Change Your Image
ParanoidAndroid97
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)
Fun family film to keep the kids busy
Larry Daley (Ben Stiller), the somewhat reluctant security guard assigned to keep a museum, filled with exhibits that come to life at night, secure returns for a sequel to the first film, in which he visits the Smithsonian museum to rescue some of his friends that have been shipped out to its archives due to the museum manager (Ricky Gervais)'s desire to replace them with modern, interactive exhibits in a bid to attract visitors. That mischievous monkey from the first film also steals the tablet that gives the exhibits life as his latest prank. Joining him for the sequel are some familiar faces. Hank Azaria of Simpsons fame makes an appearance as the over-the-top villain of the film, clearly taking a leaf out of Michael Palin's book by effectively replicating the latter's portrayal of Pontius Pilate in Life of Brian, what with the lisp and bizarre facial expressions et cetera. Due to this similarity the comedic quality of this character is limited - provided Monty Python's classic has not passed you by - but he still retains enough charisma to make him watchable. Amy Adams features as the adventurous Amelia Earhart, whom Larry Daley meets as he runs through the chaotic archives, and together they blunder around the Smithsonian, all the while being pursued by typically useless Ancient Egyptian security guards. This section of the film drags on a little but the tension builds as Daley is given a time limit to find a combination to open a door to Ancient Egypt in order to save his cowboy friend Jedediah (Owen Wilson). Einstein bobble-heads, a statue of Abraham Lincoln, Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible, Al Capone and others encounter them on their way, and eventually, in time to save Jedediah, Daley returns and wages a battle against the evil pharaoh and another bunch of useless Ancient Egyptians that have emerged from the portal the pharaoh opened up. The question of 'why did lisp pharaoh want to open the portal so badly if all it bore was yet more incompetent guards?' remains, but the producers add a deliberate action sequence to take your mind off it straight away. The outcome is predictable, but the heart of the film shows itself a few moments later as the exhibits are returned and it becomes obvious that Daley has developed certain feelings towards Amelia and is upset to see her return to a lifeless eternity in the archives of the Smithsonian. Daley leaves his job as CEO of his own company in order to return to the museum, where business is flourishing courtesy of the active nightlife of the exhibits becoming common knowledge (surely people noticed a living, breathing mammoth enter the museum at the end of the first film, and would therefore have spread the word already? No?), and there meets an Amelia Earhart lookalike, blatantly played by the same actress disguised by a pair of spectacles. Larry isn't fooled, though, and the film ends with him asking her whether they are related, receiving a disappointing answer. Then, we have another scene portraying the prosperous nature of the museum, and the film ends. This is a perfectly conclusive ending to the film, and the production company's decision to make it a trilogy seems unnecessary.
From a critical point of view, the film has its flaws. The plot is nothing special, the villain is frustrating at times, it offers little more than the first film in terms of subject matter and the acting is far from outstanding, but none of these problems will affect the main target audience, children looking for a fun family movie to enjoy. In that respect it's good, the highlight comedy-wise being Larry's argument with Brunden (Brundon?), the overweight Smithsonian security guard played by Jonah Hill. For adults, there's little to enjoy about Night At The Museum 2, but if you're in need of a family movie to get the kids out of the way while you're doing important business, this could be your movie. If you're in that situation, rent this. If not, then there's better quality cinema out there. 6/10.
Sleepwalking (2008)
Dark, depressing tale of a troubled and bitter family
It's indie, depressing, dark, psychological, slow-paced, disturbing, dramatic, completely unheard of, a couple years old, and hated by almost everybody else... basically, it's right up my alley. Sleepwalking tells the story of a struggling single mother (Charlize Theron) who has had various misguided relationships with abusive, thuggish boyfriends, and her brother James (Nick Stahl)'s relationship with her troubled and cumbersome daughter Tara (AnnaSophia Robb). As stated previously, the film is slow-paced. It moves from one gloomy set-piece to another, each full of people wearing frowns and woolly hats. It only takes the scene when Tara comes home from school and frustrates her mother to breaking point for the viewer to realise how messed up the life of this family is. We then see Theron's character enjoy a few moments in the spotlight as per usual with her latest boyfriend Randall (Woody Harrelson) but, in fairness, nobody cares. If I wanted to watch a troubled and dysfunctional middle-aged woman battle her way through a string of moronic partners, I'd watch Coronation Street, or Sex and the City, or something. What is far more interesting is the relationship between James and Tara, as the latter becomes more and more detached from her mother and the former loses his job. Tara is placed in a foster home and hates it, at which point they decide to go on the run on limited budget. The couple share many scenes together, and, although their conversations are inconclusive for the most part, the chemistry between the pair is enough to be engaging. What follows is a myriad of long distance shots of the couple on the road, accompanied by various depressing pieces of music, after which the pair decide to change their names and up sticks to James' childhood home, an old ranch which reeks of sadness, abuse and repressed anger from the moment we see it. It is at this point that the film really kicks off. James is at first greeted with relative calm by his redneck thug of a father (Dennis Hopper) but as James and Tara are forced into hard labour of increasing difficulty (coiling a rope, for example - Dennis, how could you expect for a 12-year old misfit living in a suburban environment to be able to coil a rope perfectly right off the box?) we begin to see that he is in fact an abusive, violent and rage-filled character, epitomised by his horrific treatment of his son and of a young girl he has never met, and soon what was meant to be a 'vacation' becomes hell on earth. And then there's the roller-coaster ride that is the final barn scene- child abuse, a sudden release of anger and a somewhat predictable yet still powerful and hard-hitting climax make this an incredibly hot-to-handle piece of cinema, to put it mildly.
Sleepwalking is a film made far stronger by two brilliant performances- Nick Stahl as James, and AnnaSophia Robb as Tara. Stahl is excellent as James, a hard-done by, cowardly (initially) yet pleasant man who only wants the best for himself and his niece. The conversations between Stahl and Robb are convincing despite an iffy script, and Stahl's James is a modest and likable character, his brutal actions at the end of the film perhaps notwithstanding. I've been seeing a lot of Ms Robb lately courtesy of my younger brother's infatuation with her, and, having been through most of her films, I can say with confidence that this, on par with Bridge To Terabithia, is Robb's best performance. If they give Oscars to child actresses, she'd batter have won one for this. She acts with astounding maturity in what is quite a tricky role to play- she must be bratty yet likable, which most would agree is not a personality match made in heaven. However, she more than succeeds in this task - she is very sweet, seems comfortable and manages to act far beyond her years, making even Hollywood A-lister Theron look sub-par. Robb has emerged as to some extent the indie Dakota Fanning, and in my book has far surpassed Dakota's range with some of the projects she has done. The duo completely steal the spotlight in this film, and light it up in spite of its script and slow pace. Moving on, we have a good performance from Hopper as the deliberately despicable father, a relatively good performance from Theron and some very telling shots of the countryside that help set the scene for what is a gloomy and gritty coming-of-age film about the struggles of life. If you're looking for a good time... don't watch this, by any means. If you're looking for a fine piece of indie cinema and fancy some drama, give it a go. 8/10.
Assassin's Creed III (2012)
A brilliant third chapter to a fantastic video game series
After making us play as Ezio Auditore not once, not twice, but three times in Assassin's Creed 2 and its sequels, Brotherhood and Revelations, Ubisoft finally decided to shake things up a little and move on from the struggle with the Borgia, taking the series forward into the mid- eighteenth century and the American Revolution. The result- a beautiful, gripping game filled with so many missions, side-quests, weapons, great characters, twists, historic battles and well-known people that it makes your brain ache. Which is a good thing, because then, when you are forced to engage in open conflict with gormless redcoats, swinging your tomahawk in circles, you are too occupied with the pain in your head to realise that you're cutting people's faces in half. Lovely. As well as plenty of useless redcoats and patriots to massacre, there is an abundance of Templars to assassinate too- as you progress through the game numerous Templars-ranging from the thuggish Thomas Hickey to the classy William Johnson and culminating with the game's primary antagonist Charles Lee-die at the hands of the new Assassin on the block- Ratonhnake:ton, or, because they knew immediately that this name would be impossible for most people to pronounce, Connor for short. There are also some entertaining Desmond Miles missions, where you play as the modern-day Assassin that enters the Animus as he tries to retrieve power sources from different locations in the present day. Characterisation has always been something the developers of the series take seriously, what with the long cut-scenes and elaborate storyline- and this game certainly doesn't disappoint in that department, with almost every character, even Charles Lee, being somewhat likable or engaging. Connor, who I found incredibly annoying at some moments and loved at others, is idealistic and irrational, but this doesn't really matter when you're a Templar and he's going to swing an axe at your head. All the voice-acting is excellent, with Adrian Hough's performance as the witty and sometimes brutal Haytham Kenway standing out, especially when delivering my favourite line in the game:
Haytham: Any last words, Connor? Connor: Wait- Haytham: A poor choice.
LOL.
On that note, the scripting I thought was a major strength of this game, with some of the dialogue being funny, wise, thought-provoking, and charged with passion and emotion. The scenery is likewise excellent, with cities like New York and Boston being the setting for much of the events in the story, as well as miles of forest for you to explore and hunt in. In conclusion, Assassin's Creed 3 is an excellent game with great gameplay, a great storyline, good game dynamics and entertaining cut-scenes and assassinations. It's a must-play for both series newcomers and die-hard fans and appeals to a wide range of gamers, so I give it 10/10.
The Hunger Games (2012)
A disappointing adaptation of a popular teenage book. And the new Twilight, unfortunately...
Fasten your seat belts- just as you thought Twilight was coming to an end, here's another soppy teenage love story to replace it. Granted, this one is surrounded with kids murdering each other left right and centre, a crippled civilisation run by a scheming dictator, and more interesting characters (except Peeta) than we saw in the Twilight franchise, but even so it feels like the producers wanted this to appeal to the same audience that enjoyed Stephanie Meyer's novels. The thing here is that while the Twilight books were mostly directed at girls and put more emphasis on Bella and Edward's relationship than the whole vampire- werewolf thing, the Hunger Games books actually attracted a lot of young male fans who were interested in the violence and survival elements of it. So what would have been a sensible thing to do would be to share it out- have some romance for the ladies and some gore and scary moments for the testosterone-filled men, but the balance between the two in this movie is heavily geared towards the former- a five minute long conversation/make out session between Katniss and Peeta being the prominent example. There is violence, of course, but most of it is either shown off-screen (Thresh's death, among others), shot from a long distance or shot with a shaky camera (this annoyed me throughout the whole film but is most noticeable in the bloodbath at the beginning of the Games), supposedly to keep this at a 12A certificate. In fact, apart from a splatter across Cato's face at the Cornucopia showdown, there is no blood at all in this (the only genuinely creepy moments being Glimmer being stung to death by wasps and Thresh slamming Clove repeatedly against the Cornucopia (in the book he hits her with a rock, which is probably worse). I was really hoping to see the fight between Cato and Thresh, but rather than shooting this they have Thresh be killed unceremoniously off-screen by mutant dogs. I can't really complain about this because although this fight happens in the book, it isn't described in detail, but even so wouldn't this be an opportunity for the production team to take an off-stage fight in the book and use their creativity to bring it to life for the movie? The whole thing just seems lazy and although I tend to like films to stay accurate to books, I felt this one was almost word-for-word, and as such much of it was very predictable. Anyway, enough of the content and on to the acting. Jennifer Lawrence does well as Katniss, a character robbed of much of her personality by the fact that the film differs from the first- person narration seen in the book. Josh Hutcherson (who has impressed me in the past) had the misfortune of being cast as Peeta, one of the dullest characters in literary history, and as such there is little he can do with the script, largely based on the book, to make his character more interesting. His only scene in which he has a chance to give his character some life, the scene with Katniss where he talks about not becoming the government's pawn, feels pretty soulless. The supporting cast I thought were much better- Stanley Tucci is superb as the larger-than- life talk show host Caesar Flickerman, Woody Harrelson is suitably gruff as Haymitch, and Elizabeth Banks is hilarious as the eccentric Effie Trinket. Some of the other tributes are also quite good- Isabelle Fuhrman is scary as Clove, Alexander Ludwig is good as Cato and delivers his speech at the end, revealing the way he has been raised from birth to compete in the Games and bring pride to his district, with ample emotion. Amandla Stenberg is an innocent Rue, but due to the fact that she barely appears on-screen up to her death means that the scenes of Katniss' grieving and the rebellion in District 11 don't make you feel as sad as the emphasis the makers placed on these scenes suggest they wanted you to feel. So although this film is for the most part entertaining and true to the book, I thought they could have done so much more, and the five stars I did not give are the potential this did not live up to.
The Woman in Black (2012)
He's not Harry Potter anymore...
Daniel Radcliffe will probably be remembered throughout film history as the boy who lived- or rather the casual Londoner who played him. Here, he makes his first big-screen comeback after the finale to the Harry Potter series starring as Arthur Kipps, a grieving lawyer sent to Eel Marsh House, an old manor surrounded by misty marshland, to sort the papers of Alice Drablow, the recently deceased owner of the house. But while there he discovers other documents -passionate letters written by Drablow's deranged sister, mostly centred around her son. The film is one of the best of the past few years in terms of making you jump out of your seat- while Kipps rummages around the house he sees sudden flashes of The Woman In Black- the sister Jennet Humphrys' ghost- which frighten him out of his wits and do the same to the viewer. While physical horror is reduced to one scene- a girl that has drunk lye vomiting blood- it certainly delivers in every other department that a good horror film should. It's psychologically disturbing, it haunts you even after it's over, it has a horrifying twist at the end- fans of The Sixth Sense will certainly find it enjoyable. On to Radcliffe. He more-or-less is forced to carry the film in terms of acting; he is the only one in the house most of the time and so is the only character to react to everything that happens there, and for the most part his fear, and the desperation that comes from it, is convincing. He is also good enough to make you forget about Harry Potter and focus on his character, which he could easily not have done had his portrayal of Arthur Kipps been unmemorable. However, he seems unrealistically young to play this part- the book character is meant to be a middle-aged man, and this Arthur Kipps looks like he's only just left high- school, making the viewer feel as if Radcliffe was only cast to remind people that he's still around. Aside from a bit of bad casting, a slightly cliché script and the fact that it rather loses its impact once you see it a second time, The Woman in Black is a disturbing and shocking film that is certainly worth watching late at night with a bowl of popcorn (and if you scare easily, some pictures of cute puppies to take your mind off it), and so I give it 8/10.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Andrew Garfield plays Spider-man in the first of what may be a new trilogy of remakes
It seems odd to remake a trilogy that only ended in 2007, but I suppose people just got bored without 'your friendly neighbourhood Spider-man' around and wanted more. But rather than add to the existing plot line, the producers opted to remake the originals, re-creating Peter Parker's character and some of the events that happen to him whilst also sharing some parallels with the originals. For example, we have to go through the Uncle Ben death all over again, but the reasons for his death change - Peter's entry into a wrestling tournament from the original is replaced by Peter visiting an off-licence to purchase a carton of milk, before being denied the purchase because he is 2 cents short. Although I think this change was unnecessary and made things worse, most of the changes made to the plot were for the better. Andrew Garfield makes a modest and likable Peter Parker, and the growth of his wit and confidence as the film progresses is credit to Garfield's ability to develop a character. There were several things that bothered me, though. Firstly that, because the spider that bit Peter was one of dozens of spiders with the same characteristics, surely anyone who had access to a key card to open the door could stumble in there and be given the same powers Peter has by another one of the spiders, right? And if that was the case, why didn't Dr. Connors just make more spiders to bite people with, the spiders that had been around since Peter's father left, rather than waste loads of time tying to generate a formula for cross- species genetics if all he wanted to do was make people stronger? Sticking with Dr. Connors for a moment, there were two things that didn't work for me about him. One, I'm sick of British bad guys, they just don't have the effect that they used to. Two, his idea was actually pretty awesome (who wouldn't rather be a giant invincible lizard than a human?) so I found myself wanting him to succeed at the end despite Spider-man being my favourite superhero. And then there's the constant issue of 'why are there so many conveniently-placed cranes in the Spider-man movies?', but that's unimportant, really. So, for some good action, acting and story line changes, I think this was a very worthy remake of the originals, so it gets 8/10 from me.
Jack Reacher (2012)
Tom Cruise plays a likable vigilante
Jack Reacher, a cop for whom ends always justify the means, has 'I must be played by Tom Cruise' written all over him. The butt-kicking vigilante, similar in many ways to another Tom Cruise role, Mission Impossible's Ethan Hunt, is slick, confident, and merciless. And, although I usually find Cruise's acting and/or roles to be intolerably clichéd, I actually found myself quite liking his character here. As far as the rest of the film goes, it ranks somewhere between decent and good, with some typically unrealistic action scenes characteristic of films in this genre (when Jack is being fired at from all angles by a group of bad guys with submachine guns, there's always a convenient rock just sitting there for him to hide behind to save him being peppered with bullets) bringing down the film's credibility somewhat, some better scenes (such as his brawl with the hired thugs outside the bar) raise the entertainment level of this film to above average standard. Werner Herzog's chilling villain, known only as 'the Zec' adds a darker dimension to the film, while Jai Courtney and David Oyelowo also impress. If only Reacher had a slightly less generic love interest and had the identity of the sniper not been revealed immediately, therefore ruining the suspenseful element there could have been had it been kept a mystery, this film might have scored higher than 7/10.
Lincoln (2012)
A superb political film about Honest Abe's struggle to abolish slavery
Of all the heroes that America holds true to its heart, there is nobody more loved, more respected and more admired than Abraham Lincoln. A man symbolised both by his beard and by his will for justice, Abe has been begging for a film to be made about him since the day he died. And if Lincoln were still alive, he'd certainly tip his famous stovepipe hat to this. 'Lincoln' details the former President's struggles to abolish slavery and create an honest and just society. It features snobby enemies, excellent costumes, a brilliant script, historical and political accuracy (It descends a little into hero-worshipping later on in the film, but makes sure to compensate by showing that Lincoln was by no means perfect) and, best of all, an absolutely superb portrayal of the man himself, portrayed, of course, by Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is, quite simply, the perfect Lincoln. He has clearly studied the former President from the way he walks to the posture he adopts whilst riding a horse, and is so convincing that you really feel as if the man himself is there with you, in the theatre- and this prompts me to call Day-Lewis' performance not a portrayal, but a reincarnation. He is so good, in fact, that people knew he would win the Academy Award even before they had seen the film. So why, you ask, does this not get 10/10? Well, despite its exemplary acting, it can become rather boring at times and, as I mentioned before, it dissolves a little into hero- worshipping and, on occasion, gets facts wrong in order to do so. However, as everything else in the film is close to flawless, I give this film an excellent 9/10.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Soulless action film based on the dullest war since, er... Transformers 1
Don't bother seeing this. Instead, step inside a car crusher. When you have come out, flattened like a pancake and impaled by various pieces of scrap-metal, you will have had the same experience that I had when I watched this movie. Transformers 2 is a sequel that, like the original, is based on a war between two robot races: the Autobots (the 'good' guys) and the Decepticons (the 'bad' guys). The only problem is that you can barely tell which is which- they're just giant machines beating each other up. With the exception of Optimus Prime (who I like just because his name is awesome) you don't identify with any of the robots in the movie, the only character with any individuality whatsoever being Sam Witwicky, a character saved by the charisma of young actor Shia LaBeouf (of 'Holes' fame). Other than that, I simply can't find anything to like about this movie at all. In fact, even director Michael Bay didn't like it, and neither did LaBeouf, who thought, rightly, that they had sacrificed the key relationships in the movie for more robots fighting. And if the principle actor and the director thought it sucked, I believe I have every right to give this movie 1/10.
Soul Surfer (2011)
Shameless propaganda, but inspiring nonetheless
Soul Surfer is based on the true story of Bethany Hamilton, a prodigious young surfer who lost her arm in a shark attack. It focuses on themes such as faith, determination and bravery and these themes are delivered with enough vigour and emotion to please Hamilton and the majority of viewers, too. AnnaSophia Robb, who plays Bethany, does what she does best by getting injured and making you feel sorry for her. If you're looking for an actress to play the ultimate damsel in distress, she's the one to pick. Aside from being a sympathy magnet, though, she is also a very good actress, and although she's acted better in some of her other movies (see 'Bridge to Terabithia') she delivers a sound performance as the lead. The rest of the cast are good (with the exception of Jeremy Sumpter, but he's just there to attract a female audience so I won't have too big a go at him), and the script, while cheesy in places, is generally quite good. There is a major problem I have with this movie, though, and that is the fact that the whole thing is horribly manipulative and Christian-orientated, and even though I was raised a Christian myself I couldn't help but feel irritated that an otherwise good film was turned into what is essentially Christian propaganda. The story leads you to believe that Beth was given the confidence to return to the water only by her faith that God had a plan for her. OK, but wouldn't it have been more inspiring for her to have kept going without God's help, proving that she is strong enough to shrug off what happened to her on her own? Other than this issue, I think this is a genuinely well-made and acted movie, so it gets a respectable 7/10 from me.
Life of Pi (2012)
A beautiful and enthralling tale that explores and displays the wonders of life
I wasn't sure what to expect going into Life of Pi. I had never read Yann Martel's 2001 novel and decided to see it based on the content of the trailer alone. I was expecting something good, but I was certainly not prepared for this. The story centres around an Indian boy called Piscine (known to most as Pi) who is confused and unsure about his spiritual beliefs and his faith. He is taken with his family across the sea to find a new home- but after the ship sinks he is left alone, the only survivor, in a lifeboat, accompanied by a hyena, an orangutan, a zebra and a tiger, Richard Parker. As he tries to survive and create a bond with Richard Parker he is forced to explore his spiritual beliefs even further, and prompts the viewer to do the same. It is this thought-provocation that makes this film so excellent- the viewer, even if adamant about their faith or lack of it, can't help but stop and think as the film goes on, as well as be amazed by the natural beauty of the world that becomes Pi's home as he battles against the forces of nature and is also amazed by them. The performances are excellent from all involved. Irrfan Khan is superb as the older Pi, delivering his wise lines with serenity mixed with seriousness. Suraj Sharma also delivers a fine debut performance as Pi's 16-year-old self. The script is very good indeed, with some lines taken almost directly from Martel's novel (which of course I went on to read). Watch and prepare to have all you believe in challenged, but also accepted. And any movie that can thrill and excite, provoke thought, entice emotion and create both scenes of beauty and scenes of horror can only be worthy of a 10/10.
Looper (2012)
Rip-roaring time travel epic- a flashback to the times when action films were still exciting...
Looper is a story about a hit-man paid to kill prisoners that have been sent back in time to avoid their corpses being found in the future. However, it all goes wrong for him when his future self is sent back and escapes. This film could have been an endless chase between young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and old Joe (Bruce Willis) but fortunately it avoids this by adding a whole new dimension to the story- a mysterious young boy called Cid (Pierce Gagnon) with extraordinary telekinetic powers. The plot is well-thought-through, if sometimes chaotic and completely mind-boggling (especially after the turn of events at the end of the movie, at which point you have many questions about whether so-and-so actually died or not, or whether the people old Joe killed would still be dead) but regardless makes up a sci-fi/action epic that will keep you on your toes throughout. The acting is good enough to be convincing and allows the viewer to focus on the more important elements of the film. the script is also excellent and allows both Gordon-Levitt and Willis to experiment with their characters. Credit must also go to Emily Blunt, Cid's mother, who puts on a surprisingly good Southern-American accent and a similarly good performance. A very commendable 9/10.
A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
Bruce Willis reprises John McClane role for fifth 'Die Hard' movie
Is it possible to get tired of Bruce Willis pumping people full of lead? I initially thought not, but after seeing this movie I felt like I'd seen enough. The Die Hard series and its wisecracking protagonist John McClane have been around since the late eighties, but since then the series has been losing its appeal at the same rate as Willis has been losing his hair. As if to prove this to us, we were given this movie- a clunky, predictable mess with dull characters, less-than-stellar scripting and surplus CGI. The whole film just feels like a waste of time and money- Willis has moved on now and it feels like nothing more than an attempt at tapping into people's nostalgia. Also present are Jai Courtney, who gives an unmemorable performance as McClane's son Jack, and Sebastian Koch as the mediocre 'surprise' villain Yuri Komarov. All in all, I think it's a good day for this film series to die hard itself. A generous 3/10.
Super 8 (2011)
An adventurous sci-fi flick featuring young stars in the making
On the whole, Super 8 is a fun, exciting experience for anyone from nerds to jocks, teens to adults (note the certificate) and film gurus to bored families. I thought the plot, while somewhat generic when compared to similar films, was sound, had its moments and was adequate in terms of the balance between action and drama. The CGI, too, was good to the point that it was convincing, and I thought the acting, especially by the younger members of the cast, stood out among films in this genre as being very good. Joel Courtney is impressive as the troubled Joe Lamb, Elle Fanning is excellent as the equally troubled Alice Dainard, and the rest of the child cast contribute to the humour and drama shared within the group of kids with their quirky personalities and funny one-liners. Generally a great family film (watch out for one use of the 'f' word) that will be enjoyed by all who watch it. So I give a relatively -super 8/10 for Super 8.