Daniel Craig is cementing his place as the greatest Bond in recent memory. Admittedly, recent memory only stretching as far as Brosnan’s incarnation for many, while the majority of Bond fans will not remember the glory days of Connery and Moore.
Skyfall, a great film in its own right, also acts as a homage to the previous 50 years of the action packed franchise. Fans of the series who can remember back as far as Goldfinger will recognise the iconic Aston Martin DB5 that features in this film. It goes some way to show how long Bond has been been around, in that there didn’t seem to be too much recognition for the car in the screening I was at.
Daniel Craig plays Bond with the cool detachment that we have come to know and love from the character. Craig himself described Bonds journey in this film as from a broken man and rebuilding himself. That’s not entirely true, as the rebuilding period is glossed over and he goes from being a
broken man, to the Bond of old without any real struggle.
Javier Bardem plays the villain with enthusiasm. It seems apparent that he enjoys playing the revenge crazed Silva, as he immerses himself in the character. He effortlessly captures the mental state of a man who attempted suicide, only to melt away a portion of his face.
This film clearly shows that some things really do get better with age.
Friday, 28 December 2012
Twilight - Breaking Dawn
Over the years, ive said some scathing things about the Twilight films. The final chapter of the “saga” is the best of the lot, although that’s not really saying much. And that’s only because the film doesn’t revolve arounf the incessant whining of a girl who cant choose between a vampire and a werewolf.
We pick up where we left off, with Bellas eyes turning red. What should follow is the ramifications of this decision, with Edward trying to come to terms with his feelings about his now immortal bride. Instead, cue the cheesy line that we’ve come to expect from these films, “we’re the same temperature now”, and everybody is immediately happy with the decision, including Jacob.
For those that have read the books, you will know about Jacob and Renesmee, and its almost as creepy as you would expect. In fact, the acting is at an all time high for this period, with Kristen Stewart channelling blind rage at Taylor Lautner to great effect. This part of the film is the most believeable, with Stewart seeming genuinely furios that Jacob could have feelings for her newborn child.
Sadly, the acting doesn’t stay at this level for too long, as we are again subject to wooden performances and grimacing from the majority of the cast.
Michael Sheen is the sole example of a consistent performer, with his performances capturing the malevolent and sadistic nature of Aro, while always looking out for number one. This is perfectly encapsulated towards the end of the film, with Aro escaping the future that Alice has shown him.
In the end, you need to try not to think about the story too much, and just be glad that the film, and the franchise along with it, has come to an end. If you do want to think about what has happened, you may come to the conclusion that nothing actually happened, just some posturing between vampires and werewolves.
Lets just be grateful that this is all over now, and we can be safe in the knowledge that there shouldn’t be any more of them.
We pick up where we left off, with Bellas eyes turning red. What should follow is the ramifications of this decision, with Edward trying to come to terms with his feelings about his now immortal bride. Instead, cue the cheesy line that we’ve come to expect from these films, “we’re the same temperature now”, and everybody is immediately happy with the decision, including Jacob.
For those that have read the books, you will know about Jacob and Renesmee, and its almost as creepy as you would expect. In fact, the acting is at an all time high for this period, with Kristen Stewart channelling blind rage at Taylor Lautner to great effect. This part of the film is the most believeable, with Stewart seeming genuinely furios that Jacob could have feelings for her newborn child.
Sadly, the acting doesn’t stay at this level for too long, as we are again subject to wooden performances and grimacing from the majority of the cast.
Michael Sheen is the sole example of a consistent performer, with his performances capturing the malevolent and sadistic nature of Aro, while always looking out for number one. This is perfectly encapsulated towards the end of the film, with Aro escaping the future that Alice has shown him.
In the end, you need to try not to think about the story too much, and just be glad that the film, and the franchise along with it, has come to an end. If you do want to think about what has happened, you may come to the conclusion that nothing actually happened, just some posturing between vampires and werewolves.
Lets just be grateful that this is all over now, and we can be safe in the knowledge that there shouldn’t be any more of them.
The Amazing Spiderman
This incarnation of the Marvel Comic features a different type of character for Peter Parker. Although Tobey Maguire wasn’t necessarily a bad Spidey, Andrew Garfield blows him out of the water. In addition to the fact that he is a tremendous actor, and undoubtedly one of the industries rising stars, the script captures the cockiness of the teenage Parker, and this is the beginning of what sets The Amazing Spiderman above Sam Raimi’s Spiderman.
Garfield is terrific as Peter Parker and his alter ego, exuding confidence and cockiness in abundance, there are plenty of laughs to be had at the attitude he brings to the character, which is a welcome change compared to Maguire’s wet lettuce version of the character.
Emma Stone, as always, is brilliant as Gwen Stacey, who again is a pleasant change to Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jan, who was always a damsel in distress, with Stone adding some gumption to the female character, and coming to Spiderman’s aid a couple of times.
Interestingly, it is the 29 year old Garfield who is more believable as a 17 year old, compared to the 24 year old Stone. This has nothing to do with their respective acting, as they are both superb, but more to do with the fact that Garfield still looks like a teenager, while Stone appears more mature.
The casting in this film is superb, with Rhys Ifans putting in another great performance in his career as Dr Curtis Connors. He is utterly convincing as the scientist, with his turn as The Lizard showing
the mental decline of the doctor.
The film is befitting of the title, as it truly is the Amazing Spiderman.
Garfield is terrific as Peter Parker and his alter ego, exuding confidence and cockiness in abundance, there are plenty of laughs to be had at the attitude he brings to the character, which is a welcome change compared to Maguire’s wet lettuce version of the character.
Emma Stone, as always, is brilliant as Gwen Stacey, who again is a pleasant change to Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jan, who was always a damsel in distress, with Stone adding some gumption to the female character, and coming to Spiderman’s aid a couple of times.
Interestingly, it is the 29 year old Garfield who is more believable as a 17 year old, compared to the 24 year old Stone. This has nothing to do with their respective acting, as they are both superb, but more to do with the fact that Garfield still looks like a teenager, while Stone appears more mature.
The casting in this film is superb, with Rhys Ifans putting in another great performance in his career as Dr Curtis Connors. He is utterly convincing as the scientist, with his turn as The Lizard showing
the mental decline of the doctor.
The film is befitting of the title, as it truly is the Amazing Spiderman.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Friends with Benefits review
I was pleasantly surprised by “Friends with Benefits”, but in hindsight I should have expected it to be funny, seeing as Woody Harrelson is involved, and I’m yet to see him in a bad film.
Mila Kunis is enjoying being America’s sweetheart at the moment, and Justin Timberlake is proving himself to not be a terrible actor, and also one of the go to guys for rom coms.
Director Will Gluck supplies the pair with quips aplenty, and the fast paced nature of their on screen relationship is entertaining to watch. They throw insults and compliments back and forth like nobodies business, with Kunis snapping her lines out in excellent fashion. However, Timberlake seems slightly pompous at times with his delivery of Gluck’s smartass comebacks.
Woody Harrelson, as usual, is excellent in his roll as the gay sports editor at a magazine, constantly asking Timberlake if he is gay yet, and getting some of the more memorable lines in the film, describing himself as “strickaly dickaly” and that he wont take a ferry “unless it’s out to dinner and a show”. His delivery of the line is impeccable, and made all the better by the “bam” he throws in after to punctuate it.
Richard Jenkins also gives a terrific performance as Timberlake’s on screen father, tugging at the heartstrings just enough to produce sympathy, but not too much so as to make it all about him.
Overall a decent, modern RomCom with laughs a plenty. It’s an easy watch and one you probably won’t regret watching, if you only watch one casual sex film, make sure it’s this one. 6/10
Mila Kunis is enjoying being America’s sweetheart at the moment, and Justin Timberlake is proving himself to not be a terrible actor, and also one of the go to guys for rom coms.
Director Will Gluck supplies the pair with quips aplenty, and the fast paced nature of their on screen relationship is entertaining to watch. They throw insults and compliments back and forth like nobodies business, with Kunis snapping her lines out in excellent fashion. However, Timberlake seems slightly pompous at times with his delivery of Gluck’s smartass comebacks.
Woody Harrelson, as usual, is excellent in his roll as the gay sports editor at a magazine, constantly asking Timberlake if he is gay yet, and getting some of the more memorable lines in the film, describing himself as “strickaly dickaly” and that he wont take a ferry “unless it’s out to dinner and a show”. His delivery of the line is impeccable, and made all the better by the “bam” he throws in after to punctuate it.
Richard Jenkins also gives a terrific performance as Timberlake’s on screen father, tugging at the heartstrings just enough to produce sympathy, but not too much so as to make it all about him.
Overall a decent, modern RomCom with laughs a plenty. It’s an easy watch and one you probably won’t regret watching, if you only watch one casual sex film, make sure it’s this one. 6/10
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Alpha Dog review
Recently I had the misfortune of watching “Alpha Dog”, based on the true story of a wannabe gangster who kidnaps the younger brother of someone who owes him money. I wasn’t impressed. The casting is questionable to say the least, seeing as the “gangster” was played by Emile Hirche. Now it may just be me, but when I see Emile Hirsch, he doesn’t scream gun wielding, drug taking nutter, but more the nerdy character he played in “The Girl Next Door”, and although he probably doesn’t want to be typecast into being the go to geek guy, that’s what he is, and he should stick to roles that play into his wheelhouse.
Justin Timberlake is, surprisingly, the standout performer in a cast which includes a cameo from Bruce Willis as Hirsch’s father, Ben Foster, and emerging stars Olivia Wilde and Amanda Seyfried. He portrays his character as panic stricken and awkward at the idea of being involved in a kidnapping and the path that it takes him on, often trying to convince Hirsch’s character that they should let their hostage go.
Anton Yelchin also puts in a good performance as the teenager taken hostage, initially being scared, but then growing to enjoy his time spent with older boys. Taken under the wing of Timberlakes character, he gets drunk, stoned and laid, thinking he has made friends with the group. It is this sense of friendship that make the ending a little hard to watch.
All in all I wouldn’t bother watching it again, but I don’t entirely regret the two hours I spent watching it. I just wish it was a bit faster, that Emile Hirsch had not been cast as a tough guy, and that I was made to feel a bit more empathetic towards Yelchin’s character, rather than feeling that he was a bit of a prat for having so many chances to escape his captors, but decides not to as he is having too much fun.
5/10
Justin Timberlake is, surprisingly, the standout performer in a cast which includes a cameo from Bruce Willis as Hirsch’s father, Ben Foster, and emerging stars Olivia Wilde and Amanda Seyfried. He portrays his character as panic stricken and awkward at the idea of being involved in a kidnapping and the path that it takes him on, often trying to convince Hirsch’s character that they should let their hostage go.
Anton Yelchin also puts in a good performance as the teenager taken hostage, initially being scared, but then growing to enjoy his time spent with older boys. Taken under the wing of Timberlakes character, he gets drunk, stoned and laid, thinking he has made friends with the group. It is this sense of friendship that make the ending a little hard to watch.
All in all I wouldn’t bother watching it again, but I don’t entirely regret the two hours I spent watching it. I just wish it was a bit faster, that Emile Hirsch had not been cast as a tough guy, and that I was made to feel a bit more empathetic towards Yelchin’s character, rather than feeling that he was a bit of a prat for having so many chances to escape his captors, but decides not to as he is having too much fun.
5/10
Friday, 22 July 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two Review
It starts out so promisingly. A sinister introduction to the final film of the franchise, showing the students marching through the grounds of the once great Hogwarts. Once a safe home from home for many, the Hogwarts in this instalment is a quick reminder of how far in his quest against Voldemort Harry has come. With the castle surrounded by Dementors, there seems to be little hope that the Dark Lord could be defeated.
And that's where the enjoyment finished for me. I wish I could watch the film without constantly thinking "this is wrong" or "this wasn't in the book", but I couldn't, and that may be what ruined it for me.
I won't list the faults; instead I will focus upon the positive aspects of David Yates' final foray into Hogwarts, Hogsmeade, Gringotts et al.
The performance of Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, plays the leader of the Hogwarts staff rebellion against Voldemort with gleeful abandon, declaring "I've always wanted to use that spell" after bringing the statues surrounding Hogwarts to life.
Helena Bonham Carter, as usual, plays an incredibly evil Bellatrix Lestrange, and also quite a convincing Hermione under the influence of Polyjuice Potion.
Emma Watson also shows her skills as a fine young actress, and as usual her prowess as an actress far surpasses fellow Horcrux hunters Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint. That being said, although not the best actors in the world, Radcliffe and Grint have come on leaps and bounds since their woefully wooden performances from the initial outing to Hogwarts in the “Philosophers Stone”.
The film does benefit from being back inside the familiar grounds of Hogwarts, with a sense of purpose and meaning. The film feels like it knows where it is going, as opposed to the almost meandering first instalment, which suffered through seeming to lack urgency.
I will mention some of the changes the film made from the book, as I feel it necessary to bring these to light, particularly the omissions the film makers made.
Harry announcing himself to everybody, including Snape, in the Great Hall did not occur in the book, and I’m not entirely sure as to why they have changed how he exposed his return to Hogwarts to McGonagall. The only reason I can think is that the film makers did not want to show Harry using an unforgivable curse such as the cruciatus curse, although they did show him using the imperius curse in Gringotts, and therefore I decided that this cannot be the reason.
Also, if they were trying to tug on audience heartstrings towards the end of the film by including Harry apologising to Lupin for his death following the recent arrival of his son, surely the sensible thing to do would be to have included the part of the book where Lupin arrives at Shell Cottage at the beginning and announces the birth of a baby son, and asks Harry to be Godfather.
The ending of the film let me down as well, due to the change in how Harry reveals that he is not dead. Why it was necessary for Harry to jump from Hagrid’s arms and then run through the castle instead of protecting his friends and loved ones from the Death Eaters, I will never know. All it makes me think is that the film makers wanted Harry to seem like he was scared and running away from Voldemort, as opposed to the courageous Harry in the book.
I will accept that there are parts of the book that would not have translated into film as well, for example the fight scene between Mrs Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange. As the majority of the action in the book is thought, and therefore not a time consuming part of the film.
I was disappointed in the film as I have read the book, and although all the films have strayed from J K Rowling’s original narrative, this is the film that I was most disappointed in. It is a case of if you haven’t read the book then you can’t miss what you never knew, but if you were an avid reader of the books then you may find yourself in the same boat as me.
And that's where the enjoyment finished for me. I wish I could watch the film without constantly thinking "this is wrong" or "this wasn't in the book", but I couldn't, and that may be what ruined it for me.
I won't list the faults; instead I will focus upon the positive aspects of David Yates' final foray into Hogwarts, Hogsmeade, Gringotts et al.
The performance of Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, plays the leader of the Hogwarts staff rebellion against Voldemort with gleeful abandon, declaring "I've always wanted to use that spell" after bringing the statues surrounding Hogwarts to life.
Helena Bonham Carter, as usual, plays an incredibly evil Bellatrix Lestrange, and also quite a convincing Hermione under the influence of Polyjuice Potion.
Emma Watson also shows her skills as a fine young actress, and as usual her prowess as an actress far surpasses fellow Horcrux hunters Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint. That being said, although not the best actors in the world, Radcliffe and Grint have come on leaps and bounds since their woefully wooden performances from the initial outing to Hogwarts in the “Philosophers Stone”.
The film does benefit from being back inside the familiar grounds of Hogwarts, with a sense of purpose and meaning. The film feels like it knows where it is going, as opposed to the almost meandering first instalment, which suffered through seeming to lack urgency.
I will mention some of the changes the film made from the book, as I feel it necessary to bring these to light, particularly the omissions the film makers made.
Harry announcing himself to everybody, including Snape, in the Great Hall did not occur in the book, and I’m not entirely sure as to why they have changed how he exposed his return to Hogwarts to McGonagall. The only reason I can think is that the film makers did not want to show Harry using an unforgivable curse such as the cruciatus curse, although they did show him using the imperius curse in Gringotts, and therefore I decided that this cannot be the reason.
Also, if they were trying to tug on audience heartstrings towards the end of the film by including Harry apologising to Lupin for his death following the recent arrival of his son, surely the sensible thing to do would be to have included the part of the book where Lupin arrives at Shell Cottage at the beginning and announces the birth of a baby son, and asks Harry to be Godfather.
The ending of the film let me down as well, due to the change in how Harry reveals that he is not dead. Why it was necessary for Harry to jump from Hagrid’s arms and then run through the castle instead of protecting his friends and loved ones from the Death Eaters, I will never know. All it makes me think is that the film makers wanted Harry to seem like he was scared and running away from Voldemort, as opposed to the courageous Harry in the book.
I will accept that there are parts of the book that would not have translated into film as well, for example the fight scene between Mrs Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange. As the majority of the action in the book is thought, and therefore not a time consuming part of the film.
I was disappointed in the film as I have read the book, and although all the films have strayed from J K Rowling’s original narrative, this is the film that I was most disappointed in. It is a case of if you haven’t read the book then you can’t miss what you never knew, but if you were an avid reader of the books then you may find yourself in the same boat as me.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
My Guy Ritchie Film
This is the short film I made in the style of Guy Ritchie, as part of my University course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)