I am going to have to watch a rubbish film sometime soon, just so i can change the tune. Alas, it is not going to be yet. Once again, a really good film and a good oscar contender.
The storyline is about a girl, Mattie (Hailee Steinfield) who goes on a wild goose chase with unothordox Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and annoying Texan ranger La Boeuf (Matt Damon) in order to revenge her murdered father. Again, western is a little bit out of my comfort zone, as is boxing, but i felt it a little bit more with this film.
There is no doubt in my mind that Jeff Bridges is a bit of a legend, that Damon was surprisingly good when he is normally quite one dimensional and annoying, and that the 14 year old Steinfield was simply stunning in her breakout on to the big screen. The cinematography was beautiful, capturing the scenery and creating the necessary atmosphere. But for me, I got a little bit lost in some of the dialogue and slower moments, especially in Bridges' strong gruff accent, not fully understanding, and not fully wanting to.
Brilliant acting, beautifully shot, a mans film. A little bit out of my depth, and a little more understated than some of its contenders, but never the less, a very good film.
4/5
Tuesday 15 February 2011
Friday 11 February 2011
Never Let Me Go
My heart is so sad.
I did not know what to expect. I hadn't heard much about it apart from very mixed reviews. I knew it was about a group of three people who had been raised together in a school for children, that there was some unrequited love and that it had a "sci-fi" or futuristic element to it. I did not expect it to be heart wrenchingly sad.
I'm not going to say much about the storyline, because i dont want to spoil it, but the opening half hour is quite slow and jolted, based in their childhood. It is beautifully shot, and the child actors have a presence on screen that i strong and nice to see. However, it is when we get to the adult lives of the characters that this film really starts to take off. Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley are all brilliant, showing such emotioanl depth that i literally wanted to cry for them.
I expected this film to be similar to Atonement, in the respects that it's extremely beautiful to look at, it has Keira Knightley in it (actually acting well), and it's the sort of film that a lot of people don't appreciate. This is all true, but nobody can criticise the tremendous amount of acting and emotionality of the film, it is, simply beautiful.
Some people won't like it. It isn't uplifting. It paints a world that is awful, a world thats not worth thinking about. But maybe it is worth thinking about, maybe the author who wrote the book is trying to say something. If nothing else, enjoy the beautiful scenery, the sometimes harrowing emotionality, and the utterly beautiful acting by three very talented brits.
4/5
I did not know what to expect. I hadn't heard much about it apart from very mixed reviews. I knew it was about a group of three people who had been raised together in a school for children, that there was some unrequited love and that it had a "sci-fi" or futuristic element to it. I did not expect it to be heart wrenchingly sad.
I'm not going to say much about the storyline, because i dont want to spoil it, but the opening half hour is quite slow and jolted, based in their childhood. It is beautifully shot, and the child actors have a presence on screen that i strong and nice to see. However, it is when we get to the adult lives of the characters that this film really starts to take off. Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley are all brilliant, showing such emotioanl depth that i literally wanted to cry for them.
I expected this film to be similar to Atonement, in the respects that it's extremely beautiful to look at, it has Keira Knightley in it (actually acting well), and it's the sort of film that a lot of people don't appreciate. This is all true, but nobody can criticise the tremendous amount of acting and emotionality of the film, it is, simply beautiful.
Some people won't like it. It isn't uplifting. It paints a world that is awful, a world thats not worth thinking about. But maybe it is worth thinking about, maybe the author who wrote the book is trying to say something. If nothing else, enjoy the beautiful scenery, the sometimes harrowing emotionality, and the utterly beautiful acting by three very talented brits.
4/5
Iron man 2, revisited
So, of course i saw this film at the cinema, but last night i watched it for the first time on dvd, so i thought i would review it, more so that i could just talk about Robert Downey Junior than anything else.
It is, overall, a highly entertaining film, and a good follow up, considering that it had huge potential to be awful. The rough story line starts with tony stark who is "out of the bag" as Iron man after self proclaiming his hero-ness, and is enjoying the life of being known and loved. Meanwhile an angry russian guy (an underplayed Mickey Rourke) plots to kill stark, and the film centres around his co-operation with Justin Hammer, (Sam Rockwell) to find a way to "out-do" Iron Man.
The plot has holes, the special effects are so-so, and re-casting Rudey with Don Cheadle was a mistake. However, Robert D.J sparkles in every scene he his in (which is luckily quite a few) and once again makes the Iron Man franchise shine. He is just pure brilliance as the eccentric, narcissistic, but thoroughly charming Tony Stark. Mickey Rourke is also pretty good as the Russian scientist (with a name that i'm not even going to try and write), but is underused, and the screen time he does have is mainly comprised of him sat there saying things in Russian. Sam Rockwell is also grossly under used. He is a brilliant and vibrant actor, in a really quite rubbish role. Neither the character or the actor do justice to each other. Scarlett Johanson is also wrongly cast, bringing no personality to a dull character, and Jon Favreau obviously thinks that directing is not enough by giving himself a cringeworthy "fight" scene.
I would like this film, if the only character was Tony Stark. In fact, I may like it a bit more if it was just the Tony Stark show, but that's irrelevant. My point is, is that Robert D.J makes this film, and that by me, is more than fine.
Enjoyment factor - 4/5 The film as a whole - 3/5
It is, overall, a highly entertaining film, and a good follow up, considering that it had huge potential to be awful. The rough story line starts with tony stark who is "out of the bag" as Iron man after self proclaiming his hero-ness, and is enjoying the life of being known and loved. Meanwhile an angry russian guy (an underplayed Mickey Rourke) plots to kill stark, and the film centres around his co-operation with Justin Hammer, (Sam Rockwell) to find a way to "out-do" Iron Man.
The plot has holes, the special effects are so-so, and re-casting Rudey with Don Cheadle was a mistake. However, Robert D.J sparkles in every scene he his in (which is luckily quite a few) and once again makes the Iron Man franchise shine. He is just pure brilliance as the eccentric, narcissistic, but thoroughly charming Tony Stark. Mickey Rourke is also pretty good as the Russian scientist (with a name that i'm not even going to try and write), but is underused, and the screen time he does have is mainly comprised of him sat there saying things in Russian. Sam Rockwell is also grossly under used. He is a brilliant and vibrant actor, in a really quite rubbish role. Neither the character or the actor do justice to each other. Scarlett Johanson is also wrongly cast, bringing no personality to a dull character, and Jon Favreau obviously thinks that directing is not enough by giving himself a cringeworthy "fight" scene.
I would like this film, if the only character was Tony Stark. In fact, I may like it a bit more if it was just the Tony Stark show, but that's irrelevant. My point is, is that Robert D.J makes this film, and that by me, is more than fine.
Enjoyment factor - 4/5 The film as a whole - 3/5
Sunday 6 February 2011
The Fighter
I am not interested in sport, i'm not interested in films about sport (even if they are inspirational like the new sort of genre that seems to have taken a place in film makers hearts) and i'm most definitley not interested in boxing. However, I am interested in supposedly brilliant films, and i'm also interested in the oscar runners, and it is in these categories that The Fighter fits.
The storyline follows two brothers. One, (Dickie, played by a brilliant Christian Bale) a former boxer and a crack addict who is training his younger brother Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) to become a renowned boxer that he never was. I expected the sort of film that centers on something like the boxing, but is actually a story and a film of relationships, and to an extent it is. A slow start but Christian Bale is brilliant as the eccentric Dickie, and Mark Wahlberg plays his best role in a while, fighting convincingly and playing the younger quieter character extremely well. But I have to say, it is in the moments where Mickey is in the ring fighting that are the most entertaining and joyfully real. Wahlberg truly built himself up to the stance of a boxer and is brilliant in the ring.
Definitley worth a watch, Bale most definitley stands a chance of getting best supporting actor, however,as a film, not as good as the Kings Speech. In its own right, a very good film.
4/5
The storyline follows two brothers. One, (Dickie, played by a brilliant Christian Bale) a former boxer and a crack addict who is training his younger brother Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) to become a renowned boxer that he never was. I expected the sort of film that centers on something like the boxing, but is actually a story and a film of relationships, and to an extent it is. A slow start but Christian Bale is brilliant as the eccentric Dickie, and Mark Wahlberg plays his best role in a while, fighting convincingly and playing the younger quieter character extremely well. But I have to say, it is in the moments where Mickey is in the ring fighting that are the most entertaining and joyfully real. Wahlberg truly built himself up to the stance of a boxer and is brilliant in the ring.
Definitley worth a watch, Bale most definitley stands a chance of getting best supporting actor, however,as a film, not as good as the Kings Speech. In its own right, a very good film.
4/5
Tuesday 1 February 2011
Tangled
It makes my heart happy that Disney have gone back to the start, not only bringing in a classic princess (Rapunzel) but also bringing back the cheesy songs. Joy.
It got off to a slowish start. Girl (Rapunzel) with long long blonde magical healing hair, is kept for 18 years in a tower by her supposed mother. Guy, Eugene (lol) a rugged and loveable thief, happens to cross paths with Rapunzel and promises to take her on an adventure.
There was a slight chance that this film could go badly. The music could have been awful, and it is hard to get the charm of previous films like Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid. The Princcess and the Frog for instance, was a great idea, but lacked charm.Tangled however hits the mark. It's beautiful to look at, the songs are fun and soulful - Alan Menken is on top form - and the characters are the ones that you remember; cheeky, pretty and full of life.
4/5
It got off to a slowish start. Girl (Rapunzel) with long long blonde magical healing hair, is kept for 18 years in a tower by her supposed mother. Guy, Eugene (lol) a rugged and loveable thief, happens to cross paths with Rapunzel and promises to take her on an adventure.
There was a slight chance that this film could go badly. The music could have been awful, and it is hard to get the charm of previous films like Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid. The Princcess and the Frog for instance, was a great idea, but lacked charm.Tangled however hits the mark. It's beautiful to look at, the songs are fun and soulful - Alan Menken is on top form - and the characters are the ones that you remember; cheeky, pretty and full of life.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)