In 2015, we saw Daddy's Home in between Christmas and New Year. There's always that weird bit in between those two days, where some people are at work, some people aren't. You feel strange because just as you've stopped feeling christmassy you are ready for New Year and there is more prep to do, and more excitement to be had. That's if you celebrate either of them, of course, but I love New Year so much. It's when you can spend an evening with your friends, we don't tend to go out as it's so expensive, but we play games and dance until we fall over or are sick. Anyway.
So when we saw Daddy's Home in 2015, it was a filler activity, and actually it was better than anticipated. It's definitely got that laddy humour, and it's definitely silly and daft, but it gave that light relief and is a bit of a feel good film. As much as I prefer tongue in cheek, or political, or 'clever' humour, there is no doubt in my mind that Will Ferrell is an absolute genius. Anchorman is one of my favourite films ever.
So back to our sequel. The adverts and trailers I'd seen reminded me of how much I enjoyed the first film, and I was looking forward to seeing the next chapter. Again, I knew what I was getting myself into, it was going to be silly and light hearted. This time, the story follows Brad (Ferrell) and Dusty's (Mark Wahlberg) Christmas, as their fathers join them. Brad is the stepfather to Dusty's children, but following the original film, the sort their differences and manage to share the care for the children without argument. Brad's father is overbearingly kind and loving, but there is something else going on behind this, and Dusty's dad is cold and cool, not understanding of the 'co-dad' arrangement between Dusty and Brad. Following the arrangement of a Christmas holiday for the entire family, the plot is littered with ridiculous disasters that happen as the fathers work out their differences.
Now whereas with The Disaster Artist I left saying 'that was fantastic', I left Daddy's Home 2 with 'that was ridiculous'. The plot was weak, the whole premise was almost exactly the same as the previous film, and there was nothing overly exciting about it. I did laugh throughout the film, but I can't tell you any of the jokes now. There was nothing memorable. It seemed like a film for a film's sake. All of the most humorous parts were previewed in the trailers. There was nothing new. I have to be honest and say that this is one of the poorer films I have seen this year.
If you like a silly film, and you just want something easy to watch, then it does the job. But why not watch Shrek instead. The marvellous masterpiece that is Shrek. Daddy's Home 2 gets a 4/10 from me.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Sunday, 24 December 2017
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
42. Happy Death Day
I’d seen the advert for Happy Death Day, and was really interested to see how the entire film would pan out. When I say interested, I mean I could instantly tell it was going to be great, or absolutely terrible. Unfortunately, I was completely wrong and it was neither. I guess you can take negatives and positives from that actually.
The film stars Jessica Rothe as Tree, as she wakes up on her birthday and bumbles through her day before a party. As she walks to the party, she gets killed. But in true Ground Hog Day style (like I’ve seen that film), she wakes up, on her birthday, in the exact same situation. As you would, she goes a different way to the party, to avoid the murderer. We soon discover that it doesn’t matter what she does, her murder is about to occur, and it does so in lots of different ways, varying in creativity.
Tree realises that to move on from her birthday, and make it to the next day, she needs to work out who the murderer is, and eliminate them.
I will be honest and say I did jump a mile right at the beginning of the film, but I don’t particularly think that it is an intense film, it’s not overly scary. Some moments of suspense worked well in building tension, but I feel the theme of the film takes away uncertainty. You know she’s going to get murdered, so I feel it takes away some of the surprise and build up.
I also am not sure how easy this film is to ‘guess’ as my good buddy George went ‘it’s them’ right at the beginning, and he was kinda right. There are twists and turns in the film, but I don’t think these are fully committed to. The way the film works is that Tree suspects someone, so goes to destroy them, still gets killed, and then wakes up. There isn’t that intense build up of ‘is it? Isn’t it’ for each suspect, and I think that comes down to the concept of the film. In this manner, it also stops it from being overly scary. I think if you’re not a big scary movie fan, but fancied something a bit spooky over Halloween, it’s definitely something you can handle. Not overly gory, a bit creepy, and a few jumpy bits.
Overall, again this film was pretty average. It did hold my attention the whole way through, and I was interested to see who the murderer was, but it just wasn’t the most exciting, interesting, or innovative film. I like films that make my head hurt a bit as I try to work them out. Happy Death Day gets a 6/10 from me.
The film stars Jessica Rothe as Tree, as she wakes up on her birthday and bumbles through her day before a party. As she walks to the party, she gets killed. But in true Ground Hog Day style (like I’ve seen that film), she wakes up, on her birthday, in the exact same situation. As you would, she goes a different way to the party, to avoid the murderer. We soon discover that it doesn’t matter what she does, her murder is about to occur, and it does so in lots of different ways, varying in creativity.
Tree realises that to move on from her birthday, and make it to the next day, she needs to work out who the murderer is, and eliminate them.
I will be honest and say I did jump a mile right at the beginning of the film, but I don’t particularly think that it is an intense film, it’s not overly scary. Some moments of suspense worked well in building tension, but I feel the theme of the film takes away uncertainty. You know she’s going to get murdered, so I feel it takes away some of the surprise and build up.
I also am not sure how easy this film is to ‘guess’ as my good buddy George went ‘it’s them’ right at the beginning, and he was kinda right. There are twists and turns in the film, but I don’t think these are fully committed to. The way the film works is that Tree suspects someone, so goes to destroy them, still gets killed, and then wakes up. There isn’t that intense build up of ‘is it? Isn’t it’ for each suspect, and I think that comes down to the concept of the film. In this manner, it also stops it from being overly scary. I think if you’re not a big scary movie fan, but fancied something a bit spooky over Halloween, it’s definitely something you can handle. Not overly gory, a bit creepy, and a few jumpy bits.
Overall, again this film was pretty average. It did hold my attention the whole way through, and I was interested to see who the murderer was, but it just wasn’t the most exciting, interesting, or innovative film. I like films that make my head hurt a bit as I try to work them out. Happy Death Day gets a 6/10 from me.
Tuesday, 10 October 2017
39. IT
I’ve never seen the original IT (it came out before 2015 so the chances of me seeing it were very slim), but I am a fan of scary films. I probably won’t go back to the original, as I often find with scary films, they date badly with the moving on of technology. I watched The Exocist, and found it hilarious, and not scary in the slightest, because the effects were so awful and laughable. I wasn’t aware of the storyline for IT, as I’ve never read the book either, but I was excited to see what it was all about. When I’m about to watch a scary film, I get excited all day about it, and as soon as I walk into the cinema I get scared and need to hide under my coat. IT was no exception.
The first thing I liked about this film, was the fact I now fully understand the meme where the woman slides into the grid in the pavement. The film gets full marks for this alone. Meme education AND entertainment.
The tension in the film was built up incredibly well, the suspense made me so scared, and there were several points where I jumped. I enjoy this in a film, where the actual scary part is nowhere near as bad as the build up to it. I did find some of the scary bits laughable, but I don’t think that they distracted from the plot. I found the gore manageable, and not used as shock tactics or overkill. Sometimes I think gore is added to a film for goresake, and then I find it quite distracting and annoying.
I found Pennywise absolutely horrendous, those teeth are just disgusting, and he was so creepy, I thought Bill Skarsgård was great. The acting of both Bill Skarsgård and the children was great, and really portrayed the fear and emotion of the film. I think this really enhanced the plot, and made you understand how Pennywise works and how he can be beaten. I did feel like I was watching a Halloween version of Stranger Things, with Finn Wolfhard as well as the period of time it was set in.
I enjoyed the backstory to the plot, with people going missing in the town in question for a period every so many years. It again paints the picture of the film, giving it narrative, and not just being a horror film for horror’s sake. I guess this may be down to the film being based on a book, written by one of the greatest horror writers. As someone who has never read a Stephen King novel, I may be tempted to now.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film, I think it did the job that it set out to do, and has probably inspired a lot of costumes this Halloween. If you’ve not managed to see the movie yet, I’d urge you to try and catch it at the cinema, so you can get the full creepy experience (or maybe watch it at home, on a dark windy night, and leave the front door open for extra creepy noises).I’d give it an 8.5/10, one of the best horrors I’ve seen in a long while!
The first thing I liked about this film, was the fact I now fully understand the meme where the woman slides into the grid in the pavement. The film gets full marks for this alone. Meme education AND entertainment.
The tension in the film was built up incredibly well, the suspense made me so scared, and there were several points where I jumped. I enjoy this in a film, where the actual scary part is nowhere near as bad as the build up to it. I did find some of the scary bits laughable, but I don’t think that they distracted from the plot. I found the gore manageable, and not used as shock tactics or overkill. Sometimes I think gore is added to a film for goresake, and then I find it quite distracting and annoying.
I found Pennywise absolutely horrendous, those teeth are just disgusting, and he was so creepy, I thought Bill Skarsgård was great. The acting of both Bill Skarsgård and the children was great, and really portrayed the fear and emotion of the film. I think this really enhanced the plot, and made you understand how Pennywise works and how he can be beaten. I did feel like I was watching a Halloween version of Stranger Things, with Finn Wolfhard as well as the period of time it was set in.
I enjoyed the backstory to the plot, with people going missing in the town in question for a period every so many years. It again paints the picture of the film, giving it narrative, and not just being a horror film for horror’s sake. I guess this may be down to the film being based on a book, written by one of the greatest horror writers. As someone who has never read a Stephen King novel, I may be tempted to now.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film, I think it did the job that it set out to do, and has probably inspired a lot of costumes this Halloween. If you’ve not managed to see the movie yet, I’d urge you to try and catch it at the cinema, so you can get the full creepy experience (or maybe watch it at home, on a dark windy night, and leave the front door open for extra creepy noises).I’d give it an 8.5/10, one of the best horrors I’ve seen in a long while!
Thursday, 3 August 2017
31. Dunkirk
I was so excited to see Dunkirk, it's based on a true event, it doesn't surpass the 2hr mark, and the cast is incredible. It didn't disappoint. Last night before we watched the film, I had a little look at the previous 30 titles I've seen this year, and I'm delighted to let you know, this takes the top spot. I know a lot of the big titles often come out around the back end of the year/beginning of next year due to the awards season, but actually, 2017 has given me a lot of bang average films (hit me up with your suggestions of 2017 winners I haven't seen if you fancy.) This movie was captivating, interesting, emotional, full of action. It really was fab. It also has Tom Hardy in it (and my new friend Jack Lowden...).
The film encapsulates the evacuation of Dunkirk (it sounds Scottish but turns out it's in France) from 3 different view points- land, sea and air. On the beach we follow Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) and his mute mate as they try to battle through the troops to grab a spot on a boat nipping back to England. Amongst setbacks and breakthroughs, they find Harry Styles, and we finally discover the real reason why he cut his hair off all those months ago. On water, Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) is giving the Navy a hand by travelling across to Dunkirk on his private boat with his son and son's friend, in order to help bring some troops back. From the skies, we follow Farrier (Hardy) and Collins (Lowden) as they support troops on air attack on the bomb dropping enemies, fighting against limited fuel. To add to the interest of the plot, we follow the story from 3 different time perspectives; a week on land, a day on a boat, and just an hour in the air. These time frames cleverly match up as we reach the climax of the film.
The film also really followed the British way of life, and anytime a soldier had any kind of break or respite, they were offered a brew. 'Don't worry love go down there there's tea!' 'Go down stairs and grab yourself a brew and a blanket'. A sentiment I can wholly get on board with.
As you can see by the fact I am using proper bulky paragraphs, and not twiddly sentences, I was really encapsulated by the plot and it really held my interest, especially as we switched between the 3 plots. The script was very small, with very little dialogue, but it wasn't needed. The story told itself between the fabulous acting, the tension, the music, the sound effects and the cinematography. I could go on. The cast itself is full of well known, credible actors (Rylance, Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy) and some new faces, but the acting was incredible, and the whole thing was casted really well. I thought Styles would be in it for promotion reasons, or just because he's Harry Styles and he can do what he wants. Apparently he was cast out of 1000s of hopefuls and Christopher Nolan had no idea who he was (everyone knows who Harry Styles is???).
To add to that point, everyone had great cheekbones. Really lovely ones. It was a sight to see. I reckon someone in the makeup department must have had an eye out with all those sharp and edgy faces. However, my one disappointment was Tom Hardy. Almost the entire film he spent hiding behind his Bane mask, until the final scenes. What a tease, and what a waste of an excellent face. Spoiler alert but you essentially have to wait until the end of the movie for him to unmask and reveal his chiselled by angels face.
Overall, I very clearly loved the film. Full of non-stop action and emotion, not bulked out with meaningless romance, or sexism, or silly humour. Get yourself to the pictures to watch it, where you can really find yourself in the film, with the loud effects and great quality screen. It's my must watch of the summer!!! My only gripe being that Tom Hardy's face needed to be in it more, it's a 9.5/10 from me. Go and watch as soon as you can.
The film encapsulates the evacuation of Dunkirk (it sounds Scottish but turns out it's in France) from 3 different view points- land, sea and air. On the beach we follow Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) and his mute mate as they try to battle through the troops to grab a spot on a boat nipping back to England. Amongst setbacks and breakthroughs, they find Harry Styles, and we finally discover the real reason why he cut his hair off all those months ago. On water, Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) is giving the Navy a hand by travelling across to Dunkirk on his private boat with his son and son's friend, in order to help bring some troops back. From the skies, we follow Farrier (Hardy) and Collins (Lowden) as they support troops on air attack on the bomb dropping enemies, fighting against limited fuel. To add to the interest of the plot, we follow the story from 3 different time perspectives; a week on land, a day on a boat, and just an hour in the air. These time frames cleverly match up as we reach the climax of the film.
The film also really followed the British way of life, and anytime a soldier had any kind of break or respite, they were offered a brew. 'Don't worry love go down there there's tea!' 'Go down stairs and grab yourself a brew and a blanket'. A sentiment I can wholly get on board with.
As you can see by the fact I am using proper bulky paragraphs, and not twiddly sentences, I was really encapsulated by the plot and it really held my interest, especially as we switched between the 3 plots. The script was very small, with very little dialogue, but it wasn't needed. The story told itself between the fabulous acting, the tension, the music, the sound effects and the cinematography. I could go on. The cast itself is full of well known, credible actors (Rylance, Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy) and some new faces, but the acting was incredible, and the whole thing was casted really well. I thought Styles would be in it for promotion reasons, or just because he's Harry Styles and he can do what he wants. Apparently he was cast out of 1000s of hopefuls and Christopher Nolan had no idea who he was (everyone knows who Harry Styles is???).
To add to that point, everyone had great cheekbones. Really lovely ones. It was a sight to see. I reckon someone in the makeup department must have had an eye out with all those sharp and edgy faces. However, my one disappointment was Tom Hardy. Almost the entire film he spent hiding behind his Bane mask, until the final scenes. What a tease, and what a waste of an excellent face. Spoiler alert but you essentially have to wait until the end of the movie for him to unmask and reveal his chiselled by angels face.
Overall, I very clearly loved the film. Full of non-stop action and emotion, not bulked out with meaningless romance, or sexism, or silly humour. Get yourself to the pictures to watch it, where you can really find yourself in the film, with the loud effects and great quality screen. It's my must watch of the summer!!! My only gripe being that Tom Hardy's face needed to be in it more, it's a 9.5/10 from me. Go and watch as soon as you can.
Saturday, 22 July 2017
29. Transformers: The Last Knight
Transformers is onto it's fifth film - another franchise making this milestone of late (See post 25 for my review of Pirates of the Caribbean 5). I find it difficult to see how directors and producers think that film number 5 is a viable venture, but then I am more than ready for Shrek 5 and I predict it will be a lucrative venture. I'm waffling now.
Anyway, I remember when Transformers came out, and I remember seeing it at the cinema, and loving it. But I never saw any of the film's follow ups, and I've never really been that interested in watching them. I was intrigued to see if I'd enjoy it, or, 10 years on from the original, it wasn't my type of thing anymore. Let's face it, I'm probably not the part of the demographic it's aimed at.
The film starts by giving a history, and taking us back to the Dark Ages, where Transformers answered Merlin's call for help in an epic battle. Merlin was provided with a very powerful staff, which can only be controlled by certain people.
Then we come back to the modern day, where Transformers and humans are at war. Transformers are in hiding, in what seems like an area 51 type get up. Few humans believe that humans should work with, and not against the Transformers, including Cade (Mark Wahlberg) and Izabella (Isabela Moner). They play the part trying to resolve the conflict, but taking the Transformers side, you can probably guess how the plot pans out from here.
Viviane (Laura Haddock) ties the past to the present as a professor of history, who explains the myths and legends of the Dark Ages in her job at a museum, but also dispels them as untrue, and made up. Viviane gets caught up in the war, and soon realises there may be truth behind the myths.
I find the concept for the film quite interesting, and I like the historical element; using fascinating myths and legends and amending them to fit the films reality. I think using a technique like that can make the movie quite immersive.
However, the plot and the story itself complicates itself. There was too much crammed into over 2 hours, when a simpler plot, and 45 minutes less, could have produced a better result. I thought at one point it was coming to the climax, and yet 20 minutes later we were into another big epic scene and there was still more to come.
Because of all these twists and turns, you may think it's exciting, but for me, I found it made it less memorable. What was the big scene? What was the main bit? Because there was so much action, it made me feel like I didn't know which bits were crucial, or which bits were meant to tell a story.
Overall, this is something you could definitely give a miss. 10 years on from the first film, is it still relevant? Did we need a fifth film? I guess if you're a die hard Transformers fan, you'll still like it, and enjoy the historical element, but from anyone else, you're not missing out. I'll give it 4/10, I have seen worse films, but perhaps not that many.
Anyway, I remember when Transformers came out, and I remember seeing it at the cinema, and loving it. But I never saw any of the film's follow ups, and I've never really been that interested in watching them. I was intrigued to see if I'd enjoy it, or, 10 years on from the original, it wasn't my type of thing anymore. Let's face it, I'm probably not the part of the demographic it's aimed at.
The film starts by giving a history, and taking us back to the Dark Ages, where Transformers answered Merlin's call for help in an epic battle. Merlin was provided with a very powerful staff, which can only be controlled by certain people.
Then we come back to the modern day, where Transformers and humans are at war. Transformers are in hiding, in what seems like an area 51 type get up. Few humans believe that humans should work with, and not against the Transformers, including Cade (Mark Wahlberg) and Izabella (Isabela Moner). They play the part trying to resolve the conflict, but taking the Transformers side, you can probably guess how the plot pans out from here.
Viviane (Laura Haddock) ties the past to the present as a professor of history, who explains the myths and legends of the Dark Ages in her job at a museum, but also dispels them as untrue, and made up. Viviane gets caught up in the war, and soon realises there may be truth behind the myths.
I find the concept for the film quite interesting, and I like the historical element; using fascinating myths and legends and amending them to fit the films reality. I think using a technique like that can make the movie quite immersive.
However, the plot and the story itself complicates itself. There was too much crammed into over 2 hours, when a simpler plot, and 45 minutes less, could have produced a better result. I thought at one point it was coming to the climax, and yet 20 minutes later we were into another big epic scene and there was still more to come.
Because of all these twists and turns, you may think it's exciting, but for me, I found it made it less memorable. What was the big scene? What was the main bit? Because there was so much action, it made me feel like I didn't know which bits were crucial, or which bits were meant to tell a story.
Overall, this is something you could definitely give a miss. 10 years on from the first film, is it still relevant? Did we need a fifth film? I guess if you're a die hard Transformers fan, you'll still like it, and enjoy the historical element, but from anyone else, you're not missing out. I'll give it 4/10, I have seen worse films, but perhaps not that many.
Saturday, 15 July 2017
28. Despicable Me 3
It's no secret that I love Despicable Me; a fun cartoon with lovable characters and hilarious Minions. That's right, I fall on the 'love 'em' side of the marmite flavoured annoying yellow creatures. If you don't already know, Despicable Me is centred in a world full of heroes and villains, full of battles to either be the best, or the baddest. The central character in our film is Gru (Steve Carell), and since 2010 (yes, that's 7 years ago, do you feel old?) he has flitted between the baddest baddie, and a hero, served by his adorable Minions (we last saw them in 2015 in their own film).
The antagonist in this film is Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), who previously was a child star, starring in his own show 'Evil Bratt' where he did just that. Upon the TV show's cancellation he took on the character, and is aiming for world domination. Clearly it is up to Gru to sort this out!
We discover that Gru has a twin brother, Dru, who is quite the opposite to Gru- cheery, charming and full of beans. After the initial annoyance, Gru and Dru team up to take on Bratt.
Amongst story lines about catching unicorns, a high speed car chase, and an island full of pigs, Despicable Me 3 holds the attention of the audience, whichever generation they sit in. The thing about these films is that they really work for those of any age, without alienating anyone.
Unfortunately, with 2 other films and a spin off behind it, Despicable Me 3 is not the greatest in the series, and it is more than likely the worst. The plot wasn't the most memorable, but it was rather predictable, and to be honest, there simply wasn't enough Minion action for my liking. The best bit of the film by far was a Minion pretending to be an air hostess, welcoming his peers onto the plane 'Bello, Bello, Bel-lo, Belllllo....' had us in stitches for ages.
If you have kids or nieces or nephews or what have you, I'd definitley consider taking them to watch the film, especially with the holidays coming up. You will end up giggling as well as them, and it is genuinely not a bad film choice. If you are watching it as a true Despicable Me fan, it is still worth a watch, but don't be expecting miracles. I can only give Despicable Me 3 6.5/10 for trying!
The antagonist in this film is Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), who previously was a child star, starring in his own show 'Evil Bratt' where he did just that. Upon the TV show's cancellation he took on the character, and is aiming for world domination. Clearly it is up to Gru to sort this out!
We discover that Gru has a twin brother, Dru, who is quite the opposite to Gru- cheery, charming and full of beans. After the initial annoyance, Gru and Dru team up to take on Bratt.
Amongst story lines about catching unicorns, a high speed car chase, and an island full of pigs, Despicable Me 3 holds the attention of the audience, whichever generation they sit in. The thing about these films is that they really work for those of any age, without alienating anyone.
Unfortunately, with 2 other films and a spin off behind it, Despicable Me 3 is not the greatest in the series, and it is more than likely the worst. The plot wasn't the most memorable, but it was rather predictable, and to be honest, there simply wasn't enough Minion action for my liking. The best bit of the film by far was a Minion pretending to be an air hostess, welcoming his peers onto the plane 'Bello, Bello, Bel-lo, Belllllo....' had us in stitches for ages.
If you have kids or nieces or nephews or what have you, I'd definitley consider taking them to watch the film, especially with the holidays coming up. You will end up giggling as well as them, and it is genuinely not a bad film choice. If you are watching it as a true Despicable Me fan, it is still worth a watch, but don't be expecting miracles. I can only give Despicable Me 3 6.5/10 for trying!
Thursday, 29 June 2017
27. Baby Driver
Baby Driver came out yesterday, and we had the pleasure of seeing it on it's opening night. I hadn't seen much advertising for the film (but I do spend the trailers at the pictures on Buzzfeed wondering what flavour crisps I am, instead of paying attention.) We checked out the rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it had 100% so we were well in. Obviously as the film has only just been released, it's not the biggest achievement to have 100%, but it's still a pretty good indication that the film is going to be a good one.
The starting credits are rolling, and the first scene is really interesting and creative. It's a contemporary dance sequence, where the lyrics are hidden in the scenery of the shot. I thought it was really innovative and new, nothing like anything I have seen before, and it grabbed my attention. From there we are right into a car chase. Again the chase was fast, but interesting, it had action, but also twists and turns in it's plot, not just a car chase.
Baby Driver follows Baby, a getaway driver (duh) for armed robberies and such. Baby (Ansel Elgort) has a passion for music, and uses it to aide him in his driving, a job that a big mistake landed him in, years ago. We follow him as he meets a girl (Lily James) and tries to ditch his life of crime, to no avail.
Baby Driver is sort of a cross between Drive, and Ocean's Eleven. I was worried that it would just be a carbon copy of Drive (I urge you to watch this if you haven't already), but it has it's differences. There's a different backstory, and different characters, as well as Baby's involvement in the heists, and his interaction with others. It also is a humorous film, with real laughs in places. The comedy element was done well, as it enhanced the plot, as opposed to turning it into a slapstick movie. There is also the cleverness of how the jobs are pulled off, or not, similar to Ocean's Eleven. Again, I think it was different enough to make it stand out.
The action scenes in the film were brutal, and violent, but these scenes are included, again, to enhance the plot, and not for the shock factor. I really enjoyed the action, and it definitely wasn't boring. The film is 2hrs long (you know how I feel about this) and yet I wasn't clock watching, I was interested to see what was next. However, I did, last night, have a dream of massacring a load of people and then jumping off a cliff, so I guess if you are of a nervous disposition it could haunt you for weeks!
The soundtrack to the film was also really well done. There were so many classics from so many genres, and it was just really interesting to see how they worked with the film. As a music lover I especially appreciated this. If the soundtrack is released I definitely want it for my car!
Overall, I'm going to give Baby Driver an 8.5/10. I really want to give it a 9, and I really do recommend you going to see it, but I can see a lot of similarities drawn from other films. The first two scenes of the film are by far the most original, and the most interesting and creative, but when we get towards the end, some of the scenes don't match up to this. Don't get me wrong, they are full of action and work well with the plot, but I was just so in awe at the opening titles and how it was so imaginative, I can't help but think that the middle and end can't quite match it. Please go and see it and let me know what you think!
Saturday, 24 June 2017
26. Wonder Woman
I'm so late in uploading this, but I've been super busy and also I have been enjoying the glorious weather we have been experiencing/complaining about. Last week's film was Wonder Woman - another superhero film. I was getting to a point when I was unsure which direction we could go with more superhero films - Dr Strange, Deadpool, the terrible flop that was Batman vs Superman - DC and Marvel just can't stop themselves. However, I really wanted to write this review today to urge you to go and see Wonder Woman if you can - it really is great.
Wonder Woman follows Diana, Princess of the Amazons (Gal Gadot), as she goes through her warrior training, something her mother has prevented her from doing for so long, to protect the tribe and paradise-like island from the imminent return of Ares, God of War. After a dramatic family incident, Diana flees to a cliff edge to do some wistful staring into the distance, and as she does so, World War I spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) enters the realm. He is fleeing the Germans, who realised he was undercover, and Diana saves him, coming across a man for the first time. From here, Diana realises it is her duty to stop the war happening across the world, and to destroy Ares. Much to her mother's dismay, Diana pops across to England, battles in trenches and finds her self right in the centre of the action.
I really enjoyed the film and found it really balanced. There was intense action, the training and battle scenes were exciting and interesting. Lucy Davis was fabulous as Etta, a great comedy character adding another angle to the film. I also really enjoyed the political angle on the film; discussions about war, politics and evil. Is war down to one person? Is evil just one person? Questions about deindividuation. There were many parallels to our own history which I thought added depth to the film. I really do wish it was a badass lass that sorted us all out, and again I think this film worked really well from a feminist point of view.
There were also a few twists and turns, keeping the film interesting, and I think there were surprises and unexpected moments to keep you on your toes. As well as this, the cinematography was great. The island of Themyscira was truly beautiful, and the contrast between the foggy industrial London and the dingy trenches made it enchanting to watch.
Overall, for the first time in quite a few films, I'd really recommend giving this a watch. Exciting, interesting, political, and with a female lead who shows the lads how it's done, you just can't knock it. I'm giving Wonder Woman a solid 8.5/10!
Wonder Woman follows Diana, Princess of the Amazons (Gal Gadot), as she goes through her warrior training, something her mother has prevented her from doing for so long, to protect the tribe and paradise-like island from the imminent return of Ares, God of War. After a dramatic family incident, Diana flees to a cliff edge to do some wistful staring into the distance, and as she does so, World War I spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) enters the realm. He is fleeing the Germans, who realised he was undercover, and Diana saves him, coming across a man for the first time. From here, Diana realises it is her duty to stop the war happening across the world, and to destroy Ares. Much to her mother's dismay, Diana pops across to England, battles in trenches and finds her self right in the centre of the action.
I really enjoyed the film and found it really balanced. There was intense action, the training and battle scenes were exciting and interesting. Lucy Davis was fabulous as Etta, a great comedy character adding another angle to the film. I also really enjoyed the political angle on the film; discussions about war, politics and evil. Is war down to one person? Is evil just one person? Questions about deindividuation. There were many parallels to our own history which I thought added depth to the film. I really do wish it was a badass lass that sorted us all out, and again I think this film worked really well from a feminist point of view.
There were also a few twists and turns, keeping the film interesting, and I think there were surprises and unexpected moments to keep you on your toes. As well as this, the cinematography was great. The island of Themyscira was truly beautiful, and the contrast between the foggy industrial London and the dingy trenches made it enchanting to watch.
Overall, for the first time in quite a few films, I'd really recommend giving this a watch. Exciting, interesting, political, and with a female lead who shows the lads how it's done, you just can't knock it. I'm giving Wonder Woman a solid 8.5/10!
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
24. Baywatch
I was 'lucky' enough to see Baywatch before it was released to the public, not because I'm a big time blogger, but because I am a Cineworld Unlimited member. I think the fact that I've left it until a day after the release to write my review shows it's distinct bland and averageness. I was jumping out of my seat to slate The Belko Experiment, and I couldn't wait to talk about politics and justice and just how great Get Out was. Baywatch? Not so much.
The story follows Mitch (Dwayne 'THE ROCK' Johnson) and his crew of lifeguards as they have trials for new recruits. Matt Brody (Zac Efron) is on board by default, along with Ronnie (Jon Bass, casted for cheap laughs) and Summer (Alexandra Daddario, casted for incredible body, alongside Kelly Rohrbach and Ilfenesh Hadera). Together old timers try to convince the new recruits that being a life guard is not just about swimming and stopping people from drowning, but something bigger. Mitch tries to convince the ensemble that there are drugs plots and plots to take over the beach front, littered with the deaths of important members of the community.
Amongst Johnson and Efron showboating, and many shots sexualising women's bodies, the story comes to a head in a nightclub, with a silly dance off scene and some fish. The plot is wishy washy and not memorable, yet obvious. The jokes are silly and obscene and cheap. The Rock is The Rock, and Zac Efron is just in it to suggest the film is not just for men to ogle at the women. I feel like the film tried to make the script seem like the women were in it for more than just looking great, but the main plot was clearly all about Matt Brody being great. I feel like it tried to not make it sexist whilst making it overtly sexist and it just didn't wash with me. I'm not hating on women looking great, because damn I am jealous, it's the fact that that is all they were casted for. Why can't women look great, be full of brains, save the day, kill the baddie and be the main focus of a 'comedy' like this? Or is that another story all together?
It still doesn't quiet meet the dismal lows of Sausage Party, but it's simply not a great film. If you like The Rock and silly LAD humour and looking at hot women in swimwear then maybe this film is for you, but I left feeling bemused, like I'd lost a few hours and like I need to lose about 40 stone. Not my favourite. 4.5/10, could try harder.
The story follows Mitch (Dwayne 'THE ROCK' Johnson) and his crew of lifeguards as they have trials for new recruits. Matt Brody (Zac Efron) is on board by default, along with Ronnie (Jon Bass, casted for cheap laughs) and Summer (Alexandra Daddario, casted for incredible body, alongside Kelly Rohrbach and Ilfenesh Hadera). Together old timers try to convince the new recruits that being a life guard is not just about swimming and stopping people from drowning, but something bigger. Mitch tries to convince the ensemble that there are drugs plots and plots to take over the beach front, littered with the deaths of important members of the community.
Amongst Johnson and Efron showboating, and many shots sexualising women's bodies, the story comes to a head in a nightclub, with a silly dance off scene and some fish. The plot is wishy washy and not memorable, yet obvious. The jokes are silly and obscene and cheap. The Rock is The Rock, and Zac Efron is just in it to suggest the film is not just for men to ogle at the women. I feel like the film tried to make the script seem like the women were in it for more than just looking great, but the main plot was clearly all about Matt Brody being great. I feel like it tried to not make it sexist whilst making it overtly sexist and it just didn't wash with me. I'm not hating on women looking great, because damn I am jealous, it's the fact that that is all they were casted for. Why can't women look great, be full of brains, save the day, kill the baddie and be the main focus of a 'comedy' like this? Or is that another story all together?
It still doesn't quiet meet the dismal lows of Sausage Party, but it's simply not a great film. If you like The Rock and silly LAD humour and looking at hot women in swimwear then maybe this film is for you, but I left feeling bemused, like I'd lost a few hours and like I need to lose about 40 stone. Not my favourite. 4.5/10, could try harder.
Tuesday, 23 May 2017
23. Alien: Covenant
I've never seen an alien film before. It's clearly not my thing. It's about aliens. It's in space. It's not very realistic. There is potential for lots of mindless gory violence. It's over 2 hours long (2hrs 2mins to be precise).
I was ployed with the promise of Nando's, and to be fair, it wasn't truly awful.
Essentially the film is about a ship of people (and a lovable robot) travelling to a habitable planet to colonise and set up shop, similar to many other space based films I've seen this year. Seriously, where are they all coming from. I said I didn't like space and now space films are all over the show. I can't get rid of them. I'm sure about 20% of all the films I've seen this year are in space.
Anyway.
They come across a planet that's about 7 years closer that they 'must have missed' during research, and decide that will do, and to head for that instead (We all know where this is going). Some members of the crew land on the planet and start to explore, and that's when things start to go wrong. The main ship comes down the the planet to give them a hand (seriously, why did everyone think this was a good idea??) and it all starts kicking off.
Michael Fassbender plays the robot on board the ship, and also the robot from the previous film apparently. Without spoilers, there is a major plot around both his characters. It's all very intense but it comes to a head in a scene where Michael Fassbender 1 is teaching Michael Fassbender 2 how to play the recorder. No idea the relevance, but I couldn't stop laughing. It was true comedy genius, although perhaps not intended. I did wonder at one point that maybe my Tango Ice Blast had been laced with LSD as I really wasn't sure what was going on.
The film was predictable, but I quite liked the ending. It was dark and jumpy and scary, and it did hold my attention throughout the film. I was going in and expecting it to be completely terrible, especially as I assume it's probably about number 40 in the franchise by now. If you like this type of film, if you like the previous films (I assume), then you will enjoy this. There are gruesome bits, and bits where you will jump out of your seat, and I think if you want something that's an easy watch in this sort of genre of film, then it does the trick. Alien: Covenant get's a pretty respectable 7/10 from me.
I was ployed with the promise of Nando's, and to be fair, it wasn't truly awful.
Essentially the film is about a ship of people (and a lovable robot) travelling to a habitable planet to colonise and set up shop, similar to many other space based films I've seen this year. Seriously, where are they all coming from. I said I didn't like space and now space films are all over the show. I can't get rid of them. I'm sure about 20% of all the films I've seen this year are in space.
Anyway.
They come across a planet that's about 7 years closer that they 'must have missed' during research, and decide that will do, and to head for that instead (We all know where this is going). Some members of the crew land on the planet and start to explore, and that's when things start to go wrong. The main ship comes down the the planet to give them a hand (seriously, why did everyone think this was a good idea??) and it all starts kicking off.
Michael Fassbender plays the robot on board the ship, and also the robot from the previous film apparently. Without spoilers, there is a major plot around both his characters. It's all very intense but it comes to a head in a scene where Michael Fassbender 1 is teaching Michael Fassbender 2 how to play the recorder. No idea the relevance, but I couldn't stop laughing. It was true comedy genius, although perhaps not intended. I did wonder at one point that maybe my Tango Ice Blast had been laced with LSD as I really wasn't sure what was going on.
The film was predictable, but I quite liked the ending. It was dark and jumpy and scary, and it did hold my attention throughout the film. I was going in and expecting it to be completely terrible, especially as I assume it's probably about number 40 in the franchise by now. If you like this type of film, if you like the previous films (I assume), then you will enjoy this. There are gruesome bits, and bits where you will jump out of your seat, and I think if you want something that's an easy watch in this sort of genre of film, then it does the trick. Alien: Covenant get's a pretty respectable 7/10 from me.
Saturday, 13 May 2017
22. Mindhorn
When I first saw the trailer for this film, I honestly couldn't contain my excitement - I think if you saw the trailer and had the same opinion, you won't be disappointed. However, I do think that you have to 'get' a certain type of humour/comedy style to enjoy it. I love alternative/surreal comedy, so just the thought of something with Julian Barratt AND Steve Coogan is like my dream. I then also realised Russell Tovey was in the film and I was even more excited.
The plot follows Richard Thorncroft (Barratt), who is a failing actor dreaming of any work bigger than a toothpaste advert. His biggest role was as the title character in 80s detective series 'Mindhorn'. Mindhorn's USP is the fact he can see the truth. Thorncroft's agent sorts him out with a job helping the police - there's a killer on the loose on the Isle of Man (Mindhorn's hometown), and he is proposing he will only speak to Mindhorn, despite him being fictional. Thorncroft travels to the island, meeting old flames and work mates whilst trying to solve the murder and catch the killer.
The film was everything I wanted it to be, it was funny, silly, you could even say there was a plot twist - it was truly great and I couldn't stop laughing. I'd honestly watch it again right now, and very few films I feel like I could watch over and over in close proximity. I know in a lot of my reviews I talk about things like morals and character development and interactions and all that rubbish, but there isn't much to say about this film. It simply does what it says on the tin, and it executes it really well. Barratt is so good at playing the 'uncool' character trying to play it cool - Coogan is great as the rival costar. Thorncroft's old stuntman is played by Simon Faranby (who also co-wrote the screenplay with Barratt) - if you are a Boosh fan you may recognise him- and he is excellent part of an interesting love triangle, throwing hilarious insults in Thorncroft's direction.
Mindhorn really did live up to my expectation, it was laugh out loud funny all the way through and just was such a lighthearted easy watch. It hit my idea film time of 1 hour 30 minutes, was full of great comedians and looked like they must have had a great time filming it. My one criticism would be that it wasn't quite as good as Alan Partridge:Alpha Papa. That may be because we are so familiar with Alan, and he is already a character who we know and love, whereas Thorncroft & Mindhorn are totally new. With that, I urge you to watch both - and I give Mindhorn a solid 9/10! (If you don't like this type of film/comedy though, I feel like you may sit all the way through the film wondering what's going on)
The plot follows Richard Thorncroft (Barratt), who is a failing actor dreaming of any work bigger than a toothpaste advert. His biggest role was as the title character in 80s detective series 'Mindhorn'. Mindhorn's USP is the fact he can see the truth. Thorncroft's agent sorts him out with a job helping the police - there's a killer on the loose on the Isle of Man (Mindhorn's hometown), and he is proposing he will only speak to Mindhorn, despite him being fictional. Thorncroft travels to the island, meeting old flames and work mates whilst trying to solve the murder and catch the killer.
The film was everything I wanted it to be, it was funny, silly, you could even say there was a plot twist - it was truly great and I couldn't stop laughing. I'd honestly watch it again right now, and very few films I feel like I could watch over and over in close proximity. I know in a lot of my reviews I talk about things like morals and character development and interactions and all that rubbish, but there isn't much to say about this film. It simply does what it says on the tin, and it executes it really well. Barratt is so good at playing the 'uncool' character trying to play it cool - Coogan is great as the rival costar. Thorncroft's old stuntman is played by Simon Faranby (who also co-wrote the screenplay with Barratt) - if you are a Boosh fan you may recognise him- and he is excellent part of an interesting love triangle, throwing hilarious insults in Thorncroft's direction.
Mindhorn really did live up to my expectation, it was laugh out loud funny all the way through and just was such a lighthearted easy watch. It hit my idea film time of 1 hour 30 minutes, was full of great comedians and looked like they must have had a great time filming it. My one criticism would be that it wasn't quite as good as Alan Partridge:Alpha Papa. That may be because we are so familiar with Alan, and he is already a character who we know and love, whereas Thorncroft & Mindhorn are totally new. With that, I urge you to watch both - and I give Mindhorn a solid 9/10! (If you don't like this type of film/comedy though, I feel like you may sit all the way through the film wondering what's going on)
Sunday, 7 May 2017
21. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
It will almost certainly not come to you as a surprise that I have not seen the original Guardians of the Galaxy. For fear of boring you, the reasons for this may include: film came out pre 2015, film looks unrealistic, film is set in space. There is a talking space tree for crying out loud. With idea to broaden my horizons, and because I had had reviews from friends telling me 'actually it's alright' I took one for the cinema team, and this was our film this week.
Obviously, reading this review, you have to know I haven't watched the first film, and am just giving my view of this sequel. I have no idea about any of the characters historys. The premise of the film is for this gang of superhero like characters to a) escape from a planet they have just robbed from, and b) it becomes apparent the main story line is to find the true heritage of main character Peter Quill (Chris Pratt).
The plot is simplistic but it is quite fun, and it has a good message (does it really matter who's genes you share?). The adventure is full of laughs and is bright and vivid, easily captivating attention. The group dynamics are interesting, a will-they-won't-they romance, sibling rivalries, and characters that subtlety dislike each other, but come together well as a team. I thought this was interesting and a potential USP in this franchise, as often in films like this, there is a 'good side' and a 'bad side' and less focus on inter-group behaviours and communication (sorry I actually feel like I'm writing a uni essay discussing that, I'll get back to my normal self now).
The soundtrack to this film is really great. I was looking for a new car CD the other week (yes I am 100 years old and still love a good Compact Disc), and was just browsing the new in section of Amazon Music, and there was the Guardians of the Galaxy Soundtrack everywhere! Download, CD, Vinyl, what was all the fuss about?! Now I know. Great tracks from the 70s fit really well with the story and the action in the film, and bring about that sense of nostalgia, and instil that 'feel good' factor into the audience. I feel like I want to buy the CD now but I am definitely not enough of a GotG fan to buy it - what if people ask me questions about the film, god forbid?
For me, the down points of the film are those action sequences that go on and on and on for no reason, when we all know what the outcome is going to be. I do know that this is the part that some people love, but I do often find this boring, as you probably know. I can see how this would really add to the appeal if Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action is your thing. Also, I know I mentioned the plot line before and it's simplicity, and it is a simple premise, but the film I feel tried too hard to make it complex with bits of subplot which I just didn't find memorable - I watched this film on Wednesday; it's Sunday today and there are bits that just don't spring out to me already - I'm scratching my head wondering how they spread out this plotline into 2hrs 16mins.
I think if this is your type of thing, it will tick all the boxes for you, and will be a really enjoyable watch, with quirky characters, laughs and a soundtrack that delivers. If you're on the edge, it's definitely not a terrible film, something worth a watch but not something you would watch again. That said I'm not going to knock this film too much, as with all my bias against this film, I still enjoyed it, it features the lovely Chris Pratt, and has a whole sequence choreographed to Fleetwood Mac's 'The Chain'. My rating for GotG Vol. 2 is 6.5/10
Obviously, reading this review, you have to know I haven't watched the first film, and am just giving my view of this sequel. I have no idea about any of the characters historys. The premise of the film is for this gang of superhero like characters to a) escape from a planet they have just robbed from, and b) it becomes apparent the main story line is to find the true heritage of main character Peter Quill (Chris Pratt).
The plot is simplistic but it is quite fun, and it has a good message (does it really matter who's genes you share?). The adventure is full of laughs and is bright and vivid, easily captivating attention. The group dynamics are interesting, a will-they-won't-they romance, sibling rivalries, and characters that subtlety dislike each other, but come together well as a team. I thought this was interesting and a potential USP in this franchise, as often in films like this, there is a 'good side' and a 'bad side' and less focus on inter-group behaviours and communication (sorry I actually feel like I'm writing a uni essay discussing that, I'll get back to my normal self now).
The soundtrack to this film is really great. I was looking for a new car CD the other week (yes I am 100 years old and still love a good Compact Disc), and was just browsing the new in section of Amazon Music, and there was the Guardians of the Galaxy Soundtrack everywhere! Download, CD, Vinyl, what was all the fuss about?! Now I know. Great tracks from the 70s fit really well with the story and the action in the film, and bring about that sense of nostalgia, and instil that 'feel good' factor into the audience. I feel like I want to buy the CD now but I am definitely not enough of a GotG fan to buy it - what if people ask me questions about the film, god forbid?
For me, the down points of the film are those action sequences that go on and on and on for no reason, when we all know what the outcome is going to be. I do know that this is the part that some people love, but I do often find this boring, as you probably know. I can see how this would really add to the appeal if Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action is your thing. Also, I know I mentioned the plot line before and it's simplicity, and it is a simple premise, but the film I feel tried too hard to make it complex with bits of subplot which I just didn't find memorable - I watched this film on Wednesday; it's Sunday today and there are bits that just don't spring out to me already - I'm scratching my head wondering how they spread out this plotline into 2hrs 16mins.
I think if this is your type of thing, it will tick all the boxes for you, and will be a really enjoyable watch, with quirky characters, laughs and a soundtrack that delivers. If you're on the edge, it's definitely not a terrible film, something worth a watch but not something you would watch again. That said I'm not going to knock this film too much, as with all my bias against this film, I still enjoyed it, it features the lovely Chris Pratt, and has a whole sequence choreographed to Fleetwood Mac's 'The Chain'. My rating for GotG Vol. 2 is 6.5/10
Saturday, 29 April 2017
20. The Belko Experiment
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, 26 March 2017
16. Get Out
I was so so excited to see Get Out. I first saw the trailer before Split and it looked incredible, but I was also happy to see the trailer again, before Fences; an Oscar winning movie. Psychological thrillers and horrors are my thing, but I also was intrigued by the political undertones, and the fact that it had themes around racism in the world today. I also recognised Daniel Kaluuya from back in the day in Skins and Psychoville, and more recently in Black Mirror, so I was really interested to see him in a bigger budget project.
As the lights went down in the cinema, I realised I was getting scared. The opening scene is so very predictable, but the music and way it is filmed is in such a way that 10 seconds in I already had the creeps. Then Childish Gambino's Redbone started playing and I knew that I probably was going to love this film. (As a side note, the audio effects/sound/music throughout the film were great, and really added to the experience of the film. I assume Redbone was chosen for its political undertones, alongside being a boss tune.)
The story follows Chris (Kaluuya) as he meets his white girlfriend Rose's (Allison Williams) parents (Catherine Keener, Bradley Whitford). Chris is worried that Rose's parents won't approve of him as he is black. They travel to a massive creepy mansion, and have a couple of hiccups on the way. Once they arrive, Rose's parents seem pleasant enough, but there is still something odd in the air. Chris meets the family's "staff" Georgina (Betty Gabriel) and Walter (Marcus Henderson), and this is where everything gets even more creepy. Both Georgina and Walter are black. Both Rose, her parents and Georgina and Walter are quick to reassure Chris that they are part of the family, and the fact they work in the house is nothing to do with race.
However, later in the evening, Rose's mother ends up hypnotising Chris, to help him stop smoking. From here things get more intense, and Chris starts to worry something is wrong. The next day there is a party in celebration of Rose's late grandfather's birthday. There is only one other black person amongst realms of white people, and when Chris starts to talk to him, he continues to feel suspicious that something is very wrong.
From here, Chris tries to work out what is going on, with help from his friend at home, Rod (LilRel Howery). The plot thickens and becomes more intense, as more questions are asked and the answers are worse than imaginable. The film is full of political messages, and hidden nods to racism and the culture we live in today.
I found the whole film fabulous. It was funny in parts, scary in parts, jumpy in parts, and it had me gripped. The film without the political theme would have an interesting and exciting plot to start with, but I just thought it was great that there was a message to be shared as well. The most powerful part to me was the fact that the shared pain of characters was what lifted them slightly from their hypnotised state (it'll make sense when you watch it), and looking at what all the white characters represented in contributing to prejudice and discrimination in racism today.
In terms of the film being a horror, Georgina is ridiculously scary, i'm surprised I didn't get nightmares seeing her scurrying around in my house or fixing her hair in the mirror. There is also a bit of gore but I think it was appropriate and added to the effect (sometimes I find gore boring). It was also quite jumpy, which is always fun, and hilarious watching your mate flying out of their seat next to you. As the film was ending, I thought I wasn't going to like the way it tied things up, but actually I thought it was great.
Overall, I really loved Get Out, and I am going to give it a massive 9/10. It was fab and I was still thinking about the messages in it, (and Georgina) for days afterwards. If you like psychological films, horror films, political films, or all three; I reckon you will love it!
As the lights went down in the cinema, I realised I was getting scared. The opening scene is so very predictable, but the music and way it is filmed is in such a way that 10 seconds in I already had the creeps. Then Childish Gambino's Redbone started playing and I knew that I probably was going to love this film. (As a side note, the audio effects/sound/music throughout the film were great, and really added to the experience of the film. I assume Redbone was chosen for its political undertones, alongside being a boss tune.)
The story follows Chris (Kaluuya) as he meets his white girlfriend Rose's (Allison Williams) parents (Catherine Keener, Bradley Whitford). Chris is worried that Rose's parents won't approve of him as he is black. They travel to a massive creepy mansion, and have a couple of hiccups on the way. Once they arrive, Rose's parents seem pleasant enough, but there is still something odd in the air. Chris meets the family's "staff" Georgina (Betty Gabriel) and Walter (Marcus Henderson), and this is where everything gets even more creepy. Both Georgina and Walter are black. Both Rose, her parents and Georgina and Walter are quick to reassure Chris that they are part of the family, and the fact they work in the house is nothing to do with race.
However, later in the evening, Rose's mother ends up hypnotising Chris, to help him stop smoking. From here things get more intense, and Chris starts to worry something is wrong. The next day there is a party in celebration of Rose's late grandfather's birthday. There is only one other black person amongst realms of white people, and when Chris starts to talk to him, he continues to feel suspicious that something is very wrong.
From here, Chris tries to work out what is going on, with help from his friend at home, Rod (LilRel Howery). The plot thickens and becomes more intense, as more questions are asked and the answers are worse than imaginable. The film is full of political messages, and hidden nods to racism and the culture we live in today.
I found the whole film fabulous. It was funny in parts, scary in parts, jumpy in parts, and it had me gripped. The film without the political theme would have an interesting and exciting plot to start with, but I just thought it was great that there was a message to be shared as well. The most powerful part to me was the fact that the shared pain of characters was what lifted them slightly from their hypnotised state (it'll make sense when you watch it), and looking at what all the white characters represented in contributing to prejudice and discrimination in racism today.
In terms of the film being a horror, Georgina is ridiculously scary, i'm surprised I didn't get nightmares seeing her scurrying around in my house or fixing her hair in the mirror. There is also a bit of gore but I think it was appropriate and added to the effect (sometimes I find gore boring). It was also quite jumpy, which is always fun, and hilarious watching your mate flying out of their seat next to you. As the film was ending, I thought I wasn't going to like the way it tied things up, but actually I thought it was great.
Overall, I really loved Get Out, and I am going to give it a massive 9/10. It was fab and I was still thinking about the messages in it, (and Georgina) for days afterwards. If you like psychological films, horror films, political films, or all three; I reckon you will love it!
Tuesday, 14 March 2017
14. Kong: Skull Island
First of all, sorry for my lateness is posting this - I've had a busy week involving me joining my mid-twenties (first thing my mum said to me on the day) and also having my phone robbed in a club - I've spent most of my time since in the O2 shop sorting my life out (they have been great fyi - even made me a brew on one of my trips in store). I've been trying to write a review the day after I've seen a film, but I saw Kong on Thursday night, and it's now half ten on Tuesday, so I feel this review may be different to my previous posts. I've really had time to mull over the film and think about it. In this case, I don't think it's done the film any favours.
As you can probably already guess, I've not seen any other King Kong films (a film pre-2015 and also unrealistic) so this was my first taste of what I like to think would have been Harambe's starring role (sorry I realise Harambe is v 2016, but yes, I do have irritating LAD sense of humour). The story was quick paced, simple, and easy to follow. We had 3D and DBOX (treats) for this film, and I think it worked pretty well. There was enough action, and there were also things like helicopter rides which I think DBOX suited really well.
The story follows some big named actors, as they try to work out if there really is a monster living on Skull Island. The bill includes superstars like Samuel L Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, John C. Reilly and Tom Hiddleston, and if you're a telly fan, there's also Toby Kebbell who starred in a great episode of Black Mirror in 2011 (side note- if you haven't watched Black Mirror yet, get on Netflix). Kong is such a big budget movie, with such a great billing, but unfortunately, I don't think it quite hit the mark.
I don't think the storyline was captivating enough, and I think maybe there were too many characters- you don't learn enough about each of them, and you don't become attached to them either. There wasn't any interesting friendships or relationships, and even rivalries that occur from a split in the group don't leave you particularly excited or attached to any of the characters. When I saw John C. Reilly was cast in the film, I thought he would be hilarious, but I think his script fell a little short of the mark.
I did quite enjoy the cinematography, and enjoyed the way the monsters on the island were created. I found it imaginative, and interesting, and I was intrigued to see which giant animal we would see next. Again, I think this worked really well with the DBOX, and I did think it made the film fun. There is no doubt that the film is an easy watch, and I did find parts playful and exciting, but as a whole, there are much better options out there - Jurassic World, for example.
When I initially left the cinema I gave the film a 7/10. It was pretty inoffensive, has a great cast list, but it's nothing to shout home about. After having time to think more about it, I think I can only give it 6.5/10. The plot isn't very memorable, and it's not been something that's made me think about anything differently, and it's not played on my mind during the week. As you probably know, I do like a film with a good message, or that gives me something to mull over, and this isn't that.
As you can probably already guess, I've not seen any other King Kong films (a film pre-2015 and also unrealistic) so this was my first taste of what I like to think would have been Harambe's starring role (sorry I realise Harambe is v 2016, but yes, I do have irritating LAD sense of humour). The story was quick paced, simple, and easy to follow. We had 3D and DBOX (treats) for this film, and I think it worked pretty well. There was enough action, and there were also things like helicopter rides which I think DBOX suited really well.
The story follows some big named actors, as they try to work out if there really is a monster living on Skull Island. The bill includes superstars like Samuel L Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, John C. Reilly and Tom Hiddleston, and if you're a telly fan, there's also Toby Kebbell who starred in a great episode of Black Mirror in 2011 (side note- if you haven't watched Black Mirror yet, get on Netflix). Kong is such a big budget movie, with such a great billing, but unfortunately, I don't think it quite hit the mark.
I don't think the storyline was captivating enough, and I think maybe there were too many characters- you don't learn enough about each of them, and you don't become attached to them either. There wasn't any interesting friendships or relationships, and even rivalries that occur from a split in the group don't leave you particularly excited or attached to any of the characters. When I saw John C. Reilly was cast in the film, I thought he would be hilarious, but I think his script fell a little short of the mark.
I did quite enjoy the cinematography, and enjoyed the way the monsters on the island were created. I found it imaginative, and interesting, and I was intrigued to see which giant animal we would see next. Again, I think this worked really well with the DBOX, and I did think it made the film fun. There is no doubt that the film is an easy watch, and I did find parts playful and exciting, but as a whole, there are much better options out there - Jurassic World, for example.
When I initially left the cinema I gave the film a 7/10. It was pretty inoffensive, has a great cast list, but it's nothing to shout home about. After having time to think more about it, I think I can only give it 6.5/10. The plot isn't very memorable, and it's not been something that's made me think about anything differently, and it's not played on my mind during the week. As you probably know, I do like a film with a good message, or that gives me something to mull over, and this isn't that.
Saturday, 4 March 2017
13. Fences
I went into Fences feeling like I was going to love it. I knew Viola Davis had won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and had heard good things.
Fences follows the story of Troy (Denzel Washington) as he raises his perhaps unconventional family in the fifties. He dreamed of being a baseball player, but was told he was too old by the time People of Colour were able to play professionally. At the beginning of our story, he's working as a refuse collector, aspiring to become the driver.
The story is based around the interactions of Troy with his wife Rose (Viola Davis), friend Bono (Stephen Henderson) and children (Jovan Adepo & Russell Hornsby). As much as I like a thriller, or a psychological film, I'm also partial to a film with less action, and more character development. Watching this film was interesting, as actually I really started to detest Washington's character, and felt real empathy for Rose.
There's no doubt that Viola Davis deserved an Oscar for her performance in Fences, she truly was fabulous, and you really felt and understood how the emotions her character was feeling. Her speech, shown in the trailer, is incredible, and you really start to feel how it must be, to be in her shoes. I think Denzel Washington did a great job as Troy as well, we learn about Troy's nasty side, and as I mentioned before, I really started to dislike him, but you still can have see how the past, and how being discriminated against, has affected his behaviour.
Somehow, the plot doesn't quite do it for me. Despite the brilliant acting performances throughout, I wasn't quite as hooked or emotionally invested in this film as I wanted to be. The film is long and has a slow pace, and sometimes is not so good at explaining things. Without ruining the film, there were a couple of places where I thought I was following the dialogue but then felt I had to guess an event that had happened, or work out what was trying to be said. I feel like the film could be improved perhaps, by using flashbacks or something similar, to help really get into the mind of Troy, and to help us see the real story.
Overall, I wasn't as impressed with this film as I thought I was going to be. The talents of the actors involved is there for us all to see, but I think the film could have given more in terms of the plot, and I think it could also have asked more questions. I didn't come out of the film feeling inspired, or shocked, and I didn't even cry, which as you may have seen, is often a theme of a good film in my book. I'd give Fences a 7/10, a slow moving and long film, redeemed by the acting skill.
Fences follows the story of Troy (Denzel Washington) as he raises his perhaps unconventional family in the fifties. He dreamed of being a baseball player, but was told he was too old by the time People of Colour were able to play professionally. At the beginning of our story, he's working as a refuse collector, aspiring to become the driver.
The story is based around the interactions of Troy with his wife Rose (Viola Davis), friend Bono (Stephen Henderson) and children (Jovan Adepo & Russell Hornsby). As much as I like a thriller, or a psychological film, I'm also partial to a film with less action, and more character development. Watching this film was interesting, as actually I really started to detest Washington's character, and felt real empathy for Rose.
There's no doubt that Viola Davis deserved an Oscar for her performance in Fences, she truly was fabulous, and you really felt and understood how the emotions her character was feeling. Her speech, shown in the trailer, is incredible, and you really start to feel how it must be, to be in her shoes. I think Denzel Washington did a great job as Troy as well, we learn about Troy's nasty side, and as I mentioned before, I really started to dislike him, but you still can have see how the past, and how being discriminated against, has affected his behaviour.
Somehow, the plot doesn't quite do it for me. Despite the brilliant acting performances throughout, I wasn't quite as hooked or emotionally invested in this film as I wanted to be. The film is long and has a slow pace, and sometimes is not so good at explaining things. Without ruining the film, there were a couple of places where I thought I was following the dialogue but then felt I had to guess an event that had happened, or work out what was trying to be said. I feel like the film could be improved perhaps, by using flashbacks or something similar, to help really get into the mind of Troy, and to help us see the real story.
Overall, I wasn't as impressed with this film as I thought I was going to be. The talents of the actors involved is there for us all to see, but I think the film could have given more in terms of the plot, and I think it could also have asked more questions. I didn't come out of the film feeling inspired, or shocked, and I didn't even cry, which as you may have seen, is often a theme of a good film in my book. I'd give Fences a 7/10, a slow moving and long film, redeemed by the acting skill.
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
12. A Cure for Wellness
When I first saw the trailer for A Cure for Wellness I was excited. It seemed like a modern film with an interesting concept, and you may know by now that I love anything psychological, and I also enjoy a horror/thriller type movie; something exciting and progressive.
From the title and the trailer, I was expecting the film to ask some interesting questions. Part of the trailer starts to question what is 'being well'. In one part of the film (don't worry not a spoiler) a character asks another 'you say you're well but what is well, when was the last time you had 8 hours uninterrupted sleep?'. I think this is a really interesting point. What is well? What is 'normal'? A lot of the time the perfect life we strive for may be unattainable. I feel like I am well, but I will always feel anxious about some things, I will always have body parts that I am unhappy with, I will always be hurt by some comments, and I will never have a regular 8 hour sleep. But does that make me unwell?
That is the question I wanted this film to use as a discussion point.
It did not.
The film is set in the heart of the Swiss Alps, in an old building that is now being used as a hospital, helping people become well via some rather abstract treatments, also including some lovely looking sauna/steam room pods, lying in a giant vat of water, and playing crochet. Our main character Lockhart (Dane DeHaan), is sent to this wellness retreat to bring back his boss Pembroke (Harry Groener), to sign something off for some big business merger or something like that. Upon entering the institute, Lockhart is told no one ever leaves (why would you?) and that's when all this creepy nonsense kicks off. Jason Isaacs plays Volmer, the main doctor in charge of treatment, and we also meet Hannah (Mia Goth), Volmer's special patient, who is much younger than the rest of the clientele.
From here we come face to face with nightmares like losing teeth, walking around with no shoes on, getting your period in a weird place, eels, and incest amongst other things. There is so much packed in, that I started to think it just got a bit overwhelming and boring, it felt like things were added to the plot for the sake of it. Sometimes simplicity is key. With all these bizarre plot lines, weird irrelevant questions start being asked, and sometimes the answer isn't satisfactory or ever given. For example, at one point in the film there are lots of shots of this Mac lipstick - I thought it was something to do with the plot but I'm not so sure now. I was trying to work out the shade (I think it's Russian Red FYI), but why was it in the film? Has Mac done an advertising deal with them? We'll never know. If this plot line was addressed, I apologise, but the whole thing was so dragged out and long, and the ending so wild that it's easy to miss.
As a side note I think it was quite sexualised in a weird way too, even in scenes where men and women were naked suspended in water (see: poster), all the lads have got pants on and the lasses are starkers - I feel like nudity was just added in so they could call it an 18 and it may sell more tickets.
I feel like I've been chatting for ages now.
The film was interesting in parts, and the main plot line was quite captivating. I didn't find it particularly scary, or jumpy, and when I left, the person behind me said 'I'm not sure what to make of it', and that's how I felt. I did make it through all 2hrs 26 mins, which means it can't of been completely boring, but I'd give it 5/10 at a stretch. I have seen worst films but I can think of lots more things I can do with 2.5 hours.
From the title and the trailer, I was expecting the film to ask some interesting questions. Part of the trailer starts to question what is 'being well'. In one part of the film (don't worry not a spoiler) a character asks another 'you say you're well but what is well, when was the last time you had 8 hours uninterrupted sleep?'. I think this is a really interesting point. What is well? What is 'normal'? A lot of the time the perfect life we strive for may be unattainable. I feel like I am well, but I will always feel anxious about some things, I will always have body parts that I am unhappy with, I will always be hurt by some comments, and I will never have a regular 8 hour sleep. But does that make me unwell?
That is the question I wanted this film to use as a discussion point.
It did not.
The film is set in the heart of the Swiss Alps, in an old building that is now being used as a hospital, helping people become well via some rather abstract treatments, also including some lovely looking sauna/steam room pods, lying in a giant vat of water, and playing crochet. Our main character Lockhart (Dane DeHaan), is sent to this wellness retreat to bring back his boss Pembroke (Harry Groener), to sign something off for some big business merger or something like that. Upon entering the institute, Lockhart is told no one ever leaves (why would you?) and that's when all this creepy nonsense kicks off. Jason Isaacs plays Volmer, the main doctor in charge of treatment, and we also meet Hannah (Mia Goth), Volmer's special patient, who is much younger than the rest of the clientele.
From here we come face to face with nightmares like losing teeth, walking around with no shoes on, getting your period in a weird place, eels, and incest amongst other things. There is so much packed in, that I started to think it just got a bit overwhelming and boring, it felt like things were added to the plot for the sake of it. Sometimes simplicity is key. With all these bizarre plot lines, weird irrelevant questions start being asked, and sometimes the answer isn't satisfactory or ever given. For example, at one point in the film there are lots of shots of this Mac lipstick - I thought it was something to do with the plot but I'm not so sure now. I was trying to work out the shade (I think it's Russian Red FYI), but why was it in the film? Has Mac done an advertising deal with them? We'll never know. If this plot line was addressed, I apologise, but the whole thing was so dragged out and long, and the ending so wild that it's easy to miss.
As a side note I think it was quite sexualised in a weird way too, even in scenes where men and women were naked suspended in water (see: poster), all the lads have got pants on and the lasses are starkers - I feel like nudity was just added in so they could call it an 18 and it may sell more tickets.
I feel like I've been chatting for ages now.
The film was interesting in parts, and the main plot line was quite captivating. I didn't find it particularly scary, or jumpy, and when I left, the person behind me said 'I'm not sure what to make of it', and that's how I felt. I did make it through all 2hrs 26 mins, which means it can't of been completely boring, but I'd give it 5/10 at a stretch. I have seen worst films but I can think of lots more things I can do with 2.5 hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)