Allegedly starring Gary Oldman - Red Riding Hood

I will watch anything with Gary Oldman in it because no matter what it is he will always be fantastic. And true to form he is great. It’s just a real shame he only has five minutes of screen time.

Director: Catherine Hardwicke

Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Shiloh Fernandez, Max Irons, Gary Oldman

Rating: E

The Plot:

For the first time in a number of years a Werewolf once again terrorises the inhabitants of an olde time village. To make matters worse, there is a blood moon, a time in which a bite from a Werewolf will turn you into one of them.

A young Valerie (Seyfried) is contemplating running away from the village with her sweetheart Peter (Fernandez), but the death of her sister and the arranged marriage to Henry (Irons) scuppers her plans. However she still thinks of running and the Wolf is trying to tempt her away.

An expert in Werewolves (Oldman) is brought to the village and quickly announces the Wolf has always been there hiding in human from, as one of the villagers.

And so begins a tedious film with a poor script, where there is no possible way to figure out who the Wolf might be. Instead of developing characters or plot, there’s about an hour of going through the cast, systematically casting suspicion, without much reason other than Hardwicke thinks that passes for entertainment. The only person we know can’t be the Wolf is Oldman. Ironic as he’s on top form ‘chewing up the scenery’.

The rest is truly awful, Hardwicke has even managed to crowbar in the famous “What big eyes/ ears/ teeth you have Grandma” lines, and the whole sequence is ridiculous. The whole film is ridiculous. Don’t waste your time with it.

Over the Moon - Source Code

This review has been written so late you might have missed your chance to see Source Code in cinemas but it’ll be well worth buying the DVD.

Director: Duncan Jones

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright

Rating: EEEEE

I do believe this is my first five E rated film of the year. King’s Speech got close with four and a half, but Source Code has the edge because it completely took me by surprise. From the trailer, to me, this looked like another average action thriller set on a train, much in the vein of Pelham 123 or Unstoppable. However I should have had more faith in Duncan Jones having seen and loved his debut film, the very original and intelligent Moon.

The Plot:

Gyllenhaal plays Captain Colter Stevens, a former Air Force helicopter pilot now working for a secretive government agency using the Source Code to fight terrorism. The Source Code is a device invented by Dr. Rutlage, Wright, where with instruction from Goodwin, Farmiga,  Capt. Stevens can inhabit the body of a recent terrorist casualty and re-live the last ten minutes of their lives, in this case, a commuter on a train heading to Chicago. Capt. Stevens must repeatedly use those final few minutes to identify the bomber so as to prevent future attacks. However unsure if Dr. Rutlage knows what he has created Stevens believes he can use to Source Code to alter the past and save his fellow passengers, in particular Christina Warren, Monaghan.

The main reason I was apprehensive about Source Code was because unlike Moon, Source Code was not a Duncan Jones project, he was merely a director for hire. The worry being sometimes if a director is brought to an existing project, It’s not their story and they may not be able to add the subtlety and nuance they want. Also the producer may want to churn the film through the tried and tested Hollywood money making machine rather than risk something a bit different and produce a piece of art.

With Source Code however, Gyllenhaal and the Producer Mark Gordon obviously chose Jones exactly for the qualities he exemplified in Moon. You can see through Gyllenhaal’s performance, Jones is a director he’s comfortable with.

Of course with Jones, nothing is as it seems. So although the trailer make you think you’ve seen the whole thing there’s another sub-plot which make you question the motives of some of the background characters. Thus with some clever camera work reminiscent of Kubrick’s 2001 and HAL, you're left wary of the Source Code itself. But there’s also a lighter hearted side to the film for those who were fans of Quantum Leap, an early 90’s TV show with similarities to Source Code which it’s nice to see Jones acknowledges.

One of the main challenges Source Code faces is the Rashamon effect: repeating the same sequence again and again. However through great performances and a great script with self-referential remarks Source Code is never boring and constantly reveals more to you, but still is able to constantly keep you guessing.

Girl Power - Sucker Punch

I saw this about two weeks ago but haven’t written a review until now, so some things might be a little hazy.

Director: Zach Snyder

Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac, Jon Hamm, Scott Glenn

Rating: EEe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G68fHZig9nA

Normally now I give a little detail of the plot, just to give an idea of what the movie is about. But with Sucker Punch, there’s really no point. It’s not a movie about deep character development, or a sentimental story of overcoming adversity. It’s hot girls kicking butt.

Once again Snyder gives us a pseudo comic book action movie which like in the vein of 300, has a vague storyline only as an excuse to introduce the next fight sequence. Actually however, to tell you about the awesome fight sequences I will need to discuss some very basic plot points.

In a stunning opening scene we are introduced to Baby Doll (Browning) as she attempts to protect her little sister from an abusive step-father, or is it priest? Here Snyder shows what a great director he can be. As I remember it there is no sound, just music used to build the tension. Anyway, this sequence culminates in Baby Doll being taken to a mental asylum, or is it a brothel? Where she meets Sweet Pea, Rocket, Blondie and Amber (Cornish, Malone, Hudgens and Chung), and the five scantily clad girls must escape from Gugino and Isaac (I forget their character names) before the arrival of Jon Hamm (again, I’ve no idea of the character name).

So Baby Doll hatches a plan to collect five objects which will help the five girls escape form the asylum or was it brothel. If you weren’t already confused, you will be now. Baby Doll dances to distract medical staff/ pervy men while the other girls collect the items. However, what the audience sees is an almost metaphorical fight sequence where, under the guidance of Scott Glenn, the girls take on giant samurai, clockwork Nazis, goblins and iRobots.

Who is Scott Glenn meant to be!?

Snyder: “Don’t worry about that, look at the hot girls!”

The whole film is visually spectacular, so why a rating of 2 and a half? Well, I can accept the faults with the plot because that’s not why I’m watching the film. But the trouble comes from the action sequences. Baby Doll and her gang scythe through bad guys with such ease the eventually it all becomes a bit boring, you don’t feel like the girls are in any danger. However, Snyder gets the extra half mark for making the right move at the right time.

It’s just a shame that when the fight scenes are over, we have to go back to the is it a brothel, is it an asylum, who was that guy form the start rubbish and the whole ending falls apart.

Still though, I’m glad I watched it (It was a last second substitution after Source Code sold out while I was in the ticket queue) and I’ll be looking out for it on DVD.

If you liked this review then you can follow this blog and get updates of future reviews (one for Source Code coming soon) and you can leave any comments you have below with no need to sign in.

Brutal Ballet - Black Swan

Okay, as promised, finally, a review of Black Swan. I didn’t know much about this film before seeing it, only that Portman had been awarded several Best Actress awards, and that the critics either hailed it as a masterpiece, or were slightly less pleasant. Because of the critical reaction, I knew I had to see this film. According to the talk it was love or hate. You had to pick a side. No middle ground. But despite the talk, here I am in no man’s land.

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey

Rating: EE

The Plot:

Swan Lake. I can’t say that with any certainty, I’ve never seen, read or been told the story of Swan Lake before but it’s outlined pretty well in Black swan.

I think Black Swan is a classic case of don’t listen to the hype. The very reason I’ve avoided DarrenAron’s previous film ‘The Wrestler’ was because I knew Mickey Rourke could never live up to my expectations thanks  to all the Oscar’s hype about his amazing comeback.

Hype leads to the strange scenario where I’m looking to be drawn into the film, almost trying to force it rather than be naturally absorbed by the events on screen. That’s what happened with Black Swan, I tried to force myself to enjoy it and believe it was a great movie and all I ended up seeing were the problems. My own fault really, I should have gone to see it earlier.

My issues with Black Swan are all pretty moot: I don’t like the camera work, but I understand why it’s like that. Portman seems to have won an Oscar for looking sad, but she does the ‘I feel sad’ look very well. Parts of the story don’t make sense, but that’s where the paranoia comes from.

These issues make the film what it is. And if you want to make a film about someone getting ever more paranoid, that’s how you do it. There is nothing I would change or want to see done differently.

So Black Swan gets a low rating. Maybe undeservedly, but I watched it and just couldn’t connect in the way I was promised. If you haven’t already seen it I’d suggest you leave it a few months, let anything you may have heard about it fade away and watch it on its own merit. If you ‘follow’ my blog then you will still have this review to come back to afterwards.

Thanks for reading. I realise this review has been a little different from the others, a little less in depth, so please let me know if you liked it, preferred the previous style or want to see a bit of both in the future. You can do so by leaving a comment below. And if you have any questions about the camerawork, performances, editing, etc…  you can also comment below and as always I’ll be happy to let you know what I think.

From Phillip K Dick - The Adjustment Bureau

Again, i'll start with a plug. You can follow this blog by clicking the follow button beneath the blog archive, and you can leave your comments at the bottom of the review.

This week I’ve seen first time director George Nolfi’s adaptation of the Phillip K Dick novel Adjustment Team. What at first glance is a promising little thriller turns out to in fact be a little disappointing.

Director: George Nolfi

Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery and Terrance Stamp

Rating: EE

It’s been billed as Bourne meets Inception. I don’t really rate the Bourne films, but Inception was by far the best movie of the last couple of years. Perhaps, because of the advertising, this film was never going to meet my expectations. Take note advertisers: don’t sell a film to me by comparing it to another film unless you can stand up and defend your claim.

The Plot:

Humans do have free will and chance to get them through life, but for some of the more important moments there is an otherworldly team of ‘angels’ who make adjustments to the world to keep us on the right track. Due to a mistake by Harry (Mackie), the adjuster assigned to bad boy Congressman David Norris (Damon), he walks in on one of these adjustments. Due to Norris’ never give up attitude, Harry’s boss Richardson (Slattery) reasons the only way to stop Norris telling the world is to ‘level’ with him, giving a nice little exposition speech to the audience. The only catch is, because of the mistake, Norris met the love of his life (Blunt) that he was never meant to be with. When chance brings them together again, the adjusters must do all they can to keep them apart.

So why the low rating? Well it’s to do with the writing, the story itself while conceptually interesting is quite week once examined. !!!PLOT SPOILERS!!! From now on. Sorry, I try not to do this most of the time but there’s no way around it here. Firstly Norris takes the news that his life is being controlled by mysterious men in 50’s style suits amazingly well. Secondly, he proceeds to beat these adjustments with extraordinary ease. After each adjuster fails, the ‘case’ is simply passed up to that person’s boss and we never see them again. First from Harry to his boss Richardson (a real shame we don’t see more of Slattery). From Richardson to Donaldson, who in turn gets in a specialist, Thomson (Stamp) who doesn’t seem to have any more power than Harry. As an aside, why isn’t Harry called Harrison? Then there’s Emily Blunt’s character Elise Sellas. The first meeting of the two leads is horribly contrived. Sellas dared herself to gate crash a wedding in the same hotel where Norris is giving a speech, and she’s hiding from security in the gents while Norris is practising said speech. At first I thought it was a nice touch that she was the only character to casually swear. Normally in Hollywood movies swearing is used as a device to show some one is angry, and it’s just not naturalistic. Here though it just seems like a part of her character. That is until you look at the big picture. Because you know essentially that the Adjusters are trying to help Norris with his political career and often visit him in an attempt to persuade him to leave Sellas, the chase sequences are completely devoid of tension and although visually interesting there’s no emotion to go along with it. In the whole film the only threat is that Sellas twists her ankle. Only the occasional swearing is keeping The Adjustment Bureau from being a family friendly PG that kids don’t want to see because it looks like an adult film and that adults don’t want to see because it’s rated as a kid’s film.

Please leave a comment to let me know what you thought, and watch out for a cameo from the Baby’s Day Out villain who isn’t famous.

It's been a while - True Grit

First things first, the shameless plug. If you like what you read on this blog, you can 'follow' it and get alerts when I post some thing new. Also if you could help spread the word to any other folk who might be interested in what I have to say, and increase my readership, that would be fantastic. Or if that sounds like too much bother, you can just leave a comment at the bottom of the review and let me, and others know your thoughts. Cheers.

It's been a while since I last talked about one film, simply because I haven't been to the cinema for ages. However, I've been to see True Grit and had some time to gather my thoughts.

True Grit is the latest offering from the Coen brothers. It's not a re-make of the 1969 John Wayne classic, but rather a re-imagining of the Charles Portis novel upon which the original film was based.

Director: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Hailee Steinfeld, Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper

Rating: EEE

I'm not really a fan of the Coen brother, they rose to fame with a series of 'quirky comedies' and suddenly became serious awards contending directors with the pretentious and boring No Country for Old Men. A couple of 'comedies' down the line, they return to the cinemagraphic wild west.

Plot Summary:

14 year old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) hires a man of 'true grit' (Bridges) to track down her fathers killer, Tom Chaney (Brolin). Bridges, the drunken, cycloptic U.S. Marshall agrees to track down Chaney, but only because Texas Ranger, Le Boeuf (Damon) offers him a substantially larger reward.

We see the story form the view of headstrong teenager Mattie as she tags along with the bickering law men. The unlikely trio head into Indian territory seeking notorious bandit 'Lucky' Ned Pepper (Pepper) who they suspect is sheltering Chaney. Bloodshed ensues.

I was impressed by this film because I didn't think I would like it. But the fact that the Coen's didn't write the story and that the direction is suitably low key, I think allows Coen naysayers to feel more at ease with the characters. Some fresh faces help as well. The Coens being notorious for relying on a small bank of movie stars. Only the actors Bridges and Brolin have worked with the directors before, and both of them are unrecognisable as their previous Coen incarnation.

Hailee Steinfeld is a strong lead, especially for her age. She could have a great career ahead of her. There are a few humorous moments when people underestimate her character, and her deadpan delivery and comic timing let the audience know for sure who's in charge of the situation.

The supporting cast of Damon, Brolin and Pepper all put in terrific performances. Damon, I’m beginning to think is a better actor than the Team America creators and I gave him credit for. Brolin, although not in it for very long plays a great hill billy. And Barry Pepper, who I've never seen be bad in anything gets nowhere near the recognition he deserves (not even billed on the poster) for his illustrious career as a supporting actor. His only lead part I can think of was Battlefield Earth. Please people, I'm telling you, give him another chance. He wont let you down.

However, no one comes close to the performance of Jeff Bridges. I wouldn't be surprised to hear he prepared for this role by living the life of Marshall Rooster Cogburn. Including spending the last three months in the same pair of long-johns and sleeping on a bunk in the back of a Chinese grocers.

It may no be a classic, but the characters and performances keep you involved for an enjoyable romp into the old west, and a tale of revenge.

Here comes the plug again. Please 'follow', tell your friends, and leave comments below. Feel free to disagree with me, but note, if you do you shall be branded a nincompoop.

For Your Consideration - The Oscars

To predict the outcome of the Oscars at a time when I've only seen half of the nominated films is a guaranteed way to end up looking stupid come February 27th. So here goes...

Best Picture
'The Social Network'
It seems like it's just me who didn't get this film. An average cast playing horrible characters in a film that people only went to see because it had the word ' Facebook' associated with it.
*The award should go to 'Inception', obviously the best film last year. It redefined the 'blockbuster' and proved that studios have no excuse for churning out the same old special effects focused action films to make their money back.

Best Actor
Colin Firth for 'The King's Speech'
I reviewed this a week ago or so, and Firth is absoulutely brilliant.

Best Actress
Natalie Portman for 'Black Swan'
Haven't seen it yet, but I will. I'm only saying Portman because she's currently winning best actress awards left, right and centre.
*Again, I haven't seen it yet, but I hear good things about Michelle Williams in 'Blue Valentine'. Expect a review at some point.

Supporting Actor
Geoffrey Rush for 'The King's Speech'
Another fantastic performance in a film that relys on it.
*It would be great to see Christian Bale get the award for 'The Fighter'. With the back cataogue he has, he's been grossly overlooked in the past. He only got his first Golden Globe for this performance the other week.

Supporting Actress
Melissa Leo for 'The Fighter'
It might help if the films the best supporting actress nominations came from had been released yet, so I could go on something other than the fact Melissa Leo won the Golden Globe for this role.

Best Director
David Fincher for 'The Social Network'
I believe I've already made my opinion clear about this film.
*Not nominated, but Christopher Nolan for 'Inception'. I can't believe he isn't even nominated. He expertly handled two storylines, four or more levels of a dream sequence and some of the best fight sequences you will ever see.

Not long to go now to see if I'm right. Please use the comment section below to let me know what you think of my picks, let me know yours and if you want me to, I'll explain why your all wrong about The Social Network.

Fantastic Firth - The K-King's Speech

I saw this a while ago. It was the night Firth won his Golden Globe. And now finally the Oscar nominations have been announced, I'm writing my review. Honestly, it's completely coincidental.

Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter
Rating: EEEEe (not a typo!)

This is one of the big awards contenders this year, up for Golden Globes, BAFTAs and Oscars in all the major categories it's eligible for.
A very brief plot summary:
The true story of how Prince Albert, 'Bertie', had to overcome his crippling stammer and reluctantly take the position of King of the United Kingdom at a time when the country was once again, preparing for war against Germany.

The reason I've taken so long to write up a review is because I don't really have a lot to say about The King's Speech. I was just so engrossed in the story. I can't criticise anything. I can't tell you specifically what I liked because I liked everything.
Firth and Rush are simply brilliant together. The awkward royal asking a commoner for help. The commoner in the private company of a Royal. The developing professional relationship. The developing friendship. It just drew me in.
And then there's the implications of Bertie's position. Stepping up to become King even though he probably spent all his life thankful that it was his older brother that was to carry that burden. A wartime King with a stammer, against Hitler, who's speeches rallied the Nazi's into a frenzy. An extremely introverted character who suddenly must speak for a nation and become a figurehead of hope.
Rush as Lionel Logue, Bertie's therapist. An Australian who set up a practice in the UK after the first world war. The common man who must break down the barriers and formallity of royal etiquette to become the Prince's first real friend.
There's also a fantastic supporting cast, with Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi and Timothy Spall all putting in terrific preformances.
Directoraly, it's done very classically, but there are a nice amount of arty shots to keep those looking for them pleased, without drawing you out of the captivating dialogue.
It's no wonder it's been nominated for almost every award there is. The critics loved it. The public loved it. I loved it. And it is so close to being given 5E's from me that it hurts me not to. But to get that accolade a film really has to blow me away.

Please comment below. Tell me what you think of the film. Tell me what you think of my review. Spread the word about my blog, and check back soon to find out what I think of this years Oscars.

Danny Boyle, hmm? - 127 Hours

Fresh from celebrating his 2008 Best Director Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle finally gets to make the big Hollywood film he wants to.


Director: Danny Boyle
Starring: James Franco
Rating: EE

I have my problems with Danny Boyle. I find his films very hit or miss. And I'm afraid to say, this one's a miss.

A brief plot summary:
Adrenaline junkie, Aron Ralston travels out to the back of beyond and gets himself trapped under a rock. Despite the obvious problems, to make matters worse, he hasn't told anybody where he was going, and it'll be at least 5 days before anyone thinks he might be missing. All thanks to the fact he's quite self centred, doesn't return his mother's phone calls, and people expect him to just dissapear for long periods of time when he does his own thing. The film follows Ralston's thoughts on his life in between his unsucessful attempts to free himself.

So it's the standard life affirming tale of one mans struggle against the elements as he also battles with his emotional baggage. Which is fine, we've seen this sort of story before, but it's a good story, so why not see it again? James Franco does the James Franco performance which works brilliantly here. He holds your attention throughout the film. A difficult task, considering for the majority of it, he's the only person on screen. And the Oscar nomination he's likely to get is well deserved.
But I left the cinema unimpressed by the film, and if the fault wasn't with the one man cast, it must lie with the director.
Despite what the Academy thinks, I still see Boyle as a TV director. Or more specifically, a MTV director. Style over substance. If you have great source material like: Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, or Slumdog, then the bizarre angles and flashy camera work make it a visual feast. But with a project like 127 Hours which should have been a slow, quite, emotional journey of a man contemplating life while facing death, Boyle's directorial style doesn't work. The whole film is too fast, you don't feel like it's set over 5 days, you don't feel Ralston's hunger or thirst. Every moment of doubt is followed by a joke, and Boyle signiture sequences of knife on bone, or the flood remove any sense of connection with the real life scenario.
However, there is one nerve tingling scene which is handled expertly. People were squirming, hiding their eyes and looking away. My only complaint would be it didn't last long enough. I wanted to see more. And I think that's what dissapointed me most. At that point Boyle proved to me that he was the man for the job. That he can direct cinema. He just doesn't do it very often.

127 Hours: as a film, far too short. As a music video, far too long.

Rating System - Explaining Myself

Just so there's no confusion as to what I think about the films I'm reviewing, I'm going to explain how I rate a film.

I find it easier to mark things out of 5. It just requires less effort than, out of 10, and helps prevent me rating everything as a 7. And 6 out of 10 just seems so much harsher than 3 stars. Also, I feel that using an astericks doesn't look quite right. So for no reason other than It's my first initial, I'm using an E to represent one star. From all the characters I could have used, my inital seemed the most intuitive. So that's that.

Now, what each rating means:

E - The waste of time. And money.

EE - The almost. So much potential.

EEE - The Sunday afternoon filck. The cinematic equivalent of comfort food.

EEEE - The movie you should see. Settle yourself in for an emotional journey.

EEEEE - The absolute, must see. True cinematic perfection.

Hopefully, now a quick glance at my rating will help you understand what I was hoping to get out of the film. And you'll be able to see if your taste in movies matches my own.
Coming soon: reviews of 127 Hours and The King's Speech.

First movie of the Year - TRON: Legacy

Starting with a lie, but oh well. This is actually my last movie of 2010, but as i haven't yet been to the cinema this year, i have nothing else to review.

Director: Joseph Kosinski
Strarring: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Bruce Boxleitner, Michael Sheen
Rating: EEE

From what I gather this film was generated, to some extent, by interest in a teaser trailer tested at a ComicCon type event. Might have even been ComicCon. Regardless, there was enough buzz to justify rebooting the 1982 cult classic.
A brief plot summary:
Protagonist in the first film, Kevin Flynn (Bridges) dissappears one night leaving his son Sam (Hedlund) fatherless for 20 years. It later transpires Kevin Flynn had been digitalising himself into a computer in an attempt to make the perfect world. To help with his plan he created a computer program called Clu in his own image and had his old mate Tron (Babylon 5's Bruce Boxleitner) another program, introduced in the first film. However, when Clu's idea of perfection clashes with Flynn's, Clu takes control of the digital world, trapping Flynn in the computer.
Flynn's son Sam upon recieving a page from his fathers old office, also digitises himself into the computer, or "The Grid", and before finding his father must participate in a deadly game of frisbee and challenge Clu to a lightcycle battle. Some fantastic looking set pieces.
Sam, rescued from this battle by Quorra (Wilde), the last of a race of self produced programs Clu is intent on destroying, who is helping Flynn Snr.
After father and son reunite, Sam vows to get back to the real world to delete Clu and release Flynn Snr. Flynn Snr. cannot return to the grid for fear Clu might obtain his Disc and use it to take his armies into the real world.

The structure closely follows the original: Digitise into computer, whats going on?, play some games, escape, exposition, get back home. However the graphics, as you would expect are far more advanced, except Clu's face, and the lightcycle/ lightplane sequences are truely a visual feast. Daft Punk provide an amazingly atmospheric soundtrack, suiting the cool style of the film perfectly. It would have been nice to see more of Michael Sheen's David Bowie impression and Cillian Murphey only has 5 seconds screen time, which is more than Tron, but I still enjoyed it. Yes the plots a bit ropey and you can see the twists coming a mile off, but theres enough action sequences and good preformances to see you through. Just like the original, and maybe because of it, I have a certain fondness for TRON: Legacy even if it some of it is in 3D.