Jump to content

Archived

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

Blankments

Blanked Out Reviews, Y7 (Top 25 Is Complete!)

Recommended Posts

Yeah, suggest as many films as you like for me to review. Won't review them all, but you might as well suggest them.  :P An important thing to note is that in the past two years, I only ended up reviewing everyone's first suggestion, so be sure to make your first suggestion your most desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amulet:

 

 

This movie is insane. Really, really insane. I warned Alpha in a PM a few months ago that he shouldn't go to me for advice, since Amulet is not my type of film. Fantasy is never my forte, and when you add in a multitude of characters, I tend to get more confused. However, the film is fine, often giving hilarity and thrilling moments. I'm a huge fan of traditional animation, and I wasn't sure how Bryan Singer would handle the material. Rest assured, he proves to be as good an animation director as he is at superhero movies (that's X-Men, not Superman of course.)

 

However, Amulet runs into the same trouble The Red Pyramid did a few years ago: the cast. A good animated movie with this type of budget with an all-star cast has about three A-list stars at most. This had Jessica Chastain, Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Fassbender, and Jeff Bridges, along with a multitude of other known names. It just leaves me to ask: why? They all do a fine job in their roles, don't get me wrong, but the budget for this film is $75M. I presume the cast amounted for at least a third of it, leaving only $50M for animation. Now, traditionally animated movies can be done on a low budget; Shiverin' Gulch being a good example, but for the story, action, and sheer amount of characters this film has, the film clearly needed the $75M for animation. I regret to say the cast affected my score quite a bit, and if the cast had been better, it'd have been a point higher. Overall, Amulet is worth your time, but the small animation budget is very showing.

 

7/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risk Management:

 

It's been noted that ric has yet to get a Coen Brothers movie into my top 5. Will that change this year? I'm not willing to disclose this yet, but the answer should be obvious by the end of this review. :P Simply put, Risk Management takes all that was good in Empty Hearth or Careful Laid Plans and places it in modern times. Now, there's one thing I rarely write in CAYOM, and that's the period piece. Period pieces often bore me; sorry to say it, but it's true. As such, ric's previous two Coen movies bored me at points, but this is set in modern times, making it ripe for my enjoyment. Now let's get onto some actual critique!

 

The story surpasses the previous two films, tacking boredom and the dangers of it. Maybe the themes just hit close for me, but I could relate to Andrew, and that kinda scares me. A film that scares you with the harsh reality that you are like the asshole character at points in life shows just great the Coens are as writers and directors. Although he starred in two blockbusters last year, this film should be one that puts Garrett Hedlund up with JGL and Gosling as one of the best young actors of the day. He's definitely in line for a few more roles from Blankments anyway. :P The rest of the cast is great, and Julianne Moore may have an Oscar waiting for her in this role. Risk Management is the best Coen film in CAYOM yet, and, dare I say it, riczhang's best film yet. Do not miss this film.

 

10/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amulet:This movie is insane. Really, really insane. I warned Alpha in a PM a few months ago that he shouldn't go to me for advice, since Amulet is not my type of film. Fantasy is never my forte, and when you add in a multitude of characters, I tend to get more confused. However, the film is fine, often giving hilarity and thrilling moments. I'm a huge fan of traditional animation, and I wasn't sure how Bryan Singer would handle the material. Rest assured, he proves to be as good an animation director as he is at superhero movies (that's X-Men, not Superman of course.)However, Amulet runs into the same trouble The Red Pyramid did a few years ago: the cast. A good animated movie with this type of budget with an all-star cast has about three A-list stars at most. This had Jessica Chastain, Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Fassbender, and Jeff Bridges, along with a multitude of other known names. It just leaves me to ask: why? They all do a fine job in their roles, don't get me wrong, but the budget for this film is $75M. I presume the cast amounted for at least a third of it, leaving only $50M for animation. Now, traditionally animated movies can be done on a low budget; Shiverin' Gulch being a good example, but for the story, action, and sheer amount of characters this film has, the film clearly needed the $75M for animation. I regret to say the cast affected my score quite a bit, and if the cast had been better, it'd have been a point higher. Overall, Amulet is worth your time, but the small animation budget is very showing.7/10

Why the hell is budget a issue with reviewers? Do you guys even take my movies seriously?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell is budget a issue with reviewers? Do you guys even take my movies seriously?

 

Budget is incredibly important, and it goes either way. A few years ago, I placed a movie that was great and probably deserved to be in my top seven in the 20s simply because it was a $100M Woody Allen movie. Budget is really important, especially when you're making it a star-studded affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Budget's an issue for all movies. It's something that's criticised in real life all the time: Lone Ranger costing 200-250 million, Hunger Games being made with a paltry 70 million, and etc. We're simply being realistic, but with that being said I thought your budget was fine. A little bit low but not by too much because you can't invest too much into an unknown property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Budget's an issue for all movies. It's something that's criticised in real life all the time: Lone Ranger costing 200-250 million, Hunger Games being made with a paltry 70 million, and etc. We're simply being realistic, but with that being said I thought your budget was fine. A little bit low but not by too much because you can't invest too much into an unknown property.

 

*looks at $200M budget for Last Six, upcoming $150M budget for Area 142.* heheheh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*looks at $200M budget for Last Six, upcoming $150M budget for Area 142.* heheheh

:blink:  :blink:

 

200 Million is a bit much for any unproven property, but I think that depending on what the premise is and how well movies like that traditionally do budgets up to the 180 million range are fine for new movies. I've had some really high budgeted original movies. Oro was at $185 million, I believe. It was originally lower but it was shot entirely in IMAX in the middle of a jungle so I bumped it up 20 million due to the extra costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:  :blink:

 

200 Million is a bit much for any unproven property, but I think that depending on what the premise is and how well movies like that traditionally do budgets up to the 180 million range are fine for new movies. I've had some really high budgeted original movies. Oro was at $185 million, I believe. It was originally lower but it was shot entirely in IMAX in the middle of a jungle so I bumped it up 20 million due to the extra costs. 

 

Yeah, the completely filmed in IMAX part was the reason Last Six was so high, along with the fact that it was needed to build three mythological worlds from scratch. Sequel's budget will be $225M though, since the first one still had a nice profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell is budget a issue with reviewers? Do you guys even take my movies seriously?

 

How you budget a film is important. You have an epic fantasy animated film that has lots of spectacle, lots of visually-driven events, and a presentation-driven story.

 

It has a star-studded cast and a total budget of $75 million. The only recent major animated films in the same ballpark were Despicable Me ($69 million) and The Lorax ($70 million). Both films had much less demanding cast on budget costs and the visual look of both films wasn't the most stellar.

 

An epic animated film requires epic visuals and Amulet's budget doesn't cut it.

 

 

If Blank gave Justice League a budget of only $100-125 million I'd be criticizing it for the same reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How you budget a film is important. You have an epic fantasy animated film that has lots of spectacle, lots of visually-driven events, and a presentation-driven story.It has a star-studded cast and a total budget of $75 million. The only recent major animated films in the same ballpark were Despicable Me ($69 million) and The Lorax ($70 million). Both films had much less demanding cast on budget costs and the visual look of both films wasn't the most stellar.An epic animated film requires epic visuals and Amulet's budget doesn't cut it.If Blank gave Justice League a budget of only $100-125 million I'd be criticizing it for the same reason.

Amulet was traditionally animated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amulet was traditionally animated.

 

And while that lowers the cost of the animation, you still have a far more star-studded cast than comparable traditional animated films.

 

Princess and the Frog cost $105 million. Most 21st Century traditional animated films cost between 80-100 million BUT the casting for all of them was less intensive on the budget AND they were less epic in scope and presentation.

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.