Review - Skyfall 007

      
Daniel Craig is back, as James Bond in a truly gripping new story 'Skyfall' where Bond's loyalty to M is tested when her past comes back to haunt her. Whilst MI6 comes under attack from unknown and dangerous forces, 007 must track down and destroy the bad guy, no matter how personal the cost.

Hey Everyone

Welcome to another Dr.Film review. In today's review I will be looking at the latest James Bond adventure, Skyfall written by John Logan, Directed by Sam Mendes and stars Daniel Craig as 007, Dame Judi Dench as M and Javier Bardem as Silva.

This movie is truly amazing, there is no doubt in my mind that tells me that Skyfall is not a bad film. I'm no James Bond fan, but from what I gathered from the Internet and the publicity stuff, it seemed that they intended to step things up a noch in order to celebrate 50 years of Bond, and I think they pulled off that task brilliantly.

This film came out in Britain on the 26th of October 2012 and arrived in America on the 9th of November.

SPOILER ALERT: Again like with my review of 'The Hobbit' I feel I don't need to post a spoiler warning out for Skyfall. Because I'm sure pretty much everyone has seen it. It's one of the most successful films made in Britain ever, the DVD is out, It's on demand. Those who wanted to see it have seen it by now. But just in case you haven't please don't read this review until you've seen the film, it's not worth spoiling for yourself.

I really think that 'Skyfall' is brilliant. It is such a treat for all of the 007 fans, again I'm not a James Bond fan so I can't really go into the depths of what fans deserve and what they don't, But what I do know is that Skyfall is a fantastic thriller which entertain as well as amaze the viewer. It certainly in my top 10 films I've seen.



Daniel Craig is back as Bond, a really great performance from Daniel Craig in this film. He played the character dead straight and proper and apparent. which is what you should do impersonating such an iconic role such as James Bond.

Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond, he's gritter than all the previous Bonds, He brings new levels of strain to the character, he makes me believe he is a spy or secret agent, he's a great action man and above all he's the Bond of my generation, that's why I like him so much.



Dame Judi Dench back as M. The stern boss, the woman who gives Bond his missions. I thought she brought brilliant new aspects to her personae of M, I haven't seen Casino Royale or Quantum of Solice so I don't have a clear understanding to her character, I only gained the background of her M and the personal messages from Skyfall. I have to say she is a fantastic M. She really did a fantastic job in Skyfall. Judi Dench is an actress I think is wonderful anyway, naturally she's going to give a great performance.



Javier Bardem from 'No Country for Old Men' playing a Bond villain, He was brilliant to. His character of Silva is an echo terrorist who has an old score to settle with Judi Dench's M. He was very good at showing his anger and frustration, and also showing his charm and lack of good spirit, his character of Silva is a very cold character and Bardem has the look of someone who could be evil, he has a dodgy look in his eyes which makes his performance ever more convincing.

The rest of cast were splendid, people like Ben Wishaw (Q), Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory), Naomi Harris (Eve Moneypenny) and Bérénice Marlohe (Severine) all really strong performances which complement each other.

The effects and action sequences I loved to, all the punch ups, and gun fights, and things blowing up, the train crash I thought was brilliantly done. My favourite effect is when the huge house blew up and we got to see this massive authentic explosion coming out in a vibrant and excessive way. I loved that effect, blew me away.

The Directed Sam Mendes clearly did a fantastic job as director,I'm not familiar with him as a director but should he go one to direct more action movies like Skyfall, I'll be there. great direction on this film.

Adele also did the theme song, a really great song, she's a fantastic artists doing her bit for the Bond 50th anniversary celebrations.

And what a love about 'Skyfall' is it doesn't try to be all proper and traditional, It tries to be different, and bigger and better. And with the ending absence to Judi Dench and the coming in of Ralph Fiennes as the new M. I sense a great change for the James Bond films today.



Though there is a strong personal message and concentration in the plot of Skyfall, the effects and the acting is fantastic, grippingly tense and such a treat for all of the Bond fans.

I give Skyfall 9/10

1 Gold Star to Daniel Craig
1 Gold Star to Judi Dench
1 Gold Star to Javier Bardem

1 Platinum Star to Sam Mendes

NEXT WEEK: For all of next week, I will be reviewing all eight Harry Potter movies, from Philosopher's Stone - Deathly Hallows.

I will start my Harry Potter reviews on Monday the 1st of July 2013

Review - The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey

An Unexpected Journey : A tale of the younger and more reluctant Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, who sets out to embark on an "unexpected journey" to the Lonely Mountain with a wizard known as Gandalf the Grey and a spirited group of Dwarfs to reclaim their stolen homeland from a dastardly evil dragon named Smaug.




Hello Everyone !

Welcome to my newest review, today I will be taking a little detour to middle earth to talk about the first 'Hobbit' film. Directed by Peter Jackson and starring Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and Ian McKellan as the forever wise Gandalf the Grey.

I'm pleased to say I hope to be pleasing all Hobbit fans today as I talk about 'An Unexpected Journey', because I feel it was a very enjoyable, fantasy adventure that one can just get lost in and enjoy it for what it is, a story.

'Unexpected Jouney' arrived in the UK on the 13th of December 2012, and came to the USA on the 14th of December 2012. It is now available to purchase worldwide.

SPOILER ALERT: This may sound silly for me doing an spoiler alert on this occasion, because I'm sure all of the kean 'Hobbit' fans have seen it by now. But just encase you haven't got round to seeing 'The Hobbit' for whatever reason, I suggest you watch it now, before you have things being spoiled for you.

So after all these years we've waited patiently for 'The Hobbit', it took a long while but it finally arrived and now the first one has been released, and we have two more still to go. It was great to be back in middle earth once more. I considered it a pleasure to see all the lovely sets and valleys of Bagend again, because they are very vibrant and excessive and they make Tolkien's words on paper a reality, which in turn is very authentic and a visually brilliant.

Bilbo Baggins finally tells Frodo his story of how he was included into a valiant quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome evil dragon Smaug. Approached from out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo finds himself joining in a company of thirteen dwarfs led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield.

Their journey will be no easy task, as they are inclined to walk into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders. Although their goal lies to the East and the wastelands of the Lonely Mountain they first must survive the wrath of Stone giants, avoid getting eaton by bickering trolls and escape the goblin tunnels.

It is in the deep dark areas of the caves where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever ... Gollum. Alone in the dark with Gollum, on the shores of an underground lake, Bilbo doesn't only discover the depths of guile and courage that surprise even him, he also gains possession of Gollum's "precious" ring.

Bilbo uses the ring to escape, and rejoins his Dwarf party and pleases Gandalf. They party are attacked by a group of Orcs, as Thorin angusihes a blood thirsty vengeance against his nemesis the white orc, Bilbo saves his life. And it is a flock of flying eagles that save them all. At the end of the film we witness the waking of Smaug, leading into events of the second Hobbit film which will be out later in the year.

So all in all it was really good. I thoroughly enjoyed 'Unexpected Journey' It had some fantastic battle scenes, it was funny, lots of running about, It's a lot more adventurous and light hearted than 'Lord of the Rings' which is what I love. I liked the fact that Peter Jackson didn't want to go down the same roots with 'The Hobbit' as he did for 'Lord of the Rings'. It just gives 'The Hobbit' something different to come by with the target audience and with those of a much younger audience that like fantasy drama.



The only problem I have with 'The Hobbit'  is that it is far too long, I got to end of it and you think. 'That didn't need to be as long as it was' so it is a shame things dragged on as far as the plot and storytelling was concerned, after a while it can get a bit boring.

But overall, I do like 'The Hobbit' a lot I believe it to be a film that the whole family can sit down and enjoy.

I look forward to seeing the second one when it comes out this December, because it looks amazing.

In terms of what I thought of the cast, I really liked 'Martin Freeman' as Bilbo. he gave a fabulous performance as the lovable Hobbit.

Ian McKellen returning to the role of Gandalf for the first time in nine years, it felt like he was never away, he jumped back in the zone and was Gandalf. incredibly good performance, because he's a fantastic actor.

All the guest cast for the Dwarfs were well cast, I liked Richard Armitage, Jimmy Nesbit, Ken Stott they were all really good. Sylvester McCoy as Radagst the Brown was brilliant as well, Sylvester McCoy has a fantastic personality, very wacky and over the top, but then again very serious and stern eyed, so he has an incredible sense of control as an actor of identifying between the two.



I'm going to give 'The Hobbit' 8/10

Thank you for reading this review, If you agree or disagree with my thoughts than leave a comment below, I'm interested to know what you thought of this film. as second opinions do count.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Skyfall' James Bond's latest adventure. Starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench and
Javier Bardem.

I will post that review on Saturday the 29th of June 2013

Review - Hitchcock

Hitchcock - By the time of the late 1950's influential filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock is about to face his toughest challenge yet. along side his wife Alma Reveille showing full support, the two of them bend over backwards to finish filming Hitch's latest ambitious project - Psycho.

Hey Everyone

Welcome to another rant of a film review, in Today's review I will be talking about Hitchcock. The latest film looking into a section of the lives of Alfred Hitchcock himself, and his wife Alma. This section of Hitchcock's life and career as a director is very important, because it was the time when he was making 'Psycho', his most ambitious and successful film he ever made.

Hitchcock came to British screens on the 8th of February 2013, and was released in America on the 14th of December 2012.

SPOILER ALERT: Just a warning to say I will be revealing the odd spoiler or two, as I talk about the film. If your not ok with that, you should probably turn away now.

This film certainly does have a sort of "King's Speech" feel to it. It has that sort of feel that this is something special and worth seeing, It certainly aroused my interests. I thought the cast list looked very promising indeed, and the story was very appealing because it's about Hitchcock giving himself a challenge, and sticking to it.

Back in 1959, Alfred Hitchcock and his wife, Alma, were at the top of their game in the field of creativity as filmmakers amid disquieting insinuations about it being time to retire. In order to recapture his youth's artistic daring, Alfred decides his next film will adapt the lurid horror novel, which in this instance turns out to be - Psycho.  Already we got a good story forming together.

Over everyone misgivings. Unfortunately, as Alfred self-finances his house and labours on this new production, Alma finally loses patience with his roving eye and controlling habits with his actresses. When an ambitious friend of hers invites her to collaborate on a work of their own, the resulting marital tension colours Alfred's work even as the novel's inspiration and haunts his dreams.

Alfred and Alma work together as a team, to finish the film and publicise it as best as they can. It is to their amazement that the film is a success. Later goes on to be Hitchcock's most successful film he ever made.

And what I loved is 'The Birds' hint at the end with the raven on Hitch's shoulder. I thought that was humorous as well as historically accurate. and also it felt to me very animated and well shot as well.



 If I'm being honest, I didn't expect to like it as much as I did. I mean I got very hyped up by all the trailers and the publicity stuff. It was something I felt was worth watching, It was very good indeed. It was very historically accurate to Hitchcock's life and career. It was diverse, It was funny as well.

It did get a bit boring after a while, things didn't progress as well as I thought they would. This is a film that you really need to sit down and watch, and your attention needs to be on it.

Though I thought all the sets were authentic, The Studio settings very original made it look like a 50's film set. The costumes were accurate, very plain colours to show the mood of the characters and the people the actors were playing, hair and make up I thought was all very well done, the music was well composed and automated to fit within scenes - for instance the scene where they editing the scary music into the shower scene was an example of that.

I thought Anthony Hopkins as 'Hitchcock' was really good, although mind you he is unrecognisable in all his make up and latex mask that he's wearing. But then again it's done so well, you as a viewer would believe he is his 'Hitchcock' because he looks like him and resembles him.

I thought Dame Helen Mirrin as Alma also gave another great performance, because she's a really good actress. She plays the role as it is with no strings attached.

I think they worked well together as a pair. There certainly was a relationship somewhere between the characters.



So would I say 'Hitchcock' is worth watching. I would say 'Yes' but only if you are prepared to give your full attention to it,and your willing to sit down and watch it.

I will give it a 6/10

Thank you for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review the beginning of an incredible journey for lovable Hobbit - Bilbo Baggins as I talk about 'The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey'.

I will post 'The Hobbit' review on Friday the 28th of June 2013.

Review - Life of Pi

The Life of Pi - Ang Lee's interpretation of the Yann Martel novel about a young man who survives a disaster, at sea is hurtled into an epic journey of adventure and discovery. Whilst a cast away, he forms an unexpected connection with another survivor: a fearsome Bengal Tiger.




Hello Film Lovers.

Welcome the newest Dr.Film review, today I am happy to say that I am finally reviewing a visually spectacular movie, which is Ang Lee's 'Life of Pi'. Based of the award winning novel written by Yann Martel. The book is treasured by millions. I feel that although this film is based of a book, it helps the viewer to visualise the story and take things away from just being words on page.

This film was released in the USA on the 21st of November 2012, and came to the UK on the 20th of December 2012. The DVD and Blu-Ray of it is available to buy now, from all good retailers.

SPOILER ALERT: You know the drill, there's going to spoilers. If you don't want to know the secrets of this film, please don't ruin it for yourself. Read this review after you've seen it. 'Life of Pi' is not a film worth spoiling. it's an experience worth sharing.

I'll start off by saying, I went along to this not really expecting much. I saw this film a few days after it came out, and it was exceedingly popular. I remember going along to an afternoon showing of it, the screen was packed. I was seeing it in 3D and  I could tell that most people were interested in seeing the special effects as well wanting to get caught up into the fantastical world of Ang Lee.

The Story is set in Canada. It's about a writer who goes to visit an Indian storyteller Pi Patel and asks him to tell his life story, so he can write about it and put into a book. So already there is some relation to the book were Ang Lee has chosen to make it feel like what happened actually did happen and the writer in this film represents Yann Martel, who would later go on to write the book and tell Pi's story to the world.

Pi tells the young writer the story of his childhood in Pondicherry, India, and the origin of his nickname. One day, his father, a zoo owner, explains that the municipality is no longer supporting the zoo and he has hence decided to move to Canada, where the animals the family owns would also be sold. They board on a Japanese cargo ship with the animals and out of the blue, there is a horrendous storm, followed by a shipwrecking.

Pi survives in a lifeboat with a zebra, an orangutan, a hyena and a male Bengal tiger nicknamed Richard Parker. Pi is adrifted in the Pacific Ocean in a small boat, and with an aggressive Rickard Parker getting hungry. Pi needs to find a way to survive and quickly.

The moral line of 'Life of Pi' is visualising it for yourself and making up your own mind later, Storywise it was about Pi surviving out in the ocean and his relationship with the Tiger. But the twist that I picked up was right at the end where the Tiger vanishes on the beech, that scene really played on my mind and got me thinking, It bugged me for quite a while as to what message that was about until I cleverly figured out to my amazement. I think there was no tiger, I believe the whole animals on the boat thing was how Pi wanted us to see it and the reality of matter in this film is seeing is believing.

When Pi arrives at the Japanese embassy and explains the story that we saw, with the animals. they don't believe him. When he rewords the story and breaks it down and tells us all a story we can believe that's when it started to kick in for me. It was so cleverly done, you couldn't mistake it. It was brilliantly done.



 Ang Lee, a brilliant director who did a brilliant job. I really liked Ang Lee's work on this film. really had emotional depth to it which in turn brought out a great story.

I thought the effects were just fantastic, experiencing them in 3D is something I'll never forget.

All the scenes shot in the boat were cleverly done, done up with green or blue screen to make it look like a landscape of just water for miles on end. So believable and authentic.

However after while the scenes in the boat although they were very well shot and done, they progressed very slow. It board things out for me as far as the story telling was concerned, and the switch overs between scenes were a little distracting, I personally blame the Producer or whoever was editing it, clearly missed a few marks. wasn't as clean cut as it should have been.

In a nutshell 'Life of Pi' is a visual spectacular which plays on the mind. It really moved me. I didn't expect it to have such an emotional effect on me as it did.

I'm going to give it 8/10

Thank you for reading this review, a bit short this time but that's only because I didn't think dragging my opinion out would help matters, you very much need to make up your own mind with this movie, because it is a mind bender.

NEXT TIME: I will review Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirrin who star in 'Hitchcock'

I will post the 'Hitchcock' review on Thursday the 27th of June 2013.

Review - A Good Day to Die Hard

A Good Day to Die Hard - John McClane is back. In his newest Die Hard adventure, He travels to Russia to help out his seemingly wayward son, Jack, only to discover that Jack is a CIA operative working to prevent a nuclear-weapons heist. The father and son to team up to fight against the hostile underworld forces.



Hello Film lovers

I hope you had a good weekend, to start this week off I will be reviewing the latest Die Hard movie.

SPOILER ALERT: Warning, this review contains spoilers so if you do not wish for the surprises in the film to be ruined by my critical examination, you should read this review a bit later.

Good Day is the fifth adventure in the Die Hard legacy, starring Bruce Willis as action man John McClaine.  This film came to the UK and the US on the same day which was the 14th of February 2013, so apparently Valentine's Day was 'A Good Day to Die Hard'.

This film has a lot more to offer than the previous Die Hard's, there's more action, more graphic violence, more heavy action, interesting villains, vibrant setting. It has all the ingredients to be a high tense action thriller which will excite as well as entertain the audience.

Speaking as a Die Hard fan, I loved the first two films, so when I approached this I was aware that things had changed and it was more modern and not as dated as the first two. However I thought 'Good Day' brought the McClaine family together for the audience, it very much focuses on John's relationships with his children which is nice, gives out background and depth to the character. In comparison to the first two films it was about John saving his wife from danger, in 'Good Day' he's going out to Russia to help his son, who shot someone out in Russia.

And at first we as the viewer sense not a very loving and affectionate relationship, we actually get the exact opposite. Jack would rather have John stay out of his business entirely, where as John is the one risking his life to help Jack, and Jack isn't all that grateful. So already there's a fuse, a loose wire between the two of them as Father and Son. But I think that makes things more interesting because if they did get on, it wouldn't be as good, the tension between characters wouldn't be there and the action cliche's wouldn't be that apparent.



The Story is basically about Iconoclastic, take-no-prisoners cop John McClain who for the first time, finds himself in foreign country after travelling to Moscow to help his son Jack - unaware that Jack is really a highly-trained CIA operative out to stop a dangerous nuclear weapons heist. With the Russian underworld in pursuit, and battling a countdown to war, the two McClain's discover that their opposing methods make them unstoppable heroes, and as it turns out two McClain's are better than one.

Effect wise, I thought some of the action sequences were a little bit over exaggerated, which in turn didn't make it that believable. You got lots happening in this film you got huge military vechilces crashing into cars, you got cars getting squashed, insane traffic jams, helicopter being shot down, highly exaggerated explosions which together create a massive effect, but also gives the viewer a sense of realisation that what their watching is not real, so as much as I liked the effects, they could of toned things down a bit. I felt that production wise it got a bit carried away with 'we have to make this the biggest Die Hard yet'. It doesn't need that. The first two films accomplished a good story and great effects hand in hand.

The director John Moore obviously wanted to created a drastic drama story, with heavy action to keep all good 'Die Hard' fans happy. I feel he didn't do a bad job, he certainly brought something different to the Die Hard legacy, which I approve of. He was very clean cut with his camera angles, I liked his sense of direction of what should happen when, what I mean by that is when things should be quick they were fast passed. when there was an intimate talk scene, he'd slow things down and allow the tension to built up.

I felt the story could of been better, It wasn't all that fantastic as the first two were. I some how found it difficult to follow the plot on 'Good Day' it lacked that essence of comparative story telling for me, which is a terrible shame.

I failed to understand, why the writers on this film felt the need to drag out all this unneccary humour. I mean the whole 'Im on vaycastion' joke. It worked the first time, but they dragged that joke out completely and after the third time John said it, it just stopped being funny. so don't understand why they had to over exaggerate the humour side of things, I feel the humour could of been toned down.



I thought Bruce Willis, as John McClaine was really good. He played the character as it is. I'm pleased he didn't try to change the character in anyway that would allow me to dislike him. because I do like John McClaine - the character. I think he's a brilliant action man, and an iconic hero in action movies now.

Jai Courtney who played John's son Jack, again really good casting. did a much better job in Die Hard then he did in 'Jack Reacher'.

I also thought the actress who played John's daughter was good, I can't remember the actress's name, but she was good in the bits she was in. I only wish they would of included her in more so I could see more of her, maybe if they make a Die Hard 6 we'll see more on John's relationship with his daughter who knows.




Overall 'A Good Day to Die Hard' is just an 'okay-ish' movie for me. I don't think it stands up as well in comparison to the first two.

I'm going to give it 7/10

1 Gold Star to Bruce Willis

Thank you for reading this review

NEXT TIME :  I will review Ang Lee's 'Life of Pi' - I will post that review on Wednesday the 26th of June 2013.

Review - Unknown

Unknown - After a saviour life threatening car accident, Dr Martin Harris falls into a coma, he wakes up only to discover that someone has taken on his identity and that no one, not even his wife, believes or remembers him. With the help of a young woman, he sets out to prove who he is, but a very dangerous organisation is determined to stop him.

Hello Film lovers

Welcome to my next Dr Film review. In today's review I'm placing my thoughts on an action,mystery, thriller 'Unknown'. In which Liam Neesan plays a scientist, who's identity gets replaced after he wakes from a coma.

SPOILER ALERT: You know the drill.

People who I have talked to about this film have all said that they were a bit sceptical. things were slow, it was eventually just 'The Bourne Idenity' with Liam Nessan. Now I don't wish to discredit the opinions of others because they have a point and they're partly right, I personally think 'Unkown' is a fresh,new mystery thriller, that is very different to anything else that went out at the time. It's not brilliant, but then I'm not expecting it to be. All films have their faults and people seem to misjudge 'Unknown' for having a lot of faults. I intend to prove through my opinion, that some of the faults are there, but not neccacarly all the way through the course of the film.

This film came out in the US on the 18th of February 2011 and opened in the UK on the 4th of March 2011. It is now available to buy to DVD and Blu-Ray. On Itunes, and to download worldwide.

I'll be honest, I was pleased to see Liam Neesan back playing the main role in an action type movie. Obviously because he was brilliant in 'Taken'. It seemed natural that fans of Liam Neesan such as myself, would go in feeling happy to see our star back on the screen again. I liked the background of his character Dr.Martin Harris, I thought Liam Neesan's involvement involvement in the film was intriguing. I thought he played the part brilliantly and dead straight.

The Film is about a biochemist and his wife, who arrive in Berlin for a conference at which a scientist and his controversial Arab funder will announce his breakthrough research, to the world. While his wife checks into the hotel, he grabs a cab to return to the airport for his briefcase, left at the curb, however an unavoidable auto accident puts him in a coma, from which he awakes four days later without any identification and with gaps in his memory.

He goes back to the hotel: his wife can not recognise him and another mystery man has claimed his identity. With help from a nurse, the cab driver, a retired Stasi agent, and an academic friend, Martin Harris tries to unravel what's going on but trying to stop him are some very bad men, keane on blowing up the conference completely. creating a public scandal instead of a worldwide break through.

The twist in the tale is Liam Neesan's character is actually a member of this terrorist organisation, who prevent bad things they believe from happening to world by killing, sabotaging or blowing things up. He was supposed to set off a bomb in the hotel which he planted, but when the accident happened he had to be replaced, and the problem that Liam Neesan's character had was he just believed that he was his alter-ego. Luckily he prevents a disaster from happening, and he starts again on a blank sheet of paper. possibly events could left off could lead to a sequel? who knows? it's just a suggestion.

Liam Neesan pulls off another fantastic performance, It may not be have been one of his most memorable performances ever. I do believe that he's a great action man, and is suited to that sort of heaving action and hard hitting drama. 'Unknown' was another opportunity for him to prove that, and I thought he did very well.

The Script was intreeging, It really grabbed and aroused my interests. some good characters with depth and intellect. It gave the story something to go upon, and in all honesty drove the story forward.

The action sequences, were frequent but when there were fights and heavy action it was really good. I thought all the explosions were brilliant, very precise and clean cut. which in turn made it stand out as a vital part of the movie, it makes me as a viewer excited and very on edge, which in turn brings out different levels of enjoyment I have for the film.

I thought that the sequence with the cab, and the slow motion crash scene was done really well. a very animated effect. but gave me as a viewer a chance to see things more clearly, and have an observant point of view of what was going on. It was a great effect.



I thought all the location shots were pulled off very authentically, and gave off a dark, disheartened mood.

The Director Jaume Collet-Serra, did a brilliant job at showing how he wanted certain scenes shot. I thought he thought that the way to shoot an action thriller was to be very clean cut, which is fine. every director has his or her mark of things. But to think such a thing all the time can get a bit boring. I don't think he directed this with excessive variety. everything was very clean cut and precise. 



In a nutshell 'Unknown' is a great watch, not a brilliant film but then again, it doesn't have to be for you to really enjoy it.

I'm going to give 'Unknown' a well deserved 7/10

1 Gold Star to Liam Neesan

Thanks again for reading another review of mine :)

NEXT TIME: I will review 'A Good Day to Die Hard' which explores new depths of Bruce Willis as John McClaine.

I will post that review after the weekend on Monday the 24th of June 2013.

Review - Trance

Trance - When an art auctioneer looses his memory and a very valuable aspect of human culture - a painting of exquisite value, he gets mixed up with a group of criminals partners and a hypnotherapist in order to unlock his memory and recover the whereabouts of the lost painting.

 

Hello There

Welcome to the newest film review, on the blog this month. Today I am reviewing Danny Boyle film 'Trance' which is has a brilliant concept and ideas in it, about playing with the mind, depths of the mind and people's emotions.

This film came out in UK cinemas on the 27th of March 2013 and came out in the USA on the 5th of April 2013. It is due to be coming out on DVD and Blu-Ray, In August I believe, rated for those of 18 years and over.

SPOILER ALERT : You know the drill by now, I reveal spoilers in my reviews. If you don't want films you haven't seen yet to be spoiled then please don't read this review, until you've seen the film.

Trance is basically about A fine art auctioneer (James McAvoy) who gets mixed up with the wrong people. a gang, who want a very valuable painting which the auctioneer was supposed to steal for them, however he gets hit on the head and looses his memory and forgets where he hid the painting.

So He and the gang he's in agree to the terms of conditions of seeing a hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson) to recover his memory and where the lost painting is. And as boundaries between to dissolve, reality and hypnotic suggestion begin to become a blur, the stakes rise faster than anyone could have anticipated.

And the films starts to come together when we learn that James McAvoy's character has a gambling problem, he went to see a therapist to deal with his problem. ended up falling into a relationship with his therapist, and things got out of control. When he broke things off with the therapist he joined the gang to hopefully get some money to pay off his debts, but things don't quite go according to plan.

It's your typical Danny Boyle extravaganza of strange, hard hitting situations with emotional depth to the characters.

I do love a good Danny Boyle film, I think that Danny Boyle is such a wonderful director. the way he writes his scripts, and brings them to the screen in a vibrant and excessive way. It really pays off with the audience being amazed because they don't know what will happen next in the story.

The one thing I will say about 'Trance' is, you really have to be in the zone to watch it, and to really get into it. Some films you can just stick on and chill out whilst watching them and you really enjoy it. Trance is not one of those films, with Trance you need to sit down and watch it, and have your attention on it in order to understand it.

I thought that 'Trance' was brilliantly cast. Danny Boyle chose his actors well, and the actors delivered 100% to the best of their abilities.

I really liked James McAvoy's character who was an unstable young man, who was emotionally undeveloped. He showed good frames of tention and frames of status around other characters, which in turn showed how important his character was.

I thought Vincent Cassell was brilliant, he's a fantastic actor with credit to his name.

I also really liked Rosario Dawson who played Elizabeth - the therapist. I previously saw her in 'Unstoppable' which was in all fairness an ok movie. In Trance she was more on edge, and more clear about how she wanted to play her character, plus she looks amazing.

Trance did have all the necessary ingredients for a successful film, the concept was there, the ideas were new and present for the audience to get into. It's just plain and simple Danny Boyle genius really.

Overall I thought Danny Boyle pulled off another great film, which we can all treasure and enjoy for many a day to come.

1 Gold Star to James McAcoy

1 Gold Star to Rosario Dawson

1 Gold Star to Vincent Cassell

I'm going to give 'Trance' a 8/10

1 Platinum Danny Boyle

Thank you all for reading this review.

NEXT TIME : I will review 'Unkown' starring one of my favourite actors Liam Neesan

I will post that review on Saturday the 22nd of June 2013.