Tag Archives: Zealand

X-Men: Days of Future Past (Trailer + Discussion)

Posted on by
Reply


I recently re-watched all the X-Men films and I couldn’t help but notice that there’s a shiz load of continuity problems. As I moved on to the next movie you find more and more confusing errors that kinda ruin the franchise a bit. For example we see Emma Frost in X-Men: First Class (60’s) and in Wolverine: X-Men Origins (Decades after First Class) which are set at different times yet the character is younger in Wolverine: X-Men Origins. Another confusing error would be how we see Charles Xavier walk during a flashback in X-Men: The Last Stand but then we see him get shot in the spine and him being paralyzed in First Class. Of course a common reasoning behind all these problems is that it happened in the comics where characters would lose and regain abilities or whatever, but I can’t help but think they kinda screwed up a bit too much here.

There’s no doubt that First Class was a pretty awesome film, it raised the bar to a whole new level for X-Men films. So why not just say it was a total reboot of the franchise. Some people might say it is but the opening sequence is from the very first X-Men film so I think it was definitely intended to be connected with the past three films. It’s not a bad idea but they screwed up already in X2 when we see a glimpse of Hank McCoy (AKA Beast) as a human then in The Last Stand he’s back to being a blue furry monster. It’s just confusing, you can’t get away with it in movies like you can in comics because people like to complain for the sake of complaining.

To be honest it’s not a huge problem for me because I quite liked X-Men and X2 and it’s quite easy to just accept that what went down in the previous trilogy has lead to Days of Future Past; which looks amazing from the trailer. I saw The Wolverine once it came out but went in completely unaware that it was also connected with the X-Men story line. So as you can imagine once the after credits scene started playing I literally jizzed in my pants. Like wow, probably the best after credits scene ever.

Anyways the trailer is pretty awesome, it looks like we’re going to see an intensely cynical young Charles Xavier who doesn’t look in the best of shapes. I’m not aware much of the story or comics but I do know Wolverine is going to be sent back in time to help prevent a war which will happen in the near future probably related to Bolivar Trask and the Sentinels (sorry, probably a “no shit” comment to comic book fans). So it’s going to be pretty awesome seeing the past and future Xavier’s and Magneto’s in one film as well as past characters like Storm, Iceman, Rogue, etc. It’s going to be huge in terms of characters since we have even newer mutants joining the cast. What I’m hoping for is an even more intense Wolverine, I totally respect Hugh Jackman’s crazy commitment and love for this character. He hasn’t stopped working to improve this character since the very first X-Men, which is why The Wolverine was so satisfying because we  see some of that savagery we’ve not seen before. Days of Future Past better be a thrilling ride.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

star-trek-into-darkness-trailer-finalRoze-Rating: 4.5 / 5

This second installment of Star Trek follows a now experienced James Tiberius Kirk as he captains his crew on the prestigious USS Enterprise. He has now taken to the chair but not Spock’s lack of emotion when it comes to certain situations. As a result of compromising a mission to save Spock’s life, Kirk is relieved of his captaincy and is demoted to first officer. This doesn’t last long as there is an attack on Starfleet’s archives in London by an enemy that no one is aware of but Fleet Admiral Alexander Marcus. Kirk is then sent with his crew to find the attacker with limited knowledge about who he really is.

Star Trek Into Darkness is definitely the most ambitious Star Trek film as it has almost everything you want in a Sci-Fi film. I’m not familiar with the past Treks and because of that I can’t offer any meaningful Comparison’s. But from what I hear the old films never touched upon some of the things the modern adaptations have. For instance they never had a clear depiction of Earth during the 2200’s and Kronos. Thank god for the development of modern technology for we wouldn’t be exposed to such awesome sites as these. Thus heaps of satisfied fanboys.

What I love about this film is that it’s more than just a space adventure, it’s nothing like Star Wars as people might think. From what I’ve read Star Trek has always been about developing stories that encompasses drama and character, not so much about the thrills of space shootouts. Star Trek Into Darkness definitely has the action and large scale thrills that previous installments lacked but it also has a strong plot and story line. It’s more of a space crime thriller than a full on action which I found quite refreshing. The action actually had substance, it wasn’t just silly and gratuitous, there was a believable reasoning to each action sequence.

What really differentiates Star Trek from any other space film is its filming style and overall look. We get too indulge our eyes to a colorfully crisp film consisting of a shit load of lens flares, which I actually liked a lot. It gives the franchise a new identity but also gives the impression that the future is bright. The film’s opening is probably the best example of a beautifully filmed shot of vivid colors aided massively by a great set.

I like how this film tried it’s best to film as much as they could authentically, making it a lot harder to pick out what’s real from the CGI. Huge props to them because it improves the film massively. The design as a whole is awesome, I don’t usually notice costumes that much but they’re freaking NAICE in this film, I want nothing more than to have a Starfleet jacket now.

Performances and cast are as solid as the last film. Slowly giving their own twists to their previously acted characters. I like the chemistry that they have which makes you as a viewer really buy into the crew’s relationship dynamics. What needs to be mentioned is the villain played by Bennedict Cumberbatch who is just phenomenal. I think quite a few people would agree when I say he’s gotta be the best villain of 2013. His character is more than just a ruthless super human, he actually show’s genuine emotion which almost makes his actions justifiable emphasized when he asks Kirk “is there anything you would not do for your family”; then the mind games ensue. On the first viewing these mind games are great fun making the film a whole lot more tense; who’s telling the truth and who’s your enemy? Overall, great popcorn flick with more substance than your used to in your average blockbuster film.

Man of Steel (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

2013_man_of_steel_movie-wideRoze-Rating: 4.5 / 5

Probably one of the most anticipated films this year, Man of Steel is a total reboot of the Superman franchise. Was it needed? I think most fans of the superhero would agree that it’s been due ever since the surge of comic book films over the past few years. Man of Steel explores the origins of Clark Kent tracking back to the demise of Krypton, fast forwarding to Kent’s journey to self actualization hoping to discover his destiny on earth.

I’ll confess that I haven’t actually seen any previous Superman films, so I’m quite clueless in terms of comparing past films with this one although I am aware of some Superman facts (who isn’t?!). One thing is for sure and that’s Man of Steel trumps its predecessors in the special effects department because this film boasts some of the best CGI and action sequences of the past decade. A lot of people don’t seem to be a fan of Zack Snyder, I think mostly due to his unique style. His past films include 300, Sucker Punch and Watchmen. All films which are far from bad but have something in common and that is a distinct visual style. Man of Steel joins his list of visually stunning films and may make the list of the most aesthetically pleasing films of all time. It’s hard to find a scene which isn’t beautifully shot or constructed. The film is clean, crisp, slightly grainy and contains some of the best lighting I’ve seen. Only negative would be that the sun seems to be conveniently placed in the background for more scenes than it needs to be.

In my second viewing I grew to appreciate Snyder’s storytelling technique, it’s unique and efficient which totally enhances the viewing experience. I really like how we start off in Krypton and get to see it on the big screen which I don’t think past films ever touched on. This would be a massive win for the fanboys out there. Once the film makes it to earth we’re entertained to a number of flashbacks which occur parallel to Clark’s journey to self actualization. The flashbacks have a lot of substance and we get to learn about his past and the ideologies that he was brought up with. This gives reason to some of his actions in present time. This was probably my favorite aspect of the film because some of the flashbacks were incredibly emotional, (Spoiler! If you’ve never heard of Superman) namely Jonothan Kent’s death scene which I totally loved. I mean I would never risk my life over a dog but that moment where he holds his hand up and accepts that he’s going to die for the greater good of mankind but also Clark was incredibly emotional but also hit on how much trust Clark had for his father to just let it happen.

I was quite pessimistic about the casting of Henry Cavill at first but once seeing him play the Man of Steel for real, he proved to be a perfect casting. He didn’t just get totally ripped for the part but he captured how human Superman is for such an extraterrestrial being. Small things like acting all cool when wanting to smash a brotha’s face in and that look of remorse when reluctantly doing what’s necessary. Michael Shannon as General Zod was a total win, you wont get anyone more intense and scary than that guy. The “I will find him!” quote will live on in my mind for a long time. I also really liked Lois Lane (Amy Adams) as a character in this film, she wasn’t a damsel in distress and when she was she took matters into her own hands. The fact that she can take her liquor says a lot about her character in general.

Lastly for a superhero film I think the action was awesome and far from generic. It definitely got your adrenaline pumping. I liked how the kryptonian’s fought, it seemed really appropriate that they could shift from punch to punch with intense velocity. If they can jump for miles then shouldn’t they be able to punch really fast? The action sequences had a genuine video game and comic book look to them from the fighting movements to the fire explosions; which proved to be the theme of the fights. Even though I found the action pretty epic, I think that’s where Man of Steel put a lot of people off, leading to quite a few negative reviews. The first half of the film was perfect in terms of narrative which made the action satisfying for me, but once it started you never had a chance to breath; it was relentless. After awhile all the noise, music and explosions start to lose impact and an emotional disconnect starts to develop which is why I think some people ended up leaving the film unsatisfied. That being said any action junkie would love this film.

Despite the lack of fun and joy with this first installment of the rebooted superman series, there’s a satisfying amount of action and narrative to keep you glued to the screen. Man of Steel is a total origin story of where superman came from and how he became more than a kryptonian but a symbol of hope to mankind.

On a final final note, Hanz Zimmer is a genius, the score for this film is amazing. I like how it’s present throughout which is definitely important for comic book films. I feel that comic book films nowadays lack a distinct theme song.

What do you guys think of the new superman? better than the classics? Do you agree with the critics or do you think they are being picky for the sake of being haters?

Gangster Squad (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

gangster-squad-poster

Roze-Rating: 3.5 / 5

In this period gangster thriller we are sent back to 1949 post WW2. John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) returns from war and back to sunny Los Angeles where things have changed drastically. Mickey Cohen is a power hungry gangster who is willing to do anything in order to grow his empire. His ambitions to own the whole of the west coast drives him to countless murders in what he calls “progress”. Before it’s too late Cheif Bill Parker (Nick Holte) contacts O’Mara and urges him to get a team together later known as “The Gangster Squad”. They’re mission is to take down all of Mickey Cohen’s crime operations before they grow too big to take down.

I expected this film to be loaded with plot twists, character development and periodical references. I suppose I thought it would be challenging LA Confidential or any other good period gangster films. Instead it lacked in all those areas and wasn’t as serious as I thought it would be. This was a good and bad thing because it ticked all the boxes that I like in a fun cop film but with a cast that it boasted and the performances it had; the lack of substance was unsatisfying.The plot is simple which didn’t really leave much room for an explosive film, which was disappointing especially when you have such an intense character like Mickey Cohen as the villain. That being said once you realize what direction the film is going, then you can sit back and enjoy it. As soon as I heard the music during the opening scene with Josh Brolin, I could tell it was going to be more fun than dramatic.

There’s enough action to keep the average film viewer satisfied but on the second viewing you realize it’s not as thrilling as it could have been. The shootout’s are loud but there isn’t much to them making them seem generic. Maybe I’m being overly fussy but I felt there was a missed opportunity in that aspect of Gangster Squad. Nevertheless they were still fun to watch.

The cast is amazing, I mean two of my favourite actors on screen… banging… again. So it was always going to be hard to hate this film when Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are acting together. Luckily they put in some pretty good performances. A lot of people didn’t really like Goslings high pitched, slightly odd accent and I think the director must have caught on to it because it gradually subsided as the film progressed. I didn’t mind it to be honest, it gave his character more of an identity. The rest of the cast were incredibly solid, it was the second time I’ve seen Josh Brolin play a lead role and he nailed it. Now I wish he was the new batman. Sean Penn as always is amazing as the power hungry Mickey Cohen, if there was more to the script, giving him more of a dynamic than just a short tempered gangster with a tolerance to killing then he would easily be one of the most menacing villains of 2013.

Gangster Squad really is style over substance. It’s glossy and pristine, despite it being shot in dark surroundings for most of it, you can catch the colours of neon signs and red lipstick very clearly. It’s definitely nice to look at, which is one of the main positives of this film, it captures that time period pretty well in a unique fashion.

Despite some disappointment over Gangster Squad, I actually quite enjoyed it. It seemed like the perfect film for me, I like gangsters, I like snappy one liners and I like shootouts. Was the film perfectly executed? No, but it’s fun and entertaining enough to watch til the O’Mara-Cohen showdown.

The Impossible (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

the-impossible1Roze-Rating: 4 / 5

Based on a true story, The Impossible is an adaptation of what a family of five had to endure during one of the most devastating natural disasters to occur in our time. Maria (Naomi Watts), Henry (Ewan McGregor) and their three sons take a trip to Thailand for the festive holidays. Following Christmas day the family spend time at the hotel swimming pool not expecting what’s to come. Once the tsunami hits they are split in half not knowing if they have all survived. Only hope and the will to live pushes them to believe that somehow they will find each other.

I will say straight away that this film doesn’t fail to pack a punch emotionally. It’s intentionally powerful and so it should be for such an amazing story. it’s nothing short of a miracle what the family had accomplished after such a catastrophic event and it’s a story that needs to be told. There are a lot of encouraging and powerful themes explored in this film which can drive anyone to inspiration. It shows how heroes can come in any shape and sizes and all it take is a simple touch to say everything is going to be fine to heighten someone’s spirits.

This film for me holds two of the most powerful scenes of 2012. The opening scenes where the tsunami hits the hotel is both terrifying and realistic that your heart pounds uncontrollably. I felt emotions stronger than any other film that I’ve watched before, there was a genuine fear and realization about how vulnerable and alone you are in such a disaster. Recreating that event to the level of realism they did is pretty amazing, and it’s hard not to appreciate that scene. The second scene features Ewan McGregor where he calls his father-in-law to tell him their situation. I’ve not seen a moment as intense as that in a film this year, the amount of emotion he puts into it is infectious and if you don’t feel just a little emotional then you are obviously too manly for this film.

Performances from everyone needed to be intense and inevitably they were with such an awesome cast. I’ve missed seeing Ewan Mcgregor on the big screen, and he really proves how much of a talent he is. Props also going to the three kids, couldn’t have been easy parts to play but they got through it convincingly. Lastly Naomi Watts easily steals the show with such a devastating performance, capturing probably every emotion you could get in such a situation, and at the age of 44 it’s amazing how young she looks.

The only negative I could find with this film is that it didn’t seem to explore the people who weren’t so fortunate to find their families, there was a lack of tribute to the unlucky individuals. I can easily see where people could get easily offended, especially if they were victims of the tsunami or a similar disaster. Admittedly it could have really done with it towards the end because it became quite evident that they lost things to film and it ultimately played out the sentimental tone a bit too long. All in all, an amazing story told well through the media of film.

Hit & Run (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

90243_galRoze-Rating: 3 / 5

Dax Shepard tries his hand at directing his first mainstream film, Hit & Run. The film follows a young couple who are based in the middle of nowhere not exactly by choice. Charlie Bronson (Dax Shepard) is in the witness protection program having been caught up in a past crime. During the one year the couple have been together, Annie (Kristen Bell) is largely unaware of Charlie’s past and even his real name. His past gradually starts to unravel as the couple get involved with an adrenaline pumping road trip with the sole purpose of trying to get Annie to her dream job interview.

Before I even sat down to watch this film, I was really rooting for it to be a big hit. Not because Kristen Bell is in it looking super fine, but because it’s a Dax Shepard project. He wrote it and co-directed it, and it really puts things into perspective about how far he’s come since those days he worked at Punk’d. For those reasons I just wanted to like it a lot, but there honestly is too many problems with this film to truly consider it a good film.

The cast is undoubtedly awesome with appearances from Kristen Bell, Tom Arnold, Bradley Cooper and Beau Bridges. The entire cast play their characters the best they can but they are largely let down by the writing. The characters weren’t written well enough to fully meet the potential they had. Each character has their own little charm which made them unique and potentially memorable, but the lack of thorough writing to fully explore them and crucially their dialogue effectively made them seem bland. Which is such a shame because I started to like the characters, I just didn’t feel they were real enough.

What really let the film down was the storyline, some parts kinda annoyed me. There was a bit too much wrong with it for me to take it seriously, even for a comedy. The reason for this is because the premise is quite promising and with such a premise, you could do so much with it to make it funny and realistic at the same time. I think there was a lack of seriousness within the characters, where they were being chased and potentially killed, it ruined it for me because I thought it was pretty stupid how they would still be fixated on getting to the job interview.

What I did love was the film making, for his debut in directing a blockbuster film, there was a lot of substance behind filming the chase scenes. In reality they were quite boring scenes but the way he utilised the camera positions and angles really made it exciting to watch. It’s a good film to watch if you don’t want anything too serious.

This is 40 (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

this-is-40-1Roze-Rating: 3.5 / 5

Judd Apatow brings back Pete and Debbie from 2007 comedy hit Knocked Up to explore their lives a few years down the line. Their kids are older, busines isnt flowing and the rest of their family are being uncooperative, the recipe for a destructive marriage. As their problems become more evident as well as their increasing age, they realise that there isn’t much time to fix their relationship before their lives become a waste.

I think most people would agree that this film is slightly too long with a 133 minute running time, although it is filled with quite a bit of substance. I think it was a pretty good idea to revisit these characters since they were a memorable part of Knocked Up. Creating new characters from scratch would definitely not have been as appealing. Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann ooze this wacky, cheesy, genuine chemistry that not a lot of actors can produce. Their similar sense of humour is a joy to watch, largely driven by improv which Paul Rudd seems to execute with pure hilarity. There really isn’t much wrong with the acting although I think the older child (Maude Apatow) may have been a bit too intense and loud at times, but in reality I guess kids can go apeshit like that. The cameo’s were definitely the main highlights of the film, which is probably not the best thing for a movie, but they did offer a lot of the laughs. Huge props to Melissa McCarthy who has convincingly cemented herself as one of the best comedy actresses.

The storyline is pretty relatable which is why it’s generally an entertaining watch. I think any big fan of Paul Rudd will like this film a lot because his brand of humour is present throughout and its hard not to like this guy. It may not be the most original film but it still does the job in keeping us laughing and entertained. I think the problem with a film like this is that the subject is too serious to make an absolutely hilarious film, because there’s too many breaks of serious scenes before the laughs come in. Either way it’s definitely worth a watch if your a fan of Judd Apatow films and you want something down to earth with some comedy.

Battleship (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

battleship-pic-1Roze-Rating: 3.5 / 5

Based on the board game, Battleship explores the concept of the game while adding an extraterrestrial edge. Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) is your stereotypical screw up who doesn’t take any responsibility, until an incident involving a chicken Burrito and an exceptionally attractive girl forces his brother to push him into the Navy. Despite seemingly finding his niche, his careless ways hold him back from excelling in his field of work. It takes the threat of an Alien attack on earth to reassess his ways and work at his full potential to save the world.

I can totally understand why this would be hated by a lot of critics and people who like films with a bit more substance because there is a lot wrong with this film. Despite the problems it actually ended up surprising me a lot in terms of its concept and premise. When I heard that it was based on the board game I instantly thought “bull sh*t”, I didn’t see how the Alien apocalypse genre would be able to incorporate the board game. But after watching it, I am not ashamed to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Of course that is probably largely due to the low expectations I had of it. Granted if I had went in expecting a lot out of it I would probably be smashing the film.

The film started off with the right intentions, purposely trying to be fun and light hearted, which is what this film is all about. The characters they introduced were likeable and set up favorable characters for us to root for. The premise is also quite smart, they could have easily tried to use the board game idea with a less thrilling idea, but that being said the execution is what made the difference between an awesome film and a so so film. The main character driving the film is Alex Hopper played by Taylor Kitsch, a well written character with relatable characteristics. It would be quite hard too hate the guy, unless your driven to jealousy after seeing Brooklyn Decker doing her thing. Ultimately the plot of Battleship is commendable since everyone likes an Alien invasion and the way they used the Battleship board game concept ended up being quite smart and believable.

Something that let the film down a lot was the acting, I didn’t understand some of the castings especially for such a big budget film, you’d think they’d go all out. For example Gregory D. Gadson, I understand that he’s never had experience and he’s a Former US Army soldier but he just didn’t suit the character at all. One specific scene at the end is just ridiculous especially in the condition and shape he was in, it went over the line of acceptable. Rihanna was also slightly miscast, I thought her role was slightly too big for a person lacking acting experience, which was evident in some scenes, but that being said, she was surprisingly good. Despite from a couple of let downs in that department, I thought Taylor Kitsch was freaking bad ass, he’s obviously extremely talented because he was amazing in all his films this year. Hopefully he moves on to films with better scripts. Brooklyn Decker was also pretty good, she’s come a long way since Just Go With It, and showed some grit.

Lastly the effects used throughout this film are exceptional at most, but you could quite easily tell they got lazy with some parts. I think with the budget they had, they should really try make the most of every resource properly, and half assing some scenes wont make this a hit like they wanted it to be. There are also some scenes which logically don’t make sense, for example a scene where two characters seem to unnecessarily walk to the top of a sinking ship to jump off. The action was still pretty thrilling, especially the parts where the Board Game stuff comes to use, and a shoot-out at the end. If they would have kept to that standard of action then it would have been a perfectly epic action flick, but there isn’t enough adrenaline pumping scenes to reach that accolade.

Archer (Season 1-2)

Posted on by
Reply

Archer_partyingRoze-Rating: Give it a go

I find it hard to start watching series regardless of how good it may be because it’s quite a big commitment. It may seem like I’m over thinking it but I know that once I’m hooked, I’m totally HOOKED, and watching 50 odd minute episodes when there’s 4 or more seasons just seems too intimidating. Which is why I tend to watch comedy series only cause I know I can get three episodes in within an hour without feeling guilty and unproductive, even if I am a lazy ass, it’s still nice to think otherwise (sigh).

Anyways, I scoured the world wide web for a new series to watch which was guaranteed to be funny and entertaining and found Archer. It had pretty good responses and I’m a big fan of family guy and south park so animation wasn’t a problem. Although when I checked it out on youtube I was almost put off because the animation seemed odd compared to other animated comedies, but after watching it I have gladly retreated from that opinion. I think it’s hard to rate a series because it’s all down to an individuals taste, and once you watch an episode you can decide if it’s for you or not, unlike a film where once you’ve committed to it, you will most likely watch it all, especially if your in the cinema. It would take one shitty movie for someone to walk out after spending all that money. Good thing I lived in a country where the cinema wasn’t expensive at all, because I would have been pissed if I spent 17 NZ Dollars (5.300 OR) on “Blonde and Blonder”, last time I will let my penis pick the movie.

So I’ve managed to get through two seasons of Archer within a week with the third one to go, and I just had to review it and somehow show my support because I don’t think enough people know about this series, and it is a god damn injustice to this piece of comedy gold. I don’t understand how show’s like “Mad Love” get 8 odd million viewers per episode in America, and Archer only gets 1 million. Don’t get me wrong, those typical sitcom’s with live audiences can be some of the funniest crap on TV but I think they are making sitcom’s for the sake of it now. Yes back to Archer, it ticks off all the boxes for a good comedy series and as the series progress there are significant changes with every episode which improve on the last. Which is a testament to the creators I think for noticing its faults and making it even better than before.

So it’s about a secret agency ISIS which is no where near it’s prime, employing people which other agencies would consider liabilities. The agency is run by Malory Archer (Jessica Walter), mother of the protagonist Sterling Malory Archer (Refered to as Archer), code name “Duchess” (H. Jon Benjamin) who is an alcohol addicted, sex crazed, cocky, mommy’s boy. The craziness ensues as a result of Archer’s actions or at the behest of his sexual active mother. Of course to aid the already hostel environment that the mother-son relationship provides, we have a group of ISIS employee’s who are just as crazy as the next character. With some big names playing the characters, there’s little that can go wrong. We have Cyril Figgis (Chris Parnell) a comptroller for ISIS who is perceived as a pretty normal character at first, but just wait, those first impressions will change immensely. Cheryl Tunt (Judy Greer) a… well she’s into some crazy shit and doesn’t have the intelligence to hide it like other closet fetish addicts are. Doctor Algernop Krieger (Lucky Yates) is one of the more mysterious characters as it takes awhile to figure him out and what kind of “crazy” he is. Lana Kane (Aisha Tyler) definitely one of the sanest characters and the best looking, it’s amazing how cartoons can look sexy, maybe that’s the pervert in me, but she does have some nicely animated… assets. Anyways her ambition and jealously towards Archer’s special treatment from his mother get the best of her at times. Lastly we have Pam Poovey (Amber Nash) who is probably one of the most weirdest and sickest characters you will see on television, but it’s hilarious in the best of ways. She prides herself for her incompetent ability of keeping secrets and having no feminine bone in her. The one thing each character has in common is that they are all unhealthily addicted to sex, but it’s not the worst addiction to have, waaaaay.

A good description of Archer would be if James Bond and Maxwell Smart made a baby and that baby was put in an environment similar to “The Office” while keeping the threats and thrills of a 007 agent. At first you will criticize the series for lacking in the James Bond-esque action and situations, but by the time you get into the second season you will notice how much its improved in terms of action while staying true to its humor. The animation also adds to the charm of Archer, and really backs up the dialogue where most of the humor comes from of course. It’s also quite unique and sets itself apart from other animated comedies, it gives it a darker and cruder side, which a lot of the humor ends up being. If you haven’t seen Archer, it’s definitely worth a watch. Enjoy.

The Expatriate (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

expatriateRoze-Rating: 2 / 5

This film is set in Europe about an ex CIA operative who is looking to move on with his past life of violence and concentrate on being a good father. All that suddenly changes when Ben Logan (Aaron Eckhart) and his daughter Amy (Liana Liberato) narrowly miss a hit murder while they were at the hospital over night. Due to the following day’s strange events, they realise that something has gone terribly wrong, and they may be in the middle of a termination plan as an attempt to cover up a government conspiracy. This also proves to be a time where father and daughter get to know each other even more, but maybe not for the best.

This was clearly a hit and miss film. It overall lacked originality, as you got the sense that it was going to be a Jason Bourne type film. The start may have resembled the Bourne films, but the rest was certainly not. From watching the trailer, you get the sense that it’s going to be an action spy thriller, with some decent action scenes, but this film didn’t seem to offer anything vital, especially to the genre it boasts. Usually with films like this, you expect it to at least shine at something, but this film honestly doesn’t, in terms of the genre, there aren’t any memorable action scenes, characters or quotes.

The film lacked memorable action scenes, and when they did come around, they were short, lacked conviction and didn’t offer any thrills. The character Aaron Eckhart had to play was showcased as an extremely intelligent CIA operative trained to kill, despite this impressive range of skills, the film makers didn’t use any of it to their advantage in any scenes, which made the character seem a lot less impressive and ultimately unrelatable. People want to see a bad ass agent go nuts and partake in crazy secret agent stuff, so that they can go home and think “I wish I was him”, but this character left so little to desire. There was also another problem I had with the film, the hit-men featured to “terminate” their objective were incredibly sloppy and lacked finesse, which are characteristics you wouldn’t expect from a man in that career. This just made the film a lot less believable, because as a professional killer, it would be pretty poor to be spraying bullets everywhere and hitting everything BUT the target intended, so I couldn’t take that aspect seriously.

When it comes down to the plot, there were too many links to Aaron Eckharts character to fully understand who he was involved with, which made it seem like it was made complicated for the sake of it without making it seem intelligent and concise. This made it very confusing at points, and in the end, it really wasn’t worth the brain power and confusion just for something quite petty.

The one bright spark of this film is the female role of Liana Liberato, playing Amy Logan, who was incredibly solid and did her role well. It was nothing more than just solid because the script didn’t leave her much to play with, but this film may give her the opportunity to test that acting skill in the future.

Ultimately for a film of this genre, there should have been more action, a lot more intelligence in terms of the plot and its characters and just a proper emotional connection between audience and character. Positive is that the two main characters pulled out a couple of good performances, but even they couldn’t save such a script.