I haven't really seen any movies lately as I've been pretty busy with work and everything and I've trying to develop a quick rate graphic but it's not going well... However, it's been a while since I've posted so I thought I should write something, thanks to Auri for the suggestion!
Without further ado and in reverse order...
#5 - Superbad
Good comedy, very funny. Go rent it now. There's really not that much I can say about it... simple story, endearing characters, good laugh!
#4 - Saw IV
Like 'em or not, you can't deny that the Saw films have staying power. As you can see from the position on this list, I like 'em. I really they are the best of the genre at the moment and believe me I've seen a lot of the rest of the genre, the Saw films definitely are the best... Word from the wise, don't ever watch Monster Man... and this is coming from someone who's happy to watch the worst of the worst...
#3 - American Gangster
Solid drama, interesting story, well told. Been called into question lately but I still think it was very good film, very strong performances. And I didn't hate Russell Crowe in it so that's a major achievement on his and the directors part.
#2 - The Darjeeling Limited
I'll have to write a proper review of this film when I buy it on DVD and watch it again but anyway... I love Wes Anderson - The Royal Tenenbaums is my favourite film - however I have to admit (very quietly) that I had been somewhat disappointed with The Life Aquatic. Not the case with The Darjeeling Limited, it's very much a Wes Anderson film in the sense that it has the weird characters, the little details, the strangely out-to-time feeling... I could go one but like I said, I should write a proper review... so I'll leave it at that.
#1 - Transformers
What can I saw about Transformers, not since Snakes On A Plane had I been so desperate to see a film on the big screen. Admittedly Snakes On A Plane wasn't that long ago... but I really wanted to see Snakes On A Plane. Anyway, really I had been waiting to see the Transformers in the cinema since I was a little girl and when it finally happened it did not disappoint. Giant robots people! Giant robots! Sure the plot's a little hokey but that ain't the point, the effects were amazing and the efforts of the actors were admirable. I was pleasantly surprised that Michael Bay actually bothered with the people, so often in big budget action films you see characters cast by the wayside (see the film below for a prime example of that!) but I think Bay got a good mix going here... Anyway, great film, if I see another as good in the next 12 months I'll be surprised!
#1 Worst - Spider-man 3
I loathed Spider-Man 3, not just because it was a poor film, or because it rounded out a poor trilogy but because it could have been so much better. You only have to at the X-Men films or some of the Batman films to see what you can do with a comic book story.
The first film was alright but then they apparently went mad, forgot about characters, threw together some half assed villans and decided that if we were completely dazzled by sand effects, we'd never notice that the characters were made of paper.
I really felt that this particular film was excellent example of how not to do a big budget action film... and action films aren't that hard to do... expectations aren't that high... mine weren't that high after Spider-Man 2 but this was still so very disappointing.
Friday 18 January 2008
Saturday 12 January 2008
Knocked Up (2007)
Judd Apatow has had a very successful few years... between Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy, The 40-year Old Virgin and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, he's been involved in some of the biggest comedy films in the last four years. While 2006 was quiet in terms of releases he obviously spent the time working on upcoming films as Knocked Up was only one of three films he produced for 2007, the other two being Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story and Superbad. While I haven't seen Walk Hard, I can say that I thought Superbad was very funny. However, while Apatow produced those films, he also wrote and directed Knocked Up, it's the second film he's directed, 2005's The 40-year Old Virgin being his first.
Plainly spoken, Knocked Up is the story of one drunken night and its consequences. Alison Scott (played by Katherine Heigl) is a 24-year old who's been promoted to on-screen after working behind the scenes at the entertainment channel E!. Ben Stone (played by Seth Rogen") is a 23-year old stoner living off a compensation award with a group of buddies. Theoretically they're working on a website concept however really... they're watching out for nude scenes starring famous actresses.
There's nothing remarkably deep about this film so, don't go looking for it but I did think it was very entertaining. All the supporting characters were strong (particular mention to Kristen Wiig who played Jill - an exec in E!) and the two leads were very well suited. I found it very funny and the situations, though somewhat ridiculous, were made believable, in the same way we saw in The 40-year Old Virgin to be honest. There was charm to everything and really, it's just a nice film.
I will say this, I was initially apprehensive when this came about in the cinemas because it looked a bit like a chick film however after hearing that it was great from girls and guy alike and also because of Judd Apatow's other films I thought I'd give it a go. They weren't wrong and so I join others in wholly recommending it as a good way to spend approximately 130 mins of your life. I do wonder though, as a girl was it fundamentally a different film for me than it would be for a guy? Not humourwise I mean, just in general... I guess I'll never really know!
Plainly spoken, Knocked Up is the story of one drunken night and its consequences. Alison Scott (played by Katherine Heigl) is a 24-year old who's been promoted to on-screen after working behind the scenes at the entertainment channel E!. Ben Stone (played by Seth Rogen") is a 23-year old stoner living off a compensation award with a group of buddies. Theoretically they're working on a website concept however really... they're watching out for nude scenes starring famous actresses.
There's nothing remarkably deep about this film so, don't go looking for it but I did think it was very entertaining. All the supporting characters were strong (particular mention to Kristen Wiig who played Jill - an exec in E!) and the two leads were very well suited. I found it very funny and the situations, though somewhat ridiculous, were made believable, in the same way we saw in The 40-year Old Virgin to be honest. There was charm to everything and really, it's just a nice film.
I will say this, I was initially apprehensive when this came about in the cinemas because it looked a bit like a chick film however after hearing that it was great from girls and guy alike and also because of Judd Apatow's other films I thought I'd give it a go. They weren't wrong and so I join others in wholly recommending it as a good way to spend approximately 130 mins of your life. I do wonder though, as a girl was it fundamentally a different film for me than it would be for a guy? Not humourwise I mean, just in general... I guess I'll never really know!
Friday 11 January 2008
No Country For Old Men (2007)
No Country For Old Men is the new film from the Oscar©-winning cult directors Joel and Ethan Coen. Based on the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, No Country For Old Men follows the chase as a quiet man is thrown into the path of drug dealers and hired killers by a chance discovery.
On the whole I enjoyed No Country For Old Men. I thought the plot was interesting, the cinematography was excellent and the acting was very accomplished - strong performances all round. However, ultimately I found it somewhat unsatisfying and there were really two reasons for this...
The first of which is mainly a matter of taste. I enjoy a wide range of films however for a film to really stand out for me there has to have been a reason it was a film. I mean this is in the sense that I have to feel like I couldn't have just read the book and felt the same. Now obviously this film was a book adaptation so it was always going to be primarily narrative and possibly this meant that I was never going to feel that it was brilliant... However, I think the best adaptations from books/short stories don't simply tell the tale, they make full use of the added visual and aural elements to connect us to that story - take the scene in The Shawshank Redemption when the music is played out across prison - if you simply read that scene in a book it wouldn't be the same. While the Coen Brothers showed us beautiful landscapes but I'm just not sure that it really added that much to the overall feeling of the film.
The second reason that is that I didn't really feel a connection with the characters and I am firmly of the opinion that it's the film-makers job to make me feel that connection. I was interested in what they were up to but for me it didn't really matter what happened to them. I was engaged by the story, by the the cat and mouse chase, however it was like watching a cat chase a mouse... I didn't care how it ended.
But I'm being overly critical of the film. It was a very good film, it's won awards and it will undoubtedly win some more. It really did have a lot going for it, I appreciated its look at fate, chance and choice - Was the ending inevitable, perhaps? Is Chigurh purely evil? Does he make the choice to... not make the choice as it were? It made it interesting, something different from your usual drama, I suppose those situations are not unfamiliar territory for the Coens however that's a good thing, it sets them apart from other directors. Also as I mentioned earlier, the performances were excellent, as you'd expect from such a lauded cast. I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 but for me it just wasn't a classic film.
On the whole I enjoyed No Country For Old Men. I thought the plot was interesting, the cinematography was excellent and the acting was very accomplished - strong performances all round. However, ultimately I found it somewhat unsatisfying and there were really two reasons for this...
The first of which is mainly a matter of taste. I enjoy a wide range of films however for a film to really stand out for me there has to have been a reason it was a film. I mean this is in the sense that I have to feel like I couldn't have just read the book and felt the same. Now obviously this film was a book adaptation so it was always going to be primarily narrative and possibly this meant that I was never going to feel that it was brilliant... However, I think the best adaptations from books/short stories don't simply tell the tale, they make full use of the added visual and aural elements to connect us to that story - take the scene in The Shawshank Redemption when the music is played out across prison - if you simply read that scene in a book it wouldn't be the same. While the Coen Brothers showed us beautiful landscapes but I'm just not sure that it really added that much to the overall feeling of the film.
The second reason that is that I didn't really feel a connection with the characters and I am firmly of the opinion that it's the film-makers job to make me feel that connection. I was interested in what they were up to but for me it didn't really matter what happened to them. I was engaged by the story, by the the cat and mouse chase, however it was like watching a cat chase a mouse... I didn't care how it ended.
But I'm being overly critical of the film. It was a very good film, it's won awards and it will undoubtedly win some more. It really did have a lot going for it, I appreciated its look at fate, chance and choice - Was the ending inevitable, perhaps? Is Chigurh purely evil? Does he make the choice to... not make the choice as it were? It made it interesting, something different from your usual drama, I suppose those situations are not unfamiliar territory for the Coens however that's a good thing, it sets them apart from other directors. Also as I mentioned earlier, the performances were excellent, as you'd expect from such a lauded cast. I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 but for me it just wasn't a classic film.
Thursday 10 January 2008
The Science of Sleep (2006)
Until a few years ago Michel Gondry was primarily known as a music video director. His videos include Around The World by Daft Punk, Everlong by Foo Fighters, Come Into My World by Kylie Minogue and my personal favourite Dead Leaves On The Dirty Ground by The White Stripes. His first foray into feature films in 2001 with, Human Nature written by Charles Kaufman, was generally ignored however it was his next collaboration with Kaufman, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, that really made people take notice. With such a critically acclaimed film to his name it seems only fair that Gondry be allowed to be somewhat... indulgent with the next film he wrote.
The Science of Sleep is that film. Starring Gael García Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the film tells the story of an innocent man, a man who lives in a fantastic land where his dreams can help him realise a relationship with a women he's just met. It's a sweet story and I'll come straight out and say it. I thought it was great. I will say this, the weirdness hits you from the outset, everything I had heard before seeing this pointed to the fact that it would be strange but I had expected the film to build to it in the same way that we would have seen in Eternal Sunshine.
The plot itself is quite simple. Following the death of his father in Mexico, Stéphane (Gael García Bernal), a shy dreamy fellow, agrees to move to Paris to be closer to his mother as she has promised him that she has an apartment for him and a creative job in a calender company . He moves into the apartment and becomes entranced with his next door neighbour, Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). However his life keeps getting in the way, his aspirations to be a graphic designer are stifled in the calender-making company as his actual position is completely mudane and is driving him further into his dream world. He shares a delicate bond with Stéphanie however he has become caught up in a lie pretending that he lives in another building. As he becomes more frustrated his fantasies start to consume him however his relationship with Stéphanie is growing and it all has to come to a head sometime... a fairly classic tale of boy meets girl.
That said, a simple plot can be worked into a great film and that's what Gondry has done here. His strength lies in his visual style and whereas in Eternal Sunshine he understated the stylistic end and carried a more complicated plot, in this film he fills out the plot with intricate visuals. If you're familiar with Michel Gondry's music videos at all then you'll notice different elements from the likes of Everlong throughout the film. From cellophane water to the patchwork horse, the details in this film are immense and, if I'm being honest, some people will probably find that this overwhelms the film. Even as a fan of Gondry I think do it’s somewhat indulgent however as weird, whimsical and sometimes engulfing, some of images are, I never felt that Gondry lost sight of his characters. Through it all I cared what happened to this two… kindred spirits if you will… and end of the day this is something that so many film makers fail to do.
Anyway, this is my first review for this blog and I’m afraid that I’m waffling on too much so I’ll stop now… let me know what you think, anything else about the film you want to hear? I hope you found this interesting, good bye!
The Science of Sleep is that film. Starring Gael García Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the film tells the story of an innocent man, a man who lives in a fantastic land where his dreams can help him realise a relationship with a women he's just met. It's a sweet story and I'll come straight out and say it. I thought it was great. I will say this, the weirdness hits you from the outset, everything I had heard before seeing this pointed to the fact that it would be strange but I had expected the film to build to it in the same way that we would have seen in Eternal Sunshine.
The plot itself is quite simple. Following the death of his father in Mexico, Stéphane (Gael García Bernal), a shy dreamy fellow, agrees to move to Paris to be closer to his mother as she has promised him that she has an apartment for him and a creative job in a calender company . He moves into the apartment and becomes entranced with his next door neighbour, Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg). However his life keeps getting in the way, his aspirations to be a graphic designer are stifled in the calender-making company as his actual position is completely mudane and is driving him further into his dream world. He shares a delicate bond with Stéphanie however he has become caught up in a lie pretending that he lives in another building. As he becomes more frustrated his fantasies start to consume him however his relationship with Stéphanie is growing and it all has to come to a head sometime... a fairly classic tale of boy meets girl.
That said, a simple plot can be worked into a great film and that's what Gondry has done here. His strength lies in his visual style and whereas in Eternal Sunshine he understated the stylistic end and carried a more complicated plot, in this film he fills out the plot with intricate visuals. If you're familiar with Michel Gondry's music videos at all then you'll notice different elements from the likes of Everlong throughout the film. From cellophane water to the patchwork horse, the details in this film are immense and, if I'm being honest, some people will probably find that this overwhelms the film. Even as a fan of Gondry I think do it’s somewhat indulgent however as weird, whimsical and sometimes engulfing, some of images are, I never felt that Gondry lost sight of his characters. Through it all I cared what happened to this two… kindred spirits if you will… and end of the day this is something that so many film makers fail to do.
Anyway, this is my first review for this blog and I’m afraid that I’m waffling on too much so I’ll stop now… let me know what you think, anything else about the film you want to hear? I hope you found this interesting, good bye!
Wednesday 9 January 2008
A Little Bit About Me...
Since this is my first post I thought I should let you know about a bit about myself... I'm 28, female and I live in Dublin, Ireland. Also, I watch a lot of films... now to be fair, I don't watch as many films as some people but I probably watch somewhere between 150 to 200 films a year. It's probably worth laying out a bit about my film watching habits too...
Generally I'll watch anything, really anything... Harold & Kumar to Cidade de Deus to Manos: The Hands of Fate... bring it on! (actually Bring It On is a great film... you should watch it, yes you!!)
Also I don't like to know too much about a film before I go see it. Ok, it's interesting to know if the world at large thinks it's good or bad but I don't read critics reviews or anything like that. I'll read them afterwards but not before, I prefer to go to a film and make up my own mind. In fact the only things I really want to know about a film are who directed it, who's in it and how long it is (vital for knowing how much popcorn to get).
If you're wondering about my tastes, I try to rate all my films on IMDb so here is a link to my ratings there. In my mind there's no such thing as a guilty pleasure, I never feel guilty about them :-).
So I think that's it for now, if there's anything else you want to know about me let me know!
Generally I'll watch anything, really anything... Harold & Kumar to Cidade de Deus to Manos: The Hands of Fate... bring it on! (actually Bring It On is a great film... you should watch it, yes you!!)
Also I don't like to know too much about a film before I go see it. Ok, it's interesting to know if the world at large thinks it's good or bad but I don't read critics reviews or anything like that. I'll read them afterwards but not before, I prefer to go to a film and make up my own mind. In fact the only things I really want to know about a film are who directed it, who's in it and how long it is (vital for knowing how much popcorn to get).
If you're wondering about my tastes, I try to rate all my films on IMDb so here is a link to my ratings there. In my mind there's no such thing as a guilty pleasure, I never feel guilty about them :-).
So I think that's it for now, if there's anything else you want to know about me let me know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
