Review - Die Hard 3

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE! - Bruce Willis returns to the roll of John McClane yet again.

McClane and a Pawn shop owner are targeted by German anarchist who calls himself 'Simon' in New York City, where he plans to enjoy emceeing his wrath on McClane, and fulfil his man goal to rob the Cities Federal Reserve Building.

Hey There Film Lovers!

I hope you've had a stress-free weekend. I know I have. Anyway I present to you today my review of 'Die Hard 3' or 'Die Hard with a vengeance' whatever you prefer to call it. This film is a game of two halves really; or more adequately a game of three thirds because this is the third instalment of the Die Hard legacy. As you know das far I loved the first one, second one - I thought was really good, and the fifth I thought was ok. In the case of Die Hard 3, I did go into this film thinking 'okay this might be a bit duff, considering that this is the third film of  what was to become the legacy and films that get a second sequel after it's first - It can really dry things out. Die Hard 3 didn't necessarily do that for me, In actual fact - I loved it!

It was a very good story, very well acted, excellent script - the script was brilliantly written, it was funny and it had action and graphic violence thrown into the mix as well. This film was a chocolate cake, and I loved it.

The Storyline to 'Die Hard 3' is we the audience are coming into a different and more present stage John McClane's life. He is now almost a full-blown alcoholic, he's stopped talking to his wife, and if that wasn't bad enough he's also been suspended from the NYPD.  For what reasons, I can't say because I'm not overly sure that it's mentioned in the film as to why he has been suspended.

Anyway, The film starts off with a bang - quite literally. A bomb goes off in the Bonwit Teller Department Store, and the police department, go insane trying to figure out what's going on. Soon, a man named 'Simon' calls and asks for McClane. Simon goes on to tell Chief Inspector Walter Cobb that McClane is going to play a rather unpleasant game of "Simon Says". I love that aspect of the movie, how the writer of this film can take a child's game and turn that into something quite dark and unpleasant. Plus with the anarchist being called Simon, it only makes sense.

Simon instructs Chief Inspector Cobb to get McClane to go and do a number of tasks he assigns him. If not, he'll blow off another bomb. With the help of a Harlem electrician, John McClane and his new partner must race all over New York, trying to figure out the frustrating puzzles that the crafty anarchist gives him.

Here's a clip.

John McTiernan - who directed the first film, returns to direct this film. Some might say he's lost his touch a little bit. To me that's not the case, he handled matters very well, he contemplated tricky scenarios and drastic shots very well, he created an atmosphere, which is important. 

The cast is so correct, people like Jeremy Irons and Samuel L Jackson. Amazing actors coming along to guest star in this one movie. They do their own thing and play their role they way they want to play it, they do it brilliantly and not only that, they make Bruce look good to.

I ultimately think that a good actor, immediately makes Bruce raise his game. It's as if he knows he has to be level, because these actors he's co-starring with are really good and talented performers.

I think this film highlights significant importance to the character of John McClane; because this film really shows him under pressure. He's a dead beat, he's not talking to his wife, he's lost his job - he's got nothing, then out of nowhere this adventure happens, and he's suddenly back in the game. This film really does show what McClane is like under intense time, he can be scared, angry, witty, funny and a lot of the time - pissed off. 

And in contrast to that is Samuel L Jackson who for me stole the show, his performance was near perfect. You got his character who's reluctant to wanting to be helped by white people, he doesn't want much to do with them. He'd rather not be involved in the investigation in fact his character even says 'I'm not jumping through hoops, for some Phsyco. That's a white man, with white problems, you deal with it.' So his character has an emblem of racism and a little bit of narcissism, that is fascinating. I think had another black actor like 'Denzel Washington' played the role it would of been different. Not better but it would of been different.

The twist is great. As ever in a Die Hard film, there's got to be a little twist to stir things up. And the twist to which I will not reveal, to respect people who don't like spoilers. Really turns what we think the plot to be upside down, and gives us an absolute shocker, where we just go 'I wasn't expecting that'. And I like films that are clever and can unexpectedly surprise you.





The biggest problem with Die Hard 3 for me is the pacing of it. The duration of the story is to long. I did wonder for a 131 minute movie. It's not progressing as quickly as it should. I would of very much preferred it if the film had been a fast paced, intense adventure which would work all into 100 minutes. That would of been much better.

There are loss ends, which are fairly noticeable with this movie the more you watch it, and look at things back.

The 'connecting brothers' sub plot - it worked. And I liked it a lot, but it all sort of underneath everything, there isn't much depth behind it, we're just lead to deal with it, as that's the way the story is going. Would of liked the 'brothers' thing to be more clearer communicated, maybe go into what Simon and Hans were like as brothers, did they got on?, did they not get on? there isn't any indication to that. which is a pity.

McClane is portrayed to be a very bad driver in this film, reckless and stupid. I know car action is a hard thing to come by, good car action - it does exist. But it didn't exist in this film, sadly.



But overall, 'Die Hard 3' is a brilliant movie. Better than 2 but not 1, 1 is the best.  9/10

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT : Next Time I will finish off my Die Hard reviews with 'Die Hard 4'. I'll let you know what I think of that on Wednesday the 2nd of October 2013.

Review : Die Hard 2

DIE HARD 2  - The ongoing sequel to Die Hard, which extends the Legacy; and continues the story by having John McClane embark on another very dangerous mission. This time McClane must tackle a group of terrorists, who have taken control of air traffic control and have power over the planes trapped in the sky. One of which has McClane's wife Holly on board. For John McClane - the race is on!

Hello Film Fans

Welcome to yet another Dr Film review. In today's review, I will talk about what I love and hate about Die Hard 2. The daring sequel to Die Hard which has captivated thousands of viewers, over its time when and after it was released on the big screen.

John McClane is back, which means also Bruce Willis has returned to the roll. Judging by the success of the first film, I'm sure the production team, had it in there heads, that a demand for a sequel would be a considerable option. Anyway the audience has a new story, new villains, new surrounding environment,  new dangers and disasters, and not to mention more explosions.

After being regarded a hero of the Nakatomi Hostage Crisis, attempts to avert disaster still baffle NYPD officer John McClane. As this time rogue military officials seize control, of Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C.

Here's a clip.

  

Now speaking as a Die Hard fan, I think I can say that many people, myself included do not think that Die Hard 2 even managed to reach the expectations, we were hoping for it to achieve. I mean to be perfectly honest I will always think 1 is the best. And no amount of mind blowing effects or invigorating acting will change that. Die Hard 2 is no where near as good as Die Hard. Die Hard 1 has something which really alerts it's audience into wanting to watch it. the stakes are high, there is a siege heist going on and it's all up to one man to save them.

With Die Hard 2, all that dramatic tension, is all of a sudden taken away, and McClane finds himself surrounded by idiots. Idiots who tend to panic in moments of serious life threatening situations rather than staying focused to what's going on in the scene. It just shows that the villains are out witting them and succeeding too easily. It is such a terrible shame that all the tense dramatic emphasis is gone. This film doesn't give off any power or presence. The first Die Hard did. not this one, it just didn't do anything for me.

Having said that the effects in this film, are excellent. The production blew up three planes. how cool is that, for a film of the 90's that is amazing. Nowadays one is used to the odd CGI explosion of a plane, but in the case of Die Hard 2, you are presented with effects which are very visual, and can fool the eye of a kean viewer more convincingly, than say a Transformers movie for instance. So overall fab effects, really great work.

Action sequences, a little below par. I'd say hit and miss on that behalf. There is one scene however when McClane takes on two men with guns in the baggage processing part of the airport and wins, which I think is a good fight scene. However other fights that McClane gets into don't seem to be as dramatically gripping or intense, which is a pity considering that the audience are reassured that McClane will come through anyway.

The villains in this, there good for this story. They work brilliantly, they show power and authority. all of which is mainly communicated by William Salder as Col. Stuart. Now Col Stuart is no Hans Gruber but he is a man to be reckoned with. He's a no mess about sort of guy, he gives of a presence of 'mess with me, and your going to wish you hadn't'. I like that. It makes the character threatening. 

Nice twist in this film, which I won't reveal in the event of people reading this who haven't seen the film, and would like to without it being spoiled. But I had to watch the film again, in order for it to click. Usually when I watch a film the first time around, not much goes in, but it's only when I watch it after the first time, I learn more from it. And trust me, once you get the twist in Die Hard 2, it will make you unsimpovise with characters you start off believing are the good guys.

The director Renny Harlin had some big challenges on his head, with Die Hard 2. He had to adapt to a script based off a novel Walter Wager's novel "58 Minutes". He had to present John McClane in a new way but not so much that he shies away from the tactical action man he was in the first film. He had to try and make this film bigger and better than the first one - unfortunately in my opinion, I think he failed because my sense of taste was more into the first film than the second. All the other things he did brilliantly, but that last one, I can only apologise and say 'the first one will always be better'.

So that's all for now folks. In an overall approach to Die Hard 2, looking back on it - I think this film is really good. 8/10.

Thanks for reading this review, please like my Blog. Or Follow me on Facebook. It's simple!

NEXT TIME : I will finish this month off with the third instalment of the Die Hard Legacy 'Die Hard 3' or 'Die Hard with a Vengence' whatever you prefer to call it. - I will post that review on Monday the 30th of September 2013.

Review : Die Hard

DIE HARD : Twelve terrorists, one cop. The odds are against John McClane... that's just the way he likes it.

Hello There Film Fans

I'm sure your all aware by now, that today's movie review is DIE HARD by John McTiernan. It stars Bruce Willis as the grown to be Iconic NYPD cop - John McClane, It's Christmas Eve, and McClane's skills are put to drastic and dramatic test, as he has to save wife - Holly Gennaro, and several others, taken hostage by German terrorist Hans Gruber during a Christmas party at the Nakatomi Plaza in Los Angeles. This film can only end in blood, sweat and tears.

There's something to Die Hard's success in the past, which has influenced other film makers to make films similar to it. For example you got 'Olympus has Fallen,' which is essentially Gerard Butler doing the second rate basement Die Hard stuff. Which just goes to prove that Die Hard has gone on to influence the media we're in today. I like films like that. Films that are still loved, and films that we can learn from. That's my type of film, I like to see.

There was never a moment in Die Hard where I felt,  I have better things to do with my time. Once the action starts, your in. No question about it.  Though this film compared to more recent stuff, is dated and under rated, the concept is great and plot is clear. 

What does Die Hard an advantage is, there isn't any loose ends to it. It's all really clear and present, and the events that occur in it, are spontaneous and adventurous.  The Storyline for Die Hard is based on the 1979 novel. "Nothing Lasts Forever" by Roderick Thorpe, The audience is introduced to New York City Detective John McClane; a man who has just arrived in Los Angeles to spend Christmas with his wife and family. Unfortunately, things do not go according to plan, and it is not going to be a Merry Christmas for everyone. 

A group of determined terrorists, led by Hans Gruber, take over the Nakatomi Plaza building and hold everyone there hostage. With no way of anyone getting in or out, it's up to McClane to stop them all. All 12!

Couldn't find any clips. So here's a trailer.

I'll be perfectly honest; Die Hard is not good... It's brilliant! I absolutely loved it. I think it shows contributing factors which are key to the success of some films. I also think it contains things in it's story telling which are absent in more current films that are released today.

The pace of it is great. Never did I get the impression that it was slowing down, the pace of it stays up. And it just goes so quickly, once your in the zone and all the action starts happening, brace yourself because off you go.

The story telling is very undermined yet clever, It villains sub plot did have me guessing here and there, and you never get the impression that too much is being given away. The story always stays true to itself and you always get caught up into the story.

Bruce Willis as John McClane, superb. Nails the roll in this story, gives his best performance in all the Die Hards. I think I say that Die Hard 1 is his best because he's just adapting to the character, and he's convincing the audience to respect him and have trust in his character, so you'll gain interest and follow him. It's Bruce which guides the film, and makes the film. He out shone the rest of the cast - even Alan Rickman!







John McTiernan, very clean cut and keeps the audience alert as to whats going on in the film.

The 'Hostage' plot, it works well. You got heavy action in sequence so it makes what could potentially be quite a boring plot alasis, very exciting and gripping.

There is a lot to learn from Die Hard, the more you watch it, the more you gain from it. It's basically one of those give and take, kind of films where you sit down and watch it and get a good thrill out of it, after the third or fourth time you learn more than you thought you did from watching it the first time.

So overall I have to give it 9/10.

1 Gold Star to Bruce Willis.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will continue my Die Hard reviews, by reviewing ''Die Hard 2".  I will post that review on Saturday the 28th of September 2013.

Review : Shaun of the Dead

Shaun of the Dead: as over rated and popular as it is, I still have good feelings towards it.

Hey Guys

In today's Dr Film review,  I will talk about 'Shaun of the Dead'. A film directed by Edgar Wright which is a romantic comedy with zombie's thrown in it.

This film does dare to go beyond the normal boundaries of a zombie movie, usually zombie movies are over dramatised and horrific. This occasion zombies are portrayed to be comedic and idiotic, so much so that they can get bashed and battered so easily. It's almost too simplistic.

Pegg and Frost star in this film together, Pegg plays the supporting character, who's trying hard to piece his life together. However his character is being held back by Nick Frost's character, who is the slacker. stay at home - doesn't do much kind of guy.

Basically one morning, Shaun and friend Ed wake up to realise, the world has been taken over by zombie's and suddenly it's become a survival story. The audience get dragged into wanting know how these characters are going to get out of this drastic crises. Unfortunately it doesn't end well for most of them.

Over the years this film has been critised as being over rated, and I'd believe that to be true. It is certainly a heavily praised film, to which people can stick on and enjoy it, for being what it is, which is a melodramatic romantic comedy.

My biggest problem with Shaun of the Dead is the drastic measures of it. This film gets too much in your face with the disasters of what happens. Some of the things that happen to people in this are quite graphic, gory and horrible. There is a scene where the viewer experiences a man getting ripped apart. for me, having to see that was unpleasant. like with 'World's End' this film does hit you in the face quite hard, with the disasters of what happens. It goes from being happy and jokey to the viewer feeling quite depressed and sad so unexpectedly. I don't really approve of that so much on terms of storytelling.

I'll admit that this film does go over the top, in it's action sequences. the fight scenes in this, are sharp witted and quick to detail so that the viewer can stay alert to what's going on. I personally think, when over crowded by zombies, there's too much stuff going on. Which is disappointing as the events leading up to those moments are good.

What's also interesting about this, is the surrounding characters which by the way are going through this disaster, can joke about what's going on. A zombie apocalypse is a very serious danger. Yet it's appreciate to joke in situations where they're not being attacked. I've always found that interesting, how the characters can joke about whats going on around them. It shows to me, that there either idiots or just having a laugh for the sake of it. to me that is very strange.

Anyway, here's a quick clip from 'Shaun of the Dead'.

This film is very well cut. Edgar Wright does a brilliant job. He did it on this, Hot Fuzz and on World's End. He knows his stuff, The script is debatably good. Simon Pegg as ever fantastic, same goes for Nick Frost he too is really good.

This film does stick to the original British traditions, of going down the pub, and the corner shop it adds a nice touch and gives off culture to the time it's set - the present day.

Another good thing about this film, is the impression it gives off of how the disaster of the zombie invasion effects the outside world, particularly at the end of the film, when it's on the news. It is very unusual and comedic.

Bloody violence in this, there is quite a bit. the bloody horror is quite assertive yet works well in the film. So if it works I can't complain.



This film for me, it has it's flaws. As every film does. It's over rated but still enjoyable. - 7/10.

Thanks very much for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I review 'Die Hard' the first and the best in my opinion. I will post that review on Friday the 27th of September 2013.

Review : Rush

Rush: Director Ron Howard presents a re-creation of the merciless 1970's rivalry between Formula One rivals James Hunt and Niki Lauda. 

Hello Film fans

Welcome to my newest Dr Film review. I will be reviewing Rush today. A film by Ron Howard, a director I'm not overly keen on. I have disliked some of his films in the past, but there are some films he's directed such as Rush, that I actually did enjoy.

Now I will start off by saying, I know nothing about Formula One. But you don't need to be a Formula One fan to go and see Rush. You also don't need to know much about the men it's based on. James Hunt and Niki Lauda, it would assist your intelligence and understanding of the film if you did. However the film fills you in with information about these men. It's not over complicated or has any loose ends, it's pretty clear.

Basically Rush is about the competitive spirit of these two formula one racing drivers, who are chalk and cheese. James Hunt - the typical British playboy who parties out after work and is a bit of a womaniser, and in contrast to him you got Niki Lauda who is a tactical driver who after work goes home and eats good food, and looks after himself, and isn't very popular with the other drivers. what plays to Niki's advantage is that he's quicker than any of the other drivers on the track.

The Storyline of Rush, is based on the true story of the great sporting rivalry between handsome English playboy James Hunt played by Chris Hemsworth. and his methodical, brilliant opponent, Austrian driver Niki Lauda  who is played by Daniel Bruhl. The story follows their distinctly different personal styles on and off the track, their loves and the astonishing 1976 season in which both drivers were willing to risk everything to become world champion in a sport.

The film essentially goes back and forth between these two characters, and cuts in between scenes, it's cleverly done and makes sense. So I have no problems with that.

Here's a clip from Rush.

As far as the film is concerned, the more I think about the more I actually enjoyed the film. there were times when I had to step back and think 'actually that was a really good film'. It was so fitting at the end of the film that your cut in between shots and the audience see the real James Hunt, and other interesting clips. I thought that was a nice touch to finish the film off.

Though I think the film is concentrated more on James Hunt, It's Niki Lauda who guides the audience through the film and tells you the story. The narration was good, not all over the place just a little at the start, and a little at the end.

The pace of it I felt was great. It was a bit like a car with me. It took a while for it to get started, but once it started it was off, and your interest is on it until the end. Once you start to get into the flow of Rush, it becomes a drastic and really gripping drama.

Excellent cast, the cast were brilliant. Chris Hemsworth - superb. Daniel Bruhl - excellent. kudos to Ron Howard he nailed this film with the casting.

The Music is by Hans Zimmer, one of my favourite music composers. To be honest the man knows his stuff, he can produce a good score of music to a film. You have confidence that that music will work in the scene and set up an atmospheric vibe.



As far as historical accuracy is concerned, it's more or less all there. A little tweaks here and there to change things, but not that much.

For example James's habit of sleeping around with the girls, I'm pleased that that aspect of the character wasn't over dramatised, or seen as a bad thing. Another example of historical accuracy is the badge on James's jacket which reads 'SEX'.

But overall Rush is a good film, you should watch it. go to the cinema and see it while it's still out, or maybe buy it when the DVD comes out.

I will give Rush an 8/10.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : My next review will be 'Shaun of the Dead' a romantic comedy starring Zombies. I will post that review on Thursday the 26th of September 2013.

Review : Toy Story

In 1995, Pixar delivered probably one of the best animated movies ever made. This isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of many people who grew up watching this film, and loved it.

Hey Film Lovers

Welcome to my next review, which you may of guessed is 'Toy Story' A film which dares to go beyond the imagination of many children in thinking 'what if my toys could come to life?'. It tells the story, of how two rivals who start off by not seeing eye to eye, end up becoming very good friends. It's the story of Woody and Buzz.

Woody - a cowboy and sheriff, voiced by Tom Hanks. Woody sees himself as the top dog in Andy's room. Andy of course his the child who owns all these really cool toys. Woody being one of them. But of course the vast majority of you reading this review will already know that.

As a contrast to Woody, you have Buzz Lightyear. Voiced by Tim Allen, Buzz is the new toy on the market, and represents the toy of the generation, nowadays children want to play with newer, cooler, more advanced toys and Buzz is that toy. When Buzz makes an arrival in Andy's Room, Woody isn't at all happy with the new changes that are about to happen.

Here's a some clips from Toy Story.

You can tell the rivalry between these two characters at the start is hilarious. But hilariously bad that you mock it, hilariously funny as in you take pleasure out of it for making you laugh. Toy Story does deliver laughs, sometimes the laughs are there, sometimes there not. But I do always enjoy Tom Hank's energy playing Woody when he gets stressed out, it's one of the funniest things.

Also what's interesting about Toy Story, is the fact that in this film, Buzz and Woody can't stand each other and they go on this fantastic journey together, a lot of realism sinks into Buzz, and Woody realises that actually he's not the top dog. Although there toys, and I feel a little embarrassed saying this, it's almost like they go on their own separate emotional journey together.



So this film is basically about the building of a relationship between two characters. That's it's main focus. Having said that however, the supporting characters are just as interesting. It's just as I said in my 'Monsters University' review, It's so clever how the people at PIXAR can just create a story, just like that. I wouldn't dare say it's magic, but what I will say is that it is certainly exceptional talent.

Going into the down falls that Toy Story has, it has very few down falls but still has it's flaws as any other film does. This film suffers from the fatal error that is character development.

The same thing happened when I watched 'Paul' and when I watched 'Ted'. There is too much going into Buzz and Woody's character development, in comparison to the other toys in Andy's Room. It's too much focused on them, when the other characters are just as interesting as they are.

Also I did get the impression whilst watching it back, that terms of events are not proceeding as quickly as they could be. It is boring in places, I hate to say it but this film does have some boring moments, for instance when Buzz and Woody are stuck in Sid's house and there trying to escape, that scene drags out terribly, slows the film a bit, which is disappointing considering all the good bits which lead up to how they got to Sid's in the first place.



Other than that, I like the film a lot. Watching it back actually makes me think how much I love Toy Story.

I will give this film a 8/10.

Nit picky, but still a good film.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Rush' the film of the month. I will post that review on Wednesday the 25th of September 2013.

Review : The Shawshank Redemption

The Shawshank Redemption: A marvellous heart throbbing story of two imprisoned men, who bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through their acts of common decency.

Hey everyone

Welcome to my next review. Today I'm reviewing 'The Shawshank Redemption' from 1994. There's a reason why the 90's is referred to as being 'The Golden Era' for films, and this film is one of them. It's gold. It really is, the number of people I have come across over the years who have seen this film, can't stop talking about how much of an incredible it had on them.

There is something about 'The Shawshank Redemption' which touches the audience's hearts, and that's why people love it so much.

It's brilliantly paced, it flows really well you never get the impression it's going to slow or too quick. Excellent script. The script was brilliant. Frank Darabont; Yes, superb writing. Frank Darabont of course directed Shawshank as well as wrote it, we also have to thank him for writing and directing 'The Green Mile' which is another incredible film.

Darabont basis his work off that of Stephen King, and Shawshank Redemption is actually based of a short story that King wrote, entitled 'Rita Hayworth and The Shawhsank Redemption'. This film seriously creates an impact on the viewer, wither its a good impact or a bad impact, it creates an impact, no matter what your feeling. Only the gifted people can do that. Frank Darabont is truly gifted in his work. How he can take a story from another inspirational writer and turn it into his own, with such superlative quality. That's talent.

Here's a quick clip of the film.

This film, I've always thought of being very much like a puzzle. Everything fits into place.

First of all we have the storyline, which is this : Andy Dufresne who is a young and successful banker, whose life changes drastically when he is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife and her lover.

Secondly we got the settings which are 1940's,50's and 60's. all of which flow into each other perfectly.

Thirdly the message - every film has a hidden message. In this film the message shows how Andy, with the help of his friend Red, the prison entrepreneur, turns out to be a most unconventional prisoner.

Both Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman not give off superb performances, but also their character's become very good friends. Those last few minutes just indice their relationship, it's just so lovely to know that it ended well for those two in the end.

Frank Darabont also presents the fact of how life in prison can change a man. It can make this scared, afraid, tough, obnoxious, clever, cocky. How the importance prison life is to some people like 'Brooks'. In fact Red actually says in the film 'They send you here for life, that's exactly what they take'.

Plot flows well.

Every member of the cast were excellent. I know most people would praise Morgan Freeman or Tim Robbins the most, but their just the leads. The film is supported by the other actors around them, and they work just as well in the film as they do.

 



Which over complicates everything for me, because I don't know what to give this out of ten? It's too good.

Do I give it a 9? or do I give it a 10?

Being picky, I'd say a 9. But if pushed, I'd probably have to say 10.

But you know it's a fantastic film, one of which you must watch if you haven't seen it.

Thanks for reading this.

NEXT TIME : I'll review 'Toy Story' starring Tom Hanks and Tim Alan.

I will post that review on Monday the 23rd of September 2013. Enjoy the rest of the weekend guys!

Review : Taken 2

Taken 2 : Liam Neesan is back as Bryan Mills. His story and his relationships with his ex wife and daughter, have changed dramatically. It's been a while since the events of the first film, It all set a little bit in the future.

Hello Everyone

Welcome to the newest Dr Film review, today I will look back at action packed thriller 'Taken 2'. The film was released last year. A very much anticipated film that most people wanted to see, obviously because the first film had been so successful, and had the audience on edge. I went to go and see this twice in cinema, because there were bits of it, in which I failed to understand the first time around. Going into it a second time with a deeper understanding, proved to me solidly that Taken 2 is not a great movie, It's definitely not as good as the first film, and it certainly isn't as good as people make it out to be.

My biggest problem with 'Taken 2' is that it's too fast paced. There's too much heavy action going on, in such a condensed time limit. We as the audience actually discover very little new development to the characters. The only new things we find out is that : 1) Kim has a boyfriend and she's moving on to be a singer. 2) Lenny and Stuart have split up. 3) An Angry man wants revenge over his son's death. that's it. Other than that, nothing new. which is disappointing. one would of expected a bit more character development, to drive the story forward. What we get instead of that is a lot of rushing action, in such as short space of time.

Here's an incite into Taken 2.

Though Taken 2 doesn't provide the audience, with more character development and a better plot that I expected, It does offer a brilliant performance from my favourite actor 'Liam Neesan' as ever, I think Liam Neesan is a amazing actor, can play any role to the best of his abilities. This film has a lot of neat special effects, which in tern compliment what's going on in the story.

A lot of enemies, die in this film. I was actually making a count of how many people Liam Neesan actually kills in this film. Which seems a little sad, when you come to think of it. However I lost count, he kills so many bad guys in this film. And the bad guys have many amble opportunities to kill Liam Neesan off, however though Neesan's character is quick witted and smart, it is a bit silly that the bad guys fail to kill him, and he gets all of them. Doesn't make much sense, but there you go.

Maggie Grace, after playing the damsel in distress in the first film. She's included more in the second, she's taught how to throw grenades, she jumps off buildings, she fast drives a car, she goes swimming in a bikini. Her character has more variety, which is good. I personally don't see Kim being an action girl, but she did what she had to do in order to help her dad, and that's what's important and what makes sense.



Lots of snappy action in this, I did feel I was falling behind, having to keep up with the heavy quick pace of the action. That being said some fight sequences are well cut and very well acted and directed. It builds up tension and really places the audience under suspicion as to who's going to win and whose going to die.

Of course in the case of Taken, you know you have full confidence in the main hero, and you can predict that he will over come all the madness, and come through. That is exactly what happens in the end of Taken 2. It's a simplistic ending, to which for me raps things up too easily. I did get the impression having seen it twice, that it ended far too easily.

Could their be a Taken 3? Maybe. Who knows, I wouldn't mind it. If it can make up for the errors of this film, and extend the time limit and come up with a much better story concept. Then I'd welcome Taken 3 with open arms.



Taken 2 for me, it was rushed and far too short.

Overall I have to give it a 5/10.

Thanks very much for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'The Shawshank Redemption'. I will not give anything away. You'll know what I think, when I review it.

I will post that review on Saturday the 21st of September 2013.

Review : Paul

Paul : An Alien who is a fugitive on earth, is trying to get back to his home planet. It is only when he encounters two young guys out on a road trip together, that he learns and values the friendship he gets from meeting them.

Hey Everyone

Welcome to a new review, by me Dr Film. Today I shall be reviewing Greg Mottola's 'Paul'. Which is written by the double act of 'Simon Pegg' and 'Nick Frost'. It's essentially a mickey take of ET, You have an Alien who is obnoxious, rude and unpleasant, but beneath of all of that is an innocent fugitive, trying to get back to his home planet.

Seth Rogen provides the voice of 'Paul' the alien. The alien itself is all CGI, which is very effective and authentic and overall very well animated into the film. You can easily identify that the voice is Seth Rogen's the two things come hand in hand.

Pegg and Frost themselves play two nerds, shall we say who take a trip to San Diego Comic Con, to meet an idol of there's, but also to take a road trip. They're part in the story is written very well, I liked the dynamics between the two characters, how they are two very good friends, shows off Pegg and Frosts real friendships in real life.

Their interaction to meeting 'Paul' is interesting and comically hilarious, and one might say typical reaction in the case of one making a first alien encounter. As the film progresses the two main characters interaction with Paul changes, they come to grow found of him, and actually become friends with him, shows good character development, intellectual relationships and common establishment within the way we humans interact with one another in a calm and constructive way, so in that sense of the word it was great.

Here's a clip from the film.

I think I have to say this film suffers from the same problems as Seth McFarlane's film 'Ted' for those of you who haven't read my 'Ted' review, it's up on the blog under 'May'. But the main problems I had with 'Ted' was that - some scenes could of been cut down. the balance wasn't quite right. there was either too much character development, or not enough character development.

Paul is the same on how I felt about character development. If I know too much about a character then it puts me off wanting to know them. If I don't know enough about a character, I will sit there and go 'what is their role in the film'. So some pieces in the film were hard for me to understand. When I watch it back I still don't get some of the character involvement - which is a pity considering Pegg and Frost's characters are the best in the whole thing - if had just been them two, and Seth Rogen being Paul, I'd of loved it.

The Trailer was a problem, because some of the interesting jokes were revealed in it. So when it comes to watching the film, hardly anyone in the audience will find it funny because they've heard the joke before. That's Comedy's biggest problem - It gives the game away.

But let it not be said that 'Paul' is a bad film. It isn't but it has it's flaws. I hate to say it but I noticed two or three memory cheats in this, problems of which I'm sure were down to the director, however I can't be certain of that, but there were a few memory cheats in this film, which were very noticeable and bothered me.



The humour in 'Paul' is very current. It flows really well and sometimes the laughs are there, and sometimes there not. But when they are there, the film accomplishes a successful laugh from the audience which always is an encouraging thing.

Overall what do I think of 'Paul' - It isn't Pegg and Frost's greatest film. But it isn't one of their worst.

6/10.

Thanks for reading this review guys, I hope you enjoyed it.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Taken 2' the sequel to 'Taken' - obviously. I'll post that review on Friday the 20th of September 2013.

Review : Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

 

Hello Film Lovers

Welcome to today's new Dr.Film review. I hope you all had a nice weekend, to start this week off, I will be reviewing 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' a film by Tomas Alfredson, released back in 2011.

The Film stars Gary Oldman as George Smiley, a secret agent called out of retirement for one last job.

Though Oldman is superb in this, he doesn't actually utter one line of dialogue in the first 20 minutes of the film. The audience get an incite to his character, and an understanding of the way his character lives his life now. We get a glimpse into his retirement life, how he lives the remainder of his days, how he wants, what he gets up to, how he interacts with other people - all of which is told and communicated all by expressions and mannerisms, and unsensitised music to add mood to the scene, just goes to prove the effectiveness and importance of those things, and how they work well into the film.

I thought this film was interesting, not good or bad. but Interesting. Great script, excellent cast - the cast was brilliant. All famous familiar faces, which are all fantastic actors. You only have to look at the cast list, in order to know that this films partly sells itself on people wanting to see it, to see the actors.

I do feel however, Tinker Tailor is a film in which you have to be in the right mood to watch it. It's a great drama, no doubt about that. However you have to be in the mood to sit down and watch it, it is a film of which I had to watch a few times in order to fully understand it, and even now I'm still left a little confused by it.

But the story goes, that in a time during the bleak days of the Cold War, espionage veteran George Smiley is forced to come out of retirement to uncover a Soviet agent within MI6, who went missing.

Here's a clip.

I have to say, I don't give myself any advantages in my knowledge of the time which Tinker Tailor is set, so my understanding of the historical events are second to none. I know very little of the Cold War, however that doesn't stop me learning. I think I learned a great deal of knowledge from this film, though certain events are fictional brought out specifically to entertain the audience, the facts are there. I think it's very important that the facts are there, as it can influence the audience in an educational way.

The director Tomas Alfredson, shows great perseverance in his job. Yet, I've seen many of Tomas Alfredson's films, and think overall that he is an intelligent film maker, and infinitely better than Micheal Bay for example who directed 'Pain & Gain'. There's clear direction shown throughout. He's very precise and coherent to the scenes with his camera angles. The directing is very decadent, and to the point.

 

There's not much to say really. It's always a good thing, that I don't have much to say about a film because it just shows that I did enjoy it, and can't really fault it.

I thought that the plot works really well, characters coagulated with eacthother in scenes intensely and believably.

There was interesting dialogue spoken throughout, The costumes were accurate and old fashioned - little bit dated. As a drama, it was clean cut and quite a chilling tale - I enjoyed that aspect of the film very much.

 

Which begs the question, what to give it out of 10? I'd probably say a 7/10. But that's just me. Some might say that that is too low a score to give it. I personally think that it's a good intense thriller, but not fantastic, by any stretch of the imagination.

1 Gold Star to Gary Oldman - well deserved.

Thanks very much for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Paul' starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I will post that review on Tuesday the 17th of September 2013.

Review : Pain & Gain

Hey Everyone

Welcome to the next instalment of Dr.Film reviews this month. Today I shall be scrutinising the film by director Michael Bay 'Pain & Gain'. Essentially a comedy, based off a true story or is a true story.

I'll be honest, I wasn't fussed about seeing this. What I gathered from the trailers and from all the publicity stuff such as : Posters,  and Advertisement campaigns, Just assured me that this wasn't very good. But I went to the cinema to watch it because I wanted to put my curiosity of this film to rest. and I did.

In all retrospect having watched it,  I had in my head of it being. It isn't a film I'm overtly kean on. The plot didn't interest me. But to give it credit the first half of this film is ok; the second half just doesn't do anything for me at all.  I wasn't overly pleased with this.

It isn't a very good film at all, I would say it meets an average mark but nothing else.  But I suppose I should of just quit while I was ahead. I probably shouldn't of let my curiosity get the better of me. I would strongly recommend to those who haven't seen the film, to wait till it's available online to watch, or even when it comes out on DVD. Do not waist your money on this film.

Clip time now, I'll quickly show you an incite into what I believe to be a disappointing film.

If you disagree with what I'm saying, you can disregard it as just being my opinion. But I would fail to understand why anyone with a brain would like 'Pain and Gain'.

It inflicts Pain on the viewer and no Gain.

Based off of the true story of Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) a Miami bodybuilder, who take pride in fitness, and is a person who has the angziaty to take a shot of living, what he believes to be the American dream. He would like to have some money that other people have - so in effect he's steal money of people who don't deserve it for his own purposes.

And there are actually awful bits in the film, where the drama stops, and captions pop up in the middle of it, reading 'this is still true'. Which is bonkers, and unnecessary to say the least.

So with his mad plan in mind, Lugo seeks help, he enlists the assistance of fellow bodybuilder Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and ex-convict, and Christian bodybuilder Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson). Their kidnapping and extortion scheme goes terribly wrong, (because their pumped up - steroid headed morons) And since they have muscles for brains, and they're all left to haphazardly try to hold onto the elusive American dream.




When it finished, I thought to myself "What the hell have I just watched?" It is ridiculous. It isn't a very well structured piece at all. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the audience in cinema watching it with me, gave off the same sense that they didn't enjoy. I just didn't get it. full stop. I was confused as to why someone like Michael Bay; felt the need to have such a pornographic sensibility that it is improbable for him to make anything that has any essence of being a interesting, dark and in some areas funny tale.

I think that this is a film, in which goes from Ok, to bad than bad to worse.

This film has inflicted Pain upon me, having actually watched it. I do strongly agree with the critics opinion. This film, it needs to go. and for that reason, it should just crawl into a hole and die. - 0/10.

That was an unpleasant, but 'Pain & Gain' really upset me. As a viewer, I wish to be entertained, 'Pain & Gain' is not entertaining, 'Pain & Gain' is horrible. It is a film as pumped up and steroidal as the dire characters, that it attempts to portray.

That all being said, thank you for reading this review. I apologize for that out burst of negative energy, however when I don't like something, I have to make it clear.

My next review will be that of "Tinker tailor soldier spy" starring Gary Oldman. I will post that review on Monday the 16th of September 2013.

Review : Alan Partridge Movie

Hello Film Lovers.

Welcome to my next Dr Film review. Today I shall review the Alan Partridge movie 'Alpha Papa'. The film of summer. One I took great pleasure into going and seeing at the cinema. Because I love Alan Partridge, I think Steve Coogen plays the character, brilliantly. After all there is only one Partridge.

So what's to say about 'Alpha Papa' that hasn't been said by most people. Some people like it, Some people dislike it. It's to be expected with any film, however 'Alpha Papa' is without doubt, the film of the summer. Now I thought after having seen 'The World's End', that that was going to be the film of the summer, and to be fair it was the film to beat for me, I went into 'Alpha Papa' with an open mind, reassuring myself that if it sucks, I still got the TV show "I'm Alan Partridge" - which is hilariously funny.

I'll be honest, I loved it. Plain and simply loved it. It actually surprised me how good it was. It was fresh, it was original, it was out there, it ticked all the boxes for me.

You've got Alan Partridge, doing what he does best. He hasn't changed a bit. He's still the same silly man, that we've come to know and love over the years.

Alot of change has happened at Northfolk Digital, there are new owners, there's been a re-branding, both of which are not making the DJ's feel comfortable. So much so, that Alan's fellow friend and college Pat Farrell, holds some of the staff hostage after he's sacked from his job. Unfortunately shall we say, it is Alan who is chosen to help the Police, and speak to Pat directly.

Here's a clip from 'Alpha Papa' which should give you more of an incite into the film.

What's great about this feature film is the fact that, It's still original. The production haven't nessacarly messed anything up. Like The Inbetweeners movie, it's just a long episode of Alan Partridge, in which we can all reminisce in Alan's character, and remind ourselves of how funny he actually is. Which is the genius of his character, and probably one of reason's why the character is still going strong today.

The pace of Alpha Papa, is great. I just remember sitting in the cinema and watching it with my friends, and thinking "gosh, that went really quickly". I actually could not believe, I just sat through approximately an hour and half long film - very quick, no problems.

With this of course being a film, the limitations are wider. The plot is bigger, the buggest is bigger, but the key elements remain. And that is what is so brilliant about it, It keeps Partridge fans such as myself happy. The fact that we can go out and have a laugh, and above all enjoy ourselves.

The script is very well written. Take the car scene for instance shown above, you've got classic Alan doing his thing and the writers coagulating the scene together, to make it entertaining for us the viewers.

Steve Coogen, as I said he was superb. He brings Alan alive, and performs and communicates the desperation that this character endeavours, he makes him so beautifully awkward - which is funny. Overall it was just brilliant.

The Plot, I didn't mind. It could of been better, but the less said about the potential of 'Alpha Papa' the better. The Hostage storyline, I thought worked well, it was enough to drive the film and deliver to the best of its capacity.



Scores on the bord; It has to be a 9/10.

It works.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Pain and Gain'. I will post that review on Sunday the 15th of September 2013.

Review : Flight

Flight: A film which sees Denzel Washington playing a courageous pilot, with a terrible drinking problem.

Hello Film Lovers

I got a treat for you today, as I will finally be reviewing 'Flight'. A film I had the pleasure of watching at the cinema, back when it was released in February. Flight is more than meets the eye, It shows different things for different people, I really enjoyed it, I thought it was a very good film. Denzel Washington is superb in this.

As I did with my 'Max Payne' review, I will go through the storyline, and the premise of the film, before I go into more detail as to what I thought about it.

Flight, the story of - Whip Whitaker. How he tackles a terrible drinking problem, with his job as a flight pilot. When a flight from Orlando to Atlanta, goes wrong and the plane starts to fly down erratically.

Whip crashes the plane, with little choice, however thanks to his quick thinking and miraculous skill as a pilot; Whip saves almost everyone on board.

After Whip recovers, in the hospital, an old friend and colleague of his, from the airline union introduces him to a lawyer who tells him that there is a possibility, that if proven guilty, he could face criminal charges because his blood test reveals that he is intoxicated with alcohol and cocaine. He denies being impaired, so while a through investigation is underway, he is told to keep his act together. However, this means letting go of his addiction for Alcohol. Which is more difficult for Whip, than you might think.

Here's a clip of 'Flight'.

This film deals with a lot of serious issues. Obviously you have the issues of drinking and taking drugs. Both of which are a very serious issues. They're raised and communicated well in the film. They show the characters relation with them, what those things are to them, how they effect them and others around him.

Denzel Washington does a great job, superb performance. But then Denzel Washington is a great actor, with a lot of professional skill. The way he acted drunk was convincing, and the trick of course to acting drunk, is to act like your not. Denzel did it. And did it well.

I didn't have any problem with the story. The plot works well, I didn't get board. It's good that hard hitting drama such as this, is still around today. It's good for the Actors in question to, I think that any group of actors, always deliver a better performance in more serious roles.



I do think with 'Flight' it only works if your willing to put the effort into watching it. That for me would be it's only fault, it only works when your in the mood. When it does work and the plot clicks in the mind of the viewer, then I promise you will enjoy this film a lot.

But overall, It is a very good film. great script, good story, well directed, well acted. - 8/10.

Thanks for reading this guys!

NEXT : I will review the new Alan Partridge Movie - Alpha Papa. I will post the review of that film, on Saturday the 14th of September 2013.

Review : Max Payne

Max Payne :  One man, with only revenge on his mind. One Woman, looking to avenge the death of her sister. Both must combine together, in order to uncover a conspiracy. One of which could result in deadly catastrophes.

Hey Everyone

Welcome to my latest review. Today I'll be reviewing Max Payne, a film based off the popular video game.

Before I begin this review, I haven't played the game. So my knowledge of Max Payne, only comes from the film.

Overall, I thought it was an okay film. I didn't think it was a terrible film, which is a good thing. However it did drag out a bit. Which I will go into more detail as the review goes on.

I'll quickly go through the storyline :  The film tells the story of once upon a time, three years ago, NYPD detective inspector - Max Payne's wife and baby were brutally murdered. Max has been left bereaved since. He gets himself transferred to the cold case office, where he can continue searching for the killer who got away. Max's character of course, is led for us to believe as a loner - someone who goes about his business solo.

However it is when two people reach out to him during a fateful week: Alex, his ex-partner who may have found a clue in the case, and BB, the security chief at the pharmaceutical company where Max's wife worked.

Meanwhile, the bodies are slowly piling up, as a result of a new drug on the street that is unknown and also highly addictive and, for many who take it, brings hideous hallucinations upon them. When one of the bodies is a woman Payne was the last to see alive, her sister comes looking for him armed to the teeth, the two then get caught up in what is lead to be a deadly conspiracy.

Here's a clip from the film.

Overall if I was to some up Max Payne in one sentence it would be "Not bad, just okay." And I stand by that, I was very keen on watching it though, because I was impressed with the cast, people like Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis, both performers I enjoy immensely, when someone you like is in a film, you have confidence in them, that they are going to deliver and help you enjoy the film.

Mark Wahlberg did that for me. Max Payne was a great opportunity for him, to show a new side to his career, that he can play tough guys who are quite cold in their presence. The way Mark rose to the challenges of his character, I think he pulled them off really well.

Mila Kunis, good. But she didn't do enough. I wished she got alot more scene time. But it didn't happen, so sadly I saw less of her than I expected, however what I did see of her character 'Mona Sax' was great. It gave Kunis, a chance to brush up on her Russian. She speaks Russian in the film, Her character was equally as interesting as Max Payne. And again, it just goes to prove that Mila Kunis, can act the sassy hard case in a film, and very well.




The effects - visual effect such as what is seen above, are really good. They are authentic effects, really give off an impact and work well in the film. I'm sure it ties in with the context of the game. Overall I was pleased with the effects in this film.

My only major problem with this film, is the pacing of it. I got the impression that things aren't progressing as quickly as it should. This film does drag, which is a fair warning to those who wish to go on and watch it. Progression in terms of course of events, are a bit hazy and confusing, I found myself, having to watch this a few times in order to get everything out it.

But let it not be said that 'Max Payne' is a terrible movie. It isn't. It's actually ok. I think it's all right. It's just a bit slow and doesn't show enough of Mila Kunis.

Max Payne, I think should be worth a 6/10.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Flight' starring Denzel Washington.

I will post that review on Friday the 13th of September 2013.

Review : Over Her Dead Body

Hey Guys

Welcome to my newest film review, I'll be reviewing 'Over her dead body' today. Another meledromatic comedy, this time it focusses on breavement, and moving on after the loss of a loved one.

It stars Eva Longoria and Paul Rudd, in the leading rolls, and basically the two play a couple - Hnery and Kate. Who are about to get married, only on their wedding day, the bride gets crushed by a falling statue, leaving her fieance depressed.

In order to help him get over it, one of his friends suggests that he sees a female physic called Ashley. Which helps out a lot.

So much so that both the man and the physic start to form a relationship; however when the ghost of Henry's dead fieance - Kate comes back, she haunts Ashley to stay away from her man.

As you can tell, The film sounds rediculous, and in all fairness, it is rediculous. It's just a cheap meledromatic comedy, which sells itself on the laughter and the jokes, and the main cast are all comedy actors. It does seem kind of silly that your ex who's dead comes back from the grave, and tries to stop her man from moving on, it's kind of over protective.

The film is based off a book by E.C Shedey with the same title. I haven't read the book, so I don't know which bits were influential towards the film. However that being said the film as a film, I thought was quite weak.

Here's a quick clip.

The humour in this film, is pretty weak. It has to be said, with this being a comedy it's success will be on weither it makes you laugh or not. I personally whilst I was watching it, didn't find any joke funny. The director Jeff Lowell, I don't know what he was trying to get across to the audience, whilst he was writing the script. He doesn't really put a stamp on it as the director either, the directing of this, I felt was below par.

I usually tend to watch a film, I have never seen before with a lot of angziaty and excitment of what's going to happen, and to give it credit, the film starts off really well, it's only gets worse as it progresses. It faces the same problem I had with 'Now you see me' - started off good, ended up being below par, not terrible, but not great. And 'Over her dead body' suffers the same problem.



I was only really interested in watching this, because Eva Longoria was it. I know that she's really good. Because I've seen her in Desperate Housewives. So it's just basic instinct if an actor or actress you like, is in a film or tv show, which is completly alien to you, it gives you confidence into watching it. I belive I fell into a trap, with 'Over her dead body' It didn't cut the mustard for me at all.

Though there are certain effects in which work quite well, Kate's shifting because she's a ghost she can walk through walls, and various other things, thought the shifting effects were impresive, and the techniques required to lift Eva off the ground, or have her hang from a different direction, very well acomplished.

Over than that, it was boring. I had no interest in the plot.

I will give this a 3/10. My lowest score yet, which is a shame.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : My next review, will be 'Max Payne'.

I'll post that review on Thursday the 12th of September 2013. Have a good weekend, everyone.  

Review : Mrs Doubtfire

Mrs Doubtfire : Whilst going through a devorse, in order to put his family back together, Daniel Hillard - an eccentric actor, needed a job. When he discovers that his ex wife is placing an advertisement for a house keeper, he seizes a rather extraordinary opportunity.


Hey Guys

Welcome to my next Dr.Film review; in today's review, I will be talking about 'Mrs Doubtfire'. A comedy starring Robin Williams, Sally Field and Peirce Brosnan as the main stars.

Mrs Doubtfire, is a often refered to as being a heavily praised film, one of which families have grown to adore over the years, and the beauty of 'Mrs Doubtfire' is you can watch it now, and it's still funny, it will still surprise you. I used to watch this film as a child, and I've always really liked it. Nowadays, I can get the more adult humour that I didn't get back when I was 9 or 10.

The film was released back in 1993, and directed by Chris Columbus. Chris Columbus directed various other films such as 'Home Alone' and the first two 'Harry Potter' films. So as you can tell, I am familiar with his directing techniques.

The storyline of 'Mrs Doubtfire' tells the audience, the story of the events after a bitter divorce, In which an actor and father, decides to disguise himself as a female housekeeper, to spend time with his children held in custody by his former wife.

Here's a clip from Mrs Doubtfire.

This film is incredibly funny. The writers of this film are very persistent, and clever in communicating certain aspects of humour in the film. And the brilliance of it is the fact that it's so separate, you got the children's humour and you got adult humour, which are both very separate pieces and are identified separately, but both flow together in the film very well.

You got your humour for children, and your humour for adults. Certain bits of the film do take their time, it is a bit slow. But that isn't a problem, it just means that the story is just taking it's time as it develops.

The actors do a really do a good job, especially in moments when their acting a serious scene. Both Sally Field and Robin Williams both are good at doing those sorts of scenes, as an example, there's a scene in the film where Mrs Doubtfire and Sally Field's character sit down to have a cup of tea, they both perform a very sentimental scene, in which you really feel every emotion, very good acting.

I think that this film was immensely well cast, and I like the cast. I like the script, I think that this film really cements what a family film is meant to entail, it represents how a family can get caught up in the context of the plot, as well as that deals with family issues, which people can relate to.

I think Mrs Doubtfire, is a very good film.

I will give it a very good 8/10.

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I'll review 'Over her dead body' another comedy, this time starring Eva Longoria and Paul Rudd, which deals with the bereavement over the loss of a loved one. I'll post that review on Friday the 6th of September 2013.