Hanna is a quirky, timeless and very watchable movie.
The film is based around the character Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) - a teen assasin who has lived in a snowy forest all of her life, only knowing what her father has taught her, including how to kill. It turns out that Hanna was a specially enhanced foetus who is now wanted by the CIA especially by Marissa (Cate Blanchett). Hanna sets out to kill Marissa, and along the way learns who she is and what it meansto actually be human.
Hanna has a weird eerie and contradictory feel about it. It is timeless and placeless, yet so many different places and environments are used. One moment you feel like you are in the technological future, the next you feel like your camping with a very english and annoying family in the 60's.This could be disorientating and disjointed, but actually it works very well.
A lot of people were quite surprised when Joe Wright (director of Atonement and Pride and Prejudice) was set to direct this film. But actually, he pulls it off beautifully, using cinematic techniques that were used to emphasise the beauty of his period dramas. My favourite thing about Hanna are the visuals and the soundtrack. There are some truly brilliant and gritty fight scenes, and also a lot of the chasing and running (as dull as they can sometimes be) were actually exemplified by brilliant camera work, and the Chemical Brothers's exciting and edgy soundtrack.
All the actors pulled their weight, delivering what was needed to make a good film. Eric Banner (Hanna's father - Erik) just about pulled off the role without being too annoying, but did lack a bit of emotion, as did Blanchett in her enemy role (which she apparently is getting quite used to).
Of course the star of the show is Ronan, being quite brilliant and realistic as the violent but innocent and naive teen. A shout out also has to go to Tom Hollander and his character of Isaacs. He looks so camp, but is vicious and very well cast in his sadistic and menacing role.
The acting is good, the storyline is interestingt, but what makes this film, is Joe Wright's very good directing, and the often stunning visuals that are placed alongside a stellar soundtrack
4/5
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Water for Elephants
Water for Elephants is a beautifully set 1930's drama based around a lush American circus.
We are presented with Jacob (Robert Pattinson), a bright young man who is about to sit his last vetenary exam, when suddenly his parents die in a car crash and he loses everything and is left with nothing. On venturing out into the big wide world, he hitches a ride on a train which turns out to be a travelling circus. At first he finds menial work there, but when his vetenary skills are found out, he becomes more deeply involved, not only with the most beautiful and talented elephant (Rosie) but also with August (a superb Christoph Waltz) the charismatic but terrifying ring master, and even more so with his wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).
The reviews for this film have been average; not bad, but not overwhelmingingly good either. I think this is because although this film is a nice story, the set and themes could provide so much more. This could have been a film that deeply impacts you like Titanic does, or even The Notebook. But it doesn't. But you know what, I like nice stories. The circus setting with all the animals really is beautiful, it is shot extremely well, and is a pleasure to watch.
And Christoph Waltz. Well, I just have to look at him and i shiver in terror. He will never be cast as anything other than the bad guy, some may say this is a bad thing, but why change something that's not broken? He's simply brilliant as the dominating ring master, and i even felt a tiny bit sorry for him at times. Next we have Robert. Ahh. I actually think, as bad as you may say twilight is, he isn't a bad actor at all, and in this film he shows it. He maybe gets off to a slow start, but after a while he really seems to blend in with the scenery and the action, not in a way that you don't notice him, but in a way that works. My only vice with this movie, is the part of Malena. Although i think Witherspoon is very good, and does play the part well, i don't think she works well with Pattinson. It's not awful, I just think that she should be mothering him rather than having sex with him...
It has been said in other reviews, but this film would lack a lot of charm if it wasn't for Rosie the elephant. She is simply stunning.
Lush, sweet, classy, just lacking chemistry between the two leads, however, Rosie the elephant makes this film more than watchable.
3 and a half / 5
We are presented with Jacob (Robert Pattinson), a bright young man who is about to sit his last vetenary exam, when suddenly his parents die in a car crash and he loses everything and is left with nothing. On venturing out into the big wide world, he hitches a ride on a train which turns out to be a travelling circus. At first he finds menial work there, but when his vetenary skills are found out, he becomes more deeply involved, not only with the most beautiful and talented elephant (Rosie) but also with August (a superb Christoph Waltz) the charismatic but terrifying ring master, and even more so with his wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon).
The reviews for this film have been average; not bad, but not overwhelmingingly good either. I think this is because although this film is a nice story, the set and themes could provide so much more. This could have been a film that deeply impacts you like Titanic does, or even The Notebook. But it doesn't. But you know what, I like nice stories. The circus setting with all the animals really is beautiful, it is shot extremely well, and is a pleasure to watch.
And Christoph Waltz. Well, I just have to look at him and i shiver in terror. He will never be cast as anything other than the bad guy, some may say this is a bad thing, but why change something that's not broken? He's simply brilliant as the dominating ring master, and i even felt a tiny bit sorry for him at times. Next we have Robert. Ahh. I actually think, as bad as you may say twilight is, he isn't a bad actor at all, and in this film he shows it. He maybe gets off to a slow start, but after a while he really seems to blend in with the scenery and the action, not in a way that you don't notice him, but in a way that works. My only vice with this movie, is the part of Malena. Although i think Witherspoon is very good, and does play the part well, i don't think she works well with Pattinson. It's not awful, I just think that she should be mothering him rather than having sex with him...
It has been said in other reviews, but this film would lack a lot of charm if it wasn't for Rosie the elephant. She is simply stunning.
Lush, sweet, classy, just lacking chemistry between the two leads, however, Rosie the elephant makes this film more than watchable.
3 and a half / 5
Wednesday 4 May 2011
Goodbye Sociology, Hello Thor, and absolute intrigue with Catfish
Yere, this blog has pictures and everything!
So yesterday i did my first exam and finished sociology forever, phew, and then we headed (unsuprisingly) straight to the cinema, to get a bit of cheap tuesday action with a rather beautiful looking Chris Hemsworth as the title character of Thor. Thor follows the comic bookstory (and countless myths and legends) about the different worlds in our universe and the God like beings who live in Adwar. Thor (Hemsworth) is the son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and Frigga (a forgotten Rene Russo), brother to Loki (relatively unknown but quite good Tom Hiddleston) and is the next heir to the throne. Thor is due to become King shortly, before messing up an alliance between the Asgards and their life long enemies (some sort of frost people - their name escapes me). As punishment, Odin sends Thor to earth, removing his powers and hurting his pride in order to teach him a lesson and the skills that he needs to become a good leader. Add in a mix of Natalie Portman as the love interest, Stellan Skarsgarrd as an intriguing and intellectual scientist, a family disloyalty and a few fight scenes, and boom. We have ourselves a pretty good movie.
Kenneth Brannagh does not strike me as the type of person who would even want to direct this sort of hollywood monster (seeing him more in a shakesperian light), but actually he does a pretty good job. The film is good to look at and he packs a lot of information and plot into a two hour movie, and for me, it just about works. I also think he (or more likely the person he hired) did a pretty good job of the casting. Hemsworth is pretty perfect as the leading role, making me fully believe anything he would say or do, Hopkins is good in a role that's not so heavy as his usual stuff but still quite effective, and equally, Portman on her crazy run of films, was delightful to see in this light and quite sweet character. So, what's wrong with it? Well, there were moments that were really good (particularly when Hemsworth was on screen) that were really really good, but they were fletting, leaving the rest as merely fine. I also felt like the transition between earth, and the mystical worlds were a bit jilted, and not as smooth as they should have been.
Overall, i really quite enjoyed it, and thought it was a good set up for the avengers movie (Hemsworth and Downey Jr. in a film together... YAY). 3 and a half / 5
I apologise for this hefty post, but i have to blog about Catfish. I read about it last year when it came out at a similar time to The Social Network (with a similar idea - facebook) but didn't think much about it, until an advert appeared on more 4 (i know). So intrigue made me watch it. It's basically a film/documentary about a guy (an actually good looking, intelligent film/photographer in New York) who is having various relationships with a family on facebook. The guy - Nev, is being filmed by his brother and friend, as his relationship with these people develop. It starts off with him getting "poked" by an eight year old - weird i know - but then acquires paintings from her which are actually very good. He becomes friends with the whole family on facebook - mother, father, sister, brother - and even talks to them on the phone. He develops a "sexual" relationship (online and on the phone) with the sister, and becomes very involved with the whole situation. What unfolds is really not what it seems.
Disclaimer - spoiler alert - i am going to say what happens in the end
After getting a bit suspicious about some of the things Nev is being told by Melody and Abby (Older sister and young painter girl) he decides to go up to see them (across the other side of the country). What he finds there is a bunch of lies. No Melody, an Abby - but not an artist, and Angela (the mother) is the conspirator of it all. She is a woman who wants attention and love, who paints the pictures she has been sending Nev and who has made every intricate lie (and phone conversation) up.
I felt a mixture of emotions whilst watching this movie. Firstly you kind of think Nevs a bit of an idiot for believeing it all, but then why should he doubt it? it was all so intricately planned and thought of that it sort of seemed impossible for it all to be lies. Then you want to feel angry at Angela, but you just can't. She looked so sad, and her life seemed so disapointing to her, that i sort of just wanted to cry for her. The film is shot in a documentary style, but it's not crummy or unprofessional, it's intriguing and extremely watchable. There have been criticisms as to whether this film was truly real, whether it was filmed in the order we see it, and whether actually it is ethical. I think these things are valid points, but if thought upon too much then they do ruin the impact of the film, and i think that's unnecessary.
Not only does this film give such a raw and emotional look into a few people's lives, but it also shows how dangerous and complicated social networking can be and become. You should give this film ago.
4/5
Kenneth Brannagh does not strike me as the type of person who would even want to direct this sort of hollywood monster (seeing him more in a shakesperian light), but actually he does a pretty good job. The film is good to look at and he packs a lot of information and plot into a two hour movie, and for me, it just about works. I also think he (or more likely the person he hired) did a pretty good job of the casting. Hemsworth is pretty perfect as the leading role, making me fully believe anything he would say or do, Hopkins is good in a role that's not so heavy as his usual stuff but still quite effective, and equally, Portman on her crazy run of films, was delightful to see in this light and quite sweet character. So, what's wrong with it? Well, there were moments that were really good (particularly when Hemsworth was on screen) that were really really good, but they were fletting, leaving the rest as merely fine. I also felt like the transition between earth, and the mystical worlds were a bit jilted, and not as smooth as they should have been.
Overall, i really quite enjoyed it, and thought it was a good set up for the avengers movie (Hemsworth and Downey Jr. in a film together... YAY). 3 and a half / 5
I apologise for this hefty post, but i have to blog about Catfish. I read about it last year when it came out at a similar time to The Social Network (with a similar idea - facebook) but didn't think much about it, until an advert appeared on more 4 (i know). So intrigue made me watch it. It's basically a film/documentary about a guy (an actually good looking, intelligent film/photographer in New York) who is having various relationships with a family on facebook. The guy - Nev, is being filmed by his brother and friend, as his relationship with these people develop. It starts off with him getting "poked" by an eight year old - weird i know - but then acquires paintings from her which are actually very good. He becomes friends with the whole family on facebook - mother, father, sister, brother - and even talks to them on the phone. He develops a "sexual" relationship (online and on the phone) with the sister, and becomes very involved with the whole situation. What unfolds is really not what it seems.
Disclaimer - spoiler alert - i am going to say what happens in the end
After getting a bit suspicious about some of the things Nev is being told by Melody and Abby (Older sister and young painter girl) he decides to go up to see them (across the other side of the country). What he finds there is a bunch of lies. No Melody, an Abby - but not an artist, and Angela (the mother) is the conspirator of it all. She is a woman who wants attention and love, who paints the pictures she has been sending Nev and who has made every intricate lie (and phone conversation) up.
I felt a mixture of emotions whilst watching this movie. Firstly you kind of think Nevs a bit of an idiot for believeing it all, but then why should he doubt it? it was all so intricately planned and thought of that it sort of seemed impossible for it all to be lies. Then you want to feel angry at Angela, but you just can't. She looked so sad, and her life seemed so disapointing to her, that i sort of just wanted to cry for her. The film is shot in a documentary style, but it's not crummy or unprofessional, it's intriguing and extremely watchable. There have been criticisms as to whether this film was truly real, whether it was filmed in the order we see it, and whether actually it is ethical. I think these things are valid points, but if thought upon too much then they do ruin the impact of the film, and i think that's unnecessary.
Not only does this film give such a raw and emotional look into a few people's lives, but it also shows how dangerous and complicated social networking can be and become. You should give this film ago.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)