Thursday, 31 October 2013

Review : The Woman in Black


A young lawyer travels to a remote village, where he discovers the vengeful ghost of a scorned woman is terrorising the locals. This is indeed regarded as being the most terrifying and chilling ghost story of our time.

Hey Guys

Today on the blog, as you may of guessed I will be reviewing the 2012 film adaptation  of 'The Woman in Black' a story which was and still is incredibly successful as a popular play.

So is this film worth a watch? well let's find out.

So what amount of effort has gone into this film? what are the accuraces and differences it has in comparison to the play? how is the story interpreted in the viewers opinion, bad or good? Is there limitations to Daniel Radcliffe?

Well let's explore all of these with a bit more depth, what's in this film that is good.

  1. It's set in the Victorian Period. Like the Play.
  2. Does the story stay more or less the same? Yes.
  3. Is there attention to detail? Yes. And lots of it (particularly with costume)
  4. Is this film as spine chilling as the play? Good Heavens, Yes. It's jumpy moments are built up so well, the suspense nearly kills me.
  5. Is it well acted? - Yes, from all members of the cast.
  6. Is it well directed? - Yes and No. I'll go into more detail about that in a second.
  7. Are the choices of location, well chosen? - Yes, It's amazing how they managed to find a place which is spot on to the descriptions that are given in the play.
  8. Is there interaction throughout the audience? - Yes. In a good way, lots of screaming and 'oh my god' from groups of young teenagers.   

So that's the good bits of it. What about The Bad, or as I put it Not So Good.

  1.  The timing and the pacing of it, is all wrong.
  2.  The story isn't as well pieced together as it could be. It's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle.
  3.  The character and background of 'The Woman in Black' is incorrect if you compare her to the character in the play - In the film, she is made out to be evil and a garish haunting witch. In the play she's just a grieving lady who is still terrifying but so much to the exaggerated extent as the play makers her out to be.
  4. Daniel Radcliffe, was the wrong type of casting for Arther Kipps. I like Daniel Radcliffe he's an okish sort of actor, still learning, bless his heart but utterly the wrong sort of choice of casting for Arther Kipps. The guys too young, why not cast an older man like Christian Bale or John Hamm, males who look like a man. 
  5. This film doesn't do Daniel Radcliffe any favours considering that he's just come out of Harry Potter and more people remember him from that. Luckily when I saw this in the cinema no one shouted 'Use your wand Harry!'.
  6. This ending to this film is a bit of a let down, it's more of a clean sweep sort of ending. I prefer the ending to the play, myself. But that's just what I think.
  7. Certain lighting shots cause issues in building up tension or basic surrounding atmosphere.
  8. Not enough ground depth is made to the actual family who used to live in the house, all the years ago.

So you see my frustration. There's good things which do this film favours, and on the other totally bad choices made which let the production down.

As you may of noticed, a made a point in saying this film is and isn't directed to the best of it's abilities; well I'll go into more detail about that now. The Director of this film is 'James Watkins' who is a british director, writer and assistant director. He directed 'Eden Lake' back in 2008. I can't say I'm familiar with his directing techniques but I did sense a lack of graphic tension in scary scenes, moments where the suspense would just boar me and my sister to death.

In contrast to that, there are some scenes which are directed and shot quite magnificently, for example the scene on the train where Kipps meets Sam Daily. It's very dynamically shot to the extent where the focus is just on those two people.

So it's a shame how the more graphical intense scenes are a let down in terms of deliverance, yet little scenes are brilliantly shot and work really well.

But don't just take my word for it. See it for yourself. Here's a clip.

So for those of you who don't know what happens in this story, It's set in Victorian London, lawyer Arthur Kipps still grieves over the death of his beloved wife Stella on the delivery of their son Joseph, four years ago. Sympathising yet being firm, his boss gives him a last resort to keep his job, and he assigns him to travel to the remote little village of Cryphin Gifford in the heart of the british country, to examine the documentation of the Eel Marsh House that once belonged to the recently deceased Mrs Alice Drablow.

Arthur befriends a man of the estates Samuel Daily on the train and he offers a lift to him to the Gifford Arms inn. Arthur has a cold reception and the owner of the inn  who tells that he did not receive the request of reservation and there is no available room. The next morning, Arthur meets with the solicitor Jerome who advises him to return to London.

However, Knowing there is work to be done, Arthur goes to the isolated manor and soon he finds that Eel Marsh House is being haunted by the vengeful ghost of a mysterious and anonymous woman dressed in black. He also learns that the woman lost her son. He drowned in the marsh and she seeks a dark revenge, taking the children of the scared locals.

Now I'm that that twist was put in, to add a little change and give off a haunting feel to the film. But In retrospect for me, it wasn't needed. The story is very chilling in regards to it being performed as a play, now of course I wasn't expecting the play on film. Nobody was, but was I expecting full committed accuracy, yes I was.

Sadly it was to my disappointment, to say I didn't get that.

For me, I have to give this film 6/10.

Thank you for reading this review, I hope you enjoyed it.

Now I  must be signing off, for now.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Philomena' starring Steve Coogan and Dame Judi Dench. I will review that film on Monday the 4th of November 2013.

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Review : The Phantom of the Opera

The Phantom of the Opera :  Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical extravaganza, adapted to media of film. It tells the story of a disfigured musical genius, hidden away down in his own Paris Opera House, at night he terrorizes the opera company for the unwitting benefit of a young protegee whom he trains and loves.

Hello Everyone

As you can understand, the Halloween fetish of Spooky movies are still going on the blog.

Today, on the blog I'm reviewing the endevuring 'Phantom of the Opera' adapted from the stage show by Andrew Llyod Webber. Before I go on with this review, I haven't seen the stage show, so my knowledge of how the story is told in theatre format and how things are done in the theatre are second to none. I have no knowledge, on that subject.

I do however know what happens in the story, and all that knowledge came from the film, I am exceedingly grateful to learn of the story and experience the vision that Andrew Llyod Webber had for this, It was delightful.

This film may not be the best musical movie I have seen, but it has been one of the most insightful. I learned a lot.

I'm sure to those who I am addressing who haven't seen either the play or the film, but are interested in seeing one or both of them will be eager to know, any juicy details about 'Phantom of the Opera' because the more information one has of something, there is a desire to see more of it. At least that's what I think. Your own personal opinion may agree or disagree with me intirly.

Well what's interesting about the film presentation of 'Phantom of the Opera' is though it was released in 2004, it's still seems more modern and mature in comparison to films being made today, which are more advanced in the way they go along with doing it, production wise.

It's starts off in black and white, and fades into color quite illustriously, it has a very alien feel to it. The fantastic musical score, and the haughtiness of it is picked up straight away from the atmosphere of the theatre, and the characters reactions. Overall It was well achieved.

All the songs are there, to an extent it captures the essence of the stage show, and the surrounding environments are more recognizable.

Observe in this clip.

I think the setting helps or assists the telling of the story well, it's set during the Victorian era. There is always something gloomy about that period in history, all sort of doom and gloom. The very haunting of it is, the Phantom represents a shadow, but because he owns the theatre he is an authoritative shadow which goes after what he desires, at least that is what I managed to pick up, with help from the setting. So the main advantage of this story is that it has it's sense of place.

The Phantom is most interesting character of the piece, though you have your Simon Callows and your Murray Melvins, who are more essentially powerful characters, more swerve and decedent, my interest was in The Phantom, I think that's what sells it. He's the character with the most mystery and impluence and I think audience's connect with that more, which is why The Phantom's such a great character.

There's not much I can say really, other than the fact that it's really good, and embevingly haunting. 8/10.

Thanks for checking this review out, what there was of it.

I'll see again soon shortly.

NEXT: I will review my last Halloween film of the week 'The Woman in Black' and what a film to go out on. I will review that on Halloween day itself  31st of October. See you all there.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

Review : Silent House


Continuing with my Halloween fest of films, I've seen over the past I thought it would be interesting to look at Silent House. A film by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau. 

This film, surprised me. It wasn't terrifying, and it didn't have as much an impact on my brain, that I couldn't sleep, but I did go in with low expectations. In the end I was delivered with quite a good story, with a chilling concept to it. It had the odd jumpy moments from here and there, but overall was impressed with the outcome and very surprised by it.

I think it's good when that happens, when one sits down to watch a film, they don't think will be very good and then having given it a try and enjoyed it, really lightens your mood. 

I have to say to those reading this review, the day I first watched this film I was having a bad day, wasn't in the best of moods, and the last thing I wanted to do was watch a film. regardless of what genre it was, but luckily my sister managed to persuade me to watch 'Silent House' and I quite enjoyed it.

So having explained my story in how I came across this film, The storyline to 'Silent House' is all about
a girl, who is trapped inside her family's lakeside retreat and becomes unable to contact the outside world. The way this is communicated to the viewer is by showing supernatural forces which haunt the house with mysterious energy and consequences.

Going into depth, This movie is about Sarah as she and her dad go to their lakeside retreat to pack things up inside because it is being sold. While there, her uncle also helps get the place up to scratch so they can sell it for a better value. 

And it is the uncle who has to leave to get an electrician to check the wiring, but after he goes Sarah starts hearing noises that only she can hear and seeing what she believes are people inside the house. It doesn't take long for her and her dad to get attacked by someone or something and they end up in a fight for their lives. But there's something more going on than she anticipates.

Here's a clip.

As a story if I compare this to something such as 'The Shining' which was my first insight into my Horror Season. 'Silent House' has the same vital importance to making it as good as it was, and that is it's communication. The communication is very important, as it is that which sells the viewer, they have to be clear that what they're seeing on screen is actually happening. And it is.

Just like 'The Shining' this is a film about Survival, and a chilling haunting.  It nice how the story blends the two together to conform one full story. 

This is film is very well directed, or co directed I should say. The dynamics between the ideas of Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, are easily shown throughout the course of this film.

Silent House is quite jumpy and intense in places, I did worry in some places wither or not things will end well, considering I knew a shock moment would be around the corner.

The acting, is secondary in this film. There isn't a huge cast, so the amount of rolls and characters are limited. I wouldn't say there was anyone I knew in it from other films, just the odd one off American actor perhaps?

Overall, I'm going to give 'Silent House' a 7.

Thank You for checking out this review.

NEXT: The Halloween Fest continues with Phantom of the Opera. I'll post that review on Wednesday the 30th of October 2013.

Monday, 28 October 2013

Review : The Shining


Let the scare fest begin! A family heads to an isolated hotel for the winter, where an evil and spiritual presence influences the father into becoming a bizarrely violent man, while his psychic son sees horrific forebodings from the past and of the future.

Hey Guys

Welcome to my 100th Blog! I can't believe I've reviewed 100 films in the space of seven months. It is crazy. I knew for my 100th, I had to review a film which is highly regarded as being a good on.

All this week on the blog, to celebrate the coming of Halloween on Thursday. I thought I would review some spine chilling thrillers, which are grippling tense and oozing with passion in their story lines. Stories of which done so well, drive fear and terror into the hearts of the viewers watching them.

And what a better one to start off with than 'The Shining', a film which brings chills down my spine whenever I watch it.

Director Stanly Kubrick, adapts the words from the novel by Stephen King and essentially brings his words to life. Every little quirk, and imagery description is interpreted into a 146 minute production. It was released in cinemas in 1980. So this film came out way before my time, I would of loved to have been around to see this in the cinema, sadly I hadn't been born yet.

The Storyline for those of you, who haven't seen 'The Shining' yet goes like this: A man, his Wife and son become the winter caretakers of an isolated hotel where Danny, the son, sees disturbing visions of the hotel's past using a telepathic gift known as "The Shining".

The father, Jack Torrance, is underway in a writing a new project, when he slowly slips into insanity as a result of cabin fever and former guests of the hotel's ghosts. After being convinced by a waiter's ghost to "correct" the family, Jack goes completely insane, and starts going on a killing spree.

Here is a clip.

I think one of the best talents Stanly Kubrick has a director is his communication with the audience, he has a certainty of guessing correctly, what to expect from his audience.

And it is that communication that I think sells the film, and makes the story believable. For instance Shelley Duvall, she was superb at acting scared. This is what Kubrick says 'This is peril, It's meant to be scary" and we as the audience go 'oh, I get it AHHH!'. It has that sort of effect, so the frighten factor of this story is easily communicated.

I thought the music adds an eeriness to the mix, again all to do with the communication thing I was on about.

And I do symphonie with Kubrick in taking on the challenge of directing 'The Shining'. It isn't easy to put your stamp on it, the decisions one would have to make are essential to the success of story-telling. You got a choice to make on, do I stick to the basics and stay true to the story and make it as accurate to the book as I possibly can. Or do I dare to go off the wall, and adapt it so it can be rateable to the time of the present? could you answer that question?

In the end, it's all about 'The Shining'. As it's 'The Shining' that saves Wendy and Danny Torrance from being brutally murdered. It's insightful things such as 'The Shining' that are really spooky or give off a chilling feel, because it recalls on seeing into the future, or one of many possible futures. But then again, it grasp the audience's attention because they want to see what happens.

Another highlight for me, in which I have to point out is Jack Torrance turning insane, how he went from being in normal state to then being driven insane. It adds to the emphasise of how frightening it is to change, and it's about identity.

Rounding everything up as a whole, I recommend you go out of your way, to try and track this film down. It's a more or less screen accurate representation of the book. And you won't be disappointed with the ending. 8/10!

That concludes my 100th Review!

TOMORROW : I will continue reviewing my Halloween goodies. Stay tuned to find out what my next spine chiller is going to be.

Saturday, 26 October 2013

Review : Inception

Inception: A film which dares to challenge, the idea of how we think the world is. Through the interpretive illusion. When a skilled extractor is offered the chance to regain his old life as payment for a task considered to be impossible.

Hello Film Lovers

I welcome you to my review of 'Inception' a film of which I'm you've all seen. If your one of those people who haven't it yet, then I suggest you get round it sometime.

What's to say about Inception? I tend to think of it the other way around, What's not to say about Inception?  It isn't a fantastic sure. but it is an incredible production, the budget on this film was a massive $160,000,000 (estimated). All that money was given to contemplate the most mind blowing challenges that other directors have only dreamed to create.

Christopher Nolan actually dares to do something, pretty much extraordinary. The effects on this film, are just brilliant. I can watch them, and really connect as to what's going on in the story, obviously you can't take the story to a literal extent, because that would be going a bit too far, but for a second or so, you do believe that what your watching is believable. 

I think that's the trickiest thing about film making, selling your story to the audience. how can you engage with them in way only you can?

How can you create a film, with a story which dwells on a subject others haven't dared to touch in the fear of failure? and make them believe it. 

The trouble I have with films these days, is I sit back, relax and enjoy it. Though that's good in some ways, it's bad in others. Because it convinces me, what I'm watching is not real.


The Storyline of 'Inception' is this. Dom Cobb who is played by Leonardo DiCaprio is a very skilled individual. Not to mention an experienced thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, which is where the mind is at its most vulnerable. 

Cobb's rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everyone and everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance to redeem himself.

One last job could change the shape of the future of earth, as well as give him his old life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible-inception. Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists have to pull off the reverse: their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one.

Here's a clip.

The cast for this film is excellent. Christopher Nolan knows good actors and uses them well.

You got some amazing people coming in to work on this production, all of which are clearly identified as being the sort of people you'd emphasise being in it. You do think that actors are in it, for the sake of being in it. But that doesn't bother me so much, providing they do a good job.

The film includes actors Nolan has worked with before : Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Michael Caine,
Marion Cotillard and Cillian Murphy to name a  few. All actors mentioned from the same project which is 'The Dark Knight' Batman trilogy.

It's not like there's anyone new to the main cast coming in, it's all very familiar. like family,  people are used to it.

It's a common thing with films, when a director finds or knows someone who is good, they use them again. I'm sure all the actors listed above are people that Nolan could rely upon. 

So there isn't really a bad member of the cast in it. The main cast that is.

Story wise, it's a fascinating concept and a lovely idea. I'm pretty sure that no one (critics or public) knew what was coming, or what to expect when sitting down to watch 'Inception' for the first time. 

I think that what made me want to go and see it, this uncertain feeling of 'not knowing'.

We all believe what are minds tell us to, in a reality where the mind believes to be real we accept. That is what Inception plays upon. 

The only thing, I didn't get was the ending. I'm sure many people have said this. The ending brings questions to my mind, questions which are best left unanswered. 

Well that's it.

Thank you for reading this review.

It's been good to review this film inperticular. I will give it 8/10.

NEXT TIME: And over the next week, because it's halloween I'll review some classic scary movies. Starting with 'The Shining' starring Jack Nichlson. That will be my 100th Review! Which will be very exciting. I'll get back to you all on Monday the 28th of October 2013.

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Review : Rain Man

Rain Man: Charlie Babbit, who starts of going from looking into his Father's fortune, ends up finding something more than he bargained for.

Hello Everyone.

How are we all? Good? Well that's marvellous. I was just thinking about 'Rain Man' the other day and thought, "that'll be a good one to put on the blog". It is regarded as being a very good film, it's about a relationship, but not just any ordinary relationship, the relationship between Brothers. It's like that poem by Andrew Forster which was called 'Brothers'. It explores that kind of relationship, and it's family connected.

You got two great stars coming into this movie, you got Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman. Both of which do their own thing, and their characters are so different to one another. You have two actors who are good in their own way, and play their own roles separately. So the dynamics between them are second to none.

I don't wish to sanction people in anyway, and I'm totally unbiased. However that being said, I especially thought that Dustin Hoffman was superb. near perfect even. He was that good.

And I've always thought of, Dustin Hoffman not one of those people I regard highly of, or see as one of my favourite actors.  But to give him credit he has played magnificent parts in films, with the most extraordinary efforts, the limitations he has when he approaches challenging roles, there are none. He insures that there ain't any limitations to his character. And 'Rain Man' reflects that talent. He plays a man who his heavily autistic, but clever, he's good with numbers.

Anyone who says that "Raymond Babbitt is retarded" should be shot at dawn, because that statement is so false. If Raymond was retarded he wouldn't of been able to bankrupt a casino with his brother. Case closed.

Tom Cruise, again - not to kean on him. But boy he can deliver. Sometimes he works for me, sometimes he doesn't. I've seen the odd off movie, where he hasn't done very well, and there are other times like with this film, that I feel "actually, I'm wrong to judge Tom Cruise, because he can act". Good actors go far, and he has gone far, he's a highly regarded movie star.

In this film, I thought that he showed true emotion. When he was sad - he showed it, when he was angry or frustrated (which he was a lot in the film) he showed it. So he can portray across the emotions he thinks the character he's playing is feeling, very well indeed.

But don't just take my word for it, observe it for yourself in this clip.

The story of 'Rain Man' goes that Charlie Babbit's father dies and doesn't leave any of his fortune to Charlie in his will. However, Charlie soon discovers that some of the fortune, has gone to his brother Raymond, who to Charlie is oblivious to him. He never knew he had a brother, as they meet Charlie and Raymond embark on a mission across America together. During that time, they form a team; and at the end a relationship.

And it is so sad, at the end where Charlie has to say goodbye to Raymond at the end, especially when he says 'I'm glad to have a brother'. or something along those lines. But it just signifies the two parting, and going their separate ways, and you don't want them to break up. Because you know there good together.

So what do I have to say about 'Rain Man' essentially, it's a story about relationships between brothers, and establishing that to an extent that is entertaining as well as heart warming and genuine.

For that reason, I'm inclined to give it 7/10.

If you haven't watched the film, go and watch it. It's a very good film.

Thanks for reading this review.

NEXT : I will review 'Inception'. A film by Christopher Nolan. I'll review that film on Saturday the 26th of October 2013.

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

Review : The Butterfly Effect

The Butterfly Effect:  The Story of a young man, who blocks out the harmful memories of significant events that accrued in his life. As he grows up, he finds a way to remember these lost memories and a supernatural way to alter the way he lives.

Hey Everyone

Welcome to my next film banter. Today on the Blog, I will be talking about 'The Butterfly Effect' from 2004. It has been a while since I first saw this film, I have only seen this just the once. I can still remember bits and pieces from it, It has always been a film I look back on and think 'well actually that was an ok movie'.

It isn't brilliant by all means, but judging on the way it works and the pacing of it. I would say it's a fairly basic story that works quite well, and is current to a sci-fi genre. The simplicity of 'The Butterfly Effect' is that it's so diverse, and so uncanny time travel. There's no rubbish about interferring with the course of history, there's no wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff going on, It's just us as the audience veiwing Ashton Kutcher going backwards in time and experiencing many alternate versions of his life, by looking into a book.

The Actual story premis of 'The Butterfly Effect' is this. Evan Treborn (Ashton Kutcher) grows up in a small surberban town with his single, working mother and his friends. Evan is a character that is very quickly picked up as being a character that suffers from memory blackouts. Where he suddenly finds himself somewhere else, and this leaves him confused. Evan's friends and mother don't believe him, they're just under the impression of thinking that he makes it up.

As Evan grows up he has fewer of these blackouts until he seems to have recovered. Since the age of seven he has been writting a diary of his blackout moments so he can remember what happens, more clearly. One day at college he starts to read one of his old diaries, and suddenly a flashback hits him like a brick. And it's a blast to the past for Evan.

What I will say about 'Butterfly Effect' is how cleverly it's pulled off, it has it's own little stories happening, within the main story. Which I think is probably the genius of it. It coagulates on the alternate versions of what happens in events of past, which ultimatly effect the future.

It has a brilliant Sci-Fi edge to it. As thriller, it works just as well. To be fair I do like the script a lot, because it's just brings a fresh new dynamic to the media. It does in a sence what 'Back to the Future' did, it's set out be so different, so that others can learn from it.

I like films, which teach as well as entertain, and though events in 'Butterfly Effect' are fictional. It does teach us a lesson of 'what happens in the past, will or can effect the future'.

I only have one question though 'why was it called The Butterfly Effect', to me that's not clear.

An observation of the title meaning would of been nice to have, just so everything made a bit more sense.

Overall, I would like to award 'The Butterfly Effect' a 7/10.

Thanks for reading this.

NEXT: I will review 'Rain Man' which stars Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman. I'll post that review on Wednesday the 23rd of October 2013.

Saturday, 19 October 2013

Review : The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau : The affair between a politician and a ballerina is affected by mysterious forces keeping the lovers apart, but for what reasons?

Hello Everyone

Welcome to my next Dr Film Review, Today on the blog I'm going to be talking about 'The Adjustment Bureau' a film, that was shown on Channel 4 not long ago, It was by chance that it was on when I was in, I'd never seen the film, and it was one I had heard good things about and had interest in watching, however, when it actually came down to watching the story, and getting involved with film. It didn't do much for me. I'll go into more detail about that in a second.

But right now, I want to go into the storyline of this film. This is a film which begs the question of  'Do we control our destiny, or do unseen forces manipulate us?' that question is emphasised when  an ordinary man glimpses the future fate he has planned for him and realises he wants something else. to get it, he must pursue across, under and through the streets of modern-day New York with the only woman he's ever loved.

On the brink of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate, ambitious politician David Norris (Matt Damon) meets beautiful contemporary ballet dancer Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) - a woman like none he's ever known. But just as he realises he's developing affectionate feelings towards her, a group mysterious men in black suits (I know very cliche) conspire to keep the two apart. but why?

David soon learns he is up against the agents of fate itself - the men of 'The Adjustment Bureau' - who will do everything in their considerable power to prevent David and Elise from being together. In the face of overwhelming odds, he must either let her go and accept a predetermined path...or risk everything to defy the laws of fate and be with her. It's a love story, over whelmed with soppy sentimentality and creepy guys in black suits, which act very alien and mysterious.

I’ll be honest, I'm not a fan of what the story has to offer. Shock horror! Too much back and forth and people getting captured, but I do think it’s a very good concept, just a bit too long.  It doesn't do itself any favours with whole 'defying the laws of fate' thing. To stretch that out for 106 minutes, can get a bit tenuoud.

By the time it got to the end of the film, I didn't really care what happened. It was boring. I had no interest in the plot.

Here's a quick clip.

It's a pity because you got a great cast coming in to be in the film, people like Matt Damon, Terrence Stamp,  John Slattery and Anthony Mackie. I know some people would think, 'oh you've missed out Emily Blunt' but seeing as I was never really truly invested in her character, she just irritated me. 

Quite a lot of running around in this film, and not knowing which way is up. Which is a little confusing but so difficult that you can't follow it. It's interesting to start off with, when Matt Damon is being unexplainably followed by Anthony Mackie. The viewer thinks 'oh what's going on here' only to be disappointed later on when your dished with the main plot.

This story, it had a lot of potential but for me, it was just very slow, and tiring and boring. 106 minutes of
pure sleep induction.

You have the men in black, and Terrence Stamps character which isn't really explained clearly as to who they are, not clearly. They're just in the story to induce all their efforts in insure Matt Damon doesn't end up being with Emily Blunt. A relationship which is not that interesting or bigger deal worth fussing over. It's just a boy and girl talking, you can tell they got chemistry, but for me having a load of mysterious guys in black suits chase you around New York, and tell you off like a protective parent and saying 'you can't be with this woman'. It digresses my expectations of the film and makes the black suited guys look silly.

Matt Damon (pictured above) playing a politician, a man who's not used to having to know what he's talking about. He makes the character as interesting as he possibly can, you do get the impression that underneath his work he's a casual, ordinary, everyday sort of guy. It's when the tables turn and he gets caught up in this adventure, he becomes the sort of 'Hero' role.

The problem I have with this is, his character completely changes party way through the movie, it's as if he's playing two completely different people. It begs the question, what was his role in this again?

What might be his one saving grace is, I can picture other actors doing a similar job. People like 'Michael Fassbender' or 'John Travolta' as two examples.

What I do like though, is the scene where he's stepping up in front of an audience and he talks about the way his format works, everyday he gets his tie picked out for him, and he talks about how a design of tie would make him appeal. That and various other things that he says are all co-hearent and make sense to real politics today. He just speaks the truth as says 'you know what? I don't need a team to do stuff for me. I'm a capable man, I can do it myself' and it just adds to his character. So that was all right. I didn't mind that so much.

Well I have to ask, what would you give 'The Adjustment Bureau' out of ten? if you've never seen it and you've read every word I just said, what would you give it out of ten?

I'm going to give it a 5/10. Level ground. Still not a great film.

Thanks for reading this guys.

NEXT : I will review 'The Butterfly Effect'. I'll get round to reviewing that on Tuesday the 22nd of October 2013.

Friday, 18 October 2013

Review : The Green Mile


Paul Edgecomb didn't believe in miracles, that is until he met one.

Hey There Film Lovers

In today's review I will be reviewing a 90's movie very close to my heart, and one of the most powerful and greatest films I have seen. It had such an impact on me, and still does today. 'The Green Mile' is adequately a story which recalls on a mistake that Paul Edgecomb in his past. It tells the story of how he met the most incredible man with an extraordinary gift, it's as if he possessed the talents of god himself.

There's a reason why 90's movies are so great. This story is one of them, Written and Directed by Frank Darabont - the man we have to thank for writing and directing 'The Shawshank Redemption'. Anyway he returns four years later to make this film.  As previous this story is based on a book by Stephen King, before I continue I should confirm, I haven't read the book, so what happens in it and what as been adapted, I couldn't tell you.

Now your probably thinking, why are you reviewing this now? shouldn't you of reviewed this when you started your blog. The answer to that is 'Yes'. But I just wanted to hold off for a while, just so I could take my time in exploring the great depths that film has.

I've talked to person after person, and each and every person I have come across who has seen this film, have thought that this was either a fantastic film or a really poor one. So general opinion on this is film is, it's either great or it sucks. Judging by the Box Office it made - $60,000,00. Poor movies, don't make that kind of money. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just get annoyed when people say, 'This is film is crap.' and make out their opinion to be what everyone else thinks, when it's so clear it's not.

'The Green Mile' is a film where, you do have to be in the right sort of mood, in order to want to watch it. Because it is just over 3 hours long. So I wouldn't watch this on a movie night, I'd recommend you watch this at a quiet time,  where only you can enjoy it. It's a film with a lot of messages in it, messages that can have emotional effects on  a common person such as myself. But if your not in the mood to sit down and watch it, then 'The Green Mile' won't work for you.

What I will say about this film to give it credit, even though it's 3 hours long, It doesn't drag. It tells a story the best way it possibly can. It takes it's time. It's a story which recalls on the errors of ones past, and it has the time to go into the depths of that character, the time period it's set, the supporting characters which surround the main one, to name a few.

This film is not all laughs and light hearted entertainment, the story takes it's viewer's down some dark shadowy places. It is disturbing in parts, but if it's adequate to the story, I don't mind it so much.

Here's a clip.

I think the one main thing I have to mention about this film, that is the emotionally centred scenes, which are so beautifully done, because the viewer have been following these characters for 3 hours, they really do get to know them. This is most noticeable with Paul and John Coffey (The Miracle Maker on Death Row played by Michael Clarke Duncan) an actor that is no longer with us, sadly, he died last year. 

That scene where John dies, and the lights explode is such an incredible moment, emotionaly centred and it's just makes me want to cry, it's such a sad yet powerful scene, the reality of it blows up in your face and the viewer takes a step back and goes 'woah. I wasn't expecting that.'

Also another significant thing about this film, is the mouse. There is a mouse which plays an important role in this film. The mouse is an interesting element to this story, it represents I think the might of men, it's very similar to 'Of Mice and Men' when Lennie carries a little mouse in his pocket. It also gives one of cell mates comfort. 

It may interest some viewers to know, that mouse is now famous. 'Mr Jingles' is now a very famous mouse, and will always be remembered. Which I think is a nice touch.

The Music in this is near perfect, I say near perfect because the scores do repeat themselves in some scenes, which when you've heard them after a while, can get a bit boring and sometimes cliche when added to emotionally centred scenes.

'The Green Mile' has gone on and still going strong today, I mean it was interpreted in an episode of 'The Simpsons'. Check this out.

It's good isn't it?

I can't talk about this film, without talking about Tom Hanks, because I'm sure most of you here, wouldn't want me to miss him out as he plays as big a role in the film as 'Mr Jingles' The Mouse. Well Tom Hanks, is just himself in this film. I don't have much to say on the behalf of his performance, he just brought the character he plays to live in a heartbeat. He's just so good an actor, not many people have the talent that he has.

Overall what do I think of 'The Green Mile', the same as people with any sense, it's fantastic!

It so much raw and general material that disliking it is an impossibility for me.

9/10. Maybe sometimes 10 if I'm in a good mood.

Thank you for watching this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'The Adjustment Bureau' - I will post that review tomorrow - Saturday the 19th of October to be precise. 

Until next time, see you then!

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Review : Runner Runner

Hey Everyone, guess what? there's a new Brad Furman movie out called 'Runner Runner.' it's one of those high tense action thrillers, about gambling. It stars Justin Timberlake , Ben Affleck and Gemma Artatan. What's it about? It's a film which had the exact premise of a previous film of the same gambling story line "21". oops. 

Welcome Film Fans, to my newest Dr Film review. In today's review, I will reveal my thoughts on the new Brad Furman film 'Runner Runner' which hit UK cinema's on Friday the 27th of September 2013. It isn't going to be in cinema's long, so one can guess the success that's it had in the box office, das far.

Justin Timberlake plays a light hearted, yet skint college student who cracks an on line poker game and goes completely bust over night. When he decides to do something about it, he arranges a face-to-face encounter with the man he thinks cheated him, a sly and offshore entrepreneur who is played by Ben Affleck.

The moral message of 'Runner Runner' is play or be played. That very message is printed on some the publicity posters, it conveys a sense of seriousness of the areas of taking risks. If your going to play, you will be taken for a fool and all of that.

The film starts of brilliantly with a little pre-title sequence which draws you into watching the film, through a couple of words from Justin Timberlake's voice. Justin Timberlakes character starts this film off by getting us into a story, and he describes the backgrounds into gambling, what it means to gamble, what his character does in the film, how taking risks is gambling, etc. That is all relevant to the story and sets up good atmospheric tension amongst it's audience.

The title sequence itself, I like a lot. I thought it was very impressive. It's a line of cards which incidently flip, to form into each letter of the title. That is a very clever and dynamic idea, very neat and quick, and again had relevance to what the stories about.

Justin Timberlake's character has tremendous knowledge of blackjack gaming , that knowledge of course gets him to where he wants to be, out on top working for this big entrepreneur. That happens and it's when he gets more involved, the heavier things start to get, and more serious matter get. What I like about Justin Timberlake's character is, he guides you through the film. He is the one that always lets you what's happening, where abouts in the plot. That sort of narration is helpful to the viewers because it just means that they don't get lost part way through, they got a little tour guide to help them along the way.

Anyway, here's a quick clip from You Tube.

What is bad about 'Runner Runner' and what I picked up after watching it, was this thought of "wait a minute, that was sort of like the exact premise of the film 21". If you've seen 21 and compare it to this, you can stop and think well, Justin Timblerlake he's playing a character who has interest in the game, so he gets mixed up with some guys who turn out to be bad, and its because of that he get mixed up with some other guys who look bad, but are good. Together they take down the real bad guys, and live happily ever after'? coincidence much? I'd say so. It's not copying, just a recycle of ideas off another success film.

There's quite a bit of snappy dialogue in this, especially in scenes with Justin Timberlake and Ben Affleck. I don't understand the medium of blackjack or any of those sort of risking games, so mu understanding of what was being said was a bit hazy. I would of liked those scenes to have been a lot more clearer.

But  'Runner Runner' has a bit of a double meaning to it. If you can spot it, good for you for spotting it. Those who haven't will learn something, I thought that 'Runner Runner' the clue was in the title. It was about Justin Timberlake running from his problems, and running from the police. It's a sort of a two way thing, both of which present themselves very well.

So scores, what should I give this film? I'm going to give it a 6/10.

Thanks for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'The Green Mile' starring Tom Hanks. I will review that incredible film on Friday the 18th of October 2013.

Sunday, 13 October 2013

Review : Back to the Future

Hey There everyone!

Welcome to a new Dr Film review, today on the blog I'm going to be reviewing a real classic. It's 'Back to the Future' from 1985. A wonderfullyy zainey and crafted piece of drama entertainment, directed to near perfection by Robert Zemeckis. who directed other films such as:  Forrest Gump with Tom Hanks, Beowolf and Flight.

What's so good about 'Back to the Future'? well, that's the wrong question. As a veiwer, I have to ask myself what's bad with 'Back to the Future'? It's a fantastic film, which focuses on a Sci-Fi story concept that at the time of 85, had never been done before hand. It was something new at the time, which goes on to astound a new audience today.

When I first saw this film, I was 11 years old. I was sick and tired of all the rubbish films I'd seen previously of the more modern period, then I came across this and thought 'oh no, a film that's not from my time, is going to be just as bad'. Fortunately I was fussing over nothing, and I stand by that. What a privilege it was for me to sit down and watch this film.

For those of you who don't know the story - A Boy, Marty McFly, who is your typical American teenager of the 80's, is accidentally sent back to 1955 in a plutonium-powered DeLorean "time machine" invented by slightly mad scientist 'Doc Brown'. During his trip back in time, It doesn't take Marty long to settle in. However he makes a crucial mistake of all time travel. 'Never do something drastic, which could change the course of your own history'. So it's then up to him to make certain his teenage parents-to-be meet and fall in love - so he can get back to the future.

Here is a clip

There are so many good things to point out about this film, but I'm sure you viewers would be board to death, to sit through a bullet point list of all the things, I liked about this film, because there's just so many.

I'll keep it brief and just say, If your ever board and tired of all the crap films and think 'why did this ever get made?' then go and watch this film, especially if you haven't seen it. It's so different, very versatile and diverse, very historically accurate, it has an essence of 'bling' to it, which shows it off in such a way, one wants to be involved with it.

That is the beauty of 'Back of the Future' it involves the audience in it's adventure. Also there was not much good time travel stories, around back in 1985. So this film came in at right time, a time where technology was becoming more advanced, time travel stories and sci fi was absent, and then this film comes along and says 'Check this out, It's time travel - with a twist' and people loved it.

That's the genius of some films, they bring in something new, which makes the general public go 'WOW!' in a shocked and playful way.

Now of course, you have two time zones 1980's and the 1950's. Both of these time zones are very well separated and apart from one another. I always thought the 50's were more of a primitive 'back on your feet' kind of decade, and in comparison to the 80's well, you can spot the difference.

So all in all, very dynamic and attractive movie. - 9/10!

Thank you for reading this review. I'm going to sign off and have my tea now, but stick around for more reviews to come.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Runner Runner'. I will post that review on Tuesday the 15th of October 2013.

Friday, 11 October 2013

Review : Pirates of the Caribbean


Pirates of the Caribbean : Curse of the Black Pearl - A young Blacksmith, Will Turner inevitably teams up with an eccentric and criminally clever Pirate "Captain" Jack Sparrow to rescue his love, the governor's daughter, from Jack's former pirate allies, who are now undead.

Hey There Film Lovers

Today I will be reviewing the first of four 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movies, that have been released over the years. I watched this film a couple of weeks ago at a friend's house, and whilst the thought was in my head I figured, well why not review it now? It is actually a very highly regarded and praised film, which does a job to set out to achieve something new, and at the time of 2003, which is when this film came out, it does that. and very well to, I might add.

It's action drama with Pirates, what's not to like. Now I'm not overly keen on Pirates, I think that most Pirate stories don't have much of an edge to them or have that spark of interest. I also don't really emphasise with the back story of a Pirate, So not very enthusiastic about Pirate stories, I think they're boring.

What I will say about 'Pirates of the Caribbean' is, though knowing I'm not overly found of Pirates or they're background. I can watch this film, and not have to worry about that too much. I do however have to be in the correct frame of mind to want to watch it. It isn't like a light comedy that can be enjoyed no matter what frame of mood your in, this film really takes the time and the effort to devote your time to sit down and watch it.

This film suffers from the same errors that I had watching 'The Lone Ranger', It has that see saw effect of being good in some ways and terrible in others. When I first watched this film, I was a child, I would of been seven years old. For a child of that age to watch a film such as this, that is 143 minutes is too long. I got bored quite easily and switched off, part way through. At the time, I also wasn't familiar with the time period in which it was set either, It all was quite unfamiliar and strange to me.

This of course now, creates a huge comparison. When I watch it at 17, I see this film in a new form of light. It's still quite confusing in some aspects in the way of plot and story-telling, but it's more clear to me now ten years on. Now I find that quite fascinating, to what I thought of it back then as a child, in relation to watching it now, in a more adult fashion. It just goes to prove ones opinion can change over time.

 This film features the debut of the iconic 'Captain' Jack Sparrow as played to near perfection by Johnny Depp. Jack Sparrow is just one of the best and recognisable characters he has created over the years he's been an actor. Every time he has approached this role, he's always been superb. He never diverts off character, he's in the zone all the time. It reassures the audience confidence in his acting, every gesture, every mimic, every facial expression is a winner.

Another great actor in this is Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa. I think what makes his character a success is largely due to his voice. Yes he does good acting of his own, but I think it's the voice that sells his character the best, because he's not using his normal voice, he's using a rough very toned voice. Which sums up his character well in terms of communicating his dialogue. It's always debatable when it comes to Geoffrey Rush's performance in 'Pirates of the Caribbean', I would say it's his best work but it's far from his worst.

Going to show you a quick clip from the film.

 Going into the storyline for this movie - Unlike 'Lone Ranger' I didn't think 'Pirates of the Caribbean' tended to be as successful as it later became, It wasn't something that deliberately sets out to be phenomenally good. It was just a new film in composition with the market of other 2003 movies, which did it's best with it did. nothing big. It's a shame really, films that are being released these days could learn from earlier released films such as these.

The storyline to 'Curse of the Black Pearl' is essentially a swash-buckling tale that follows the quest of Captain Jack Sparrow, a savvy pirate, and Will Turner, a resourceful blacksmith, as they both set out to search for Elizabeth Swan. Elizabeth is the daughter of the governor and the love of Will's life. So already you got a love story going on.

 Anyway she gets kidnapped by the feared Captain Barbossa. Little do people in the film know - audience included, that the fierce and clever Barbossa has been cursed. He, along with his large crew, are under an ancient curse, doomed for eternity to neither live, nor die - just sort of live an in between life. That is, unless a blood sacrifice is made.

Seems quite a straight forward storyline. and it is. no, I'm joking, it isn't. This story unnecassarly drags which is a shame. To top that, I didn't get enough character development either, you'd thought in a film that's as long as 143 minutes, there'd be equal character development. You'd be incorrect, I thought too much character development was being put into the lead characters, as apposed to the backing characters which are equally as relevant and important to the story as they are. It's very confusing.

As a story, I thought that it was like a jigsaw puzzle with bits of it missing. not everything fitted together perfectly. And the beginning was particularly down hearted. I also felt in the format that was allocated, I didn't think there was enough story, to last as long as the film did. It needed something else.

But I will say once it got going, It went better and was quite good a piece. not spectacular.  not even brilliant. just ok.

Which is why you have to be in the mood to watch this film, there are times when I can watch this film by sheer surprise and just get drawn into it. Other times, I get the impression of 'oh why am I watching this'.

I don't quite understand why people like it so much, It's not the best of stories. The Production is good and very well achieved in some places like : costume, lighting, action sequences, attention to detail. But not much.

I suppose I could say the lighting is near perfect. Particularly for example the shot, shot in the night time. I thought those were very juicy shots to view upon. just right to make it dynamically appealing. So lighting was good.

Scores now. I will say that 'Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl' should be worth a 5. 5/10.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Back to the Future' another highly praised film, that I'm not too keen on. But I'll tell what I think of that on Sunday the 13th of October 2013.

Until next time folks!

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

Review : Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory


Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: Based on the fantastic and wonderful story by Roald Dahl, of how a life changing miracle happens to one young boy, when he visits the factory of the so called brilliant 'Willy Wonka'.

Hey There Film Lovers

In today's film review, I thought I'd do you all the pleasure of reviewing, a cherished and much liked musical film 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory'.  It's based on the novel by Roald Dahl, and is regarded as being one of his most popular stories that he did. This film is the first of two versions of the story to be released in cinema. This of course is the earlier version, and regarded by most people as being the better version. I'd be obliged to agree.

They say 'With great power, comes great responsibilty'. What I mean by that is, the production of this film were presented with a popular story, and the pressure must of been on to produce something that the public liked. All of Roald Dahl's stories are memorable in their own way.

Obviously 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' was one of his most popular. It has it's own little messages of 'don't be spoiled', 'don't be greedy', 'don't take anything for granted', it also has messages of 'responsibilty' and how one can be accountable for one another. As well as all the mad and wonderful things that are inside the Factory, it's all a great test. So for the film makers and the director to produce something close to novel, and have moments of their own in there as well is very commendable.

The film stars the fantastic Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, who is infinitely better than Johnny Depp's interpretation of the character. He just so controlled in every single scene, that you can not fault his performance, unless your being nit picky. It's not a perfect performance, by any standard of acting. However what is, is someone bringing the character that someone else imagined to life, and making that character brilliant; and real. That's what's important about the Gene Wilder 'Willy Wonka' you believe that he is 'Mr Wonka' from moment one.

There's one moment that stands out in my mind of Gene Wilder's performance, and that is the scene where he acts as if Charlie has lost. Though that scene isn't in the book. It's incredibly powerful. It actually puts a slight twist on things, it brings the audience something that they didn't expect. Gene Wilder himself acts in that scene brilliantly, especially when he raises his voice to show enfusastic temper. And he's assisted by Jack Albertson who plays 'Grandpa Joe' and Peter Ostrum who plays 'Charlie'. So you know what I'll say next Gene Wilder, playing the title role. Easily the best performance in this film, by a clear mile.

However other people like Jack Albertson, Peter Ostrum were really good. Even Aubrey Woods who played the corner sweet shop owner, was really impressive. So this film isn't far from showing a good performance from it's cast. Which is more that can be said for the more recent version, which is a dire. And I know what you must be thinking 'Review that then, why's that so bad?'.

The Film stays true to the story. It's about a poor boy, who starts with nothing and coming up on top and ending up as a winner. He is offered the opportunity to tour the most eccentric, and extraordinary candy factory of all. However there's more to Willy Wonka's chocolate factory that meets the eye.

Had bit of trouble finding clips for this, so I can only show you 'Pure Imagination' It's not much, but at least it's something from the film.

The pace of this film is perfect. This film is 100 minutes! HOORAY! It's witty, It's fun, It's not too long, It's just the kind of light hearted film I like.

This film isn't only an adaptation, it's also a musical. This film is filled with songs. Some of which sadly drag the film out for me. Which is a pity, but that's the problems with most musicals. Filled with a lot of stupid and unnecessary songs, "shut up and get on with the story" is what I always say.

In moments of gaps in the story, there's lots of padding to fill those gaps. In which the story doesn't really go anywhere or the story doesn't progress as well as quickly as one intended. For instance the wallpaper licking scene, it's nice to have it in, but It could of been cut to save time and make the story run a little bit quicker.

The interior of the Factory, it looks like a factory. But one of things that benefits the Tim Burton version as apposed to this one is the fact that the factory in that film, actually looks like a magical place. Where as the set design for the Factory in this film, is a little below par. But for a production of 1971, I can simphaise with what they tried to do, but failed upon. The Factory interior I think doesn't completely make the audience believe what they're experiencing is the same place that Dahl emphasised to be a 'magical' place in the book.

However, having said that I still think this is a very good film indeed. It dares to turn one of Roald Dahl's best stories into a reality. In the way only media can.

I will give this film 8. Not 9, because I think it has it's failings in parts. But not much, I think 9 would be a bit too generous. so 8/10. But still a very good film.

1 Gold Star to Gene Wilder - and well deserved.

Thank very much for reading this review.

NEXT TIME: I will review Pirates of the Caribbean : The Curse of the Black Pearl. I will post that review on Friday the 11th of October 2013.

Sunday, 6 October 2013

Review : Inglorious Bastards

 Inglorious Bastards:   Who doesn't like this film?  Since I've seen this, I've come across people in pubs and on the street, and family relatives who've seen this film, and thought it was brilliant.

Inglorious B's was always on my list for films to watch, and by chance I happened to watch it when it was being shown on telly. How fortunate was I? It was great for me to finally sit down and enjoy something. Because at the time when I first watched this film, I was left a little let down. I'd seen some really bad films in previous to this, and all of them were fairly recent. Then praise be, I watched Inglorious B's and when it finished, I took a sigh of relief in thinking 'good. not all films are terrible'.

From what I gathered with what this film had to offer, It didn't flip my switch immediately to want to watch it. It was simply by per chance that I happened to sit down, and watch it on my telly.

Quintin Tarantino has done it again! He directs what I think is a very well done story, great characters, beautifully acted, excellent script. All the ingredients for a great film.

The Story is set in Nazi-occupied France, during World War II. There is a plan to assassinate the Nazi leaders by a group of Jewish U.S. soldiers, who coincide with a theatre owner's vengeful plans for the same.

The young Jewish refugee 'Shosanna Dreyfus' witnesses the slaughter of her family by Colonel Hans Landa. Narrowly escaping with her life, she plots a dark and cold revenge several years later, when German war hero Fredrick Zoller takes a rapid interest in her, and arranges an illustrious movie premiere at the cinema she now runs.

With the promise of every major Nazi officer will attend, the event catches the attention of the "Basterds", a group of Jewish-American guerrilla soldiers, who are led by the ruthless Lt. Aldo Raine. As the executioners advance and the conspiring young girl's plans which are set in motion, their paths will cross for a fateful evening that will shake the very annals of history.

Now all though Tarantino knows that the events he's writing are not based off true facts, what he does know is that because he's writing fiction based off true facts he can play with his audience, fantasising them with the 'what if' possibilities. There are also additional hints of narcissism, racism and fascism in the film which are picked up well. There isn't really any explanations that need to be given, it's all pretty clear.

Here's a clip from the film.

Even though this film is 153 minutes, it doesn't drag. Everything flows really nicely and each scene compliments the next one.

The graphic violence in this, a bit over done. It's your typical contemporary Tarantino blood and guts flying everywhere. Lots of people die in this story, Tarantino really doesn't mess around if there's a character in the script he thinks has no use for, he'll either kill them off dramatically or get rid of them the way he sees fit. As well as that Tarantino also uses bloody violence to create humour. The baseball bat beating scene, I thought had a double meaning to it. I think it was meant to be funny, and Tarantino does that a lot in his films.

Costumes and sets are all fantastic. Created to perfection, really is so perfectly 40's. I was amazed at how authentic this film looked, it would of been cool if when edited, they good of made the film more grainy, like the effects of a black and white movie. I thought that would of been cool. Picture quality is very clear to standard.

Brad Pitt, what a great choice of casting. He did an amazing job, what I love about Brad Pitt is that he knows he's not the best actor in the world, but yet still comes out an delivers an incredible performance. One of his best by far.

Christoph Waltz, as the villainous Hans Landa - Achieves pure nastiness through chief whit and charm, there's always something behind a smile. Though what makes his character interesting is that he's not actually a villain to himself. Tarantino makes us believe that he's bad, by showing us one half of the coin. When in actual fact, he's just a Nazi Officer, doing his job. The only time we see the other half of the coin, is the scene where he discusses with Brad Pitt's character the prospects of ending the war. I love that negotiation scene, it's very well acted, it's gripping tense, carefully directed.

I love the script. The fact that Tarantino wanted  Bard Pitt's character to give the Nazi's something they couldn't take off, Because a Nazi could just take off the uniform and seize to be what they are and so I thought that  by carving the symbol on their forehead - was simple straight forward message, It symbolises what he thinks and what the Brad Pitt character and Tarantino combined thinks of the Nazis. It's hilarious when he does it to the colonel.

It's just such a brilliant film. One of Tarantino's best.

The casting is correct, the script is excellent, the setting is immaculate. I can not fault it.

I'm going to give it a 9/10.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory starring Gene Wilder. I'll post that review on Tuesday the 8th of October 2013.

Saturday, 5 October 2013

Review : The Grey

The Grey :  After a drastic, plane crash in Alaska, six oil workers are led by a skilled huntsman to survival, but a pack of merciless wolves haunt their every step.

Hey Everyone

Welcome to my newest Dr Film review. In today's review, I shall be looking at Joe Carnahan movie, The Grey which stars Liam Neesan as the ideal cast member.

This film consists of being a dramatic high tense thriller, which really sets out to achieve an adrenalin rush within it's audience members. It highlights certain aspects of the human survival instinct, which co-exists within us all, when in times of peril, we must do what we can to stay alive. In the case of 'The Grey' it about Liam Neesan trying to save himself and his friends from freezing to death, and to prevent them from being savagely eaten by a pack of hungry wolves.

Liam Neesan in this film, really presents himself to be the main protagonist. We understand from quite early on what his role in the film is. Joe Carnahan uses his talents in a way which presents Liam Neesan, in such a way we haven't seen him act in a film before, and at the same time is not too gimmicky, he's still pretentious and to the point.

I was eager to watch this when it came out, because it ticked all the boxes for me. I love Liam Neesan, I think he's a terrific actor, and talented performer. So Anything with him in it, insures me to want to see it. It did present itself to me, as being a film of certain distinction. However having these ideas in my head when sitting down to watch, I felt the film was quite slow. I was hoping the action would start immediately so the audience could get stuck into the good stuff, portrayed in the trailers. To my surprise the opposite happened.

The film was slow, and did drag out longer than I expected it to. Which is a shame considering the trailers showed off this film to be fast and pacey. I can't help but  question is the advertising for this film, actually false. Does it lead the audience down a wrong path. If so, then that is a grave error and a shame. I did get my hoped up for this film, and instead what I got was a slow paced story, with dragged out scenes and not enough action happening. The ending however is fantastic. So I'm also confused, If the whole of the film, had been as quick paced and dramatic as the ending, this would of been a really great film. I did feel for 117 minutes, it was too long. The length and the pace of 'The Grey' is where it fails. 

As a word of advice, I would of thought that all the hard hitting grit of 'The Grey' could of been more included into the plot. Scenes could of been cut. And all in all could be what the trailers advertised to be in all of 100 minutes.

 Putting all that aside. The cast of it is interesting. Alot of names here to which I'm not familiar with, actors who delivered not a bad performance. They were just okay. All the supporting cast members are there to support Liam Neesan. Liam Neesan of course is excellent in this film. 

The desperation and fight his character has when under pressure is just incredible, what I like about some of things that are done, is there not done by talking. No dialogue, just actions. It's very diverse and invertive.

I like how Neesan is portrayed to be a leader, how the pressure is on him. Gives us as a viewer confidence in him for him to pull through and succeed. Considering the conditions they are in, walking through the Alaska and snow blizzards, whilst trying to avoid being eaten by wolves. It's no easy task.

Here's a clip from 'The Grey' 


So overall, what do I think of this film? It's not a bad film. I just felt it dragged on a bit too much. I thought there was a fault with the advertising of it. Perhaps a mixed message was in the advertising which wasn't shown in the film, who knows?

I'll give this film a 6/10. So just over half.

Thanks for reading this review. Stay in touch for more updates throughout this month.

NEXT : My next review is going to be 'Inglourious Bastards' - I will post that review on Sunday the 6th of October 2013.