PapaT_86
Joined Aug 2007
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews12
PapaT_86's rating
Remember the episode of The Simpsons many moons ago where Lisa was distraught to see Homer and Bart finding a show called "When Buildings Collapse" the absolute height of entertainment? A show which simply consisted of buildings, well, collapsing. Well it seems like they would be the ideal audience for 2012, a film which features a lot of stuff falling apart seemingly randomly and without much greater significance or dramatic weight. Then again, even Homer's attention might start to drift during this one, not only during the many sappy dramatic interludes but also by the time the film gets to the 100th CGI object falling apart, it would probably occur even to him that it's not that exciting because it's just being done with a computer which could conjure up 100 times more interesting images.
The appeal of many stunts is knowing, at least subconsciously, that what we are seeing was done "for real", even with whatever safety precautions were put in place and whatever touching-up was added in post production. What exactly is the appeal of watching a CGI ship sink in and of itself? Such a scene needs at least a modicum of suspense to work, something Emmerich seems entirely unable to muster. Either that or we need to care about the characters, and with this overstuffed cast of stock figures there's not much chance of that happening with most of them. One or two such scenes might manage to entertain, but 158 minutes stuffed with them palls fairly quickly.
Still, I will give 2012 a little credit. It's not as obnoxious as Independence Day (i.e. there's no Will Smith punching an alien), nor as dull and melodramatic as The Day After Tomorrow. There are even a couple of set-pieces in this movie which are genuinely exciting stuff. Not surprisingly these are a) two of the earliest set-pieces and b) with the best developed characters in the film. This shows hints of a better movie. I think a focus on one family's attempts to escape the end of the world (as in Spielberg's unfairly maligned War of the Worlds adaptation, from which this film's paternal theme seems "inspired" by) would provide a far stronger and more involving basis for a movie than 2012's attempt to paint a bigger but shallow picture.
And what is it with Emmerich and dogs?
I'll let Homer have the final words..."My favourite part was when the buildings collapsed!"
The appeal of many stunts is knowing, at least subconsciously, that what we are seeing was done "for real", even with whatever safety precautions were put in place and whatever touching-up was added in post production. What exactly is the appeal of watching a CGI ship sink in and of itself? Such a scene needs at least a modicum of suspense to work, something Emmerich seems entirely unable to muster. Either that or we need to care about the characters, and with this overstuffed cast of stock figures there's not much chance of that happening with most of them. One or two such scenes might manage to entertain, but 158 minutes stuffed with them palls fairly quickly.
Still, I will give 2012 a little credit. It's not as obnoxious as Independence Day (i.e. there's no Will Smith punching an alien), nor as dull and melodramatic as The Day After Tomorrow. There are even a couple of set-pieces in this movie which are genuinely exciting stuff. Not surprisingly these are a) two of the earliest set-pieces and b) with the best developed characters in the film. This shows hints of a better movie. I think a focus on one family's attempts to escape the end of the world (as in Spielberg's unfairly maligned War of the Worlds adaptation, from which this film's paternal theme seems "inspired" by) would provide a far stronger and more involving basis for a movie than 2012's attempt to paint a bigger but shallow picture.
And what is it with Emmerich and dogs?
I'll let Homer have the final words..."My favourite part was when the buildings collapsed!"
When George Miller's sequel to the popular and prestigious family film Babe hit cinemas in late 1998 it was squeezed into a crowded family film market, having to share the spotlight with Pixar's second film A Bug's Life and the surprising popular cinematic debut of Nickelodeon's Rugrats. As a result very few people actually saw Babe: Pig in the City while it played in theatres. In proportion to the film's budget so few that it lead to the dismissal of several high-ranking executives at Universal. While it is true that the public cannot truthfully dislike a film it has not seen, I think it's fair to say that the film got an at best mixed response among those of the public that did see it both on it's original theatrical release and subsequently on video and TV, with many viewers alienated by it and few finding it as endearing as the original. Yet there have been many vocal and noteworthy fans of the film ever since its release. The much missed Gene Siskel placed Babe: Pig in the City at the very top of what would tragically turn out to be his last annual Top 10 list. His on screen partner Roger Ebert also found room for it on his Top 10. While not many professional critics quite shared their level of enthusiasm (although the film received generally decent reviews) the film nonetheless developed a kind of cult following who did, among their number being acclaimed musician Tom Waits and popular "internet personality" the Nostalgia Critic.
I saw Babe: Pig in the City upon its UK television premier when I was 13; not really, in my opinion, still a child, yet not at an age where I feel I had fully developed critical facilities that might appreciate the nuances and qualities the film's strongest advocates see in it. At the time I thought it was pretty much a fiasco. Would I keep that opinion or join the film's list of fans after revisiting it as an adult?
Well I'm sorry to say I side with the public over the critics on this one, and still found it to be pretty much a fiasco. I can't even really see what the film's fans see in it. Ultimately, it's a pretty dull slog of a film, with not enough of interest to justify even its slender running time. Granted, there is some good stuff in here. The cinematography, camera-work and production design are often sumptuous, and far above anything you would normally see in a live action kid's movie. The early scenes, set on the same farm the first film took place in, do have the kind of mythical, fairy tale quality Miller clearly intended the whole film to have, but which didn't come across in later parts of the film. And towards the end there is a imaginatively staged and pleasingly old-fashioned slapstick romp involving a clown suit, a lot of bouncing, a well-stacked pyramid of wine glasses and a frustrated waiter. And... that's about it. Which is not to say I cannot appreciate the level of ambition Miller brought to the movie. I think it's ultimately failed ambition, but I can certainly appreciate the effort. Pig in the City is certainly one of the more unusual big budget sequels out there and about as far away from a carbon copy of the original you can get (although perhaps the mice and "that'll do pig" could have been left out this time). But sometimes you find failed ambition entertaining and interesting to watch in it's own right, and sometimes you merely appreciate it. Unfortunately for me, Babe: Pig in the City falls into the later category.
I also find Pig in the City to be short on the charm that its fans must see in it. After the early scenes we are "treated to" near-fatal injuries, a (thankfully off-screen) cavity check, an group of terminal ill children, starvation and a dog facing something which comes disturbingly close to water-boarding. That's could all be fine in the right context, but this time out Babe doesn't have an interesting enough adventure or a strong enough narrative to get us through it; we just slog from one depressing incident to the next. Do I think kids will be adversely affected by this stuff? Not for a minute, but I don't think they'll be particularly entertained either. I know I wasn't.
Also, I hate to say this as I know they can't talk back and are maybe even dead now and certainly didn't ask for this kind of exposure, but a lot of the animals in this movie are awfully hard on the eyes. Am I alone in really not liking looking at monkeys wearing T-shirts, dresses and lipstick? About the only likable animals who have considerable screen time are Ferdinand the Duck, and Babe himself (adorably voiced by singer Elizabeth Daily, ironically perhaps best known for voicing Tommy Pickles from the Rugrats), both of whom can be enjoyed in the vastly superior first film.
Babe: Pig in the City is well intentioned and in some areas well executed, but if you want to be charmed or entertained you're probably better off watching Peppa Pig!
I saw Babe: Pig in the City upon its UK television premier when I was 13; not really, in my opinion, still a child, yet not at an age where I feel I had fully developed critical facilities that might appreciate the nuances and qualities the film's strongest advocates see in it. At the time I thought it was pretty much a fiasco. Would I keep that opinion or join the film's list of fans after revisiting it as an adult?
Well I'm sorry to say I side with the public over the critics on this one, and still found it to be pretty much a fiasco. I can't even really see what the film's fans see in it. Ultimately, it's a pretty dull slog of a film, with not enough of interest to justify even its slender running time. Granted, there is some good stuff in here. The cinematography, camera-work and production design are often sumptuous, and far above anything you would normally see in a live action kid's movie. The early scenes, set on the same farm the first film took place in, do have the kind of mythical, fairy tale quality Miller clearly intended the whole film to have, but which didn't come across in later parts of the film. And towards the end there is a imaginatively staged and pleasingly old-fashioned slapstick romp involving a clown suit, a lot of bouncing, a well-stacked pyramid of wine glasses and a frustrated waiter. And... that's about it. Which is not to say I cannot appreciate the level of ambition Miller brought to the movie. I think it's ultimately failed ambition, but I can certainly appreciate the effort. Pig in the City is certainly one of the more unusual big budget sequels out there and about as far away from a carbon copy of the original you can get (although perhaps the mice and "that'll do pig" could have been left out this time). But sometimes you find failed ambition entertaining and interesting to watch in it's own right, and sometimes you merely appreciate it. Unfortunately for me, Babe: Pig in the City falls into the later category.
I also find Pig in the City to be short on the charm that its fans must see in it. After the early scenes we are "treated to" near-fatal injuries, a (thankfully off-screen) cavity check, an group of terminal ill children, starvation and a dog facing something which comes disturbingly close to water-boarding. That's could all be fine in the right context, but this time out Babe doesn't have an interesting enough adventure or a strong enough narrative to get us through it; we just slog from one depressing incident to the next. Do I think kids will be adversely affected by this stuff? Not for a minute, but I don't think they'll be particularly entertained either. I know I wasn't.
Also, I hate to say this as I know they can't talk back and are maybe even dead now and certainly didn't ask for this kind of exposure, but a lot of the animals in this movie are awfully hard on the eyes. Am I alone in really not liking looking at monkeys wearing T-shirts, dresses and lipstick? About the only likable animals who have considerable screen time are Ferdinand the Duck, and Babe himself (adorably voiced by singer Elizabeth Daily, ironically perhaps best known for voicing Tommy Pickles from the Rugrats), both of whom can be enjoyed in the vastly superior first film.
Babe: Pig in the City is well intentioned and in some areas well executed, but if you want to be charmed or entertained you're probably better off watching Peppa Pig!
Being a serial killer and pop culture icon in the eighties and nineties was hard work. Not only did Freddy, Jason, Michael, Chucky, Pinhead, an ageing Norman Bates and others have to find new and interesting ways to slaughter young innocents, they had to compete with each other too! But even if the late Jigsaw gets frustrated laying out his traps, and even if they don't go to plan, he can at least rest in peace knowing that his place as the definitive horror icon of the first decade of the twenty first century is relatively uncontested.
Fifth entries in horror franchises are hardly a prestigious lot, and it's also very rare that you find a good film in which the main character happened to have died (with no chance of a resurrection) two films ago. So it's nice to find that the fifth entry in the Saw series isn't half bad. The narrative is somewhat muddled, but it's much more cohesive than the previous film's; and whilst the plot generally seems a little pointless, it is at least fairly engaging. The jarringly solemn pretentiousness of some previous entries is also thankfully absent.
The main draw with these movies, whether people like to admit it or not, is the elaborate lethal traps set off during the course of the film, and the traps in this film are perhaps the most consistently innovative of the series. While this is a considerably less gory and sleazy film than Saw IV, there are enough gross out shocks to please those who delight in such things.
Doesn't add a whole lot to the series, but at least shows that it still has the ability to entertain (if not actually frighten).
Fifth entries in horror franchises are hardly a prestigious lot, and it's also very rare that you find a good film in which the main character happened to have died (with no chance of a resurrection) two films ago. So it's nice to find that the fifth entry in the Saw series isn't half bad. The narrative is somewhat muddled, but it's much more cohesive than the previous film's; and whilst the plot generally seems a little pointless, it is at least fairly engaging. The jarringly solemn pretentiousness of some previous entries is also thankfully absent.
The main draw with these movies, whether people like to admit it or not, is the elaborate lethal traps set off during the course of the film, and the traps in this film are perhaps the most consistently innovative of the series. While this is a considerably less gory and sleazy film than Saw IV, there are enough gross out shocks to please those who delight in such things.
Doesn't add a whole lot to the series, but at least shows that it still has the ability to entertain (if not actually frighten).