Welcome to the GameCritics.com Forum. We recognize that new members are vital to any thriving community. So we deeply appreciate your visit. Before posting, please read our Code of Conduct. If you enjoy discussing video games and other topics with mature and intelligent gamers, we hope you'll check out our other forums and become a member.
Tricked into watching The Lovely Bones by my woman, who used the old "We'll watch it for ten minutes and I'll turn it over to something else" trick (which she had also used the previous night, getting me to watch Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. More on that in a moment...) Actually really enjoyed it. The film is narrated by a girl who is murdered near the start of the film, and goes to a place that seems to be in between Earth and heaven, as she is unable to let go of her past. She befriends another young lady in the afterlife, who tries to persuade her to move on to her next destination. Meanwhile, her family falls apart- The mother is emotionally unable to cope, and the father is obsessed with finding the killer. The murderer, a neighbour of the family, is wonderfully played by some dude I've never heard of before, such a brilliant character.
Part of me wonders, as someone who likes my fiction grounded firmly in reality, whether the film (which, I know, is based on a book), would have been better off as a straight drama, rather than one narrated by some chick who's in heaven. I don't know... but I did enjoy it, and it's certainly different, so I'm glad I've had the chance to see The Lovely Bones. Think I'll have to watch it again to decide whether I think it's a really good film, or it's ok, but not for me.
Enjoyed Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers more than I thought I would. Never read the books, never had much interest in a generic fantasy world (and, let's face it, LotR is the originator of the generic fantasy world, in many ways), but this film held my attention, and I am eager to see the whole trilogy. Don't have much time for the characters of Frodo and Sam, but the didn't take up as much screen time as I'd feared. I feel I'd need to watch all three films to form a solid opinion, but the fact that watching the second entry of the series has got me wanting more is very encouraging.
On a related note, I find it very difficult to take Sir Ian Mckellen seriously since his appearance on Extras -
the most unflinching and deeply affecting film on the subject of boys coming to grips with sexual abuse I've ever seen. The film has some disturbing scenes, though it creates much of it's contexts with words instead of being overly graphic. Hard to watch, but if it's a subject that has resonance for you, I recommend looking for it on Youtube. Lovely score by Robin Guthrie.
Maybe a little too long or a little too slow for it's own good, but still a kindof mesmerizing, ethereal examination of one man's obsession with a perceived threat to his family that unravels his life.
Most interesting for the theme of holding together in time of trauma, the focus is on the family- I liked that.
Very moving climactic scene if you can bear with it. Beautiful soundtrack, too.
I asked "why?" when the announcement of Conan: The Barbarian came several years ago. I refused to see it in theaters and waited until it was finally on Netflix before I wasted my viewing time. And I was right in waiting, with the first 5 minutes of the movie being a clear indication that the writing and direction were going to be horrible. In the Words of Arnold: Crom!
good lord what a mess this film is. If Batman's only going to be onscreen 15 minutes in a 2 hr 45 min film, the bad guy better be FUCKING CAPTIVATING, and Tom Hardy doing this Terrorist/Pro wrestler version of Bane with a Sydney Greenstreet voice through a filter, quoting pseudo Marxist shit isn't it.
Knight Rises Ha ha. Whilst I think what Rob says, above, I have a feeling I think it was less of a trainwreck.
I'll start off by saying that I think it's overshadowed by the previous two films, but I went into the cinema expecting this. The first problem, for me, was Catwoman. I've always thought she was a weak character, and that doesn't change here, at all. At least they got someone hot playing her this time though, it was about time.
The fact that Batman is barely in the film, really, is the next big problem. The scenes with him as plain old Bruce Wayne in captivity just weren't interesting to watch.
Regarding Bane's "pseudo Marxist shit"-accurate comment, but I found him to be a fairly entertaining character nevertheless. Wasn't as gripping as he should have been, and I have no idea why the felt the need to mix his backstory from the comics up, but you know what? I really liked him.
Can't be bothered to go into any more detail as typing on my phone is painfully slow, but I'd give this film a 6/10- still above average, but far worse than a film acting as the conclusion in this trilogy should have been.
An ok movie. Nowhere close to the second one and also weaker than Batman Begins. Main source of confusion was for me the kind of breaking point in the middle. It's almost as if it was intended to be two separate movies that got smashed together.