The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You know what I love? Going to the cinema and seeing a really good film that looked, for want of a better word, pants, in the previews. "Insomnia" and "Reign of Fire" are 2 such films. The premise for these films was a little weak - one about a cop who can't sleep, and the other about dragons. Big whoop - we've all seen cop and dragon films before. But what set these films apart form the other garbage at the cinema? Read on to find out...
"Eight Legged Freaks" was one of the big-budget special effects driven films of the year, but it came nowhere near ROF. Spiders are scary enough, but the film lacked any heart. It was in the same tragi-comic vein as ROF, but lacked any empathy for the characters. I know it was a cheesy rip-off of B-movies, but the dragon film knew where it was headed and kicked it's butt big-time. Both films were full of the classic horror cliches, but ROF was the only one to do anything new with them - which was a pleasant surprise at the end.
Part of the problem that film producers have is who to direct the film at. It's all well and good spending millions on special effects, but you can't make it scary, or it'll get a 15+ rating. Then you have to come up with a convincing plot, or adults won't want to see it. "Reign of Fire" was a good combination of the two. Scary dragons that might have been a bit too scary and gory for the young'ens, but there was a good plot to keep adults interested. It may have got a little tiring for anyone under 15, wihch could be why it got bad reviews. It was originally billed as a "dragon spectacular", but you never really see the creatures that much - and it doesn't harm the film at all. In fact, of there was loads of dragons, it might have become sci-fi toss that no-one would be interested in.
"Insomnia" is kinda the opposite. Where ROF was expected to be dragons and was dumbed down with plot, "Insomnia" has a boring outlook, but is heightened by the action. "Action!?" I hear you cry, "It's set in Alaska!". Fear not, for there is plenty of action in the most unlikely of places. I think a lot of people expected twists and turns - like Memento (directed by the same bloke) - but it was a different film. A very different film. It didn't need any twists to keep you watching, and it was agonising because you knew who the killer was pretty early (and if you saw any trailers/posters!), but there was nothing Al Pacino could do.
There aren't any high-profile films out this year to compare to "Insomnia". Not that it was high profile itself, it'll probably be forgotten about when all the big bidget films that we've been promised arrive (Matrix, LOTR, etc...). But the same applies to "Insomnia" as it does to "Panic Room" - 2 seemingly boring concepts made exciting by good direction and strong characters in the lead roles. Al Pacino plays a veteran cop, hounded by his own police force and posted miles away where no harm can befall him. But how wrong we are, he seems to get in all manor of pitfalls and it's good to watch. Robin Williams is perfect as the killer, although I think they should have kept his name off the posters (like they did with "Se7en") as a nice surprise. But it never mattered who the killer was...just watch it to find out.
"Eight Legged Freaks" was one of the big-budget special effects driven films of the year, but it came nowhere near ROF. Spiders are scary enough, but the film lacked any heart. It was in the same tragi-comic vein as ROF, but lacked any empathy for the characters. I know it was a cheesy rip-off of B-movies, but the dragon film knew where it was headed and kicked it's butt big-time. Both films were full of the classic horror cliches, but ROF was the only one to do anything new with them - which was a pleasant surprise at the end.
Part of the problem that film producers have is who to direct the film at. It's all well and good spending millions on special effects, but you can't make it scary, or it'll get a 15+ rating. Then you have to come up with a convincing plot, or adults won't want to see it. "Reign of Fire" was a good combination of the two. Scary dragons that might have been a bit too scary and gory for the young'ens, but there was a good plot to keep adults interested. It may have got a little tiring for anyone under 15, wihch could be why it got bad reviews. It was originally billed as a "dragon spectacular", but you never really see the creatures that much - and it doesn't harm the film at all. In fact, of there was loads of dragons, it might have become sci-fi toss that no-one would be interested in.
"Insomnia" is kinda the opposite. Where ROF was expected to be dragons and was dumbed down with plot, "Insomnia" has a boring outlook, but is heightened by the action. "Action!?" I hear you cry, "It's set in Alaska!". Fear not, for there is plenty of action in the most unlikely of places. I think a lot of people expected twists and turns - like Memento (directed by the same bloke) - but it was a different film. A very different film. It didn't need any twists to keep you watching, and it was agonising because you knew who the killer was pretty early (and if you saw any trailers/posters!), but there was nothing Al Pacino could do.
There aren't any high-profile films out this year to compare to "Insomnia". Not that it was high profile itself, it'll probably be forgotten about when all the big bidget films that we've been promised arrive (Matrix, LOTR, etc...). But the same applies to "Insomnia" as it does to "Panic Room" - 2 seemingly boring concepts made exciting by good direction and strong characters in the lead roles. Al Pacino plays a veteran cop, hounded by his own police force and posted miles away where no harm can befall him. But how wrong we are, he seems to get in all manor of pitfalls and it's good to watch. Robin Williams is perfect as the killer, although I think they should have kept his name off the posters (like they did with "Se7en") as a nice surprise. But it never mattered who the killer was...just watch it to find out.
Mm. Make it easier, makes it sleazier. Maybe.
"I know, let's have a giant explosion that wipes out sixty familys and their pets and lives."
*click click click*
"I know, let's have a giant explosion that wipes out sixty familys and their pets and lives."
*click click click*
I wholeheartedly agree. Too often films billed as blockbusters fail to deliver because of the reliance on CGI and computer graphics. I think it has got to the point where these special effects are effectively masking inadequacies, both on the part of actor and director, and cinema is increasingly providing us with the scenario where the real star is the one sitting behind a desk.
Films like Spartacus, Ben Hur, Cleopatra etc were classics because of the calibre of acting and the ability of the director to tell a story properly. They didn't need special effects or gadgetry to do that, just good old fashioned ability and screen presence. Summer blockbusters like Men in Black II are perfect exmaples of this - take away the little aliens and strip away the effects and you are left with the slightest semblence of a storyline.
As old people probably say, 'they don't make 'em like they used to',
Films like Spartacus, Ben Hur, Cleopatra etc were classics because of the calibre of acting and the ability of the director to tell a story properly. They didn't need special effects or gadgetry to do that, just good old fashioned ability and screen presence. Summer blockbusters like Men in Black II are perfect exmaples of this - take away the little aliens and strip away the effects and you are left with the slightest semblence of a storyline.
As old people probably say, 'they don't make 'em like they used to',
You know what I love? Going to the cinema and seeing a really good film that looked, for want of a better word, pants, in the previews. "Insomnia" and "Reign of Fire" are 2 such films. The premise for these films was a little weak - one about a cop who can't sleep, and the other about dragons. Big whoop - we've all seen cop and dragon films before. But what set these films apart form the other garbage at the cinema? Read on to find out...
"Eight Legged Freaks" was one of the big-budget special effects driven films of the year, but it came nowhere near ROF. Spiders are scary enough, but the film lacked any heart. It was in the same tragi-comic vein as ROF, but lacked any empathy for the characters. I know it was a cheesy rip-off of B-movies, but the dragon film knew where it was headed and kicked it's butt big-time. Both films were full of the classic horror cliches, but ROF was the only one to do anything new with them - which was a pleasant surprise at the end.
Part of the problem that film producers have is who to direct the film at. It's all well and good spending millions on special effects, but you can't make it scary, or it'll get a 15+ rating. Then you have to come up with a convincing plot, or adults won't want to see it. "Reign of Fire" was a good combination of the two. Scary dragons that might have been a bit too scary and gory for the young'ens, but there was a good plot to keep adults interested. It may have got a little tiring for anyone under 15, wihch could be why it got bad reviews. It was originally billed as a "dragon spectacular", but you never really see the creatures that much - and it doesn't harm the film at all. In fact, of there was loads of dragons, it might have become sci-fi toss that no-one would be interested in.
"Insomnia" is kinda the opposite. Where ROF was expected to be dragons and was dumbed down with plot, "Insomnia" has a boring outlook, but is heightened by the action. "Action!?" I hear you cry, "It's set in Alaska!". Fear not, for there is plenty of action in the most unlikely of places. I think a lot of people expected twists and turns - like Memento (directed by the same bloke) - but it was a different film. A very different film. It didn't need any twists to keep you watching, and it was agonising because you knew who the killer was pretty early (and if you saw any trailers/posters!), but there was nothing Al Pacino could do.
There aren't any high-profile films out this year to compare to "Insomnia". Not that it was high profile itself, it'll probably be forgotten about when all the big bidget films that we've been promised arrive (Matrix, LOTR, etc...). But the same applies to "Insomnia" as it does to "Panic Room" - 2 seemingly boring concepts made exciting by good direction and strong characters in the lead roles. Al Pacino plays a veteran cop, hounded by his own police force and posted miles away where no harm can befall him. But how wrong we are, he seems to get in all manor of pitfalls and it's good to watch. Robin Williams is perfect as the killer, although I think they should have kept his name off the posters (like they did with "Se7en") as a nice surprise. But it never mattered who the killer was...just watch it to find out.
"Eight Legged Freaks" was one of the big-budget special effects driven films of the year, but it came nowhere near ROF. Spiders are scary enough, but the film lacked any heart. It was in the same tragi-comic vein as ROF, but lacked any empathy for the characters. I know it was a cheesy rip-off of B-movies, but the dragon film knew where it was headed and kicked it's butt big-time. Both films were full of the classic horror cliches, but ROF was the only one to do anything new with them - which was a pleasant surprise at the end.
Part of the problem that film producers have is who to direct the film at. It's all well and good spending millions on special effects, but you can't make it scary, or it'll get a 15+ rating. Then you have to come up with a convincing plot, or adults won't want to see it. "Reign of Fire" was a good combination of the two. Scary dragons that might have been a bit too scary and gory for the young'ens, but there was a good plot to keep adults interested. It may have got a little tiring for anyone under 15, wihch could be why it got bad reviews. It was originally billed as a "dragon spectacular", but you never really see the creatures that much - and it doesn't harm the film at all. In fact, of there was loads of dragons, it might have become sci-fi toss that no-one would be interested in.
"Insomnia" is kinda the opposite. Where ROF was expected to be dragons and was dumbed down with plot, "Insomnia" has a boring outlook, but is heightened by the action. "Action!?" I hear you cry, "It's set in Alaska!". Fear not, for there is plenty of action in the most unlikely of places. I think a lot of people expected twists and turns - like Memento (directed by the same bloke) - but it was a different film. A very different film. It didn't need any twists to keep you watching, and it was agonising because you knew who the killer was pretty early (and if you saw any trailers/posters!), but there was nothing Al Pacino could do.
There aren't any high-profile films out this year to compare to "Insomnia". Not that it was high profile itself, it'll probably be forgotten about when all the big bidget films that we've been promised arrive (Matrix, LOTR, etc...). But the same applies to "Insomnia" as it does to "Panic Room" - 2 seemingly boring concepts made exciting by good direction and strong characters in the lead roles. Al Pacino plays a veteran cop, hounded by his own police force and posted miles away where no harm can befall him. But how wrong we are, he seems to get in all manor of pitfalls and it's good to watch. Robin Williams is perfect as the killer, although I think they should have kept his name off the posters (like they did with "Se7en") as a nice surprise. But it never mattered who the killer was...just watch it to find out.