Wednesday, 30 April 2014
Noah : We all know the story, its told in the bible that God gave Noah a warning that the world would be destroyed and that he must build an ark to protect the good from the wicked that was about to destroy and embellish the world. He also commanded him to round up two of every animal,etc. You know the rest.
In today's review, I thought I'd talk about Noah, an epic action packed retelling of the story starring Russell Crowe as Noah. I have to say that Darren Aronofsky's imagery for this is really quite something. Its limitless in the ways he shows the great flood, and the importance of the story and how we know it and what we know combined with seeing it in his way which we don't know. If that makes sense.
I'm trying to say that the directing is well executed in terms of developing an epic retelling of the story. I mean you got a lot of famous faces in this, but that doesn't over shadow or shy away from the main purposes of the film too much. I don't think, What I do think is that we got a classic story and it's being retold in such a way that has never been seen before and we got famous faces to help persuade people to come and see it.
I mean Russell Crowe as Noah, does a fantastic job. I thought he played the role very profoundly and dare I say is one of the most consumet of professionals out there. From what the trailers gathered it employed that this was going to be something big, and in all fairness it is. It's about a man being given a task to defend himself and ones he cares about, defending the ark from those who decease him like Ray Winstone's character who is a vile, grotesque sort of baddie.
I thought the whole effect of the disaster was very well atmospherically done. It was authentic it had everything that there was to it. It was detailed, It was carefully shot. So the effects were brilliant.
Putting all that aside. For me it was slow, the pacing of it was below par and didn't meet average expectations at all. The consistent dragging was annoying because it held back from the interesting stuff, there were some loose ends which were not tied up properly in order to make them coagulate with the ending and there for made me question the point of having them in there.
It was good on the effect side of thing, the acting and directing but everything else was a bit flimsy and therefore show me that this really isn't such a justified film after all. 5/10.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Goodfellas - A Martin Scorsese movie, Ray Liotta loves the life of being a gangster from a very young age he decided he was going to be a gangster, and he joins in with the mafia and gets involved with a lot of deep, violent indentation.
I'm here to today to talk to you about Goodfellas. a Martin Scorsese movie from 1990, based off a true story about Henry Hill played by Ray Liotta who from a very young age wanted to be a gangster. This film was completely alien to me, I only watched it for the first time over the weekend.
I watched this film in two parts, Part 1 I watched on Saturday night and Part 2 I watched the Sunday morning, the overall concencise of it if you like is Scorsese implicating the life of gangsters, and how everyone's a rat, could dob you in and how it's a dog eat dog world and all the rest of it. Its communicated through graphic violence, death, drug smuggling, money dealing you name it.
Like with Wolf of Wall Street, Ray Liotta takes the liberty of talking us through the film as a narrator. I should say I'm not a fan of narration. I like to figure things out for myself, and Goodfellas I felt was a film, that could be told of it accord without all the narration. I don't know how stupid Scorsese thinks his audience is, but that's two films I've seen him use, narration in the dialogue as part of the end script.
Strangely enough for me though, knowing all that. It worked. I actually liked the narration a lot. It helped me understand what was going on. It was a guide essentially, with the relevant backdrop we needed, Ray Liotta tells what we need to know, and that's it. that's all there is to it. Everything else is told by action, wither that be violent action, abuse, cursing, swearing, killing etc.
I love Joe Pesci in this, he is fabulous. His character is not a very nice person, he kills a lot of people and is very angry a lot of the time. But I loved it, I loved his performance, not once does he come out of character he was terrific. It's a shame in a way he never made it all the way to the end of this film, but never mind. There was a good use of not having anymore use of his character in the story, it's understandable.
In the end of course, Henry Hill goes into the witness protection programme and becomes an outsider with a new life. The aftermath to Goodfellas is good, information is given at the end as a what happened afterwards kind of thing, continues the story on before the credits.
The acting and the quality of this film, is just incredible there is not a bad member of the cast in it. The speeches are very coherent to the plot, the background and inquisitive depth is great. I mean seriously this film ticks a lot of the boxes and is in every sense of the word more than a good film.
It's one of Martin Scorsese's better films that he's made. What I liked the most was the insight into other aspects of life, these people maybe gangsters but they are good business men as well who know where to cut the chop, as it were. They may be nasty and narcotic but they are played to be that by the actors in a strong controlled professional sense of the word, like Robert De Niro did for instance.
If there was a note I would place to make it better it would be not to focus on lots of things all at once, It sort of went a bit too quick for my liking. It could of been done with a little bit more finer detail to make that closer to be a perfect film, having said that I love 'Goodfellas' it's in my Top 5 Favourite Movies and is one of Scorsese's best. 10/10
Sunday, 27 April 2014
The Other Woman - Three Women who have apparently dated the same guy, and the guy has stood them all up in some way which inclines that the three must join forces in order to get him back even worse. It's all about Girl power and the status of relationships, how a man should treat his woman.
Have you ever had one of those days when you know right from the start, it's not your day. I got that feeling watching The Other Woman, slightly over powered and curious by the film. I was tempted to go and see this when I heard it came out because my mum and my sisters wanted to see it and so that weirdly meant I had to come to. So I did, watched the film, It was okay. I'm sure this film can be enjoyed more by females in comparison to males. It's target audience is more based on women anyway, it's very adult and genuine.
It's very much about Girl power and the status of relationships, which we all can relate to and look into. Every Girl I'm sure has had some time where a man has screwed them over in whatever extreme context one would dare to put it. But It doesn't bother me so much, because I've never had a proper girlfriend before. I'm quite happy being single at the moment and therefore that part of the film doesn't interest me so much as it would to others.
What does interest me however is the concentration in the mannerism of directing, I thought this film was very well directed. It was quite a fluent piece of romance and drama which play on each other in a friendly playful way.
The story I thought flowed very well and coherently, It is a film in terms of it story telling does it's best to please everybody, the fun part of it essentially is Cameron Diaz and the other two girls getting back the guy they have all in common with. It's all about a playful revenge and they got him back, and very well to.
Now the first thing to say about it is Cameron Diaz and her acting is terrific, she's a real trier, very diverse always keane to try whatever is thrown at her. Obviously this showed potential to her otherwise she would of turned it down.
The second thing to say about it is the other two supporting actresses in it Leslie Mann and Kate Upton are great as well. Leslie Mann of course has been seen in many many other films similar to the contrast of something like this so there was no doubt in my mind that she'd be able to cut it.
Kate Upton is great, some of you may know her from : Tower Hiest or The Three Stooges.
One of many concerns was Nicki Minaj, as we all know very vibrant and expressive presents in the world of Music, can she act?
Here's a clip with Nicki Minaj and Cameron Diaz.
Chick Flicks eh? Who needs them. No but seriously, back to the point. I do believe and it has to be put out there as one of my concerns about this film. There is a problem with Nicki Minaj's acting. Which makes it much worse when you stand Nicki next to Cameron Diaz, like the clip you've seen now one of them is trying really hard and other is doing it because she is a learning professional who is naturally good at performing.
But that's not the worse part of the film, there are other bits which are bloody awful, but she just can not act. I mean goodness me, I've never seen anyone so wooden and fake in a film perform as bad as Nicki Minaj. Her acting skills are nowhere near as up to speck as Cameron Diaz's standards and it is a relief to the films standard that it gets round that problem.
But it's still disappointing because her character has a lot of great lines such as 'selfish people live longer'. It's a shame that someone else wasn't chosen for the role. But the film gets round the problem that one of its cast members isn't good enough as an actress. I mean it's all very well doing all the eccentric music stuff but when your stripped clean from all that and your in a new ball park, and your up opposite Cameron Diaz, it's really awkward and very tough.
But I'm not a snuff, The film is great in parts. I really like the aspects of it trying to be playful and boosts its effort of being enjoyable. It's entertainment at a cringe standard that we're all used to. It relates to everyday life and relationships and that's all good and well done.
But the world has established the fact that Nicki Minaj can't act, and if you want my thoughts Nicki stick to music - 5/10.
Saturday, 26 April 2014
Captain America : The Winter Soldier - Steve Rogers struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from old history: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier.
Welcome to another film review. Today's film review is going to be the sequel to Captain America - The Winter Soldier. I am for one pleased to see a sequel released, as it has been a while coming since the first one came out. I was just wondering what Steve Rogers was up to now, and this film really clues me in.
It's great. The references and the links that are made in relation to the comic books are in there in some context of detail, inclusion of characters, action sequences, small references. All sorts and it's communicated in such a way that you don't have to have read the comics in order to get those references. It's all pretty clear.
I liked the fact that it was all about a character origins being compelled into the story, communicated in such a way through mind blowing action, which is always good in terms of creating an effective visual effect. Also you want to create something that people are going to be able to enjoy, so the film fulfilled at least on that part.
What I didn't like so much is all the unnecessary softness and padding in the storytelling, I thought all that was meaningless and delayed more interesting story telling. It took a while to get on it's feet, it started off reasonably well, dragged out a bit in the middle and was really gripllingly exciting towards the end. Not a lot of rhythm in it.
The acting, I have to say was surprisingly a little below par in regards to the strength of the acting in the first Captain America film which I thought was much more communicated. In this film, the acting is more suttle, and droll and dull. That it's almost as if, main cast members have either no enthusiasm for the project or are just being dull. Scarlett Johanson does it a lot. Chris Evans does it a lot. Samuel L Jackson does it a bit which is very disappointing.
There was a bit of story to it, the storyline itself seemed very promising For Steve Rogers, awakening after decades of suspended animation involves more than catching up on pop culture. It is also about that this old school idealist must face a world of subtler threats and difficult moral complexities.
That comes clear when a man called Nick Fury is killed by the mysterious assassin, the Winter Soldier, but not before warning Rogers that SHIELD has been subverted by its enemies. When Rogers acts on Fury's warning to trust no one there, he is branded as a traitor by the organisation. Now a fugitive, Captain America must get to the bottom of this deadly mystery with the help of the Black Widow and his new friend, The Falcon. However, the battle will be costly for the Sentinel of Liberty, with Rogers finding enemies where he least expects them while learning that the Winter Soldier looks disturbingly familiar.
Seems like a pretty substantial story premise, which can give account for all the acting being down par and certain aspects not living up to greater expectations.
So overall, a fair movie 6/10.
Thursday, 24 April 2014
Captain America, The First Avenger : After being deemed unfit for military service, Steve Rogers volunteers for a top secret research project that turns him into Captain America, a superhero dedicated to defending USA ideals.
Welcome to another Film review, in today's review I will looking at the first Captain America film from 2011 which sees the launching of the Captain America Film franchise into our age. It opens up a lot of doors for people and explores the diverse avenue's of Marvel's Characters who are very protective of their comics and care about their characters.
For those who are unaware of Captain America he is an American fictional character, a superhero who appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character first appeared in Captain America Comics Issue 1 (cover-dated March 1941) from Marvel Comics' 1940s predecessor, Timely Comics, and was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby.
Now today it is a creation like all the Marvel characters still going strong and developing to be better. In terms of effect and course to effect I studied this film as being a piece of intellect. It's not one of the greatest action superhero films ever made. If anything it's like Spider man and in every sense of the word a fair movie.
So it is 1942, America has entered the second World War. Sickly but determined Steve Rogers is frustrated at being rejected yet again for military service. Everything changes when Doctor. Erskine recruits him for the secret confidential "Project Rebirth."
Proving his extraordinary courage, wits and conscience, Rogers undergoes the experiment and his weak body is suddenly enhanced into the maximum human potential. When Dr. Erskine is then immediately assassinated by an agent of Nazi Germany's secret HYDRA research department (headed by Johann Schmidt, a.k.a. the Red Skull), Rogers is left as a unique man who is initially misused as a propaganda mascot; however, when his comrades need him, Rogers goes on a successful adventure that truly makes him Captain America, and his war against Schmidt begins.
Here's a trailer
So what do I think of Captain America, well It is a film that prioritises itself on pleasing a fair percentage of it's fans. It stays true to the comics, but also is diverse at the same time. I like the story of the first film a lot, It is great at setting up a starting block in order to get potential stories up and going as well, so it's very part and parcel.
I think the acting, is secondary in comparison to the effects used in it, but again it just relates back to the fact that Marvel produce a live action comic book onto the screen and there's only so much you can do today. But for me, It is essential that you have everything on equal terms which film fails to do.
So I do like this film, but in some cases it lets itself down and for that reason I am inclined to give it a 6/10.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Locke : A story in which a man takes a long car journey to correct a mistake he made before hand, that's come back to haunt him. He must drive to London and at the same time maintain business to schedule, he puts his family and job on the line for some woman, he doesn't know very well.
Tom Hardy plays welsh construction builder Ivan Locke who after a long day at work gets in his car and drives to London to correct a mistake he made before, It means risking his job, his family and his reputation but at least he believes he is doing what is right.
What's entreating about this is it's just Tom in a car driving on the motorway, and he's exchanging conversation between different people on the phone. It really is terrific, the fact that you have something as simple as that be turned upside down and actually be about something other than boring.
There's no live action, there's no physicality. It's just dialogue stripped down to the core and played as it is.
What's good about it and what sells it for me, is Tom Hardy. Tom's great in because what Tom's able to do with his face and his eyes really over power the audience and he sells it on his emotion. So emotionally I connected with him well, The problems he was contemplating, he had a really good north accent.
He was driving up from Manchester to London, to risk everything for a woman who doesn't know very well who's having a baby and he has to be there because no one else can be. But at the same time he has to maintain his work and keep a business plan to schedule that means talking to his friend and his boss about keeping to that.
I just feel it's different and it brings everything to life. In between, Tom talks to his dad and we learn about the problems he had with his dad and we enter into a very dark and morbid relationship and what it was like, its almost as if a door is being opened and then it's slammed shut.
It all comes together towards the end, the only thing for me was. It's all good and is coherent as a story, however it doesn't really work quite so well in film structure. It would work I think better as a TV Series.
It's still good drama wise, and it's more suttel than an action movie. A very good watch 7/10.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
The Amazing Spiderman 2 : Dare I say it actually turned out to be a very fair movie. I went in with low expectations. I didn't expect to be blown away, I didn't expect to express my infusiam or excitement towards this film. But I was very impressed with it.
Hope you had a good Easter Bank Holiday. I've been to the cinema a few times over the Easter Holidays, and one of the films I went to go and see was 'The Amazing Spiderman 2' to which I thought wasn't going to be all that great. From the trailers, it looked a pretty poor production. From clips it was a different matter. I saw two very interesting clips which showed of the film in a new light. It gave me a spark of interest to go an see it. It was just as well, I went on an Orange Wednesday to go and see it, because even if I ended up not liking the film, at least I didn't have to pay to get in.
For the record, It was a very interesting production and in every sense of the word an okay movie. It was fair, fair enough to make me think that it wasn't awful. The trailers don't do this film justice at all, and some of the action sequences don't really show off in good light either but the thing that got me about this film was the effect of being invincible. Spiderman was the hero, you got 3 stereotypical villains. Electro being my favourite villain of the whole film.
I don't quite understand why there were 3 villains in this, surely you can go with one villain in this case is Electro because he's the most interesting and do away with the other two. therefore resulting in Electro having a lot more scene time.
Andrew Garfield as Spiderman. I thought was really good, but it doesn't take much of a miracle to improve from Toby McGuire's performance. I think his Spiderman, has better abilities, he looks more flexible in the role. I don't think though this adds to my knowledge of Spiderman story which is a let down, because from the comics gather there's a lot more back story and added depth to Spiderman. For which the films have very little of.
Here's a clip.
I thought the story, wasn't as bad ad it could of been. It just needed a bit more added suspense and danger to keep me fully invested. One's attention span can only go so far, I felt my interest rate wasn't properly fulfilled in this film. It wasn't quite there.
In retrospect. The film was downsider in comparison to other superhero action movies, but it wasn't the worst sequel made to date. 6/10.
Saturday, 19 April 2014
The Harry Hill Movie - Yes, Harry Hill's made a film. And not just any film that's absolutely bonkers, basically It's a story of two brothers. One raised by his Nan, and the other raised in the wild and forged into becoming an evil mastermind who plans to seize a pet hamster, and Harry's been told his pet Hamster he has a week to live by the vet. So he and his Nan set off on a road trip with their hamster and that's when all the madness starts.
I do have to say, when going into The Harry Hill Movie, I had an idea from the plot before the film had even started that it was not going to be good. It wasn't really good, It wasn't totally bad either it was okay. It's an okay-ish movie. Not for everyone, but It does feel like a proper movie and to be fair it is The Harry Hill Movie, it's very him. The script is so cleverly well written, and directed in such a way that only can be told in a comedic style of fashion.
You got Julie Walters playing the Nan, which brings back to my point of it being a proper movie. A star like Julie Walters in a film as bonkers as this, yeah you know it means business with Julie Walters, I think looking back on it I think Julie's performance, is very good.
As far story is concerned and delivering the laughs, the two send to come in hand and hand, the story is all right where as delivering the laughs is a bit more touch and go and more mediocre. The humour is very hit and miss. So it's hard to tell when to laugh and when not to, I mean the entire premise of this film is completely barking mad so I can't really understand it in that point of context.
For me, This film wasn't all that great. I rather thought that the story would be better than what the trailers made out and thought there was a lot more to the plot, wither we were to expect something extra or whatever. It seemed to be a bit of a let down.
Filled with a complete British cast, doing daft things. I'm not all that fussed because I don't take it so seriously. 5/10
Friday, 18 April 2014
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as the despicable, powerful and spiteful Jordan Belfort who builds an empire off his own back, Belfort is a corrupt stalk broker who steals money off good people and ripped them off, and only played ball to terms that better suited him. Based off a true story Martin Scorsese tells us the story of The Wolf of Wall Street.
Welcome to my latest review. The Wolf of Wall Street, a film which took a hit by storm. It had a massive success rate in the cinema with an audience. All of which were mind blown by just how much power a man can have. the parties, the work, the lying, the corruption, the girls, the drugs, the money all of it. It's all inextricably linked.
Anyway. I hated this film, I honestly did. I rarely hate a film, so it's shocking that I should go into a Martin Scorsese film of all films and bitterly dislike it. Let me explain why.
So we got Leonardo DiCaprio talking us through what was going on, which I thought was unnecessary. It felt that this was a film that could be cleverly told of it's own accord so I was a felt down hearted to hear Leonardo DiCaprio talking us through the film. I could understand the reasoning for doing it, but for me It didn't start the film off on good levels. The backdrop to his character is something I felt could of been held onto to be referenced to a little bit later.
He has a girlfriend who he cheats on with this scank of a girl who's acting was unsatisfactory in my view, who Leonardo DiCaprio was only interested in because of her body and the fact that she could please him in the bedroom.
The voulgarness to it is just disgraceful. I was surrounded by a bunch of really nasty, fowl mouthed people who dare I say it were absolute A***holes. Just a load of nasty people you really wouldn't want to be around at all. Jonah Hill, I felt was quite up himself, he played the part reasonably well but it's the same stereotype role to what he does in all his comedy films playing the funnily looking fat guy.
I should say that the length of film, it seemed to last forever. 3 Hours was far too long. There was one point I actually felt like walking out, I got bored. This seriously was starting to become a film that was deeply drooling me to my bitter core.
But I suppose the actors must of done such a good job at playing a bunch of A***holes to make me feel that way, which proved to me that the acting was excellent. I mean Matthew Mcconaughey and Leonardo DiCaprio were great together when they were sitting down at that table, and talking and Matthew Mcconaughey's giving him the low down of succeeding, very very convincing. Only professionals can act as well as they did. So it wasn't all bad, the acting was good. But I felt uncomfortable with the characters that were being portrayed.
All the shouting, yelling, swearing - don't even get me started on the swearing. This film holds the record for the amount of times the word 'F*ck' is used. 571 times, that's an average of 3.16 F*cks per minute. I mean goodness me. I was so tired by the end I wanted to never go to the cinema again.
Overall, This may seem like a bit rant and me sounding like I'm attacking this film. But with all due respect I'm not. I have the up most of respect of Martin Scorsese and his films, just this one proved to me that he isn't perfect. but then who is? - 4/10.
Wednesday, 16 April 2014
Sunshine on Leith - a story about families and relationships and friendships all thrown into one big dynamic feel good film, which also happens to be a live sung through musical, which makes it all the more dynamically interesting to watch.
Welcome to my newest review, I am trying to work round my schedule so three reviews can be updated to the blog a week. And of course, I've been to the cinema recently so there's always ideas of new things to review.
Anyway I watched Sunshine on Leith for the very first time, last weekend. I have to say I did know the nature of it before hand when it was out in the cinema, about the premise of it, what it was about, how it was a musical but with a Scottish connections, the actors are Scottish, it's set in Leith and it just has an overall rhythm and beat to it.
It was interesting. I'll admit that. I can't say that I didn't enjoy it, however there are lots I didn't like about this film and there was lots I did enjoy about this film. I think when watching it, it's unexplainable how the characters suddenly burst into song and wither there's any necessary need for it. It's not like Les Miserable where the characters sing everything. It is a part time, you get some acting in there as well as the razel dazzle in your face singing and dancing.
The story, there are loads of different sub plots in this film which all bind themselves together, they all work into the film nicely. I think it's just establishing to sum up what the story is about to a clueless audience who are eager to know. You got your families in there - tick, You got friendship in there - tick, You got relationships and different types of love - tick. There's tantrums and conflict and there's also light hearted humour and comedy to it.
Casting, I will be honest I was very aphriensive with the cast choices of certain characters. I won't name names, but I did establish that some of the actors couldn't sing, felt uncomfortable doing it and felt uncomfortable being told to do it. Some of the cast members could of been better, as in added a bit more charisma to their performance instead of just being plain and wooden. Then you have stronger professionals in there who are good to see and do good with what they have.
So my main gripes with this film are the acting and the singing and why the songs work as they do in the film. It's good in some cases like at the beginning when you got the boys at war and their singing, but there are other cases with the pub and people getting up on the table and singing and your just like 'how is this relevant?'
But I can have some symphony with Dexter Fletcher because I can understand what he was trying to do, he tried to make something fun, what's good about that is that it pays off and people enjoy it.
One thing I'll say about 'Sunshine on Leith' is that it is a very popular film with people. But not with me - 5/10.
Thursday, 10 April 2014
The Monuments Men is about an unlikely group of World War II scouts who's task is to rescue a load of intriguing art masterpieces from some nasty Nazi thieves and return them to their owners. Together a whole load of interesting and famous famous come together to form The Monuments Men.
Today on the blog, I am reviewing The Monuments Men released back in February this year. This is a story of unlikely happenstance events which take place back in World War 2 and unlike other spectacles of that part in history that stand out, this was considered to be familiar, that some soldiers would retreat and appointed tasks to retrieve stolen goods such as art, from the Nazi opposition who have stolen it. It's sort of like a take back, and this film is a throw back in terms of showing the audience moments such as this. I mean the film is based of a true story, which means there must be some fact in the film.
I'm impressed with all the names and famous faces seen from within this film, all of which are all playing such good character and are all so well played. I thought George Clooney was really good. I thought Matt Damon was very good, I thought Bill Murray was really good. This film is exceedingly well cast, there's not a bad member in the cast in this, sure we can visualise what if other actors were in, and what sort of job they would have done. But for me, the quality of control in the actors presence is great.
I don't tend to like films featuring George Clooney, he's not always a very interesting person to watch on screen, but watching that scene between him and Matt Damon, it's just a well acted scene and so professionally done, from down to the last detail, the lighting, the sound, the quality of control. I was very impressed, it made me think 'well maybe I should cut George Clooney some slack, because he's shown me that he can be good' in contrast to that, he has shown me in the past that he can be very bad. which relates back to my previous statement about him not always being a very interesting actor.
So as far as how historically accurate the film is concerned, It is very factual. It's also very comedic and very serious. It's the balance of fact, comedy and seriousness that the film thrives on, in how it chooses to entertain it's audience. I think coming from a person point of view of opinion, I've seen films like this that tend to achieve this and fail. Monuments Men doesn't fail at keeping those levels up. What it does fail at is keeping the pace going and keeping me interested.
The film is 118 minutes, sadly it drags out. A lot, for me the pacing of it was slow in order to concertate on the perplexity of the actors doing their bit. I did get board watching it which just goes to show how crustal the directing is and the putting together is, timing is impeccable.
As much as I was impressed by the cast, the acting, the lighting, the music, the historical accuracy in the set, costume and in the story. It's a bit of dire film really. In my opinion George Clooney should stick to acting - 5/10.
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
The Blind Side : A film based on the insightful and genuine story of Michael Oher, a homeless and traumatised boy who became an all American football player and first round of NFL draft pick with the help of a caring woman and her family.
Welcome to my newest review. 'The Blind Side' a film which tells us the story of Michael Oher and how he begins as a homeless boy hiding the events of his past to a professional football player brought into the care of a family who look after him and take care of him and put him on the right path.
So this film your main star is 'Sandra Bullock' and her incredible performance, her accent is very convincing and they way she approaches this role is brilliant. I really was taken under her wing in this. I am a fan of Sanadra as an actress anyway, but for me in this I really felt that this was the first time she put on a performance that was very heart felt and genuine.
Sandra Bullock won the oscar for best actress in 2010 for her performance in this, and it was well deserved I think, considering that for any actor its hard to take up challenges especially portraying real people, you don't have long and you have to get it right, so the acting would sometimes be secondary, and Sandra is wonderful in this all the way through, she plays a mum who cares about her family, loves her husband and really embraces Michael into her life.
The Film is based off the facts of a true story of Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy who take in a homeless teenage African-American, Michael Oher. Michael has no idea who his father is and his mother is a drug addict. Michael has received little formal education and few skills to help him learn.
Leigh Anne soon takes charge however, as is her nature, ensuring that the young man has every opportunity to succeed. When he expresses an interest in football, she goes all out to help him, including giving the coach a few ideas how to best use Michael's skills to their abilities.
They not only provide him with a loving home, but hire a tutor to help him improve his grades to the point where he would qualify for an NCAA Division I athletic scholarship. Michael Oher was the first-round pick of the Baltimore Ravens in the 2009 NFL draft.
So it is a family film, and a film about families, how a family - this family lives and coinsides with an outsider and just accepts him as being one of their own. But there's also hints of racial prejudice in this film, and comments are made about skin colour. For example Michael is assumed to be stupid because he's black, when actually he's not. He's just not been educated properly.
This film is pure drama, and that's what counts. Pure drama, with a clear underlined message. 7/10.
Tuesday, 8 April 2014
A comedy which involves human interaction with animated characters, as superstar Michael Jordan teams up to with the Looney Toons to help them win a basketball game against alien slavers to determine their freedom.
Hope you've all had a good week, sorry I haven't been blogging as frequently as I'd hoped. But I am back on now, and reviews are going to be happening more frequently through out the course of this month, and possibly throughout next month to if we're lucky.
So today, I'm going to very quickly look at Space Jam, no need to go into any specific detail about this one. Just a brief summary of what it's about and is it good or bad. I thought I'd review this film because I have seen it fairly recently, it was a film I've always liked growing up and more to the point It's human interaction with cartoon characters, what more is there to be expected.
So the premise of this film is that the Looney Toones are in trouble because some evil alien overlords have stolen the talent of some professional basketball players in order to win a basketball game against them, if the overlords win, they turn the world into their new amusement park. The Voice of the main villain is Danny DaVito who gives off a wonderful performance and makes the character believable that the character he's playing is not a nice guy and has aspirations of greed and is a go getter, and sets out to achieve bigger and better every time and thoroughly believes that 'The customer is always right'.
So the Looney Toones seek the help of Michael Jordan, and none of the iconic characters are missed out there all there. Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tazmainian Devil. there all there, and they interact well into the plot well and most of all co-ordinate to what Michael Jordan is doing, that's not an easy thing to do if I might add.
My main thing with this film is how well the charters the animated ones, correspond to Michael Jordan and what he is doing. Which just goes to show, the animation is fantastic as is the animators themselves. So what this film does for me is the demonstrates the diversities of its surroundings and how real people interact with those of a fictional word which are very real in the film.
It's a very funny movie, I know it's a comedy and laughs are expected, but I really thought everything clicked as far as the comedy side of it was concerned, the jokes, delivering the laughs, do those laughs work, because it could all fall apart but it doesn't and that's what counts.
In conclusion, this is a family film, to be enjoyed by families and kids a like. All of which I have no doubt will enjoy watching this film, from every last detail, story, characters, music, directing etc. 6/10
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
Non Stop : An action thriller, adventure which sees Liam Neeson play an air marshal, trying to track down a mysterious villain planning to kill someone on a plane every twenty minutes unless one hundred thousand dollars is transferred to a anonymous account number.
Welcome to another Dr Film review. I went away for a bit of a break after the reviews I've been doing in the past two months. But now I'm back, and I am raring to get back into reviewing films again. So Non Stop. Is the last film I went to go an see at the cinema. I saw this on the night it came out. 28th of February, eager to know what this had to offer.
Because this film falls into three different genre's. It's your stereotypical action thriller, with a lot of black humor and dark mystery. There is a slight edge to it which in comparison to previous films highlights how different it actually is.
I love this film, on the reason that it doesn't try to be anything other than an action thriller. I mean there is some relation to 'Murder on the Orient Express' where everyone is a suspect, anyone could of done the murder. It's good how its works through that Liam Neeson's character is interpreted to be the bad guy, when its so clear he's not. The negativity of his characters past and his dark side come out and are in effect used against him.
The film reminded me a bit of 'Snakes on a Plane'. That tense feel you got when the people on the plane where trying to avoid the snakes, The tensity in the film is very real, from the moment the action starts, it flows and go with the flow and you find out with the characters who did it.
Liam Neeson himself, is doing the samey Taken stuff, which we are all familiar with, and grown accustomed to. What's so good about his performance is, we don't associate this film or the character Neeson is playing with Taken. It's just there, as something at the back of our minds to relate to. Not once do you get the feeling 'oh I wish I was watching Taken'.
There's lots of interesting back drop and story to this film, its never boars which could happen in a film such as this. But it doesn't. magnificently. It's very carefully directed, very tense and I absolutely loved it.
It's Taken meets Murder on the Orient Express, meets Snakes on a Plane.