| RavenBlog |
|
| Comments on Sunday 8 February 2004: |
| Movies again. Today, for your culinary enjoyment, I comment upon Big Fish and Returner. Big Fish is very very boring. It takes pretty much the entire first half hour to even get started, such that we almost gave up on it; we would have if it had been no effort to replace it with something else. It gets a little better after that half hour, but still, it remains painfully slow - there's 125 minutes of it, about 75 of which are sustainable, and fewer than five of which are actually entertaining. There were no more than four or five scenes that amused, each of which was shorter than 60 seconds. Then there was lots and lots of stuff that was probably heartwarming or something. Unfortunately, we keep our hearts in our chests, where they can't see the screen or feel its radiation, so trying to be heartwarming doesn't make a movie better. Luckily for Tim Burton, having the line "directed by Tim Burton" in the advertising makes any movie, no matter how shit, utterly fantastic and everyone will love it. Rush out and see it now! IMDB people rate it 8.1 out of 10, and it's nothing to do with hype or Tim Burton's name being cited thirteen times in the trailer! And none of them, in their comments, say anything that resembles "I want to have Tim Burton's babies"! At all! They only comment on the movie itself, honest! The trailer goes something like this: Tim Burton's Big Fish, directed by Tim Burton, in the magical Tim Burtonish style of Tim Burton, director of other movies such as Tim Burton's Edward Scissorhands and Tim Burton's 'who cares it's by Tim Burton it must be good'. Now here's a picture of a fish. TIM BURTON!Returner was a little better, but still a little slow (especially considering it's a sci-fi action movie rather than a heartwarming "look at me I'm a director I am" movie). Its time-travel was both horribly flawed, with more unresolved paradox than you could shake a stick at - a stick that doesn't exist - and horribly predictable, with a twist ending that's 'hinted at' about half way through the movie, where 'hinted at' means 'a huge neon sign burns the exact script of the ending into your retina'. But, you see, the difference is that this is okay, because it's a fluff action movie that's all about the guns, coats and explosions. The time travel plot doesn't really matter. But the alien looks like E.T., which is a bit distracting. [05:54] |
| Digi |
| Havn't seen either of the films, but pleasingly written reviews. Well done. |
| AttackOfTheSpam |
| THANK YOU. I am the only person I know who didn't like Big Fish. I prattled on about its pointlessness and inherent sappiness, and yet all of my friends decided that it was a masterpiece of film and should be worshipped in strange rituals involving slain calves and feather boas. Once again, THANK YOU. As for Returner, I haven't seen that one. What was wrong with its time-travel? I always thought time travel in movies was a tad dodgy - I mean, if you're going back to fix something, then it'd already be fixed in the future, and you wouldn't have built the Machine in the first place. Or perhaps I'm just mad. |
| RavenBlack |
| Mm. Back to the Future does its time travel reasonably sensibly, since the initial trip isn't to fix anything. Bill and Ted doesn't break it quite so badly either. Returner, on the other hand, does send someone back to fix something, and then despite it being fixed such that she has no reason to come back and thus wouldn't even have met the person she promised to save (in the past), she comes back again (to earlier in the movie - this is the twist that's painfully obvious) and saves him in a manner similar to Bill and Ted's "go back and leave a gun here" notes. Such movies really need to have the protagonist leave themself a note in the past once they've fixed everything; "hoi, me, go back in time and do all this stuff even though everything seems okay - it's only that way because you did this. Otherwise you'll cause a paradox." |
| AttackOfTheSpam |
| Sooooo... because she saved him in the past, she had to go save him AGAIN, because he was in danger in the FUTURE, too? Please tell me they didn't throw in the token obvious romance at the last minute. |
| RavenBlack |
| No, she did something in the 'present' that was to save him in the near-future (and she was from the distant future after he was dead anyway). There was token romance too, which consisted of one kiss before she disappeared back to the future. Which is just cruel, of course. |
| Frogg |
| Thank you for clearing that up. I had questions about seeing either, and now I've decided that both seem rather mundane. ...not that we bloody stupid Americans are all that intelligent anyway (it's ok, I'm bashing my own people). Most of us probably spend money on going to movies so they can make out in a dark crowded theatre and leave with the icky-flavored jujubes smashed permanently into the back of their jackets. It's at these people I laugh the hardest. Why bother going to a stupid movie when you've got a bedroom? Talking with people is far more enjoyable than the majority of movies out there. And yes, "Vampire: The Masquerade" is considered talking with people. ...and in case you're wondering, I randomly discovered your site and, with no apparent reason, have decided I like you. So I'm going to be here, making a pain of myself (or perhaps becoming a friend) to the various people that frequent. //shrugs To each their own I suppose. --Frogg |
| AttackOfTheSpam |
| American-bashing! Such fun. I do love insulting my own kinsmen. Of course, according to those in my vicinity (Texans) I'm not actually an American, seeing as I'm Californian. Evidently we're a separate race altogether. As for Frogg's comment: didn't we all? That was either tremendously deep or tremendously idiotic. I'm going to flatter myself and think the former, if it's alright with you. |
| Danderfluff |
| I'm a michiganian and I say america sucks, it's so boring... anyhow. I don't think Big fish was quite THAT bad, I mean, it was pretty cool... somewhat... it was more of something that should have been a short story than a movie, because it didn't have a lot of plot. But it WAS a good story- STORY! As for Returner, I haven't seen it. "Shakespeare made up his words, and since he was shakespeare, they became real words. No one can beat Shakespeare in scrabble." |
| Frogg |
| America DOES suck. It blows goats on weekends for fun and pays for it too. AND it's led by a shrub. No other nation can say that it's lead by a piece of vegetation! --Frogg |
| Digi |
| Really?! America sucks?! Shit. |
| Alex |
| Ha! I congratulate my cleverness. I read the reviews (all good), decided that it sounded wretched, and successfully thwarted all attempts that were made to force me to go. |
| Annie |
| So, Big Fich really is that bad? So much for stealing momney to get it.. and yes, america does suck. All of it not just one spot, the whole damn thing. |
| Nameless |
| radiation from a projection? |
| Keelan Patrick Stokes |
| Well i love tim burton on Principle and his work is the bulk of my collection for its artistry is great. I think he should do a great epic like the Labryth, legend and such. For his vision is for a big world like wonderland or OZ. I would like to see him make a live action Flight of Dragons for I know it would really kick with him at the reigns... |