Terribly sorry to tell you all I am going to have to disappear for a little while (3 months) as I am going travelling. That will unfortunately mean no new film reviews for a while, but if you want, you can follow me with what i’m doing on my other blog
101tales.tumblr.com :)
see y’all later!!!
Directed by: James Watkins
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Roger Allam, Janet McTeer
Terrifying. Will that do as a review?!
There is not a single bone in my body that agrees with the 12A rating it has been given. I understand there are regulations for each classification, and The woman in black must have fitted the regulations for the 12A, but did they not take in the overall feel of the film? The fact that someone under the age of 12 can actually watch the film as long as they have a parent with them is quite frankly worrying!
I personally love scary films like this and always have. Films that are designed to make you jump, they fill you with enough tension and adrenaline to make you scream at the smallest movement and then laugh about it only a matter of seconds later! The parts that are the most scary are actually the moments that would have been the easiest to film. Simple things, such as the woman in black turning around, or the camera moving closer to Arthur. They were petrifying! But the images that were most likely supposed to leave you with some everlasting feeling of fear, images supposed to provide you with nightmares- such as mud children appearing from beds- I didn’t find them scary, just weird and disgusting!
It was acted very well. Daniel Radcliffe is good at looking scared. I’ll give him that! Admittedly at the beginning I questioned a lot about Radcliffe’s character, I couldn’t believe he had a son because- well that’s harry potter, he’s too young to have a son. But by the end of the film Radcliffe had made a change, I had almost forgotten he was Harry Potter. (That’s quite an acomplishment coming from me!)
There were many aspects of the plot I tried to poke holes in, but really I probably should read the book first before examining all the details. Regardless there are some areas that could have done with a little more explanation- like why none of the villagers ever tried to move away. Or did they try and failed? Little things like that needed further explanation.
Excellent premise, very jumpy, wrongly certified, had me chewing my cardigan sleeve throughout. 7/10
Directed by: Madonna
Starring: Abbie Cornish, James D’Arcy, Andrea Riseborough
I’ve been debating this review for quite some time now, trying to figure out if it was just plain stupid to release this film only a year after the success of The King’s Speech, or if it was an attempt to be clever, just gone slightly wrong.
W.E is a film that attempts to make a comparison between the romance shared by King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, and a modern day love between a woman in a failing marriage and a security guard. Admittedly, W.E and The King’s Speech are very different stories, circulating around different central characters portrayed in different ways. But when you have two films that feature the same historical characters, it’s very difficult not to make comparisons, and unfortunately Lawrence Fox’s and Natalie Dormer’s portrayals of Bertie and Elizabeth, did not fulfill their predecessors. I tried very hard not to make comparisons as its no lie I love Helena Bonham Carter, but I think even without this comparison, the performance was just not good enough. All the other acting in the film was done brilliantly, Andrea Riseborough was fantastic and with her performances I started to see why Madonna had chosen to make this film.
I found the direction confusing. It was almost like episodes of a TV series that tries to leave you on cliffhangers every not and then in the hopes you’ll keep watching to see what happens later in the show. I almost felt Madonna’s fear that people would walk out half-way through her film. I didn’t understand the whole connection between Wally and Wallis- yes I can see they share the same name, but there was no real explanation as to why Wally wanted to know so much about Wallis, no explanation as to what the fascination was. By the end of the film I felt as though Madonna had wanted to make two completely different films, but she realised that they wouldn’t be long enough to be full length feature films, so made a few changes, compacted them and joined them together. Unfortunately this left a few gaps here and there. There were shots that seemed pointless and made it look very sloppy, and scenes that could have been easily taken out, making the film feel too long.
I completely agree that it is an interest idea to show the story from Wallis’ point of view, but as with a lot of my reviews recently, it could have been carried out better.
Sloppy directing, saved by fantastic acting. 5/10
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard
First I need to give you my apologies, it’s been far too long since my last review, so you now may get quite a few in short succession!!
Secondly before reviewing this film, I feel the need to share my story, as it was very amusing…
So I was sat in the cinema with my friends, all prepared to watch The girl with the dragon tattoo, and the adverts start. I ask my one friend ‘so, have you read the book of this?’ she replies, ‘no’. I ask ‘Have you seen the foreign version?’ she replies ‘no, they did a foreign version of this?’ At this point, I’m getting a little nervous so feel the need to ask ‘You do know what this film is about don’t you?’ ……… ‘Yeah, isn’t it that cartoon film about dragons’.
oh dear.
Anyway, back to the review… I’m going to avoid making comparisons between this film and the original, for two reasons. 1) my memory of the original is a little hazy. 2) I feel that this film should be reviewed as a film in it’s own right.
There are a few negatives which I will discuss first. The opening titles were strange- I get they were meant to be symbolic but they were just strange, unnecessary and quite frankly alienating. I simply did not understand why they were there, and I feel the film could have been a lot more effective without them. I also feel that Daniel Craig was possibly not the most effective Michael Blomkvist. Don’t get me wrong, he did a good job, but to me, he just isn’t the character. Michael Blomkvist is not meant to be anyone special, he’s slightly above average but really that’s it, and they cast the current James Bond. I just don’t see it. I understand he shouldn’t be type-cast and I could see that there were changes made physically and within the character (such as his clumsiness) to make it better, but it was something that didn’t sit right with me.
I also didn’t like how every character spoke English but with a Swedish accent except Michael and his sister. To me that concept is pointless. Again, I can see why it was done so that everyone spoke English but with a Swedish accent, but if you’re going to do that make it so that EVERYONE does it, not just leave out two people. The lack of accent for Blomkvist and his sister lead me to question his character, is there some sort of history that I don’t know about? It just aggravated me. As you can see they are all fairly small points, and the overall film definitely won me over, these were just a few points I didn’t like!
Now on the plus side…..
It was gripping, brutal, funny, entertaining, tense, exciting… everything a film should be.
The acting was super. Rooney Mara did a brilliant job and really stood out in my mind. In fact I’ll be honest and every one acted brilliantly. Each scene captured the tension I felt when reading the book. The tension was slightly spoiled for me by the hilarious guy sat next to me with his running commentary of ‘that is disgusting’ and ‘he should be ashamed of himself’ but nonetheless, it was very tense!
Overall excellent cinema experience, excellently well done film. I just hope they do the next two, and that they are just as good!
8/10
Directed by: Chris Gorak
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Olivia Thirlby, Max Minghella
CONTAINS SPOILERS
Invisible aliens take over the world by turning people into dust to steal some stuff. The message you should get, is that it’s not really important why they are here. The important thing is that they are here and they are turning people into dust.
The Darkest Hour was completely filled with unintentional humour. And it was all thrown into the script. In this script contained 4 maybe 5 epic speeches. Two of them by the main ‘hero’. These speeches were resulted in ground-breaking moments, with characters saying things such as ‘What are we waiting for?’ and my favourite ‘OK’. There are also some brilliant lines that will just stay with me forever, and the best of all of these came within the last 5 minutes and was said in a Russian accent; ‘Today, is the end of extermination, and the beginning…. of War’. It was truly magnificent!
The acting was also fairly horrendous, but I’m going to put that down to a combination of an awful script, and poor character development. None of the characters were particularly likeable, and the only one that had potential died. Well a few of them died, some I was grateful for! The main hero is supposed to be, well, not very smart- just a lot of drinking and finding night clubs and all that. BUT THEN. All of a sudden, he’s a genius that knows all these technical terms and understands about the body’s electrical pulses. I don’t know, I just didn’t find them particularly believable characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the characters who managed to run down the 10 stories of the U.S Embassy in what? about 30 seconds! That’s impressive even by my standards!!
The 3d was useless, but it pretty much always is so I wont even go on about that.
The final few scenes were what really destroyed the film beyond belief. I genuinely believe the film makers had just given up, they simply couldn’t be bothered to make anything logical or explain anything. They all fall into the water right? 2 of them were holding hands, and there wasn’t a particularly strong current. Most of them emerge to the surface. Those that have emerged swim to the submarine. Yes this is all very logical. So why, did the one girl, who was holding the guys hand, decide it was better for her to swim in the opposite direction, get out of the water, and walk/run to a deserted bus station, that is not by the river, and is no where near her group or any electrical cover to protect her from the invisible aliens? It makes no sense.
And then of course they end it leaving it perfectly open for a sequel, so you might want to prepare yourself guys for ‘The Darkest Hour 2: Someone found a lightswitch’ or something stupid like that.
As awful as it was though, I can’t deny it entertained me! 3/10
Directed by: Gary Marshall
Starring: Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Hilary Swank, Lea Michele, Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl
I know its only January, so it may not seem like it’s saying much, but watching this film was the most excruciating moment of the year. So lets make it better, it was the most excruciating moment of last year as well. I didn’t think it was possible for Marshall to create something worse than Valentines day, but he did it.
I’ll break it all down for you:
The best parts of the film were the outtakes at the end. They genuinely made me laugh. The second best parts were Zac Efron and Michelle Pfeiffer. There are very few moments where you will come across a film with a cast such as this- containing Oscar Winners and actors that have been in the industry for decades- and then turn around and say that Zac Efron was one of the best things about it. But this is just one of those rare cases.
I hate giving completely negative reviews so I will include the few positives that there were. As I have already said, Zac Efron and Michelle Pfeiffer were alright. And I will give the film this- there was the occasional funny line such as ‘may the best vajayjay win’ that also made me laugh.
Lets be honest- I wanted to leave during this film at many moments. I wouldn’t watch it. 1/10
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Matt Damon, Cecile De France, Bryce Dallas-Howard, Frankie McLaren, George McLaren
Hereafter is a film with a very interesting concept, it just hasn’t been carried out particularly well. Really, the whole story just lacked something. There was no real message to the audience. It didn’t make me believe in the hereafter like I feel it was trying to do!
The real problem with the film was that I had no instinctual or gut reaction to it. It was acted well but it didn’t excite me, make me laugh or cry. It was just watchable. I feel like a film of this nature should be one that makes you think about life and the after life, but I didn’t at all. I watched it, I turned it off and didn’t think about the film again until writing this review.
With the film being about the three different people from all over the world, sharing this connection with the hereafter the film seemed a bit all over the place. You knew that eventually these people were going to meet, and it just felt like you were waiting for it to happen rather than enjoying the events unfold.
The film has its moments, with good acting by Damon and a fantastic performance by Dallas-Howard at the point where we discover her past, we see what the film should have been like. Had the film had more moments like these, or in fact been about the moments like these it would have made a more fascinating story.
Weak and shallow but saved slightly by the acting.
5/10
Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jnr, Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris
As a rule, sequels are often terrible in comparison to the firsts- take Pirates of the Caribbean, Speed, or Legally Blonde!! I believe that Sherlock Holmes is one of the exceptions that make the rule. A Game of Shadows is bigger better and funnier than the first Sherlock Holmes with Downey Jnr and Law. It was as if the creators actually learnt from some of the mistakes made the first time around!
The plot was a little hard to follow, with darting all over the place, meeting people, leaving people (allowing the audience to forget about them) and then meeting them a little later. But if you don’t focus on the story as such, but more focus on what the story was there to do- showcase comedy characters and interactions, mixed with action and explosions- then the film becomes more enjoyable!
There wasn’t any need for so many of the slow motion and special effects that it had throughout, it was good but it didn’t really add anything to the film. Some areas I can see it useful, but in sections like the scene where they were escaping through the woods, there was no need for the slow motion, it felt as if they were just trying to pad it out to make the film long enough. I did however, appreciate the lack of 3D. It seemed like it would have been a good candidate for a 3D film, nevertheless I’m glad it wasn’t.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was a masterpiece, but it was by no means terrible. And what is somewhat triumphant in itself- it was better than the first!
6/10
Directed by: Simon Curtis
Starring: Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh, Judi Dench
In the summer of 1956, Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) came to England for the filming of The Prince and the Showgirl, a film that was directed by and starring Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) My Week With Marilyn tells the story of behind the scenes of the film from the point of view of third directors assistant Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne)
Absolutely fantastic acting by all the cast of My Week With Marilyn, but Michelle Williams definitely deserves special credit for this performance. There were moments where I felt like I was actually watching Marilyn Monroe, not someone else’s portrayal of Marilyn. It was with the small things that she managed to pull it off; minute reactions, glances and movements that almost go unnoticed but really make her performance believable. As for the supporting cast, Judi Dench as Dame Sybil really stood out for me. She created such a loveable character, I was actually disappointed she wasn’t featured more, she sort of disappeared after the halfway point!
Eddie Redmayne did a admirable job as Colin Clark, it was just unfortunate for him that the other cast members really stole it from him. I was also left a little confused with the character of Colin and whether or not the intention was for the viewer to sympathise with him. Personally I felt he was an absolute idiot, and Emma Watsons character was a hundred percent right in that he needed to have his heartbroken. For him to think he can blow Lucy (Watson) off for Marilyn and when thta doesn’t work out go crawling back, it wasn’t young and naive, it was just plain stupidity.
Generally speaking I loved the film, it was intense, and entertaining. It’s not a film that gets all pretentious and pretends to shed something much deeper to the audience. It’s the light-heartedness of the film combined with the brilliant acting that makes it what it is.
8/10
Directed by: Mike Leigh
Starring: Jim Broadbent, Ruth Sheen, Lesley Manville, Peter Wright, David Bradley, Oliver Maltman
Another Year is a touching and thought-provoking film with some absolutely fantastic acting. Unfortunately, just a little too depressing for my liking. Yes I know this is pretty much the complete opposite of what I wrote about 50/50 in which they both try to create a mixture between comedy and sadness. In 50/50 I wanted a bit more sadness, in Another Year I wanted a little more comedy. Apparently I just can’t be pleased!
Throughout Another Year I just seemed to be waiting for something to happen or go disastrously wrong, and it never did. In fact nothing ever really happened at all. The film follows Tom and Gerri a happily married couple that have some rather dysfunctional friends. It was all just a little depressing as nothing really changes, and if anything it all gets worse for the characters. There were definitely some funny moments, such as Mary’s reaction when Joe gets a girlfriend. Absolutely brilliant. I eventually began to feel like it was Tom and Gerris fault that they had so many dysfunctional friends!!
At the beginning of the film they show Janet (Imelda Staunton) as depressed, lonely and in need of some serious help. All I think the film needed would have been to bring Staunton’s character back at random interjections throughout the film, just to show how she stuck through therapy and was gradually getting better. Just a little bit of happiness amidst all the gloom.
The dialogue I feel could have done with some extra work. I’m not scriptwriter but as a viewer I found the dialogue to be a little forced and not very natural. The character work was brilliant, and I believed each and every character. Mary (Manville) was by far my favourite, the amount of emotions and reactions she pulled from me must be record breaking for a film!
If my rating was based on acting alone it would get 10/10 but I unfortunately can’t base my reviews on one aspect of the film.
7/10
This is a blog about films I have seen, and what I think about them! They are all just my opinion, if you don't agree, feel free to voice your opinion but don't hate me for disagreeing with you!!!
If there's a particular film you want to know what I think about it, ask me about it, and I'll do my best!!
Also, I apologise for any spoilers included!!!
- WALL-E!!
LOL, not related to my theme but I couldn’t help but post this
Well this isn’t realistic, it wouldn’t be able to reach the controllers!! Made me laugh so much I...
