Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rukaio101

Rukaio's Reviews: Year 8

Recommended Posts

Uh yeah, basically ask me to review a film and I'll review it.

 

To add a bit of a twist to reviewing (and so people don't hate me if I give them a negative review), I'm going to add a small element of chance into my reviews. Basically, I'll look through your film and give it a score out of 100 depending on how well I think it's written/cast/appropriately directed. Then, I'm going to use a random number generator to get another number out of 100 to represent the actual execution of the film (something that'd be difficult to judge seeing as we can't actually make our films.) Then, I'm going to add the two numbers, split it in half and that's your score. So if you get a low score, it's probably the random number generator. And totally not me. Heheh.

 

Anyone interested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Deadline

 

Just post the separate scores (yours and the generators), so we know.

But... that would defy the entire point of making sure people don't hate me...

 

Although considering I kinda make my opinion on the story pretty obvious in my review, I suppose I can make an exception this time. Although it won't be pretty. Sorry, I really wasn't much of a fan of this.

 

Story- 33/100 (my score) + 55/100 (random number) = 44/100   50% of total score

Director- 75/100 + 83/100 = 78/100   30% of total score

Casting- 72/100 + 95/100 = 84/100   20% of total score

Total Score- 22 + 23 + 17 = 62/100

 

The Deadline

 

I'll admit I wasn't sure what to think about this film when I went into it. While I like Richard Linklater's work, the film looked like the sort of film that tries way too hard to be heartwarming and tragic, at the expense of actual interesting drama. And I was kinda right. The film is schmaltzy, has a lot of issues and tries way too hard to be philosophical. But, surprisingly, I found myself kinda enjoying it, if only for the fantastic performances Miller and Taylor-Johnson give this film, guided by the competent direction of Linklater. They imbue otherwise cardboard characters with a passionate energy and you do end up feeling quite a bit for them.

 

Unfortunately, no matter how brilliant the performance, you can't save a sub-par script, which reads like the Bucket List starring the guys from 50/50 with about half the charm. The cancer announcement comes completely out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, and doesn't really make much sense. Surely, since there are only traces of cancer and it's been discovered early, it should be way too early for the doctor to say it'd be terminal for certain. And if it was terminal cancer and Andrew only had a few months to live, surely there'd be some noticeable effects on him. Surely he'd have to go in for treatment and such. But throughout the entire film, there's no real sign he's suffering from the cancer, physically or emotionally.

 

Now, spoilers here, one of the major twists of the film, near the end, is that Matt realises he is physically attracted to Andrew. Big twist, right? And plenty of potential for drama as well! What'll happen when he tells Andrew? What'll happen when he comes out to his parents? How will this change his reaction to Andrew dying? Well, we get the answer to none of that, because the film just sort of ends. Yep. Just as we get the big game changer, the twist that changes everything, the film just ends without exploring any of the fallout. Matt chooses not even to confess to Andrew, which kinda goes against the film's message of 'live life to its fullest' (kinda cliche message, BTW). Honestly, it was a let down.

 

To sum up, while an excellent direction and outstanding cast stop this movie from sinking to the depths of awfulness, the sup-par script stops it from realising its potential as well. All in all, I have to give it 62/100 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resonance

Here's your review. Shame you had such bad luck with the RNG, otherwise this probably would've been much higher.

 

Story- 80/100 (my score) + 57/100 (random number) = 68.5/100   50% of total score

Director- 82/100 + 22/100 = 52/100   30% of total score

Casting- 79/100 + 97/100 = 88/100   20% of total score

Total Score- 34 + 16 + 18 = 68/100

 

Resonance

 

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit disappointed with Darren Aronofsky right now. He had a competent script that was almost built for him, along with a fantastic cast who were acting their hearts out here (I wouldn't be surprised to see a few Oscar Nominations for some of them). So why, when I left the theatre, did I feel the entire thing seemed so lazy?

 

While I'm not always a great fan of these 'Is it real or is it imagination' films, mostly because very few of them can convince me it's not imagination, I thought the story in this was quite enjoyable with some good twists and a fantastic ending scene (even if *spoilers* it obviously wasn't all a dream). Admittedly, I was kinda curious as to why, after been in a coma for a couple of days and having suffered minor brain damage, Samuel is allowed to leave the hospital a few hours later and isn't checked up on by any hospital staff, but I suppose some suspension of disbelief can be given. Especially since my personal interpretation is that Samuel died in the car crash and the rest of the film is some sort of afterlife. But enough about my interpretations. Admittedly, there are moments where the film seems somewhat silly, such as the demon dog faces at the end, but overall it was an entertaining story.

 

Liam Neeson proves to us that he can do much more than team up with Chuck Norris in this film and gives, quite possibly what may be the best performance of his career, making Samuel a realistic and sympathetic character, thrown into a situation he doesn't understand. And he's not the only one. Almost every actor in this film puts their all into their character. I haven't seen an ensemble cast this strong for a quite a long while.

 

Unfortunately, that makes it all the more tragic when I say that Aronofsky did not do a good job here. Whether it was due to family issues, stress or maybe just disinterest in the film, Aronofsky's direction smacks of laziness. There are little-to-no interesting directional choices and many of the fantastical scenes seem dull and forgettable. It's a shame too, because this film had so much great potential, if done correctly.

 

All in all, I have to give this 68/100. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DONUTS

Since I can't find a movie just called 'Donuts', I can only assume you're talking about 'Donuts are Zombies too along with the Dominant Walruses'. Just a note, I really didn't like this movie, for reasons I shall explain below. And you had pretty bad luck with the RNG. I'd be surprised if this doesn't end up being one of my bottom films of the year.

 

Story- 10/100 (my score) + 37/100 (random number) = 23.5/100   50% of total score

Director- 50/100 + 48/100 = 49/100   30% of total score

Casting- 82/100 + 36/100 = 59/100   20% of total score

Total Score- 12 + 15 + 12 = 39/100

 

Donuts are Zombies too along with the Dominant Walruses

 

What the hell did I just watch? No seriously, what the hell was that? Was the cinema staff just spraying the room with LSD or something? Actually, no, that can't be right. While LSD may make you see odd things, it's at least a little bit enjoyable. Unlike this film.

 

From what I can gather, this film is an attempt at random humour. Unfortunately, what this film doesn't seem to realise what makes random humour  work. Going 'LOLZ DONUT ZOMBIE WALRUS SO RANDOM' is not funny. It is annoying. The thing that makes random humour work isn't the random event itself, but through the reactions to it. For example, say a group of people are waiting at a bus stop, when one of them suddenly lets out a loud moo. If the other people gave him odd looks and shuffled away from him, that would be funny. If people didn't react to it at all and one person even shushes him, that would be funny. If all the people turn into chickens and dance the macarena, that's not funny. That's annoying. Stop it.

 

Okay, that's enough about the nature of random humour, let's talk about the direction. Lynch only directs half of the film, due to scheduling conflicts (although I'm certain he just wanted to get away from this flick). And while he does his best, his talents lie in surrealism and there's a noticeable difference between surrealism and lolsorandomness. As for Baz Luhrrmann, I don't even know why he agreed to this and, judging from his direction, neither does he. The same can be said for most of the cast. My theory is that the studio had some sort of blackmail material on the lot of them. That's the only reason I can think they agreed after reading the script to this.

 

Okay, maybe I'm being a bit harsh. I mean, I have to give credit to this film for not being your usual hollywood fare. Of course, showing a 2 hour screening of a dog crapping isn't your usual Hollywood fare either. All in all, I have to give this film 39/100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Candy crush but please don't review it until the posters go up in a couple of days

The posters won't make any difference to my opinion. I probably won't even look at them. 

Donuts is not random entertainment. Donuts is an avant garde film.

You can call it whatever you like. It was still annoying as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare you, Donuts is a stylistic achievement in genius social commentary and deep meaning!!!

 

Kidding. Donuts sucks, stylistically imo. It's not supposed to be enjoyable, so I'm perfectly happy with your score.

:P The only good film I'll be posting this year is Chuck Norris, and IDK if I'll actually post it this year haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.