Movie Critical

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

Mr Popper's Penguins

2011-07-22T03:08:00.000-07:00

Mr Popper’s Penguins

Year: 2011

Director: Mark Waters

Cast: Jim Carrey, Carla Gugino, Angela Lansbury

In My Own Words

I feel like Jim Carrey was the comedian I grew up with. It’s hard to believe that it has been 17 years since Ace Ventura: Pet Detective was released. I was quite young when it came out so I didn’t get a lot of the jokes in it, yet I always loved Carrey’s impersonation of the Miami Dolphins mascot which he was trying to track down. Then came The Mask and Carrey secured his status as a superstar. I loved The Mask, still do actually. I love the comedic timing in the film. As the loser Stanley Ipkiss, he is absolutely endearing and you hate how much he gets kicked around. Put on his mask and he is a chauvinist, but absolutely hysterical.

Since 2004 he has an impressive portfolio of comedy films, as well as a dabble in dramatic films such as the critically acclaimed Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. He has slowed down with his films in the past few years, so when he appears in a film, he is such a crowd drawer. So many of my friends were over the moon when Yes Man was released in 2008…including me! It was like our old Jim Carrey back. I only wish in 2011 he could have done the same.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Mr Popper’s Penguins is a good entertaining holiday movie. However, if we remove the fact that this film was a film released during the school holidays, it would be neither good nor entertaining. It is a good movie for the time in which it has been released. Mr Popper’s Penguins is “G” rated so it is a good family film for those parents looking to keep their children occupied for at least an hour and a half of their holidays. Otherwise, it is good for little else really.

Tom Popper (Jim Carrey) is a high flying New York businessman who fills his life up with work to avoid thinking about the painful past. He is divorced, but still has feelings for his ex wife Amanda (Carla Gugino) and his children, Janie (Madeline Carroll) and Billy (Maxwell Perry Cotton) naturally expect him to let them down. When he inherits six penguins from his deceased father, Popper’s life is turned upside down. His work life suffers, but he starts to become the father he always should have been…..to both his children and the penguins.

You can clearly tell that Mr Popper’s Penguins is supposed to be a cute and funny film. One would think with six penguins that it would be a cute and fluffy film. Yet, there are very few cute moments. There is more penguin toilet humour than anything else, which may be your sense of humour but penguin toilet humour hasn’t been too successful in the past as this film will back up. There are some cute moments far and in between, but not many moment where you feel like you want to pick up and cuddle the penguins.

The script is just very weak and besides the penguins doing their business everywhere and their fluctuations, the jokes are very old, transparent and predictable. Perhaps the best thing about the script is picking up on all the old Hollywood references such as that of the penguins watching Charlie Chaplin, Mr Popper being likened to Howard Hughes and Mr Popper’s imitation of James Stewart. It may be the presence of Angela Lansbury, who was a star of the golden age of Hollywood herself that prompted these references. On the other hand, this may be the film’s way of keeping the adult audience happy as well as the young, and some people still may not get these references.

The main thing you have to say about Jim Carrey in this film is that it isn’t vintage Carrey material. There are so many Carrey facial expressions and comedic material that are used in this film which are not relevant at all and are only included because that is what Carrey has always done in better films. It isn’t his worst acting in a film, but light years from his best.

Truth be told, there isn’t really any stand out performances in this film. Angela Lansbury is perhaps the only performance worth mentioning in a positive light, but her character isn’t given anywhere near as much screen time as is warranted.

The problem with the characters in this film is that there is no chemistry or emotion between any of them. Carrey and Carla Gugino just look awkward and mismatched on the screen at all times and there is only talk of the fatherly love he starts top show towards both his children and the penguins, but no actual proof in the performances. However, Madeline Carroll does show a hint of potential in this film for the future.

Mr Popper’s Penguins doesn’t achieve anything it sets out to. The only thing it succeeds in doing is filling up an hour and a half of summer break in the northern hemisphere and a winter’s day in the southern. Still, clean family fun.

3.5/10

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2

2011-07-13T07:11:00.000-07:00

Year: 2011

Director: David Yates

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton

In My Own Words

Well, here we are. At the end of the Harry Potter film series. It really is the end of an era. I feel the way I did at the end of the Lord Of The Rings series, but perhaps a bit sadder to say goodbye than I was then. With Lord Of The Rings it was a film series of three years, Harry Potter it feels like when you were at school. You meet all these news friends on your first day of high school and on the last day of school it’s like you are saying goodbye forever. Although with leaving school you tend to see everybody again. No more Harry though! It really is a sad feeling for die hard supporters such as myself.

I would be lying if I said I had always liked the Harry Potter books and movies. I have liked them for a long time now, but not since the first book or movie was released. I remember being in high school (that subject seems to be coming up a bit in this post) when the first book came out and quite a few of my school friends were reading. I was a tad confused as to why as I thought that Harry Potter was for children. A few years went by and when Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban was released, I thought “I may want to see this film” (this was before I was a film reviewer). So I went out and hired the first two movies. I was hooked. This series was so much fun to watch and not to mention completely addictive. So I have been a die hard fan since 2004.

I guess what a lot of people like about Harry Potter is not just that it has these three misfits who you almost fell like you get to grow up with or it meddles with the idea of a magical, fun world running parallel with reality, but it is always a great form of discussion. Before the final book was released, theories about how it was going to end were flying around all over the place. Even know, people think there may be something more which J. K. Rowling isn’t telling us. The films and the books will always draw people together in conversation and be and interesting conversation starter.

I miss the movies already and I have only been out of the cinema for an hour! It is a sad feeling that it is now all over. I really hope the best for Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. They are each wonderful actors in their own right and I really hope we are going to see lots more of them in the future. I recently saw Rupert Grint in Wild Target on DVD which I really enjoyed him in, and I am looking forward to seeing Daniel Radcliffe in The Woman In Black and Emma Watson in My Week With Marilyn.

These are my own words and here is my Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 review. Enjoy.

Review

“It All Ends” shouts the posters for Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2. And so it does. After 10 years and 8 Harry Potter films, the final movie event in J. K. Rowling’s phenomenon finally hits cinemas. It is a bittersweet experience for fans which these films and their almost annual releases have become a part of their lives for a decade. The final film doesn’t disappoint for these die hard fans. It is a fitting farewell to the characters which they love and stays true to the book, with some slight adjustments to aid the excitement on the big screen. However, those who haven’t seen any Harry Potter films before and are thinking about seeing this film, shouldn’t unless you watch at the very least Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

The final Harry Potter film picks up right where it left off in Part 1. Lord Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) power is at its strongest and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his ever trusted friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) know they have to find all the horcruxes in order to kill him once and for all. The showdown takes place at Hogwarts, which is now under the rule of assumed Voldemort follower Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). One thing is for certain in the final war between Harry and Voldemort, only one will survive.

The great things about the final instalment of the Harry Potter series is that it delivers everything it promises to be. There is suspense from the beginning to the end of the film and it does stay true to the book. In some ways, the final scene at Hogwarts is anti-climatic and may be a bit too subtle for some people. However, it is plain to see why director, David Yates chose to make it like this. It isn’t cliché or a scene where people wave their fists in the air in response to the ending of the battle, and it is a feeling of surrealism and calm now that it is finally all over, and a feeling of wondering where to go from there.

The directing and cinematography is actually the best in this film than any of the other films. There are some great techniques used in filming some scenes in particular, such as at the very beginning when the three friends are standing outside Olivander’s door and are almost silhouettes. The sound affects for the battle scenes are very impressive, as are the visuals and special effects in these scenes.

The only real downfall of the film is that it is not quite as emotional in certain scenes as it should be. This is not to say that there is no emotion in this film at all, as there definitely is and there are tears to be shed. Yet, some scenes such as when somebody is thought to be dead, there is only a reaction from one person and barely any tears from others who should be showing some type of emotion.

As for the acting, job well done by all. Radcliffe gives his best performance as Potter in this film. He isn’t over the top and he is a complete natural now, as you would hope he would be as if he didn’t know his character inside and out by now, he never will. Only criticism is that his chemistry with Bonnie Wright, who plays his love interest, Ginny Weasley is almost non-existent.

Again, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are very good. Neither is over the top and give their characters all they can. It is almost a moment of triumph when these two finally kiss on screen as everybody has been waiting for this for years. You can see that these two are very close as friends in real life, as they just work on screen together and are very sweet.

Perhaps the best performance in the film is that of Alan Rickman. He is fantastic in this film. He has the most complex character in the series and in this final film, his character is completely broken down and all the raw emotion of this character comes to the screen. Ralph Fiennes is also brilliant as Voldemort. He is as evil as they come and shows no hint of having any good in his soul at all. Helena Bonham Carter is not on screen too much as Bellatrix Lestrange, but she makes an impact when she is. A great moment and a credit to her acting is when Hermione has taken the polyjuice potion to make her Bellatrix and Bonham Carter charges everything about her performance. You completely forget that you are watching Bonham Carter pretend to be Watson and believe that it really is Hermione trying to be Bellatrix.

It is definitely a sad time to see the Harry Potter series finish up, but Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a fitting conclusion to the phenomenon. Again, non-fans of the books or movies or people who haven’t had anything to do with either, shouldn’t waste their time as they will have no idea what is going on, but fans will love it. Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.

7.5/10

Kung Fu Panda 2

2011-07-05T22:27:00.000-07:00

Kung Fu Panda 2

Year: 2011

Director: Jennifer Yuh

Cast: Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Gary Oldman, Seth Rogan, Lucy Liu

In My Own Words

Actors must love animation roles. Sure, the obvious reason for loving them is that it provides an easier alternative to their usual on screen acting by only have to act using your voice rather than having to link it up with believable facial expressions and having to worry about where you are standing in relation to your co-stars. The reason I think animation roles are great for actors is because it gives them a great comeback when critics say “(insert name here) plays the same role all the time” and “ Such and Such isn’t a very versatile actor”. What a great way to prove them wrong! Provide the voice for an animated animal on the big screen! That will always provide a “different” role for you on the big screen!

For example, Jack Black. Someone says “Jack, you are playing too many of the same roles. You always seem to be playing the guy who no one, including themselves takes seriously. You need to branch out to other roles”.

Black says “Okay. Well, my next role will be about another underdog who no one takes seriously, but this time I will be a….PANDA!” (this isn’t actually a quote from Mr Black, this is just theoretical).

I’m sure it’s not the versatility that critics are after, but at least it is fun for the actors, and it is a good comeback if someone says you play the same role all the time. “Oh yeah? I play the same role all the time? Well, when was the last time I played an aardvark? When have any of my roles resembled that of a big nosed creature on it four legs obsessed with eating ants?”

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“The sequel is never as good as the original”.

This is most probably what the majority of people would have been thinking about Kung Fu Panda 2, and they would have had good reason to as it is not often that a sequel comes anywhere near the quality of the original (The Godfather II a major exception). However, it is a pleasant surprise to find that Kung Fu Panda 2 is just as good as the original, if not better. The animation is brilliant, script funny and it appeals to all ages.

Po the Dragon Warrior panda (Jack Black) is back with his Furious Five team of kung fu warriors. When he finds out that the famous warrior, Thundering Rhino has been killed in Gongmen City by the evil peacock, Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) and his pack of wolves, he and the Furious Five set off to free the city from Lord Shen’s evil ways. Before leaving the Valley of Peace, Po was a “shocking” discovery that he is adopted and that his noodle cooking goose (he is actually a goose, not a silly person, although some may object) father, Mr Ping is not really his father. Po has reason to believe that Lord Shen knows who he really is and where he came from. To Po, this awesome mission is now personal.

Animation in cinema has come a long way since the first animated feature length film, Snow White And The Seven Dwarves in 1937. The quality of the visuals in Kung Fu Panda 2 are very impressive. The action scenes are almost up to the standard of those which you would see in a non-animated action film. It’s not just the action scenes that make you forget that you are watching an animation, there are several nature visuals which you could easily mistake as being that of photography.

On the other hand, there are then some scenes which resemble a video game, such as when Po is running through the streets of Gongmen City. This isn’t a bad thing, as this video game likeness makes the film a great deal of fun.

Kung Fu Panda 2 doesn’t just rely on its visuals, it is also accompanied by a very funny script. It has a very sarcastic and random sense of humour to it with some very funny scenes and dialogue. The ending is a bit frustrating however. Although, you can understand why the film makers made it that way.

The best performances in animation films are those who can disguise their voice to the point where you really can’t guess who’s voice it is you are hearing. Jack Black is the main voice and you can tell he has a lot of fun with the role. It is perfectly suited towards Po. Angelina Jolie is extremely controlled as Tigress and Dustin Hoffman, quite the peaceful master. It is Gary Oldman who does the best job. He tackles new territory as the voice of Shen and is completely disguised in the character. That’s the way it should be when an actor supplies their voice to a film, there should be a sense of becoming someone you’re not, even if it is just by using a different voice to your own.

Kung Fu Panda 2 is a sequel out of the ordinary. Funnier than the first film and more suspenseful than many non-animated films. A great film for the holidays for families and adults alike.

7/10

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon

2011-07-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon

Year: 2011

Director: Michael Bay

Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Josh Duhamel, Patrick Dempsey, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich

In My Own Words

I often pride myself on questioning strange things which I am sure the majority of the population do not think about. For example, last week I was pondering the fact that everyone who reaches the grand old age of 100 gets a letter from the Queen and whether this meant that when the Queen Mother reached 100 in the year 2000, does that mean she still gets a letter from her daughter? Surely a card would be nicer than a letter and a “Happy Birthday Mum”? Yes, these are the strange things I wonder about.

Anyway…on my way to see the third Transformers film, I was contemplating the time when I was a young girl and Transformers: The Movie has just been released, the television series was a huge success and all the boys my age had their action figurines. I started to think about other 1980’s cartoons. Film makers have been recreating so many cartoons of yesteryear as of late such as Yogi Bear and the upcoming, The Smurfs. When will we be seeing a real to life version of He- Man and She-ra? Strawberry Shortcake, Rainbow Brite, Lady Lovelylocks, Care Bears, My Little Pony or The Popples? If Yogi Bear is anything to go by, we can mix real life with animation, so the last three shouldn’t be a problem! Although I don’t know how the idea of magical ponies would go down in a 2011 film of My Little Pony. It could be quite scary and trippy.

This “In My Own Words” is probably getting a bit scary and trippy for some of you come to think of it. I know I think about some very strange things, but hey, I’m not going to apologise for them because I have fun thinking about these things!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

If you are looking for an action-packed film with amazing special effects which are enhanced (for once) by 3D, you will find Transformers: Dark Of The Moon a very satisfactory experience. If you are looking for an all-rounder with great script, great acting and lots of emotion, you will enjoy this film as much as a poke in the eye. Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is definitely one of those films which is to be taken for what it is. It is the third instalment in Michael Bay’s Transformers films and carries on in the same fashion as its predecessors with no great surprises.

In this film, the Autobots are still on Earth and helping the government to track down the Decepticons. Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) confronts Secretary of Defense, Charlotte Mearing (Frances McDormand) about a piece of cell he finds and she informs him that the first venture of man to the moon in 1969, was actually a top secret mission to investigate a crash of an alien spacecraft. This spacecraft was actually Sentinel Prime’s (Leonard Nimoy), a leader of the Autobots. Optimus Prime sets off to the moon to bring Sentinel Prime to Earth. Once they arrive back, they are a few surprises in store and nobody knows who they should trust. Just like in the previous Transformers films, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), who has now finished college and living in Washington, DC, plays a large part in the fight of the Autobots, as does his new girlfriend, Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley).

The best thing about Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is definitely it’s astonishing special effects. There are some truly spectacular action sequences that do not disappoint. They are quite beautiful to watch. It is films like this that make you marvel at how far film making has come in relation it special effects. The action in this film is perhaps more impressive than the action in the first two films. The sounds accompanying the visuals are perfectly suited and are very haunting in some scenes, in particular when they are in Chicago. 3D is really an advantage in this film and it is great to see an action film that truly is enhanced by it.

Unfortunately, there are not too many other good points about Transformers: Dark Of The Moon. As wonderful as the action sequences are, the final action scenes just go on for way too long, making the film much longer than what it should and could be. It is true that they are so good to watch that you wish you could see action like that in every film in the genre, but in the last 15 minutes of the film, you start to wish that it would get to the finale already. Of course, the ending is very predictable so it is not like you are wondering what is going to happen as much as how it is going to happen. It is an interesting type of suspense. Suspense caused by the intensity of the action rather than the feeling of not knowing what is going to happen.

The story is actually quite clever when it comes down to it. The idea of combining the Autobots with the first man on the moon and then the explanations as to why the American’s were first there and why they haven’t been back since 1972 is intriguing and if there were such things as Autobots, it would actually be a logical explanation. The script is good enough to support the clever story. Yet, as one can expect, extremely cheesy and very weak in parts.

Playing Sam Witwicky is almost second nature to Shia LaBeouf now. He does the role well and is likable, as he was in the past Transformers movies. It is interesting, he seems to have no problems getting tears to well up in his eyes and getting the facial expression of someone in mental pain, but he provokes absolutely no emotion for the audience to feel attached to. LaBeouf actually has a great comedy streak in him which is often overlooked. He started his career as a stand-up comedian and you can see it in his acting in this film. His facial expressions and his deliverance of sarcastic dialogue are truly gold.

After the departure of Megan Fox from the series, the film makers had to find another stunning woman to fulfil her shoes considering Sam having a beautiful girlfriend is just as much a part of Transformers as the Autobots are. Their answer came in Victoria’s Secret model, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is her acting debut, and it wasn’t too hard a role for her to start off with. Her performance is very amateurish with no emotion or strain really being shown in any scene. However, it is obvious she wasn’t chosen for the role because of her dramatic qualifications. The camera spends a great deal of time scanning her body and boys will become men with her entrance into the film.

With some films, you can always look at them and realise why they were made at the point in time which they were. With Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, it is crystal clear that it was made at the perfect point in time to take full advantage of the amazing special effects available, not to mention 3D. Although it is a clever story, it is the action that makes this film.

5.5/10

Paul

2011-06-26T05:38:00.000-07:00

Paul

Year: 2011

Director: Greg Mottola

Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogan, Kristen Wiig, Sigourney Weaver, Jason Bateman

In My Own Words

Aliens? Hmm….I am never sure about the subject of whether they exist or not. With something like this, I never feel like I am capable of making a statement until I am an expert on the subject. The beginning and the end of this is that there has been no official proof that there is another life form out there so innocent until proven guilty. I do like the idea of going on an alien themed road trip across the United States like Clive and Graeme do in Paul. Even if I don’t know if I believe in it or not, it would still be interesting as you would find out about the link there is between each town and another life form and start to piece together whether there is some truth in it. A road trip across the USA sounds like a great idea right about now too! This trip which Clive and Graeme went on sounds like a great post for my other movie website, Travelling With The Movies. Keep an eye out!

So let’s not waste any time with the “do they, don’t they exist” and get onto the Paul review. This one is dedicated to one of my friends who has told me that she only gets to go to one movie a year and this year she chose Paul! She knows who she is, so this review is for you!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Paul is one of those films that you should make the effort to go out and see if you are having a bad day and need a laugh. Even if you are having a great day, you should go out and see Paul because you will have an even better day! It is one of those rare comedies that is completely fresh and original, yet doesn’t take itself seriously and just has fun with what it is doing. Extra-terrestrial’s aren’t traditionally seen in film as being comedians which makes Paul one of a kind.

Paul is the nickname given to the alien in question after the dog his spaceship landed on when he arrived on Earth 60 years ago. Up until now, he has been kept at military base just “hanging out”, but when he finds out that he is actually being held prisoner he makes a run for it. He runs into Clive (Nick Frost) and Graeme (Simon Pegg), two best friends who have travelled to the USA to go to a comic convention in San Diego and then set off on their own extra-terrestrial road trip. Their fun holiday has turned into a fugitive run from the authorities with Paul. For these two nerds, it seems as though all their dreams have come true!

For a comedy film such as Paul, story and script are the keys to making it work. And Paul has the key. Alien films aren’t new, but many alien films are either family orientated or they are world disaster films. Paul is different. The alien speaks perfect English and if it wasn’t for the physical aspects, you would think he was a young male adult running around. There are some slightly crass moments in the film with a few expletives thrown in, but it isn’t disgusting or gross like some comedies tend to be these days. The story is very original and a load of fun.

The writing by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg themselves is very good, but nobody would expect any less from these two, especially Pegg who has made a name for himself for his screenwriting almost as much as he has for his acting. The film completely flows as a result of a tightly knit script which does not waver with any of the comedy. The dialogue between the characters is very funny, as are some of the one liners. There isn’t really any spectacular cinematography moments, although some of the nature shots are quite impressive. The film more focuses on just the comedy and it’s witty and fun script.

Both Nick Frost and Simon Pegg do well in this film and are both very funny, but these do not seem like particularly hard roles for them. This isn’t a bad thing, as they are able to do the roles with complete ease and they do all that can be asked of them. It is Seth Rogan who belittles both of them, even though it is only his voice which is heard. He provides the voice for Paul and the mixture of his voice and Paul’s physical appearance just make you smile and no matter how rude he is, he is still very likable. His vocal talents are perfect for this alien. Kristen Wiig is great in the role of Ruth, a young lady who joins the three on their journey. She is very sweet to begin with, but her change over the film and the things that come out of her mouth as a result are hilarious.

These days comedy seems to be going in the direction of the grosser the better. Paul may not have the cleanest mouth around and neither may Ruth, but it doesn’t have any disgusting toilet humour which seems to be a common theme in comedies released these days. Who would have guessed that an alien who loves Reese’s Pieces could be the hero in one of the funniest films of the year?

7.5/10

Bridesmaids

2011-06-24T07:42:00.000-07:00

Bridesmaids

Year: 2011

Director: Paul Feig

Cast: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne

In My Own Words

All hail the stars of Saturday Night Live! Before I lived in Los Angeles, I had only heard of Saturday Night Live, but never seen an episode or knew the fascination with it. Of course I had heard that comedians such as Mike Myers, Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler had got their big breaks on the show. It was never shown in Australia on free to air television until really inconvenient times at night. So when I lived in Los Angeles, I got my first taste of SNL. Now that show is my sense of humour. I was in stitches laughing at the skit of Katy Perry singing “I saw a boat and I liked it” instead of “I kissed a girl and I liked it” and almost falling off the couch when Mark Wahlberg was having an in depth conversation with a goat about it eating apples. These things probably sound ridiculous, but my they are hilarious when SNL do it.

After this, my roommates knew very well that I could not be out after 10:30pm on a Saturday night because I had to watch my SNL. That is one of the many things I miss about not living in the United States anymore, not having my weekly SNL fix! It is still something I watch in hotel rooms on Saturday nights when I travel back to the states. Luckily it is shown on cable TV here so I don’t feel as disconnected from the SNL world now.

As well as SNL being a great show, it has been the stepping stone for so many great careers. There are the three I mentioned before and many, many more. More recently there has been Amy Poehler and my hero, Tina Fey. And Bridesmaids, brings out the talents of Kristen Wiig and Maya Randolph. I am very impressed with Wiig. It was her first go at being the lead lady and I was anxious for her because she is probably my favourite on SNL out of the current cast. She is a very funny lady.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Bridesmaids has been hailed by many as The Hangover for girls. This is an inaccurate statement as Bridesmaids may be about girls and may have a title relating primarily to girls, but it is not just for girls as boys will find this movie just as funny as girls. There has yet to be a film quite as funny as Bridesmaids released this year. There is actually different types of humour throughout the film so it therefore has something which everyone will find funny, although you may have to sit through some things you won’t find funny at all to get through to something which you do.

Annie (Kristen Wiig) is not having a great time. She has had her bakery go out of business, broke up with her boyfriend and is living with very strange siblings. Yet, she has to try and put all of it behind her when her lifelong best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) gets engaged and asks Annie to be her maid of honour. The group of misfits in Lillian’s bridal party tend to bring out the crazy in Annie, especially perfectionist Helen (Rose Byrne). It is one mishap after the other until the girls just crack.

Bridesmaids is very well written and directed with some very funny moments. The best thing is that the laughs just keep coming and it is funny from beginning to end. The laughs don’t come from just one particular source, every character is funny and quirky in their own way. There are some moments (not too many) which some people will find isn’t suited to their sense of humour and some other scenes which are meant to be funny, but are actually quite painful. Such as the first competition between Annie and Helen just gets to be annoying and strenuous to watch.

Although sometimes exaggerated, one of the best things about Bridesmaids besides the humour, is how well it carries the story and how real the characters, situations and underlying themes are. The story doesn’t waver through all the comedy, which is sometimes a hard thing for writers to do when they are so worried about making the film funny. The themes of friendship, happiness and self worth are recurrent throughout the film and will ring true for many audience members.

Kristen Wiig does extremely well not just as a lead actress, but also as being one of the writers of this film. Annie is so real and many people are able to relate to her. She goes through very real situations with men, herself and the other girls that she really doesn’t seem like just another movie character. It is fantastic character development and Wiig is so at ease and natural in the role.

Maya Rudolph doesn’t do too badly, but it would have been good to see her get a bit more from the role and express a bit more emotion throughout the film. Rose Byrne is great as the attention seeker Helen. She is utterly painful and you are just waiting for her to trip. It would have been good to see her character let loose and show her craziness, rather than just shed a few tears. The unsung hero of the film is Melissa McCarthy who plays Lillian’s to be sister-in-law, Megan. She brings many laughs to the movie, but she is an absolute stand out as a character which is unconventional and awkward.

Bridesmaids is an absolute ball of fun. Some things may offend some members of the audience, but this shouldn’t come as a surprise if you check the censors before you see the film. They aren’t there for nothing. Great characters and may even have the answers to some very real problems some people may be going through.

7.5/10

Hanna

2011-06-23T04:55:00.000-07:00

Hanna

Year: 2011

Director: Joe Wright

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana

In My Own Words

Hands up those in Australia who remember Full Frontal? If you do, you know exactly what I will be talking about in this In My Own Words.

I am, of course, going to be talking about the Eric Bana which we Australians knew back in the 1990’s. The Eric Bana who was on our television screens each Thursday night at 8:30pm. No, Full Frontal wasn’t an incredibly dramatic and intense drama series, it was Australia’s answer to Saturday Night Live with its collection of send up skits. Unfortunately, the series which I so loved came to an end in 1996, but the memories of Eric Bana as the comedian lives on.

If someone had told me then that Bana was going to be one of the leading drama and action stars in Hollywood not even 10 years after the show finished, I would have been extremely confused of how anyone could take him seriously. He has definitely proved himself as a fantastic actor and I am very proud of how far our fellow Aussie has come. Yet, sometimes when I watch him in a movie, I am still expecting him to open his mouth and crack a joke or start up on of his famous impersonations as the Aussie bogan, Peter (pronounced “Poiter”), Australian television personality Ray Martin or his very funny portrayal of Tom Cruise. So Bana has gone from imitating the Hollywood heavy weights for a living, to being one of them. Ironic the way the world works out, isn’t it?

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

What comes to mind when you think about a film about a child assassin? Violence, confrontation, uneasiness? Most likely words of this nature and nobody could blame you for thinking this. How about if the movie starts when the “child” in question is in the latter half of her teenage years which doesn’t really make the film about a child assassin, but about a young lady who has been trained as an assassin? Therefore, Hanna is a misunderstood film and rather than creating the controversy which one thinks it would, it is quite amazing really.

Saoirse Ronan is Hanna, the sixteen year old who has been raised in the Finnish wild by her father, Erik (Eric Bana). As an ex- CIA agent, Erik has trained his daughter as soldier trained to kill. Hanna is sent into the world for the first time to travel across Europe and meet her father in Berlin. As soon as her presence is known in the outside world, she has agents on her tail wanting her dead and she comes face to face with the agent who killed her mother, Marissa (Cate Blanchett). Hanna learns what it is like to be a typical sixteen year old in the outside world and also learns who she really is.

The story of Hanna may seem disturbing to some people, but it hardly seems disturbing on screen. Sure there is violence, which is to be expected in a film about an assassin, yet the story is really played out as a piece of art. The storyline and script itself is good, but the techniques used to bring the story to the screen are far more impressive than the writing.

The cinematography is just beautiful. There are some amazing panoramic landscape shots and the editing during Hanna’s escape from the agents is brilliant. Director Joe Wright chooses some great locations for the film. The filming locations are very interesting and in the final scenes with playground equipment and the swans and wolf mouth keep everything fresh even at the end of the film. If you really want to get in depth, these images which are part of the landscape could also be seen as symbolic of the childlike innocence which has been destroyed.

In the scene when Hanna is escaping for the first time from the agents, the thrilling images are accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack by The Chemical Brothers. The best thing about this soundtrack is that it isn’t techno or electronic music pumping constantly throughout the film, but the sounds are mixed up depending on what is happening in the film at that point in time. One would think that the film was choreographed around the music by how well it matches up and not the other way around.

Saoirse Ronan, this young woman loves the roles that push her boundaries, and why not? She pulls them all off. As Hanna, she physically suits the role as the young girl brought up in the wild. She doesn’t really give a great deal of emotion in the scenes where it is needed, yet she is great as the girl who has never got to experience anything that a typical sixteen year old has. She also doesn’t show a tremendous amount of aggression, which one would normally expect in an assassin. There is aggression there, just not enough.

Eric Bana seems to glide through this role. Like Ronan, he doesn’t show a great amount of emotion. Yet, it is great to see him in another action role. He is a natural in this type of role and looks right at home in the action fighting sequences. Cate Blanchett is very good as the role of the evil agent. She really is quite terrifying and becomes the role with every ounce of her being.

Hanna is truly a work of art. It is visually beautiful and everything is pieced together with the greatest accuracy and care. It is always a great joy to see a film know that it is a piece of art and live up to it.

8/10

Country Strong

2011-06-22T02:14:00.000-07:00

Country Strong
Year: 2010
Director: Shana Feste
Cast: Gwyneth Paltrow, Tim McGraw, Garrett Hedlund, Leighton Meester

In My Own Words
Does anybody else find it funny that the only star of Country Strong who is first and foremost a singer outside this film, doesn't sing?

I bet you didn't pick that up until you just read that! Tim McGraw lives and breathes country music being the winner of three Grammy's, married to another country superstar, Faith Hill and has sold millions of records. I can imagine many country music fans would have flocked to see Country Strong in hope of seeing their idol sing on the big screen. Yes he has been in other films in which he hadn't sung in, but this film surely would have been the one he did considering it is about country singers such as himself. Not that it is a bad thing at all because it seperates him as a true actor rather than a singer only trying to be an actor, but it is just interesting that he is the only singer before actor out of the four and the only one who doesn't sing. That's all.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Well, this is probably one cast you probably thought you would never see together in a film. We have Academy Award winner Gwyneth Paltrow, country music superstar Tim McGraw, TRON: Legacy heart throb Garrett Hedlund and Gossip Girl and sometimes pop singer Leighton Meester. Interesting cast, but what about the movie around the cast, Country Strong?

Country Strong is one of those films which require a lot of brain power. Not during the film, but to actually figure out whether you enjoy it or not. It has good points and bad points, just as it has good songs and bad songs. Yet, it is worth a watch for a bit of cheese and a bit of drama.Country music fans will be ecstatic at the long awaited release of a country music film which proves country music to be cool and fun, and not dreary like it is sometimes made out to be.

After a horrific night nine months before in Texas when country music superstar, Kelly Canter (Gwyneth Paltrow) appeared onstage drunk, fell over a microphone cord, plummeted and lost her unborn child, her husband and manager, James (Tim McGraw)belives she is ready for her comeback tour. However, Kelly's younger lover and country music start on the rise, Beau (Garrett Hedlund) is not quite as sure. James oprganises a sold out tour of Nashville, Austin and Dallas for Kelly and takes Beau and the young starlet, Chiles Stanton (Leighton Meester) along as support acts. These young stars are ready for their moment in the sun, but it seems that Kelly has already had hers.

There is always something fun about films based on the movie industry, and Country Strong is no exception. Something that Country Strong is also no exception for is that it is cheesy and contains stereo-typical characters for a film of this type. There are some great songs which would do well if they were released on their own ("Timing Is Everything") and then some really horrible and overly corny songs ( the horrible but somehow catchy and toe- tapping "Summer Girl"). There are moments of thrill and goosebumps where the the stars are applauded by massive concert crowds. Country Strong ticks all boxes for a cheesy entertainment based spectacular.

However, Country Strong is inconcsistent to say the least. The story is actually very good and quite entrancing at times, but the script is quite lame which destroys the vibe of the story. There are un-nesccessary lines where there should just be emotion through facial expressions and this would have made the movie far more endearing. For example, when Chiles gives her first performance in front of James to prove she is good enough to tour with Kelly, the audience would have benefited far more if her character had shown her ambition and then nerves through her body language and facial expressions rather than her lines. Yet, the ending is still strong and quite unpredictable.

Gwyneth Paltrow does very well in this film. She plays out well the woman who everyone thought was very close to making a full recovery and goes on a downward spiral into coming undone once again. At the beginning of the film, she is not quite as strong a character as what she becomes in the audiences eyes further into the film. The only thing about Paltrow's performance is that she really has no chemistry with her co-stars. She doesn't seem to be overly in love with her husband ( although at times you're not sure whether she actually is) and there is no chemsitry between her and Garrett Hedlund at all.

Tim McGraw is also very good, yet one would expect him to be in a film which is based on his main career outside the film. He shows a tremendous amount of love and pain for his wife. It is unclear whether he is actually supposed to be a good guy or a bad guy in this film. He seemingly forces his wife back into the spotlight when she clearly is not ready, yet he never fails in his love for her and, unlike his wife, doesn't have a wandering eye.

Garrett Hedlund is fine. He does well, but his performance is not by any means spectacular. However, who knew he had the perfect voice for country music? Leighton Meester's Chiles doesn't have a particular strong character and at the beginning she starts off quite weak as a result of a bad script, but she finishes off quite well. When happy, her smile does definitely light up the screen.

Country Strong is not the dramatic film which director, Shana Feste may or may not have wanted it to be. It has as many flaws as it does strengths, and like it or not, it is still a fun watch. The combination of Paltrow, McGraw, Hedlund and Meester is enough to bring in the curious folk.
6/10

Super 8

2011-06-11T19:55:00.000-07:00

Super 8

Year: 2011

Director: J. J. Abrams

Cast: Joel Chandler, Elle Fanning

In My Own Words

One of the things I really loved about Super 8, was that the children with their movie really reminded me of myself when I was around their age. My love of movies has gone back as long as I can remember and in primary school, I decided I wanted to make a movie. Needless to say, the boys in this film got a lot further in the film production stage than what I did. Being only 10, I wasn’t quite sure what to do after the pre-production stage of discussing the movies with my friends as much as I possibly could. Yet, I was completely serious about this film. I spent every lunchtime trying to get all my friends involved and telling them what was the difference between a producer and a director. My movie was to be called “The Taso” and was about a little furry monster who used to live in one of the girls house. He was a sneaky little thing and managed to play games with everyone without actually getting caught. “The Taso” became one of those classic films that was shelved and will never see the light of day.

Back to young people who have actually cracked it into the film industry, Super 8 seems to be the film which has absolutely catapulted Elle Fanning into super stardom. Elle Fanning is, of course, the younger sister of Dakota Fanning, as you may be able to tell not just from the last name but also from their striking resemblance. She has also played the younger version of her sister in I Am Sam and the TV mini-series, Taken. Yet, Fanning has not ever seemed to be in the shadow of her sister. Before Super 8, she is most remembered for the role of young Daisy in The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button and as Cleo in Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere. Super 8 proves what she is capable of and she really is a little firecracker. It may be a big call as the older Fanning is an outstanding actress herself, but the younger Fanning could actually in time to come be a bigger star in her own right than her sister. I know, big call.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

The combination in Super 8 of writer and director, J. J. Abrams and producer, Steven Spielberg is an absolute dream. This combination excites not only sci-fi fans, but anybody from any walk of life who just loves great film. So popular opinion should suggest that we have a great film on our hands, right? Well, maybe.

Super 8 does have exactly what is needed for a great action/ sci-fi film. There is suspense, intrigue and amazing special effects, but there are things which stop this film from making it over the threshold of a good and great film. The film is fairly predictable with an ending which is edging on anti-climatic and as a whole, the film really doesn’t strike you as being completely original. Yes it is intriguing and keeps you on the edge of your seat for the large majority of the film, but it cannot be claimed as being something which we haven’t seen before. However, there really isn’t anything new under the sun so we can’t be too critical.

Set in 1979 in the Ohio town of Lillian, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), the son of the town’s deputy, is focused only on helping Charles (Riley Griffiths) and his group of friends finish make their zombie film. While filming one night, they are witness to the horrific derailment of a cargo train running through town. After this accident, strange things start happening in Lillian and people start disappearing. The town is in panic and Joe and his friends may be the only ones outside the forces who know exactly what is going on.

At first sight, Super 8 seems resemble ET: The Extra-Terrestrial. Joe jumps on his bicycle and one can only have déjà vu to Elliot on his bicycle from Spielberg’s 1982 super hit. Yet then once he teams up with his friends and witnesses the train crash, it is déjà vu to Stand By Me. So what we are looking at is a mash up of ET and Stand By Me, with perhaps a splash of War Of The Worlds. However unoriginal this may make the film seem, there is still a huge sense of intrigue.

Super 8 is very well written and the script flows perfectly. There are also some very emotional scenes which pull at your heart strings. The script and accompanying cinematography methods make the film very suspenseful. In particular, the train crash segment is very intense. The special effects and sound effects employed for this film are brilliant. This is actually one film that proves that you do not need 3D in the cinema to make an action film extremely confronting to those in the audience. The fact that Super 8 wasn’t released in 3D is actually very reassuring and refreshing when 3D seems to be the be all and end all for action films.

Another great thing about this film is the way in which it doesn’t show you much until the right time. In the trailer for the film, nothing is given away as to what is actually in the train so you enter the film with complete intrigue to begin with. The questions are not answered at the beginning of the film, and nothing of the thing in question is really visually shown until later in the film. This is a great technique as it keeps the suspense, intrigue and audience’s attention.

The ending to this film is not as fulfilling as what some may expect it to be. Yet in saying that, it is not easy to think of another way which this film could have finished and it be the type of film which Abrams and Spielberg intended it to be. However, it may be exactly the type of ending that some people were after. It is a fitting ending, but it lacks real intensity in the closing scenes. There is some emotional intensity, but not for the prime focus of the situation.

One thing that also should be touched on is the unrealistic element of the film, in which there is quite a few throughout the film. For example, there is no way anybody could survive a head on collision with a cargo train going at full speed and survive. So kids, don’t try to stop a train at all, car or not. It’s all the magic of movies!

Joel Courtney plays the lead role of Joe Lamb, and in his very first acting performance on screen he does very well. He is very sweet and is the quiet hero. At several times throughout the film, you just want to give him a hug. However, it is Elle Fanning who steals the show in this film. She is brilliant from her very first line in the film and she is the one the audience wants to see more of. She is completely natural in every one of her scenes and like Courtney, you just want to give her a hug and tell her everything is okay. Kyle Chandler is fine as Joe’s father, but he doesn’t really show the traits of a grieving father or a deputy who is under a tremendous amount of stress. The relationship between him and his son doesn’t seem as strained as what it is made out to be.

Super 8 is one of those films which you have to see at the cinema to get the full scope of what it is. It is extremely entertaining and also very sweet in parts. This is one of those rare films which is for everyone.

7.5/10

Imitation Of Life

2011-06-03T07:01:00.000-07:00

Imitation Of Life

Year: 1959

Director: Douglas Sirk

Cast: Lana Turner, Juanita Moore, Susan Kohner, Sandra Dee

Screening at Sydney Film Festival 8^th June-19^th June 2011

Monday 13^th June 2011 3pm Art Gallery of New South Wales

It is time once again for the most important film festival in the Australian events calendar. The Sydney Film Festival is in its 67^th year and with the Australian film industry only getting stronger, the festival itself is pulling in not only some fine films competing for the Official Grand Jury prize, but also some very exciting Australian premieres. Hot on the tail of its Cannes Film Festival showing, Terrence Malick’s “The Tree Of Life” will be showing as will Julia Leigh’s controversial “Sleeping Beauty”. However, the great thing about the Sydney Film Festival is that it brings back to the big screen several films that were made during the 20^th century that have not been seen in Australian cinemas in many of our lifetimes.

One such film that will be showing at the Sydney Film Festival which I will definitely be seeing is Imitation Of Life. It won’t be the first time I have seen this film, as it is actually featured in my top 50 favourite films, as listed here on Imdb.com, but there is nothing like seeing one of your favourite films on the big screen. Especially if, like me, you have only ever had the opportunity to see it on DVD. However, if you haven’t seen this film and you are in Sydney during the film festival, I do encourage you to go along to the Art Gallery of New South Wales on the 13^th of June (the Queen’s Birthday Holiday) and check it out.

Imitation Of Life opens with the meeting of actress, Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) and Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore) on the beach at Coney Island. Feeling for Annie’s hardship, Lora invites her and her daughter, Sarah Jane to live with her and her daughter, Susie. Both girls experience growing pains, yet Sarah Jane (older version played by Susan Kohner) has the harder situation. While Annie is dark skinned, Sarah Jane is white as her father was. The last things she is is proud about her mother’s heritage and continually leads people to believe she is white, which ultimately means disowning her own mother. Susie (Sandra Dee), on the other hand, feels neglected by her mother who she feels always puts her career before her.

This film contains a lot of confronting issues, especially relating to race. The time in which Imitation Of Life was made was still a time of racial discrimination so one can partly understand why Sarah Jane would want to avoid that oppression at all costs. Yet, the way she treats her mother is any parent’s nightmare. It is these two minds and conflicting situations in Sarah Jane’s mind that make this film so intriguing. Sarah Jane is, as much as you want to kick her most of the time, a great character. She represents those people in society who feel that they have an identity crisis as a result of being a mix of two races. The situation is particularly heartbreaking when looked at from her mother’s point of view. Sarah Jane blames her mother for being the colour which she is and ultimately does not want her to be her mother. Having your child feel this way about you is any parent’s nightmare. Every parent wants their child to be proud of where they came from and to love the woman who made them, yet Sarah Jane despises her.

The relationship between Lora and Susie does seem to get lost in the Annie and Sarah Jane situation. Although Susie feeling neglected by her mother is supposed to be a big issue, it is almost forgotten throughout the film as the audience is so absorbed by Annie and Sarah Jane. Yet, it does work in a way because Lora gets involved in the dispute between Annie and Sarah Jane and Susie is almost forgotten.

Imitation Of Life is very character driven and the acting always had to be of a high standard to make this film successful. The acting is brilliant by all four of the leading ladies. Douglas Sirk was known for being a “women’s director” and in this film he shows why. Susan Kohner makes you feel angry and emotionally strained watching her, which symbolises how successfully she completes her job as Sarah Jane. Juanita Moore also gives an emotionally charged and absolutely heart breaking performance as the mother who’s daughter is drifting further and further away from her. She is devastating in this film and everyone feels the depth of her pain.

Lana Turner, who gave her best acting at this point in her career, gives a stellar performance. There is one particular scene in Imitation Of Life which could well have been the best scene of her career. She is stunning in this film, but also strong at some times and emotional in others. Susie was Sandra Dee’s breakthrough role and the role just before she was launched into Gidget stardom. She is very sweet, but also manages to give her all in the scenes which demand her to give more than just sweetness.

Even if you are not in Sydney for the film festival this month or you are busy on the 13^th of June, track down a copy of Imitation Of Life to watch something quite spectacular. It is a remake to the 1934 film of the same name starring Claudette Colbert, yet this earlier film is not quite as emotionally gifted. Remember to watch this with a box of tissues nearby.

9.5/10

X- Men: First Class

2011-06-02T08:32:00.000-07:00

X- Men: First Class

Year: 2011

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Cast: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Rose Byrne, January Jones, Kevin Bacon, Jennifer Lawrence

In My Own Words

I must say, I am an X- Men fan. I’m not normally one to nerd out on comic book characters or superheroes, but there is something I really like about X- Men. I like the idea of a group of misfits feeling like they truly belong when they are together. I also like how there is the underlying theme of accepting yourself for who you are. In the first X- Men film, it was Anna Paquin’s Rogue struggling with her identity as a mutant and in this film it is both Raven and Hank who have to come to grips with their visible mutations. Normally with Marvel comic movies, the recurring theme is always one of the unlikely hero proving that anyone can be a superhero. Yet in X-Men, it reaches down further than that and tries to teach people that what you sometimes believe is your weakness, can be your strength. I think we all need to remember this. Stop seeing what is wrong with yourself and turn it around so that you see that that is what makes you special. And of course, who can forget the romanticised theme of it is what is inside that counts.

Wow, it seems as though I am also becoming a motivational speaker as well as a film critic. That was deep! It would be great if we could all use our weaknesses to join in some superhero activities and go to Charles Xavier’s school, where education seems to be a lot more fun that sitting in Maths class each day!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

The 3^rd of June is the day in which X- Men fanatics would have been holding their breath in anticipation for. With a killer cast, great special effects and a lot of answers to those questions that have been asked ever since the first X- Men film was released back in 2000, X- Men: First Class is an absolute thrill for X- Men fans. However, if you are not an X- Men fan or haven’t seen any of the previous films, un-fulfilment and boredom will be the order of the day.

X- Men: First Class is the prequel to the four previously released X- Men films. It takes you back to the very beginning when Professor X was Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto was Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), two mutants with extraordinary powers who are united in the fight against a common enemy, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). Together they assemble a team of mutants, who feel outcast from society but like they belong with each other and fight against Shaw and his team of faithful followers.

Anyone who likes any of the previous X- Men films will love this film. There are many references to bits and pieces in the prior films and all the questions as to why things are the way they are are answered. It really is a suitable prequel to the series and is really quite interesting and definitely enjoyable enough. Those who are not X- Men fans are sure to 132 minutes too long for this film and may get restless quite a few times throughout.

What does differentiate this film from its predecessors (except maybe X- Men Origins: Wolverine), is that it is focussed more on the narrative rather than on the action. There really isn’t too much action until the end. Sure there are bits and pieces of impressive special effects and the odd rough and tumble here and there throughout the film, but there really aren’t any intense action sequences until the close to the end. This may be a long time to wait for those who have their heart set on seeing lots of explosions and gunfire. However, this scenes are worth the wait and as they are very impressive and suspenseful. The CGI is outstanding and the sound editing is also commendable.

And what a cast. Perfectly cast are all those who are involved. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender had hard roles to live up to as they had had the bar set so high by Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen. McAvoy’s performance reflected Stewart’s in his mannerisms and nature, but also bought something new to the role. McAvoy’s Charles Xavier grows from a cocky Oxford student into a leader throughout the course of the film and you can see how much the character changes from beginning to end. Fassbender is superb as Erik Lehnsherr. The raw emotion exhibited in his character shows how Magneto became the way he is and he demands pity from the audience.

Rose Byrne is very good in her role as CIA agent Moira MacTaggert and gets the most out of her role as she possibly can. Jennifer Lawrence shines as the young Raven who renames herself Mystique, again showing the growth in character over the film. The story of Mystique is one which people will enjoy as she has always been one of the great mysteries of the X- Men series. Kevin Bacon’s performance is good for the most part of the film, but the first scene in which he is in in the Polish war camp is brilliant. It would be an absolute treat to see him do a role like he was in that scene in a whole movie in the future. Nicholas Hoult is also very good as Hank, who later turns into Beast.

One of the best things about this film is that there is so much character development for each of the main characters. Charles, Erik and Raven are so well constructed and every question is answered as to who they are, where they come from and why they are the way they are. Also watch out for a hilarious cameo by Hugh Jackman!

It can’t be said enough that X- Men: First Class is a film which anyone who has seen any of the first four X- Men films will enjoy. There is a lot of fun to be had while you find out the history of the two men who started it all. Great for the fans, quite possibly tedious for those who are not.

7/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

2011-05-23T06:40:00.000-07:00

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Year: 2011

Director: Rob Marshall

Cast: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane

In My Own Words

When I first heard about the fourth instalment for “Pirates of the Caribbean”, I was completely sceptical. I had every reason to be. When the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” was released back in 2003, it was in my top 5 films for years. After the second and third film, I kind of lost interest. I think I was getting annoyed that the makers were milking the concept for all it was worth and using everything that was great about the first movie over and over again. I loved the freshness of the first one and the fact that there had never been a pirate film quite like that one before. There was romance, adventure, surprises and some good laughs in there. Of course, the second one and third one just doubled everything about the first. They were so over the top that it made it all seem so corny and silly.

I can see why Disney would want to get the most out of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” phenomenon though. How good is the character of Captain Jack Sparrow? He is a character like none other and always a joy to watch. Disneyland even redid their “Pirates of the Caribbean” ride to include Sparrow after the huge success of the film, which was based on the ride to begin with. Depp deserved his Academy Award nomination for being the true spirit behind this character that will never be forgotten. There aren’t many characters these days which aren’t superheros that people can see not being forgotten in a hurry, so that makes Sparrow pretty special.

And whether the fourth film is good or not, does it really matter in the eyes of Disney? Of course not! “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” had a $250 million production budget, and since it’s opening on Thursday, it has made $346 million worldwide. According to Box Office Mojo, this film had the highest earnings in its opening weekend in the United States ever. Why stop?

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Pirates of the Caribbean” may not have worn out its welcome just yet. Eight years after the first instalment was released, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” is the fourth on screen adventure of the beloved Captain Jack Sparrow. “On Stranger Tides” is much like the previous films in many ways, but the good thing is that it has learnt from the biggest mistakes made in the second and third films and has made amends for them in this film.

Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) returns and this time he is in pursuit of the Fountain of Youth. He once again escapes the gallows and is again running from the authorities and the newly reformed Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) who are also after the Fountain of Youth. He runs into his old flame, Angelica (Penelope Cruz) who tricks him into coming along with her and her father, Blackbeard (Ian McShane) on the same quest. It is a race to see who gets there first, and who knows how to get there. Also, who can survive the journey.

“On Stranger Tides” is much like the last two “Pirates of the Caribbean” where there is so much going on at once. There are the two main stories of Barbossa’s journey and Blackbeard’s journey, as well as the romance between Philip (Sam Clafin) and mermaid, Syrena (Astrid Berges-Frisbey). However much there may be going on, it is still not quite as busy as the second and third film proving that the film makers have learnt from their mistakes. Because there is so much going on, the scriptwriting seems a bit all over the place. Many of the characters, besides Sparrow, Blackbeard and Barbossa are not very verbally gifted. There are still some good laughs to be had throughout the film, but no real surprises or suspense.

There are some really thrilling and impressive moments in the film. The scenery and landscape used for various scenes in beautiful and the editing and cinematography is very well done. However, there are some boring and drawn out scenes in the film which wind the film down and make it less enjoyable. There is, of course, the farfetched nature of many of the activities undertaken in the film, such as Sparrow catapulting himself from the top of one palm tree to another which resembles something out of a video game. However, “Pirates of the Caribbean” is supposed to be a fantasy so it can be forgiven. Just don’t try this at home kids.

Once again, Johnny Depp is the star of the show. Even though we are now up to the fourth film in the series, Jack Sparrow is still as funny as ever and he in no way has faltered since his first appearance in “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl”. Geoffrey Rush does well once again as Barbossa and Ian McShane gives a solid performance as Blackbeard. Penelope Cruz doesn’t seem completely comfortable in this film and although she fits the part of the female pirate, she struggles with her relationships in the film. There is no real father daughter relationship between her and McShane and there is really no romantic tension or chemistry between her and Depp.

At the beginning of the film, you do start to feel as though you are missing Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley as Will and Elizabeth and wish they would return. Though Sam Clafin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey do pick up the romantic roles in this film well. Sam Clafin’s character of Philip is really a valuable addition to the series and has a great amount of character to him. Although Berges-Frisbey does not say much, she still makes quite an impression on the screen. Not just with her beauty, but also her innocence and fragility.

It is now a fact that there will not be another “Pirates of the Caribbean” quite like the first film, but this film is an improvement on the last two films in the series. It is still entertaining and enjoyable for the most part, but it’s busyness and drawn out scenes of nothingness let it down.

5.5/10

Insidious

2011-05-23T00:36:00.000-07:00

Insidious

Year: 2010

Director: James Wan

Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey

In My Own Words

Well, today was an eventful day in the cinema. Firstly, I remembered why I hate going to see horror movies by myself. There is no one to take out your horror and suspense on. I have always been known for my antics in horror movies out of fear or shock. The first time I saw “Scream” with my family when I was 14, I got so shocked in the Drew Barrymore scene when the killer threw a chair through the glass door, that I shoved the choc top in my nose. True story. Just ask my Dad. Thankfully I didn’t make the same mistake today when watching “Insidious”. I went for popcorn rather than a choc top. I wish I had gone with someone else to watch this movie though so I could be scared with someone. I also was one of the only people in the cinema, so out of fear I also thought I was seeing things that resembled ghost like figures! This was far worse than watching a scary movie by myself at home because it was a much bigger and darker space!

So then there was the visitors we had in the cinema, that weren’t ghosts. They were just three teenage school students who joined in the movie halfway through. They came in with a grand entrance of making a lot of noise and sat down in front of me. They continued talking amongst the three of them before I asked them very politely to keep it down. One of the guys then turned around to me and said “Excuse me? Which film is this?”

I looked at him very suspiciously and said “Didn’t you buy a ticket?”

“Yeah, but we bought it for “Pirates Of The Caribbean”, and this isn’t it, is it?”

“It’s Indisious”

“Is it scary?”

“Yes”

As you may be able to tell, I didn’t believe this guy. I know when you are a school kid sneaking into movies seems extremely thrilling and rebellious. I don’t think it really is that exciting, and if you are going to sit through a film and talk the whole way through it, you might as well go and do so in the food court where you don’t annoy anybody. I was quite impressed with myself though, I didn’t lose my temper with them, even when they started talking on their phones. Maybe I am become more immune to people talking loudly in the cinema, although I shouldn’t have to.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

Could these film makers do anything wrong? It is common for film makers who stay within their genre to become stale and have their new film compared constantly to their last one, yet when the director and writer of “Saw”, James Wan and Leigh Whannell and the producer and director of “Paranormal Activity”, Oren Peli, get together with a $1.5 million budget, you know you have a success on your hands. These film makers knew from their previous experience that a good story and script mixed with horror movie elements make a successful film. “Insidious” is different from the filmmakers past films and is not only suspenseful and creepy, but also at times quite emotional. Above all, it is enjoyable for those who like to be scared and entertaining.

Josh (Patrick Wilson) and Renai (Rose Byrne) Lambert have just moved into their new house with their three children. Only days after they move, their eldest son, Dalton (Ty Simpkins) goes to bed after a fall and doesn’t wake up the next morning. He seemingly falls into a coma, yet it isn’t like any other coma the doctors have ever seen. When Dalton is moved from the hospital to the family home three months after his fall, strange things start happening in the household. There are voices heard on the baby monitor, strange noises coming from the attic and Dalton’s brother, Foster (Andrew Astor) complains about Dalton walking around the house in the middle of the night, which is impossible in the state he is in. It isn’t until a family friend who also deals in paranormal activities, Elise (Lim Shaye) comes to the house that they come to understand that it isn’t the house that is haunted, it is Dalton.

“Insidious” is very well written and as a result of this, it is very suspenseful and surprising. It is perfectly played out by gaining suspense and fear as it goes on. The beginning is dedicated to the building of character so the audience can connect with them while the go through the horrors which they do. It may be a tad predictable to some people in some ways, but there is still the feeling throughout the film of not knowing how everything is going to happen. A trait of all good horror movies is to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, not knowing when something is going to happen. “Insidious” does this perfectly, with not making scary images or happenings occur on cue.

The visuals are actual really quite frightening and may well cause nightmares to some members of the audience. The editing and direction are also very good. The house and rooms in it have the perfect feel for a horror film.

There are segments of “Insidious” which are quite reminiscent of other horror films. The several shots of the house from the outside are almost like a memory of “The Amityville Horror” and although the story is completely different, there are some factors which remind you of “Poltergeist”. However, with every horror movie there will always be some things it has in common with other horror movies, as there is nothing completely new under the sun. Yet, “Insidious” has a very different script and story than any other horror movie.

Rose Byrne is perfect as the role of the mother of a sick boy who is feeling like her whole world is caving in around her. Her performance is heart breaking at times, as she really has that motherly instinct that makes her lovable and extremely likable. On the other hand, she can sure pack a good horror movie scream. Patrick Wilson is good, but he is overshadowed by Byrne. He is really brilliant in some scenes, but then in others he is quite dull. He isn’t seen as much as a father until closer to the end. The first half of the film he seems to just stroll his way through. Barbara Hershey is very good as the loving grandmother and mother. It is also interesting to note that two of the female ghostly figures in this movie, are actually men! So well done to Joseph Beshara and Philip Friedman for making us believe otherwise!

“Insidious” is one of those horror films which bypasses the blood, guts and gore and relies more on the story and ghostlier images rather than ghastly. It is a haunted house film, which isn’t to do with the house. Horror and thriller fans will enjoy it, but it isn’t for you if you like a good and peaceful night sleep.

8/10

Burke And Hare

2011-05-19T06:26:00.000-07:00

Burke And Hare
Year: 2010
Director: John Landis
Cast: Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Isla Fisher, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry

In My Own Words
Well, what an intriguing yet disturbing story we have here! "Burke And Hare" gives us the story of two men who make a living out of providing corpses to the world famous medical school in Edinburgh in the early 1800's. The beginning of the movie states that it is in fact a true story...apart from the parts that are not true. So there is only one thing I can do, find out what part is true! Well, obviously the comedy part isn't true. At least I think so anyway. William Burke was actually married at this point in his life, but he arrived in Scotland alone after their seperation. He did fall in love with and live with a prostitute by the name of Helen McDougal. As far as I can tell, she did not appear in an all female version of "Macbeth".

There is a difference as to what happened at the end of the film compared to what actually happened in real life. I have to watch what I say here as it is a major spoiler if I say too much. There is truth in what happens to one of the pair, but not with the other. One of them we definately know what happened to them and the other is fiction. The ending in the film for this piece of fiction is rather glorified. You know, this is entertainment though. Fiction is far more exciting that what really happened. What really happened to this half of the pairing is actually unknown, so anything is more exciting than that! However, it may interest you to know that in Greyfriars Cemetary, there was a terrier who sat on the grave of his soldier master guarding it. Yet again, Bobby the terrier did his guarding in the 1850's onwards, while this movie is set in the 1820's. There is actually a statue of Bobby at Greyfriars!

Otherwise, as far as I can tell everything else is true! It is a rather disturbing story, but you have got to love a black comedy! Well, I do anyway. Give me a black comedy over a crude comedy any day!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
When William Burke and William Hare took part in a business venture which involved murder for profit, it is very unlikely that it would have crossed anyone's mind that one day they may be able to laugh at this. However, time has allowed this to happen. "Burke And Hare" is the recreation of one of Scotland's most notorious crimes as a black comedy. It is a unique mix of fact and fiction with streaks of hilarity throughout the film.

William Burke (Simon Pegg) and William Hare (Andy Serkis) are two Irishmen living in Scotland who are down and out on their luck and flat broke. When one of Hare's tenants who lives in one of the rooms he and his wife rents out dies, Burke and Hare profit from his death by selling his body to Dr Knox (Tom Wilkinson), who uses the bodies for autopsies at his medical school in Edinburgh. As fresh corpses are hard to come by Knox offers them a substantial amount of money if they bring him more bodies. Burke and Hare do all they can to find more bodies, which includes murder.

For the most part, "Burke And Hare" is a very good historical film. It is interesting the way the story is retold and very cleverly written so as to make a serious situation funny. The biggest downfall of the film in that it does slow down considerably in the middle and get quite boring. This leaves you wondering whether the film is going anywhere at all, because it feels as though it is just stuck in a rut in the middle with nowhere to go.

However, there really are some very funny scenes and it has one of the funniest sex scenes you will ever see. One particularly strange thing about the script is the use of the narrator. The narrator is only around for the first five minutes of the film and again for the last five minutes. There really doesn't seem any point to having this narrator as he doesn't seem to be relevant to the story at all and his narration doesn't add anything to the movie.

The recreation of Edinburgh in the early 1800's is definitely commendable. There is a feeling of dread in the city and the dark feel adds to the mood of the film. There actually are some quite picturesque images of Edinburgh Castle. On the other hand, there are some vile images of corpses being cut open so one must try to leave there stomach outside.

The thing about the characters in this film is that you are made to feel a way about them which would have been completely ludicous in the time which the crimes were actually committed. The audience is actually made to feel sorry for Burke and Hare and see's them as the good guys rather than the bad guy's which history says they were seen as. Simon Pegg's Burke is the more likable of the two with the way he falls in love and feel's that he has to keep doing what he is doing to support his girlfriend. The audience feels sorry for him and has a real connection with him. Pegg is very good as Burke and the persona he creates and relationship his character forms with the audience is very good. Serkis is very funny in his role as Hare, but it is Pegg who steals the limelight from him. Isla Fisher is quite funny as Burke's love interest, Ginny. It is actually her funniest and most likable role in years.

John Landis has done well after his long hiatus from feature length films. "Burke And Hare" is well made and very interesting to watch. It is great to see such a creative stance taken where fact it taken and looked at from a different perspective to see things as they have never been seen before. It is not thrilling or consistantly riveting, but has the right foundations to support it through the dull times.
7/10

Your Highness

2011-05-17T05:54:00.000-07:00

Your Highness
Year: 2011
Director: David Gordon Green
Cast: Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel

In My Own Words
Well, this movie may not be everyone's cup of tea. If you like crude humour,you will love it. If you don't like crude humour and don't like overuse of the "f-bomb", then you may want to avoid this movie like the plague. I am not usually one for crude humour and with some of the jokes of this nature in the film I could do little more than roll my eyes, but for some strange reason I found Danny McBride's overuse of the "f-bomb" and words of other such nature quite hilarious. I may need to check my temperature. I think it was the way which he swore most of the time was so non-chalant and random that it was just my type of humour. I understand that not everyone shares my sense of humour where I find the random hilarious, so that part of my thoughts about the movie appears in "In My Own Words"!

I've said it before and I will say it again, I have the utmost respect for James Franco. I love that he does movies like these as well as the dramatic film. Why? Because it is just fun! What better way to break up your films than to do a few dramatic films and then break it up with something like this? Plus I love the fact that he studies while being an actor, and he has done as many degrees as he has done. It's great to know that he truly appreciates film as an art form, rather than just what he does for a job. I salute you James Franco.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
"Your Highness" is the most over the top comedy you will see this year. It is completely ridiculous, over-acted and there is no way you can take it seriously. However, the best thing is it knows it is all of these things. "Your Highness" does not try to be anything that it isn't, which is commendable. It laughs at itself and laughs at the genre it is in. It knows it is ridiculous so it plays up to it and makes it no matter how stupid it may seem, it is bearable and even quite funny.

Long ago in a medieval kingdom, there lived a king and his two sons, Fabious (James Franco) and Thadeous (Danny McBride). Thadeous is continually in the shadow of his older brother and the kingdom considers him to be a joke. When Fabious' bride to be, Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by an evil wizard, Leezar (Justin Theroux), the two brothers set off on a quest to save her. This could be Thadeous' chance to prove his worth to himself, his family and the whole kingdom!

"Your Highness" will definitely not suit everyone's sense of humour. There is a lot of sexual inuendo, crude language and images and dirty jokes which a lot of people will find downright disgusting. Yet, if you don't mind that sort of things and you can handle the sight of and find funny a minotaur humping one of the king's servants, you will have a good giggle at this film. "Your Highness" was largely improvised and no proper script was used for the majority of filming. When you think about this, it actually gives you more respect for the film and it's actors as they have come up with some very funny lines themselves.

The best thing about "Your Highness" is that it doesn't try to be anything that it is not. It knows what it is and accomplishes everything that it should. It is not a classic, it won't be remembered for years to come, but it does it's job for the here and now. It pokes fun at the fantasy genre and the over-the-topness of some of the key elements of fantasy films, such as the wedding song by Fabious and Belladonna and he valiant prince going to rescue his true love.

There are really no good dramatic performances in the film nor any performances which show what the actor is capable of. All you see is a group of actors having some fun with something different and trying as hard as they can to make their performances as over the top as possible. Danny McBride is the unlikely lead and is repulsive and disgusting as he aims to be. Yet, he is also very funny. James Franco's performance is so exaggerated that it is perfectly suited to the role which he is playing. His character is probably the most wholesome of all the male characters. Zooey Deschanel is good, but her performance isn't anything we'll remember when speaking of her best films. Natalie Portman holds her own well, but she is not particularly funny. While Portman may be at the top of her game in her dramatic roles, comedy is still not really her forte.

"Your Highness" is not for everyone. This point cannot be exaggerated enough. Yet, it is actually refreshing to see such a crude comedy in a different light rather than it being about modern day men on quest for their manhood. If you are open, "Your Highness" is a bit of fun and good for a giggle.
5/10

Water For Elephants

2011-05-16T03:14:00.000-07:00

Water For Elephants
Year: 2011
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz

In My Own Words
I have actually had a close encounter with Reese Witherspoon. Well, not close in that I have met her or touched her...but I have been in the same room as her! I was lucky enough to be in the audience at a filming of "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in November 2008 when she was on to promote "Four Holidays" (otherwise known as "Four Christmases"). It was a stroke of luck to see her really, because she was supposed to appear the night before. I hadn't even realised that Witherspoon had to change to the night I would be going until I was strolling down Hollywood Boulevard during the day and there was the sign! She was lovely. I was very impressed at how down to earth she was. She raved about her children and all of the animals they own on their property. Witherspoon even rattled off all the names of her geese, chickens and pigs! It was so nice to hear her lovingly talk about her life away from Hollywood. I am sure that with her love of her farm animals she would have loved doing this film considering she got to work with horses and the elephant!

The bottom line is definitely go and see "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on Hollywood Boulevard if you are there, because it is basically the only place in Hollywood where you are guaranteed to see celebrities!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
The film maker who decided to adapt Sara Gruen's bestseller "Water For Elephants" was always going to have a winner on their hands. The picture you paint in your mind with the idea of a love story in a travelling circus in the 1930's conjures up glamorous images of women in sequined costumes and all sorts of exotic animals. That's exactly what the Franis Lawrence directed "Water For Elephants" is. It is a visual delight which is entertaining, moving and suspenseful.

Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) has the world at his feet when he is just about to graduate from college in veterinary science when his parents are killed in a car accident and he is left without a home. By accident, he ends up on the same train as a travelling circus, which needs him about as much as he needs them. As the new circus vet, he comes to know the ringleader, August (Christoph Waltz) and his beautiful wife and star, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). August has an aggressive streak, which becomes even more evident when Rosie the elephant is introduced to the show and when Jacob falls in love with Marlena.

"Water For Elephants" is incredibly moving and really a beautiful film. There hasn't been many circus movies in recent times and this is definitely the best one in decades. There are some scenes in the film which some people will find quite disturbing and shocking. Yet the fact that we do take these moments in the film so to heart is because the mixture of images, musical score and the cinematography enhances all of our senses to experience what is going on in the film with the characters. The film is actully nail-biting in many scenes and you know the ending could go one of two ways, but there is no disappointment and no sense of predictability.

The images in this film are magic. The way in which all the animals appear on screen is beautiful and loving. Although the brutality of life with a travelling circus is talked about, the brutality even depicted by Lawrence is still in its own way quite beautiful. The cinematography and editing for the big top scenes are exquisite. The musical score and sound effects all add towards the emotion of each scene and the score for the scenes with Rosie are particularly good.

One of the best things about this film is that the character development is brilliant. Each of the three lead characters have so much character to them and they make so much of an impression on you that you really do take them with you when you leave the cinema. Robert Pattinson's does well in the lead as Jacob, yet he seems to have the least dialogue out of the three main characters. Pattinson relies more on his facial expressions to show how he feels , which works but there isn't any scene which really stands out for him. However, it is great to see Pattinson smile a great deal more in this film than he usually does!

Reese Witherspoon is just beautiful. She is perfect in this role and shines every moment she is on the screen. Credit must also be paid to her for all the tricks she had to do with the elephant and the horse. Christoph Waltz is also fantastic. He comes into the movie and everyone thinks he is just a typical boss who is protective of his business, but he changes throughout the film in character and becomes more psychotic. What truly is brilliant is that he is scary, but it is so subtle in the way he is aggresive at times and then so obviously brutal at others. Hal Holbrook is also commendable as the older Jacob. He is completely believable and very sweet.

However, the only problem is that the romantic chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon is nearly non-existent. You can't really see the love between the two characters at all and there is no heat or passion in the love scenes. They both seem to do well in their roles individually, but there is no chemistry at all to be felt. The older Jacob shows more emotion towards Marlena than the young Jacob. As a result, the film is more moving in regards to the animals and not with the romanticism.

"Water For Elephants" is one of the most entertaining, enjoyable and beautiful films released so far in 2011. It is a beautiful story with beautiful images with beautiful characters. It is not often a book adaptation is amazing, but this one truly is.
8/10

Source Code

2011-05-15T03:36:00.000-07:00

Source Code

Year: 2011

Director: Duncan Jones

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga

In My Own Words

Jake Gyllenhaal is in the position that many, many actors would love to be in. How many actors are typecast in a particular role and can’t seem to break that ice? Gyllenhaal doesn’t have that problem at this stage in his career. It must be a great feeling to know that you can do any genre and any role you feel like, while others feel like they cannot venture outside the roles they are known for as it is too much of a risk, and for fear that nobody will want to see them in these roles. Let’s look at his last few roles. There is of course his role in “Source Code”, which is an action thriller and his role before which was in the romantic comedy, “Love And Other Drugs”. The lead role in Disney’s action adventure fantasy, “Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time” and the brother of a troubled American soldier in the drama, “Brothers”. He has been acclaimed for each one of these roles. He has done many other different roles over his 20 year career. He is a lucky man to have so much freedom with his choice of roles, he will never get bored of what he does as long as he is able to do so many different roles. Well, at least we hope not!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Source Code” is the breath of fresh air that the action thriller genre has been waiting for. 2011 has not bought anything new and surprising to the table for the action thriller genre until now. “Source Code” resembles a cross between an Alfred Hitchcock film and “Groundhog Day”, a combination which, thanks to the creative choices of Duncan Jones, works and works well. There is suspense from the word go and surprises along the way with impressive special effects, the exact elements which make up a successful action thriller.

Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a commuter train heading towards the city of Chicago in a body which isn’t his own and without any recollection of how he got there. He is accompanied by Christina (Michelle Monoghan), who believes he is teacher, Sean Fentress. While Stevens is trying to figure out who he is, the train which he is on unexpectedly blows up, and he then finds that he is part of a project in which he is inserted into Sean Fentress’ body in 8 minute intervals to find out who planted the bomb on the Chicago train. Although the main object of the source code is to find the bomber, Stevens has different objectives in his mind.

If Hitchcock was alive and making films today, there is no doubt that “Source Code” would be a film he would make. The creepy music in the opening scene with a montage of trains is something which would have just been typical of a Hitchcock film, as well as the psychedelic images that link reality and the source code. While the images are reminiscent of Hitchcock and his film making, the story is completely original. Yes, it does have the déjà vu aspect of “Groundhog Day”, but it has a completely different story and is definitely well written. The “who done it” may not be too surprising to some, but there are other psychological twists and turns which keep the audience on the edge of their seats and guessing. The musical score and images all add to the overall intensity and suspense of the film.

Jake Gyllenhaal once again proves that he can do any role he wishes with putting in a great performance as the once helicopter pilot who is confused and frustrated with his situation. As well as there being the moments of intensity in his performance, there is also surprising emotional moments which show his acting versatility. The film revolves around him and he once again shows how he can hold his own as the lead star with perfect characterization and character-audience relationship. Michelle Monaghan is sweet as Christina, but there is no real substance to her role. There is really no risk involved in this role or any character development. Vera Farmiga is more impressive than Monaghan, but it is still not a ground breaking role. The decisions which should be emotional ones do not seem so. It is Gyllenhaal who is the main star and the one who, rightly so, makes the biggest impact in the film.

“Source Code” is a very entertaining and intriguing film. It keeps the audience’s full attention from the beginning to the end and is something new and not in the trend of Hollywood action thrillers.

8/10

Something Borrowed

2011-05-13T23:39:00.000-07:00

Something Borrowed

Year: 2011

Director: Luke Greenfield

Cast: Ginnifer Goodwin, Kate Hudson, John Krasinski, Colin Egglesfield

In My Own Words

Hi, my name is Nicki and I am a fan of chick lit. Cue the "Hi Nicki". It's a girl thing, I know I am not the only closet chick lit addict out there. Personally I will read anything which is thrown at me, I love reading. Chick lit is perhaps the easiest type of reading there is next to children’s books. You will always catch me reading a book of this genre after I have read a fairly dramatic book and I need some light reading. Some of the chick lit authors who I happen to be a fan of are Marian Keyes, Sophie Kinsella, Weisberger and the pairing of Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus. There are many, many more great chick lit authors out there who have made a name for themselves and provide a good break from our lives in the form of the written word, but these are just my personal favourites.

So why is it that it is not often that a chick lit book adapted into a film is actually a success and an acclaimed film? I can think of more chick lit books which are a good read and successful on the bookshelves that are flops when it comes to a screen version, than are, as we so often hear, as good as the book. I’m not saying that all chick lit novels adapted are ridiculous films because this is not true at all. Just look at “The Devil Wears Prada”. Great book as well as a great film which earned Meryl Streep an Academy Award nomination and catapulted Emily Blunt into stardom. Yet, films such as “Confessions Of A Shopaholic” and today’s reviewed film, “Something Borrowed” are just messy and all over the place. The book versions flow from start to finish and are a load of fun, but the films are the opposite. They are pretty to watch with lots of fun things such as shopping, New York City and weddings thrown in which make every girl happy, but these things aren’t enough to make a good film. You watch the films thinking “If I actually read this, it may have worked”. I can’t understand why so many film makers fail to make a good girls film out of a book. The better “girl films” come from actual screenplays rather than novels.

If I am a girl and talking this way about my dislike for the majority of films adapted from chick lit, I only hate to think what men think about them!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Something Borrowed” has everything in it that makes a good girl’s film. It has romance, best girlfriends, the setting of New York City, parties, a wedding….sounds a lot like “Sex And The City” so far, doesn’t it? It has everything that makes a good girl’s film, only it isn’t a good film. It is messy and can be quite boring the way it shuffles along with no real direction or urgency. It is the pretty, girly themes and images which keep this film interesting over the slow 103 minutes, but of course it is only girls who will find this interesting. The majority of men who’s wife or girlfriend will drag them along to see this will be checking their watch every few minutes to count down till the moment they can run back to the world outside. “Something Borrowed” actually really could have been a lot more successful than what it has turned out to be, but director Luke Greenfield just made some really left field creative decisions which haven’t paid off.

Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Darcy (Kate Hudson) have been best friends for as long as they can remember. Rachel has always felt that she has always been in the shadow of centre of attention Darcy, especially now since Darcy is engaged to Rachel’s old law school buddy, Dexter (Colin Egglesfield). One night after her 30^th, Rachel reveals to Dexter that she used to have a crush on him and one thing leads to another. As the wedding gets closer, Rachel and Dexter become closer without Darcy knowing. Rachel battles with her inner demons knowing that she is in love with an engaged man, and that she is in danger of hurting and losing the best friend she has ever had.

Possibly the worst creative decision for this film was the idea to have the film start in present day and then have flash backs to the college days of Rachel and Dexter. The diving into the conflicted situation in the present day doesn’t create any shock or any other emotion for that matter. No character development or any type of relationship between the movie and the audience has been established so how there is supposed to be any feeling associated with what they are seeing on screen? From there, going back and forwards just loses intensity of the situation of hand and leads to the unsteadiness and messiness of the film. Once Rachel and Dexter first kiss so close to the beginning of the film, it feels way too fast for the film. It is funny because it tends to drag in the middle of the film where it should be moving quicker and it moves too quick at the beginning of the film.

The best part about the film is the pretty images of New York City and the Hamptons. The themes are enough to keep the female audience interested and it does have some romantic, cute and fluffy moments. There are also some very funny lines and scenes throughout the film. Yet, these are just a set of moments which don’t really add to the story, they are all just there to make the film seem more attractive.

Ginnifer Goodwin is one of the only things which keeps the film bearable. This is Goodwin’s first lead role since her success playing Margene in “Big Love” and she proves herself by being extremely likable and sweet. After the diving in of her and Dexter’s first kiss, there is a great amount of character development for her Rachel. For the situation which she is in, the audience backs her in a situation in which people would rather back the man’s fiance. Kate Hudson is, on the other hand, not likable at all. Yes, it is planned that as Rachel is the one which the audience is rooting for, Hudson’s Darcy shouldn’t be as likable. Hudson is starting to fall victim of being typecast in the same roles we see her in in romantic comedies, so this role really does not seem like anything special. She comes across as annoying and even laughable in the scenes where she is in anger. Colin Egglesfield is also nothing to write home about. Nobody believes that he is really in love with Rachel and he just comes across as dopey and a silly little boy who has no idea what he wants. John Krasinki’s role as childhood friend Ethan is almost useless and it really is a wonder he was included in the movie at all. Obviously, he had a larger role in the novel and was to be kept in the movie to keep it true to the novel. He is actually a saving grace for the small part he plays and his comedy antics.

Unfortunately, there is not too many good things that can be said about “Something Borrowed”. It is quite a shame really as with a few different decisions in the making of the film, it may not have been a classic, but it would have been better than what it was. Thankfully, the decision to have Ginnifer Goodwin as the lead and have the film set in New York City (even if it was in the book) put some credibility into the film. Just a word of advice to the girls out there, keep the peace in your relationship and don’t take your man to see this. He won’t be happy with you and you will probably have to go and see that action film with him that you have been trying to avoid.

4/10