A few years ago, I probably wouldn't have even thought about watching Lion. Its a true story, but it's got subtitles for half of it, and you already know the ending, and you know its going to be all emotions and not much action. But then, a few years ago, I didn't even like films...
Since 2014, I've tried to see the big budget, big award nominated films, and January is a great time to cram them all in before the Oscars. So seeing that Lion is up for a few awards for 2017, I was really intrigued to see what it was about.
As you probably already know, the story follows a 5 year old boy in India, Saroo (Sunny Pawar) who gets separated from his older brother in the middle of the night. He searches for him, ending up on an out of service sleeper train, which takes him 1500 miles away, to a station in Calcutta. He is now in a country where he doesn't know anyone and doesn't speak the language, and now is fighting to live, as well as find his family. We follow his story, until he gets adopted by an Australian family, and from then, we learn about how Saroo continues his search for his mother into adulthood (Dev Patel).
I enjoyed the film much more than I was expecting (it's 2 hours long, and I wasn't clock watching one bit!). As I mentioned before, the first half of the film is subtitled as all the speaking is in Hindi and Bengali, but I only realised about an hour in that I'd been reading for so long. I felt immersed in the story and the subtitles were not a distraction at all (as I sometimes find). Pawar was absolutely incredible in his debut film - I know Patel is up for an Oscar for supporting role, but I feel like Pawar was the real star of the show. He's got a great acting career ahead of him! That's not to dispute Patel's acting in the film, he worked really well as the character, and I feel like both Pawar and Patel must have worked closely together because the two parts of the story work really well together. Nicole Kidman was also wonderful as Saroo's adopted mother, securing herself an Oscar nomination too. You really see the emotions she is experiencing through adopting a child from the 3rd world, and then the journey Saroo takes.
The entire film was an emotional roller coaster, I cried so much at the end I smudged my eyeliner, much to the delight of my pals. Part of me thinks the film should be more than a PG, as if I watched it as a kid I think I would be heart broken. I feel like the actors, directors and production team did a really good job in terms of bringing this true story to life. At the end we see video footage of the real family, and I think it's a really nice touch.
I did find some parts of the film a little cheesy, and unbelievable, despite it being based on the truth, and I can understand how if you don't connect with the emotional aspect of the film, you may not enjoy it. It isn't a particularly fast paced film.
Overall, I'm really glad I watched the film, and think there may even be an Oscar in it - be it for Patel, Kidman, or the cinematography (it's up for 5 altogether). It's so strange seeing Patel grow from being one of everyone's favourite Skins characters, to his role in Slumdog Millionaire, to becoming Saroo, and it's a great testiment to his acting skill. I give Lion an 8.5/10, definitely worth a watch (but remember the tissues).
Saturday, 28 January 2017
Sunday, 22 January 2017
6. Split
I was really excited to see Split, I had seen the trailer before seeing previous films, and psychological thrillers are exactly my type of film. This brings me on to another point in my Cineworld experience, I used to loathe the adverts, but now I am one with my fellow Unlimited Warriors, and get excited to see what I can watch next week.
I looked on imdb before we set off, as I was interested to see what genre the film was categorised as; imdb says Horror, Thiller. I was confused here, what is the genre of horror? Will it be something I like? Will it be full of gore? Traditionally I find a lot of violence and gore either boring or laughable, so from looking at this, I wasn't sure what I was getting myself into. Thankfully, in my own film categories I wouldn't say it was a Horror, but a Thriller with a few jumpy bits.
I was worried about the film, as I was worried that it would be another vehicle to throw people with mental health conditions under the bus. From the trailer I was concerned that this was another piece of propaganda against Schizophrenia (I remember when I learned about Schizophrenia in A Level Psychology, it was nothing like the concept I had in my head, which had been conjured up by the media). The film does address split personality disorder as DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) which I felt refreshed by initially, however, as the film progresses we are then identifying one of the identities as 'The Beast', adding to the taboo of Mental Health conditions. I feel like we've given Schizophrenia a break, but are we now showing the world DID and suggesting it's dangerous? I found it conflicting, as the Doctor seemed to be really understanding of disorder initially, but then I started to feel like she was glorifying DID.
Throughout the film, I enjoyed Casey's (Anya Taylor-Joy) interaction with James McAvoy's identities, negotiating with the identities, and understanding which characters were trying to help her escape, and which were trying to hinder it. I felt captured by the film here, as like I said before, I love a psychological thriller, and I found watching the manipulation and communication really interesting. I think McAvoy was great in the film and he managed to switch between the identities effortlessly, and Taylor-Joy portrayed a really interesting and clever female lead. I get the sense that the film must have been really fun to film.
I didn't feel satisfied with the ending of the film, as I liked the build up, but without spoilers, I found the ending unrealistic, the climax of the film was a bit lazy, and perhaps it was added to make it more action filled, but for me it didn't work, and I didn't feel captivated by it. I felt disappointed in a similar way to Jake Gyllenhaal film The Enemy, where throughout, I was really captivated and interested by the story, but thoroughly disappointed by the ending.
Overall, I enjoyed the plot, but felt conflicted by the subject matter, and dissatisfied by the ending. I think the acting was good, but overall, I'd give the film a 7/10, as I think it could have been so much more, and could have been written in a way that could change perceptions of taboo subjects, instead of adding to stigma.
I looked on imdb before we set off, as I was interested to see what genre the film was categorised as; imdb says Horror, Thiller. I was confused here, what is the genre of horror? Will it be something I like? Will it be full of gore? Traditionally I find a lot of violence and gore either boring or laughable, so from looking at this, I wasn't sure what I was getting myself into. Thankfully, in my own film categories I wouldn't say it was a Horror, but a Thriller with a few jumpy bits.
I was worried about the film, as I was worried that it would be another vehicle to throw people with mental health conditions under the bus. From the trailer I was concerned that this was another piece of propaganda against Schizophrenia (I remember when I learned about Schizophrenia in A Level Psychology, it was nothing like the concept I had in my head, which had been conjured up by the media). The film does address split personality disorder as DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) which I felt refreshed by initially, however, as the film progresses we are then identifying one of the identities as 'The Beast', adding to the taboo of Mental Health conditions. I feel like we've given Schizophrenia a break, but are we now showing the world DID and suggesting it's dangerous? I found it conflicting, as the Doctor seemed to be really understanding of disorder initially, but then I started to feel like she was glorifying DID.
Throughout the film, I enjoyed Casey's (Anya Taylor-Joy) interaction with James McAvoy's identities, negotiating with the identities, and understanding which characters were trying to help her escape, and which were trying to hinder it. I felt captured by the film here, as like I said before, I love a psychological thriller, and I found watching the manipulation and communication really interesting. I think McAvoy was great in the film and he managed to switch between the identities effortlessly, and Taylor-Joy portrayed a really interesting and clever female lead. I get the sense that the film must have been really fun to film.
I didn't feel satisfied with the ending of the film, as I liked the build up, but without spoilers, I found the ending unrealistic, the climax of the film was a bit lazy, and perhaps it was added to make it more action filled, but for me it didn't work, and I didn't feel captivated by it. I felt disappointed in a similar way to Jake Gyllenhaal film The Enemy, where throughout, I was really captivated and interested by the story, but thoroughly disappointed by the ending.
Overall, I enjoyed the plot, but felt conflicted by the subject matter, and dissatisfied by the ending. I think the acting was good, but overall, I'd give the film a 7/10, as I think it could have been so much more, and could have been written in a way that could change perceptions of taboo subjects, instead of adding to stigma.
Sunday, 15 January 2017
5. Manchester by the Sea
I'll start with my honest reaction of what I thought Manchester by the Sea was... I received an email from Cineworld inviting me to an advanced screening for the film, and I hadn't seen much advertising for it (I don't watch telly, and generally walk around without managing to pay attention to anything). Due to this, I assumed it was a one off documentary about my surrounding areas, probably touching on the canals, as a play on words with the 'sea'. However, a week later I realised that I was very incorrect and in fact it was a film up for award after award... whoops. I then saw the trailer when I was at the cinema, and kicked myself that I had ignored my advanced screening invitation.
There's a reason why this film has so many nominations, it is so captivating, and the way the story unfolds really keeps your attention, alongside breaking your heart (I cried 3 times). The story is based around Lee (Casey Affleck) and his new-found guardianship of Patrick (Lucas Hedges). The plot follows the past and present relationships of the characters, and as the story unfolds, we learn about their impact on the current situation. The scenes between Michelle Williams and Affleck were devastatingly tragic, and I really felt the emotion between the characters. I really enjoyed the way you view Lee in the film, and how that changes and/or heightens as we learn more about him. Hedges is also brilliant in this film, and I think he really embodies teenager resilience and grief, as well as adding humour to the film - it's not all doom and gloom.
I normally add in comparisons of different films in my reviews, but I can't think of anything this particularly is like. This could be a tribute to the innovation of the plot and acting, or just the fact that I have seen very few films. I liked the way the story switches between the past and the present, and keeps you waiting to find out key bits of information. I found both the main, and sub-plots really enthralling, despite their devastating nature.
I also thought the cinematography and soundtrack really delivered in this film, to add to the emotion and the viewers experience (not that I know anything about either of these things!). The music added to the sentiment of the plot, and again, helped you to empathise with the characters.
I will be expecting a number of Oscar nominations for this film, it really was so brilliant. If you want to have a little weep, I would definitely recommend this film! As I mentioned before, there are pockets of humour and I think this really helped to bring it to life. For the emotion, the acting and the plot, I give this film a 9.5/10 - a must watch !
There's a reason why this film has so many nominations, it is so captivating, and the way the story unfolds really keeps your attention, alongside breaking your heart (I cried 3 times). The story is based around Lee (Casey Affleck) and his new-found guardianship of Patrick (Lucas Hedges). The plot follows the past and present relationships of the characters, and as the story unfolds, we learn about their impact on the current situation. The scenes between Michelle Williams and Affleck were devastatingly tragic, and I really felt the emotion between the characters. I really enjoyed the way you view Lee in the film, and how that changes and/or heightens as we learn more about him. Hedges is also brilliant in this film, and I think he really embodies teenager resilience and grief, as well as adding humour to the film - it's not all doom and gloom.
I normally add in comparisons of different films in my reviews, but I can't think of anything this particularly is like. This could be a tribute to the innovation of the plot and acting, or just the fact that I have seen very few films. I liked the way the story switches between the past and the present, and keeps you waiting to find out key bits of information. I found both the main, and sub-plots really enthralling, despite their devastating nature.
I also thought the cinematography and soundtrack really delivered in this film, to add to the emotion and the viewers experience (not that I know anything about either of these things!). The music added to the sentiment of the plot, and again, helped you to empathise with the characters.
I will be expecting a number of Oscar nominations for this film, it really was so brilliant. If you want to have a little weep, I would definitely recommend this film! As I mentioned before, there are pockets of humour and I think this really helped to bring it to life. For the emotion, the acting and the plot, I give this film a 9.5/10 - a must watch !
Friday, 13 January 2017
4. La La Land
La La Land is my first 'real' post of 2017. The film has had lots of attention recently, both winning and receiving nominations for a plethora of awards at the Golden Globes, BAFTAs and talk of Oscars in the upcoming Academy Awards Nominations, on the 24th January. This may have contributed to the fact I was desperate to see La La Land on its opening night.
I'm going to cut to the chase... I completely loved every second of this movie. From the underlying story line, the way it made you think, the fact the songs are actually good, to the fact it stars Ryan Gosling, all of these score high in my book. One of my favourite romantic comedies has to be Crazy Stupid Love, and it's undeniable that Emma Stone and Gosling work more than well together, and are both great actors.
I loved the production of the film, and how it worked with the story. The fact that our characters are actors and musicians made the whole set up work, in a way that didn't seem cheesy. Lesser known fact, but I danced from age 4 - 18, and I loved the choreography. I have a love hate relationship with Musical Theatre, but even these elements I fell in love with. I was especially enthused by the tap routine!
The story was actually really believable, and I felt invested in both Gosling and Stone's characters. The plot isn't traditional in that they get together, something happens and then everything works out, it's far more realistic, and I was a big fan of the ending (NO SPOILERS!). I liked the use of humour in the film, and the fact that it was contemporary. I think sometimes musicals are too try hard and end up being a bit forced, or out of date, but this was just perfect. Perhaps it is similar to a modern day Grease (or am I the only person who loves Grease?) You really end up routing for the leads, and I left the cinema feeling like I loved jazz and that I wanted to be on the stage (and that I wanted to marry Ryan Gosling). I don't think a film has made me feel like this in a long time.
Another thing you will probably guess from my reviews is that I love a film with a good message and moral. La La Land certainly does that, and it really made me think about who I am, and who I want to be. But that's a story for another day.
I think if you go to see La La Land with an open mind, you won't be disappointed. It's a film with laughs, songs, love, dances, jazz and Chicken on a Stick, what more could you want. I'm going to go in with the big dogs and give this film a 9.5/10. I really honestly loved it, and could watch it again now! I tried to think of how I would improve the film and the only answer was to feature some puppies, so perhaps I'll come back and edit this post and give it the 10/10 it deserves. Everything can be improved with puppies.
I loved the production of the film, and how it worked with the story. The fact that our characters are actors and musicians made the whole set up work, in a way that didn't seem cheesy. Lesser known fact, but I danced from age 4 - 18, and I loved the choreography. I have a love hate relationship with Musical Theatre, but even these elements I fell in love with. I was especially enthused by the tap routine!
The story was actually really believable, and I felt invested in both Gosling and Stone's characters. The plot isn't traditional in that they get together, something happens and then everything works out, it's far more realistic, and I was a big fan of the ending (NO SPOILERS!). I liked the use of humour in the film, and the fact that it was contemporary. I think sometimes musicals are too try hard and end up being a bit forced, or out of date, but this was just perfect. Perhaps it is similar to a modern day Grease (or am I the only person who loves Grease?) You really end up routing for the leads, and I left the cinema feeling like I loved jazz and that I wanted to be on the stage (and that I wanted to marry Ryan Gosling). I don't think a film has made me feel like this in a long time.
Another thing you will probably guess from my reviews is that I love a film with a good message and moral. La La Land certainly does that, and it really made me think about who I am, and who I want to be. But that's a story for another day.
I think if you go to see La La Land with an open mind, you won't be disappointed. It's a film with laughs, songs, love, dances, jazz and Chicken on a Stick, what more could you want. I'm going to go in with the big dogs and give this film a 9.5/10. I really honestly loved it, and could watch it again now! I tried to think of how I would improve the film and the only answer was to feature some puppies, so perhaps I'll come back and edit this post and give it the 10/10 it deserves. Everything can be improved with puppies.
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
3. Moana
Fingers crossed the last 2016 film of 2017! As part 2 of my day off cinema adventure, I went to see Moana. It's no secret that I love an animated film; Zootropolis was one of the two films that was dished out a 10/10 on my much adored spreadsheet last year.
Moana is different from the traditional female lead animation. During the film, our lead, played by Auli'i Cravalho, states that she is 'not a princess', and I think this is a really important step forward for a Disney film. Although Moana is a chief's daughter, and therefore someone living with privilege, we're slowly moving away from the traditional lead, living her life to marry a prince, and so on. I also thought it was important that Moana isn't white, or impossibly skinny, and again, I really do think Disney are taking a step in the right direction.
As with most Disney films, there were laughs for children and adults, and some real belters in song form; perhaps not Frozen's 'Let It Go', but some would argue we don't need anymore of that! Some of the songs were a little iffy, I took particular distaste to a jazzy number sang by a bedazzled crab, but then and again, over the top musical theatre doesn't really do it for me. Whatever floats your boat and all that.
I found the plot interesting, with Moana setting sail, to get a (tattoo-ed, nipple-less) Demigod on her side, and to restore a heart to save her people. On the way there are various monsters, and with the help of her shapeshifting Demigod friend, she must defeat them. I feel like I didn't really understand what restoring the heart would actually do, and I feel this was only explained briefly, however I could have been mid-nacho during this crucial part of the film, or suffering from brain freeze from my tango ice blast. That aside, the plot was fun and easy to follow, but I can imagine that some parts could be a little frightening for little ones.
I really enjoyed the morals behind the film, I do love it when justice gets served, and when kids can learn something from the story. As I mentioned in my previous post about Sully, this film also looked at heroism. I think it was really important that the film showed that it's not wanting and trying to be a hero that makes you a hero, it's courage and bravery and loyalty, all great traits to aspire to.
I had a lovely afternoon watching this film, and I did find some parts of it really refreshing to watch, and I really liked the way that cartoons nowadays are really trying to teach lessons and no longer focussed on a princess finding a prince, but more about women being badasses and fighting evil! When I finished watching Zootropolis, I honestly could have gone straight back in and watched it again, as I found it so engaging, funny, and forward thinking. Moana didn't quite hit this mark for me, but for all it's good points, and the fact Jermaine from Flight of the Conchords lends his voice to one of our enemies, I think it deserves a solid 7.5/10.
Moana is different from the traditional female lead animation. During the film, our lead, played by Auli'i Cravalho, states that she is 'not a princess', and I think this is a really important step forward for a Disney film. Although Moana is a chief's daughter, and therefore someone living with privilege, we're slowly moving away from the traditional lead, living her life to marry a prince, and so on. I also thought it was important that Moana isn't white, or impossibly skinny, and again, I really do think Disney are taking a step in the right direction.
As with most Disney films, there were laughs for children and adults, and some real belters in song form; perhaps not Frozen's 'Let It Go', but some would argue we don't need anymore of that! Some of the songs were a little iffy, I took particular distaste to a jazzy number sang by a bedazzled crab, but then and again, over the top musical theatre doesn't really do it for me. Whatever floats your boat and all that.
I found the plot interesting, with Moana setting sail, to get a (tattoo-ed, nipple-less) Demigod on her side, and to restore a heart to save her people. On the way there are various monsters, and with the help of her shapeshifting Demigod friend, she must defeat them. I feel like I didn't really understand what restoring the heart would actually do, and I feel this was only explained briefly, however I could have been mid-nacho during this crucial part of the film, or suffering from brain freeze from my tango ice blast. That aside, the plot was fun and easy to follow, but I can imagine that some parts could be a little frightening for little ones.
I really enjoyed the morals behind the film, I do love it when justice gets served, and when kids can learn something from the story. As I mentioned in my previous post about Sully, this film also looked at heroism. I think it was really important that the film showed that it's not wanting and trying to be a hero that makes you a hero, it's courage and bravery and loyalty, all great traits to aspire to.
I had a lovely afternoon watching this film, and I did find some parts of it really refreshing to watch, and I really liked the way that cartoons nowadays are really trying to teach lessons and no longer focussed on a princess finding a prince, but more about women being badasses and fighting evil! When I finished watching Zootropolis, I honestly could have gone straight back in and watched it again, as I found it so engaging, funny, and forward thinking. Moana didn't quite hit this mark for me, but for all it's good points, and the fact Jermaine from Flight of the Conchords lends his voice to one of our enemies, I think it deserves a solid 7.5/10.
Monday, 9 January 2017
2. Sully: Miracle on the Hudson
Another film technically from 2016, but I saw it today, 9th January, at the pictures, as part of a two film marathon for my day off.
I hadn't been particularly inspired by advertisements to watch this film, and from the poster alone I didn't know what the film was about at all. I'd heard a few people talk about the film, and seen that it had good reviews, and this married with the ideal show time of 14.30pm (plenty of time in the day for a second film), enticed me to give it a watch.
When investigating which films I wanted to watch on my dreamy day off, I discovered the film was in fact based on a true story (a bonus; almost a documentary), and also 96 minutes long (a film of around one and a half hours gets extra points in my eyes, as I don't have a great attention span). I remember hearing the news that a plane had landed on the Hudson, but I never read more into it, so I was intrigued to watch and see the bigger picture. I can't believe it happened in 2009 - I thought it was a couple of years ago, not nearly 8!
I think my expectations for the film, was to hear some back story about the pilot (Sully - Tom Hanks), see him nearly crash, then land perfectly on the Hudson, and then watch the credits roll. However, the film was so much more than this, I feel naive that those were my preconceptions. To the world, landing on the Hudson was big news, the script mentioned about how for once it was good news about planes in New York, and to me, I think that's how I felt; the pilot was a hero. Looking deeper, we understand that Sully's act to land the plane on a river had further implications - implications that involve joyous things like responsibility and insurance and investigations.
There are also themes of heroism throughout the film, and the way Sully deals with it; he does not identify with being a hero, he was just doing his job. I think this really makes the audience connect with the character, and again, this was something I hadn't considered before watching the film. The second film of my marathon also looked at heroes, and what being a hero means, on a completely different level, but we'll come to that in my next review.
Another thing to touch on which made me think, was how black and white things are during an investigation. Life is generally neither black nor white, and the certainty of what is the right and wrong thing to do are hardly ever clean cut. The film illustrated the need to take humans into account, not just maths or mechanics or engineering. In this respect, the film reminded me of Deepwater Horizon, another 'based on a true story' film from 2016, and a high scorer on my infamous spreadsheet.
Overall, this film really exceeded my expectations, Hanks and Eckhart (who plays Sully's co-pilot), were both great, and the film really made me think. When a woman was stood on the wing on the plane on her phone, mid-evacuation, I did really think 'what has the world come to', but that is the reality of today's world - I'm sat in my bed on a Monday night writing a blog post after all. For the golden hour and a half time check, the true life factor, and the content of the movie, I'd give Sully an 8/10. I would go to a 8.5 if I shed a tear, but unfortunately I maintained a dry eye. That said, upon leaving the cinema, I was right in the middle of a flight path, and my heart did jump a bit when I heard an aeroplane come into land!
I hadn't been particularly inspired by advertisements to watch this film, and from the poster alone I didn't know what the film was about at all. I'd heard a few people talk about the film, and seen that it had good reviews, and this married with the ideal show time of 14.30pm (plenty of time in the day for a second film), enticed me to give it a watch.
When investigating which films I wanted to watch on my dreamy day off, I discovered the film was in fact based on a true story (a bonus; almost a documentary), and also 96 minutes long (a film of around one and a half hours gets extra points in my eyes, as I don't have a great attention span). I remember hearing the news that a plane had landed on the Hudson, but I never read more into it, so I was intrigued to watch and see the bigger picture. I can't believe it happened in 2009 - I thought it was a couple of years ago, not nearly 8!
I think my expectations for the film, was to hear some back story about the pilot (Sully - Tom Hanks), see him nearly crash, then land perfectly on the Hudson, and then watch the credits roll. However, the film was so much more than this, I feel naive that those were my preconceptions. To the world, landing on the Hudson was big news, the script mentioned about how for once it was good news about planes in New York, and to me, I think that's how I felt; the pilot was a hero. Looking deeper, we understand that Sully's act to land the plane on a river had further implications - implications that involve joyous things like responsibility and insurance and investigations.
There are also themes of heroism throughout the film, and the way Sully deals with it; he does not identify with being a hero, he was just doing his job. I think this really makes the audience connect with the character, and again, this was something I hadn't considered before watching the film. The second film of my marathon also looked at heroes, and what being a hero means, on a completely different level, but we'll come to that in my next review.
Another thing to touch on which made me think, was how black and white things are during an investigation. Life is generally neither black nor white, and the certainty of what is the right and wrong thing to do are hardly ever clean cut. The film illustrated the need to take humans into account, not just maths or mechanics or engineering. In this respect, the film reminded me of Deepwater Horizon, another 'based on a true story' film from 2016, and a high scorer on my infamous spreadsheet.
Overall, this film really exceeded my expectations, Hanks and Eckhart (who plays Sully's co-pilot), were both great, and the film really made me think. When a woman was stood on the wing on the plane on her phone, mid-evacuation, I did really think 'what has the world come to', but that is the reality of today's world - I'm sat in my bed on a Monday night writing a blog post after all. For the golden hour and a half time check, the true life factor, and the content of the movie, I'd give Sully an 8/10. I would go to a 8.5 if I shed a tear, but unfortunately I maintained a dry eye. That said, upon leaving the cinema, I was right in the middle of a flight path, and my heart did jump a bit when I heard an aeroplane come into land!
Friday, 6 January 2017
1. Passengers
I'll start off by saying that this is a bit of a cheat, as this film was released in 2016, however it's still being shown in cinemas (obviously), so this is my first film of the year!
I'll start off by addressing the fact that this movie is set in space. Already I'm on the fence. I find space and stars and planets and the universe completely beautiful, and on a clear night, I'm obsessed with the stars, and finding the couple of constellations I know. I even have a stargazing app. However, I am also absolutely terrified of it. I've never seen Gravity or Interstellar or Apollo 13 or any other space film pre-2015 (see previous post) for that exact reason. What I have seen, is The Martian. I went into that completely petrified, but it was actually one of my favourite films of 2015, so I went into Passengers feeling open minded
First thing with Passengers is it is not a Sci-Fi or Fantasy film, it is a Rom-Com in space, with little bits of action and excitement. I think it's quite a clever concept, as I can see it appealing to a large cross section of people, not least with it's casting of the lovely looking Chris Pratt, Jennifer Laurence, and forever Morpheus from The Matrix in my heart, Laurence Fishburne.
Throughout the entire film, the only people we really meet are those that I've mentioned above, alongside Michael Sheen, which again, I found really interesting. I do think the acting and plot here was done really nicely; although we hardly hear a backstory to the characters, I do think you really get to know them. In terms of character development, we only get to know know them in the moment, we have no past events to go on, and only interactions with people they have never met before. I found this quite creative and unique, and it made me think about how we may judge characters in films and books from other people's reactions to them, and how writers can manipulate our opinions using surrounding characters.
Now we move on to what I didn't like... I do think the situation that Pratt's Character, Jim, is left in, is terrifying and horrific, however, upon being told by a wise robotic barman 'Make the most of what you have', he get's drunk and begins to ruin a poor woman's life. From here I found an underlying creepiness to the entire film.
I think some parts of the plot were sloppy and lazy, without giving spoilers, I think there was room for more character development later in the film. On top of this, I found the ending really annoying and unjust, and it made me dislike both Pratt and Laurence's characters. Considering this, the fact that I did have a strong distaste towards them, must show that I was invested in the film, and that the acting was good!
Overall, I'd give the film a 6.5/10. The concept for the film was interesting, but I think the plot didn't deliver. It could have been more thought provoking, and less objectifying. If you're looking for an adventure in space with some laughs, watch The Martian instead.
Thursday, 5 January 2017
2017
At the end of 2016 I was coerced into making New Year's Resolutions. One of them was to get more into films and movies, so I bought Empire magazine and I've started a blog. 5 days in to 2017 and one resolution down, I think I've done pretty well.
I haven't always liked films. In fact, I actively used to dislike films. I have a short attention span, and an obsession with documentaries and all things 'real', so blogging about movies doesn't seem to be a natural fit. However, one thing I dislike more than films, is missing out. When my friends bought a subscription to Cineworld, there was not a chance they were going on weekly trips without me, so here I am. Turns out films aren't that bad after all.
Last year, I saw 40 films from 2016. Because I am me, all of these films were documented and added to my super 'Film 2016' spreadsheet with a rating score next to them. At first, my rating scale was dubious, with some films scoring higher than necessarily true, down the the fact I had had a lovely meal for my tea, but now, 40 films later, my rating system is tweaked and second to none. With the New Year, I intend to not only provide a trusty rating, but also a short blog post to accompany it, for every film I see.
Disclaimer:
I haven't always liked films. In fact, I actively used to dislike films. I have a short attention span, and an obsession with documentaries and all things 'real', so blogging about movies doesn't seem to be a natural fit. However, one thing I dislike more than films, is missing out. When my friends bought a subscription to Cineworld, there was not a chance they were going on weekly trips without me, so here I am. Turns out films aren't that bad after all.
Last year, I saw 40 films from 2016. Because I am me, all of these films were documented and added to my super 'Film 2016' spreadsheet with a rating score next to them. At first, my rating scale was dubious, with some films scoring higher than necessarily true, down the the fact I had had a lovely meal for my tea, but now, 40 films later, my rating system is tweaked and second to none. With the New Year, I intend to not only provide a trusty rating, but also a short blog post to accompany it, for every film I see.
Disclaimer:
- Referring back to my second paragraph, most films I have watched in my entire life are from August 2015 onwards (it all started with Jurassic World... and no, I haven't see any of the other films in the franchise). Maybe throughout the course of the year I will acquaint myself with some classics - I definitely plan on watching Trainspotting before the release of the forthcoming sequel.
- One of my critisms of films is 'It wasn't very realistic'. If I don't like a film, I will whine about this through the entire blogpost. However, as I am fickle, if a film is completely obtuse but I like it, I will not mention how 'true to life' it is at any point during the review (I will absolutely argue that Batman is realistic and the trials and tribulations of Gotham City are just metaphors for our own world after the Christopher Nolan trilogy)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)