Change Your Image
user-196-766417
Reviews
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Extended edition was fairly good for the first 40 minutes.
After the disappointment of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", I hadh fairly low standards for the second film. It started off incredibly well, but then spiralled into a mess of deus-ex-machinas, disrespectful book deviations, and unnecessary heterosexual romance.
The pros:
The cinematography and visual design. From the caverns of Erebor to the Halls of the Woodland King, the film's artistic direction is so amazingly detailed. Again, the filmmakers use the beautiful scenery of New Zealand to create the world of Middle-Earth. It's honestly breathtaking.
Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Thorin's (Richard Armitage) character development stories are coming along great. Bilbo is becoming braver and more proactive; Thorin is starting to respect him. Both actors, in my opinion, are perfect for their roles - Freeman is natural in his lightness and often comedic relief, while Armitage carries a gravity well-suited to Thorin's pride and severity. Ian Mckellen has always been brilliant as Gandalf, and always will be.
I cannot stress enough how amazing the Mirkwood scenes are. The visuals of the forest, the dim lighting, the slow cameras and the illusionary special effects create the forest's heavy and stifling atmosphere perfectly. The feeling of wrongness was so strong and so well- crafted.
But then it all went downhill.
The cons:
I can pinpoint the exact second when everything started going wrong: when Legolas and the other Elves slide down the branches to kill the giant spiders.
The very inclusion of the Elves, in my opinion, was a mistake. It heavily detracts from Bilbo and the dwarfs' story. The whole Elf- Dwarf superiority complex is incredibly irritating - the film always portrays Elves as the pinnacle of civilisation while the Dwarfs are crude, greedy and unskilled in combat. It's not a good idea to antagonise thirteen of your main characters. And Legolas' appearance seems to be just for the sake of pulling in viewers.
Tauriel and Kíli. Oh boy, where do I begin? Firstly, it undermines Legolas and Gimli's friendship in "The Lord of the Rings". Secondly, they lack chemistry and their romance is so forced and cringeworthy. Thirdly, how Tauriel goes from, "Do not think I will give you a weapon, Dwarf" to going all moon-eyed over Kíli in the time frame of a few hours. I could go on.
Tauriel herself is written fairly badly. I liked the idea of a badass elf lady, but everything she does is for Kili's sake. Jackson and co. have obviously neglected to research (or more likely, deliberately ignored) Elven history with her red hair and attraction to Kili. Tolkien worked so hard to create a wonderful fantasy world, and it's been destroyed in the matter of a few minutes by Jackson and co.
The Company splits up. That's right. Fíli, Kíli, Bofur and Oin remain in Lake-Town, while the rest of the Dwarfs march on Erebor. Why? It doesn't add anything to the plot, except to develop Kíli and Tauriel's grating, unrealistic romance by romanticising Kíli's injury.
There were so many unnecessary plot lines. The scenes with the orcs' point of view don't add anything. There's too much focus on The Master and Alfrid. There shouldn't be this much emphasis on secondary characters when not all thirteen Dwarfs have their own personalities yet.
The alright:
The Dwarfs taking on Smaug. It makes their vendetta a little more personal, I guess. They did fairly interesting things to try to kill him, and we get a good look at the insides of Erebor. Gandalf and the Dol Guldur subplot were alright. It was nice to see him doing more magic, as we didn't get that much in "The Lord of the Rings".
Overall, the film was quite poor. It started off wonderfully and then just began deviating too much from the book to be a good adaptation. Even though the tone was much more consistent than the first movie, "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" treats Tolkien's world and works in an unapologetically dismissive and disrespectful manner.
I'm sorry to say that "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" is much worse. If you found this film unengaging, you will certainly find the last instalment unbearable.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
It's nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but still a decent adaptation and a refreshing visit to Middle-Earth.
Yep. Summary says it all. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a fairly good film, but it has too many problems to live up to the cinematic masterpiece that was "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
It feels like Jackson and the writers are confused about the direction and the audience of the film. On the one hand, they've tried to imitate the deep, dark tone of "The Lord of the Rings", but they've also shoved in a lot of silly, slapstick humour that appeals to children. It just doesn't work together, and the result is the episodic mishmash that is "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey".
The pros:
Jackson has done it again. With the magnificent scenery of New Zealand and beautiful visual design of - well, just about everything - "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a wonderful return to the beautiful, dangerous, epic world that is Middle-Earth.
The story is adapted generally quite consistently from the book. It deviates a little and adds tons of information like the Battle of Azanulbizar and the White Council's discussion at Rivendell. In my opinion, these ideas were worthy additions to the film as they explore the dwarfs' and Sauron's backstories, but I think they were executed quite poorly, for reasons I'll expand on later.
The actors are well-chosen. Ian Mckellen is amazing in pretty much everything he's in. Martin Freeman brings a bit of comedy and light- heartedness to the film, while Richard Armitage is perfectly proud and austere as the brooding Thorin Oakenshield.
The cons:
Waaaaaaaaaaay too much CGI. The orcs in "The Lord of the Rings" were terrifying because they were real, made-up extras, not some fake- looking computer-generated image. Also, did Azog and his crew need to have so much screen time? We already understand how dangerous the quest is, and how Thorin has many enemies on his trail. The orcs didn't really add anything to the story, which should have been more concentrated on developing the characters of all thirteen dwarfs.
I feel that the main problem in this film was that the filmmakers tried to imitate the slow, grand tone of "The Lord of the Rings". Almost every single line of dialogue is spoken way too slowly, the pacing seems to be held back, and the action has too much slow- motion. What should have been really interesting scenes (like the Council at Rivendell and the Battle of Azanulbizar) are ruined by their overdramatic overtones.
The alright:
Howard Shore returns to score this film. He reuses quite a lot of motifs from "The Lord of the Rings" in all the right places, and new material in the others. However, his new additions are pleasant but mediocre, epic but unmemorable. They don't contain the subtlety that he created in "The Lord of the Rings". Still, the "Misty Mountains" theme is fairly nice, and the music sets the tone well, so I guess it's not all that bad.
The humour is quite subjective. I found most of it quite unfunny, but there were memorable scenes like Bofur and his table-dancing. But undoubtedly, humour is incredibly subjective and differs with everybody.
Look, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a decent film. It is far from living up to the standard set by Jackson in "The Lord of the Rings", but is a nice return to the visual world of Middle-Earth.
The 100 (2014)
A decent series if you can just stick through the teen drama of first few episodes
I was initially very hesitant in watching this show. I read the books by Kass Morgan and absolutely hated them - they were just another young adult romance series thinly disguised as dystopian science fiction. Like we need more of those. So it was with low expectations that I started the show.
The pros:
"The 100"'s biggest strength is in its characters. The main characters are beautifully written, complex and diverse. Their character development arcs are almost flawless. The cast is fairly good, each of them suiting their characters amazingly.
The storyline starts off weakly, but by season 2 is captivating and less episodic in structure. There's tension and suspense and even a bit of horror, with moral and ethical quandaries along the way. The action is decent - the show's not overloaded with it, and it's equal parts gory and intense.
The cons:
The first few episodes were extremely disappointing. I swear the writers pulled out every cliché in the book - girls fighting over a guy, teenagers forming cliques, love triangles, the whole dumb party animal stereotype. The intelligent ones who want to find food and shelter are ignored and looked down on. There's already blind prejudice and murder. Riveting entertainment, right? Don't worry, it gets better.
I'm sorry to say that you're going to have to suffer from inaccurate science the whole way through. To all the people going, "You have to suspend your disbelief! Of course there's going to mistakes! It's just fiction!" Yeah, well, there's only so far I can suspend my disbelief. Clearly, these writers have never set foot in a high school science classroom. There's things like the sound of explosions in space, someone's blood being circulated through someone else's body, and people wearing gas masks to protect from radiation.
97 years is way too short a time period to develop an entirely new culture and language. I'm pretty sure that humanity's first impulse, upon discovering their ravaged planet, would NOT to be to abandon technology and civilisation and create an entirely new society based on hand-to-hand combat and tribal culture.
Look, if you're expecting a deep insight into the nature of humanity like "Lord of the Flies" or an exploration into the advancements of science like "Alien" or "2001: A Space Odyssey", then this series is not for you. But if you want to watch a series that's addictive and entertaining, and you can survive some teen drama and a load of scientific inaccuracy, just sit tight.
Agent Carter (2015)
Absolutely brilliant.
"Agent Carter" is probably one of the best shows I've watched this year. No, make that one of the best shows I've watched. Ever. Each episode left me wanting another, as there was a rapidly developing mystery I just had to know the secrets behind.
The pros:
Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) is an amazing heroine, her strong demeanour and her witty one-liners making her a funny, likable character. Edwin Jarvis (James D'Arcy), Howard Stark's (Dominic Cooper) butler, is also a hilarious character, his goody-two-shoes nature balancing Peggy's troublemaking perfectly. The banter between the pair is hilarious, and their friendship makes them an unlikely duo as they solve crimes and combat sexism.
The villains, Dottie Underwood (Bridget Reagan) and Dr. Ivchenko (Ralph Brown), are interesting characters that complement Peggy and Jarvis nicely. The other SSR agents, Jack Thompson (Chad Michael Murray), Daniel Sousa (Enver Gjokaj) and Roger Dooley (Shea Wigham) also undergo really nice character development arcs as they understand just how much Peggy contributes to her duty.
The set is also brilliant. The designers have truly captured the essence of life in the 1940s with the architecture and costuming. The catchy, jazzy soundtrack also brings to life pop culture in the 40s.
The cons:
Apart from the fact that I have to wait a week for each episode, none, really.
Right now I am just desperately hoping that this show is renewed for season 2, because season 1 is just absolutely spectacular.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
Stunning film.
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is a brilliant, well-written film that ticks all the boxes. A great script, wonderfully choreographed fight scenes, amazing actors, stunning cinematography, and an interesting, unique plot make this film (in my opinion) one of Marvel's best.
The pros:
The plot weaves the elements of The Winter Soldier - Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Nick Fury's (Samuel L. Jackson) secrets, Project Insight and the infiltration of S.H.I.E.L.D. by Hydra really well. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is much more badass in this movie than he is in either "Captain America: The First Avenger" or "The Avengers", and Black Widow, Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), is given much more development. The Falcon, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie), is also introduced, and he is an instantly likable character. Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely have delivered an amazing script that is smart and engaging.
Chris Evans absolutely nails the character of Steve Rogers, portraying his conflict, his purposelessness and his determination beautifully. Sebastian Stan as the Winter Soldier creates a figure that is menacing and terrifying, yet tortured and pitiful, and all this with barely twenty words. Scarlett Johansson gets Natasha's snark and humour just right, Anthony Mackie makes the Falcon likable, and Frank Grillo portrays Brock Rumlow's brutish thuggishness really well.
The cons:
The only fault I have with this film is that the final confrontation between Steve and Bucky is a little over-dramatic and predictable in terms of dialogue, especially after a flashback to the 1940s. There are some parts that are a little unbelievable, like Steve managing to fight Bucky after being shot three times, or jumping out of an elevator with hardly a scratch. But these flaws are dwarfed by the movie's brilliant script and actors.
Overall "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is a great sequel (much better than the first movie) and a valuable addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
not as good as the original trilogy
In comparison to the original trilogy, "On Stranger Tides" is less inventive, less funny and less impressive. However it still has a few strengths that makes it worth watching.
Pros:
The plot, as always, is great - simple enough to understand, but complex enough to be fascinating. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is conscripted onto the Queen Anne's Revenge, captained by Blackbeard (Ian McShane), where he meets his past love Angelica (Penélope Cruz). They sail for the Fountain of Youth in a race against Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), as well as the Spanish. There's plenty of action, with which the mythology and legends are interwoven wonderfully.
The cinematography, special effects, costuming and design elements are beautiful, just like the original trilogy. They make "On Stranger Tides" a cohesive movie, and ensure that the world of the movie is rich, deep and convincing. Hans Zimmer, again, delivers an amazing soundtrack that complements the story perfectly.
Cons:
The movie takes itself too seriously at times, especially with the romance between Philip (Sam Claflin) the clergyman and Syrena (Astrid Bergès- Frisbey) the mermaid. It seems forced and superficial, and the lines exchanged between them are always over-dramatic. Also, Barbossa's super- serious revenge story is boring, washed-out and clichéd. This comes as a great disappointment because Barbossa's character was hilariously outrageous in the original trilogy.
Which brings me to another point. The humour in this movie was really lacking. There were many moments in the original trilogy where I laughed so hard I cried - Jack's experiences on the cannibal island, the fight on the wheel, Jack and Barbossa arguing over captaincy - but there were no really memorable moments in this instalment. The "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise has always been special because of its absurdity, but this movie just doesn't live up to it.
I wish I could say that Johnny Depp's performance as Jack Sparrow carried the movie for me, but it really didn't. Depp is a great actor but his lines just lack the wit and cleverness that really characterised Jack in the first three movies, and he also lacks swagger. In the original trilogy, Jack's brilliance always came from the way he played everyone for his own benefit, and we don't really see much of that in "On Stranger Tides". His willingness to sacrifice for Angelica undermines his every-man-for-himself nature that made him so likable.
Blackbeard and Angelica's stories lack conviction. She wants to save him because she wants a father figure she's never had - this seems like a very pathetic excuse for sailing to the Fountain of Youth. The best villains are either the ones you love, hate or fear, and Blackbeard fits into none of those categories. In the end I felt nothing towards either of them.
The plot twists in this movie are quite predictable. There was not one surprising moment. The original trilogy was ridiculous and unpredictable and left me wondering what was going to happen next, but "On Stranger Tides" is filled with clichés and shoddy writing that made it lack suspense.
Overall, "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" is a mediocre movie that is nowhere near as good as the original trilogy, but is still worth watching because of its interesting premise, the nice action scenes, and Richard Griffiths's cameo as King George.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
Very poor adaptation.
The Hobbit trilogy started out wonderfully and then just disintegrated into a sprawling mess of the beloved world that Tolkien so masterfully created. "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" is a long- winded, shallow, unsatisfying conclusion to the trilogy. Bad writing, a disrespectful plot, and the overuse of CGI ruins what could have been a decent film.
The cons:
Firstly, the battle. There was so much CGI, it looked like a video game. The battles in "The Lord of the Rings" are convincing because they have warriors played by real extras, and the Orcs are much more terrifying than the computer-generated ones of the Hobbit trilogy. The battle in this film just felt fake, and Legolas defying physics didn't help.
Secondly, the dwarfs. Apparently three movies still isn't enough to characterise all thirteen of them. It feels like some of them are reduced to supporting characters as they hardly have any lines, or any personality, for that matter. Even Legolas and Tauriel have more development than half of the supposedly "main" characters.
Which brings me to my next point: Tauriel and Kíli. Their relationship undermines Legolas and Gimli's friendship in "The Lord of the Rings", as Legolas and Gimli's friendship was so significant to the reconciliation of their races. I may have forgiven Tauriel and Kíli if they had any chemistry, but when lines like "You make me feel alive" (where did this come from? An 80s love ballad? Modern EDM songs?) are being bandied about, I couldn't help but cringe. When your fanbase thinks that Bilbo and Thorin have more chemistry than Tauriel and Kíli, you know you're doing something wrong.
Smaug is killed before the titles have finished showing. What was meant to be the climax of the book is squished into the first few minutes, and afterwards I just didn't really care for the battle. If you love battle sequences, you're in for a treat, but I was just bored by it.
The film's lack of resolution is really upsetting. Where are the funerals for the Durins? Where is Dáin's coronation? What happens to Tauriel and Thranduil after the film ends? What happened to those giant worms? How was the treasure divided? How did Bilbo use it? After all that happened in the first two films, after everything the characters did to get this gold - wouldn't that dignify some sort of conclusion about what happened once they actually got it?
Apparently a few of these questions will be answered in the Extended Edition, but Jackson obviously believes they are minor plot points he can replace with Alfrid's "comic relief" to create a more action- based Theatrical Edition. Disrespectful.
Some people say that this film tries too much to set up "The Lord of the Rings". I personally don't mind. I like the Dol Guldur subplot because it gives us insight into the backstories of Galadriel and Saruman and Sauron. But Thranduil's comment to Legolas about finding "the ranger" and "discovering his name for yourself" sounds stupidly over-the-top. (Not to mention that Aragorn was about eight years old at the time.)
Overall, the concept of the story has been ruined by Jackson. "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" have never been action stories, but an exploration of journey in all its forms, and a criticism of war. So when Jackson values the film's forty-minute long battle sequence over actual character development and resolution, he is pretty much destroying the heart of Tolkien's work.
The pros:
The actors are great. They do what they can with their shoddy script and manage to redeem this film to a 4/10. I think Martin Freeman's Bilbo is absolutely spot on - always has been. Richard Armitage's incredible portrayal of Thorin shows the depth of his character, especially in the gold-sickness scene. Ian Mckellen is amazing in everything he does. Because of the actors, Thorin, Fíli and Kíli's death scenes are painfully heartrending.
The ending. The ending was so beautiful. No spoilers here.
Overall "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" was a poorly- made film that simply concentrated too much on the battle rather than exploring the major characters and plot points of the book.
Penny Dreadful (2014)
hope season 2 is better
This review is based on the first season of the show.
The pros:
The season starts off strong. Great horror, a perplexing mystery, lovely visuals and really well-rounded characters make the first two or three episodes very compelling. Full of horror, suspense and plot twists, the first few episodes are captivating. The writers weave the stories of "Frankenstein", "Dorian Gray" and "Dracula" very well together.
The strongest aspect of the show is its characters and actors. Eva Green is amazing as Vanessa Ives, and really shows off her versatility. All the other actors are great as well, really shaping the characters and bringing them to life. All of the characters are written three- dimensionally, and they are what made me stick with this show despite its disjointed and somewhat chaotic plot lines.
The sets and costume design are beautiful, and they really capture Victorian London and the dark mood that accompanied Gothic literature.
The cons:
The middle few episodes are too slow-paced and although they add depth to the characters and their relationships, nothing interesting ever seems to really happen plot- wise until episode 6 or 7. The mystery of the show is just lost.
What really annoys me, though, are all the unexplained plot threads. Although some mysteries are left better unsolved, like Sembene's origins, season 1 just had too many unresolved threads and some frankly ridiculous deus ex machinas. Although it's supposed to create mystery, after a few episodes it's just irritating that no explanations are ever given for anything.
Chandler just happens to know how to do an exorcism? And no one wonders how Vanessa miraculously recovered? And how does he just suddenly turn into a werewolf? Oh, and he isn't suspicious at all when Frankenstein says, "I'll take care of the body"? Sir Malcolm suddenly isn't hesitant in killing his daughter? What happened with the murders of the mother and child in the pilot?
I hope all of these issues are resolved in season 2 because honestly, the first season finale was very unsatisfying.
The overall tone of the show is very dramatic in terms of dialogue and atmosphere, kind of like the feel of Lord of the Rings (but more gruesome). In "Penny Dreadful", sometimes the dialogue is amazing and wonderfully thought-provoking, but other times it's just grating and unrealistic.
All in all, season 1 was mediocre but I'll stick around for the second season because I hope it solves the mysteries of the first.
Supernatural (2005)
Amazing, for seasons 1-5, but fairly poor for the rest.
Seasons 1-5 of 'Supernatural' were brilliant.
Although many of season 1's episodes are "hit-and-miss" and its overarching storyline is over-simplistic, the suspense, horror and urban lore makes this show unique and addictive. The plot and writing just get better and better in the next few seasons, with hints and clues that keep you hooked and gradually reveal a clever, wonderfully crafted underlying conspiracy.
The writers' attention to lore and their respectful and interesting interpretation of Judaeo-Christian mythology (in seasons 4&5) makes the content of 'Supernatural' incredibly fascinating.
Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) are complex, well- written, likable leads. Even the supporting characters - John (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Bobby (Jim Beaver), Ellen (Samantha Ferris) and Jo (Alona Tal) are written with depth. Villains such as Meg (Nicki Aycox & Rachel Miner), Crowley (Mark Sheppard), Azazel (Frederic Lehne) and Alastair (Christopher Heyerdahl) are hauntingly chilling characters. And then there's fan favourite Castiel (Misha Collins), who undergoes an almost flawless development arc. Credit goes to all of these actors for portraying their characters so skilfully and realistically.
However, after the massive climax of the season 5 finale, the show just seems washed-out and bland. The overarching story lines are all over the place - first there's Eve, and Castiel betraying the brothers, then the Leviathans and Metatron and the Angel War. The massive discrepancy in the feel of these seasons makes it seem that they're set in completely different universes.
The mythology, especially that of the angels, is not being treated respectfully any more, especially in seasons 9-10. They are no longer proud, unbending warriors of Heaven; they've been dumbed down to one-dimensional, unintelligent, over-exaggerated, almost childish people. In most episodes the 'monster of the week' reflects the writing team's lack of depth and research.
Every episode seems to follow the same overused structure - initial death scene, investigation, death of the monster, and then a long, dramatic conversation between the brothers in the car. During these talks the brothers constantly lie to each other and suffer from massive guilt trips and while this was heartrending the first time, after the endless repetitions it's just become cringeworthy and boring. The character of Crowley, too, has become dull and uninteresting after six seasons without development.
Granted, there are a few good episodes and characters in seasons 6- 10. Kevin (Osric Chau), Charlie (Felicia Day) and Garth (DJ Qualls) are likable, unlikely heroes, while Metatron (Curtis Armstrong) and Rowena (Ruth Connell) make interesting villains. Castiel's backstory and an insight into Bobby's regular life are interesting, and there are several standalone monster-of-the-week episodes that are better than the rest.
Overall, 'Supernatural' used to be brilliant, but its overused tropes and clichés, its lacklustre storytelling and overdramatic overtones mean that it is only a shadow of its former grandeur. If you enjoy urban legends, horror, suspense and mystery, go for seasons 1-5, because they are excellent. Its creator, Eric Kripke, intended it to stop after season 5 but sadly it was continued and desecrated so that CW could milk as much money out of it as possible.
Les Misérables (2012)
A fairly good adaptation but with a poor choice of singers.
Les Mis is a great film adaptation of a great musical. Under Tom Hooper's direction, the cinematography, costuming and setting are breathtakingly amazing and contextually accurate. The characters and plot stay true to the musical, which is heartening to see when so many film adaptations like to make changes.
There is, however, one slight problem.
The singers.
It is obvious that these singers have been cast for their big names and the reputation that they bring to the film's marketing, rather than the strength of their voices. If you have never listened to either the 10th or 25th anniversary concerts, their voices may be passable, but as an avid listener of the 25th, I thought most of the cast's performances were weak.
Hugh Jackman is obviously unable to reach the high notes of songs such as 'Who Am I' and 'One Day More', and is unable to hold long notes. He also seems to lack control, demonstrated in 'Bring Him Home'. The song is supposed to start off gently and quietly and build up to an epic climax, but Jackman belts the song the whole way through, ruining the pleading and ponderous tone of the song.
Russell Crowe's performance as Javert is lacklustre in the fact that he is unable to emote Javert's firm authority. In 'Fantine's Arrest', 'Confrontation' and 'Stars', Crowe drags his notes on, removing the power and strictness that a crisper staccato would bring.
Anne Hathaway, however, emotes too much. Her acting ability is absolutely amazing as Fantine, portraying her struggles and her desperation brilliantly. However, she extends this too much to her singing, and the result is a boring rendition of 'I Dreamed A Dream' that is so spluttery it's difficult to listen to.
Eddie Redmayne and Aaron Tveit as Marius and Enjolras (respectively) lack power and conviction in their voices for the roles of the revolutionaries. However, I do think that Redmayne delivered a decent rendition of 'Empty Chairs At Empty Tables'.
Interestingly, although people complained about Amanda Seyfried's voice, I thought it suited her character. It is sweet and gentle and plain, which reflects Cossette's innocence and purity.
Samantha Barks as Éponine is amazing, probably because Barks played her in the 25th anniversary concert and has had previous theatre experience.
In short, Les Misérables is a good film adaptation, but the choice of casting makes it lack the emotional depth and poignancy that other productions have had. The only redeeming features of the music were the epic choral songs and the beautiful orchestra.
Thor (2011)
Would have been a good movie if it was longer and had no romance.
'Thor', in short, is a decent film that has both pros and cons. I enjoyed it immensely. It had an interesting plot, good pacing, a reasonable amount of action, great actors, and decently written characters. There were, however, two major letdowns: unnecessary, forced, heterosexual romance and rushed character development.
Pros first.
The plot was original and interesting. Thor's arrogance and destructive tendencies get him banished and he has to mature so he can wield Mjolnir again and return to Asgard. This is beautifully interwoven with Loki's secret plots and schemes to rule Asgard and win the favour of his parents. Loki's progression from protagonist to villain is incredibly fascinating, and his realistic motivations and charming exterior make him a memorable one.
Marvel, as always, has great casting directors and Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston played Thor and Loki (respectively) wonderfully. People have joked that 'Marvel grows its actors on trees' and I think this can be applied to 'Thor', in which Hemsworth and Hiddleston portray the brothers' chemistry and rivalry perfectly.
The visuals are beautiful as well. The realm of Asgard is majestic and glorious. The rainbow of the Bifrost and the stars are all displayed to enhance its beauty. Not many films these days have beauty for the sake of beauty, but Thor is one of them. All of this is backed up by a great soundtrack from composer Patrick Doyle, who manages to capture the grandiose nature of Asgard, as well as the intimate emotions of the characters.
Cons now.
'Thor', like so many other films, contains the cliché of unnecessary heterosexual romance. The chemistry between Thor and Jane is incredibly forced and irritating, and seems to be no more a superficial infatuation. Their awkward exchanges left me cringing with secondhand embarrassment. Jane is reduced to a love interest and a plot device for Thor's character development, the unfortunate fate of so many female characters these days.
Thor's development from bullheaded, arrogant idiot to sensible, intelligent hero is too rushed. Played out only over two days, Thor's sudden desire to sacrifice himself for his new-found friends earns him the right to wield Mjolnir again. This is obviously too sudden, and perhaps another half-hour of screen time would have done this film good. Also, self-sacrifice is by no means a determination of maturity and/or humility, so Thor's immediate refusal to destroy the Frost Giants afterwards seems rather stretched and implausible.
Sadly, the cons are both major plot points of the story and have reduced an otherwise good film to a 6/10.
Star Trek (2009)
One word: disrespect.
With this new reboot, J.J. Abrams has completely destroyed the spirit of the Star Trek franchise, under the excuse that it's 'a prequel set in an alternate universe'. Roddenberry's Star Trek was a series of moral tales and social commentaries, and Abrams has dumbed this down to a glitzy sci-fi action flick. He has stated that it was meant to reach out to non-Trekkies as well, but that is no excuse for a bad script.
The pros:
Bones and Sulu were written decently, I guess. But Bones, who was an important member of the original triumvirate, seems to be relegated to a minor character.
The cons:
Oh boy.
The plot is unbelievable. Sure, it's sci-fi, and I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief, but Nero's implausible motivations, combined with an overused vengeance plot, creates a movie that is just so incredibly grating. I'm not even going to mention physics, or the laws of warp travel set in the Original Series.
The main problem is the writing of the characters. The actors did the best they could, but even they can't work miracles.
Kirk is overly cavalier and arrogant, to the point where I was continually irritated by his very presence. Why Pike would choose such an unreliable, cocky idiot as his First Officer is incomprehensible.
The deliberate mischaracterisation of Spock (when he dumps Kirk on Delta Vega) is done only to antagonise him, and, more importantly, alienates him and Kirk. Then, they're suddenly friends at the end of the movie when Spock defers to Kirk and asks to serve as his First Officer. Such rushed character development is unrealistic.
Uhura has been reduced a love-interest who kicks ass. Writers these days don't seem to realise that strong female character does not equate to perfect female character. She is also unnecessarily sexualised (when Kirk watches her take off her clothes), like so many women in films these days.
All of these one-dimensional characters simply heighten the unrealism of the film. In science fiction, where setting and physics are outlandish, relatable characters are needed to ground the viewer. "Star Trek" fails in this regard.
This movie seems also to be one of those action-for-the-sake-of- action movies. There is an overload of explosions, destruction and laser beams. If you like this sort of stuff, you're in for a treat, but this overuse of action is an insult to the intellectual puzzles and peacekeeping missions of the Original Series.
Star Trek is an unrealistic, overly fast-paced movie that lacks substance and is disrespectful to the Original Series. Both the characters and the plot lack gravitas, and in the end, I just didn't care for any of it.