Review : The Woman in Black

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.

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.

Review : Silent House

SIL ENT 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.

Review : The Shining

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.

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.

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.

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.