The Host - "I haven't shot anyone in a while, I kind of miss the thrill..."
At first glance I was intrigued by the trailer so I read the novel in preparation in which Stephanie Myer stretches a love triangle and the total occupation of Earth from beginning to end over the course of 850 very long monotonous pages. Whilst feeling luke-warm at the end of the novel, hope remained for the film as it's written & directed by a very capable man named Andrew Niccol who wrote "Gattaca", "The Truman Show" & "Lord of War". A very tried and true cast was assembled and they managed to bring some life and depth into very boringly written characters. Saoirse Ronan stars as Melanie Stryder, one of the last remaining unoccupied humans along with her little brother Jamie, together they run from "Seekers", occupied people who are designated as the police force to chase down & occupy the "resistance" or the last remaining humans. One day as she scavenges food from an abandoned house that seemingly still has electricity and fresh food in the fridge she is discovered by Jared Howe, also human played by Max Irons (Jeremy Irons son). A perfectly quaffed hunk who sweeps her off her feet. The three of them then proceed to continue running from the occupation. This wouldn't be a Stephanie Myer movie without the inevitable pro-abstinence scene which is a huge face-palm. "I don't want you to feel obligated just because we might be the last humans on earth" "I always wanted to wait until I fell in love". Sigh can we get this ball rolling please at 40 minutes in.
One day as Melanie goes for food she is captured by a Seeker played by Diane Kruger who is well cast, her slight German accent seemingly fit well as the antagonist. Melanie is taken to a hospital for the procedure in which "The Host" would be implanted. However there seems to be a glitch in the Matrix Neo, as Melanie wakes up her Host named Wanderer hears the resistant voice of Melanie in her head begging her not to tell the Seekers where her brother and Jared are. Wanderer obliges and our adventure finally begins as Wanda/Melanie makes there way back to Jared in the middle of the desert where she is reunited with the resistance run by her Uncle "Jeb" played by the always superb William Hurt. Resistance fast becomes a stupid word to describe these people as they are just humans trying to survive in the desert and pose no credible threat to the occupation as they number around 60.
However they are hunted nonetheless and dwell in the caves of an extinct volcano in New Mexico. Wanda is treated with hostility and guarded around the clock but not killed because Jeb forbids it, eventually another hunky survivor named "Ian" (Jake Abel) falls in love with Wanda and our love triangle begins. There are many interior conversations between Melanie/Wanda which do nothing to drive the dull plot along. The bulk of the film revolves around the survivors living in these caves where tension rises two whole times! as two attempts are made on Wanda's life. However this introduces us to the character of Doc played by Scott Lawrence. Thankfully a 3-dimensional character who besides treating people also tries to extract Hosts out of occupied humans but fails miserably and kills the host along with the human which then leads to alcoholism IN THE BOOK but it's never touched on here which would have given the film some depth. I have no idea why it was written out. I can't deny it's a well made film with a capable cast, it just lacks in script and plot devices.
The film stays in one note the whole two hours, there are many long dialogue sequences that could result in action or tension but don't. This films ground rules limit the depth and variety of possible
relationships, and "The Host" is top-heavy with profound, boring
conversations, all tending to sound like farewells but never actually are. The movie is so
consistently pitched at the same note, indeed, that the structure robs
it of possibilities for dramatic tension. If you are a die-hard fan of the novel then you will undoubtedly be pleased and satisfied as I noticed many women in the audience were visibly wet................................with tears, for reasons that remain unknown to me. The dramatic moments that would warrant such tears are very few and far between. Perhaps for a younger female demographic this film would serve as entertainment but not for me. Credit for the production values but nothing else. 2/5
Thursday, 28 March 2013
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Jack The Giant Slayer Film Review
Jack The Giant Slayer - "We've faded into legend..."
Bryan Singer of Usual Suspects and X-men fame adapts "Jack The Giant Slayer" to the big screen for our viewing pleasure.....at least I'm sure that was his intention. All aboard the fairytale adaptation box office disaster train, next stop mediocrity. What really killed this film was the lack of defined tone, a defined villain, bad casting & surprisingly bad production values. It was surprising to see so many characters channel Monty Python type personalities, with campy over the top acting set in a film that takes itself way too seriously for what it is. The plot is the fairytale at its core but they tried to make it tonally dark but then slapped a PG rating on it. People literally get stabbed, shot with arrows in the face and decapitated but not an ounce of blood in sight which is ridiculous. The CGI of the giants is sub-par especially for a director who made two X-Men films look gorgeous. The cinematography is rather bland it looked like simple "point and shoot" in front of large green screens.
The pacing is noticeably irritating, there's very little action and when there is it comes in snippets and you have to wade through terrible character development for 2 hours just to get to the anti-climactic cliched "face-off" between the humans and the giants. The protagonists Jack (Nicholas Hoult) & Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) have no romantic chemistry and they hug an awful lot for complete strangers and in completely odd circumstances. Their performances are forgettable but what's sad is that, that applies for the whole cast. Ewan McGregor maybe guilty of cashing in on a big paycheck here, Ian McShane was laughable & Stanley Tucci who usually carries quality in his pocket was sorely underused and misdirected. Also too many of the central characters just suddenly die in the film where the score suddenly lifts into a dramatic rhythm that's supposed to evoke some emotion out of us, instead it has the reverse effect because you just don't care. The giants aren't terribly threatening, they don't pose a credible threat when they have two great weaknesses that are overly exploited in the film 1. A magic crown that conveniently controls them & 2. Arrows to the face even though they are all completely armored.
It's a dull film, with terrible pacing, horrible character development (if any), no chemistry between our two love birds, an anti-climactic ending and complete misdirection of the actors by the usually consistent Bryan Singer. Also the costume department failed miserably, the soldier uniforms looked like plastic and you could tell the swords were rubber when they wobbled mid-swing. Usually ensemble casts are his game just look at "Valkyrie" or "The Usual Suspects", something went terribly wrong with this script when they tried to make it dark but also market it towards families and children, they even went as far as to delay it 9 months and change the name from "Jack the Giant Killer" to "Jack the Giant Slayer" because that supposedly sounds less violent. The film was shot in 3D as opposed to being post converted but so what? 3D is huge turn off and adds 3-5$ a ticket which is why families (your target audience) didn't go and pay an arm and a leg to see your mediocre film. I can put this behind me and take solace in the fact that Bryan Singer is returning to the "X-Men" franchise with "X-Men: Days of Future Past". Pass on this 1.5/5
Bryan Singer of Usual Suspects and X-men fame adapts "Jack The Giant Slayer" to the big screen for our viewing pleasure.....at least I'm sure that was his intention. All aboard the fairytale adaptation box office disaster train, next stop mediocrity. What really killed this film was the lack of defined tone, a defined villain, bad casting & surprisingly bad production values. It was surprising to see so many characters channel Monty Python type personalities, with campy over the top acting set in a film that takes itself way too seriously for what it is. The plot is the fairytale at its core but they tried to make it tonally dark but then slapped a PG rating on it. People literally get stabbed, shot with arrows in the face and decapitated but not an ounce of blood in sight which is ridiculous. The CGI of the giants is sub-par especially for a director who made two X-Men films look gorgeous. The cinematography is rather bland it looked like simple "point and shoot" in front of large green screens.
The pacing is noticeably irritating, there's very little action and when there is it comes in snippets and you have to wade through terrible character development for 2 hours just to get to the anti-climactic cliched "face-off" between the humans and the giants. The protagonists Jack (Nicholas Hoult) & Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) have no romantic chemistry and they hug an awful lot for complete strangers and in completely odd circumstances. Their performances are forgettable but what's sad is that, that applies for the whole cast. Ewan McGregor maybe guilty of cashing in on a big paycheck here, Ian McShane was laughable & Stanley Tucci who usually carries quality in his pocket was sorely underused and misdirected. Also too many of the central characters just suddenly die in the film where the score suddenly lifts into a dramatic rhythm that's supposed to evoke some emotion out of us, instead it has the reverse effect because you just don't care. The giants aren't terribly threatening, they don't pose a credible threat when they have two great weaknesses that are overly exploited in the film 1. A magic crown that conveniently controls them & 2. Arrows to the face even though they are all completely armored.
It's a dull film, with terrible pacing, horrible character development (if any), no chemistry between our two love birds, an anti-climactic ending and complete misdirection of the actors by the usually consistent Bryan Singer. Also the costume department failed miserably, the soldier uniforms looked like plastic and you could tell the swords were rubber when they wobbled mid-swing. Usually ensemble casts are his game just look at "Valkyrie" or "The Usual Suspects", something went terribly wrong with this script when they tried to make it dark but also market it towards families and children, they even went as far as to delay it 9 months and change the name from "Jack the Giant Killer" to "Jack the Giant Slayer" because that supposedly sounds less violent. The film was shot in 3D as opposed to being post converted but so what? 3D is huge turn off and adds 3-5$ a ticket which is why families (your target audience) didn't go and pay an arm and a leg to see your mediocre film. I can put this behind me and take solace in the fact that Bryan Singer is returning to the "X-Men" franchise with "X-Men: Days of Future Past". Pass on this 1.5/5
Monday, 25 March 2013
Mama Film Review
Mama - "A ghost is an emotion bent out of shape, condemned to repeat itself time and time again."
Spin the "Guillermo Del Toro producing horror" wheel of fortune & your either gonna land on yay or nay. In this particular case it's yay. Every time it says "Produced" by Guillermo Del Toro instead of "Directed" by Guillermo Del Toro you're playing Russian roulette because you might end up with something atrocious like "Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark" or something rather special like "The Orphanage". Mama is a family drama set within in the confines of the horror genre but does its best to avoid cliches & it's a thrill ride. The prologue very skillfully makes you emotionally invest in the characters as you see Jeffrey (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) drive his two young daughters away from their house in a distraught state of mind because it's hinted that Jeffrey has murdered his wife. Over dangerous icy roads they drive which leads to them cascading off a cliff face. The daughters are very young but the three of them survive and stumble into the woods unscathed and find an abandoned house. Jeffrey visibly breaks down into an emotional wreck and pulls out a gun, seemingly about to shoot himself in the head but he stops and sees his two daughters and the "oh no" moment happens. "Daddy there's a woman outside who isn't touching the ground". Not paying attention to whatever is outside Jeffrey aims the gun at his eldest daughters head and that's when the film maybe blows it's load too early and introduces us to "Mama".
For 5 years the girls go on living in the woods alone, isolated, uneducated, malnourished & with no emotional development until one day two hunters who were hired by Jeffrey's twin brother Lucas find them in a horrific state still at the abandoned house. They are ghastly creatures, they walk on all fours, speak in made up languages, dirty from head to toe. They are immediately adopted by Lucas and his girlfriend Annabel played by the always stunning Jessica Chastain who can seriously rock the "band chick" look. They don't have the means to take care of these children so they are all placed in a home where a psychiatrist can observe and continue his ongoing study of them and that's when things go awry. The cinematography in this film is beautiful, the camera might as well have been a trained dancer as it weaves through the house in very long takes. The casting was perfect, the two little girls are haunting, great chemistry between the entire cast but the standout for me was Daniel Kash as the psychiatrist "Dr Dreyfuss". His side storyline of investigating "Mama" is fascinating as he delves into history to find out who or what "Mama" is. His revelations are essential to the story and without his character the film would fall flat and turn into another iteration of "Paranormal Activity". His interest in the little girls might make you wary of him, I wasn't sure what road this film was going down but when his motivations were subtly revealed at the end it was a surprise and I love surprises. It's definitely a breath of fresh air to the horror genre, which is not taken seriously enough these days when there are some spectacular horror films being made like "Insidious", "Sinister", "The Collector" this just gives the genre more credit. The production really is top notch.
My only criticisms would be that "Mama" is a CGI character and it needed to be in some scenes but in others it would have been more effective as a woman with creepy make-up, find the middle ground and blend the two. Create a physical presence that the actors could play off. The jump scares are few and far between which is good because the sledgehammer effect is old and tired. The film definitely draws inspiration from Japanese horror with the little girls crawling through the house giggling and genuinely being disturbing. The film even employs the "What's under the bed" scenario except here it's incredibly effective and done differently. The third act (where many horror films go to die) just barely hung on, it was right on the cusp of getting too ridiculous with the CGI but it pulls back right at the climax and without spoiling anything throws what could have been a cliche ending out the window literally. I could predict what was going to happen & it did but at least it was original. Also was it really necessary to showcase Jessica Chastain's cleavage in every scene? God I must sound like a feminist but when you use her breasts to sell the movie to teenage boys it diminishes the credibility, I want to be sold your film and your story, if the plot requires overt sexuality then by all means go ahead I don't condone censorship. But when she's cradling these adorable children in her arms my eyes kept drifting to her funbags (which were nice by the way). Anyway see it cinemas, it's effect will be lost on a TV, highly recommended. 3.7/5
Spin the "Guillermo Del Toro producing horror" wheel of fortune & your either gonna land on yay or nay. In this particular case it's yay. Every time it says "Produced" by Guillermo Del Toro instead of "Directed" by Guillermo Del Toro you're playing Russian roulette because you might end up with something atrocious like "Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark" or something rather special like "The Orphanage". Mama is a family drama set within in the confines of the horror genre but does its best to avoid cliches & it's a thrill ride. The prologue very skillfully makes you emotionally invest in the characters as you see Jeffrey (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) drive his two young daughters away from their house in a distraught state of mind because it's hinted that Jeffrey has murdered his wife. Over dangerous icy roads they drive which leads to them cascading off a cliff face. The daughters are very young but the three of them survive and stumble into the woods unscathed and find an abandoned house. Jeffrey visibly breaks down into an emotional wreck and pulls out a gun, seemingly about to shoot himself in the head but he stops and sees his two daughters and the "oh no" moment happens. "Daddy there's a woman outside who isn't touching the ground". Not paying attention to whatever is outside Jeffrey aims the gun at his eldest daughters head and that's when the film maybe blows it's load too early and introduces us to "Mama".
For 5 years the girls go on living in the woods alone, isolated, uneducated, malnourished & with no emotional development until one day two hunters who were hired by Jeffrey's twin brother Lucas find them in a horrific state still at the abandoned house. They are ghastly creatures, they walk on all fours, speak in made up languages, dirty from head to toe. They are immediately adopted by Lucas and his girlfriend Annabel played by the always stunning Jessica Chastain who can seriously rock the "band chick" look. They don't have the means to take care of these children so they are all placed in a home where a psychiatrist can observe and continue his ongoing study of them and that's when things go awry. The cinematography in this film is beautiful, the camera might as well have been a trained dancer as it weaves through the house in very long takes. The casting was perfect, the two little girls are haunting, great chemistry between the entire cast but the standout for me was Daniel Kash as the psychiatrist "Dr Dreyfuss". His side storyline of investigating "Mama" is fascinating as he delves into history to find out who or what "Mama" is. His revelations are essential to the story and without his character the film would fall flat and turn into another iteration of "Paranormal Activity". His interest in the little girls might make you wary of him, I wasn't sure what road this film was going down but when his motivations were subtly revealed at the end it was a surprise and I love surprises. It's definitely a breath of fresh air to the horror genre, which is not taken seriously enough these days when there are some spectacular horror films being made like "Insidious", "Sinister", "The Collector" this just gives the genre more credit. The production really is top notch.
My only criticisms would be that "Mama" is a CGI character and it needed to be in some scenes but in others it would have been more effective as a woman with creepy make-up, find the middle ground and blend the two. Create a physical presence that the actors could play off. The jump scares are few and far between which is good because the sledgehammer effect is old and tired. The film definitely draws inspiration from Japanese horror with the little girls crawling through the house giggling and genuinely being disturbing. The film even employs the "What's under the bed" scenario except here it's incredibly effective and done differently. The third act (where many horror films go to die) just barely hung on, it was right on the cusp of getting too ridiculous with the CGI but it pulls back right at the climax and without spoiling anything throws what could have been a cliche ending out the window literally. I could predict what was going to happen & it did but at least it was original. Also was it really necessary to showcase Jessica Chastain's cleavage in every scene? God I must sound like a feminist but when you use her breasts to sell the movie to teenage boys it diminishes the credibility, I want to be sold your film and your story, if the plot requires overt sexuality then by all means go ahead I don't condone censorship. But when she's cradling these adorable children in her arms my eyes kept drifting to her funbags (which were nice by the way). Anyway see it cinemas, it's effect will be lost on a TV, highly recommended. 3.7/5
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
A Good Day To Die Hard Film Review
A Good Day To Die Hard - "The shit we do for our kids. Yipee Ki-Yay Motherfucker!"
A Good Day To Die Hard was put into the hands of two half-whits who don't know how to make good motion pictures. Firstly it's directed by John Moore who's previous spectacular credits include "Max Payne" "The Omen" "Flight Of The Phoenix" & "Behind Enemy Lines". Get me a bucket. Secondly it's written by I believe William Shakespeare's great great great great great Grandson "Skip Woods" who won several Oscars for his genius scripts for "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" "The A-Team" & "Hitman". Combining these two forces is a recipe for disaster and the end product is a train wreck. Clocking in at 92 minutes this is the shortest of the Die Hard films but we were promised it was going to be fine because it's rated "R". Throw in a couple of "Fucks" a few head shots and let John McClane finally say "Yipee Ki-Yay Motherfucker" and all the fans will be happy. WRONG. What we have here is an incoherent shit-pile mixed with explosion porn, shockingly bad dialogue and NO VILLAIN.
There is no story in sight, John McClane is made aware his estranged son Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) has a bad rap sheet in Russia and is to charged with a myriad of crimes so John get's on a plane headed for Russia because "Family is Family". But not before there's a completely useless cameo from Lucy McClane his daughter from the previous Die Hard who serves up some "awww shucks here we go again" dialogue that is positively cringy. So John lands in Russia with basically zero information and somehow finds exactly where his son is being held and explosions ensue. We then learn as they reunite that Jack McClane is CIA and deep undercover trying to extract a Russian political fugitive and our senses are assaulted by a nauseating 15 minute truck chase through Moscow. That's where the story ends. For 90 minutes John, Jack & Mr. Russian run from the "Bad guys" where some spoon feeding to the audience is needed because there isn't even a hint as to what their motivations actually are. Something about a "file" is mentioned at one point but then it switches to "Enriched Uranium" but by this point we've given up caring and just hoping that the stripping scene in the trailer is coming up soon. Spoiler alert, the stripping scene was cut from the film. FUCK YOU. It's so unnecessarily convoluted and ridiculous you get to the point where it can't get any worse......but then we're introduced to the "tap dancing carrot eating pack leader of bad guys". The supposed "villain" of the film "Alik" literally performs a tap dance sequence for John & Jack whilst eating a carrot when trying to intimidate them. "I could have been a dancer!"
As we tumble further down the rabbit hole of vomit inducing incohesive scenes we arrive at Chernobyl where a bunch of useless double crosses happen and the invincible John & Jack fight off hoards of henchmen without EVER having to reload. The action sequences are so implausible that I just wanted to shut my eyes and remember John McClane walking barefoot over broken glass in Die Hard 1 and sustaining actual realistic injuries. In this film there are a plethora of scenes where our protagonists are flung off buildings into conveniently placed scaffolding and simply stand up without a scratch. I realize it's an action film, but this is set in the Die Hard universe where the first 4 were semi-realistic and had coherent story lines and memorable villains. It's a real shame that this script was green lit and a director was hired that Bruce Willis could walk all over. His performance isn't charismatic or memorable. It looked as if he didn't even want to be there. Also a little gem in the film indicates that soon Australian made Jai Courtney will be taking over the Die Hard franchise when John says "Hey don't laugh this will be you in 5 years". Perhaps that's what Die Hard needs, for John to retire the badge and pass it onto his son. I'll give the film credit for it's use of slow-motion in the end scene but that's it. Avoid at all costs. 0.5/5
A Good Day To Die Hard was put into the hands of two half-whits who don't know how to make good motion pictures. Firstly it's directed by John Moore who's previous spectacular credits include "Max Payne" "The Omen" "Flight Of The Phoenix" & "Behind Enemy Lines". Get me a bucket. Secondly it's written by I believe William Shakespeare's great great great great great Grandson "Skip Woods" who won several Oscars for his genius scripts for "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" "The A-Team" & "Hitman". Combining these two forces is a recipe for disaster and the end product is a train wreck. Clocking in at 92 minutes this is the shortest of the Die Hard films but we were promised it was going to be fine because it's rated "R". Throw in a couple of "Fucks" a few head shots and let John McClane finally say "Yipee Ki-Yay Motherfucker" and all the fans will be happy. WRONG. What we have here is an incoherent shit-pile mixed with explosion porn, shockingly bad dialogue and NO VILLAIN.
There is no story in sight, John McClane is made aware his estranged son Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) has a bad rap sheet in Russia and is to charged with a myriad of crimes so John get's on a plane headed for Russia because "Family is Family". But not before there's a completely useless cameo from Lucy McClane his daughter from the previous Die Hard who serves up some "awww shucks here we go again" dialogue that is positively cringy. So John lands in Russia with basically zero information and somehow finds exactly where his son is being held and explosions ensue. We then learn as they reunite that Jack McClane is CIA and deep undercover trying to extract a Russian political fugitive and our senses are assaulted by a nauseating 15 minute truck chase through Moscow. That's where the story ends. For 90 minutes John, Jack & Mr. Russian run from the "Bad guys" where some spoon feeding to the audience is needed because there isn't even a hint as to what their motivations actually are. Something about a "file" is mentioned at one point but then it switches to "Enriched Uranium" but by this point we've given up caring and just hoping that the stripping scene in the trailer is coming up soon. Spoiler alert, the stripping scene was cut from the film. FUCK YOU. It's so unnecessarily convoluted and ridiculous you get to the point where it can't get any worse......but then we're introduced to the "tap dancing carrot eating pack leader of bad guys". The supposed "villain" of the film "Alik" literally performs a tap dance sequence for John & Jack whilst eating a carrot when trying to intimidate them. "I could have been a dancer!"
As we tumble further down the rabbit hole of vomit inducing incohesive scenes we arrive at Chernobyl where a bunch of useless double crosses happen and the invincible John & Jack fight off hoards of henchmen without EVER having to reload. The action sequences are so implausible that I just wanted to shut my eyes and remember John McClane walking barefoot over broken glass in Die Hard 1 and sustaining actual realistic injuries. In this film there are a plethora of scenes where our protagonists are flung off buildings into conveniently placed scaffolding and simply stand up without a scratch. I realize it's an action film, but this is set in the Die Hard universe where the first 4 were semi-realistic and had coherent story lines and memorable villains. It's a real shame that this script was green lit and a director was hired that Bruce Willis could walk all over. His performance isn't charismatic or memorable. It looked as if he didn't even want to be there. Also a little gem in the film indicates that soon Australian made Jai Courtney will be taking over the Die Hard franchise when John says "Hey don't laugh this will be you in 5 years". Perhaps that's what Die Hard needs, for John to retire the badge and pass it onto his son. I'll give the film credit for it's use of slow-motion in the end scene but that's it. Avoid at all costs. 0.5/5
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Side Effects Film Review
Side Effects - "They want to steal my life!"
Being fooled is part of the fun. Reported to be Steven Soderbergh's final film, instead of going out with a bang he delivers a post-modern Hitchcockian thriller. What's interesting about the characters is that everyone has a secret, a snake coiled & ready to strike. We are at the heart of mental illness, or at least we think we are. Set in the world of pharmacology we are shown a dubious side to psychiatrists as they gamble with medications to see what might work and the risks involved including these looming "Side Effects". Rooney Mara stars as Emily a girl who is depressed and fearful of the world, her husband Martin played by Channing Tatum is newly released from prison for insider trading on Wall Street which adds stress to Emily's life and eventually she snaps and drives her car into a brick wall at high speeds, she is admitted to the hospital where Dr. Jonathan Banks played by Jude Law is tasked with being her psychiatrist. He prescribes Zoloft to help with the depression but it doesn't work. Emily's home life is slowly shattering, she has lost her sex drive & Martin still hasn't found a job. Jonathan seeks out Emily's previous psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Siebert played by Catherine Zeta-Jones who in turn recommends "Ablixa" a new drug for depression that's in the trial stages.
It is next to impossible to discuss this film without spoiling it. The film does a brilliant job in making you think it's going to follow Path A. When suddenly it switches to Path B. It's a very rewarding film where the less you know about it the better, don't watch a trailer and you probably shouldn't even read this review. There are so many twists and turns in this film, that you have to go in with your thinking cap on just to keep up. I originally was skeptical of seeing it because it looked reminiscent of "Fatal Attraction" just another film where a female lead goes insane and that's the formula it would apply, except surprisingly it isn't! The way in which it was shot, along with the colour schemes made it hypnotic, the performances are terrific and it's the right running time. For heavy subject matter like this you can't make a 2 hour film, this settles on a comfortable 95 minutes. It's a breath of fresh air to the dramatic/thriller genre, I didn't like a single character in the film, their performances are all top notch but they aren't people you warm to. Even if you do find yourself siding with one character your allegiances will change as the story unfolds, which gives the story terrific character arcs.
If there are any criticisms it would be that the entire movie is based in the grey area, nothing is black & white and that the motions the protagonist goes through to achieve his/her goal are overly complicated to solve a reasonably simple issue. Sound vague? From start to finish it should keep you guessing as to what's real and what isn't, paranoia is always one of the most interesting thought processes an actress/actor can play with, and in this film it's handled delicately. The film never portrays mental illness carelessly rather it portrays it respectfully which is needed in today's society. Highly recommended, go in blind & come out satisfied. 5/5
Being fooled is part of the fun. Reported to be Steven Soderbergh's final film, instead of going out with a bang he delivers a post-modern Hitchcockian thriller. What's interesting about the characters is that everyone has a secret, a snake coiled & ready to strike. We are at the heart of mental illness, or at least we think we are. Set in the world of pharmacology we are shown a dubious side to psychiatrists as they gamble with medications to see what might work and the risks involved including these looming "Side Effects". Rooney Mara stars as Emily a girl who is depressed and fearful of the world, her husband Martin played by Channing Tatum is newly released from prison for insider trading on Wall Street which adds stress to Emily's life and eventually she snaps and drives her car into a brick wall at high speeds, she is admitted to the hospital where Dr. Jonathan Banks played by Jude Law is tasked with being her psychiatrist. He prescribes Zoloft to help with the depression but it doesn't work. Emily's home life is slowly shattering, she has lost her sex drive & Martin still hasn't found a job. Jonathan seeks out Emily's previous psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Siebert played by Catherine Zeta-Jones who in turn recommends "Ablixa" a new drug for depression that's in the trial stages.
It is next to impossible to discuss this film without spoiling it. The film does a brilliant job in making you think it's going to follow Path A. When suddenly it switches to Path B. It's a very rewarding film where the less you know about it the better, don't watch a trailer and you probably shouldn't even read this review. There are so many twists and turns in this film, that you have to go in with your thinking cap on just to keep up. I originally was skeptical of seeing it because it looked reminiscent of "Fatal Attraction" just another film where a female lead goes insane and that's the formula it would apply, except surprisingly it isn't! The way in which it was shot, along with the colour schemes made it hypnotic, the performances are terrific and it's the right running time. For heavy subject matter like this you can't make a 2 hour film, this settles on a comfortable 95 minutes. It's a breath of fresh air to the dramatic/thriller genre, I didn't like a single character in the film, their performances are all top notch but they aren't people you warm to. Even if you do find yourself siding with one character your allegiances will change as the story unfolds, which gives the story terrific character arcs.
If there are any criticisms it would be that the entire movie is based in the grey area, nothing is black & white and that the motions the protagonist goes through to achieve his/her goal are overly complicated to solve a reasonably simple issue. Sound vague? From start to finish it should keep you guessing as to what's real and what isn't, paranoia is always one of the most interesting thought processes an actress/actor can play with, and in this film it's handled delicately. The film never portrays mental illness carelessly rather it portrays it respectfully which is needed in today's society. Highly recommended, go in blind & come out satisfied. 5/5
Monday, 11 March 2013
Oz The Great & Powerful Film Review
Oz The Great & Powerful - "I might not actually be a wizard..."
You might not be a good actor either James or at least in this role. You are reminiscent of Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars Prequels & in similar territory when you think about it. Sam Raimi takes a beloved piece of art loved by generations of people and George Lucasifies it by replacing every physical set with a CGI world, bad acting & a worse plot. Yes this isn't a remake it's a prequel, just like the Phantom Menace. It's very unlike Disney to create a children's film with no subtle adult content or anything to keep the interests of anyone over the age of 15, but this is through and through a children's film & it's awful. The acting on behalf of almost everyone is wooden and uninspired, James Franco as Oz was a really poor choice of casting, if both Robert Downey Jr. & Johnny Depp pass on it, shelve the project and burn the script.
The script is horrendous, not an ounce of cohesive dialogue in sight, which would be fine if there was Michael Bay levels of action but there is not, in fact there isn't any action at all, not from the witches not from Oz & not from the flying monkeys. The witches were so boring and dull to watch, Michelle Williams as Glinda was all sugar and no spice, she's irritating and not important to the storyline at all and displays no sort of power in the film either and treats her precious wand as a child's toy to be played with. Mila Kunis as Theodora was atrocious, when she makes her transformation in the film it is comical rather than scary, in no universe does she even come close to Margaret Hamilton in "The Wizard of Oz". Her makeup looks like it's CGI rather than physical and her cackling laugh made me want to gag. The only positives of casting Mila Kunis was one shot of her ass and whoever the lucky make-up person was that got to paint her tits green. Rachel Weisz is the only actress to somewhat resemble a witch, her performance is fine and fine is the best you'll get in this seemingly 6 hour long film.
The production was a slap in the face to Victor Fleming who successfully transported us to the wonderful world of Oz in 1939 with gorgeous physical sets, vibrant colours, amazing make-up, adorable songs & an impressive cast. Sam Raimi incorporates the use of multiple green screens to create Oz and it looks ugly and fake. The CGI of the little China Girl is cringe worthy as you can clearly see that whenever Oz is handling her he's not actually gripping anything. Also at no point did I believe Oz was actually on a yellow brick road. This production wouldn't be complete without a faithful Jar Jar Binks to accompany Oz on his very boring journey. Zach Braff motion captures and voices the character of Finlay a flying monkey wearing a bell-hop costume, irritating is an understatement, useless is a better word as he serves absolutely no purpose in the film. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was cast purely so they could market this pile of shit to his million Facebook followers. Disney really tried to hammer the anti-violence message into the audiences head which explains the complete lack of action resulting in zero entertainment. Proceed with extreme caution, impossible to recommend. 1/5
You might not be a good actor either James or at least in this role. You are reminiscent of Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars Prequels & in similar territory when you think about it. Sam Raimi takes a beloved piece of art loved by generations of people and George Lucasifies it by replacing every physical set with a CGI world, bad acting & a worse plot. Yes this isn't a remake it's a prequel, just like the Phantom Menace. It's very unlike Disney to create a children's film with no subtle adult content or anything to keep the interests of anyone over the age of 15, but this is through and through a children's film & it's awful. The acting on behalf of almost everyone is wooden and uninspired, James Franco as Oz was a really poor choice of casting, if both Robert Downey Jr. & Johnny Depp pass on it, shelve the project and burn the script.
The script is horrendous, not an ounce of cohesive dialogue in sight, which would be fine if there was Michael Bay levels of action but there is not, in fact there isn't any action at all, not from the witches not from Oz & not from the flying monkeys. The witches were so boring and dull to watch, Michelle Williams as Glinda was all sugar and no spice, she's irritating and not important to the storyline at all and displays no sort of power in the film either and treats her precious wand as a child's toy to be played with. Mila Kunis as Theodora was atrocious, when she makes her transformation in the film it is comical rather than scary, in no universe does she even come close to Margaret Hamilton in "The Wizard of Oz". Her makeup looks like it's CGI rather than physical and her cackling laugh made me want to gag. The only positives of casting Mila Kunis was one shot of her ass and whoever the lucky make-up person was that got to paint her tits green. Rachel Weisz is the only actress to somewhat resemble a witch, her performance is fine and fine is the best you'll get in this seemingly 6 hour long film.
The production was a slap in the face to Victor Fleming who successfully transported us to the wonderful world of Oz in 1939 with gorgeous physical sets, vibrant colours, amazing make-up, adorable songs & an impressive cast. Sam Raimi incorporates the use of multiple green screens to create Oz and it looks ugly and fake. The CGI of the little China Girl is cringe worthy as you can clearly see that whenever Oz is handling her he's not actually gripping anything. Also at no point did I believe Oz was actually on a yellow brick road. This production wouldn't be complete without a faithful Jar Jar Binks to accompany Oz on his very boring journey. Zach Braff motion captures and voices the character of Finlay a flying monkey wearing a bell-hop costume, irritating is an understatement, useless is a better word as he serves absolutely no purpose in the film. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was cast purely so they could market this pile of shit to his million Facebook followers. Disney really tried to hammer the anti-violence message into the audiences head which explains the complete lack of action resulting in zero entertainment. Proceed with extreme caution, impossible to recommend. 1/5
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Anna Karenina Film Review
Anna Karenina - "I was eighteen when I got married, but it was not love."
A tale of love, loss, infidelity, politics & style over substance. Director Joe Wright bravely tackles Leo Tolstoy's epic 864 page novel set in high society Russia in the year 1874 which tells the story of Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley), the wife of a high ranking Russian politician "Alexei Karenin" (Jude Law) and her infidelity which leads to her downfall and public slut shaming. Anna is seduced by an up and coming Russian officer "Vronsky"(Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and subsequently abandons her child & husband which destroys Alexei Karenin's standing in society. "The man who can't govern his wife, has gone as far as he can go in government."She must pay the price and lose the perks of the upper class. She is driven by pure passion which I guess should have made us feel empathy for her, however in this adaptation Joe Wright strives for style over substance and the story gets lost in translation.
The production of this film is quite extraordinary, it's filmed almost entirely in the confines of a theater stage, the box, the main floor, the wings, the machinery & the trickery of backdrops ever changing to suit the scene. It all happens in real time.....sort of, if the scene requires a change of set or costume it's done during a scene with stage hands in full costume. The backdrops are changed in front of your very eyes and costume changes happen in the blink of an eye which is impressive and provides some comical relief. The cast is a collection of British talent. Jude Law in particular is a stand out, he has a very reserved performance in which his inner rage is visible but he can't fully express it as he must be the quint essential example of Russian rigor and remain in complete control. "I tried to save her. She chose him." He speaks in hushed tones and needn't do anything but walk into a room to demand everyone's respect. Keira Knightley is......Keira Knightley her performance doesn't change from one period piece to the next, it's good but not exciting, she continues to choose these roles and she's good in them but there are no longer any "wow" moments. Aaron Taylor-Johnson does a magnificent job portraying an ambitious rising soldier who makes women weak at the knees and as he seduces Anna Karenina it's very obvious that Mr. Kick-Ass has talent in dramatic roles.
As for the central story it was at times dull because it's hard to sympathize with Anna as society slowly turns on her. "Anna isn't a criminal, but she broke the rules!"It is in fact the supporting cast that have the most interesting subplots. Anna's brother Oblonsky played by the brilliant Matthew Macfadyen is hysterical, his whole demeanor, the way he takes nothing serious, how he openly tries to crack jokes with intimidating Russian higher ups is priceless, if only he had more screen time. If Joe Wright had of gone a little sillier and lighter on tone to accommodate for the tedious plot then it would have been a more entertaining film, but these adult themes require tension and drama which makes the famous story very difficult to adapt to the big screen. Tom Stoppard who wrote the script did as good a job as anyone could, his dialogue was rich, the way in which it was delivered was perfect, however it will obviously not interest everyone particularly the teenage demographic. It could have used a shorter running time also, at 130 minutes you do occasionally look at your watch wanting it to wrap up but overall an expertly crafted film with a tedious story to tell. It's definitely worth watching but don't go into it if you're not interested in the story because you will ultimately come out disappointed. 3.8/5
A tale of love, loss, infidelity, politics & style over substance. Director Joe Wright bravely tackles Leo Tolstoy's epic 864 page novel set in high society Russia in the year 1874 which tells the story of Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley), the wife of a high ranking Russian politician "Alexei Karenin" (Jude Law) and her infidelity which leads to her downfall and public slut shaming. Anna is seduced by an up and coming Russian officer "Vronsky"(Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and subsequently abandons her child & husband which destroys Alexei Karenin's standing in society. "The man who can't govern his wife, has gone as far as he can go in government."She must pay the price and lose the perks of the upper class. She is driven by pure passion which I guess should have made us feel empathy for her, however in this adaptation Joe Wright strives for style over substance and the story gets lost in translation.
The production of this film is quite extraordinary, it's filmed almost entirely in the confines of a theater stage, the box, the main floor, the wings, the machinery & the trickery of backdrops ever changing to suit the scene. It all happens in real time.....sort of, if the scene requires a change of set or costume it's done during a scene with stage hands in full costume. The backdrops are changed in front of your very eyes and costume changes happen in the blink of an eye which is impressive and provides some comical relief. The cast is a collection of British talent. Jude Law in particular is a stand out, he has a very reserved performance in which his inner rage is visible but he can't fully express it as he must be the quint essential example of Russian rigor and remain in complete control. "I tried to save her. She chose him." He speaks in hushed tones and needn't do anything but walk into a room to demand everyone's respect. Keira Knightley is......Keira Knightley her performance doesn't change from one period piece to the next, it's good but not exciting, she continues to choose these roles and she's good in them but there are no longer any "wow" moments. Aaron Taylor-Johnson does a magnificent job portraying an ambitious rising soldier who makes women weak at the knees and as he seduces Anna Karenina it's very obvious that Mr. Kick-Ass has talent in dramatic roles.
As for the central story it was at times dull because it's hard to sympathize with Anna as society slowly turns on her. "Anna isn't a criminal, but she broke the rules!"It is in fact the supporting cast that have the most interesting subplots. Anna's brother Oblonsky played by the brilliant Matthew Macfadyen is hysterical, his whole demeanor, the way he takes nothing serious, how he openly tries to crack jokes with intimidating Russian higher ups is priceless, if only he had more screen time. If Joe Wright had of gone a little sillier and lighter on tone to accommodate for the tedious plot then it would have been a more entertaining film, but these adult themes require tension and drama which makes the famous story very difficult to adapt to the big screen. Tom Stoppard who wrote the script did as good a job as anyone could, his dialogue was rich, the way in which it was delivered was perfect, however it will obviously not interest everyone particularly the teenage demographic. It could have used a shorter running time also, at 130 minutes you do occasionally look at your watch wanting it to wrap up but overall an expertly crafted film with a tedious story to tell. It's definitely worth watching but don't go into it if you're not interested in the story because you will ultimately come out disappointed. 3.8/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)