully obvious what he was trying to do. To be honest, it felt like a Spice Girls movie smothered in fancy editing and a few vag jokes. All the male characters are pigs, slobs, violent, pervs, stalkers, sexist, or chauvinists. (with the exception of the fat ISP delivery man). contrast this against how nearly every female character is girl power personified "girls get to kick butt to!"...

For some reason despite this in your face feminist content, the film is still filled with stereotypes. Shopping obsessed, meeting for lunch with the "girlies" - it felt like a British sex and the city at points. Even worse, the horrifically clichéd hard-nosed man hating lesbian, who spends half her screen time walking around with just underwear and making out with another girl. Yay feminism! Some of the editing was impressive, and i could tell Clarke was trying to mould an image as a British auteur (perhaps in the image of Tarantino), but frankly it just seemed sloppy and slowed the pace down. it felt like having to watch 4 movies in a row start to finish.

However, there are two things which i did like about this movie. Firstly, Noel Clarke plays the role of "Tee" very well, and definitely shows promise as an actor. Secondly, Kevin Smiths cameo as the fat delivery guy was probably the best part of the film, and funniest, for me anyway. Apart from this the acting was pretty poor, and the horrendous soundtrack forced me into listening to music i hate, though I'm sure the "bruv" youth of neon lighted cars would enjoy this. (not saying thats a good thing).

Overall it was a pretty poor effort. i can tell what Clarke wanted to do but it rarely worked and seemed like another re-hash of fancy narrative structure in the wake of Tarantino and other British crime films. And the clichéd (but contradicted) feminism really just confused the movie especially with all the vag jokes (seriously, there are loads!) thank god Kevin Smith was in there to balance it out with a few dick jokes.

First off, i want to say how refreshing it is for a big summer movie not to be on the band wagon of CGI or 3-D. At last a straight up movie not relying on any gimmicks!

Robin Hood delivers what it promises. Solid action, good narrative, and the inclusion of a bit of history with action between England and France gives the movie an added meat and almost realistic feel to it. The dialogue is a bit ropey at times, and Robin's "merry men" could have had a bit more screen time, but otherwise i see no major fault with this movie.

All in all a refreshing, exciting, fun, entertaining, nothing that you wouldn't expect from the pairing of Russel Crowe and Ridley Scott.

7/10

First of all, i just wanted to say that McG is an awful director. What credit this film does have is tarnished by his amateur and naive style of film making. Pointlessly long shots, and horrible cuts ruin scenes that otherwise look great (special effects wise). I have a feeling that what ever crack pots at the studio were thinking when they hired this guy, they spat on the franchise, and especially the original 2 terminator films.

Aside from McSh*#t, the script is in places great, and in places awful. And the predictability and "cheese" of the plot is unforgivable, some parts made me cringe in my seat. This is largely the same with the sound editing. The aspect which defined Terminator 2 is also at times fantastic (the prisoner collector robots) but at times flacid and weak (no metallic/industrial sounds linked with the terminators).

Overall i think the worst point is that there's no definitive "bad guy" apart from really skynet itself. I can see what McShit was trying to do by not, but stuffing a terminator film full of messages instead of having a badass terminator is just pretentious.

On positive notes the special effects are amazing, and the action sequences are pretty fun and exciting. Also the acting is pretty much spot on, apart from Bloodmoon. The guy who plays Reese was surprisingly good.

Overall this film is average, but you cant shake the feeling that it was just an opportunity to cash in which becomes all too apparent in certain parts, and having just seen TS and coming home to find T2 on TV, really highlighted my feelings about this movie. I think if they Had attached a more experienced (and lets be honest not a crap one) director than maybe this film would have earnt its place in the franchise.

Worth watching? Yes Worthy of Terminator 1+2? No 6/10