One third of the way through the year, and on film number 20, half the amount of films I saw in 2016. To celebrate this milestone, we watched the worst film I've seen in a long while. A film as bad as Zoolander 2, Sausage Party or even... the terrible Fantastic 4 remake.
We decided to see the Belko Experiment, as one member of the cinema club who doesn't like horror films was living the high life in Las Vegas (George) so myself and the other member (Bailey)(and our mate Katie) took the opportunity to see a scary movie (note the name checks - just seeing if they actually read my blog). Bailey and I both loved Get Out, and I really love the adrenaline rush of watching something scary, and laughing at other people (and myself) at the jumpy bits. I wasn't really sure what The Belko Experiment was about, I'd read a sentence about it and it looked like a grim Saw-esque psychological horror. Fine by me.
Turns out it wasn't a gory psychological horror, in fact it was a shambles littered with overkill.
The plot follows offices workers in Colombia, who hear a voice over a tannoy in their block telling them that two workers must be murdered in the next 30 minutes, or else something worse will happen. Ensue panic. The rest of the film is essentially all the characters deciding whether to kill each other or not, trying to gain access to weapons, hiding, trying to escape, and further instruction from the tannoy.
As mentioned, along with this is a lot of gore and violence. Seasoned readers of my blog will realise I often find mindless violence boring and pointless, and I'm not overly shocked by 'TV gore' as it's often really unrealistic. There's a lot of blood, guts and excessive battering of each other; alongside interesting ways of killing each other- think a lift, think sellotape.
A good horror normally is also sexist and often has an underlying romance with a woman who is often sexualised. In this horror, there was an office romance, and although it wasn't overly sexualised (thumbs up) it was dull and dreary and unnecessary; not adding anything to the plot line. Also, humour is sometimes a tool used in psychological horror/thriller type movies (again, see Get Out). In The Belko Experiment there are some cheap attempts at jokes that didn't really work, some obvious comedy about the token stoner character in the film, and essentially nothing funny. Another tool often used in this type of film would be an ambiguous ending to leave you wanting more, or to make you think about the plot days after you watch the movie. This film tried to do that, the ending is designed to make you thing about bigger things, but for me the plot was so half arsed I really wasn't bothered, and it left me wondering what I had done with the last 89 minutes of my life.
Which brings me to my final point. The fact that it was only 89 minutes was the only redeeming factor for this film, I don't know if I could have lasted much longer. Verdict? 3/10, must try harder.
Saturday, 29 April 2017
Sunday, 23 April 2017
19. Going in Style
First off, apologies for the lack of blogging! If any of you read my original post you may be aware that the purpose of this blog is to record all the films I've seen in the cinema this year; unfortunately we had a break week last week. In the meantime I've become obsessed with an american law drama series 'How to Get Away with Murder', and BBC documentary 'Reported Missing' but that's not what any of you came to read about.
This week has been interesting - we went to see Going in Style, a film about 3 old men deciding to rob a bank. It all came a bit to close to the bone when an hour before the film started I had a call from the bank telling me that someone had cloned my card and emptied my account (it's not all bad as there wasn't much in there to start with), but I still managed to enjoy the film once I'd got over my initial frustration!
The film is actually a remake of a 1979 film of the same name - I wasn't aware of this until after I saw the film. Joe (Michael Caine), Willie (Morgan Freeman) and Albert (Alan Arkin), are all friends who work at the same company. The company gets bought out and pension schemes are scrapped, all at the same time as Joe is caught up in an armed robbery at his own bank. From here, the three men are annoyed at the situation they are left in and feel like it is unjust. Joe suggests robbing a bank, as he witnessed, as the criminals got away with it. Slowly all 3 come round to the idea and hatch a plan.
Along the way, we learn about the men's families, and their other motives for getting the money. We see them attempt robberies as practices along the way, with hilarious consequences. The movie is fun, and the ending is clever and interesting. It is your classic heist movie, with a small twist. If you like The Italian Job, Ocean's 11, Now You See Me, you'll probably enjoy this film. My only gripe here, is that I didn't think it was original enough (well it is a remake but work with me here). The USP of Going in Style is the comedy value; the fact it is 3 pensioners robbing a bank. For me, there weren't enough laugh out loud moments, and the story and plot didn't work hard enough to make this a stand out film. With Now You See Me, the element of magic makes the plot really interesting, Ocean's 11 you have 3 robberies and a whole mob of people and so on.
What I'm trying to say here, is that while Going in Style is no doubt a fun movie, it is nothing revolutionary or dramatically different that makes it special. Of course I enjoyed my self in the cinema, watching Caine, Freeman and Arkin literally having the best fun making this film, but it's not going to win any awards, and it's perhaps a film I'm not going to be itching to see again.
For that reason, I give Going in Style, a 6.5/10. It does what it says on the tin, and it's an easy watch for a lazy day or a hangover day, but it's nothing that I haven't seen before. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are still my heroes though.
This week has been interesting - we went to see Going in Style, a film about 3 old men deciding to rob a bank. It all came a bit to close to the bone when an hour before the film started I had a call from the bank telling me that someone had cloned my card and emptied my account (it's not all bad as there wasn't much in there to start with), but I still managed to enjoy the film once I'd got over my initial frustration!
The film is actually a remake of a 1979 film of the same name - I wasn't aware of this until after I saw the film. Joe (Michael Caine), Willie (Morgan Freeman) and Albert (Alan Arkin), are all friends who work at the same company. The company gets bought out and pension schemes are scrapped, all at the same time as Joe is caught up in an armed robbery at his own bank. From here, the three men are annoyed at the situation they are left in and feel like it is unjust. Joe suggests robbing a bank, as he witnessed, as the criminals got away with it. Slowly all 3 come round to the idea and hatch a plan.
Along the way, we learn about the men's families, and their other motives for getting the money. We see them attempt robberies as practices along the way, with hilarious consequences. The movie is fun, and the ending is clever and interesting. It is your classic heist movie, with a small twist. If you like The Italian Job, Ocean's 11, Now You See Me, you'll probably enjoy this film. My only gripe here, is that I didn't think it was original enough (well it is a remake but work with me here). The USP of Going in Style is the comedy value; the fact it is 3 pensioners robbing a bank. For me, there weren't enough laugh out loud moments, and the story and plot didn't work hard enough to make this a stand out film. With Now You See Me, the element of magic makes the plot really interesting, Ocean's 11 you have 3 robberies and a whole mob of people and so on.
What I'm trying to say here, is that while Going in Style is no doubt a fun movie, it is nothing revolutionary or dramatically different that makes it special. Of course I enjoyed my self in the cinema, watching Caine, Freeman and Arkin literally having the best fun making this film, but it's not going to win any awards, and it's perhaps a film I'm not going to be itching to see again.
For that reason, I give Going in Style, a 6.5/10. It does what it says on the tin, and it's an easy watch for a lazy day or a hangover day, but it's nothing that I haven't seen before. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are still my heroes though.
Sunday, 9 April 2017
18. Free Fire
I saw the trailer for Free Fire a few months ago, and to be honest, I wasn't particularly blown away. I don't get excited by violence or guns or anything like that, and although there were funny bits in the trailer, it didn't seem hilarious. Most of the time it's the funniest bits that go in the trailer, but let me assure you, Free Fire was so much better than I was expecting.
The beginning of the film sees a deal about to go down in a warehouse, but it seems quite suspicious that something else is going on; low and behold, about 10 minutes later we're in the middle of a shootout. As I mentioned, I'm not particularly bothered by violence, but if you've read my review on Hacksaw Ridge, you'll know I find it quite boring. I don't like mindless shooting or attacking. Free Fire is different. There's motive for the gunfire, and there are tactics around it, as well as the humour accompanying the aggression. The rest of the film, and the entire plot is about this shoot out, and without ruining it, it's about working out who's side you're on, and who you're rooting for. There's drug addicts, arms dealers, snipers, middlemen, and god forbid, a woman.
Without any spoilers, that's the entire plot. What I liked about the film was the character development, and connecting with each person, learning about their psychology and trying to understand their motives. The use of humour throughout really added to the effect of this, and it really was 'laugh out loud' funny- something you sometimes struggle to get in a comedy!
In some parts, it was quite gory, so if that's not your thing, you may want to give this film a miss. I'm not all that squeamish, but I did have to cover my eyes at one point. Again, I think the gore wasn't there to shock, or to try and impress the viewer, I thought it worked in line with the plot. Sometimes I think films just include gore for gore's sake.
I thought the casting and acting for Free Fire was great- some great names like Brie Larson and Cillian Murphy, and some lesser know people, like Sam Riley, who played Ian Curtis in Control. I've never heard of Sharlto Copley before, but he was absolutely fantastic, and hilarious as Verne.
To add to all that, it also hit the perfect run time of an hour and a half, so I'm sure you can guess it's a high scorer - 8.5/10. If you fancy going to see a film this week, I'd go with Free Fire!
The beginning of the film sees a deal about to go down in a warehouse, but it seems quite suspicious that something else is going on; low and behold, about 10 minutes later we're in the middle of a shootout. As I mentioned, I'm not particularly bothered by violence, but if you've read my review on Hacksaw Ridge, you'll know I find it quite boring. I don't like mindless shooting or attacking. Free Fire is different. There's motive for the gunfire, and there are tactics around it, as well as the humour accompanying the aggression. The rest of the film, and the entire plot is about this shoot out, and without ruining it, it's about working out who's side you're on, and who you're rooting for. There's drug addicts, arms dealers, snipers, middlemen, and god forbid, a woman.
Without any spoilers, that's the entire plot. What I liked about the film was the character development, and connecting with each person, learning about their psychology and trying to understand their motives. The use of humour throughout really added to the effect of this, and it really was 'laugh out loud' funny- something you sometimes struggle to get in a comedy!
In some parts, it was quite gory, so if that's not your thing, you may want to give this film a miss. I'm not all that squeamish, but I did have to cover my eyes at one point. Again, I think the gore wasn't there to shock, or to try and impress the viewer, I thought it worked in line with the plot. Sometimes I think films just include gore for gore's sake.
I thought the casting and acting for Free Fire was great- some great names like Brie Larson and Cillian Murphy, and some lesser know people, like Sam Riley, who played Ian Curtis in Control. I've never heard of Sharlto Copley before, but he was absolutely fantastic, and hilarious as Verne.
To add to all that, it also hit the perfect run time of an hour and a half, so I'm sure you can guess it's a high scorer - 8.5/10. If you fancy going to see a film this week, I'd go with Free Fire!
Sunday, 2 April 2017
17. Beauty and the Beast
I'm sure we all know by now, Beauty and the Beast is the adaptation of the 1991 Disney animation. Rather cleverly, the trailer for the film is exactly the same as the cartoon, and that really intrigued me. I must be honest now, I wasn't a massive Beauty and the Beast fan as a child - I had a few Disney videos - Cinderella, Jungle Book and Lady and the Tramp, and they would get played on repeat. I used to hammer those videos, so much so that they went fuzzy and the sound went funny. We did get videos from the library, so I have seen Beauty and the Beast before (obviously) but just not ten thousand times. I'm letting you know, as I know that people who were obsessed with the film as kids will love this for the nostalgic factor, but that's not where I'm coming from with my angle on the movie.
I'm sure we all know the story, but it follows Belle (Emma Watson) as she finds her dad (Kevin Kline) imprisoned by a beast in an old castle. She offers to take his place, and becomes held captive herself, surrounded by talking furniture, and slowly falls in love with her incarcerator. Writing down that plot sounds like it's an absolute nightmare to be honest, it sounds like classic Stockholm Syndrome- get her out. She's much better off with the little snake Gaston (Luke Evans) who's obsessed with marrying her. He's a right little creep but at least he doesn't literally capture her and keep her hostage. I'm starting to wonder if this film is really something children should be watching, but I digress...
Without me finding anymore plot holes in a film with an obvious moral of 'beauty is more than skin deep', I'll let you know that I did love some of the songs. 'Be Our Guest' (See My Vest anyone? No?) and 'Tale as Old as Time' are absolute bangers, and really bought the fun musical theatre element, and that nostalgic factor. It was a bit cheesy at times, and the autotune on Watson at the beginning was a bit nuts, but it's Disney, that's what it's meant to be. There were some massive nods to musical theatre and I think the film could translate fantastically to the stage, but I guess it's a bit overdone in pantomime season.
I think Evans was great as Gaston, but I don't think that Watson as Belle was an incredible performance. There was nothing wrong with it, and I really like her as a person, but sometimes I find her hard to identify with in a film. I don't know if it was because her role as Hermione wasn't a million miles away (castles, beasts, bit of a know it all), but I found her a bit stuck up (?) in the character, which I don't remember from the original - I remember more of an outcast.
The other thing that I couldn't get my head round, was the fact that this is a kids film, and it's something that will be great for parents to see with their children; because of the fact that it's something they will have enjoyed themselves as kids, yet it's 2hrs 10mins. I struggled to get through it and I'm 24 not 6. I don't understand how it was so long, as I do remember it being similar to what I had watched as a child, but considering the original is 1hr 24mins, I don't understand where this extra 45 mins came from.
Overall, I enjoyed the songs, I enjoyed the effects and the magic of the story. It's an easy watch (unless you go off on one like me) and it's a fun family film. However, I can only give it a 6.5/10. I come to this conclusion, because if I wanted to watch Beauty and the Beast, I'd watch the original, and second to watching this film, I'd watch a film with a similar concept, and more laughs - SHREK.
I'm sure we all know the story, but it follows Belle (Emma Watson) as she finds her dad (Kevin Kline) imprisoned by a beast in an old castle. She offers to take his place, and becomes held captive herself, surrounded by talking furniture, and slowly falls in love with her incarcerator. Writing down that plot sounds like it's an absolute nightmare to be honest, it sounds like classic Stockholm Syndrome- get her out. She's much better off with the little snake Gaston (Luke Evans) who's obsessed with marrying her. He's a right little creep but at least he doesn't literally capture her and keep her hostage. I'm starting to wonder if this film is really something children should be watching, but I digress...
Without me finding anymore plot holes in a film with an obvious moral of 'beauty is more than skin deep', I'll let you know that I did love some of the songs. 'Be Our Guest' (See My Vest anyone? No?) and 'Tale as Old as Time' are absolute bangers, and really bought the fun musical theatre element, and that nostalgic factor. It was a bit cheesy at times, and the autotune on Watson at the beginning was a bit nuts, but it's Disney, that's what it's meant to be. There were some massive nods to musical theatre and I think the film could translate fantastically to the stage, but I guess it's a bit overdone in pantomime season.
I think Evans was great as Gaston, but I don't think that Watson as Belle was an incredible performance. There was nothing wrong with it, and I really like her as a person, but sometimes I find her hard to identify with in a film. I don't know if it was because her role as Hermione wasn't a million miles away (castles, beasts, bit of a know it all), but I found her a bit stuck up (?) in the character, which I don't remember from the original - I remember more of an outcast.
The other thing that I couldn't get my head round, was the fact that this is a kids film, and it's something that will be great for parents to see with their children; because of the fact that it's something they will have enjoyed themselves as kids, yet it's 2hrs 10mins. I struggled to get through it and I'm 24 not 6. I don't understand how it was so long, as I do remember it being similar to what I had watched as a child, but considering the original is 1hr 24mins, I don't understand where this extra 45 mins came from.
Overall, I enjoyed the songs, I enjoyed the effects and the magic of the story. It's an easy watch (unless you go off on one like me) and it's a fun family film. However, I can only give it a 6.5/10. I come to this conclusion, because if I wanted to watch Beauty and the Beast, I'd watch the original, and second to watching this film, I'd watch a film with a similar concept, and more laughs - SHREK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)