Popular Posts

Movie Review Monday

Paul (2011)

This movie totally appealed to the geek in me.  I would love to go to Comic Con.  I bet it's fun and exciting.  I do have an issue with all the people there, though.  I don't know if I could handle that.  I'm sure if I wanted to go bad enough, I'd find a way.

Anyway, like I said, this movie appealed to the dork in me.  It was a spoof on sci fi films and their fans.  I can't tell you how many references there were to Star Wars and the Alien franchise, among others.Clive Gollings (Nick Frost's character) was even striving to become a famous novelist.  Man, I could relate on so many levels!

The movie wasn't knock-me-out-of-my-chair funny.  It did have some humorous parts, so it wasn't a total waste of time.  I was really impressed with the CGI of Paul.  He seemed so real.  It still amazes me what films are capable of doing in the special effects department.  It was a shame Paul was voiced by Seth Rogen.  I don't like him.  At least it was just his voice and I didn't have to look at him!

The film was fun, and I'm glad I watched it.  I would probably see it again just to pick up on all the sci fi references.  If you like sci fi, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost, you will enjoy this movie.

Chronicle (2012)

I knew this movie was going to be bad the first time I saw the preview.  My spouse begged to differ with me, so we watched it.  Man, I enjoy being right!

The whole movie is told from the handheld camera perspective.  Andrew is a high school student who has a horrible family life (he's abused by his father) and is picked on at school by bullies.  For whatever reason, he decides to document his life.  The film is basically told from his camera.  Occasionally, it switches to other cameras that students are carrying cameras (Why?  I have no idea.)

I get why you would do that in a film.  It limits the perspective and makes the audience relate to one specific character.  However, I don't think it always works.  It limits the perspective.  The audience can only see the things the camera operator wants us to see.  Thank goodness Andrew took the camera everywhere with him.  He would even shoot himself right before bed.  Otherwise, the movie would have been lacking.

That's one of the problems I had with the film.  Really?  He's going to take the camera everywhere?  I guess I don't understand why he would do that.  I know he's emotionally disturbed, but why would he want that documented for the world to see?  I guess I've never been that messed up, so I don't get it.

The movie was supposed to be about three high school boys who get superpowers while running around in an underground cave and finding something weird.  The idea was great.  How many superhero movies start out like that?  The execution was terrible.  First of all, they were high school boys, and they acted like it.  They were immature and irritating.  Secondly, nothing happened!  Andrew spiraled down into turmoil and sought revenge.  He became the bad guy, and Matt had to take him down.

Normally, that would make for a great movie.  But it wasn't.  It was so slow and the focus was on Andrew (again, camera from his perspective).  I get that you're abused and fragile, I get your sensitive and angry.  SO DO SOMETHING!

I get that was probably the point of the film.  Instead of being like other superhero movies that focus on action, this one focused on the feeling and emotional side.  As I recall, I think Iron Man 2 did that, along with several others, but they weren't as painful to watch.  I don't know, maybe I wasn't the right age group or gender.  Perhaps if I was a young, nerdy boy it would have appealed to me.