Recent reviews
Posted : 1 day, 10 hours ago on 27 January 2012 08:33
(A review of
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows)
After the incredibly fun, amusing yet slightly overrated predecessor back in 2009, we are granted with another Christmas treat - the sequel, but this one looked a lot darker, perhaps funnier and more serious. Being a film based upon fictional legends, you’re going to have to fill in the realism of the 1800s, the actors to give solid performances as if they were really that character and yet to add a bit of comical concepts to it by mixing modern-day humour together with intense action with dazzling effects and make-up. Both of these films achieved this tremendously, but the sequel especially attains a darker dialogue, even more comedy and a lot stronger chemistry between the characters.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows picks up just when the first one ended with Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams returning to the cast and Guy Ritchie returning as director. Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is on the brink of marriage to his beautiful fiancé Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), but Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is in need of accompanying on yet another mission to go after archenemy Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris). During this mission, they come across gypsy fortune teller Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace) who is seeking to find her missing brother Rene. With the assisting help from Sherlock’s older brother Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry), together they attempt to take down Moriarty.
Having been approximately the 45th film adaptation of
Sherlock Holmes up to his top game by unravelling mysteries, the one thing that has always been there with every single one is what you see within the films is what you get. The action sequences are more energetic, more intense and much more explosive in this sequel than in the predecessor. In addition to this there is another newly added style of filming that didn’t jeopardise the film as a whole but perhaps slowed down the pacing (especially when it’s meant to me an action film): there were too many slow-motion shots in too many segments.
Guy Ritchie, the director who wasn’t only behind the first
Sherlock Holmes film but some of the most popular British crime films from the likes of
Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and
RocknRolla. Already with the experience of more adult-themed films, he added again to this sequel some more mature dark humour and badass tone but something different by adding new kinds of comical characteristics including entertainment for youngsters and alongside intense action. So, after achieving this with both
Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie ought to consider making more films in the future that are related to those certain aspects.
Re-born shining star Robert Downey Jr. already charmed us with his fantastic performance in the 2009 predecessor as Sherlock Holmes and to no great surprise; he manages to do just that yet again in the sequel. If there is anything that Downey Jr’s role as Sherlock is somewhat identical to, it’d be Johnny Depp’s role as ‘Captain’ Jack Sparrow in the
Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise due to the unorthodox nature, the sense of humour and how he treats his peers, not to mention the similar time settings and styles of filming. Jude Law returns as Dr. John Watson, and what a fantastic one it is! Although Watson is finally due to be married which alters his life, there is a slightly relationship between him and Holmes in the sequel as Watson is almost completely used by Holmes in this one. Watson is almost completely used by Holmes and is almost completely manipulated and patronised to Holmes' pleasure but they are still friends. So, due to the humorous and strong chemistry between Downey Jr. and Jude Law on-screen, that is all the more reason with how well they perform together as such famously told characters.
Rachel McAdams doesn’t make as much of a crucial supporting female performance in this one as there is an opening twist that occurs. So, instead we have Noomi Rapace in her first English language film after her memorable performances in the Swedish
Millennium trilogy as the eccentric Lisbeth Salander. We now witness her in a very different role this time and she reveals a whole new side to her that could make her become a future Hollywood star in years to come. Seeing an appearance in general from Stephen Fry is a real treat but the fact that he portrays Sherlock’s older brother Mycroft and provides the humour and charm that Fry has been able to achieve many times over the years. Jared Harris was also very good as primary villain Professor Moriarty who is perhaps more of a manipulative villain against Holmes than Mark Strong was in the predecessor.
Overall,
Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows is a very fun and entertaining popcorn flick that is more emotional, funnier, more action-packed and perhaps stronger plot-wise than its predecessor. Neither films are anything to take seriously and are both unorthodox but at the same time typical Hollywood hits and just like
Mission: Impossible films, what you see is what you get with
Sherlock Holmes. This sequel certainly left a cliff-hanger ending and after the events that occurred, the series really must continue with a third instalment.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 3 days, 13 hours ago on 25 January 2012 04:55
(A review of
Your Highness)
As we have experienced on several occasions throughout particularly the 1970s and 1980s, medieval fantasy-adventure stories with lively-related humour have charmed us all with its highly magical, exciting and warm nature and are the particular genres that almost completely define ‘entertainment’ when it comes to watching films. So, due to the theme and the majority of cast members within the film,
Your Highness looked like it could be something worthwhile but having received an overwhelmingly negative critical reception, it turned out a very corny, unrealistic, and plain stupid disappointment that wasn’t even funny or entertaining to watch and almost became an agonizingly painful film that is one of the worst films of 2011.
Always the constant second favourite behind his older brother Prince Fabious (James Franco) due to his numerous heroic and charming actions, disgruntled scoundrel Thadeous (Danny McBride) vents his frustrations by blundering simple assignments, indulging in too many spirits, and berating his aide Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker). But when Fabious' new bride Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by the evil sorcerer Leezar (Justin Theroux), Thadeous is forced to tag along on his very first quest. Encountering wise wizards, ruthless jungle savages, and the fiercely driven warrior girl Isabel (Natalie Portman), Thadeous must learn to play the role of a valiant knight - and when Fabious is captured by Leezar, the bumbling prince might just become a hero.
Having experienced the magic and the humour within adventurous fantasy-comedies such as
The Princess Bride and the
Monty Python series, those particular aspects within
Your Highness really went over the top as the humour was needlessly corny with such inappropriately vulgar lines. So, as a result of this, it really is not a comedy seeing as it doesn’t achieve either sides of humour to entertain its target audience and it totally ruined the realistic feeling of embarking on an adventure. As far as the quest is concerned, it really was not anything like that we hadn’t witnessed time and time again as it uses numerous references from historical stories based upon legends such as Robin Hood and King Arthur and attempts to mix the
Monty Python like humour but massively fails to do so.
Having already directed 2008 hit
Pineapple Express, director David Gordon Green returns to the comedy genre and attempts to make another hit. However, due to the atrocious script from Danny McBride and Ben Best and even the terrible acting and story, it is a
huge miss and would perhaps consider calling it almost as bad as the painfully awful “comedies” from Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. In films like this, a cast and a crew either really take the film seriously or just go into making it like it is only a bit of fun. In
Your Highness’ case, it is something that is definitely not something to take seriously but if it actually had funnier jokes, it really would have been something really fun to watch.
If you could compare Danny McBride and his humourous ways as an actor, he would have identical characteristics to how British actor James Corden acts in the films that he is part of. Corden’s unnecessarily corny humour is used in comedy-horror
Lesbian Vampire Killers and resulted in an un-funny and laughably awful film. However, it is even worse with
Your Highness as McBride takes the style of humour and the fun, adventurous journeys and virtually spits on them, so as a whole his performance did not work and felt unrealistic from the get-go. Alongside, Danny McBride were two young actors in their 30s who a few months before the release of
Your Highness were Academy Award nominees: Natalie Portman (winner) and James Franco. So, after earning that and now going from that to this, neither of them could sink any lower as both of them give shockingly terrible performances!
James Franco had previously starred in
Pineapple Express alongside Danny McBride with David Gordon Green as director, but he really flops here! He may have become a charming actor in general in most recent years (especially with his underrated role as James Dean in TV-film bio-pic) but his role in
Your Highness is almost like McBride’s – incredibly weak with almost completely inappropriate vulgar that simply is not funny. As for Natalie Portman, there are some particular moments that are jaw-dropping and that is literally about it for her. Zooey Deschanel makes an appearance in the film too and again, she delivers a really bad performance too. It’s perhaps with how it’s written and the tone of the story that makes the actors bad in
Your Highness, but there is one slight positive about them appearing in this film: they add some slight sophistication to it so due to this and that they are both Hollywood stars, this would become more attracted publicly.
Overall,
Your Highness is unsurprisingly but at the same time shockingly an absolutely terrible film that is just not funny or adventurous to watch in the slightest. Hopefully Franco, Portman and Deschanel have learned their lessons from this one and will never part of anything like this ever again. To be honest, you’ve really got to be someone who actually understands and is entertained by corny humour that is involved in
Your Highness to get the full enjoyment from it. So, although it looked good with fabulous costumes and cinematography, that didn’t even same the film from disaster and can now referred as one of the most annoying films that you’ll ever see.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 1 week ago on 21 January 2012 11:07
(A review of
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1)
Following a well-deserved 17 month break from
Twilight after the release of
Eclipse, the time has come with the start to the beginning of the end of this paint-dry, corny and needlessly overhyped franchise. Being the one series of films that you truly either love to bits where you’d get all obsessive about them or you absolutely hate every aspect about and being one who thankfully succumbed to the latter, there wasn't really anything major that was going to change at all. So, for this reason, there was nothing to look forward to and expectations were practically the same as the other films and as a result of this, we’ve been given another dull, incredibly boring and laughably awful film that may have left a cliffhanging conclusion but still provides the audience with the fact that the exciting death of this franchise is almost here.
After their long-term relationship throughout the three predecessors, vegetarian vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and female human Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) finally get married and they venture on their honeymoon and whilst arriving there, they consummate their marriage. Gradually after this occurs, Bella realises that she is pregnant and this becomes a huge issue for her and for Edward. Bella seeks the help of her friend and admirer Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) who is determined to protect her and to prevent the unborn baby from causing her any life-threatening harm.
The three predecessors have been met as critical failures already but what instantly made
Breaking Dawn: Part I another one to follow up those is because it clearly steals the ideal decision from the final
Harry Potter novel
Deathly Hallows being split into two films to bring forth more excitement and so much had occurred in the single novel that would be too much to fit into a single film. However, with
Breaking Dawn: Part I, it wasn’t even a huge build-up to the final film as it was really dry and just dull from start to finish. Plus, due to the dialogue and events that occur,
Breaking Dawn: Part I renovates a much cornier take-on of classic Roman Polanski horror film
Rosemary’s Baby, but there was actually one particular concept of the film that actually was quite freaky to watch. It’s just absolutely ridiculous why it has taken so long to add at least a bit of horror into the franchise.
Before
Twilight and her role as Bella Swan, Kristen Stewart starred in some fun and interesting films as a child from the likes of
Panic Room by David Fincher,
Into The Wild by Sean Penn and fun family sci-fi adventure
Zathura. However, now she has sunk to the lowest level that she ever will fall down to as she gives an absolutely appalling performance as Bella who doesn’t provide any emotional feeling for the audience and there is simply
no connection between neither Bella and Edward Cullen nor Bella and Jacob Black! Stewart may have the pretty characteristics for the character but when it comes to actually playing the character, it just doesn’t work for her at all. The love triangle relationship between Bella, Edward and Jacob is literally like in a closed cage needlessly continues and simply does not go anywhere at all!
It is true, Cedric Diggory has died but has been resurrected by vampire Edward Cullen as Robert Pattinson has really gone from playing a rather crucial character in the fourth
Harry Potter film to a vegetarian vampire who has fallen in love with a human. There is nothing vampire-like about Edward at all as he provides the exact opposite of the true nature of vampires that we have seen over the years. Pattinson’s performance as Edward has been atrocious from the very beginning but what we see within
Breaking Dawn: Part I is Edward at his worst general standard, especially in the scene with the wedding and the laughably pathetic sex scene where he breaks the bed and panics that he harmed Bella during the act! Stewart doesn’t help build the connection between Bella and Edward but Pattinson just doesn’t merge it together at all and for the better, both characters just need to be killed off. Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black is once again a really annoying portrayal of a young teen-wolf. Lautner is perhaps the hunkiest than he’s ever been but that doesn’t make his performance or character any more interesting or stronger. His role perhaps wasn’t as vital or as frequent as in
New Moon or
Eclipse, so it was more about Edward and Bella in this one.
Just like the films based upon the
Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling, the films within the
Twilight have consisted of a large number of directors chosen to direct the films but have always used the same screenwriter to pen the scripts. Academy Award winner Bill Condon couldn’t even successfully make this into a solid build-up to the end and neither could David Slade whose previous works before directing
Eclipse were horror films
Hard Candy and
30 Days Of Night. So, this proves that even experienced filmmakers could not bend around making a film that is emotional, occasionally intense or even entertaining to watch about some of the most annoying characters you could ever read about with ridiculous dialogue! In addition to the author Stephenie Meyer, the screenwriter has to be female, doesn’t it, who has transformed the scary-looking, deadly and sinister nature of a “vampire” into a soulless and soft-hearted fairy? The written dialogue is almost completely written from a typical avid female fan of the series with such cliché and gut-retching lines that makes it completely dry throughout every second of it.
Overall,
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part I is, as predicted, yet another atrocious addition to the
Twilight series that moves us one step closer to when it all ends. This is the
Twilight series in a nutshell: just because the characters are needlessly eye-popping and are an ultimate sexual fantasy towards its target audience, that doesn’t make it a good film that has a strong dialogue with intriguing characters. Quite frankly,
Breaking Dawn didn’t even need to be split into two parts because there was not a large number of turning events occurring in this one with lots of detail in the story like there was in
Deathly Hallows. It was basically just the
Twilight series sneaking their way into earning some more money. So, now that
Part I has been released with four films down and one to go, we’re almost there to the end of this series!
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 1 week, 4 days ago on 17 January 2012 08:06
(A review of
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol)
Just when we all assumed that the
Mission: Impossible franchise had been put on the shelf after the trilogy concluded with the third instalment of the series released in 2006, the announcement of an unexpected fourth film in the series bought forth great risk but at the same time a lot of excitement and anticipation. The three previous films gave us all the explosive action and intense adventures that was required of them and have cherished the pleasure of watching them over the past 15 years. As you watch the
Mission: Impossible films, what you see is what you get and as a result,
Ghost Protocol is a fresh fourth instalment that sticks to the exciting and exhilarating experience of its predecessors but at the same time creates something that is almost one on its own and it could become the start of something new.
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol brings Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) back into action once more. Ethan, alongside accomplices Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and new recruit William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) are on a race against time to track down a dangerous terrorist named Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), who has gained access to Russian nuclear launch codes and is planning a strike on the United States of America. An attempt by the team to stop him at the Kremlin ends in a disaster, with an explosion causing severe destruction to the Kremlin and the IMF being implicated in the bombing, forcing the President to invoke Ghost Protocol, which is where the IMF are taken the blame for the attack. In order to clear the name of the IMF as well as themselves, Ethan and his team chase Hendricks to Dubai and amongst other places in order to prevent the strike from occurring.
As we have previously learned from long-awaited fourth instalments in a franchise, each have added a more up-to-date outlook of the series and is perhaps pushed away and becomes one on its own. However, in the case of
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, it is a renovation to the series that perhaps wasn’t essentially needed but added even more excitement, popularity and positive criticism as it’s nothing that’s your typical Hollywood film. It’s just a nice and simple action film with a dialogue that’s not too complex. Plus, having altered the title from “Mission Impossible IV” to
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, it adds a difference in that sense as well as within the film as a whole. Surprisingly,
Ghost Protocol actually shows that, unlike many franchises, you don’t exactly have to watch the predecessors before watching the latest instalment.
For the fourth consecutive time now, Tom Cruise reprises his role as IMF agent Ethan Hunt working alongside four different directors as part of the series. However, his performance in
Ghost Protocol is perhaps a rather altered change to the character as we see a more light-hearted and slightly funnier Ethan in this one than we saw in the previous films. Ethan is really not a James Bond-like spy, but due to the inventive and fictional tools and the humourous gags, Ethan’s personality is less serious but perhaps more intense to watch on-screen. Cruise is a symbol of Hollywood in the action genre and yet standing at almost 50 years old, he still has it in him to blow us all away with his exciting action adventures. After his Oscar nominated performances in Kathryn Bigelow’s
The Hurt Locker and Ben Affleck’s
The Town, Jeremy Renner is the latest recruit in the team as he portrays the IMF technical field agent, William Brandt. After previously battling against Chris Pine and Tom Hardy for the role of Brandt, Renner goes from war, to crime and now to action and suspense and becomes a solid partner alongside Tom Cruise although Brandt was originally going to take over Ethan as the new protagonist of the franchise! Although Renner was decent enough to watch, replacing what Cruise has bought to the series here, nobody can ever live it to that or surpass it.
British actor Simon Pegg reprises his role from the third instalment as Benji Dunn, and what a splendid return it was! Pegg has frequently played these nerdy, no-mans-land characters in films such as
Star Trek as Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, and was the one handling the gags and comedy that continued to keep the audience keen and managed to do so successfully. With Renner and Cruise for the action and Pegg for the comedy, Paula Patton was the easiest on the eyes as she is a typical female accomplice aiming to engage in strong chemistry with the characters and to add some spice into the film which she also successfully pulls off. After his leading role in the Swedish
Millennium trilogy, Swedish actor Michael Nyqvist makes his first crucial Hollywood debut in the English language as antagonist Kurt Hendricks, so this could be the start of something new for him. Ving Rhames, one of two actors to have appeared in all four instalments (of course, other being Tom Cruise), makes a solid cameo appearance in this film too and made his presence known.
After receiving so much criticism when selected as director, Brad Bird has truly surprised us all and has provided us with a film that has bought something out in him that has taken far too long to see. So, who would’ve thought that Brad Bird, a director who’s directorial filmography consists of animated family films (Pixar Animation Studios films
The Incredibles and Ratatouille and
The Iron Giant), could have pulled off an intense and exhilarating action espionage film so amazingly? Bird has had appearance as part of the action genre like we witnessed in
The Incredibles back in 2004 so you can identify familiar characteristics from that within
Ghost Protocol, but going from an entirely style of filming so successfully is beyond belief! So, Bird is a completely different director here as he mixes a straightforward espionage story with intense action and on-running gags that enlightens the audience. As well as making more with Pixar, he simply must continue to blow us all away with these live-action films!
Overall,
Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol became a huge surprise and is a fantastic action film that is quite possibly the best critically received film of the series, and is my personal favourite. As unnecessary as the film perhaps was to begin with before watching it, the most unexpected outcome
Ghost Protocol leaves you with is that it sways you by demanding more, it expresses that the series hasn’t been put to sleep just yet and that we could be seeing a fifth film in a few years to come.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 2 weeks ago on 14 January 2012 09:04
(A review of
War Horse)
After his successful 3D motion-capture animated feature
The Adventures Of Tintin, the legendary Steven Spielberg provides us with another treat as he makes his second feature film of 2011. Although,
War Horse is perhaps the most different war film that has ever been made seeing as isn’t that much a tale following the perspective of men during the war, but it’s really from the point of view of a horse. So, the fact that Spielberg was chosen for directing
War Horse, there must’ve been an alter to the war genre as well as a guarantee that’ll leave the audience feeling emotionally attached and gripped to the film and what it consists of, which is a speciality of Spielberg. Having said this,
War Horse provides a deeply personal story with a numerous number of meaningful messages that’ll melt your heart as well as break it.
Based on the children’s book of the same name by Michael Murpurgo and also loosely based on the 2007 stage play, tells the story in Devon 1914 of a young family on a farm - the alcoholic father, Ted (Peter Mullan), the mother Rose (Emily Watson) and their young son Albert (Jeremy Irvine). One day, Ted manages to purchase a young stallion by outbidding his obnoxious landlord Lyons (David Thewlis) and takes him back to the farm. Whilst there, Albert and Joey (the name that Albert decided for him) grow this strong bond and live as if there was nothing that stood between them. However, on the brink of World War I, Joey is sold to the armed forces and leaves Albert devastated but leaves his father’s pennant tied to Joey’s bridle should he ever find him again. Albert joins the service in an attempt to find Joey again and return him home safely.
As you watch it, it is rather easy to identify
War Horse as a Spielberg film due to the facts that it mixes the innocence and personal friendships that we observed in
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and the horror, heartbreak and devastation of war within his hugely successful war film
Saving Private Ryan. So, this really is a film that only Steven Spielberg could pull off as it features so many particular aspects that we have seen him do so exquisitely over the years. Most directors nowadays would attempt to re-live what Spielberg has made, but this time Spielberg re-lives what directors before him had previously done. For example, he commemorates the works from directors such as Victor Fleming and John Ford with the farm-like backgrounds that provides peace and innocence, but with the dark and moving story behind it. Plus, it creatively manages to push in the R/15 certificate where war films are usually at this particular rating, but
War Horse creatively manages to push in its PG-13/12A rating by being able to merge the deeply personal and intense aspects together that appeal to a wide target audience like it well and truly deserves.
Including the outstanding direction from Spielberg, the praise must go to breath-taking aspects of the cinematography, art direction and costume design.
War Horse presents itself as a film of pure art as well as an emotional war-drama as the cinematography in many ways is very similar to classic Hollywood film
Gone With The Wind. Plus, the backgrounds settings provides the “Awww” sense to it that makes it the occasionally sweet and innocent tale featuring the beautiful landscapes and the golden skies but also a sense of disgust and gloom due to the battlefields. John Williams, who has collaborated with Steven Spielberg in almost every single film that he’s done, never ceases to amaze as he once again puts together a very powerful, spine-chilling score that adds even more drama and reality into the film. However, despite the positives, the film did slightly suffer from slow pacing to begin with as it took quite a while to get going.
In almost every single film that Spielberg has made, he usually goes for an entirely different cast all-round as he works alongside some up-rising, young actors and some other experienced yet underrated actors in
War Horse. However, despite the different cast the leading role has to go to Joey, the stallion who is the central figure of the story. Out of the 14 horses that played Joey, the leading one who appeared the most had already portrayed Seabiscuit in the film of the same name; this horse wasn’t just a horse make an appearance to charm the audience. It was literally like Joey, as well as the other horses, was providing an acting performance as we venture along with Joey through war and we can understand it from his perspective. This is exactly what this film is meant to bring out – how horses were truly treated during wars and the fact that their lives are still ones lost in the wars. So, if you’re an animal lover, you will almost immediately fall in love with Joey and will lead you to tears whilst experiencing his journey.
Jeremy Irvine makes his feature film debut as he portrays handsome and sweet-hearted Albert. Irvine’s performance may be underrated but he provides exactly what was expected from a young, sensitive man as the relationship between him and Joey is a firmly solid bond, especially in the opening segments of the film where they meet. In the war scenes, he renovates the charming and occasionally innocent nature that’s familiar to Lew Ayres’s role as Paul Bäumer in classic World War I film
All Quiet On The Western Front. Emily Watson and Peter Mullan deliver grand performances as well as Albert’s parents Ted and Rose, and David Thewlis is very good as the arrogant landlord Lyons. Debuting French actress Celine Buckens and veteran French actor Niels Arestrup make crucial appearances too but they could’ve really done with speaking French with English subtitles as it would’ve perhaps made a bit more realistic. There are also other surprise arrivals into the film from recent breakthrough actors Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch and they make their mark in
War Horse with solid performances too.
Overall,
War Horse is truly an absolutely magnificent and epic story that expresses the firm bind and the personal effects that friendship beholds. Plus, it demonstrates war as a whole from an entirely different perspective that hasn’t really been taken into account.
War Horse is one of those films that will leave you feeling a wide range of mixed emotions as it is a deeply inspiring, genuinely cute and nail-biting journey that is yet another fine accomplishment from Spielberg and will surely lead you to tears of heartbreak and joy.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 2 weeks, 1 day ago on 13 January 2012 08:20
(A review of
Puss in Boots)
The
Shrek franchise began tremendously with its first two instalments receiving worldwide critical acclaim but then came along the disappointing
Shrek The Third and to round it off, the fourth instalment
Shrek Forever After fulfilled the warmth and the comedy that provided a very good ending to the series. However, having said that it had concluded, there was something missing as it didn’t seem quite complete just yet. One of the main characters in the series, Puss In Boots, first-appeared mid-way through the
Shrek sequel and we needed a glimpse of his past which would name this a spin-off. Films of this particular kind are usually an absolute waste as they go totally out of hand and because this was a prequel as well, expectations were rather mixed. Despite this,
Puss In Boots turned out a great surprise that feels like one on its own without almost no connection to the
Shrek franchise at all.
Years before the events of
Shrek 2 (no precise time setting), the adorable but tricky Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) must clear his name from all charges making him a wanted fugitive. He makes attempts to steal magic beans from the infamous criminals Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris), the hero crosses paths with his female match, Kitty Softpaws (Selma Hayek), who leads Puss to his old friend, but now enemy, Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis). Although, Humpty’s trust in Puss was rocked many years ago due to acts of betrayal after a strong friendship, Puss agrees to aid the egg retrieve the magic beans, steal the Golden Goose and to clear Puss’s name.
From the likes of particularly DreamWorks Animation and Pixar Animation Studios, each of the feature films presented embark us all on different adventures and meeting new characters from different backgrounds that provides the enchanting magic, the hilarious comedy and the binding and close bonds between the characters. Within
Puss In Boots, it consists of an adventure into the classic fairy tales that we’d have read in our younger lives, which is what the four
Shrek films express. So, it is, in that particular way, still linked to the series but as far as dialogue, comedy and action,
Puss In Boots is more a less a particular kind of film alone.
Although its animation and only consists of voice-acting, Spanish actor Antonio Banderas gives a performance that he really was destined to portray the title character. He already was brilliant in the
Shrek films but more than ever, Banderas adds a more badass and more heroic cat that we hadn’t really seen previously and we witnessed a rather emotionally attached and thought-provoking Puss that we didn’t see all that much within the
Shrek series. Plus, he presents a character a lot like Zorro/Alejandro Murrieta who Banderas is well-known for playing. Mexican Academy Award nominee Salma Hayek, who has collaborated with Banderas on more than one occasion in leading roles (e.g.
Desperado, Once Upon A Time In Mexico) provides a solid performance who brings forth an unusually sexy nature towards Kitty Softpaws as she expresses a Catwoman-like personality even though she’s actually a cat. So, due to the voice acting performance and how Hayek made us feel about her, she would have made a strong candidate for the Catwoman character.
The Hangover and
Due Date funny man Zach Galifianakis goes somewhere a bit different with this one, not only because it’s animation but because the Humpty Dumpty character is occasionally a rather dark character, so that provides a rather new side of acting to him as well as the vintage laugh-out-loud humour that he brings forth here and has done in the past. Humpty is rather different here to the original tales of the character, but it’s still a very nice treat to see him on the big screen. Even more fairy tale classic characters are added to the list – Jack and Jill, who are portrayed by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris. Having said that these two are the biggest villains in the film and their appearances aren’t frequent, they aren’t the innocent ones like in the nursery rhyme and older tales. So, like Humpty Dumpty, it was a delight to add them into the mix.
Pan’s Labyrinth and
Hellboy director Guillermo Del Toro amazingly came into the blue and appears in a brief role as the Moustache Man.
Chris Miller, the director who gave us the massive let-down that was
Shrek The Third, directs
Puss In Boots and reluctantly makes up for the previous disappointment he bought forth. These being the only two feature films that he has ever directed and has provided a balanced point of view about him now, whatever he’ll decide to be part of in the future will go either way. The most important feature that was in
Puss In Boots that was a vital miss in
Shrek The Third was that it provided a lot more warmth and strong bonds between the characters, and quite honestly if any animated film for kids doesn’t have that, it’s not going to work. It took three screenwriters to write this intriguing spin-off prequel and the hats go off to them as two of the three provide solid experience in writing an animated film and the third has illustrated participation within the comedy genre. So, in the writing category of the film, it turned out a successful triumph.
Overall,
Puss In Boots is a charming and dazzling adventure that has almost no part of the
Shrek series at all. Whether you’re a huge admirer of
Shrek and its sequels or not,
Puss In Boots is a family film that is filled with exciting and enchanting aspects that mixes the innocence of the story for kids with the childhood memories of the tales featuring the characters that’ll no doubt make this appealing for adults to really enjoy too.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 2 weeks, 2 days ago on 12 January 2012 08:03
(A review of
The Rite)
Time and time again, we witness all of these horror exorcism films that are “based on true stories” where they always provide the exact same tone, style of filming and type of suspense in an attempt to terrify its target audience. There has not been one single exorcism film to have been a strong match to sum-up or even surpass the horrifying and realistic execution of the battles between good and evil ever the release of
The Exorcist back in 1973 and, quite frankly as predicted,
The Rite is another failed exorcism film that is another cheesy and dull addition to the horror/thriller genre that is forgettable, but does have one or two positive aspects.
Being the son of a funeral director, Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donoghue) is a sceptical seminary student and his ambition to complete a degree course has begun. However, one night he accidentally knocks over a young woman on a bicycle who mistakes him for a priest. So, questioning his lack of faith in Christianity, Michael ventures to Rome to attend an exorcism course at the Vatican held by Father Lucas (Anthony Hopkins). Michael learns the ways of possessive demons as demonstrated from one of Father Lucas’s patients but the tables begin to turn as the demon becomes even more dangerous.
Although
The Rite occasionally has its rather scary segments that are quite difficult to endure, the biggest problem that the film has is that it is just is depressingly flat throughout the majority of the time. It’s like the film is as dry as a plank of wood as it lacks a specific meaning and doesn’t leave the audience with anything to deeply think about. Plus, even though the background art within Rome, in the churches etc and the costumes and make-up upon the actors are absolutely fantastic,
The Rite lacks almost everything that’s supposed to meet the feelings of the audiences as the production aspects were the substitutes over the feelings of terror that the film should have had.
The Rite is not the first time that Swedish director and screenwriter Mikael Håfström has brought forth a horror film. He previously worked on
1408 and on the 2010 thriller
Shanghai, but considering that being one who’s not all that familiar with his work, he provides impressively produced aspects (i.e. cinematography, art direction and costumes) but he simply was absolutely no match to bring forth the horror, the reality and the drama in an exorcism film like William Friedkin did in
The Exorcist in 1973. In fact, to be able to achieve this is an almost impossibility due to the fact that all these exorcism films nowadays all practically interpret almost exactly the same.
The great Sir Anthony Perkins already made his mark in the horror/thriller genre after his Academy Award winning performance as Dr. Hannibal Lecter in
Silence Of The Lambs and later on portraying said character in the sequel and prequel. However, having said that Anthony Hopkins’ appearance in
The Rite is a very crucial aspect that perhaps did save it from disaster, Hopkins still gave a satisfactory performance that is decent enough to endure for 100+ minutes, but he really can do so much better than this! Colin O’Donoghue makes only his third consecutive appearance in a feature film, but first Hollywood film debut, as Michael Kovak. Unfortunately, Kovak provides a performance that was almost like watching paint dry as he provides almost no emotion nor fright to the young man in the slightest, although there have been a few other young actors who’ve given more disappointing performances over the years. The chemistry between O’Donoghue and Hopkins was very one-sided as it felt a lot like it was Hopkins doing all the work and that O’Donoghue gave assumptions that he didn’t want to be part of the film at all. There’s a surprise appearance from veteran Dutch actor Rutger Lauer also best known for the horror/thriller films he has done throughout his career, so he, like Hopkins, provides some kind of sophistication to
The Rite.
Overall,
The Rite is just another exorcism film making a worthless attempt at renovating the particular the theme within the genre, but turns out a plain and rather flat that really doesn’t terrify the audience all that much. As stated, Hopkins and Rauer add a tad bit of spice into the film but having said that, the other aspects within
The Rite just don’t provide the horror and intense experience that we should have had.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 2 weeks, 6 days ago on 9 January 2012 01:03
(A review of
The Deep Blue Sea)
Understandably, one can totally confuse this British drama for a film about the underwater world and it’s features due to the description of the title (especially the 1999 film
Deep Blue Sea), but the nature of the title definitely serves its definitive meaning within the film. Time and time again, we have witnessed these dramas involving traumatised civilians that take us on an emotional and thought-provoking ride where the occurred events lead to a very tender and important message. The play by dramatist Terrence Ratigan that this is based on has already been adapted once before into a film that starred Vivien Leigh and Kenneth More, but now comes forth a second adaptation of the play.
Set “around 1950”,
The Deep Blue Sea is the story of Hester (Rachel Weisz) who is the wife of older man, William Collyer (Simon Russell Beale), a local High Court judge, but Hester begins an affair with a man at her normal age, Freddie Page (Tom Hiddleston), a Royal Air Force Pilot. However, fearing that Freddie is tired of her, Hester attempts to commit suicide. When this doesn’t go to plan, her life is totally altered upside down as her relationship with Freddie hits the rocks.
Although it is a 1950s British drama, the extraordinary title
The Deep Blue Sea provides a personal reference to death as it illustrates how one’s life can sink to an incredibly low level that could go as far as to one considering an attempt at suicide. So, as a result of this, the film exposes an explanation informing that we do not know what goes on inside the mind.
The Deep Blue Sea is not adapted in chronological order so it consists of just after the suicide attempt and then taken into numerous flashbacks that exposes the motive to do so. It literally opens up the consequences and personal affects that suicide really has, not so much on the individual committing it, but for the loved ones around that person.
Out of the six films since 1988 that he has directed, Terence Davies hasn’t received any major recognition and a critical round of applause for his work. Considering that his latest film
The Deep Blue Sea stars the dazzling and beautiful Rachel Weisz and uprising actor Tom Hiddleston, his work is yet again extremely underrated. What he provides with
The Deep Blue Sea are concepts that are partially linked with the tones from a certain number of films directed by David Lynch, such as rather dark background settings, eerie music score and with some unique and creative camera angles. Including being the director, Davies also took the honourable role of penning the script of
The Deep Blue Sea. There is so much dialogue within as it involves a lot of thought-provoking and up-close conversations like a play normally does. So all-round, Terence Davies honours the original play by Terrence Ratigan but makes it a solid drama.
To be quite honest,
The Deep Blue Sea is one of those rare films where only a certain low number of specific key characters involved. Academy Award winning British actress Rachel Weisz has and we’ve seen her mostly as this simple, young, gorgeous woman in the majority of films that she has been part of. Her performance in
The Deep Blue Sea as Hester Collyer is rather different from anything she has done, so she provides a slightly new style of performance in this one. She’s a lot darker in nature and is a deeply distressed and fairly psychologically disturbed young woman who is in her own personal trap and tries to break free! Weisz’s performance perhaps isn’t Oscar bait, but it’s definitely one of her best roles. Tom Hiddleston who got his breakthrough earlier in 2011 after
Thor and he gives a distraught and emotional performance as Freddie Page. The chemistry between Freddie and Hester could have been a tad bit stronger, but it was solid enough to get to grips with and to feel the emotional attachment between them.
Overall,
The Deep Blue Sea is a highly underrated drama that is definitely one of the best British films of 2011 as it provides both emotional drama and a psychological in-sight into the mind. No, this isn’t going to be one of the greatest films that you’ll ever watch, but it is still provides what every film of this particular genre should: a meaningful message to its audience. So, for this reason, it is a recommended drama that is really worth checking out.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 2 weeks, 6 days ago on 8 January 2012 03:43
(A review of
My Week with Marilyn)
Having the ability to tackle a biographical film about a Hollywood icon is usually a very difficult task as a particular series of events that occur in one’s life is required for it to work as a solid story in a motion picture. When it comes to a film about somebody like Marilyn Monroe, you really need a strong casting for that person and it needs to be executed solidly that is both a film alone but also brings forth a tribute towards the real-life people the actors are portraying. Monroe’s shocking and unexpected death in 1962 would have perhaps been the biggest key idea for a film, but we are taken somewhere a bit different with
My Week With Marilyn as it shows us one of her projects and close relationships and about her overwhelming popularity as an actress and sex symbol in the 1950s.
Based upon a true story and a book and memoir written by Colin Clark is set in the summer of 1956 where Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh is making a film named
The Prince And The Showgirl in London. Young Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), an eager film student, wants to be involved and he navigates himself a job on the set. When film star Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) arrives for the start of shooting, all of London is excited to see the blonde bombshell, while Olivier is struggling to meet her many demands and acting ineptness, and Colin is intrigued by her. Colin's intrigue is met when Marilyn invites him into her inner world where she struggles with her fame, her beauty and her desire to be a great actress.
My Week With Marilyn provides almost exact similar concepts to what Academy Award winning historical drama
The King’s Speech provided in 2010. Mutually they are balanced evenly between a typical historical costume drama and just simply a biographical film. Most people refer to historical dramas as films that are about kings, queens, dukes, duchesses etc, but being a film about Hollywood stars and a small love story,
My Week With Marilyn provides colour and beauty which is essential for a film like this. Plus, it proves that both biographical and historical films usually work best when the budget isn’t massively high, and although £6.4 million isn’t all that much for a film of this modern era, thankfully the glistening backgrounds and corny acting doesn’t take over
My Week With Marilyn like we have seen in the past.
Simon Curtis is another addition to the list of directors that have converted from a few years of television and then going straight into the world of cinema. Due to his lack of experience in the film industry, the odds were perhaps against him to make a rather important film like
My Week With Marilyn that turns out a solid and all-round success. Curtis, like Tom Hooper for
The King’s Speech goes straight into the blue and goes on to make a solid breakthrough in his career and provides an accurate on-screen vision of great historical figures. Like director Simon Curtis, screenwriter Adrian Hodges makes his film debut as he penned an extraordinary but rather flawed script. Hodges who previously wrote and co-created science-fiction television programmes
Survivors and
Primeval, perhaps didn’t get it all right with
My Week With Marilyn as it consisted of a few particular scenes of dialogue with inappropriately vulgar lines. That is the only slight weakness of this film that
slightly lacked the reality of a film set in 1950s London, but it is all-round a breakthrough for the makers.
To be able to not only pull off the precise vocals and talent but the beauty of the almost perfect woman that was Marilyn Monroe is almost impossible to achieve, but Michelle Williams’ portrayal of Monroe is pretty damn close! Williams who has appeared here and there in various films ever since her breakthrough performance in
Brokeback Mountain, provides a performance as Marilyn Monroe that proves herself worthy as one of the greatest portrayals of a historical symbol in recent memory. She not only supplies the irresistible sex symbol status of Monroe but also maintained her cute, vulnerable and in-secure nature, just like Colin Firth did of King George VI in
The King’s Speech. Plus, Williams acts as two people – Monroe herself but also Monroe in the role of Elsie in
The Prince And The Showgirl, so that’s another positive aspect on Williams’ part. Quite frankly, if she does not win the Oscar for Best Leading Actress, the Academy will have made a huge, huge mistake as there could not have been a more explicit portrayal of the iconic Marilyn Monroe as Williams provides here.
My Week With Marilyn not only features Marilyn in one of her films but also other legendary actors portrayed by other ones from the likes of Sir Laurence Olivier, his wife at the time Vivien Leigh and Dame Sybil Thorndike. Kenneth Branagh who has appeared and directed in a numerous number of historical dramas, portrays Sir Laurence Olivier in a performance that provides Olivier as a both rather dangerous yet incredibly funny character. The love-hate chemistry between Williams and Branagh on-screen as Monroe and Olivier is absolutely superb as they generate together a re-birth illustration of the production within
The Prince And The Showgirl. Eddie Redmayne’s portrayal of author and creator of the story Colin Clark provides a young and innocent character who perfectly demonstrates how easy Monroe really was on the eyes, and Judi Dench was her absolutely wonderful, supporting self once again as Dame Sybil Thorndike. The only weak-spots for casting were Julia Ormond as Vivien Leigh who for starters doesn’t look like Leigh and adds no reality or belief that it’s Vivien Leigh on the screen. We all blatantly know Emma Watson as Hermione Granger in the incredibly popular
Harry Potter franchise, and stars in a film that’s totally different to what she’s done before, but the problem is with Emma now is that all we know her as now and always will know her as Hermione Granger.
Overall,
My Week With Marilyn is a solid and mesmerising motion picture that captures the reality of 1956 London alongside outstanding performances from Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh and makes its mark as another truly great biographical film and historical drama. In order to gain a clear understanding of Monroe’s and Olivier’s nature and fully appreciate the actors performances as the selective characters, it is perhaps essential to watch any one of their films that they’ve each been part of. Plus, if you’re firmly hooked to the emotion and inspiration of
The King’s Speech, you are bound to gain a close sensitive attachment to
My Week With Marilyn too.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 3 weeks, 3 days ago on 4 January 2012 03:33
(A review of
The Smurfs)
Well, here we are again with yet another film adaptation aiming to relive the magic and beauty from our favourite comics and TV programmes during our childhoods. Being one who didn’t really read many of the comic books but used to watch the original TV cartoons at a young age, thoughts of yet another feature film based on
The Smurfs to start off with weren’t all that great due to the fact that the altered adjustments in the film from the cartoons are easily recognizable which could kill the charm and innocence that we witnessed in our childhoods. Having already featured two Belgian animated versions in 1965 and 1976, the latest American version of the classic cartoons is beyond corny as it turned out a completely failed disaster in almost every single aspect!
At the beginning, the Smurfs are normally living their lives in their home village within a magical world beyond ours. However, until the evil wizard Gargamel (Azaria) attacks and crashes the Smurfs out of their home village, they are cast away into our world, specifically Central Park in New York City where the wizard loses sight of them. Whilst there, they come across young couple Patrick (Neil Patrick Harris) and Grace (Jayma Mays) who take them in. Gargamel isn’t going to give up as he enters New York in a search for the Smurfs whilst they attempt to find their way back to their village before Gargamel is able to find them.
In all honesty,
The Smurfs is a perfect example that demonstrates how even a family film, the most light-hearted genre of film out there, can go wrong and totally fall apart as it simply does not have any of the particular concepts that are required to satisfy its target audience. It is literally humourless and there really is absolutely funny or witty about it at all, there is no emotion or chemistry between neither the Smurf characters nor the young couple, not to mention the acting, character development and script were all absolutely atrocious. On the other hand, like every film that involves animation deserves,
The Smurfs clearly does have its impressive visual effects but even they didn’t save the film as the dialogue simply makes it like an altered version of
Alvin And The Chipmunks.
Over the years, director Raja Gosnell has provided us with some of the corniest, family orientated disasters of this generation. Gosnell’s previously best-known work is the live-action/CGI converted feature film of classic 2D cartoon show
Scooby Doo and its absolutely atrocious sequel, it doesn’t come to a great surprise that lightning has stuck yet again. Despite liking the first
Scooby Doo film in 2002, Gosnell truly knows how to transform a gem from a kid’s childhood and turn it into disaster. The screenplay of
The Smurfs is beyond soppy as it is written in a really bad dialogue, especially with how the film ended as it could have ended stronger than it actually did. Plus, the incredibly corny scenes lacked reality and truly kills the humour, charm and innocence of
The Smurfs characters.
Excluding the Smurfs, Hank Azaria is perhaps the leader of the pack as he portrays the evil wizard Gargamel. Over the years, Azaria has been part of a large number of films but with rather lame performances, and it’s safe to say that he truly cannot act at all and gives us yet another appalling performance. This film as well as the Gargamel character really could have worked out brilliantly if the character was a bit more comical let alone more evil. Honestly, not in a long time has there been a soppier, poorly acted and wooden dry couple in a film!
Glee star Jayma Mays and Neil Patrick Harris, who has a reputation of starring in unsuccessful and corny films portray the selective roles. There is literally no sparks, no chemistry and simply no love or compassion between them in the slightest, let alone either of them have for the Smurfs.
Quite honestly, if you’re a big fan of
The Smurfs cartoons and/or the original comic books, you will most likely be disappointed or even rather disgusted at this updated American version because the Smurfs in this one really aren’t the Smurfs that we saw back then. Yes, they have the same features but personality wise and how we think about them, they are all entirely different! Including the 3D animation, they all carry the incredibly annoying and unrealistic characteristics of Alvin, Simon and Theodore from the
Alvin And The Chipmunks that will have some kids at least under 5 giggling on occasions but it will not impress others.
Overall,
The Smurfs is an absolutely atrocious film that is an utter disaster in almost every single way. Yes, the film does have its decent effects but a film really isn’t just about the effects, whether it is aimed for kids or not. If there’s anything that
The Smurfs has taught us, it’s taught us that if you’re intending to touch the next generation with a film based upon a TV show or a kind of book from the previous one, make sure that you get the facts straight first and just make it original rather than merging it with other films. After how this one turned out, who knows how the sequel upcoming in 2013 will transpire.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Explore
Join Listal
Movies
TV Shows
DVDs
Music
Books
Games
Lists
Reviews
Images
United Kingdom
One of these days someone will no doubt convince me to watch the whole thing...or at least tie me to a chair & force me to watch it all.
Anyway, hope you're having a good week!
It's easy to find oneself lost in its labyrinth, I also did; however, it's a brilliant reflection of human vulnerability and, for that reason, I think it's a brilliant piece of cinema.
link : http://www.listal.com/list/some-unanswered-questions
"Three good films that Tim Allen has made: Toy Story trilogy as Buzz Lightyear ;)"
I totally agree with you !!
regards,
VOTE!!!!
Listal's 100 Films To See Before You Die (2012)
then i read it!
Heh. My reviews would probably be less educated and lacking perspective unless it had to do with giant monsters or something... But I guess writing video game reviews is a start, should I ever branch off and want to review other stuff.
VOTE!!!!
Listal's 100 Films To See Before You Die (2012)
and of course, Happy New Year!
http://www.listal.com/list/my-worst-of-2011