Movie Critical

The Woman In Black (2012)

2012-05-29T01:52:00.001-07:00

The Woman In Black

Year: 2012

Director: James Watkins

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer, Ciaran Hinds

Before I begin my review….

Let’s have a quick chat about the horror genre.

Some people are completely obsessed with the horror genre and others flat out refuse to see anything that remotely resembles a film of this nature.

Why? The main reason for this is that some people love the adrenalin rush when experiencing the scares and thrills in a horror film. It’s the same sort of feeling you get when you go on a rollercoaster and they also have their lovers and haters. Not that I am saying that everyone who loves horror movies will also love rollercoasters.

Then some people don’t like that rush of all these extreme emotions that a horror film gives you and cannot understand why people like to be scared. Me? I’m a fan of good film making, if it means being scared in the process, so be it!

Another reason why some people may dislike horror films is what which I didn’t think of until I saw The Woman In Black is that horror films aren’t notoriously known for having conclusive endings. So if you are someone like my husband who likes to leave a movie feeling fulfilled, you are typically not going to like horror films. They are known for more often than not ending with an ending that isn’t really an ending.

Not all horror films do this and that’s not what I am saying, but it does seem to be a recurring feature of the modern horror film. I understand why this is a feature of horror films, as the film makers want a horror viewer to leave the film still on edge and to take with them the feelings that the film aroused outside the cinema.

So it’s really up to the individual whether you roll that way or not. Each to their own.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

The Woman In Black is a best-selling novel, a stage play which has had a 23 year stint on West End and……a not too bad film.

The Woman In Black seems to have attracted the majority of its popularity from being the film in which Daniel Radcliffe grows up and steps out of his Harry Potter persona. However, Harry Potter is the last thing on the audiences mind when being transported back in time to a spooky village where the ghost of a woman in black terrorises the townspeople and brings danger to the lives of their children. It’s the stuff that nightmares are made of.

Widower Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is assigned the duty of seeling Eel Marsh House, a manor just outside a village which belonged to a deceased scorned woman. His night in Eel Marsh House turns into a night of terror as he soon realises that the house is haunted by its late owner and the deceased children of the townspeople. When he returns to the village after his night in the manor, Kipps arrives in the middle of a terrible tragedy involving a little girl. He then starts to believe the villagers that when someone sees the woman in black, she comes to the village to claim the life of one of their children.

Although The Woman In Black does provide jumps and goose bumps particularly in Kipps’ nights at Eel Marsh House, it is very slow to get going and can just be a bit too tame in parts. The film almost seems a bit sleepy and if it wasn’t for the night scenes, it would be a great film to have a nap in.

The story itself is not lacking, which is why the novel and the stage play are so successful, but it doesn’t quite have the elements to work on the big screen. Yet, it is executed well enough to make you interested in either reading the book or seeing the play. You can see how it would be interesting in these forms from watching the film.

However, there are some things that are worth staying awake for. For example, the film is visually beautiful and is a beautiful period film. Period horror films are not in great supply and for one to come along and be so gorgeous to watch is a great treat. It is just a shame it is just one of those films where the horror is only restricted to certain scenes.

The talking point of The Woman In Blackcast is Daniel Radcliffe. Such actors as Radcliffe are typecast once they play an iconic role as he did with Harry Potter, but never once do you look at him throughout the film and think of the boy wizard. Radcliffe’s role of Arthur Kipps is not award winning by any means and is not the best performance he will give in his career, but it is indeed a good, solid performance. He has proved that he is versatile and capable of many other screen roles rather than just the one he has been made famous for.

The Woman In Black is one film which Harry Potter fans will still flock to see so people can see their beloved hero once again. There are elements of the film which are enjoyable, but it is otherwise forgettable and joins the list of books which are better than the movie.

6/10

Sources
Internet Movie Database
International The News Blog
YouTube
The Woman In Black

My Week With Marilyn (2011)

2012-03-04T00:14:00.000-08:00

My Week With Marilyn

Year: 2011

Director: Simon Curtis

Cast: Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh, Julia Ormond, Judi Dench

Before I begin my review….

Now this is one movie I was really sceptical about.

This had nothing to do with whether I liked the story, director or actors, it was completely to do with the love that I have for the late movie stars who are being portrayed in My Week With Marilyn. I am a massive fan of Marilyn Monroe, Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. I have so much Olivier and Leigh love that when my husband and I go to Gloria Jeans or Starbucks and they ask for our names for our order, we will more than likely give our names as Vivien and Larry.

It is a strange thing watching actors who’s work you are familiar with portray other actors on screen who you are not only familiar with their work, but you have done so much reading into their lives that you feel like you know the person they were. You can either leave the cinema in a rage at the way they have been represented, or you can praise the actors who were portraying them for doing them complete justice.

Luckily in this case, I am praising the actors. Particularly Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh who do deserve their Academy Award nominations for their portrayals of Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. Although if I had to be picky, I’m still not 100% convinced that Williams had Monroe’s raspy but sweet voice perfected, but that is being very picky. She had everything else about Monroe that we know perfected.

So I am happy with the character portrayal of these actors I love so much. It was just like watching my dear friends on the big screen.

Review

My Week With Marilyn is one of those films where the story line may not be terribly strong, but the performances are.

Based on the memoirs of the same name by Colin Clark, Clark’s first book entitled “The Prince, The Showgirl and Me” may have been better to make into a movie than “My Week With Marilyn”. The same characters which would mean the same brilliant performances, but the weakest part of the film, which is the romantic relationship between Clark and Marilyn Monroe would be put to the side. Mind you, this is almost what happens in the film anyway.

The year is 1957 and Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) is the biggest movie star in the world. Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) scores the dream job of working on the set of Monroe’s latest film project, The Prince and The Showgirl with his hero, Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh). Colin gets the witness the way a film is made, but also gets the witness the dynamics of the cast and crew, in particular Monroe and Olivier’s fiery working relationship. Colin falls under Monroe’s spell, as he becomes the shoulder she leans on throughout the film.

One of the big faults with My Week With Marilyn is that you really don’t feel like you get that much out of Colin’s week with her. It is true that you get a taste for who Monroe really was behind all the glitz and glamour and realise her fight to be seen as more than just a sex symbol, but it almost feels like it is just a waste of time putting any emphasis at all on the relationship between her and Colin.

The screenplay and storyline does also lack a considerable amount of depth. There are no really emotional moments in the film and no real longing by the audience to find out as quickly as possible what is going to happen. However, the film makes up for it in the character development and performances of the main characters. A considerable amount of research has been done on the film as to who all the characters were when they were alive and filming The Prince and The Showgirl. Of course, research does come easier when the film is based on memoirs, and there is a tremendous amount of literature out there about these actors.

My Week With Marilyn is, rather than being a script driven film, very much a character driven film, particularly that of Marilyn Monroe. Michelle Williams does a wonderful job of bringing Monroe back to the big screen. She has the walk perfected, the body language and the facial expressions all down to a tee. Her voice doesn’t quite match Monroe’s, but she is forgiven for this considering she gets so much else right. The best part about her performance is how much emotion she brings to her performance. Towards the end of the film, you almost forget that you are watching Williams and not Monroe. She brings Monroe back to life and we get to see straight into her soul and you don’t just see Monroe, but you also see Norma Jeane.

Kenneth Branagh is also brilliant as Sir Laurence Olivier. He gives an intense and electronically charged performance. There are moments you know you should dislike him, but his intensity is just so brilliant.

However, the role of Colin Clark, played by Eddie Redmayne couldn’t possibly be any easier for him. He speaks of how much he loves Monroe, but he is just like a love struck teenager who just grins idiotically at his idol. Those Harry Potter fans who are eager to see Emma Watson in this film as Colin’s initial love interest, Lucy would be disappointed. It is such a bland role and completely useless in the large scope of the film.

My Week With Marilyn is a not a strong film, but a film with strong performances by Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh. Granted, Marilyn Monroe fans will love it.

7/10

Sources
Imdb.com

The Artist (2011)

2012-03-03T03:13:00.001-08:00

The Artist

Year: 2011

Director: Michel Hazanavicius

Cast: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, John Goodman, Penelope Ann Miller, James Cromwell

Before I begin my review…..

Let’s put it this way, anyone who saw The Artist before the Academy Awards this year knew it was going to win the big one.

I certainly did.

The Artist reminds me why I love movies. I love those trips to the cinema where you are completely engulfed by a beautiful film. It takes over you and causes an emotional reaction. I was in tears at the end of The Artist just from the impact of how amazingly beautiful the film is. The film reminds us that true beauty doesn’t always come in the use of colour or in the words, but in the way the actors tell a story just by the expressions on their face. This in itself is a tribute to not just the actors, but also to director and screenwriter, Michel Hazanavicius for getting optimal results out of his vision for the film.

The film deserves every Academy Award it won on the 26^th of February and I will always remember it as one of the great joys I experienced this year.

Review

The Artist proves that you don’t need dialogue, colour or special effects to make a truly beautiful film.

What makes The Artist such an amazing film is that it takes us back to the basics of cinema, yet it takes with it the things we have learnt in the meantime about what makes a truly wonderful and memorable film. The result is incredibly simple, yet incredibly complex and Michel Hazanavicius has given us something that we can truly marvel at.

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the superstar of cinema in 1927. However, his superstar status is under threat with the arrival of talkies. He refuses to take part in this new fad believing he can make a great film without people hearing his voice. Unknown to him at the time, he actually helps talking cinema’s newest star, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) in her rise to fame, which directly affects his demise. George does not realise the power of the talkies until his star starts fading rapidly.

The way in which The Artist is made is pure brilliance. It is almost a film within a film. The story is a very real tale about what many silent actors back when sound was introduced into their profession had to go through. George Valentin does tend to mirror the life of Douglas Fairbanks in many ways, as Fairbanks was the action hero of silent film and his star faded with the arrival of talkies. He didn’t have quite as much of a fall as Valentin in the film, but there are remnants of the great Fairbanks throughout the film. Not to mention there is a slight similarity in looks there too.

On the other hand, the film is made with the techniques that one would see in a silent film. The over the top movements and facial expressions which the actors give and obviously the use of a film long musical score and appearance of the written word on screen in the place of dialogue every so often are all features of silent films from the 1920’s.

Silent film may not seem too exciting to some people these days, but The Artist is one of those truly amazing silent films where you will soon forget that you are not actually hearing anything coming out of the actor’s mouths. You can hear it all, spoken dialogue or not.

The film completely flows from beginning to end, with each scene contributing in a worthwhile way towards the greater picture. There is a lot of fun to be had with The Artist, it is filled with old Hollywood glamour which we can only dream about these days. The costumes are stunning and the recreation of this period in Hollywood is visually stunning.

Jean Dujardin is just perfect as George Valentin. He is completely likable and he is everything a star from the time period the film is set in should be, as well as leaving no doubt that he also belongs in 2011. He is so expressive in each of his facial expressions and is everything a lead character should be. The audience roots for him all through the film and longs for him to come out of his dark stage and be the star they know he is.

Berenice Bejo is also the perfect old Hollywood starlet. She is all class and she lights up the screen whenever she appears. Her emotions are evident through all her facial expressions and she is an absolute delight.

And of course, who can go past Uggie the Jack Russell terrier? A wonderful performance by an animal actor with such purity!

The Artist reminds us where we have come from and how we must never forget the glory of cinema then, but also that cinema’s glory days are still in progress with beautiful films such as this.

If only we could see such beautiful smiles and happy faces as we see in The Artist in everyday life.

10/10

Sources
Imdb.com

Foreverland (2011) Review and Max McGuire Interview

2012-02-27T17:09:00.003-08:00

Foreverland

Year: 2011

Director: Max McGuire

Cast: Max Thieriot, Laurence LeBoeuf, Demian Bichir, Juliette Lewis, Thomas Dekker

Once in a while, a film comes along which is evidently made with an avalanche of passion and is truly a joy to watch as a result of this. Foreverland is one of these rare films.

Currently making its way around the film festival circuit in North America, Foreverland is intriguing, compelling and takes you on a journey filled with emotion through the eyes of a unsung hero.

Will Rankin (Max Thieriot) is not your typical twenty-one year old, he has cystic fibrosis. Will lives every day looking into a bleak future where all he can see is death, which is amplified by watching those who have gone through the same thing die around him. When one particular friend, Bobby (Thomas Dekker) passes away, his sister, Hannah (Laurence LeBoeuf) visits Will with her brother’s last wish. With that, Will and Hannah embark on a road trip of discovery to a healing shrine in Baja, Mexico. Will’s first trip away from home brings discovery and the realisation that death isn’t all that awaits him.

Foreverland is captivating from the beginning to end. Not only is it entertaining, but also informative. It deals with a disease that is not spoken about in great detail in the media, especially in film. The film gives the audience a renewed admiration for the victims and survivors of cystic fibrosis and their families, who feel the impact of the disease almost as much as the sufferers. Director, Max McGuire has bought his own experiences and that of those around him to the film to build a highly realistic and accurate picture of what life is like for those affected by cystic fibrosis.

The journey of the Will and Hannah down the Pacific Coast Highway is particularly memorable. McGuire captures the beauty that America has to offer and shows that you don’t need a Hollywood blockbuster budget in order to capture true beauty on screen. His choice of locations along the way put parts of America into focus one would not normally pick as highlights of a road trip, but they fit perfectly into the film.

Max Thieriot is the perfect choice for the lead of Will. His performance leaves nothing to be desired as he puts his all into his portrayal of a young man who goes on a journey of self-discovery, while still feeling restrained by his condition. He is believable and a heroic in his role.

Laurence LeBoeuf gives a wonderful portrayal of a beautiful character who is strong, yet fragile from what she has seen and endured through her brother. LeBoeuf is extremely likable in her role and very real. Demian Bichir, Academy Award nominee for A Better Life, is an absolute treat to watch, as is Juliette Lewis.

Foreverland is one of a kind. The type of film you want to see every time you walk into a cinema. The type of film that keeps you entertained and pulls at your heart strings, but at the same time doesn’t let you get lost in misery by letting you see how beautiful life is.

8.5/10

Foreverland premiered at the Palm Springs International Film Festival on the 12^th of January and screened to two sold out performances. Following our viewing of Foreverland, Movie Critical was lucky enough to be able to interview director, Max McGuire.

Hi Max! Thankyou so much for agreeing to answer some questions about your movie, Foreverland. Congratulations on making such a beautiful film! These must be very exciting times for you with Foreverland making its way around the film festival circuit, especially with two sold out showings at the Palm Springs Film Festival! What’s next for the film?

Hi Nicki! Thanks for the opportunity to talk to you! I'm glad you enjoyed the movie. It truly is a passion project, and it's so flattering to see it being so well received.

After Palm Springs, Foreverland is screening at the Victoria Film Festival back in Canada on February 5, where Matt Frewer who plays Mr Steadman, and I will be in attendance. I'm very, very excited to attend that festival as we shot a large part of the movie on Vancouver Island, where the festival is taking place.

Also we're currently exploring and entertaining American distribution deals at the moment, we're trying to figure out how best to get the film out to as many people as we can!

Where did the inspiration for Foreverland come from?

I myself, like Will the lead character have Cystic Fibrosis (CF). So naturally it's infused with many personal elements.

The story itself stemmed from a few darkly serendipitous occurrences. I grew up with a group of peers with CF, back in 2005 the last remaining survivor of my sister and I's “generation” passed away (one of my two sisters has CF as well). I then had an appointment where my lung function test over time showed I was dropping, for a brief moment I wondered if it was the beginning of the end – turns out I just needed to work a little harder, but I was left with some darkly comedic ideas about planning my own funeral. This was eventually massaged into the Steadman funeral home scenes by Shawn Riopelle my co-writer!

Did you have a great knowledge of cystic fibrosis before you came up with the idea for Foreverland? How much research was involved in the initial stages?

As I mentioned above, most of our CF information and relative research were mined from my lifetime of living with the illness. Between my life in and out of hospitals as a child, my parents experiences raising my sister and I, and my lifetime of dealing with our medical team, we were well equipped to tell this story.

I also have a sister who doesn’t have CF, we wanted to address the idea that an illness doesn't only affect the sick child, as the whole family's existence is controlled by the health regimen of the one with CF. Regular hospital visits instead of playing with your friends, physiotherapy treatments that control the TV remote control, family trips planned around insurance and accessibility of care... Everything, so in our story Hannah truly understands Will, she's been there, done that, and doesn't accept his cop out attitude that nothing matters.

Rather than be strictly informative about Cystic Fibrosis, my writer Shawn and I wanted to explore what it's like to have a mid life crisis at 21, and the effects of learning to hope and the consequences that come with it.

How long did it take you to film Foreverland? Was the process gruelling, or fulfilling?

We had 22 days of actual principal photography, but the film took 6 years to make from conception. So many highs and lows along the road, ultimately ending in the high of watching the film with extremely gracious audiences at film festivals, and eventually the general public. It's very fulfilling to watch people laugh and sometimes even cry at scenes or sequences that were once just ideas Shawn and I talked about in my parent’s basement. Every day on set was truly inspirational, to wake up early arrive to work and see so many people already working to help make my vision a reality is quite a trip, and responsibility I didn't take lightly.

What would you like audiences to take away from Foreverland?

If people are entertained I'm happy, if they feel touched by the story I'm ecstatic, if they feel inspired to try to squeeze more out of their life, I'm humbled - there's not much more one could ask for when they try to tell a story that means something to them.

What has been the highlight of your journey with Foreverland so far?

Every milestone was a highlight worthy of a celebratory family dinner, sometimes prematurely (false starts are big time bummers).

Getting green lit for production, and our world premiere both stand out, so far.

I'm truly impressed and ecstatic every time we get a chance to show the movie, we've been lucky that we've been so well received at all of our screenings. Seeing people line up for our picture is surreal every time, especially considering at one point I thought was going to make it on credit again.

This is only your second film. How was making Foreverland different from making Crossing The Wake?

I'd venture to call Foreverland my first feature with a budget, though Crossing the Wake was an awesome learning experience, it was really my version of film school. It was shot over 9 days on a credit card, it sold somewhere in Eastern Europe... The biggest difference in making Foreverland was having a budget that enabled us to secure essential elements like a super talented crew, fantastic locations, pedigreed actors (like our Oscar nominees Juliette Lewis and Demian Bichir and Max Thieriot and Laurence Leboeuf), and more days of shooting. Not to mention catering was way better when you had amazing cooks taking care of your dietary needs every day.

The extra money also came with some restrictions such as the inability to improvise a day if the opportunity arose, for instance, packing up and moving locations with 40 people in tow is not that easy! Or the fact that dozens of people were on email chains associated with creative elements, whereas on a five person nine day shoot, you do what you want... There's a lot more compromising when you start to play with other people's credit cards.

Have you started to think about your next film after Foreverland?

I'm currently in LA promoting Foreverland at festivals and abroad (thank you!), as I take meetings with agencies and managers in search of the right team that'll help me find my next project. I humbly announce here that I'd happily settle for something between American Beauty and Swingers... haha. For now I'm just trying my best to enjoy the ride that is Foreverland!

Any chance of bringing Foreverland to Australia as of yet? Would love to see the film released here!

We have a small but strong contingent of CF supporters in Australia, we'd love to show the movie there! Hopefully our international sales agent can make it happen, I'd love to come check it out, as I also have some family there, who'd love to see it!

Thank you to both Michelle Czernin Von Chudenitz-Morzin and Jessica Kill of Popular Press Media Group (PPMG) and to Max McGuire for the opportunity for Movie Critical to be part of Foreverland’s journey.

Hugo (2011)

2012-01-14T05:00:00.000-08:00

Hugo

Year: 2011

Director: Martin Scorsese

Cast: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helen McCrory, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Jude Law

Before I begin my review….

Hugo to me was like having that “Hallelujah” moment where you finally see the light.

I smiled, I cried and I was devastated when it was over! This was very much a “me” movie in that it contained so many things which I love such as the city of Paris, history, film, books, originality and a director by the name of Martin Scorsese.

I have to admit, until Hugo I didn’t know much about George Melies, besides that he was the creator of the early film, A Trip To The Moon. When Hugo first speaks of his father telling him about the film he saw where the rocket hit the moon right in the eye, I immediately saw that infamous image from the film in my mind.

However, of course I had to wonder how much of Hugo is actually based on fact. Not that it really mattered because it made a great story anyway, but it was still intriguing. So I did my research and came up with the answer that everything we see in Hugo about Melies’ professional life is true, but his personal life not so much. I can’t really say too much on this topic without giving away too much about the film.

I am really looking forward to reading The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. Oh, there is another thing which makes this film complete for me, a Selznick involved! Brian Selznick’s grandfather was the first cousin of none other than David O. Selznick, the producer of many a film in the golden years of Hollywood and was most well known for producing the epic Gone With The Wind.

Review

It is not often a film like Hugo is brought to our cinema screens.

Martin Scorsese has taken a chance with this film which is completely different to any other film he has ever made, and has proved that he really can do anything. Hugo is a beautiful film with a fantasy feel to it, yet the characters are so real and real human emotions are dealt with.

Hugo tells the story of recently orphaned Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who lives a quiet life in a train station in Paris in the 1930’s and looks after the clocks there. He feels like the only link he still has to his father (Jude Law) is the automaton which Hugo is trying to fix. His world starts to shift and he is taken on a great adventure when he starts to work for the train station’s unhappy toy maker, George Melies (Ben Kingsley) and meets his god-daughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz). He and Isabelle set out to solve a mystery that will change all their lives forever.

Hugo is beautiful from the very beginning. It is visually stunning from the opening scene, where the inside of a clock turns into a shot of 1930’s Paris. The visuals make you feel as though you are watching a pretty, fantasy film, but there is nothing to support the notion of this being a fantasy film. Every scene is beautiful in its own way and the recreation of Paris in the early 1900’s is spellbinding.

The film is for people of all ages. On the surface, Hugo comes across as a children’s film with the protagonist being a child. Yet, there is so much in the film that will keep people of all ages entertained right up until the end.

It is incredibly hard to fault this film. Scorsese has taken such a risk with bringing the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick to the screen considering his past resume of films. Hugo is unlike anything he has ever done before and it is truly a triumph for him. The film is so tight and perfectly directed. Everything is done to perfection and every little piece of the film is a masterpiece.

Asa Butterfield is absolutely superb as Hugo. He is heart-breaking as the orphan who clearly just wants to know where he is going and just misses his father. There is very little in the film of Jude Law, who plays Hugo’s father, and with such a small role, it is unusual to feel the connection between two characters when they appear on screen for so little time together. However, you actually feel more chemistry between Hugo and his father after his father dies. This is a credit to the young Butterfield. He is wonderful.

Ben Kingsley is also perfect in the role of George Melies. He is the absolute perfect choice for the role, and not just because the resemblance is startling between the two. You really feel Melies’ pain of the past and he is, like Butterfield, heart-breaking. Helen McCrory is also wonderful as Melies’ wife, as she gives an emotionally charged performance and is so likable, even when she isn’t supposed to be.

Sacha Baron Cohen is also very good in Hugo as the station’s inspector. He is very funny, but in a different way than we are used to. He is charmingly funny and at times you can really see the dramatic actor behind all the comedy. Chloe Grace Moretz is also very good, but her role isn’t as emotionally charged as her co-stars.

Hugo is the type of film that does not come around very often and is a complete joy to behold. An absolute masterpiece.

9.5/10

Sources
Imdb.com
Welcome to The Invention of Hugo Cabret

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

2012-01-06T21:24:00.000-08:00

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Year: 2011

Director: Guy Ritchie

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry

Before I begin my review….

Personally, I have so much respect for Robert Downey Jr.

My husband will tell you it is because of his looks that I say this. Don’t get me wrong, he is a very good looking man, but this isn’t the main reason I am such a fan. I think he is an amazing actor who brings his quirky streak to his performances and when you go to see a Downey Jr. movie, you know you are never in for a dull and lifeless performance.

I also have tremendous respect for his marriage to Susan Downey. I love these two as a couple. Any footage of these two tells you that these two are the perfect type of couple, they are best friends who are clearly in love and infatuated with each other. Robert is always complimenting Susan and Susan is continuously glowing every time she looks at her husband.

As we know, Downey Jr. has not always been the golden boy of Hollywood with several visits to jail and drug addiction in the late 1990’s. Yet, life just seemed to get better and better for him once he met producer, Susan Levin on the set of Gothika in 2003. The couple married in 2005 and Downey Jr.’s career started to take and upward turn not long after. I am not saying that Susan is the sole reason why his career has been so successful in the past few years, but it does no harm being in a happy and supportive relationship, especially when she is also the producer in the majority of his films.

The happy couple are expecting their first child together this February and we wish them all the best!

Anyway, onto my review of Downey Jr.’s latest film, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,

Review

A sequel is a sequel, you can’t expect too much more than what you know a typical sequel is.

This doesn’t mean that Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a bad movie, it just puts the words into your mouth that you often hear after most sequels, “It wasn’t as good as the first”. Yet, do we expect it to be? If you normally think like this with a sequel, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you go in not expecting it to be as good as the first film and just appreciate it for what it is, you avoid disappointment and just enjoy what has been given to you.

However, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is better than your typical sequel. Director, Guy Ritchie has bought across to the new film what made the first film work such as amazing cinematography and a killer score by Hans Zimmer, but has enhanced the comedic value of the film.

In the second of the latest Sherlock Holmes films, Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his ever trusted companion, John Watson (Jude Law) are in pursuit of Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), who Holmes believes is behind a series of disasters across Europe. Moriarty makes Watson and his new wife, Mary (Kelly Reilly) his target in response thus forcing Holmes to retaliate and set out to overthrow his plans to unleash havoc on all of Europe.

There is no doubt that Ritchie knows how to direct a film. He proved the perfect choice for the first Sherlock Holmes and he has carried on into the second instalment what works. The film is very entertaining and is visually fantastic to watch. There are several “wow” scenes such as the chase through the woods. The editing and cinematography in such scenes as this are breathtaking.

However, the story and script are nowhere near as strong as they were in the first film. This Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have the same air of mystery that a Sherlock Holmes story traditionally has, it is more an action film than a mystery. The story isn’t very strong and feels a bit jumpy at times.

It also feels as though the script by Michele and Kieran Mulroney is trying to be a little too funny. What made the first Sherlock Holmes work was the subtle humour involved and the witty script. A Game of Shadows tries a little too hard and works too much on the comedy side rather than on a tight script and story. Granted, it is funny so it does work in that way and it does make it entertaining, but it would have been nice to have seen the focus shifted to a cleverly written script.

However, the film’s story does strengthen towards the end and it is actually an ending most people will not see coming.

Robert Downey Jr. is still perfect as the lead role in this film. He has the right amount of quirkiness, strength and belief in his character to bring Holmes to life and make him likable. Downey Jr. and Jude Law’s best friend/ partner in crime relationship peaks at the right time in the story and in the right ways. They feel distanced and without chemistry at the beginning when Watson is preparing for mystery retirement and marriage, but they work as one again by the end of the film.

Noomi Rapace still looks a tad lost in the film and there really is no strength in her performance, even in moments where there should be.

A great holiday movie and an above average sequel.

6.5/10

Sources
The Internet Movie Database
RadarOnline.com

The Iron Lady (2011)

2012-01-02T01:17:00.000-08:00

The Iron Lady

Year: 2011

Director: Phyllida Lloyd

Cast: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Alexandra Roach, Richard E. Grant

Before I begin my review….

For the awards season, I am Team Meryl all the way.

Surely this is her year. Let’s face it, it’s about time. Streep received her first Academy Award nomination in 1979, won her first Academy Award in 1980 for Kramer vs. Kramer, was nominated again in 1982, won her second Academy Award in 1983 for Sophie’s Choice and since then has had another 12 nominations with no cigar. At 15, that’s more Academy Award nominations than anyone else in history. Katharine Hepburn comes second with nominations with a total of 12 nominations, yet Hepburn also has the record for most Academy Awards won with her 4.

One thing you have to love about Streep is that she is completely consistent with her performances. She’s so versatile with her roles and even though she can do any role anybody will throw at her, she gives it 100% and never lets anyone down with her performance. Honestly, I can’t think of a movie she has even given a mediocre performance in let alone a bad performance. This is the actress every young hopeful should aspire to be like…but she is one of a kind, so don’t be too harsh on yourself if you’re not.

Team Meryl all the way.

Review

It is not often a magnificent performance such as that of Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady is witnessed, so it is such a shame that it is in a film as mediocre as this.

Streep is amazing as once British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, but the same cannot be said about the production of the film. Director, Phyllida Lloyd has just tried to do too much with the film and tried too hard to make it a masterpiece. All Lloyd had to do really was just to go for a simple flow, with the same cinematography and Streep would have carried the rest herself.

The Iron Lady documents ex British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher’s (Meryl Streep) rise to the top, her struggles whilst in power and the consequences of her dry ambition on her private life. We see the Thatcher of today who is still admired by so many people in Britain, yet continuously struggles with the loss of her husband, Dennis (Jim Broadbent) and with the feeling of detachment from her grown twins.

The Iron Lady has the potential to be a great film. The life of Thatcher is very interesting, but the way which Lloyd has made the film jump around from past to present and in between just makes it messy and there is no smooth continuation. The film loses momentum as a result and can be slightly dull and even annoying.

One would also expect there to be times throughout the film where the audience would feel triumph for Thatcher, especially when she is elected prime minister even though she did not even believe there would be a female British prime minister in her lifetime. It is just rush, rush, rush so we can fit in the love and love loss story or her and Dennis into the same film. I’m sure especially the British would have preferred to have some overwhelming sense of national pride throughout the film.

There are some great moments of cinematography throughout the film, but it is at such quick pace that it is sometimes hard to notice it. The silhouette shots of Thatchers profile are quite effective.

However, the saving grace of the film is obviously Meryl Streep, who absolutely carries the film. This is one of her career best roles as she has everything about Thatcher perfected and her great case study into the role is extremely evident. She is particularly brilliant as the present day, older Thatcher and is heartbreaking when she is faced with the truth of the loss of her husband.

Jim Broadbent, who is also another actor who is consistently at the top of his game, is also very good as Dennis Thatcher. He is a fitting partner to Streep on the big screen.

Alexandra Roach plays the younger Margaret Thatcher and does a very good job at performing the transformation of the timid girl growing up to the confident new and sole female minister. It is a hard job to play a young Meryl Streep and you can tell the difference in ability when the film switches into Streep mode, but she does a good job nevertheless.

One can only hope that the film doesn’t have too much of an effect on Streep’s award chances, because she surely does deserve with this role.

6.5/10

The Adventures of Tintin

2012-01-01T03:49:00.000-08:00

The Adventures of Tintin

Year: 2011

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Jamie Bell, Daniel Craig, Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost

Before I begin my review…

Happy New Year to all Movie Critical readers and followers! Thank you for all your support in the past year. You all mean so much to us here. Here’s to another year of great movie viewing and a very exciting awards season in the next two months!

I admit it, I really should have gone and read some Tintin comics before going to see The Adventures of Tintin. I am actually surprised that I hadn’t, all my friends and my husband have. It was right in my generation’s youth.

I have a sneaking suspicion I would have enjoyed The Adventures of Tintin more if I had read the comics. I would have understood more of what Tintin is all about. He is all about the solving the mystery while having an adventure in the meantime. However, the mysteries and adventures aren’t meant to be complex. Tintin is really about the nice guy being the hero and appealing to the younger generation. What more should you expect than what Steven Spielberg gives us?

Review

The Adventures of Tintin is a beautiful piece of animation, but will only completely satisfy those true Tintin fans and kids on their holidays.

Steven Spielberg has really done a great job visually of bringing Tintin and his adventures alive in the present. However, those who are not fans of Tintin or above the age of 12 will find not quite get the way the film pans out and will find the film slightly tedious.

Tintin (Jamie Bell) starts the film buying a model of the ship, The Unicorn and is immediately thrown into a world of mystery. Mr Sakharine (Daniel Craig) robs Tintin of his new model ship and when Tintin starts snooping further into why his new ship is of such great importance, he kidnaps him and boards him on the ship to Morocco. Tintin teams up with the drunken Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), the original captain of the ship who’s crew Sakharine has made turn against. Together, Tintin and Haddock, along with Tintin’s trusty dog, Snowy, find out the importance of The Unicorn and work against the evil Sakharine.

The Adventures of Tintin is absolute heaven for those who are familiar with the comic. It has exactly what the comics have. There is action and adventure and Tintin is the good guy everyone remembers him as being. The important thing to remember is that Tintin was created for children, and this movie is very much for children. It is simple and the humour is clean and slapstick.

However, if you are not familiar with the comic, you may find this movie a little too simple and almost tedious. There are periods where not much happens besides adventurous action and the scenes just seem useless in the grand scheme of the film. It is during these scenes that you wish Tintin would just hurry up and get to where he should be and figure it all out.

One thing that people of all ages can agree on is that the animation is just brilliant. Tintin has come a long way from being a pencil sketch. The attention to detail is just incredible. The visuals are something to be marvelled at all throughout the film. The Adventures of Tintin is one of those animated films you are watching and then halfway through you forget you actually are watching an animated film and not a live action film.

All the voice actors do a good job. Jamie Bell isn’t bad, but he is overshadowed by the ever versatile Andy Serkis. Serkis changes his persona once again and his voice is unrecognisable throughout the film. Daniel Craig is quite similar in that it is hard to pick his voice at times and he does the villainous voice well. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are perfectly fun as Thomson and Thompson.

The Adventures of Tintin is one not to be missed by Tintin fans and a great film to take children to over the break, but people outside those two groups will probably think of better films to see at this point in time.

7/10

New Year's Eve (2011)

2011-12-12T02:24:00.000-08:00

New Year’s Eve

Year: 2011

Director: Garry Marshall

Cast: Hilary Swank, Sarah Jessica Parker, Katherine Heigl, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michelle, Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Josh Duhamel, Jessica Biel, Abigail Breslin, Jon Bon Jovi

Before I begin my review….

Wow, after I had written down the cast for New Year’s Eve, I thought to myself how impressive that list of actors really is.

There are a few Academy Award winners or nominees in that list, but those who aren’t…it is a who’s who of chick flicks really. Sarah Jessica Parker is once again enjoying her time in New York City, Katherine Heigl plays the same film role she always does, Lea Michelle is belting out a tune and Zac Efron busts a move on the dance floor. Besides the winners/nominees circle where Hilary Swank, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry and Abigail Breslin belong, everyone is happy playing who they normally do.

My favourite thing about the movie? The bloopers reel. In my opinion, every comedy film should have a bloopers reel at the end. They just keep the laughs going right until the credits role. Honestly, some blooper reels are even funnier than the movies themselves. For the record if I was in a movie, my blooper reel would be like that of Halle Berry’s.

Review

What did British film Love, Actually start?

Garry Marshall has continued his 2010 film Valentine’s Day with this year’s New Year’s Eve. What is this film designed to do? Not much else than the collaboration of some big names for box office draw and create some sort of feeling of optimism. Other than that, it is a completely faulted film with more wrong with it than right.

New Year’s Eve follows the much used film technique of a number of stories being told over a particular time period with characters who’s lives all link in with each other. It is New Years Eve in New York City and everyone is trying to get through the night of nights in their own way. The night doesn’t end up the way any of the characters expect and there are tears, smiles, laughter and, of course, that elusive midnight kiss.

The best thing about New Year’s Eve is it does have a party atmosphere which makes everyone in the audience ready for the party season. However, the ball has to drop for this to be felt.

The first half of the film is incredibly boring and slow which will only prompt you to check your watch. No suspense is felt and none of the subplots are really that interesting. It is more of the same old, same old chick flick stories you see rolled into one with no time for any real emotion and any connection as the film darts from one story to the next.

The script is very lack lustre and relies on the sparkly glitter and confetti to make the film fun and enjoyable.

For a comedy, there isn’t very many actually funny moments. The moments in the film which are supposed to be funny are more just very forced and the jokes are really quite old. The blooper reel at the end of the film is funnier than the majority of the film.

None of the characters have absolutely any depth to them and people will walk away asking questions about the background of them, as there are definitely questions there to be asked. For example, how is Sarah Jessica Parker’s character of Kim Zac Efron’s Paul’s sister? There is at least an age difference of 20 years there. Some explanation of the family dynamics there would have been nice.

Hilary Swank, who plays the vice president of New Year’s Eve proceedings in Times Square Claire Morgan, starts off shaky and a bit rubbishy, grows into her role towards the end, helped by Robert De Niro who plays her father. Halle Berry is also quite good as Nurse Aimee, although her role is really very brief. It’s also good to see Abigail Breslin growing into a woman and still holding onto her acting talents.

Michelle Pfeiffer’s Ingrid is so pathetic at times that she is just irritating and Efron is also completely irritating at times. Lea Michelle’s Elise seems like a whole lot of nothing besides a singing voice and her and Ashton Kutcher have absolutely no screen chemistry.

Katherine Heigl is once again, just Katherine Heigl.

New Year’s Eve is, if nothing else, relevant for this time of the year. Completely unmemorable and trying a bit too hard to be everything it’s un named predecessors were.

3.5/10

The Ides Of March (2011)

2011-11-27T04:45:00.000-08:00

The Ides Of March

Year: 2011

Director: George Clooney

Cast: Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood

Before I begin my review…..

As awards season creeps closer, I and most probably all the other film geeks out there are expecting to see an increase in the calibre of films.

Honestly, I was expecting The Ides Of March to be one of the big contenders this year. Killer cast, director and a storyline that has a world of opportunities. Although there were actually some aspects of the film which I believe are quite magnificent, I’m hoping there are some films which are nominated and are of better calibre than this otherwise it symbolises a particularly mediocre year in film. I’m not saying I am writing The Ides of March off as far as Golden Globes and Oscars go as weirder things have happened and I know my opinions are not shared by everyone out there.

However, Ryan Gosling….I feel confident in saying that he will get a Golden Globe and perhaps even an Oscar nomination for either Drive or The Ides Of March.

How about some more predictions while I am at it? Either Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady or Michelle Williams for My Week With Marilyn will win the Best Female In A Leading Role. I haven’t seen either of the films yet so I may change my mind once I see them, but judging by the small parts of the film I have seen they are forces to be reckoned with. Plus Streep is long overdue for her next Oscar win and Williams is due for her first.

But let’s talk about The Ides Of March,

Review

The Ides Of March is the perfect example how you can have everything it takes to make a brilliant film, yet it can be the script that can completely let you down.

Although there are some magnificent things about The Ides Of March such as the cinematography and a power house performance by Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Beau Willimon and Grant Heslov’s screenplay slows down the film at an alarming rate to point where it is just a chore to sit through.

Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is running for President with a powerful team behind him which is led by Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) and Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Stephen dedicates his life to politics and is committed to seeing Morris win the presidential race. He sees himself working in the White House, whether it is with Morris or not. After a meeting with the opposition parties campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) Stephen starts to wonder whether he would put his loyalties ahead of his ambition. Further complications arise with his relations with campaign intern, Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood) when she reveals a secret to him that changes everything.

The problem lies primarily with the screenplay. The story of The Ides Of March has so much potential. IT should be riveting and captivating. Yet nothing moves quickly in the film and it slows down the interest of the audience in return. It isn’t always a bad thing if a film is slow, but The Ides Of March has no suspense to it at all. Stephen’s situation in the film and the presidential race of Morris is worthy of suspense and the audience should feel the importance in their situations. However they don’t, it all just feels flat lined.

Clooney’s direction is a little inconsistent throughout the film. His choices of editing and cinematography have maestro moments and he brings out the best in his actors, yet he is partly to blame for the lack of suspense and urgency. The director should employ tactics to increases these features. Maybe he never knew they were lacking?

However, the cinematography is still very well done. One stunning image is of Gosling’s silhouette up against a huge American flag. So stunning it should have been the film’s official poster. The opening of the film is also visually stunning and very effective.

Ryan Gosling gives by far the most outstanding performance in The Ides Of March. He has such a range of emotions which he exhibits and his character has so many developments throughout the film. He goes from cocky, to unsure, to emotional, to broken and then back again. He carries the film so well and there is no doubt he is one of the best things about it.

Clooney directs himself well, but his performance is not one that goes above and beyond. His character doesn’t change at all throughout the film despite what happens to and around him. Philip Seymour Hoffman has some great moments, such as his hotel room discussion with Stephen.

Evan Rachel Wood is okay, but not entirely convincing in the part she plays. You never quite figure out what type of girl she really is. She is a bit of an enigma. Marisa Tomei is very convincing in her role as journalist, Ida Horowicz. She is tough, but actually likable.

Not the worst film you will see this year by any means, but not enough to cross the line into the land of films you will not forget.

6/10

Moneyball (2011)

2011-11-21T18:54:00.000-08:00

Moneyball

Year: 2011

Director: Bennett Miller

Cast: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robyn Wright

Before I begin my review…

Moneyball is a sports movie with a difference. Even though there is plenty of baseball romanticism, it shows that there is more to sport than what happens on the playing field. Probably a good thing we have a film like that as the sports movie where the losing team eventually becomes the winning team and everyone is left feeling happy is becoming very cliché and boring.

You have really got to hand it to Billy Beane for completely changing the way sports teams are run. This isn’t just restricted to baseball, you can see it in American grid iron football and even in rugby codes. Being a team is all about working together and not just having a few stars and back up dancers (if you can think of it that way).

However, Billy Beane and Brad Pitt really look nothing alike. I would’ve though Brad Pitt would have dyed his hair darker for the role at least.

And just for the hell of it, go Red Sox!!

Review

Moneyball gives us the type of sports movie we have been waiting for since the likes of Jerry Maguire.

You cannot have a sports movie without some winning and losing and sports footage, but Moneyball shows what happens behind the scenes to those who sometimes miss out on all the credit. It is the intelligent sports movie.

Ex baseball player and now General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is stuck with the tough job of rebuilding the team after their three star players leave at the end of the season. However, he has to do this on a tiny budget compared to all the other teams in the league which means not being able to afford players of the same calibre as the ones who have left. With his new Assistant General Manager, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) he devises a plan to focus more on runs rather than stars and is ridiculed and scorned by all those around him at the A’s.

The best thing about Moneyball is that it is intelligent. The script by Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin is very well written and covers all bases.

This is director, Bennett Miller’s second feature length film (his first being the critically acclaimed Capote) and he has once again done a great job. The way he has assembled the script against the visuals and combined visuals of the A’s actual games and filmed cinema footage is commendable.

However, because Moneyball does focus so greatly on the script and the story, it is quite slow and many people will not quite appreciate the sequences of pure conversation with not much else happening.

Brad Pitt is fine as Billy Beane, although in some moments he is better than others. In the first half an hour, he isn’t quite convincing in his role. It seems as though he isn’t really acting, just sitting down and talking to his co-stars. His best moments in the film are the moments where he is in a fit of rage. In his defence though, it is not one of the hardest roles of his career and he does fine.

Jonah Hill gives a good performance as the brains behind Beane’s plan and embraces a character different to the ones he normally plays. Philip Seymour Hoffman is satisfactory in his role as the A’s team manager.

A sports film that not only sports fans will enjoy. One completely refreshing thing about Moneyball is that it is one of the only Hollywood films released this year where there isn’t a romance between two people subplot. Something to be rejoiced.

7/10

Drive (2011)

2011-11-20T23:34:00.000-08:00

Drive

Year: 2011

Director: Nicholas Winding Refn

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Oscar Isaac

Before I begin my review…

I have a brilliant idea.

We all know how this year is the year of the Rabbit in Chinese astrology and next year is the year of the Dragon. I’m not necessarily into astrology for reasons which are my own and I’m not going to start a debate about it here, but I propose each year to be a year of a particular movie star. This “movie star” year is selected according the achievements of a particular movie star of that year. Not like the Oscars, as the Oscars are based on one performance. This is based on a year of work.

Only problem is that it is usually in the second half of the year that you notice that you have pretty much seen this actor in almost everything that year. You know what I mean. 2004 was the Year of Jude Law. His film roster that year included I Heart Huckabees, Sky Captain and The World Of Tomorrow, Closer, Alfie and The Aviator. That’s an impressive year. Unfortunately Movie Critical wasn’t in existence then, so seven years later we will declare 2004 the Year of Jude Law! Well done Jude!

Back to the present, I proclaim 2011 to be the Year of Ryan Gosling. He has had a big year. He has starred in Crazy Stupid Love, Drive and The Ides Of March, as well as short Quiet Ryan. It seems as if we have seen Gosling everywhere the past few months. He was also nominated for a Golden Globe at the beginning of 2011 for Blue Valentine.

What do we love best about Gosling? Not the so called “photo-shopped” chest which Emma Stone refers to in Crazy Stupid Love, but that he never gives anything less than 100% in every single one of his performances. He’s a good looking boy, but don’t let the looks fool you into thinking that that’s all he relies on in his movies. Just watch Drive.

Review

Drive is an absolute sackful of surprises.

For the first half of the film, you think it is one type of the film. However at the halfway point it completely switches pace, rhythm and becomes a totally different film entirely. It may not be the change some are happily expecting, but it does allow intrigue and keeps up interest in the film.

Ryan Gosling’s Driver is a Hollywood stuntman by day and is a hired getaway driver for criminals at night. He lives a solitary life and avoids emotion of any kind. That is, until he meets his neighbour, Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son, Benicio (Kaden Leos). He finds himself becoming drawn to both of them, even when Irene’s husband, Standard (Oscar Isaacs) is released from prison which leads to inevitable complications with his emotions and profession.

Drive is very well directed by Nicholas Winding Refn. The cinematography is truly brilliant and he makes the most of every scene no matter how non-aesthetically pleasing the contents of that scene may be. Refn is a fan of the mirror reflection shot and this is used a great deal throughout the film.

There are aspects of Drive which seem extremely 1980’s, such as the pink handwriting at the beginning of the film and the somewhat retro music played throughout.

The first half of the film is quite slow, but is so in order to create character for the Driver and also for Irene and her family. However, once Standard and Driver team up the film does a complete 360 degree turn and changes entirely. It becomes fast paced and action packed and really quite violent. There are fragments of the infamous Bonnie and Clyde scene with the addition of a great deal more blood.

The car chases in the film are particularly memorable and prompt you to reach for your seatbelt like you are on a ride and afraid of falling out.

Ryan Gosling does a good job in his role, but you really wish you knew more about his character. However, it is interesting that for the lack of character development, you feel an instant relationship with the character from the first few scenes. His acting is really quite good for a character who doesn’t say much or show much emotion. You are able to see the subtle flicker of emotion in his eyes during the relevant scenes. Yet, you do wish at times that he might say a bit more.

Carey Mulligan never puts in a bad performance, but it doesn’t seem like the best role for her. She is sweet, but not a strong role really. Oscar Isaacs is believable and actually quite likable, which is a surprise for a criminal. Christina Hendricks doesn’t have a big role, but she doesn’t do badly. It is a big change from her Mad Men persona.

Not a typical “rev-head” movie so does draw in a wider audience. Not for those who cannot stand blood.

7/10

Anonymous

2011-11-08T01:48:00.000-08:00

Anonymous

Year: 2011

Director: Roland Emmerich

Cast: Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, Sebastian Armesto,

Before I begin my review….

So Anonymous isn’t sitting well with those at Stratford-Upon-Avon. I can’t imagine why (sarcasm intended here).

Although I think the whole concept of Anonymous makes for a great story and conspiracy theory, I’m not really convinced. I know it is impossible for me to say with any great confidence as I was not alive in Tudor England (funny that) and therefore do not know any people who could have been involved in the “cover up”. All research I do on the internet on this subject is completely non-conclusive and doesn’t really present anything else that I hadn’t heard in Anonymous.

There is also no real evidence that Queen Elizabeth I gave birth to any illegitimate children let alone as many as they say in the film. There’s always at least one commoner in history who wants to tell the whole world that they have or are*insert famous person name here* illegitimate child. In Tudor times there was no way to tell whether it was true or not unless the Queen herself came forth and said that it was true. It does sound like a fun idea to make believe, doesn’t it? You may get treated like royalty and may earn a few shillings! Or people may think you are crazy.

Anyway, I am a fan of Shakespeare and of Tudor England so it was all fun and interesting to me either way.

Review

Was Shakespeare a fraud?

It doesn’t really matter when it comes down to it in this case, just as long as the film is entertaining and brings people into the cinemas. The subject matter is certainly interesting in Anonymous and the controversy surrounding it is enough to make people want to come in and find out what all the fuss is about. It is interesting enough, but there seems to be something missing.

In Tudor England under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave), the stage is gaining in popularity with the emergence of actor turned play writer, William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall). However, Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto) knows the truth…that Will Shakespeare is illiterate and all his plays were written by Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans). The Earl has to keep his name hidden due to his and his plays personal connection to royalty.

There are some terrific moments in Anonymous and some moments where you wish the film would just hurry up and get on with it.

The opening of the film is an interesting choice by director Roland Emmerich. It does work as an introduction, but there are other more fitting ways the film could have begun that would have been more fitting for the story and time period. Some of the editing is also a bit of a strange choice and the flashback sequences are a bit erratic.

Visually, the whole film is stunning and it is a beautiful period piece. The costumes, especially those of the Queen, are amazing.

The script, written by John Orloff, is tight and very clever, never forgetting that this was taking part nearly 500 years ago and the language needs to always be appropriate of that time. It contains lots of historical fun facts and is a good learning experience for all the audience.

The part of the film that lacks the most is that it does go for about half an hour longer than what it should. It isn’t boring as a result as such, but more just takes a bit longer than what it should to get to the point.

There are some really credible performances in Anonymous, yet no actual feeling of being emotionally connected to any of the characters. Perhaps the only character you feel really attached to and have some sort of feeling to is Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford as Rhys Ifans. This role is the best of his career so far and he is truly superb in it.

Mother and daughter team of Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson are wonderful as the young and older Queen Elizabeth. Richardson brings out both the sweet and fiery side of the younger Elizabeth and Redgrave is completely memorable in her portrayal as the older Elizabeth. It is not often we see Elizabeth at the end of her reign on screen and she is wonderful.

Sebastian Armesto’s performance seems like it is almost supposed to be comical at times, even though this is not the intention. One of his first scenes when he bursts onto the stage in rage of his play being received wrongly, it almost seems like a Monty Python.

Jamie Campbell Bower is wonderful as the young Oxford and continues his good form and rise to fame with this film.

If not a little far-fetched and a little too long, still an interesting and half an entertaining watch.

6.5/10

Midnight In Paris

2011-11-06T22:33:00.000-08:00

Midnight In Paris

Year: 2011

Director: Woody Allen

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen, Kathy Bates, Marion Cotillard, Carla Bruni, Adrien Brody

Before I begin my review…..

You know, there is a difference between thinking a film is a good film and truly liking it. Of course the two can usually come hand in hand with each other, but you can walk away from a film saying “Yes, it was good”, but it is different to walk away and saying “I really loved that film!”

Being a reviewer, I see many films that I know are great films and because I am a fan of great film, I do like them. Yet that doesn’t mean that I am going to put the film on my list of all-time favourite films.

On my list of favourite films, there are many films which I would consider great film, others which I know perfectly well won’t end up on any “Greatest Films Of All Time” lists…except mine. These are the films which you think are great films, but you have that extra emotional attachment to them because they strike an interest with you or you can relate to them.

Why am I talking about this? Because I loved Midnight In Paris! It is a good film, not one of the best films at the year or a contender for the Academy Awards (but I wouldn’t mind seeing it as one!), but it had a lot of me in it. I love the city of Paris, I loved all the literary and art maestro’s in the film and I love films that take you back to the glory days or yesteryear. Yes, I do want to live in Paris in the 1920’s. And if I do, I want to look and dress like Marion Cotillard.

Here is my review…

Review

It’s been a long time since Woody Allen has made a critically acclaimed film and you may have heard that Midnight In Paris is his best film in decades. You may like to know that this is true.

Woody Allen is completely back to the form in Midnight In Paris. He has discharged of the trends he has made in the past 10 years at least which were still selling cinema tickets, but clearly not working for him. Midnight In Paris is subtle but charming and very sweet. It is almost like a modern day fairy tale with the all-important moral of the story at the end. New territory for Allen, but it works.

Hollywood screen writer, Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiance, Inez (Rachel McAdams) are on a trip to Paris. Gil, who is struggling to write his first novel, falls in love with the city, while Inez is quite the opposite and doesn’t romanticize Paris the way her fiancé does, except if it includes her friends and in particular old flame, Paul (Michael Sheen). Gil decides to take a night walk back to their hotel while Inez goes out dancing, and he finds that Paris comes alive at midnight.

It is completely obvious within the first five minutes that Allen is in love with Paris the same way he is with New York. His montage of Parisian landmarks and Parisian life is a wonderful way to set the scene and make the audience fall in love with the city. His cinematography of the city is loving and beautiful.

People who are not fans of Allen’s past work will still enjoy Midnight In Paris, as it is completely different from the majority of his films. It hasn’t got the same “weird” vibe as most people describe his films as having. It is a load of fun, and helps if you know a bit about great writers and artists of the early twentieth century to make it all the more fun. Some people may find it all just a bit silly and the concept completely ludicrous, but there is no doubt it is entertaining.

The script is very clever for a subject which is actually quite simple when it comes down to it. The concept of going back in time is not a new one, but it seems completely fresh in this film and Allen does a wonderful job of recreating both turn of the century Paris and 1920’s Paris.

What the best thing about Owen Wilson’s role in this film as opposed to his past roles, is that he comes across a lot more natural than usual. He is often criticised for giving forced roles where she seems like he is trying too hard to be funny, but here he is just completely at ease. He gives one of his best performances in years.

Wilson and Rachel McAdams are completely mismatched on screen, which means that they have achieved their objective. Unfortunately, she is not quite as believable as the hard to handle fiancé. She seems like she still really wants to be nice so her performance does feel forced.

Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston are a real treat as Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Adrien Brody is hilarious as Salvador Dali. Marion Cotillard is charming as usual and completely at home in her city of Paris.

A wonderful treat, especially for those who love Paris.

8.5/10

The Three Musketeers

2011-10-31T03:08:00.000-07:00

The Three Musketeers

Year: 2011

Director: Paul W. S. Anderson

Cast: Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich, Christoph Waltz

Before I begin my review……

It’s insane how many times The Three Musketeers can be remade and the characters can be featured in different films, and they can still be a huge box office draw.

I did a quick search and The Three Musketeers have been made into nearly 30 films in at least four different languages including English, Spanish and Danish. Disney have, of course, had a go at it, as has Japanese anime. The characters of Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan also appear in such films as 1998’s The Man In The Iron Mask.

The words The Three Musketeers are known to everyone, whether you have seen the films are not. They still capture the heart of adventure lovers from every generation.

I guess The Three Musketeers is like many other remade adventure/ action movies these days. Film makers want to remake them as when they watch the original, they think to themselves “Imagine what we could do with thus film with all the film techniques we have available to us these days”.

The 2011 version is definitely an example of “Hey! Look what we can do now!”

Review

2011 seemed about time to make another The Three Musketeers, so why not? Just don’t expect too much different from other films of the same name as far as the story goes, visually except so much more!

Young D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) is the son of a once Musketeer and travels from country France to Paris to become one himself. When he arrives, he finds that the three Musketeers, Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) are not quite as popular and heroic as he once thought. However, when Lord Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) visits from England, he and Athos’ once love, Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) scheme to steal a diamond necklace from Queen Anne (Juno Temple). The Musketeers embark on an adventure to England to claim back what belongs to France.

The Three Musketeers is one of those adventure films with plenty of corn cheese to it. It is very unrealistic with fights in air ships, fighting on top of English and French landmarks and blowing these landmarks to pieces. But hey, true story adventures were never this fun, right?

Everything is very over the top, there is backing music to accompany every situation, even if it makes everything just seem all the more ridiculous. The graphics and special effects are very good and enhanced by 3D. However, some special effects visuals don’t look quite as realistic they could be.

The musical score is very good and the sword fighting scenes are impressively choreographed.

Logan Lerman does well as the young D’Artagnan and Macfadyen, Stevenson and Evans are all very good as the Musketeers. Lerman, Macfadyen and Stevenson do very well with each of their characters and you know the true self of each of them. Evans lacks a tad in this area as you don’t really know where his character fits in personality wise with the others.

Christoph Waltz is, as always, at home in the role of the villain. Not quite as evil as his previous roles of late, but still convincing as the Cardinal. Orlando Bloom impresses as Buckingham. Bloom isn’t known for playing the villainous roles, but he is completely convincing here and actually very entertaining to watch.

Milla Jovovich is perhaps the most over-emphasised character. Absolutely everything about her character is completely overdone. Every facial expression and line she says just has a little too much in it.

The Three Musketeers is this time around just as entertaining as the previous versions. Nowhere near the best version and not really very memorable, but entertaining enough.

6/10

Contagion (2011)

2011-10-29T04:22:00.000-07:00

Contagion

Year: 2011

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Cast: Gwyneth Paltrow, Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Marion Cotillard

Before I begin my review………

Contagion is not a movie for hypochondriacs or those who are obsessive compulsive.

If you think you are sick all the time and are constantly worried that you are going to catch something somehow, Contagion will only fuel the fire.

I don’t consider myself a hypochondriac or obsessive compulsive, but this movie had the ability to make me paranoid. When Kate Winslet’s character, Dr Erin Mears said “The average person touches their face 3000 times a day”, I immediately became aware of how many times I touched my face or whenever someone around me did.

One of the first signs of the virus in the film is the presence of a cough. There were some coughers in the cinema, and my heart skipped a beat every time I heard one of them.

I suppose these reactions I had to the film are just an indication of how realistic Contagion is. It is now a few hours since I saw the film and the more time elapses, the more disturbing I find it. The dislodging of your emotions in a film is always a sign of a good film. You may enjoy the film or not, but the fact is that if a film makes you feel a way you weren’t feeling when you walked in the cinema, then it is doing something right.

Review……..

Contagion is Steven Soderbergh back to his best.

Soderbergh rejuvenates his ability to unsettle his audience while they are completely unaware as they are completely taken by his brilliant film-making skills.

Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns from a business trip to Hong Kong with what she thinks is a bad case of the flu combined with jet lag. It is clearly not, as Beth and her young son both collapse into seizures and die within a few days. Her husband, Mitch (Matt Damon) is determined to find out what happened to his wife. The virus spreads rapidly around the globe and with millions affected and scientists cannot find a cure quick enough.

Although Contagion can be considered a suspense film, the film goes deeper than just being a race against the disease. Contagion is a scary dose of the mortality of humans and how society acts when faced with their mortality. The realism in the film is incredible. Soderbergh’s direction makes you feel like you are right there when everything happens.

However, Contagion does lack something which a suspense film normally excels at, pace. The first half of the film is the perfect pace, while the second half completely slows down and makes it feel longer than its 106 minutes. Yet this is Soderbergh taking time to show the stages society goes through and what the virus does to each of the characters emotionally. This period of the film does come across as a time where not much is really happening, but look deeper to see what Contagion is really trying to tell you.

The musical score is fantastic and completely suits the atmosphere of the film. The beginning sequence of the film is the perfect way to begin the film and heightens your curiousity and interest straight away.

There is not one actor who puts in a bad performance in Contagion. Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard and Laurence Fishburne are perfect in their roles, but these three actors seem to be a rare breed of actor who can clearly just not give a bad performance.

Jude Law is also a real stand out with a role which is very different to his usual role. His character of Alan Krumwiede is very interesting. He plays the part well of the “journalist” who completely takes advantage of the situation, or so it seems.

Matt Damon is probably the only lead actor who you feel could have given more in his role. He isn’t quite as grief stricken as he should be considering his wife and stepson have just died. The relationship with his daughter, Jory played by newcomer, Anna Jacoby-Heron, doesn’t seem at all realistic. However, Jacoby-Heron is one to watch out for.

Contagion may not be a film for those who are worried about their mortality and health and will unsettle you, but there is no denying that it is very well made and a piece of art.

8/10

The Lion King 3D- Absolutely timeless

2011-10-05T03:48:00.000-07:00

The Lion King 3D

Year: 1994

Director: Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff

Cast: Matthew Broderick, James Earl Jones, Jeremy Irons, Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Rowan Atkinson, Moira Kelly, Nathan Lane, Whoopi Goldberg

In My Own Words

I was in my last year at primary school when The Lion King was first released back in 1994. When that infamous first note of “Circle Of Life”, memories from that year of my life came flooding back to me. I felt like I was that eleven year old watching the classic Disney film for the first time.

The good news for Disney fans, is that today Disney announced that they will also be releasing The Little Mermaid, Beauty And The Beast and Finding Nemo also in 3D in the future! Hooray! One of the great things about when I was younger was that Disney would re-release their old films to the cinemas. I remember seeing such films as 101 Dalmatians, Fox And The Hound, Lady And The Tramp and Snow White And The Seven Dwarves at the cinemas as re-releases. I can’t remember when exactly this stopped, but it is something I missed. There is always something magic about seeing Disney classics on the big screen. So exciting times are ahead!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Seventeen years after it was first seen in cinemas, The Lion King appears again. This time in the ever present 3D.

The honest truth is The Lion King is really a beautiful movie that all ages can enjoy. Whether Disney has re-released it in 3D or not, it still would have pulled in the same audience numbers which it has. The 3D is just an excuse for Disney to re-release The Lion King, when in all truth they really didn’t need an excuse.

The Lion King is all about lion cub Simba (with the voice talents of once Home Improvement star Jonathan Taylor Thomas as young Simba and Matthew Broderick as older Simba), who “just can’t wait to be king”. When his evil uncle, Scar (Jeremy Irons) plots to kill his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Simba so he can take the crown for himself, Simba escapes into a life of exile unable to face his guilt. He lives a carefree and problem free life until his childhood lion cub friend, Nala (Moira Kelly) shows up and Simba is forced to face his past.

Disney do as much with the 3D as they possibly can with this film that was made when 3D was only something you experienced when you went to a theme park. It doesn’t make a big difference to the film, but when you notice the 3D it is impressive. However, it doesn’t enhance or add to the film. The graphics and colours are gorgeous in themselves of the African landscape and don’t need any help from 3D.

The Lion King charms as it always has. The music by Hans Zimmer is a strong point with songs which have been sung now for well over a decade.

Disney has an amazing ability to take a story of talking lions fighting over who is the king of the pride which does sound pretty silly when you say it like that, and make it into a film which does seem corny or silly in any way. It’s a movie children love, but adults also love. It’s a movie which those who were children when it first came out, remain loyal fans to throughout their lives. They grow up, but their love for The Lion King and other such Disney films remain a constant in their lives.

Absolutely timeless.

9/10

Monte Carlo- Sickly sweet cotton candy

2011-09-27T19:02:00.000-07:00

Monte Carlo

Year: 2011

Director: Thomas Bezucha

Cast: Selena Gomez, Leighton Meester, Katie Cassidy, Cory Monteith

In My Own Words

Some people refuse to see movies in the school holidays because of the havoc that occurs in the cinemas throughout that period. However, I find it quite an opportunity for interesting observation really.

So my first movie to watch during this school holiday period in Sydney was Monte Carlo. It was the 10:30 session on the first day of school holidays so I wasn’t expecting it to be overly full with school kids and teenagers, I thought they may want to sleep in on their first day off.

But I was wrong. The cinema was full with girls ranging in age from 10 to 18. I have to say it’s been years since I was in such an audience at a cinema. The last time was probably when I was in that age bracket. It was quite an interesting audience to observe. There was much giggling and a lot of talking during the film about how Selena Gomez was crying because Justin Bieber wasn’t there and when the object of the girls affection was going to show up and save the day.

An interesting thing I found was how different girls in this age bracket act when at the movies and the opposite sex isn’t there. I’ve had many experiences where I’ve been in the same cinema as boys and girls of that age bracket and it was far less pleasant. The guys show off by mocking the characters in the film and making funny sounds, while the girls laugh at all the jokes and laugh at serious moments in the film. As I said, it’s been awhile since I witnessed these girls in a cinema without the opposite sex, and I find them not quite as obnoxious as I thought they were. It’s all just an act for the opposite sex!

Was I ever like that too?

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Monte Carlo is the teenage girl’s dream from the onset. Cast wise it is a combination of Disney, Gossip Girl and Glee placed in French locations, and these may well be the only reasons people will appreciate Monte Carlo.

The film is very predictable and cliché, as well as very over the top with its prettiness. It perfectly caters towards its target audience, but anybody who isn’t a female between the ages of 10 and at the very most 18 will find this piece of cotton candy sickly sweet.

Grace (Selena Gomez), her friend Emma (Kate Cassidy) and her step-sister Meg (Leighton Meester) travel from Texas to Paris only to find out that the organised tour they are part of is an absolute disaster. When a case of mistaken identity occurs and Grace is mistaken for troubled heiress Cordelia Winthrop Scott (also Gomez), the girls are presented with a chance of a lifetime to travel to Monte Carlo and stay for a week in complete luxury. Each of the girls falls head over heels for the city and the men they find in it. However, things were never going to go smoothly when the real Cordelia Winthrop Scott shows up.

The best thing about Monte Carlo is the backdrop of Paris and then of Monte Carlo. Seeing these two places on the big screen is enough to want to pack your bags and be off. However, the introduction of these towns on the screen by placing its name on the screen is very 1950’s/60’s, but not in a good way. It’s very out dated.

The script is extremely cheesy and the outcome completely predictable. The film is just so focused on giving its stars screen time and showing off all the fashion and gorgeous landmarks, that it forgets about doing anything else well.

The performances aren’t of a great standard really. Gomez is sweet but bland as Grace and she is actually more interesting when she is playing the obnoxious Cordelia. Leighton Meester has some good moments but she doesn’t come across as quite so bad as everyone makes out. Yes she complains a lot of the time, but the role could have afforded some of the evil she brings to the TV screen as Blair Waldorf. Katie Cassidy’s performance is so forced and quite irritating really and Cory Monteith, who plays her Texan boyfriend, doesn’t really seem to be acting, more just walking through the film saying lines. Some may say its natural, some may say it’s boring.

Monte Carlo is extremely audience specific. An extremely girly film which will satisfy the need for all the adolescent females who are looking for something to do over the school holidays. Nobody else really.

3.5/10

Cowboys And Aliens- The hybrid you never though you would see, but doesn't matter if you don't

2011-09-17T04:30:00.000-07:00

Cowboys And Aliens

Year: 2011

Director: Jon Favreau

Cast: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano

In My Own Words

Genre hybridity. It makes all things possible.

I first learnt about genre hybridity, which in colloquial terms means when a film belongs in two sections at the DVD store, in the basics of film studies at university a couple of years ago. A classic could be a comedy or a drama, a drama could also be a thriller and a western could also be an action.

But a western being a hybrid with a sci-fi? That example was never in Film Studies 101!

The interesting thing about Cowboys and Aliens is that I truly believe it couldn’t have been made any time before the 21^st century. The special effects that were available before this period in time would not have been adequate to make this film anything but a B grade film. Could you just imagine John Wayne on his horse with a UFO on a string behind him?

The CGI available now to film makers who have the major bucks to use the top equipment makes this hybrid actually work. Sure it is not the most realistic concept, but when was a sci-fi ever realistic? You have to admit, the concept is kind of cool. This is probably the only time you will ever see western and sci-fi fanatics unite in the same theatre for something which a film which is right up both their alleys.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Cowboys And Aliens? Many would have thought that Jon Favreau was headed for disaster just with a film concept like that, but hey, there’s no reason that aliens exist they didn’t do so in 1873 in a small town in Arizona!

Yet, pulling off a somewhat complicated genre collision doesn’t mean a great movie is created. Favreau obviously needs to be complimented for taking on such an adventurous project and pulling it off, but…..you can’t have any sort of a good action film with no suspense.

A cowboy (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the middle of the desert with no recollection of who he is or where he has been, but with a strange metal bracelet around his wrist. He stumbles into the small town of Absolution, which has trouble written over it. However, the trouble soon doesn’t just involve cowboys and outlaws and barmen. Absolution is being targeted from the night’s sky as well.

Cowboys And Aliens is a passable film. The pros and cons are equal with each other. The major pro is that the film is that visually the film is pretty amazing. The special effects are very well done and the western landscape and the town of Absolution are exquisite.

Another great thing about Cowboys And Aliens is that it stays true to both of its genres. There are the right signs there for a western such as the old western bar, shoot outs and the music that would accompany a western. And then there is obviously the signs of the sci-fi, which are aliens and advanced technology far beyond the comprehension of those who come to encounter it. It is a very successful meshing of genres.

However, the big downfalls of Cowboys And Aliens are that it is not suspenseful at all and the middle of the film is really quite tedious. It is very hard to remember what happened in the film between the initial attacks of the aliens and the finale. And if it is hard to remember, one can only conclude that it was boring and nothing really happened. As a result of this black hole, the film is just very slow and there is no urgency or suspense as to what will happen.That’s never a good thing to hear about a film.

Favreau cast his characters well. Each of the major actors is perfectly at home in a western. Daniel Craig pulls off the mysterious unidentified cowboy well. There isn’t too much emotion there in the moments it is warranted, but the majority of the time emotion is not really needed with his hard-front character. Harrison Ford is just a veteran of adventure films, so here he is in his element. Another hard fronted character which Ford really has no problem doing.

Cowboys And Aliens show that these days any genre hybrids are possible, but they don’t ensure a complete success as a film.

5/10

The Help review- Is it wrong for a serious matter to be beautified?

2011-09-05T00:31:00.000-07:00

Year: 2011

Director: Tate Taylor

Cast: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard

In My Own Words

Ron Howard has got one talented daughter.

Don’t get me wrong, I think all the actors in The Help are very talented women and I have a tremendous respect for each one of them, but Bryce Dallas Howard is one actor I have kept my eye on for the past few years.

I know M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village has a lot of haters, but I didn’t mind it. It was one of those films people went into expecting a horror film with a lot of blood and guts, monsters and ghosts. So if you were expecting that and weren’t open to anything else, then yes, you would be disappointed. I liked it because it was actually a really good period piece film and it had a difference to it. And Ms Howard’s breakout performance as the blind, wise girl was extremely memorable.

Since then, I have been waiting for another performance like that from her. Manderlay and As You Like It weren’t bad, as wasn’t The Loss of A Diamond Teardrop. However, I had been waiting for her to take on meatier role to show her true talents. In The Help, she does a great job at the sweet but evil Hilly Holbrook and I was so pleased to see her in this role. I still believe she has more in her than what we have seen though. Get her in the right role and she is one of the future Academy Award winners. How’s that for a big prediction?

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

If you want to see how perfect character development in films should be done, it is right here in The Help.

The characters in The Help are so well constructed that you as the viewer truly feel as though you have made true friends and enemies in the space of 146 minutes. The acting is brilliant, as is the background of the south in the early 1960’s. The only drawback is that it can be a little bit too pretty at times for a film which has very serious undertones. It isn’t all doom and gloom though.

Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan (Emma Stone) is an aspiring writer in 1960’s Jackson, Mississippi, a time when women weren’t supposed to want a career, just a husband. After approaching, the maid of one her friends, Aibileen (Viola Davis) for help with her column, she realises how much Jackson’s help has to tell. Skeeter undertakes the ambitious and dangerous task of writing a book from the point of the Help about the white families they work for. The further Skeeter explores, the more she sympathizes with the Help and realizes the evil that is all around her in Jackson.

Kathryn Stockett’s novel is brought to life in brilliant fashion. The time period of the 1960’s in the south is very well represented. It is startling revelation to many that this time of unease and cruelty was not so long ago. There are some startling and very emotional moments throughout The Help, but also some comedic and triumphant moments. The script provides some memorable moments as well, particularly when the Help are telling their stories.

Visually, the film is rather gorgeous. The town of Jackson is picturesque and the town’s milk bars make you long for that part of the 60’s with the music of the times blaring while you drank your milkshake. The classic Cadillacs are a novelty and the costumes for the women are stunning.

The only problem is that these things can make the film a little too pretty. The poster for The Help is bright yellow, which is a funny colour the make a poster of a film where the main subject is the cruelty towards the coloured Help, as yellow normally symbolises happiness. The lives of the white women in Jackson come across as enviable as visually everything looks so perfect and fun and pretty for the female audience. It turns The Help into a chick film based purely on the visuals. It does seem strange for Tate Taylor to make a film with content like this so pretty, but it does open it up to a larger audience of females of all ages by doing so. However, making the film so “pretty” does take away the seriousness of the full picture.

The characters are wonderful. The best thing is you know exactly who all the characters are and where they have come from. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer give tremendous performances and they are so real. You know the background of each of the characters and you feel connected to the two of them and feel everything they go through.

Emma Stone does well in a role that is unlike her comedic roots. She has one very touching moment when she finds out the truth about her old maid. Bryce Dallas Howard is great as the sweet and sour Hilly Holbrook. Her character is the type of person every fears, the one people feel they have to be friends with because otherwise they will tear you to shreds. Both her and Stone are completely natural in their roles.

Jessica Chastain, who plays Celia Foote, does well at times, but her character does come across as a bit too silly and plays the dumb blonde stereotype a bit too over the top. The small roles in which the men of the film have portray the white men of Jackson to be just as much dumb blondes as what Chastain’s character is.

Enjoyable and visually fun, but is it wrong for something of such a serious matter to be visually fun?

7/10

Jane Eyre (2011) Review- Bringing Bronte's Beautiful Masterpiece Back To Life

2011-08-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

Jane Eyre

Year: 2011

Director: Cary Jogi Fukunaga

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench

In My Own Words

Honestly, this In My Own Words to accompany my review of Jane Eyre could be just a long list of things which I love about the timeless classic and its author and her sisters.

I do truly love the novel, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte and have ever since I studied it at school. Actually, I lie. Reading it for the first time in school comes with the stigma of a book seeming boring and dorky to like, even if it isn’t and you do. Yet, the story of Jane Eyre stayed with me.

These days I am very open about the fact that I am slightly Bronte obsessed. One of the things I love about Jane Eyre is how haunting the story is with the mystery surrounding Thornfield. It is almost like a ghost story in a romantic tragedy. And of course, I love the style of writing, the imagery of the English countryside and the characters. I guess every girl loves the heroic male characters in Bronte novels and the novels by another well known British female author by the name of Jane Austen. It is impossible for girls who love these novels not to look for men with the same qualities as characters like Mr Rochester, Heathcliff or Mr Darcy!

I am quite excited to announce that in February I will be visiting the village of Haworth which was once the home of Charlotte, Emily and Anne Bronte. Haworth is located in West Yorkshire in England and is filled with reminders that these three talented sisters were once residents in this charming town. I am especially looking forward to visiting the Bronte Parsonage and Bronte Birthplace.

However, the exciting news for this point in time in relation to the Bronte sisters is that I was very excited about the 2011 adaptation of Jane Eyre being released and, unlike others films I have really been looking forward to this year, the film has completely lived up to my expectations. Of course, it won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but Bronte enthusiasts like me won’t be disappointed.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

The classic novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte has seen over twenty movies made in honour of it, and the latest has done nothing but show it complete justice.

Cary Jogi Fukunaga has done a wonderful job at bringing the novel back to life in his 2011 film adaptation. The attention to detail is exquisite and his direction and choice of cast is superb. Of course, if you are not a big fan of period pieces, then Jane Eyre won’t do anything for you. Yet lovers of great direction, cinematography and Bronte enthusiasts will be in heaven.

Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikovska) was orphaned at an early age and sent to live with her aunt by marriage (Sally Hawkins). Her aunt casts her out and Jane never knows a true home until she is sent to the country manor of Thornfield to be the governess for Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Jane is no stranger to being the outsider in the world of high society so she is then unsure how to behave when she becomes the object of Mr Rochester’s affection and he also of hers. Only then does she discover the terrible secret behind the beauty of Thornfield.

Jane Eyre is absolutely stunning to watch. From the beginning sequence of Jane running from Thornfield where you see some beautiful landscape shots of an approaching storm right up until the very end, you can only marvel at the amazing techniques used to bring so much natural beauty to the screen. You can feel the cold of the winter in the English countryside and the warmth of the Spring.

The script stays true to Charlotte Bronte’s creation and the language used can only be described as beautiful. The film does add a bit of differentially to it by bringing in the use of flashbacks rather than flowing directly from Jane’s childhood through to her discovery at Thornfield. It jumps back and forwards quite a bit in the first half an hour which makes things a tad confusing to those who have not read the book, and even those who have.

People will complain that the film is sometimes slow and that there should be more suspense. However, that was never what Jane Eyre was about. Jane Eyre is a classic piece which is an age old love story and it takes it’s time so the consumer (whether they be reader or film viewer) can take in the language and imagery or images in the case of the movie.

What makes Jane Eyre really come to life are the performances. Mia Wasikowska was the perfect choice for Jane Eyre. Her performance is so subtle and the role just comes naturally for her. She glides through the role with ease and makes Jane into the likable heroine that she is. We feel her pain and sorrow, but admire her strength and respect for herself.

Michael Fassbender is brilliant in the role of the mysterious Mr Rochester. There is one scene in the film where he is absolutely breath taking in his delivery of his dialogue. His development of his character throughout the film is also very well done as it goes from him being very reserved, guarded and almost cocky to him being a gentleman who lies all his emotions down for the woman he loves.

Judi Dench is very good as Mrs Fairfax and special mention must be paid to little Romy Settbon Moore whom Jane is governess too. Sally Hawkins is most definitely a little too “nice” as Jane’s aunt, Mrs Reed whom is supposed to be cold hearted and deceitful.

Jane Eyre proves that even though so many films have been made to honour the novel, there is always something new you can bring to the plate with an adaptation which differentiates it from the others. As warned, probably not one for people who are not fans of classic novels or period piece movies. However, if you do not mind either in any way, shape or form, this is a real piece of beauty.

8/10

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes- The Planet Of The Apes for those who didn't like Planet Of The Apes

2011-08-04T06:20:00.000-07:00

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

Year: 2011

Director: Rupert Wyatt

Cast: James Franco, Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Tom Felton, Brian Cox

In My Own Words

I have just had a double dose of James Franco. Not complaining at all.

I decided I had to see the early session of Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes today so I could come home and catch the interview with James Franco on Hamish & Andy’s Gap Year, a weekly television show by an Australian comedy duo. I know I have said it before on here, but James Franco is one of my most admired actors. I admire how he is able to take part in university education at a PhD level, which is no easy task in itself, as well as juggle him film career. I’m sure it does take its toll on him and Franco probably really enjoys a good night sleep, but I just admire him so much for knowing the value of a college/ university education. Plus he is a fantastic actor, there is no denying that.

The other man I would like to pay tribute to here is Andy Serkis. With this film he has sealed for himself the title of being the greatest CGI (computer-generated imagery) actor in its existence thus far. He first found fame playing Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. It is said that Peter Jackson was pushing for Serkis to be nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal, but the academy wasn’t convinced on the CGI front. There are whispers on the net that Serkis fans believe that his efforts as Caeser in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes are worthy of a nomination.

I take my hat off to (actually I don’t take my hat off, purely for the fact I am just not wearing one right now) Mr Serkis. You’ve just got to hope that he isn’t a method actor. He might not be the most popular person in his social circles if he spends his time being an ape!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is the Planet Of The Apes film for those who didn’t like Planet Of The Apes.

More dramatic and heartfelt than its predecessors, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes still has the elements which make the phenomenon such a cult favourite. It has been revamped with the amazing technology used in film today to make the characters seem more lifelike than ever before. And thankfully, what Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes possesses which many action blockbusters haven’t of late is a solid story to support of the amazing images we are seeing.

Will Rodman (James Franco) believes he has found a cure to Alzheimer’s disease in a substance he has been testing on chimpanzee’s. However, the substance is found to make these apes substantially smarter and more aggressive. Will finds himself adopting a baby ape who has lost its mother in tragic circumstances and he and his father (John Lithgow) name him Caeser. As Caeser grows, it becomes evident he has inherited some of the characteristics his mother had as a result of the substance. He doesn’t seem to be too much trouble, until he his protective instincts kick in and he is then placed with his own kind, which is when all hell breaks loose.

What makes Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes work so well is the way the story is played out. It completely flows and it kept interesting throughout the whole film. It is not all about the attack of the apes, as some people may think, but more about the evolution of how the apes turned against humans. The actual attack in the city of San Francisco is perhaps the only part of the film which seems over the top ridiculous, yet it is what the film is moulded around so it really cannot be neglected in the film. It is what Planet Of The Apes is all about.

There really are some emotional moments and rather than the relationship between Caeser and Will be about scientist and specimen or human and pet, it is about best friends and family. There are underlying themes of companionship, family and also of loss.

The CGI is truly amazing in this film. From the very first scene in the lush forests where the apes way of life is disturbed, you are constantly struck by how far film has come. We are now able to create for ourselves animals for the screen which we don’t have to train or worry about how much they are going to disrupt filming. At many occasions during the film, you forget that these are not actually real apes, but CGI creations. In 1968 when the first Planet Of The Apes was released, who would have ever thought we would be able to do this rather than make masks and have people dress up as monkeys?

Although James Franco has top billing for this movie, it is Andy Serkis who is the star of the film. Serkis is now a master of CGI after his performance as Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and Kong in King King. You have to remember that every emotion you see Caeser give and every moment, is Serkis himself. When you see Will walk around with Caeser on a leash, that is Serkis on the leash. He really is an incredible actor and one of a kind.

Franco is also very good in this film. He never forces his performance and is subtle at all times, which really works in his favour. John Lithgow is another standout as Will’s father crippled by Alzheimer’s. Freida Pinto is fine as Will’s girlfriend, Caroline, but although being Caeser’s doctor at the beginning of the film, she doesn’t have much of a purpose for the rest of the film. Tom Felton does well in his first post- Harry Potter role. He carries on the bad boy attitude as Dodge, who loves to torment to apes. He is allowed to get a bit more aggressive in this film than he ever did as Draco Malfoy.

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes will never let you look at apes the same way at the zoo again. You may be paranoid that they are plotting to take over every time they look at you and nightmares involving gorillas wouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Great to see a prequel that reaches a wider audience than what it’s previous films did.

7.5/10

Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-07-31T06:40:00.000-07:00

Captain America: The First Avenger

Year: 2011

Director: Joe Johnston

Cast: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci, Dominic Cooper

In My Own Words

I wanted to like Captain America: The First Avenger. I really did. It was one of the films this blockbuster season that I had been really looking forward to. No one can accuse me of going into the film convinced that I was going to see something I dislike. I’m not going to say what I thought about the movie in detail here as that is what my review is for, but you can already guess what I thought of it without me saying any extra. It does not detract from my excitement about The Avengers though! I can’t help but think that it really has to be a really bad-ass villain to have any sort of battle with the five superhero’s they will be going up against. The whole concept of the Marvel superheroes joining forces in this cinematic spectacle is definitely intriguing. Who else is excited?

There was another let down for me. I was excited about seeing British actor Natalie Dormer in a rare film appearance. I am a big fan of The Tudors in which Dormer played the ill-fated Queen of England and second wife of Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn. Dormer played the sassy Private Lorraine in Captain America: The First Avenger who takes a strong liking to Steve. Unfortunate for me, she was in all of two scenes and on screen for no more than three minutes. Oh well, I look forward to seeing her next in W.E. where she will play Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Captain America: The First Avenger, just to make you all confused, is the last Marvel superhero film before the superhero reunion film, The Avengers. Captain America is the First Avenger as, unlike other superhero films released in the past few years, his story belongs in the war torn 1940’s. So the big difference between this film and other action films is that it would be out of place to have amazing and spectacular special effects which we are now so used to. The action not completely absent or dull, but in order to take a step back in something in a film, something else is to be enhanced in order for it to be successful. This is where Captain America: The First Avenger completely lacks. The action and special effects are toned down for an action film, but nothing else stands up in its place.

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) has always been discriminated against because of his height and size, but this has never stopped him standing up for something which he has believed in. He watches everyone around him go off to war while he has to wait at home. He is then approached by Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who offers him a chance to join in the army and take part in a project he is involved in. This project is the end of Steve’s woes and the beginning of Captain America. Steve soon finds out that he is the one who can save America from the evil Johann Schmitt (Hugo Weaving). He is the hero America has been waiting for.

Captain America: The First Avenger had HUGE potential. As said previously, it wasn’t appropriate for a film like this to have amazing action sequences with special effects that will blow your mind and amazing high tech machinery as it is set in the 1940’s. So this should have been huge opportunity to bring a great war story into the film and make the film into something we haven’t seen in years. But alas, it wasn’t meant to be. There is a story there, just not a strong script to support it and make it engrossing. It is actually even quite boring at times when there is no action happening. It is fair enough normally that a superhero movie doesn’t have a strong story as that isn’t normally the focal point of an action film, but tone down the action and you need to turn something else up.

One of the more entertaining moments in the film is when Steve becomes Captain America and instead of joining the men in the war fields (which you barely see anything of anyway), he becomes a comic book hero who goes on tour and features in motion pictures. It is a fun part of the film and is reminiscent of how Captain America really was perceived in the 1940’s.

The special effects which the film does employ are also subject to some criticism. The computer generated and enhanced images look computer generated. Before Steve becomes Captain America, more often than not the visions of the character look like Chris Evans head pasted on a body, not like a smaller version of Evans as a whole. Visions of Evans running through the streets of Brooklyn just after his transformation also look computer generated. Even if the movie is set in the 1940’s, it doesn’t mean that you should take any less pride in making the special effects as realistic as possible.

The acting is really little more than just reading their lines for the majority of the cast. Chris Evans does do a good job at leading the ensemble. Although it does feel as though he tries more when he is the smaller Steve Rogers, which would make sense because it is more just an action role once he becomes Captain America. He was the perfect choice for the role as he is just likable in both of his personas and comes across as just a good guy.

Hugo Weaving is a perfect villain as Johann Schmitt. He is quite terrifying at times, even before he shows his true self as Red Skull. Stanley Tucci is a treat to watch and is actually quite a fun character. Hayley Atwell does well in her role as Steve’s trusted ally and love interest, Peggy Carter. She has one in particular great, emotionally charged scene. However, we have no idea who her character is or where she has come from. Before he is transformed, Steve says “I guess I just don't why you'd wanna join the army if you're a beautiful dame. ...” Peggy doesn’t give an answer and leaves him guessing as well as us.

As a whole, Captain America: The First Avenger isn’t the worst film of the year by all means, although it had so much potential and it could have been so much more than what it was. It is still entertaining enough and gives you your superhero fix for this half of the year.

5/10

The Conspirator

2011-07-29T05:14:00.000-07:00

The Conspirator

Year: 2010

Director: Robert Redford

Cast: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Tom Wilkinson, Evan Rachel Wood, Kevin Kline, Justin Long, Alexis Bledel

In My Own Words

I am not going to pretend here that I am an expert on American history because I am far from it. Growing up in Australia, American history is barely uttered in our high school education. I hate to say it, but the first American history lesson I got was by watching The Simpsons. Pop culture is great, isn’t it? Can’t say we don’t learn anything from it! The majority of my American history education comes from my trips to Washington, DC, Philadelphia and Boston, three great cities all with fascinating fragments of America’s history.

One of my friends lives in Washington, DC and certainly knows her US history, so she was the perfect person to have with me to show me the sights and the history behind each place. My favourite sight to see in Washington, DC is the Lincoln Memorial. This memorial is the perfect tribute to the man himself. The statue of a seated Abraham Lincoln is seated in the middle of the memorial as if he is looking back down the Mall towards the Capitol. However, there are some places you can stand in the memorial where it feels as though Lincoln has turned his head and is looking straight at you. The thing I love the most about this memorial is that Abe is larger than life and completely intimidating, just as I expect he was in real life.

One particular scene in The Conspirator which I found particularly haunting was the scene where they are taking Lincoln from the theater to the house across the street after he has been shot by John Wilkes Booth. This film was particularly well made, as it shows the chaos that followed after the assassination. Everybody was confused and distraught, yet wanted to catch a glimpse of their beloved president as he was carried out. The musical score supporting this scene completely enhanced the craziness of this scene as well. The most haunting part about it for me was the fact that I have been outside the Ford Theater where Lincoln was shot and inside the room in The Peterson House where he was pronounced dead. I had never actually pictured all the chaos which was part of that night when I was there, I just pictured a few men running across the road with the president in their arms. The chaos seems far more appropriate for the situation than a quiet night I had always pictured.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

It has been awhile since we have seen a good American period film. Admittedly there are a few American historical films in the pipeline at the present time, but it can be said with confidence that The Conspirator will be one of the better ones you will see. Robert Redford has done a great job of bringing this part of American history alive, although there are several parts of the film he could have expanded on which would have taken The Conspirator from a very good film to an excellent film.

It is the 15^th of April 1865, the night which President Abraham Lincoln is shot by John Wilkes Booth. However, everyone knows that one man shot the president, but he wasn’t the only one who orchestrated it. In the days following the assassination, the authorities go after the conspirators and arrest those suspected, including Mary Surratt (Robin Wright) who owns the boarding house which Booth and the other conspirators stayed at and conducted their meetings from. Young lawyer, Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) is given the job to represent her in her trial, whether he believes she is guilty or not. He is soon faced with the dilemma that Surratt seems to be accepting guilt in order to save her son who has disappeared and is also suspected, and that also of his reputation in Washington being tarnished.

The Conspirator above all is a great history lesson. The time period is represented beautifully in the way which 19^th century Washington, DC is recreated. The scenery is very impressive and you can really feel what it would be like to be in the city in the time following the Civil War. The way each scene is constructed is commendable as each scene means something and contributes towards the film as a whole. Each scene is informative, entertaining and gives you a piece of new information that you didn’t know in the last scene.

However, it does feel like Redford could have pushed harder with several issues that are bought up in the film, but are not represented the way they should be. For example, when Aiken starts to notice how his social life is affected and how people are treating him in general because of the trial, there isn’t really a sense of it causing him any sense of inner turmoil or any sense of discomfort to the audience. Sure he gets denied going into a party and nudged in the street, but Redford should have pushed this point further in order to grasp what a big deal representing a southerner who is being tried for the murder of the beloved president. It is something which was such a big issue in those times especially because the war was not long over and tensions were still high between the south and the north and the idea of someone from the north representing someone from the south was considered shocking.

Redford may have also done well to push further with the relationships in the film. The relationship between Aiken and Surratt is almost a love/ hate relationship and is quite intriguing. Yet, the relationship between Aiken and his love interest, Sarah (Alexis Bledel) is just dull and would almost do better to not be there, much like Bledel’s performance in the role.

The script was quite well written, yet still seemed a bit weak at times. However, there really are some heart breaking moments in the film. The scene where Lincoln is shot and carried across the road is done brilliantly and a wonderful way to start the film.

Robin Wright is the stand out performance in this film. It is not hard to feel sorry for her character and even be drawn emotionally to her. Wright is just so believable in this role. She truly becomes Surratt in every way. James McAvoy also does very well, but we all know he does well in period films. His performance gradually gets better and better through the film. Evan Rachel Wood is also wonderful in this film giving a heartfelt performance as Surratt’s daughter, Anna.

One thing is sure about The Conspirator, it will be a great film for history classes across the United States in years to come. It is very interesting and there are some wonderful points. Mr Redford just needs to push harder.

7/10

Bad Teacher

2011-07-23T05:26:00.000-07:00

Bad Teacher

Year: 2011

Director: Jake Kasdan

Cast: Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, Jason Segel, Lucy Punch

In My Own Words

Hooray! Cameron Diaz is back to what she does so well, the comedies! I love Diaz when she is in comedies and light hearted movies and then I see her in the dramatic roles and I think she is bland. Actually that is a little harsh, let’s just say I find her more endearing and likable in the roles which she is most remembered for, such as The Mask, There’s Something About Mary, Charlie’s Angels and The Sweetest Thing. Even in Bad Teacher where her character is so unethically inclined and is the type of person I would hate in real life, she is still likable. It’s a good problem to have, being likable in every role you do your niche. I think I also have a soft spot for Diaz as she is from Long Beach in California, which is where I used to live for a time!

An experience in the cinema today got me thinking. I had a middle aged couple sitting behind me when the film started. They seemed really “happy-go-lucky” laughing with each other before the movie began. Then 10 minutes into the film, I had to turn around and politely tell them to please stop talking. Judging by their body language then, they did not look like they were enjoying the movie at all. Sometime in the next five minutes, they left the film.

Personally I have never walked out of a film. I can’t comprehend spending money on a film and then not seeing the whole thing. Even if I am not enjoying it, I give the film the benefit of the doubt and stay just in case it does get better. I can understand some people can get really offended by a film and feel they have to leave for personal reasons. If people are offended by the language or the violent content of a film, that does make me confused. The censorship ratings are there for a reason. People should really take notice of them. Bad Teacher is rated M 15+ for sexual references, sex scenes, drug use and coarse language. This doesn’t mean they may be there, they are there. If these things offend you, then maybe you shouldn’t see the film.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

2011 is the year of girls behaving badly in film. Bad Teacher continues on this trend, yet brings something different to the table. It is truly a one woman show led by Cameron Diaz and is very funny. However, it is one of those comedies which relies more on the jokes than on the storyline and the story dissolves into the jokes.

Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) doesn’t like being a teacher, and she likes it even less when she has to come back from retirement after she is dumped by her fiancé. She decides that in order to be happy she needs to get breast implants, but she needs to raise at least $9000. When she meets new teacher, Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake), her ambition grows to impress this awkward but attractive colleague. She has to compete with another teacher, Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch) to get the man and in all her spite and competitiveness, Elizabeth ends up doing some things right.

The huge problem with this film is that the story and the script do not blend with the comedy to make a successful film. There are many jokes which are irrelevant to what is going on and there are actually a lot of questions left unanswered. It is as though director Jake Kasdan is more concerned with getting the audience to laugh rather than provide them with a journey. Granted, there are some very funny moments. Some comedy moments may feel a bit over the top and just plain ridiculous to some people. There are some crude moments, but for a comedy about a woman obsessed with getting herself breast implants, what would you expect? However, it could have been a lot worse than what it was considering the subject matter.

The script doesn’t address anything which happens before or after the film such as where the characters are from and why they are the way they are. In other words, the character development is just weak and almost non-existent. For example, Elizabeth clearly has no family in the film, but what happened to them? Where are they? Why is Elizabeth the way she is? Did something happen to her or was she bought up that way? Anybody watching this does not feel as though they really know Elizabeth even after watching her for an hour and a half.

Cameron Diaz does do a very good job at playing the bad girl heroine. She is very funny and manages to still be likable while playing someone who is not supposed to be so. Diaz has the “I don’t give a hoot what you are talking about” look down to a tee. Her character of Elizabeth is actually quite unsettling at times and is believable how scheming she is. Diaz was perfectly cast in this film and it is refreshing to see her play a character which is a twist on her stereotypical good girl roles in her comedy films.

Jason Segel is great as gym teacher Russell Gettis with his sarcastic and random comedy moments. Justin Timberlake is good enough, but the nerdiness of the character could have been pushed further. He still seems too cool to be a dork. His song, “Simpatico” is a real treat in the film. Lucy Punch achieves what she sets out to achieve with her character by being irritating and increasing the attractiveness of Diaz’s character. However, her character does provide another unanswered questioned for the film. What was it that she did in 2008 which everybody keeps talking about throughout the film?

Bad Teacher isn’t one of the best written films you will see as far as the story goes, yet it does give some laughs and some great one-liners. Diaz is the shining star and it is impossible to believe that this film would have been anything at all without her.

5.5/10