Over the years many characters from TV and radio shows have made the leap to the big screen. Not all have been successful but then there is Alan Partridge.
While I am a big fan of Steve Coogan, I must admit that I have not seen very much of one of his most famous characters Alan Partridge. I have seen some clips and episodes of his TV series but for some reason I have not had a very devoted following. But I still really wanted to see this film. I must say I was really impressed with what I saw. Some characters from TV shows have trouble being on the big screen because they still have many of the qualities from the small screen which just don't work on a big one. Thankfully Alan Partridge is a big enough character for the cinema screen. Normally egocentric characters like this do not interest me but Alan is just so incredibly funny and comes out with so many witty one-liners that I was instantly charmed by him. Also part of the problem can be the plot. A hostage situation at a radio station does not automatically come across as big screen material but in the hand of this team of writers it is comedy gold. It was about 8 years ago that I stopped listening to the radio. Before that I would only listen to a comedy show by a comedian I admire named Tony Martin. One of the joys of his show was his constant battles with management over his shows content. Not so much the humour but the fact that they wanted more music and less talk. So when some of these issues came up in this film I was some what amused by the satire but also saddened to see that nothing seems to have changed. Music also plays a big part in the film and to great comedic effect. Aussies will be pleased to see 'Your The Voice' by John Farnham used brilliantly in one hilarious sequence.
I probably do not need to tell you how great Steve Coogan is in this film. The man has such impeccable comedic timing that just about everything he says is hilarious. Even some of the more cruder jokes and situations are handled brilliantly. Alan is a character which Steve has been playing for so long that he has refined him to perfection. Also excellent is Colm Meany as the hostage taker. While Colm is mostly the straight man to Steve's more outrageous antics he still gets some very funny moments. The biggest delight though is Felicity Montagu as Alan's assistant. Alan may not treat her very well but you can't help but laugh at her.
You do not have to be familiar or even know who Alan Partidge is to get a good laugh out of this film. Just pure joy from start to finish.
**SPOILER ALERT** The new Star Trek film featured the return of one of the series most beloved villains. I decided to check out where that love came from.
While I am a big Star Trek fan, I did not become a fan until they started screening The Next Generation series. So I was not overly familiar with the Original series. I eventually did see a few episodes and all the films. I may get criticism for this but I did not enjoy them as much as The Next Generation.
The most successful of the Star Trek film series and widely considered to be the best is the fourth film 'The Voyage Home'. But a close second is the second film 'The Wrath Of Khan'. I think part of the reason for it's acclaim is that they had a great villain in Khan to give the story focus and drive. The first film 'The Motion Picture', was more existential and more like '2001: A Space Odyssey'. While successful it was not all that highly regarded. I think they went with a wise option of having a villain to give the story more action. As someone who is not much of a fan of this series I did quite like the film. It may not have as much action as some of its contemporaries (like 'Star Wars) but it still has a thrilling story with an interesting and philosophical theme.
William Shatner is probably not the greatest actor around but he has become so immortalized with the character of Captain James T. Kirk that it was hard to see anyone else play the role. The plot for this film has a more personal touch for Kirk so Shatner gets to show a more emotional side of which he does an excellent job. Also excellent is his second in command and side kick Leonard Nemoy as Spock. The moment they have at the end of the film perfectly captures the emotion of their relationship and both men are brilliant. The rest of the Enterprise crew do a good job in their small but serviceable roles. Bibi Besch and Merrit Butrick are also good as people close to Kirk. The real star though is the always impressive Ricardo Montalban. His character does come across as a bit theatrical but Ricardo makes him very fearsome and very memorable.
I agree that it is one of the best of the Original series feature films. I'm still a fan of later series and movies and these films always look more impressive on the big screen.
Not all films based on comic books are about comic book action heroes. We can get more realistic stories.
While there is a certain amount of realism to the story in that there are no fantasy elements. The plot for the film is pretty outrageous. And that is a good thing. There are certain conventions the film observes but it is done in a very light hearted way which borders on the silly at times. But that's a good thing. The film is really a lot of fun and does not seem to be taking itself too seriously. Many action films these days seem determined to be so serious and earnest that they forget to let themselves go and just have fun.
Mark Wahlberg is playing pretty much the same character he does in all his films which is the loveable rogue. Some may find this a bit tedious but I haven't got there yet and found him to be fun. The best thing about the film is Denzel Washington. I've not been one of his biggest fans and part of the reason for that is that he plays lots of serious roles. While this is not the outrageous comedy I was hoping for it is more light hearted than many of his other films. Together they make quite a good duo.
It's no where near the greatest film ever but is quite an enjoyable action film.
Director Ron Howard has made some excellent films based on real life stories. So he was the best choice to make this film about Formulae 1 race car drivers.
For those who know me will know that I am not a sporty person. Yet I do enjoy sporting movies. The way movies are made and the film making techniques used, to me make sport far more exciting than actually watching the game in real life. That is very much the case with race car driving. I've never understood the interest in watching these races live. I once heard someone describe them jokingly as not a race but a parade. Only certain cars will make it to the front of the pack and they will stay there for the whole race. Plus watching it live means you do not get to see the whole lap but only one small section.
Surprisingly for a film about two race car drivers I got the impression that the film was less focused on this aspect of the story. The actual races seemed to be glossed over and only certain aspects were highlighted. Quite rightly the focus of the story is the rivalry between these two very different men. It is a fascinating look at how two men can have varying views on the same thing. James Hunt's skill was driving a car where as Niki Lauda was more focused on the car itself. It makes you think that if they were not rival and had perhaps teamed up then they would have been a more formidable team. This rivalry is what makes the film great for me. You get the sense that while they were rivals on the race track that they still had a deep respect for each other. Peter Morgan's script does a good job of highlighting these differences and similarities. But it still does sink into cliché sometimes which seems to be what all sporting films tend to do. Ron Howard also brings his skill as a director to the racing scenes and makes them quite thrilling.
I admire Chris Hemsworth for making films like this to prove he is more than just a hunky action hero. While this type of character is probably not that much of a stretch for him he does manage to bring more complexity to his character than you might expect. He also works well with his partner in the rivalry Daniel Bruhl. Daniel got the more interesting character and does a brilliant job with it. The way Niki uses James as a way to drive him in his driving is interesting, especially when Niki was injured. The rest of the cast are merely hangers on to the central story of this rivalry. Olivia Wilde is lumbered with a character who is merely a minor plot point and she does not do anything interesting with the character except look good. As Niki's love interest Alexandra Maria Lara gets a more interesting character to work with and so Alexandra gives an excellent performance.
Even if you are not a sports fan there is still a lot to like about this film. An entertaining look at a fascinating rivalry.
I think we have all worked out what Rachel McAdams likes in her men. The ability to time travel. Be it unconsciously or unconsciously.
Writer Richard Curtis is one of my all time favourite writers. I first fell in love with his work when I saw the TV series 'Blackadder'. For me that is not only of the funniest TV series ever written but one of the most perfectly written TV series ever made. He then went on to write some of the best romantic comedies ever seen with one 'Notting Hill' being one of my all time favourite. He did however become less than perfect when he made the film 'Rock The Boat'. He is on safer territory here with a move back to safer ground in the romantic comedy arena. While the film does deal with a romance the love story is not just about a man and a girl but a relationship between a man and his father.
Time travel is one of those plot devises which is prone to disaster. You need to be a really skilled writer to write a completely flawless story involving time travel. Sadly as skilled as Richard is he has not been completely successful. For me the problem is that he has taken the easy route with using the time travel element. There is not enough jeopardy in the story to make it very interesting considering the time travelling. I expected with this type of plot to have our hero go through some more difficult hurdles. Despite that the film has a great deal of charm and sweetness. There is lots of trademark Richard Curtis wit but maybe not as much as I'd have liked.
You may not be familiar with lead actor Domhnall Gleeson but he makes a very charming hero of the story. He has great comedic timing and you can't help but car about him. Rachel McAdams is her usually delightful self. While her character is what drives the story she does not have an awful lot to do. Bill Nighy gives his normally brilliant performance. He lights up the screen each time he is on. Also providing much of the film's humour is Tom Hollander.
It misses the cutting edge elements you would expect from a film about time travel but is still very delightful and charming.
She was one of the most beloved women of all time. We have had a film about how people reacted to her death and now get a film about her life.
Much like Steve Jobs, Princess Diana was a much beloved and respected person who have had films made about their lives. And like Steve, Diana's film is a lackluster effort which fails to capture the greatness of the person they are trying to honour. The plot for this film while interesting in a way that we get to find out about an aspect of Diana's life we may not already know about. On another level it is not told in an interesting way as it feels like every other story we've heard about a famous person falling in love with a not famous person. There is no freshness to the story and so does not reach the heights of greatness you would expect of someone so highly regarded. I like to consider myself a very romantic person and I'm a fan of love stories but I think I'm beginning to become a bit more discerning about how they are told.
Naomi Watts is an excellent actress but she has been unable to bring the majesty of Diana to the big screen. Part of the problem for my feelings that this is an average film is Naomi's performance. I did not get any sense from her of why people loved Diana so much. I think she lacked the presence of the character she was playing. One other thing I found odd was that in scenes which were recreations of public footage, like TV interviews, Naomi very closely mimics Diana's voice. However for the rest of the film she does not try to mimic her. Obviously Naomi has watched these scenes extensively as research and perhaps unconsciously began to imitate those scenes. I found it rather amusing. We have not seen Naveen Andrews in film for a while so it was nice to see him back. He does a decent job here but I found his character a bit dull and not sure exactly why Diana falls for him.
I expected more from a film about someone to great. For someone who evoked so much love, this film manages to destroy it.
One of my all time favourite documentaries is 'Super Size Me'. I felt I should check out his latest film. Honestly that is the reason I saw this.
I think it was very delusional of me to think that this film would be nothing more than a fan film for the massive hordes of One Direction fans. I did though have some tiny hope that with the Morgan Sporlock directing it that it might be a bit different to the run of the mill fan films you see about famous music artists. That was one of the many things that surprised me about this film. Why do you hire someone like Morgan, who has a slightly anarchic quality, to make such a generic film. My hope was that we might at least get some of that anarchic behavior which Morgan is famous for. Which brings me to my second problem with the film. The group mention several times that they are trying to not come across as a typical boy band and I get the impression that this is the reason they hired Morgan but it has not worked. For all their efforts to make them not seem like a boy band they come across as like every other boy band we have seen. Their songs are just like every other boy band and so are the boys themselves. The one interesting thing is trying to guess which one is gay. Which brings me to another problem with the film and that is the fans. I don't think I saw one male fan in the entire film when they showed crowd shots. They were always teenage girls. Is it possible that the only male fans they have are gay boys? Are the managers that control the boys so afraid of showing those male fans, that it might imply the boys are gay too? And in therefore loose their female fans because they no longer desirable. That would have been the one thing to make the film dramatically more enjoyable.
Definitely only for those who are die hard fans of the band One Direction. Not even those with a passing interest would be interested.
Films come along that receive lots of critical acclaim and you often wonder if it is warranted. In the case of this film it is.
The Script: I'm sure that the script for this film will be extensively studied at films schools all over the world as an example of the perfect script. The way it sets up the characters and then establishes an incident for them to over come then continually ramps up the action at each turn to make that a hard thing to achieve. The simplicity of the films plot and characters is one of the many elements that makes it so great. But writers Alfonso Cuaron and Jonas Cuaron have taken this simple idea and made one of the most exciting and thrilling films I think I have ever seen. I was continually amazed at how they were able to create so many disasters for our astronautts to go through. I'm quite sure they did extensive research on what being in space would be like and the film feels very authentic. Although a few experts have come forward to say that certain aspects could not happen. But that does not detract from your enjoyment.
Cinematography: This would have to be one of the most beautiful looking films I have ever seen. I saw it in IMAX so that added to the films beauty. Seeing the massive screen filled with images of earth from space, completely took my breath away. I think there needs to be a rule that only certain directors are allowed to use 3D when making films and Alfonso is one. He does not use the 3D as a gimmick but rather a way for us as the audience to become fully amerced in the environment of outer space that our characters inhabit. You definitely feel like you are truly there with these characters. Well worth paying the extra money to experience it in 3D.
Direction: All these great elements are brought together by one of the greatest directors working today, Alfonso Cuaron. The artistic majesty he brings to this film is nothing short of amazing. We take for granted things like 3D and special effects in films because we see them used so often and sometimes not very well. Then along comes an accomplished director like Alfonso who takes them to a whole new level of mastery. I loved the way he keeps the audience tense throughout the entire film. There are only a few moments for brevity before we are right back on the edge of our seats. Part of the reason he keeps that tension so high is because the film has a short duration. Many film makers seem to think that they need to take time to tell stories when really they don't and Alfonso knows that brevity is important when it comes to thrillers.
Performances: I lost interest in Sandra Bullock after 'The Blind Side'. A film which I think was over hyped and not one which I think she deserved all that acclaim for. She gave a decent performance in 'The Heat' recently but was largely overshadowed by Melissa McCarthy. But she is pretty much on her own for most of this film and carries it all so incredibly well. If she ever deserves an Oscar it is for this film. I suppose it is because of their heroic job that we hold astronauts in such high regard. Sandra does many heroic things in this film but she establishes her character as a very ordinary person. This makes her relatable to the audience and so we feel for her each time something goes wrong. George Clooney has a small but pivotal role. He is essentially playing himself and does not bring that much more to the role than he does in many of the other films he has been in. I did quite like the casting of the voice for mission control too.
I cannot encourage you enough to see this film. It is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen. And the bigger the better. Also see it in 3D too so you experience the film as it was meant to be seen.
The arrival of a film by Pedro Almodovar is a big event that should be celebrated. Such is the greatness of this acclaimed film maker.
While I am a big fan of Almodovar, I am willing to admit that this is not one of his best films. Most of his films are usually pretty serious and dramatic but this time he has made a very light comedy. When I say light I am talking very light. There is not a lot of deep meaning in the film which is what you normally find in his movies. The plot is very simple and not unlike that of one of the greatest comedies of all time 'Airplane' (aka 'Flying High'). While there are a few implausibilities it does not detract from the enjoyment. Almodovar's films usually have gay characters and this film is no exception but it does make the film very camp. Despite that the film is largely a lot of fun and quite funny.
As our three central characters, Carlos Areces, Javier Camara and Raul Arevalo are excellent and make a great comedy team. They provide many of the film's funniest moments. Lola Duenas is an Almodovar regular and is very good as the shy passenger. That changes when she breaks out of her shell and is featured in a scene which we don't normally see in film which is a woman raping a man.
This is a very short review but the film it's about is very slight. Perhaps more for the die hard Almodovar fans, but still quite enjoyable for those who are not.
Usually in films we see relationships between older men and younger women. But back in the early 1970's we had one that was the other way around.
This is another one of those films that I had heard of from its reputation but never actually seen. So I was pleased to get the chance to see it on the big screen. Being a black comedy it appealed to me quite a lot. I cannot imagine one of the major film studios making his film today. The morbid nature of Harold would not survive the focus groups or marketing people. The film opens with Harold trying to kill himself so that would not be the best way to start a film. The plot is the fairly typical one of a young rich kid who feels underappreciated by his parents (in this case a mother) and so lashes out. Most of the humour in the film is derived by Harold's mother and the way she responds to Harold's various suicide attempts. They are especially funny when he attempts them while she is trying to set him up with women. My favourite was when he set himself on fire. In amongst all these funny suicide attempts Harold begins a very sweet relationship with a much older woman. At first it seems to be just a friendly relationship but then develops into something more. Director Hal Ashby manages to make the relationship feel natural and not sleazy like you would expect some film makers to do.
As Harold Bud Cort is excellent. His performance is very subtle and not over stated. He really brings out the melancholy nature of Harold. His body language and facial expressions also make him more expressive. I mostly know Ruth Gordon from the Clint Eastwood films 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Any Which Way You Can'. I was not familiar with many of her other films so was pleased to see her performance here. Ruth definitely gives older people a good name, even if she is doing some bad things. Her zest for life makes the film very enjoyable. Also enjoyable in a humorous way is Vivian Pickles as Harold's mother. As mentioned above her scenes provide most of the films humour and she is very funny in her apathetic view to Harold's suicide attempts. The film's other funniest performance comes from Charles Tyner as Harold's uncle. While he does play the character over the top and a bit clichéd he is still very funny.
Just your old fashioned unconventional romantic comedy. A wonderful black comedy about a relationship we don't see much of in cinema.
Director Giuseppe Tornatore came to prominence for making 'Cinema Paradiso'. While he has not had the same success he still makes quality films.
Ever since watching this film I have had trouble trying to work out how to describe my reaction to it. The film is well made and it has an intriguing story which keeps you interested in where it is going but it just felt a little 'off'. I don't like to use the words 'strange' or 'weird' as that does not quite accurately describe it but the tone just felt different. I normally pride myself on liking films that are a bit different to the norm but this film felt a little bit unusual even for me. The story though is a very good one and as I said kept me interested in where it was going. Giuseppe also added a few nice subplots that add nicely textured elements to not only the plot but its conclusion as well.
I'm not sure if part of my being uncomfortable with this film was the casting of Geoffrey Rush. Up until now he has not really played roles that require him to have a romantic element, so I have not considered him in that way. I'm not saying he does not deserve to find love but it just may take me time to thing of Geoffrey as a sexual being. Other than that he is very good in his role. He plays the sophisticated and refined elements rather well. I have not been a fan of Jim Sturgess in the past but this would have to be his best performance yet. He plays the role very understated which suits the character and means he comes across as less annoying than he usually is. Sylvia Hoeks does is very good as the object of Geoffrey's desire. Donald Sutherland adds some dignity to the film as well.
It's well made and has a well paced story but the tone of the film is a little bit strange and unusual.
This year Hollywood has declared war on the White House. We've had the hardcore version earlier this year and now get the softer version of the White House War II.
It seems perfectly natural that Hollywood would want to make a film about an attack on the White House. It is supposedly the most fortified building in the world. Why wouldn't you want to see how someone would try to attack it? Earlier this year Mike Banning was the one to save the President from attack. This was a really violent film which I did not like for it's nasty streak cause it felt so mean. I know that an attack is not meant to be pleasant but it should not make you feel uncomfortable. Which is why I liked 'White House Down' more. It was able to make the situation enjoyable and fun. With this film I think I was more aware of the comparisons to 'Die Hard'. I could see so many similarities and became more aware of how 'Die Hard' se the standard for action film and especially those where there is a hostage situation. But as great as 'White House Down' is it does lack that spark of brilliance that could have brought it to the level of 'Die Hard'. I think part of the problem is the director. Roland Emmerich is an excellent director and has made many spectacular action films but he feels very restrained here. His other films, with the exception of the non-action 'Anonymous', have been big action films on a global scale, where as 'White House Down' has all its action contained to one location. Roland feels so restrained here that you get the feeling that he wants to break out any moment but can't due to the restraints of the story.
Channing Tatum certainly knows how to fill out a singlet. Sadly it too him a while to strip down. Other than that he does a very good job. He is able to play the role as more of an average guy who must step up in a difficult situation. He plays humble so well. I was surprised Jamie Foxx would take a role like this considering he is essentially playing the damsel in distress role. He is probably there for his likeness to President Obama but I would have liked him to be a bit less bumbling and more active in the action. The best thing about the film for me was seeing James Woods back on the big screen again. I wish he was in more films. The rest of the cast are good and serviceable in the roles.
The lighter tone taken with this film certainly made it more enjoyable than the last White House attacked film. But needed a director who feels more comfortable being restrained.
Woody Allen has joined with Clint Eastwood in being one of those older film makers who still continue to make brilliant films after all these years.
I may not be the right person to critique a Woody Allen film. As a huge fan of his I tend to see the greatness and can sometimes over look the bad stuff. But despite that I still thoroughly enjoy all his films. 'Blue Jasmine' would have to be his best film in recent times. Woody seems to have a real knack for creating such wonderful female characters. I think the awards actresses who have appeared in his films have received is testament to that. Jasmine is such a multilayered character that despite the fact she can be annoying at times you end up feeling a great deal of sympathy for her. She can be seen as someone we would be unable to relate to because of her social status but after a while you come to appreciate her situation. There is also a certain sense of joy in seeing a person of high stature cut down to size. But Jasmine does not wallow in self pity but instead goes out and tries to improve her situation. She does get herself into trouble but she learns from her mistakes and moves on. What I really liked about the film was the way Woody was able to blend so seamlessly the comedy and the drama of the situation. In some scenes he can go from heartfelt drama to funny dialogue. I feel it is his most accomplished and mature work. He has had a great resurgence lately since the success of 'Midnight In Paris' but I think this is by far and away his best recently.
As great as Woody's writing and directing are, the biggest delight in this film is the performance of Cate Blanchett. She is another actress who I think is incapable of giving a bad performance. So powerful is her performance that you do not see Cate Blanchett in this film but Jasmine. As good as Cate is, equally as good is Sally Hawkins. Sally, much like Cate, really inhabits her character so you feel for her character and all the problems she is going through. The men in the film are not too bad either. I was most amazed at Andrew Dice Clay. I did not think he was such a great actor outside the comedy roles he has played but he gives an excellent, more dramatic performance here. Bobby Carnivale is also equally as good, even if his character does border on stereotype and caricature. Alec Baldwin's role is sadly more functional than you'd expect.
Further proof of the brilliance that is Woody Allen. That is coming from a huge Woody Allen fan but I'm sure non-fans can enjoy it too.
A few years ago Neill Blomkamp blew everyone away with his film 'District 9'. He now returns with his follow up.
'District 9' was a brilliantly directed sci-fi film that had a very serious message. 'Elysium' is pretty much the same but with one exception. The serious message in 'Elysium' is too obvious. In 'District 9' Neill was able to make the film fun and exciting enough so that you did not realize you were being preached to about race relations. In this film it lacks the thrills and sense of fun so the message is far more obvious and so over all the film feels very dull. The message of refugees does feel very relevant to us here in Australia because we are constantly being bombarded by the media and politicians about the huge number of 'boat people' who enter our country so the message felt very relevant. There is also one scene at the beginning of the film with Delacourt (Jodie Foster) dealing with a group of refugees arriving at Elysium which I felt was a very powerful image of how our current leader would like to deal with the situation if he could. Also part of the problem for me was the motivation for the character of Max, our hero. I was a little bit unsure at first as to why he was trying to get to Elysium until later when an old friend turns up. It's a petty thing but a small thing that just really annoyed me.
Matt Damon is a brilliant actor who can play just about any role. He does a decent job here but his character felt pretty bland. As I said above I found his motivation a bit mixed and so I did not become invested in the character and why he was going through his journey. Jodie Foster once again plays the cold hearted bitch role that she seems to be becoming famous for now. As is Sharlto Copley becoming famous for playing the role of crazy people. The best performance for me can from Diego Luna and Wagner Moura who to me had interesting characters to play.
Considering the expectations we had for this film it was a very big let down. I'm all for film makers putting messages into their films but they need to make it fun and exciting as well.
It was 75 years ago that a film was released which is still beloved today by many generations.
Something that never ceases to amaze me is that my 4 year-old nephew loves 'The Wizard Of Oz'. But I think it is indicative of the power of this film. That after 75 years it can still fill children with wonder and amazement. I have seen the film several times on DVD but this is the first time I've seen it on the big screen. The film is fill with so much delight and wonder that it can be overwhelming. I saw the film in 3D and while that did look good it did not really add to the experience. I was just pleased to be able to see the film on the big screen. The story is pretty simple and not terribly complex. It has a very pantomime feel to it. But it has that enduring quality of letting us escape from the blandness of our lives. And the use of black and white before going to colour in Oz is one of the film's many strokes of genius. You go from the blandness of our everyday world where we feel downtrodden to the bright colours of the fantasy land that is Oz. One of the other things that makes it so great is the characters. Dorothy has an everyday quality to her that makes her totally relatable to children and adults. This is very important as she acts as our guide to Oz and it makes us feel like we are really there. Then there are the characters of Scarecrow, The Tin Man and The Cowardly Lion who are all looking for qualities we want to possess ourselves. There are lessons to be learnt from their journey in the film but the way the story is told it does not feel like lessons. Then there is the evil Wicked Witch of the West. She has a nasty quality to her but it is not too nasty that makes her too overly scary. But the character does perfectly personify all the bad things we feel in our lives.
The cast are brilliant at conveying these perfectly created characters. As mentioned above the story has a pantomime quality to it and the acting reflects this, it kind of feels a bit stagey. This is not a bad thing but does not have a very natural quality to it. Judy Garland is perfect as Dorothy. She brings just the right amount of sweetness to the character that makes her so charming. She also make Dorothy a very tough and strong willed character so you really want to root for her. She is ably assisted by a trio of wonderful actors who provide most of the films comedic elements. Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley are very funny and charming. Frank Morgan is also excellent in multiple roles including the title role as the Wizard. The film, though, is stolen by Margaret Hamilton as The Wicked Witch Of The West. I think her performance is what all other performances are judged on with this character. She is simply brilliant at giving just the right amount of evil.
One of those films that should be seen on the big screen if you get the chance. It is also another example of the perfect film.
Steve Jobs is a towering figure of our technological age. He is responsible for some of the biggest advances in computers we have seen. This is the first of two films about his life.
As I implied in my introduction Steve Jobs is a highly influential person. It is a shame that he has been given such a lackluster film about his life. While I am not familiar with the development of this film I get the feeling that it was rushed into production shortly after his death in order to capitalize on the publicity that generated. There is another film being developed now written by one of my all time favourite writers Aaron Sorkin, which I think will do Steve's life more justice. To me this film looks and feels like a TV movie and not a cinema film. The one good thing about it is that they do not shy away from portraying the bad side of Steve Jobs. As great as the man is, he seems like he would have been incredibly difficult to work with. The only consistent thing in the film is the way they have portrayed Steve's unpleasant personality. But all great men have some sort of flaw and that would seem to be Steve's.
For many years now Ashton Kutcher has been playing mostly comedy roles and playing lovable clowns. I compliment him on his attempt to get more serious with this role. Sadly though he does not quite make the leap successfully. While he is great at comedy I do not think he is good enough as a dramatic actor to portray such a highly regarded person. He is surrounded by some great performances though. Josh Gad is brilliant as Steve Wozniak and gives the best performance in the film. Dermot Mulroney is quite good as well. J.K. Simmons is always great.
A lackluster film that does not live up to the greatness of its subject matter. I'm sure the next film will be much better. Maybe save your time and money until then.
I think it surprised many when 'Red' became so popular back in 2010. It was not a huge blockbuster but was popular enough to warrant a sequel.
There is a certain trepidation with sequels and whether they live up to the original. The first good thing about this film is that the writers Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber have come up with a really good story for this sequel. That is probably the key element to a lot of sequels is being able to come up with a story that seems new but is not too similar to the first film. Joe and Erich have come up with one that is great and has some really nice twists.
The second good thing is the fun element of the first film is still maintained here in the sequel. Jon and Erich, with the help of director Dean Parisot, have kept the humour that made 'Red' so wonderful. 'Red 2' is really funny and just really delightful to watch.
The third good thing is the cast. While Bruce Willis is doing the same thing he does in all his other films it is the support cast he has who makes this film so much fun. Mary-Louise Parker is so wonderful as the odd man out in this group of assassins. The rest of the cast are normally such serious actors who mostly do drama, that its great to see them doing such outrageous comedy. John Malkovich looks like he is having such fun with his conspiracy nut character. You can never get sick of seeing Helen Mirren go hardcore action woman. And that is a role which Catherine Zeta-Jones needs to embrace more if this film is anything to go by. Anthony Hopkins has played crazy before but not as wacky as this which was fun. Byung-hun Lee makes a nicely restrained member of the team to all the craziness going on around him.
One of the few sequels that actually lives up to the potential of the first film. The great cast make it so much fun.
I am not much of an alcohol drinker let alone a wine drinker. But if given a choice I prefer wine over beer. Despite this lack of interest in partaking of wine, I thought I would check out this documentary.
On one level this is a fascinating look at how people can become obsessed over things that will not use. As a film buff I collect movie memorabilia and some of it I keep stored away, like posters. So in some ways I can understand why a person would buy an item and then not use it. It may seem strange that people can spend thousands of dollars in a bottle of wine and then not drink it. But then again when you have spent so much on something it would seem to special to drink.
I did learn quite a bit about wine and wine that comes from the Bordeaux region of France. I was not aware of how highly regarded wine from this area was regarded. And that is the thrust of this film. How wine from one area of the world can become so influential. The amazing thing is that a great wine from Bordeaux is very rare. While I am familiar with many of the types of wine that come from this region I did not know they were held in such high regard.
The current Chinese obsession with French wine is very indicative of China's growing influence around the world. It seems they are becoming more open to outside influences and becoming obsessed with them in the process. My only problem with the film is that I did not find it as thrilling as I had hoped. There were some interesting elements and I did leanr some things but I think I was hoping for more.
Wine lovers will probably get a lot out of this film and enjoy seeing another group of people who share their obsession. Non wine lovers will get some interest in seeing how the world of wine works and its influence in the world.
One of the biggest films in the USA this summer was this small horror film about a couple who investigate paranormal activity.
The thing that surprises me about this film was that the lives of Ed and Lorraine Warren have not been made into a movie before. It could have been told in many different ways and I probably would have liked to see the approach where they told the story of Ed and Lorraine's lives. That we get glimpses into the various cases they investigated but essentially the film would be about how this couple came to be investigators and what a toll these took on their lives. We do get some of this in 'The Conjuring' but for me I would have preferred a different approach. As the film is with this story of Perron family and them being attacked by a paranormal force, I did not like that aspect. I think the film is very well made and director James Wan does a brilliant job, but I did not find the film scary. Maybe it is because I do not find ghost stories all that scary. I'm not sure if it because I don't really believe in them and so I don't find them scary. I've not seem or had a supernatural experience so do not have any fear of them. Now while I have not been attacked by an axe wielding maniac I think they feel more real than ghosts and so I am more scared of them.
Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are both excellent as Ed and Lorraine. That is part of the reason why I would have preferred a movie that focused on them rather than a story they are investigating. Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston are also excellent in their roles. They both feel like real people. Shanley Caswell, Hayley McFarland, Joey King, Mackenzie Foy and Kyla Deaver are also good as the children who are subjected to most of the paranormal activity.
While this is a very well made film it did not make me scared as it should have being a horror film. I'd have preferred a film that focused more on Ed and Lorraine and their story.
While many credit 'Kick-Ass' with being the film to kick start the 'average person being a superhero' genre, I think it started earlier with 'Mystery Men'.
We had been so conditioned with big budget glossy superhero films that when 'Kick-Ass' came along it was a refreshing burst of lower budget adrenaline. All the other superhero films played it safe with the violence and language to please as many people as possible. But 'Kick-Ass' reveled in the delight of hard core violence and language. Not caring who it offended. The character of Hit Girl probably had a lot to do with the films success, but it also had a nice texture to it which made it so great. It also had a level of clever satire on the superhero genre. All the qualities that are lacking in this sequel. To me it felt like everyone was going through the motions with this film, like they are not really trying. It is a shame considering how great the first film was. The language and violence in the first film seemed to mean something and be more shocking but here just feels ordinary. Writer/director Jeff Wadlow seems to lack the satirical edge that Matthew Vaughn was able to bring. Jeff also had a great opportunity to make something of the revenge story of Chris D'Amico against Kick-Ass. But he squanders that as well and just makes that subplot boring and bland. I also expected a bit more fun and interest with Mindy and her struggle to have a normal teenage life but even there its no fun. There are a couple of funny scenes but largely that aspect is not fully utilized.
Think for an actor like Aaron Taylor-Johnson this is one of those role you play to make some easy money. He is not required to stretch his acting talents too far and no doubt get paid quite handsomely for it. The same can be said of Chloe Grace Moretz. They both do decent work but by virtue of the fact that their roles lack any spark, they themselves lack spark in their acting. Christopher Mintz-Plasse looks to be having some fun but his story does not get the attention it deserves. I also liked seeing John Leguizamo and Donald Faison back on the big screen. The film's real highlight though was Jim Carrey. Once again he plays a small supporting role which steels the whole film. His role is small but his character seems so much more well rounded and interesting than many of the others in the film.
This is very much a straight-to-DVD film that managed to make its way into cinemas. Further proof that there are some films that did not need sequels.
