The last time Adam Sandler did voice work for an animated film was 10 years ago for the film 'Eight Crazy Nights'. I think this film will be more successful for him.
A frustrating thing I find with lots of films is that they set up an interguing premise but then do not make it into an intreguing film. That is definately the case here. Having all of the classic movie monsters coming together is a very good idea. But sadly there is not a good story to bring them together. It seems some film makers think that animated films need a child character in them so as kids can relate to them. I don't think that is true. There is also the idea that all these monsters are so scared of humnas that they need a place to hide out. I'm willing to accept that humans can be bad, but the whole idea of these monsters is that they are worse and more scary. I also did not find the jokes or humour very funny. There were many obvious jokes that I did not find very clever.
Adam Sandler does a very good as Dracula. I think his accent was well done. As usual he has gathered all his friends to provide the voices for the other characters. They are not particularlly great but then they do not have all that much to work with.
Younger audiences might get a bit of a laugh out of this animated effort. While it does not make me hate Adam Sandler anymore it does not make me like him either.
Time travel can be a very tricky proposition. It can be incredibly complex and complicated. Travellers need to be careful or they could wipe themselvesout of existence.
Rian Johnson is a writer/director who I greatly admire. With the films he has made Rain has proven he can be very diverse in the tone and subject matter of the films he makes. It is this talent that makes him more than well qualified to tackle the tricky subject.
When you think about it, this film is about being forced to commit suicide in order to save your life. It is an intriguing premise and one that makes you think about what you would do if placed in that situation. Without revealing too much there is a reason the younger Joe must kill his older self than just saving his own life. Does that sentence make any sense? Time travel can be a complicated but Rain has managed to simplify things with the plot of this film. He also makes a little fun of the whole premise with a meeting of the younger and older self. Much like Christopher Nolan did with 'Inception', Rain has made an intelligent mainstream thriller. It makes you think and you have to pay attention to fully understand it. More than one viewing maybe required as well. I also liked the camera work of DOP Steve Yedlin. I loved the way the camera moves and the camera position for scenes is composed.
The casting of this film has caused a lot of discussion. Rain chose to use two different actors to play Joe rather than the same actor in make up. He chose to use make-up to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt to look like his older self played by Bruce Willis. This means that Joseph looks a little different and that has drawn people out of the movie because all they can think about is how different Joseph looks. I was quite surprised that Joseph not only looks like Bruce but acts like him too and not just inn obvious ways but subtly too. I have long been a fan of Joseph's and he just keeps getting better with each role. I think people do not give Bruce Willis much credit as an actor. He does quite a lot of films and not all of them are that great. But every so often he gets a brilliant role and more than excels in it. This is one of them. His character goes on an emotional rollercoaster in this film and Bruce is more than up for the challenge. Equally as good is Emily Blunt. She usually plays nice sweet girls in most of her previous roles but here she is more tough and determined. I was totally blown away by how good she is. All three leads though pale into insignificance by the performance of Pierce Gagnon who plays Emily's son in the film. This very young boy is simply stunning. He has so many subtleties to his performance I was amazed at how good he was at such a young age.
A clever and smart thriller that does not let the complications of time travel overwhelm the story. It also feature some amazing acting, young and old.
There has been a question which has plagued man for some time. Does the rain in Spain stay mainly on the plain? I went on an investigation to find out.
It is such a same that musicals are not made as often as they once were. Back in the 1930's - 1960's, musicals were extremely popular and highly regarded. Now they are not made as often and don't always work. Which is a shame. Musicals in general though are a genre that should be seen on a big cinema screen. This one is no exception.
The original 'Pygmalion' story is one which has been told many times in movies in various forms. The upper classes seem to like having a go at trying to pass off someone from the lower classes as one of their own. A classic story of someone rising above their station in life. The most commonly known version of the story is 'My Fair Lady' a grand and delightful musical. The story is very light and quite predictable but it is the fun of the music that keeps you interested. The production design and costume design are also very grand so visually there is always something you can look at. I really enjoyed the songs and some I did not realise came from this musical.
I did not, however, like the male characters in the films. Eliza's father only sees her when he wants money. Then when she becomes rich and passes on the money to him he becomes a bit ungrateful because his life has changed so much cause he's rich. Colonel Pickering comes across as a nice guy but does not really do much to stop the bad behaviour. The biggest one is Professor Henry Higgins. He is such a nasty guy. While he does treat everyone badly his venom is mostly directed at Eliza and he really treats her badly. In some ways you wonder why she goes back to him if he treats her so badly. While he is not physically violent to her he is verbally abusive which could be seen as just as bad.
Audrey Hepburn is one of the most charming and delightful actresses who ever lived. I've sadly not seen many of her films, which I'm ashamed about. Audrey has quite a big range in this film with the character that she plays. At the beginning I found Eliza incredibly annoying mostly because of her accent. The really thick cockney accent she speaks got so grating after a while. Rex Harrison has been criticised for not singing his songs in the film and just speaking the words. So I became conscious of this during his songs. That was a little distracting and perhaps if I did not know that I would have enjoyed it more. Rex still does a good job as Henry and makes a good nasty guy. Stanley Holloway is good as Eliza's father. He fits well into the cast of unsavoury male characters.
A truly delightful and fun movie musical on a grand scale. The plot and some of the characters are questionable morally speaking but if you can get past that then you can have fun with this film.
The cinema is full of films about young people having sexual problems. They usually end happily with the couple over coming their problems. But what if later in life the problems return?
It is a very unpleasant experience for people to see or hear about an older couples sexual problems. Mostly because it reminds people of their parents and their sex lives which is an uncomfortable thought. But sex and intimacy problems is something that can arise with couples later in life. Couples become so comfortable with each other that they take each other for granted. That is the problem that befalls Kay and Arnold in this film. They are fairly stereotypical characters. I think we can recognize traits in them that feel familiar to either ourselves and/or our parents. That does make the story feel real and relatable but it is the way the film is told that it lacks. I think I was expecting a bit more comedy and a bit less drama with the story. The therapy sessions are not exactly very dynamic. What also does not help is Arnold and his annoying behaviour. We get that he is uncomfortable talking about sex with a stranger but he also seems completely oblivious to how much his inability to touch his wife lovingly is causing her pain. Then when he goes to the therapy sessions he is so withdrawn and unwilling to say much that it becomes so annoying. He always looks as though he is about to say something, reveal an emotion but then steps back from it. I became incredibly frustrated by this behaviour. I know husbands are always portrayed as frustrating people who do not understand their wives but their comes a point when it gets annoying. While he does get the hint towards the end of the film it still makes for tough going for most of the film.
This film is another example of the talent of Meryl Streep. In her last film she played a tough, forceful woman who ran a major country. Now she is playing a meek and mild housewife trying to put her marriage back together. She does both roles so incredibly well. It goes to show she can play a broad spectrum of characters. Tommy Lee Jones does a very good job of playing the annoying husband. Tommy has made a career out of playing gruff characters like this so it suits him very well. I was pleased to see Steve Carrell in this film as it shows he not only plays wacky comedy characters, that he can play straight serious ones as well. The only problem is that he has very little to do. His role is a very important one to the story, I just would have liked to see him have more to do.
It is refreshing to see a film that looks at an older couple and the problems they have with their relationship. There are issues which seem familiar and that people can relate to. But when one of them is incredibly annoying it dampens what could have been a great film.
Most of us have had a teacher who we found inspirational and we credit with teaching us some valuable life lessons. Film makers love to explore this relationship in film.
Films about school teachers are all pretty much the same. You have a classroom full of troubled kids who need guidance. In walks a teacher who is different to all the others and and becomes an inspiration to the kids. 'Monsieur Lazhar' has all these elements but takes a unique perspective on them. The children are troubled because of a tragic event. They are essentially good kids but just a little bit upset. Then into their lives comes a man who is also upset over a tragic event in his life. It is through this relationship that both teacher and students learn to overcome their grief.
A story like this is unique not just because of the tragic event the kids witness but also in the way the film is made. Many teacher/student films are cliched and predictable but 'Monsieur Lazhar' gives this genre a very fresh perspective. Director Philippe Falardeau has made the film in a documentary like way which makes it more emotional and real. You come to really care for these characters and what they are going through. It also explores an issue which haunts many teachers, the one of physical contact with children. There is an emotional bond which naturally develops with teachers and students so it is inevitable that some physical contact will occur. But in this day and age that sort of thing is considered out of bounds. I know it is a privilege which can be abused by some people but it also leads to a great deal of anxiety by the teachers.
Mohamed Fellag gives a nicely understated performance as our title character Mr. Lazhar. While he does not do much Mohamed manages to bring a great deal of emotion to this character. He is obviously hiding a secret, so not only dealing with that issue but also helping this group of troubled kids get over their grief. While all of the child actors in the film are brilliant the film focuses on two who give brilliant performances. Emilien Neron is a very talented young actor whose character holds the biggest amount of emotion and Emilien handles that so well. Equally as good is his friend in the film Sophie Nelisse. Her character is the 'smarty-pants' of the class but it is her relationship with Emilien's character which drives most of the film and they two of them work so well together.
An important film that all school teachers should go see. But not just school teachers. Everyone needs to see this emotionally uplifting film.
One regret I had from my recent trip to the USA was that I did not get to see 'Beasts Of The Southern Wild' while I was there. Luckily I got to see it here at home.
Co-writer and director Ben Zeitlin has done something fairly unique in this day and age. He has taken a familiar story and made a movie that is fresh and different. The setting is this place called The Bathtub. It is supposed to be on the southern coast of America and we can see civilization in the distance, but this place looks and feels like no where you have ever been before. It looks like a huge junk yard on the edge of a swamp but that just adds to the charm. The place is then populated by a quirky bunch of inhabitants as well. A part of this bunch is six year-old Hushpuppy and her father Wink. As you can see from this description this film is not very conventional. I think that is because the film is told from the perspective of Hushpuppy. Being a six year-old girl she sees the world in a very different way. She is prone to flights of fantasy so the film is full of very strange imagery. Hushpuppy will hear about something and then incorporate that into her imagination. This can be a bit off putting to some people and so the film is not told in the more conventional way that you are used to. One unusual aspect which might put people off is how Wink treats Hushpuppy. It is not always very nice but she seems like a very resilient young girl and does not seem worse off because of it. As the film goes on you learn why he is behaving the way he does and you come to understand it better.
Every so often you see a performance by an actor which will totally blow you away. When that performance comes from a six year-old girl then it seems even more special. Quvenzhane Wallis is an amazing young actress who delivers a very powerful performance as Hushpuppy. Quvenzhane makes Hushpuppy a believably strong character to such an extent that you forget she is an actress and your watching a real girl. Dwight Henry is equally as good as her father, Wink. He may not always be the best father in the world but you know he truly loves his daughter. Dwight manages to convince you he is not all bad.
The strong and powerful story set in a place you have never been before. It also contains one of the best performances you are likely to see this year.
It seems that once you open the doors of the retirement village, one field trip is not enough. The old boys are back.
I must give credit to Sylvester Stallone. Many people had written him of as an old has been who was past his prime. But with 'The Expendables' he has managed to resurrect his career. His talent has not changed much over the years as evidenced by these films. There is very little by way of plot and is just a vague excuse to kill bad guys and blow stuff up. Despite this lack of depth it some how works. Action films with lots of twists and complex characters are all well and good but occasionally you don't mind seeing something dumb. As long as it is fun then there is nothing wrong with that. Simon West is a skilled enough action director to not be bogged down by plot and just let his stars kill people indiscriminately. The action is good but not great and there is nothing special about it. I do think that the allure is in the cast.
Seeing all these old action heroes in the one film, I must admit, gives me a thrill. You always imagine what it would be like to see them together and you now get the chance. Sylvester Stallone has been around long enough to command a great presence on screen. He does not have to do or say much for you to know that he is in charge. His rapport with Jason Statham is excellent too. They really feel like life long friends who have been through a lot together. Dolph Lundgren makes a good comedy lunk head. Liam Hemsworth makes a sweet addition to the team. The biggest thrill was seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis fighting along side each other. Their scene together was quite well staged and pretty fun. I'm not sure what to make of Chuck Norris's appearance in the film. The way he comes in and out of the film made very little sense. Perhaps it was a scheduling issue. Jean-Claude Van Damme makes a great villain after playing good guys so much.
Park your brains at the door and just go have fun with this unashamedly dumb action film. It is good to let your mind go occasionally.
We're men. Manly men. We're men in tights. We rome around the forest looking for fights. We're men. We're men in tights. We rob from the rich and give to the poor. That's right.
Stories based on legends are interesting because of the many ways that they can be interpreted. As far as film versions of the Robin Hood legend, this one made in 1938 pretty much set the benchmark for all that followed. It is one of the most beloved films of all time and can be seen on many peoples all time favourite movie lists. In some ways I can see why. It has an element that was missing from the recent Ridley Scott version which is fun. Many other interpretations kept this sense of fun going as well. This sense of fun manifests in the violence depicted. 'The Adventures Of Robin Hood' is not a very violent film considering the story. While there are lots of sword fights and some light stabbing, the more popular way for Robin and his men to attack Sir Guy and his men is to jump on them from a great height. I found this to be a funny way to attack someone.
My only critism and it is something that many films from the past have, is that they do not seem terribly authentic. I am mostly speaking of the costumes and some of the production design. Lots of westerns have the same problem where they dress like someone from the time the film was made not when it was set. For a group of people who need to act stealthy, Robin and his merry men dress in very bright clothes. Robin dresses in green but it is a bright green which would stand out if he was trying to hide. Then again Sir Guy and his men who are looking for Robin seem to take a very light approach to their work. More modern versions seem authentic and choose costumes that seem more appropriate.
I am ashamed to say that this is the first film starring fellow Aussie Errol Flynn that I have seen. Over the years his off screen legend has in some ways over taken his on screen one. I can see why people love him so much if this film is anything to go by. His performance pitches Robin in the right way by making him playful and incredibly charismatic. There are very few times where he does not have a smile on his face. Olivia de Havilland makes a nice Maid Marion. While she is playing the damsel in distress role that many women of the time played, she still still very feisty. Claude Rains fits the role of villain very well. He plays the cockiness and arrogance well. The only problem being that he does not come of as much of a threat to Robin. That threat is better done by Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy. But that threat is not enough as you still know Robin will win. I did not get much of a sense of jeopardy from them.
While it is one of those films that is a bit 'of its time', this is still a fun interpretation of the Robin Hood legend. A must for film buffs to see how the legend has changed over time.
Writer/director Whit Stillman made a few films in the 1990's that looked at young people navigating relationships with wit and sophistication. After a 13 year absence he returns.
I'm not sure what it is but I think I'm off my game. That game being the appreciation of off-centre films. Normally I would find these types of films great but much like 'Holy Motors' I just did not 'get' this film. The plot sounds interesting and feels like it has a lot of potential but a few things bothered me. I got no real sense of when the film was set. The plot is about a group of women trying to change the masculine nature of their college. It seems that the college has only just become co-ed so the implication being that it was once a male dominated college and the girls want to change that. If the film is set today, then I was not aware that colleges like that still existed. The girls dress and behave like they would if the film was set in the past But there are a few pieces of technology that means it might be set today. The characters are a bit unusual too with traits that do not make sense. They all feel very flat and speak in a dry way with hardly any emotion. The only one that seems to be different is Lily because she is an outsider to the group. The most baffling one though is a guy in a fraternity who can't recognise colour, like he does not know the names of them. There was a very lame explanation given but it made no sense. The best thing about the film is the musical number that ends it. But sadly this is too little too late.
Greta Gerwig gives a nicely dry performance but is let down by the lack of wit in the script. The other girls are quite good too but I just wish they had something better to work with. Analeigh Tipton manages to rise above the lack of character and make her performance as Lily to be very sweet and endearing. The men sadly do not come off as well either. As mentioned above they have some strange character traits, so perhaps they cannot perform well enough to make them convincing.
The time away from the screen has not been kind to Whit Stillman. I think he has lost his skill and knack for making great movies.
There have been many films made based on American and English TV series. 'Kath & Kim' has been a huge success on TV in Australia, so it was inevitable that they made the leap to the big screen.
Gina Reilly and Jane Turner are considered to be television comedy royalty in Australia, largely due to their TV series on which this film is based. However before that they made names for themselves on sketch comedy shows that are very highly regarded. But this experience could have been their downfall. Gina and Jane's writing experience is in television so I do not think they were properly equipped to handle a film script. Judging by the film's credits they have used the same team that they used to make the television series. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing. On the one hand you have a group of people who know the characters and their story quite well so are equipped to know what they can and can't do. I do not know the full behind the scenes story but I think the women needed some outside help with the script and getting it up to full cinematic quality. The premise of a fairy tale is quite sweet and cute but the plot and general story is quite weak. and not enough to sustain a feature film. An example of this is the inclusion of two characters that Gina and Jane also play called Prude and Trude. These characters are wasted and get occasional scenes where all they seem to do is show off their ridiculous upper class accents. It would have been better if they had their a plot or one which either mirrored or added to the main plot with Kath and Kim. As it is, all they are there for is to pad out the main plot. Another annoying element for me was the way they tried to find a way to keep Kel and Brett at home. Kel for some reason in the film is afraid of flying. He can't even go to the airport cause it frightens him. But in the TV series there was an episode where they go to a Queensland resort which I'm assuming he would have flown to. There is another episode where Kath and Kel spend a holiday stuck at the airport. I would not have minded them keeping Kel at home but they should have come up with a better way of doing it that stayed true to the TV series. Another example of lazing writing.
The core cast are excellent and know these characters so well that they give wonderful performances. All Jane Turner seems to do these days is play Kath and while I love her in that role I'd prefer to see her do more. Gina Reilly though is one of my all time favourite comedic actresses in Australia. Kim is a really horrid woman and Gina manages to play that quality to a degree that she is able to bring out the funny side of it so that you don't hate her completely. As mentioned above the characters of Kel and Brett are sidelined for most of the film. This is disappointing as Glenn Robbins and Peter Rowsthorn are excellent actors who deserved better. I heard that Richard E Grant is such a huge fan of the TV series that he agreed to do this film before reading the script. I think he should have read the script first. His character has some cute quirks but is not fully realized. Magda Szubanski is not only one of the best comedic actresses who ever lived but comes across as a wonderful person too. Recently she came out of the closet so I'm not sure if Gina and Jane decided to make Sharon gay as a result of this but I did not like that they did this. I know they would need a character arc or plot for Sharon but I'm disappointed once again that they went with the obvious. I think that Magda is a good enough actor that as a gay person she can play a heterosexual character. Rob Sitch is another excellent performer who is not given decent material. The film is almost worth seeing for a cameo appearance by comedian Frank Woodley.
It is very disappointing when television stars are unable to make the leap to the big screen. I expected so much more from a group of comedians who I hold in very high regard.
The last time Adam Sandler did voice work for an animated film was 10 years ago for the film 'Eight Crazy Nights'. I think this film will be more successful for him.
