Casino is a spectacular film. It's another classic Scorsese-De Niro partnership and it is masterfully produced. It tells the story of Sam 'Ace' Rothstein who starts out in sports gambling but hits the big time and runs a casino. Joe Pesci plays the 'enforcer' Nicky Santoro, and Sharon Stone completes the star studded cast, playing Ace's wife Ginger. Like most Scorsese films it starts with a scene from later on in the film and then explains how things got to that point.
The plot basically follows the lives of these three characters over an unknown period of time, and it's written superbly. It's definitely the sort of film that you need to pay attention to. You can't have it on in the background and expect to understand it, but if you do get into it, it's really enjoyable. It is based on a true story, like Goodfellas, and this makes the film even more impressive. Some of the details are changed for cinematic effect I assume, for example the casino that Ace runs is called the Tangiers, but this is a fictional casino. It also has a really cyclical nature to it. Ace starts the film gambling on sports events, and that's exactly where he ends up at the end of it.
Scorsese, as ever, does not hold back on the violence either. Joe Pesci's scene at the end is as pretty grim, but the icing on the cake is the 'vice scene'. Anyone who has actually seen the film will know what I'm on about, and for anyone that hasn't, don't try to find out about it if you're a bit squeamish Also, he doesn't hold back on the profanity, and Casino ranks fifth on the list of films to frequently use the word 'Fuck'. This all contributes towards a very heavy going, yet gripping film.
Robert de Niro is, unsurprisingly, completely sublime, perfectly portraying the character of a casino owner. Every microcosm of detail is covered by his acting, and once again, I found myself marvelling at his portrayal of Ace Rothstein. De Niro is perfectly at home in the gangster role, as Goodfellas evidenced, and so Casino is no exception. His protection over his daughter, and his reaction towards Ginger at various points in the film and his relationship with Joe Pesci compliments his style perfectly.
Joe Pesci is also at home as the loose cannon enforcer whose violent 'dealings with' people often put a stain on Ace's legitimate appearance. As with the 'dance scene' in Goodfellas, the 'vice scene' in Casino is disturbing and stands out from the rest of the film. His character is interesting though, and Joe Pesci plays him perfectly. Whether he's comforting Ginger or asking Ace for help or if he's being warned about his lifestyle and the effect he's having on Ace's reputation there's always the feeling that he could fly off the handle. His protection of his brother at the end of the film is a touching addition to his character, but the end that he meets matches his lifestyle and the punishments he's dished out perfectly.
Sharon Stone's character changes dramatically throughout the film. She starts off as a really nice and delightful woman, and you get the impression that her and Ace are a good match. However, as the high roller lifestyle catches up with her she becomes more and more dislikable. The scene where she's trying to get into the house to get her things exemplifies this, and her need for the jewellery and money that Ace promised her is also very dislikable. However Casino seems to be a classic example of two guys who are close friends for years, and it only takes a woman to tear them apart. She does very well in this role.
Casino is a heavy-going film, and I'd really only recommend it to people who genuinely liked Goodfellas and other similar gangster films. It's not a light film, it's not a short film, and it takes some effort to watch it, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Friday 28 December 2012
Sunday 23 December 2012
Sean Connery as James Bond
There are far too many Bond films for me to review them as one whole series, so I decided to break them down Bond-by-Bond, and first up is the original, and for me the best, Sean Connery. He is suave, sophisticated and absolutely fantastic, setting many standards for the Bond's that follow him to live up to. I think that it was Sean Connery's portrayal of Bond that has led to the stereotypes around the character.
The first Bond film, Dr. No takes place in Jamaica, and would now be viewed as a cliched spy film about a man who wants to take over the world. Bond follows the trail left by the murder of the British agent stationed in Jamaica to discover who killed him. This trails leads him to the base of Dr Julius No who is planning to ruin a rocket launch with a radioactive powered ratio beam. This film is famous for so many reasons, not least for starting one of the most successful franchises in movie history. There are so many memorable moments, the most famous of which is Ursula Andress coming out of the sea in 'that' white bikini. The scene with the 'dragon' also sticks in my mind. This was produced on a very low budget, but you wouldn't have guessed this, which undoubtedly contributed to the success of the film. Sean Connery was a relatively unknown actor at the time, and James Bond helped to catapult him into the public eye. Another iconic scene is the first view we ever have of James Bond, featuring the truly iconic line: "Bond, James Bond".
Following Dr. No, the next film, From Russia With Love, had some very high standards to live up to, and it managed this perfectly. From Russia With Love was even more successful than Dr. No, and picks up on SPECTRE which was a common feature of the Ian Fleming books. The story follows Bond's attempts to find a cryptograph machine which was stolen from the Soviets. However, Bond is being followed by an assassin who has been instructed to kill him. The stand out scene of this film is when Bond and Tatiana Romanova board the Orient Express and meet the assassin, pretending to be a British agent in order to gain Bond's trust. This is where the traditional Bond gadget comes in. Q has provided Bond with an attache case, and for me this is the ultimate in gadgetry. The following fight scene is one of the finest in the Bond series, and when Bond and Romanova finally reach Venice with the Lektor device, we see the fight between Bond and the truly sinister Rosa Klebb. From Russia With Love is another diamond in the James Bond crown and is up there as one of my favourites. It firmly cemented James Bond as one of the most iconic cinematic characters ever.
Some how the next film tops the previous two. Goldfinger is absolutely phenomenal and many people consider it to be the best Bond film. Bond's investigation of Goldfinger and Goldfinger's plot to attack the US gold supply provided some incredible moments. The most obvious one is the horrific scene where Bond discovers that Jill Masterson has been killed by being painted gold all over by the sinister henchman who haunts the early part of the film, Odd Ball. Equally iconic is the laser scene with the classic line "Do you expect me to talk?" "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die". Goldfinger also features many people's favourite Bond girl. Honor Blackman is wonderful as Pussy Galore, breaking with the tradition of many Bond films where the girl is hopelessly reliant on Bond. Finally, there is nothing more perfect about Goldfinger than another Q masterpiece. The Aston Martin DB5 and all it's adaptations, quirks and tricks has to be one of the greatest movie cars ever. Goldfinger is by far the ultimate Sean Connery James Bond film, and if you have to watch just one of his films, this should be it.
After the three films preceding it, Thunderball was always going to struggle in my eyes. It's by no means a bad film, in fact it's very good, but in comparison to the previous films it pales. Nevertheless, the underwater fight scene is another iconic James Bond moment, and financially, after inflation has been adjusted for it is the most successful ever. Thunderball sees even more of SPECTRE which has been lingering through all the previous films. The villain in Thunderball is the sinister Emilio Largo who has stolen two atomic bombs and is holding the world to ransom for £100 million in diamonds. Bond, helped by his timeless friend Felix Leiter and Largo's mistress Domino eventually defeats Largo and saves the day, as ever. In my opinion, Thunderball is an excellent Bond film. The jetpack in the opening scene sticks in my mind as one of the moments of the film, and the re-appearance of the DB5 can only ever be a welcome addition to a series which was now rapidly promising to be one of the most successful ever.
My favourite Sean Connery Bond film is You Only Love Twice, or YOLT as some of the youth of today would probably say. A little known fact about You Only Live Twice is that the script was written by Roald Dahl, and is the first Bond film to reject a lot of the original Ian Fleming story. You Only Live Twice revolves around the disappearance of two spacecrafts which was engineered by SPECTRE to force the world into war. Bond tries to solve the puzzle and is eventually confronted by Ernst Stavro Blofeld, who has appeared in most of the previous films, but has never actually been seen. I have used the word 'sinister' a couple of times in this particular post, but a new word is necessary to describe Blofeld in this installment. Horrifying seems to do him justice. For me, this is the image of Blofeld that lingers in my mind, and every portrayal following You Only Live Twice doesn't quite live up to it. I can't decide whether it is the piranhas, used to punish anyone who fails Blofeld, or whether it is the epic nature of the film, or even if it's the storyline itself, but I absolutely love You Only Live Twice. It's not as good as Goldfinger, or even From Russia With Love, but I enjoyed it more, and for me that's the killer.
You Only Live Twice was to be Connery's last appearance as James Bond due to an argument with the producer Albert Broccoli, and he was followed by George Lazenby. However, they evidently resolved their dispute, and Connery was back for Diamonds Are Forever. This sees Bond impersonate a diamond smuggler in order to uncover a blot by Blofeld to build a giant laser. Bond has to fight his ultimate nemesis for the final time to defeat Blofeld once and for all. Naturally he does this with all due sophistication. No classic Bond film would be complete without a secondary villain though, and the slightly camp Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are threaded throughout the film creating a very scary effect. I am always a bit apprehensive whenever I see them in the movie, and this can only be a tribute to Bruce Glover and Putter Smith, however they are nowhere in comparison to some of the other Bond villains. The real shame about Diamonds Are Forever is that it is a black mark on the James Bond record of Sean Connery. Many critics have slated it, and it's without a doubt the worst of all Connery's Bond films.
Nevertheless Sean Connery is the best bond. Five out of his six Bond films are up there with the best for me. His witty one-liners, ultimate sophistication and timeless charm cement him as 'the' James Bond. The opening sequence in Goldfinger where he comes out of the water in his scuba suit, blows up the nitro and then, as entering the bar, strips off to reveal a perfectly crafted white tuxedo is beyond comparison. His films see some of the most iconic cars, villains, gadgets, songs, and women of the whole franchise and because of this, Connery will always stand as the quintessential British spy.
The first Bond film, Dr. No takes place in Jamaica, and would now be viewed as a cliched spy film about a man who wants to take over the world. Bond follows the trail left by the murder of the British agent stationed in Jamaica to discover who killed him. This trails leads him to the base of Dr Julius No who is planning to ruin a rocket launch with a radioactive powered ratio beam. This film is famous for so many reasons, not least for starting one of the most successful franchises in movie history. There are so many memorable moments, the most famous of which is Ursula Andress coming out of the sea in 'that' white bikini. The scene with the 'dragon' also sticks in my mind. This was produced on a very low budget, but you wouldn't have guessed this, which undoubtedly contributed to the success of the film. Sean Connery was a relatively unknown actor at the time, and James Bond helped to catapult him into the public eye. Another iconic scene is the first view we ever have of James Bond, featuring the truly iconic line: "Bond, James Bond".
Following Dr. No, the next film, From Russia With Love, had some very high standards to live up to, and it managed this perfectly. From Russia With Love was even more successful than Dr. No, and picks up on SPECTRE which was a common feature of the Ian Fleming books. The story follows Bond's attempts to find a cryptograph machine which was stolen from the Soviets. However, Bond is being followed by an assassin who has been instructed to kill him. The stand out scene of this film is when Bond and Tatiana Romanova board the Orient Express and meet the assassin, pretending to be a British agent in order to gain Bond's trust. This is where the traditional Bond gadget comes in. Q has provided Bond with an attache case, and for me this is the ultimate in gadgetry. The following fight scene is one of the finest in the Bond series, and when Bond and Romanova finally reach Venice with the Lektor device, we see the fight between Bond and the truly sinister Rosa Klebb. From Russia With Love is another diamond in the James Bond crown and is up there as one of my favourites. It firmly cemented James Bond as one of the most iconic cinematic characters ever.
Some how the next film tops the previous two. Goldfinger is absolutely phenomenal and many people consider it to be the best Bond film. Bond's investigation of Goldfinger and Goldfinger's plot to attack the US gold supply provided some incredible moments. The most obvious one is the horrific scene where Bond discovers that Jill Masterson has been killed by being painted gold all over by the sinister henchman who haunts the early part of the film, Odd Ball. Equally iconic is the laser scene with the classic line "Do you expect me to talk?" "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die". Goldfinger also features many people's favourite Bond girl. Honor Blackman is wonderful as Pussy Galore, breaking with the tradition of many Bond films where the girl is hopelessly reliant on Bond. Finally, there is nothing more perfect about Goldfinger than another Q masterpiece. The Aston Martin DB5 and all it's adaptations, quirks and tricks has to be one of the greatest movie cars ever. Goldfinger is by far the ultimate Sean Connery James Bond film, and if you have to watch just one of his films, this should be it.
After the three films preceding it, Thunderball was always going to struggle in my eyes. It's by no means a bad film, in fact it's very good, but in comparison to the previous films it pales. Nevertheless, the underwater fight scene is another iconic James Bond moment, and financially, after inflation has been adjusted for it is the most successful ever. Thunderball sees even more of SPECTRE which has been lingering through all the previous films. The villain in Thunderball is the sinister Emilio Largo who has stolen two atomic bombs and is holding the world to ransom for £100 million in diamonds. Bond, helped by his timeless friend Felix Leiter and Largo's mistress Domino eventually defeats Largo and saves the day, as ever. In my opinion, Thunderball is an excellent Bond film. The jetpack in the opening scene sticks in my mind as one of the moments of the film, and the re-appearance of the DB5 can only ever be a welcome addition to a series which was now rapidly promising to be one of the most successful ever.
My favourite Sean Connery Bond film is You Only Love Twice, or YOLT as some of the youth of today would probably say. A little known fact about You Only Live Twice is that the script was written by Roald Dahl, and is the first Bond film to reject a lot of the original Ian Fleming story. You Only Live Twice revolves around the disappearance of two spacecrafts which was engineered by SPECTRE to force the world into war. Bond tries to solve the puzzle and is eventually confronted by Ernst Stavro Blofeld, who has appeared in most of the previous films, but has never actually been seen. I have used the word 'sinister' a couple of times in this particular post, but a new word is necessary to describe Blofeld in this installment. Horrifying seems to do him justice. For me, this is the image of Blofeld that lingers in my mind, and every portrayal following You Only Live Twice doesn't quite live up to it. I can't decide whether it is the piranhas, used to punish anyone who fails Blofeld, or whether it is the epic nature of the film, or even if it's the storyline itself, but I absolutely love You Only Live Twice. It's not as good as Goldfinger, or even From Russia With Love, but I enjoyed it more, and for me that's the killer.
You Only Live Twice was to be Connery's last appearance as James Bond due to an argument with the producer Albert Broccoli, and he was followed by George Lazenby. However, they evidently resolved their dispute, and Connery was back for Diamonds Are Forever. This sees Bond impersonate a diamond smuggler in order to uncover a blot by Blofeld to build a giant laser. Bond has to fight his ultimate nemesis for the final time to defeat Blofeld once and for all. Naturally he does this with all due sophistication. No classic Bond film would be complete without a secondary villain though, and the slightly camp Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are threaded throughout the film creating a very scary effect. I am always a bit apprehensive whenever I see them in the movie, and this can only be a tribute to Bruce Glover and Putter Smith, however they are nowhere in comparison to some of the other Bond villains. The real shame about Diamonds Are Forever is that it is a black mark on the James Bond record of Sean Connery. Many critics have slated it, and it's without a doubt the worst of all Connery's Bond films.
Nevertheless Sean Connery is the best bond. Five out of his six Bond films are up there with the best for me. His witty one-liners, ultimate sophistication and timeless charm cement him as 'the' James Bond. The opening sequence in Goldfinger where he comes out of the water in his scuba suit, blows up the nitro and then, as entering the bar, strips off to reveal a perfectly crafted white tuxedo is beyond comparison. His films see some of the most iconic cars, villains, gadgets, songs, and women of the whole franchise and because of this, Connery will always stand as the quintessential British spy.
Tuesday 18 December 2012
The Men Who Stare at Goats
This film had a lot of promise to it. When it was initially released, the trailer made me want to go and check it out, but such is the way of things I never got the chance. I had to wait until I stumbled across the DVD in a charity shop for £2 that I decided I should give it a watch. At face value it looks like it's a good film. The title suggests that it will be quite funny, and the cast suggests that it should be quite impressive. It's not.
I was really disappointed by the film. I can't work out whether it's trying to tell the story of psychic research in World War II seriously or whether it is ridiculing the idea behind it. Either way it doesn't do it very well. If it's trying to seriously tell the story then it comes across as a ridiculous idea, and the characters are dismissed as nothing more than 'hippie soldiers' who only very rarely do anything psychically impressive. However, if they are trying to make light of the research then they don't do this well enough.
Some of the names associated with this film also convey the idea that it should be a very successful film. Ewan McGregor, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges are all fantastic actors, but when they are put together I didn't think that they worked well. Jeff Bridges does quite well at playing the leader of the New Earth Army, but still comes across as a bit of a lunatic rather than the pioneer of a whole field of military research. Whether the audience is meant to see him as he was perceived at the time seems a little bit irrelevant because there is not instance of him 'coming good' with his psychic powers.
Kevin Spacey has always had my admiration as an actor. American Beauty and Se7en are examples of his fantastic acting, but in this film he just seemed a bit stale. His is brilliant at 'acting deadpan', and he does well at playing the 'bad guy' of the film, but he doesn't work for me. The links between his character and George Clooney's character are portrayed well, but it doesn't seem that jealousy would be part of the personality of a member of this type of army.
Credit where credit is due, George Clooney does well in this film, and is quite refreshing as a comic actor. His timing and tone is very amusing at times, and he works well with Ewan McGregor in the early stages of the film, but his character seems to tail off towards the end of the film, and I think this is a bit of a shame. I also enjoyed seeing Ewan McGregor in this film, but his character was very boring. His motivation to go to Iraq was to prove to his wife that he was a man. This seems a bit extreme, because upon finding out that my wife was cheating of my with my boss I don't think I would prove my masculinity to her in an attempt to win her back.
Another source of disappointment with this film was the scriptwriting. There were some genuinely funny moments, but on the whole, The Men Who Stare at Goats was just not as funny as I thought it would be. I think this might just be another example of a very successful book that was made into a film, but wasn't made very well. And this is a shame, because it had the potential to be a hilarious, yet interesting film about the use of psychic research during the War.
I was really disappointed by the film. I can't work out whether it's trying to tell the story of psychic research in World War II seriously or whether it is ridiculing the idea behind it. Either way it doesn't do it very well. If it's trying to seriously tell the story then it comes across as a ridiculous idea, and the characters are dismissed as nothing more than 'hippie soldiers' who only very rarely do anything psychically impressive. However, if they are trying to make light of the research then they don't do this well enough.
Some of the names associated with this film also convey the idea that it should be a very successful film. Ewan McGregor, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges are all fantastic actors, but when they are put together I didn't think that they worked well. Jeff Bridges does quite well at playing the leader of the New Earth Army, but still comes across as a bit of a lunatic rather than the pioneer of a whole field of military research. Whether the audience is meant to see him as he was perceived at the time seems a little bit irrelevant because there is not instance of him 'coming good' with his psychic powers.
Kevin Spacey has always had my admiration as an actor. American Beauty and Se7en are examples of his fantastic acting, but in this film he just seemed a bit stale. His is brilliant at 'acting deadpan', and he does well at playing the 'bad guy' of the film, but he doesn't work for me. The links between his character and George Clooney's character are portrayed well, but it doesn't seem that jealousy would be part of the personality of a member of this type of army.
Credit where credit is due, George Clooney does well in this film, and is quite refreshing as a comic actor. His timing and tone is very amusing at times, and he works well with Ewan McGregor in the early stages of the film, but his character seems to tail off towards the end of the film, and I think this is a bit of a shame. I also enjoyed seeing Ewan McGregor in this film, but his character was very boring. His motivation to go to Iraq was to prove to his wife that he was a man. This seems a bit extreme, because upon finding out that my wife was cheating of my with my boss I don't think I would prove my masculinity to her in an attempt to win her back.
Another source of disappointment with this film was the scriptwriting. There were some genuinely funny moments, but on the whole, The Men Who Stare at Goats was just not as funny as I thought it would be. I think this might just be another example of a very successful book that was made into a film, but wasn't made very well. And this is a shame, because it had the potential to be a hilarious, yet interesting film about the use of psychic research during the War.
Monday 17 December 2012
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
There is a little group of American comedians who often get together and make a hilarious film. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of those films where these comedy actors pop up. And in this case, the star of the show is the hilarious Jason Segel. As the writer and the lead actor he is absolutely dazzling as the love lorn Peter.
I think that Jason Segel is a genius. The whole plot of this story is an incredibly relatable scenario, where you break up with a girlfriend and the world seems to end. You seem to run into this person wherever you go and they seem to move on far too fast, and every contact you have with another woman seems to go disastrously. However, this film takes every situation and makes it extreme. This couple work on the same show and seem very happy, until she decides to break up with him. This causes him to go down into a pit of despair, and eventually he decides to take a holiday to Hawaii. And naturally, Sarah Marshall is there as well with her new boyfriend.
Jason Segel puts in a performance which enhances the emotions of everyone who has ever been through a break up. And he throws himself totally into the role he has created for himself. It is reported that the fantastic Dracula musical we see in the film was already being written by Segel before the film was made, and I think that it's inclusion in the film is a real shame. I would willingly pay good money to see this musical by itself, rather than as a sub-part of an already hilarious film. The song that accompanies the Dracula musical is incredibly catchy, and this too is written by Segel.
The lothario new boyfriend that has 'stolen' Sarah is played expertly by Russell Brand. It seems his personality is entirely suited to the role, and he portrays it perfectly. I really liked his character, and I don't think I was alone in this. As for Sarah Marshall herself, Kristen Bell is delightfully dislikable, as every ex-girlfriend should be. Mila Kunis is also very enjoyable to watch, for a number of reasons, mainly because the chemistry between her and Segel is so very quirky. The audience is really rooting for this relationship, and the scene where they both jump off the cliff is an example of this.
Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd also make appearances, and as ever, are both absolutely hilarious. Paul Rudd's "You sound like you're fron Laaaandaaaan" is the standard quote from this film, and coming from London myself, I have been told this on a number of occasions. The partnership between Hill and Brand is brilliant, with Hill being a superfan of Russell Brand's character, and the two have starred in a couple of films since.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a delightful comedy that I personally have watched many many times. Every time I watch it, I like it that little bit more. Everyone can relate to the situation in this film, and that is why it is so good. It's a simple idea, taken to an extreme, and pulled off spectacularly. It's one of my favourite comedy films, and I have recommended it to several people, who have all enjoyed it too. It's got everything: a top cast, good quotes, amusing situations, and fantastic scriptwriting. I would strongly recommend that if you haven't seen it, go and see it as soon as possible.
I think that Jason Segel is a genius. The whole plot of this story is an incredibly relatable scenario, where you break up with a girlfriend and the world seems to end. You seem to run into this person wherever you go and they seem to move on far too fast, and every contact you have with another woman seems to go disastrously. However, this film takes every situation and makes it extreme. This couple work on the same show and seem very happy, until she decides to break up with him. This causes him to go down into a pit of despair, and eventually he decides to take a holiday to Hawaii. And naturally, Sarah Marshall is there as well with her new boyfriend.
Jason Segel puts in a performance which enhances the emotions of everyone who has ever been through a break up. And he throws himself totally into the role he has created for himself. It is reported that the fantastic Dracula musical we see in the film was already being written by Segel before the film was made, and I think that it's inclusion in the film is a real shame. I would willingly pay good money to see this musical by itself, rather than as a sub-part of an already hilarious film. The song that accompanies the Dracula musical is incredibly catchy, and this too is written by Segel.
The lothario new boyfriend that has 'stolen' Sarah is played expertly by Russell Brand. It seems his personality is entirely suited to the role, and he portrays it perfectly. I really liked his character, and I don't think I was alone in this. As for Sarah Marshall herself, Kristen Bell is delightfully dislikable, as every ex-girlfriend should be. Mila Kunis is also very enjoyable to watch, for a number of reasons, mainly because the chemistry between her and Segel is so very quirky. The audience is really rooting for this relationship, and the scene where they both jump off the cliff is an example of this.
Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd also make appearances, and as ever, are both absolutely hilarious. Paul Rudd's "You sound like you're fron Laaaandaaaan" is the standard quote from this film, and coming from London myself, I have been told this on a number of occasions. The partnership between Hill and Brand is brilliant, with Hill being a superfan of Russell Brand's character, and the two have starred in a couple of films since.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a delightful comedy that I personally have watched many many times. Every time I watch it, I like it that little bit more. Everyone can relate to the situation in this film, and that is why it is so good. It's a simple idea, taken to an extreme, and pulled off spectacularly. It's one of my favourite comedy films, and I have recommended it to several people, who have all enjoyed it too. It's got everything: a top cast, good quotes, amusing situations, and fantastic scriptwriting. I would strongly recommend that if you haven't seen it, go and see it as soon as possible.
Saturday 15 December 2012
Erin Brockovich
*May contain spoilers*
I never thought I'd find myself enjoying a Julia Roberts film. I'm not entirely sure why though, because she's been in some really good stuff! I haven't seen Notting Hill yet, but I hear it's one to watch, and I plan to see it soon. However, when I started watching Erin Brockovich I found myself getting really into it.
It tells the story of the lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric who were using a harmful substance, dumping it in the water, and not protecting the families who lived nearby from the dangers. It's one of those films that portrays a massive injustice, leading to a court case, in which David beats Goliath, getting a large sum of money, and the world is right again. It's one of those films that, if you get into it, you find yourself really caring about this case, and I found myself looking into it after the film, just to find out more about it.
Julia Roberts is fantastic as the single mum of three who forces her way into a job, and then finds herself fully attached to what she is doing. She won the Oscar for 'Best Actress' for this role, and it's not hard to see why. I get the feeling that she attacks the role with as much passion as her character attacks the case, and she does so well at conveying the stresses that the real Brockovich experienced to her audience.
The chemistry between Roberts and the other actors also makes the film partly what it is. Aaron Eckhart is very good as her neighbour/boyfriend, and I was really surprised to see him as a biker, and see him play the part so well too. To me, Eckhart is Harvey Dent (from The Dark Knight for those of you who haven't seen it), and I thought he too played his character really well. His eventual exasperation with Erin's dedication to this case results in him leaving her, and this seems perfectly justifiable to the audience. Albert Finney is also very impressive as the beleaguered lawyer in charge of the firm filing the lawsuit, and works really well with Julia Roberts to add a touch of humour to what would otherwise be a sombre, serious film. The little exchange at the end of the film, for me sums up the tone. Brockovich is so driven by the need to support her family, and Masry understands this, so pokes a bit of fun at her. You also get the feeling from Masry that he is slightly disillusioned with his profession, realising that there is only really one way in which the residents of this town will be successful, and that they will never succeed if they take the case to trial. Both supporting actors are fantastic in this film, but are also overshadowed by Roberts.
Scientists level quite a strong criticism at this film, arguing that the evidence used in the case is beefed up and made more conclusive in this film. However, regular readers will know my opinions on embellishment for the sake of the movie, and in this case it makes the film that little bit more inspiring, and shows the corporation to be a little bit more wrong, and so that's fine with me.
I really enjoyed Erin Brockovich for the same reason I like quite a lot of films. The acting is good, the plot is enjoyable, and there's a sense of inspiration at the end which is always a good note to end a film on.
I never thought I'd find myself enjoying a Julia Roberts film. I'm not entirely sure why though, because she's been in some really good stuff! I haven't seen Notting Hill yet, but I hear it's one to watch, and I plan to see it soon. However, when I started watching Erin Brockovich I found myself getting really into it.
It tells the story of the lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric who were using a harmful substance, dumping it in the water, and not protecting the families who lived nearby from the dangers. It's one of those films that portrays a massive injustice, leading to a court case, in which David beats Goliath, getting a large sum of money, and the world is right again. It's one of those films that, if you get into it, you find yourself really caring about this case, and I found myself looking into it after the film, just to find out more about it.
Julia Roberts is fantastic as the single mum of three who forces her way into a job, and then finds herself fully attached to what she is doing. She won the Oscar for 'Best Actress' for this role, and it's not hard to see why. I get the feeling that she attacks the role with as much passion as her character attacks the case, and she does so well at conveying the stresses that the real Brockovich experienced to her audience.
The chemistry between Roberts and the other actors also makes the film partly what it is. Aaron Eckhart is very good as her neighbour/boyfriend, and I was really surprised to see him as a biker, and see him play the part so well too. To me, Eckhart is Harvey Dent (from The Dark Knight for those of you who haven't seen it), and I thought he too played his character really well. His eventual exasperation with Erin's dedication to this case results in him leaving her, and this seems perfectly justifiable to the audience. Albert Finney is also very impressive as the beleaguered lawyer in charge of the firm filing the lawsuit, and works really well with Julia Roberts to add a touch of humour to what would otherwise be a sombre, serious film. The little exchange at the end of the film, for me sums up the tone. Brockovich is so driven by the need to support her family, and Masry understands this, so pokes a bit of fun at her. You also get the feeling from Masry that he is slightly disillusioned with his profession, realising that there is only really one way in which the residents of this town will be successful, and that they will never succeed if they take the case to trial. Both supporting actors are fantastic in this film, but are also overshadowed by Roberts.
Scientists level quite a strong criticism at this film, arguing that the evidence used in the case is beefed up and made more conclusive in this film. However, regular readers will know my opinions on embellishment for the sake of the movie, and in this case it makes the film that little bit more inspiring, and shows the corporation to be a little bit more wrong, and so that's fine with me.
I really enjoyed Erin Brockovich for the same reason I like quite a lot of films. The acting is good, the plot is enjoyable, and there's a sense of inspiration at the end which is always a good note to end a film on.
Wednesday 12 December 2012
Four Lions
*May contain spoilers*
Four Lions is one of those films that you can't take too seriously. It's about a group of Muslim men who develop a suicide bomber plan. It has the potential to be really offensive and is at times quite risque, but if you're in the right mood, it's hilarious.
The focus of the story is the plot to make and detonate a bomb. However, the comedy aspect is added in the situations that the characters find themselves in. From firing a rocket launcher the wrong way in an attempt to take down a plane and instead killing your fellow Jihadists, to punching yourself in the face, to telling your best mate that you'd kill him, Four Lions is one laugh after another. The highlight of the film for me comes when one of the characters, Faisal, is running across a field with the explosives that they have acquired, and he is being cheered on by the other. However, he trips and falls, and then the explosives blow up. the moment of shock that the characters experience is shared by the audience in the typical "Did that really just happen moment", and then you start laughing.
The character Barry is fantastic. He is a white convert and is frequently ridiculed by the others for one reason or another. However, he is the most vocal of them all, and recruits a member to their cause. The scene that revolves around his idea of bombing the mosque is very amusing, and his death is fantastically funny. Barry's relationship with Omar seems to be a bit of a power struggle, with Omar winning because of his training camp experience and his ability to communicate in Urdu.
I don't want to spoil too much of the plot for those who haven't seen it, but every scene involving Waj brings a smile to my face. Him running away from the police dressed as an Ostrich, him taking a photo of himself on his phone to see if he is confused or not, and the 'rubber dinghy rapids' scene are very amusing. Similarly, the scene where the guys walk in on Hassan and their neighbour dancing to 'Dancing in the Moonlight', surrounded by all their bomb equipment is fantastic, and their explanation of why the neighbour has to leave is brilliantly uncomfortable. Omar using the analogy of the Lion King to explain his jihad to his son is another highlight which has me in stitches.
Despite the humour element to it, Four Lions is a very controversial film. It is a very touchy subject in this day and age, but it doesn't make a mockery of Islam at all. Instead the focus is on the "Dad's Army side to terrorism" (Chris Morris, Director; source: Wikipedia). When I first heard about Four Lions and heard what it was about, I thought that it was incredibly risky, and that there would be a massive backlash to it, but after I watched it I thought that anyone who gets too offended by it is probably taking themselves too seriously, and, at the end of the day, if you know a film is going to offend you, don't watch it.
The director and scriptwriters find the perfect balance between accuracy of content (e.g. training camps, how to make a bomb etc) and hilarious incidents that the film is 'just right'. The comedic element to it isn't completely mundane and silly either. The humour, while at times quite dark, is well beyond slapstick foolery. It doesn't hit you in the face with laughs, and instead is quite a smart humour. The quality of acting also adds to this film, and instead of boring characters with no soul, the actors manage to display different dimensions in their characters and definitely make the film what it is.
Four Lions is definitely worth a watch, because at some point during it you will be in stitches. I can promise you that. If you're not beside yourself with laughter then you are taking yourself too seriously, because this insanely quotable film is quite simply a bit of hilarious fun.
Four Lions is one of those films that you can't take too seriously. It's about a group of Muslim men who develop a suicide bomber plan. It has the potential to be really offensive and is at times quite risque, but if you're in the right mood, it's hilarious.
The focus of the story is the plot to make and detonate a bomb. However, the comedy aspect is added in the situations that the characters find themselves in. From firing a rocket launcher the wrong way in an attempt to take down a plane and instead killing your fellow Jihadists, to punching yourself in the face, to telling your best mate that you'd kill him, Four Lions is one laugh after another. The highlight of the film for me comes when one of the characters, Faisal, is running across a field with the explosives that they have acquired, and he is being cheered on by the other. However, he trips and falls, and then the explosives blow up. the moment of shock that the characters experience is shared by the audience in the typical "Did that really just happen moment", and then you start laughing.
The character Barry is fantastic. He is a white convert and is frequently ridiculed by the others for one reason or another. However, he is the most vocal of them all, and recruits a member to their cause. The scene that revolves around his idea of bombing the mosque is very amusing, and his death is fantastically funny. Barry's relationship with Omar seems to be a bit of a power struggle, with Omar winning because of his training camp experience and his ability to communicate in Urdu.
I don't want to spoil too much of the plot for those who haven't seen it, but every scene involving Waj brings a smile to my face. Him running away from the police dressed as an Ostrich, him taking a photo of himself on his phone to see if he is confused or not, and the 'rubber dinghy rapids' scene are very amusing. Similarly, the scene where the guys walk in on Hassan and their neighbour dancing to 'Dancing in the Moonlight', surrounded by all their bomb equipment is fantastic, and their explanation of why the neighbour has to leave is brilliantly uncomfortable. Omar using the analogy of the Lion King to explain his jihad to his son is another highlight which has me in stitches.
Despite the humour element to it, Four Lions is a very controversial film. It is a very touchy subject in this day and age, but it doesn't make a mockery of Islam at all. Instead the focus is on the "Dad's Army side to terrorism" (Chris Morris, Director; source: Wikipedia). When I first heard about Four Lions and heard what it was about, I thought that it was incredibly risky, and that there would be a massive backlash to it, but after I watched it I thought that anyone who gets too offended by it is probably taking themselves too seriously, and, at the end of the day, if you know a film is going to offend you, don't watch it.
The director and scriptwriters find the perfect balance between accuracy of content (e.g. training camps, how to make a bomb etc) and hilarious incidents that the film is 'just right'. The comedic element to it isn't completely mundane and silly either. The humour, while at times quite dark, is well beyond slapstick foolery. It doesn't hit you in the face with laughs, and instead is quite a smart humour. The quality of acting also adds to this film, and instead of boring characters with no soul, the actors manage to display different dimensions in their characters and definitely make the film what it is.
Four Lions is definitely worth a watch, because at some point during it you will be in stitches. I can promise you that. If you're not beside yourself with laughter then you are taking yourself too seriously, because this insanely quotable film is quite simply a bit of hilarious fun.
Monday 3 December 2012
300 - Muscle versus Might
*May contain spoilers*
'300' is a film about the three hundred Spartan soldiers who attempt to stop the might of the Persian army at the famous Battle of Thermopylae. As a kid I was fascinated about this battle. How could three hundred soldiers hold off an entire army? As a result I was very excited when this film came out in 2006. Having recently watched it again I came to the conclusion that it wasn't one of those historical films that makes stuff up to increase the appeal of the film. The only instance of this is the use of 'bombs' by Xerxes army, and I can get past that.
The one thing that most people know about this film is when Gerard Butler screams 'This is Sparta!' and kicks the Persian messenger into a hole in the ground, and rightfully so. It's an epic line, but there are bits of the film that are just more awesome. The use of more 'comic book' blood in this film slightly masks some absolutely brilliant fighting scenes. Historically, the Spartan army is known as one of the fiercest and dangerous forces. Their soldiers are trained from children purely for the purpose of fighting and any weakness results in them being cast aside.
The fighting in this film shows how utterly dominant the Spartan army was, and I especially like the scene where the Arcadian army comes to their aid and the leader of the army questions the number of soldiers the Spartans have brought to fight. King Leonidas asks a few of the Arcadians what their profession is, receiving various answers, before asking the Spartans who respond with their battle cry. The quip 'See, I brought more soldiers than you did' is fantastic, and perfectly shows this Spartan ideology of fighting.
Speaking of King Leonidas, I thought he was a very interesting character. He is obviously the leader of the Spartan army, and surely knows that he is going to his death when he leaves to fight the Persian force. However, before he goes he makes sure he writes his name firmly into the history books. Gerard Butler plays Leonidas brilliantly, and is a dominant presence on the screen whenever he appears. I especially like the depths to his character as well. When Xerxes attempts to ally the Spartans with him by offering him leadership of all his armies he is visibly tempted, showing how much fighting meant to the Spartans. And yet his last act is to show that Xerxes, the self-proclaimed 'God-King' that he is as human as the next man, by making him bleed. The importance of his Queen is also refreshing to see. In many films there are strong women in a time where this would not have been the case, but in this case I got the feeling that Queen Gorgo was genuinely a supporting influence to Leonidas, shown by his looking to her when a number of key decisions have to be made. His obvious love for her is another interesting human feature of his character. As a solider of Sparta he is exposed to brutality, bloodshed and violence, but still finds room in his character to love another person.
Now I love a good action movie, and the inclusion of Spartan politics in 300 did not spoil this film for me. Not even the deformed hunchback ruined it. I wasn't entirely sure as I was watching the film exactly what purpose this character served. Surely if Xerxes knew there was a way around the back of the Spartan soldiers he would put his own men there to find it. He would not need the help of a deformed Spartan reject, and so I thought this bit was a bit strange, but nevertheless, it was interesting to see his obvious self-hate after he has betrayed his Spartan brothers.
300 isn't meant to be taken as a serious portrayal of these historical events, and as such it should not be reviewed as such. If it was meant in a similar line to films like Braveheart, then I would be roundly criticising it now for the lack of depth to any of the characters. But clearly it is not meant as such. The rippling abs and comic book blood show that it is definitely not a heavy film and can be enjoyed with friends. It's maybe not a family film, but it's very good to sit down and just relax to.
'300' is a film about the three hundred Spartan soldiers who attempt to stop the might of the Persian army at the famous Battle of Thermopylae. As a kid I was fascinated about this battle. How could three hundred soldiers hold off an entire army? As a result I was very excited when this film came out in 2006. Having recently watched it again I came to the conclusion that it wasn't one of those historical films that makes stuff up to increase the appeal of the film. The only instance of this is the use of 'bombs' by Xerxes army, and I can get past that.
The one thing that most people know about this film is when Gerard Butler screams 'This is Sparta!' and kicks the Persian messenger into a hole in the ground, and rightfully so. It's an epic line, but there are bits of the film that are just more awesome. The use of more 'comic book' blood in this film slightly masks some absolutely brilliant fighting scenes. Historically, the Spartan army is known as one of the fiercest and dangerous forces. Their soldiers are trained from children purely for the purpose of fighting and any weakness results in them being cast aside.
The fighting in this film shows how utterly dominant the Spartan army was, and I especially like the scene where the Arcadian army comes to their aid and the leader of the army questions the number of soldiers the Spartans have brought to fight. King Leonidas asks a few of the Arcadians what their profession is, receiving various answers, before asking the Spartans who respond with their battle cry. The quip 'See, I brought more soldiers than you did' is fantastic, and perfectly shows this Spartan ideology of fighting.
Speaking of King Leonidas, I thought he was a very interesting character. He is obviously the leader of the Spartan army, and surely knows that he is going to his death when he leaves to fight the Persian force. However, before he goes he makes sure he writes his name firmly into the history books. Gerard Butler plays Leonidas brilliantly, and is a dominant presence on the screen whenever he appears. I especially like the depths to his character as well. When Xerxes attempts to ally the Spartans with him by offering him leadership of all his armies he is visibly tempted, showing how much fighting meant to the Spartans. And yet his last act is to show that Xerxes, the self-proclaimed 'God-King' that he is as human as the next man, by making him bleed. The importance of his Queen is also refreshing to see. In many films there are strong women in a time where this would not have been the case, but in this case I got the feeling that Queen Gorgo was genuinely a supporting influence to Leonidas, shown by his looking to her when a number of key decisions have to be made. His obvious love for her is another interesting human feature of his character. As a solider of Sparta he is exposed to brutality, bloodshed and violence, but still finds room in his character to love another person.
Now I love a good action movie, and the inclusion of Spartan politics in 300 did not spoil this film for me. Not even the deformed hunchback ruined it. I wasn't entirely sure as I was watching the film exactly what purpose this character served. Surely if Xerxes knew there was a way around the back of the Spartan soldiers he would put his own men there to find it. He would not need the help of a deformed Spartan reject, and so I thought this bit was a bit strange, but nevertheless, it was interesting to see his obvious self-hate after he has betrayed his Spartan brothers.
300 isn't meant to be taken as a serious portrayal of these historical events, and as such it should not be reviewed as such. If it was meant in a similar line to films like Braveheart, then I would be roundly criticising it now for the lack of depth to any of the characters. But clearly it is not meant as such. The rippling abs and comic book blood show that it is definitely not a heavy film and can be enjoyed with friends. It's maybe not a family film, but it's very good to sit down and just relax to.
Sunday 2 December 2012
Robin Hood (2010)
*May contain spoilers*
The time has come. Finally I'm going to write about a film that I did not enjoy. Robin Hood from 2010 has all the makings of an epic action film. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in starring roles, Ridley Scott directing, and a budget of $200,000,000. The film itself wasn't too bad, but it should not have been called 'Robin Hood'.
The film was so completely unrecognisable from any Robin Hood tale I'd heard before. In a previous post I talk about how the history around Braveheart was written by Hollywood. In this case, the writing takes this on to a whole new level. I can accept a couple of historical inaccuracies for the sake of a good film, but Robin Hood is one mistake after another. There are many mistake involving the different helmet designs and the timings of certain events, and the relationships between different characters. This wasn't a disaster for me though, what ruined the film for me was the relation to the famous Robin Hood tale.
Everyone knows it. Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The Sheriff of Nottingham doesn't like him doing this and tries to prevent it. There's a fantastic rivalry between the Sheriff's puppet Guy of Gisbourne and Robin Hood, and Robin eventually falls for the beautiful Maid Marion who is headstrong, independent and becomes part of his little band of merry men who live in Sherwood Forest.
This film completely betrays this myth. The Sheriff of Nottingham (played by the wonderful Matthew Macfayden) appears three, maybe four times, and doesn't speak much. Instead the main antagonist in this film is some guy called Godfrey who seeks to help the French army invade England. The main reason that there is so much turmoil in England at this time is because the King, Richard the Lionheart, is away at the crusades, but in this version, the King is killed and John comes to the throne.
Moving on to the character of Robin. I always thought that Robin Hood was a nobleman (Robin of Loxley) who was stealing from the rich in order to provide for the poor. Not only is he not a nobleman, but he is a common archer who is 'adopted' by Sir Walter Loxley, but he does not ever rob the rich for the poor. The biggest problem with Russell Crowe was his accent. I have absolutely no idea what it was. At one point it sounded Scottish, then Irish. It was awful.
Godfrey's character wasn't particularly believable either. I may have missed this, but I don't think his reason for committing treason was ever explained and he would not have been left to command the armies of the French. Another point is, at the beginning of the film Robin and his comrades are shown to be in France, and desert leaving a strong English army to pillage France. However, despite this, the French are also able to summon an army to attack the English. The fate of the soldiers in France is never explained, and the lack of French concern seems unrealistic.
The character of Marion was quite pleasing. True to the myth she is initially hostile towards Robin, but falls for him eventually. However, in this version, she was initially married to the real Robin of Loxley who is killed, and then is encouraged by Sir Walter to pretend that Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is her actual husband in order to ensure that she does not lose the land. I didn't realise there was any depth to their relationship at all until Robin declares that he loves her, and she goes off to join him and him men in the forest.
Potentially this film was designed as a prequel to a series of films, or even as a prequel to the legend. But the inaccuracies and problem that plague it make it unlikely that a second film would ever be endorsed. I think the script was re-written three times! Not the sign of an historical action masterpiece.
In my eyes, this film was poor. I love the Robin Hood legend, and for me, Prince of Thieves is the best depiction of the tale, but that's all to come. For now, unless you get stuck in chair and have your eyes forced open, try to avoid this film. Every time you think it might finish it doesn't, and when it eventually does finish you'll realise that that's more than two hours of your life you won't get back. In isolation it was an average film, for a 'Robin Hood' film, it was awful.
The time has come. Finally I'm going to write about a film that I did not enjoy. Robin Hood from 2010 has all the makings of an epic action film. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in starring roles, Ridley Scott directing, and a budget of $200,000,000. The film itself wasn't too bad, but it should not have been called 'Robin Hood'.
The film was so completely unrecognisable from any Robin Hood tale I'd heard before. In a previous post I talk about how the history around Braveheart was written by Hollywood. In this case, the writing takes this on to a whole new level. I can accept a couple of historical inaccuracies for the sake of a good film, but Robin Hood is one mistake after another. There are many mistake involving the different helmet designs and the timings of certain events, and the relationships between different characters. This wasn't a disaster for me though, what ruined the film for me was the relation to the famous Robin Hood tale.
Everyone knows it. Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The Sheriff of Nottingham doesn't like him doing this and tries to prevent it. There's a fantastic rivalry between the Sheriff's puppet Guy of Gisbourne and Robin Hood, and Robin eventually falls for the beautiful Maid Marion who is headstrong, independent and becomes part of his little band of merry men who live in Sherwood Forest.
This film completely betrays this myth. The Sheriff of Nottingham (played by the wonderful Matthew Macfayden) appears three, maybe four times, and doesn't speak much. Instead the main antagonist in this film is some guy called Godfrey who seeks to help the French army invade England. The main reason that there is so much turmoil in England at this time is because the King, Richard the Lionheart, is away at the crusades, but in this version, the King is killed and John comes to the throne.
Moving on to the character of Robin. I always thought that Robin Hood was a nobleman (Robin of Loxley) who was stealing from the rich in order to provide for the poor. Not only is he not a nobleman, but he is a common archer who is 'adopted' by Sir Walter Loxley, but he does not ever rob the rich for the poor. The biggest problem with Russell Crowe was his accent. I have absolutely no idea what it was. At one point it sounded Scottish, then Irish. It was awful.
Godfrey's character wasn't particularly believable either. I may have missed this, but I don't think his reason for committing treason was ever explained and he would not have been left to command the armies of the French. Another point is, at the beginning of the film Robin and his comrades are shown to be in France, and desert leaving a strong English army to pillage France. However, despite this, the French are also able to summon an army to attack the English. The fate of the soldiers in France is never explained, and the lack of French concern seems unrealistic.
The character of Marion was quite pleasing. True to the myth she is initially hostile towards Robin, but falls for him eventually. However, in this version, she was initially married to the real Robin of Loxley who is killed, and then is encouraged by Sir Walter to pretend that Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is her actual husband in order to ensure that she does not lose the land. I didn't realise there was any depth to their relationship at all until Robin declares that he loves her, and she goes off to join him and him men in the forest.
Potentially this film was designed as a prequel to a series of films, or even as a prequel to the legend. But the inaccuracies and problem that plague it make it unlikely that a second film would ever be endorsed. I think the script was re-written three times! Not the sign of an historical action masterpiece.
In my eyes, this film was poor. I love the Robin Hood legend, and for me, Prince of Thieves is the best depiction of the tale, but that's all to come. For now, unless you get stuck in chair and have your eyes forced open, try to avoid this film. Every time you think it might finish it doesn't, and when it eventually does finish you'll realise that that's more than two hours of your life you won't get back. In isolation it was an average film, for a 'Robin Hood' film, it was awful.
Friday 23 November 2012
Friday the 13th
*May contain spoilers*
The 'Friday the 13th' franchise is one of the most popular horror film series ever! The hockey mask has become an iconic symbol of the spooky villain, Jason Vorhees. Everyone has seen the image, and even if people aren't aware of its significance, they generally know the hockey mask. The first Friday was released in the era when horror films really started taking off as a genre of films. Don't get me wrong, some of the old horror films are fantastic, but in the 1970s and 1980s they became more widely popular. This 'slasher' film provides the typical combination of suspense, gore and sequels which only get worse.
The first instalment in the Friday the 13th series is, in my opinion, very good. When I first watched the film, I came into it with the idea that every film was haunted by this 'Jason' guy who has some reason to kill everyone who every has the misfortune to go to this one campsite. I was pleasantly surprised. The first film is, as many horror films are, stalked by an unknown killer who is killing the teenagers preparing Camp Crystal Lake for opening. When this is revealed to be some woman whose motivation is to avenge her son who drowned because the old camp workers were not paying attention to him it's quite a surprise. However, its a pleasant surprise. Dramatically more pleasant than the ending of the film, which you'll know what I mean if you've seen it, and if you haven't I'm not going to ruin it, and instead encourage you to watch it!
The second film sees the first appearance of the iconic villain. He stays around the camp featured in the first film, intending to stop anyone ever going there again. Naturally, people do turn up with the intention of reopening the campsite to the public once again. As you can imaging, murder, gore and suspense follow. When Jason's shrine to his mother is revealed, complete with the head that is removed in the previous film, I was revolted. This was a good revulsion though, because it was genuine, and very few horror films make me genuinely revolted. However, I didn't think that the second film was as good as the first. It was good, don't get me wrong, but the first one was better, and here begins the slippery slope that every horror film finds itself on.
The third installment was laughable. It was filmed in 3-D, and in today's age of 3-D films I much prefer to see a film in 2-D instead. 1982 3-D is ridiculous, though I'm sure was quite spectacular when it was first released. There is one scene where one of the unsuspecting teenagers is killed by Jason, who squeezes his eyeball out of his head before 'finishing him off'. When his eyeball pops out it is complete with an extension from the back of it which projects it forwards. However, despite this large obstacle, I did quite enjoy the third film.
The fourth film is entitled 'The Final Chapter' and for those of you bored of reading this, I'm sorry, but it's not the end of the franchise yet. Despite being 'killed' in the previous installments, Jason returns in this one and decides that the kids renting a house on Crystal Lake will be his next victims. He then moves on to the kids next door, one of whom kills him. At this point, given the title of the film and the seeming finality with which Jason was killed I found myself reflecting on a very good quadrilogy of films which, while not being amazing, have to be viewed in the time they were made, and are iconic. However, I already had ordered the next installment and found myself wondering how Jason could feasibly come back in the next one.
The fifth 'Friday' is the weirdest for me. I don't think I can talk about how bad the fifth film was without giving the twist away. However, I don't feel too bad about it, partly because I did warn you that there'd be spoilers, and partly because it's not that shocking anyway. By the time you get to the fifth film in a horror series I don't expect many people are watching for the intricate plot twists. The character of Jason doesn't actually appear in this film. The film follows the young boy who killed Jason in the previous film, Tommy, who is know grown up and living in a halfway house following his confinement to a mental institution. Tommy is continually stalked by dreams of the masked killer, and so when people around the halfway house start being gruesomely killed he gets a bit freaked out. The hockey mask appears in this film, but the man behind it is just a worker at the house who's son was murdered by one of the patients. As a result of this he decides to take on the persona of a serial killer one of his patients is haunted by, and kill everyone at the house, despite none of them actually murdering his son personally. This takes 'going too far' to a whole new level.
By the time the sixth film rolls around I was getting a bit sick of the franchise. Certainly there were many murders, and lots of blood, but there were just too many of them and as far as I could tell they were all pretty much the same. Tommy features in this film again, and starts off by visiting the grave of Jason, naturally resurrecting him in the process. This is the stupidest move ever. If you were haunted by someone who tried to kill you for a large period of your life, the last thing I'd do would be to go back to, and open up his grave. Jason goes back to Camp Crystal Lake, kills everyone there, and then Tommy appears to kill him. Blah blah blah, you get the idea.
This is exactly the same as what happens in the seventh film. Jason is resurrected, kills everyone at the camp and is returned to the bottom of the lake again. By this point I was completely bored of the films. Some people really like the sixth and seventh films, but I'm very ambivalent. I thought that the eighth film, 'Jason Takes Manhattan' might be better. I was wrong. While it was quite cool to see one of the most iconic villains in cinematic history wandering through New York, and actually hearing Jason speak for the first time, there were some utterly ridiculous elements in it. Apparently now Jason can teleport. This is quite impressive for a guy who has been killed and resurrected in nearly every film so far, and this film was definitely made to try and bleed as much money out of an immensely successful franchise.
The ninth film is the last Friday film in a way. It was intended to be the last one, and was meant to set up a fantastic climactic battle between the two greatest horror villains of cinematic history, Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger. We don't ever get told how Jason is resurrected in this film, and while being hunted by the FBI manages to pass his cliched black heart through one officer to the next. Jason manages to get his own body back but is then killed and a gloved hand with knives on the fingers drags him down to hell.
Jason X sees Jason resurrected again, and apparently the best way to stop him is to freeze him. Unsurprisingly Jason doesn't remain frozen for the length of the film and kills people 400 years later. In space. This was ridiculous.
A remake was released in 2009 with Jason witnessing his mother's death and then deciding to kill everyone at Crystal Lake again. I had high hopes for this film as it had the potential to be a refreshing take on the classic film. I wasn't expecting it to be better than the original, but I was expecting to enjoy it. It wasn't as bad as I was afraid, but it didn't grip me in the same way that the original, or the second one did.
As a franchise, there is no denying the success of the 'Friday' films, and the icon of Jason will live on as long as horror is popular. For many Halloweens to come there will be someone in a hockey mask and a machete. However, film by film the series goes downhill in my eyes. It starts out as very good, and then falls off to the point that sequels are being made for the sake of it. Definitely watch the first film. If you like that one a lot then watch the second. You should then watch the third and fourth, but unless you're a hardcore horror fan then do not go beyond that.
The 'Friday the 13th' franchise is one of the most popular horror film series ever! The hockey mask has become an iconic symbol of the spooky villain, Jason Vorhees. Everyone has seen the image, and even if people aren't aware of its significance, they generally know the hockey mask. The first Friday was released in the era when horror films really started taking off as a genre of films. Don't get me wrong, some of the old horror films are fantastic, but in the 1970s and 1980s they became more widely popular. This 'slasher' film provides the typical combination of suspense, gore and sequels which only get worse.
The first instalment in the Friday the 13th series is, in my opinion, very good. When I first watched the film, I came into it with the idea that every film was haunted by this 'Jason' guy who has some reason to kill everyone who every has the misfortune to go to this one campsite. I was pleasantly surprised. The first film is, as many horror films are, stalked by an unknown killer who is killing the teenagers preparing Camp Crystal Lake for opening. When this is revealed to be some woman whose motivation is to avenge her son who drowned because the old camp workers were not paying attention to him it's quite a surprise. However, its a pleasant surprise. Dramatically more pleasant than the ending of the film, which you'll know what I mean if you've seen it, and if you haven't I'm not going to ruin it, and instead encourage you to watch it!
The second film sees the first appearance of the iconic villain. He stays around the camp featured in the first film, intending to stop anyone ever going there again. Naturally, people do turn up with the intention of reopening the campsite to the public once again. As you can imaging, murder, gore and suspense follow. When Jason's shrine to his mother is revealed, complete with the head that is removed in the previous film, I was revolted. This was a good revulsion though, because it was genuine, and very few horror films make me genuinely revolted. However, I didn't think that the second film was as good as the first. It was good, don't get me wrong, but the first one was better, and here begins the slippery slope that every horror film finds itself on.
The third installment was laughable. It was filmed in 3-D, and in today's age of 3-D films I much prefer to see a film in 2-D instead. 1982 3-D is ridiculous, though I'm sure was quite spectacular when it was first released. There is one scene where one of the unsuspecting teenagers is killed by Jason, who squeezes his eyeball out of his head before 'finishing him off'. When his eyeball pops out it is complete with an extension from the back of it which projects it forwards. However, despite this large obstacle, I did quite enjoy the third film.
The fourth film is entitled 'The Final Chapter' and for those of you bored of reading this, I'm sorry, but it's not the end of the franchise yet. Despite being 'killed' in the previous installments, Jason returns in this one and decides that the kids renting a house on Crystal Lake will be his next victims. He then moves on to the kids next door, one of whom kills him. At this point, given the title of the film and the seeming finality with which Jason was killed I found myself reflecting on a very good quadrilogy of films which, while not being amazing, have to be viewed in the time they were made, and are iconic. However, I already had ordered the next installment and found myself wondering how Jason could feasibly come back in the next one.
The fifth 'Friday' is the weirdest for me. I don't think I can talk about how bad the fifth film was without giving the twist away. However, I don't feel too bad about it, partly because I did warn you that there'd be spoilers, and partly because it's not that shocking anyway. By the time you get to the fifth film in a horror series I don't expect many people are watching for the intricate plot twists. The character of Jason doesn't actually appear in this film. The film follows the young boy who killed Jason in the previous film, Tommy, who is know grown up and living in a halfway house following his confinement to a mental institution. Tommy is continually stalked by dreams of the masked killer, and so when people around the halfway house start being gruesomely killed he gets a bit freaked out. The hockey mask appears in this film, but the man behind it is just a worker at the house who's son was murdered by one of the patients. As a result of this he decides to take on the persona of a serial killer one of his patients is haunted by, and kill everyone at the house, despite none of them actually murdering his son personally. This takes 'going too far' to a whole new level.
By the time the sixth film rolls around I was getting a bit sick of the franchise. Certainly there were many murders, and lots of blood, but there were just too many of them and as far as I could tell they were all pretty much the same. Tommy features in this film again, and starts off by visiting the grave of Jason, naturally resurrecting him in the process. This is the stupidest move ever. If you were haunted by someone who tried to kill you for a large period of your life, the last thing I'd do would be to go back to, and open up his grave. Jason goes back to Camp Crystal Lake, kills everyone there, and then Tommy appears to kill him. Blah blah blah, you get the idea.
This is exactly the same as what happens in the seventh film. Jason is resurrected, kills everyone at the camp and is returned to the bottom of the lake again. By this point I was completely bored of the films. Some people really like the sixth and seventh films, but I'm very ambivalent. I thought that the eighth film, 'Jason Takes Manhattan' might be better. I was wrong. While it was quite cool to see one of the most iconic villains in cinematic history wandering through New York, and actually hearing Jason speak for the first time, there were some utterly ridiculous elements in it. Apparently now Jason can teleport. This is quite impressive for a guy who has been killed and resurrected in nearly every film so far, and this film was definitely made to try and bleed as much money out of an immensely successful franchise.
The ninth film is the last Friday film in a way. It was intended to be the last one, and was meant to set up a fantastic climactic battle between the two greatest horror villains of cinematic history, Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger. We don't ever get told how Jason is resurrected in this film, and while being hunted by the FBI manages to pass his cliched black heart through one officer to the next. Jason manages to get his own body back but is then killed and a gloved hand with knives on the fingers drags him down to hell.
Jason X sees Jason resurrected again, and apparently the best way to stop him is to freeze him. Unsurprisingly Jason doesn't remain frozen for the length of the film and kills people 400 years later. In space. This was ridiculous.
A remake was released in 2009 with Jason witnessing his mother's death and then deciding to kill everyone at Crystal Lake again. I had high hopes for this film as it had the potential to be a refreshing take on the classic film. I wasn't expecting it to be better than the original, but I was expecting to enjoy it. It wasn't as bad as I was afraid, but it didn't grip me in the same way that the original, or the second one did.
As a franchise, there is no denying the success of the 'Friday' films, and the icon of Jason will live on as long as horror is popular. For many Halloweens to come there will be someone in a hockey mask and a machete. However, film by film the series goes downhill in my eyes. It starts out as very good, and then falls off to the point that sequels are being made for the sake of it. Definitely watch the first film. If you like that one a lot then watch the second. You should then watch the third and fourth, but unless you're a hardcore horror fan then do not go beyond that.
Tuesday 20 November 2012
Braveheart - History is written by Hollywood
It was Winston Churchill who said that "History is written by the victors". In the case of Braveheart however, it seems that history is not written by the victors, but by Hollywood. I watched Braveheart for the first time last night, and while I can't deny that the film is absolutely fantastic, its grounding in historical accuracy must be questioned.
The first bit of the film was fantastic. It focuses on the young William Wallace, whose portrayed by James Robinson was absolutely brilliant. The actor was really convincing in the role and was not as transparent as some childhood actors. However, after leaving the village following the death of his father and brother at the hands of the English, Wallace returns several years later. When he returns, the fantastic child actor has been replaced with Mel Gibson. Overall I thought Mel Gibson was particularly good in the role of Wallace, but the only thing that got me about it was his accent. Which in a film about people from Scotland is quite important. Maybe his weak Scottish accent was a reflection on the fact that his character had been educated but Mel Gibson's accent was not great. But then again, fair play to him for maintaining the accent throughout the film, and indeed for learning it in the first place.
I thought the developing romance between William and Murron was lovely, and they seemed like a very happy couple until the English come to town and try to rape her. Wallace's defense of his wife is brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, and when he goes to meet her only to find she's not there, the audience, seeing her about to be tied to a stake, is genuinely pained to see him in the wrong place. What happens next is really quite refreshing. Unlike many films, the girl is in imminent danger of being killed by someone and the hero of the film does not ride in at the last minute, cut her free, kill everyone and ride off into the sunset (or rain, depending on whereabouts in Scotland you are). When she dies, we are given Wallace's motivation to take Scotland for the Scottish.
For dramatic effect, which I completely understand, the details of Murron's (or Marion as she is historically known) death have been embellished. The reaction from Wallace shows me, a third year psychology student at university, that he may be slightly unhinged. Obviously, following the murder of your wife, you would be pretty cut up, but he gathers a small 'army' and murders the sheriff of the town. There are various points in the film when I think Wallace goes too far, and this is just the start.
However, this simple act of revenge starts a whole campaign of 'freedom' for Wallace as he gathers more and more Scots to fight against the English. The Battle of Stirling is brilliantly portrayed in the film. During filming for this scene, the horse that Mel Gibson was riding was behaving so badly that the scene was only just put together. However, it is this scene that contains the most famous quote from the film. While the majority of the army gathered is dissenting about fighting the much larger English army, Wallace gives the empassioned speech which spurs his countrymen on to do battle. The cry of "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" sent a shiver down my spine, as only the best actors and scriptwriters can do.
However, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which this scene is based on, panned out very differently. It is historically believed that Wallace must have had some sort of military experience or understanding in order to defeat the English army, but the film makes you believe that it is the passion for the cause and the pure desire of the army that does this. This is probably the case, and I can overlook this little historical discrepancy, but there is a much larger one to be noticed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge focused on, as the name suggests, a bridge. The Scots trapped the English army on the bridge at Stirling and massacred them as they were cut off from the rest of their troops. The film however, presents it as a man-to-man battle in an open field, with pure passion winning over military tactics.
While some historical detail must be lost for dramatic effect, I think it's a shame that people aren't more aware of cases in which historical details have been lost. With the greatest respect, the Wars of the Scottish Independence aren't particularly widely taught in schools around the UK, let alone around the world, and so many people's knowledge of this period of history is based mainly around this film.
It is at this point that the King, Edward the Longshanks (who was a bit nasty by all accounts) decides that negotiation might be a good idea. He reasons that he himself cannot go to negotiate because he is the King, and would be in danger. He also reasons that sending his 'weakling' son would only spur the Scots on to fight more, and so he sends his daughter-in-law, the daughter of the French king, hoping she'd be killed and the French would join in the battle against the Scots. In that day and age a woman would never have been entrusted to negotiate with men about the conclusion of a rebellion, regardless of whether or not the King wanted to drum up French support. It is far more likely that the King would have sent either the French ambassador or a member of his court with French connections. Naturally, Isabella falls hopelessly in love with the long haired, bloodstained, unwashed Wallace (for some reason) and proceeds to warn him about Longshanks' impending attack.
This leads to another big battle, in which Wallace and his army is joined by the army's of two of the main claims to the Scottish throne. However, these Scottish nobles have been paid off by the King, promised lands and money, if they withdraw their armies, leaving Wallace isolated, and many of his army are killed. The Battle of Falkirk saw Wallace endure heavy casualties but in the end withdraw to a point at which the English could not follow. However, in the film, Wallace is shot with an arrow before pursuing the King as he rides away with his guard. Wallace is then confronted by Robert the Bruce, another key figure in the Scottish battles for independence. The implication of the film is that Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace. However, historically this never happened. This was quite a big problem for me, because by this point I had become so wrapped up in the film that I was feeling quite disdainful towards Robert the Bruce for the rest of the film. The Bruce, riddled by guilt presumably, helps Wallace escape. Wallace then viciously kills the two noblemen who betrayed him and continues his fight against the English on a lower scale.
He is then captured as he goes to meet with Robert the Bruce, who intends to pledge troops to him. It is Robert's father who engineers this betrayal and leads to Wallace being tried and found guilty for high treason. He is sentenced to death. Wallace's death is refreshingly accurate to the history for the most part. He is dragged through London town before being hanged, and has his insides drawn out. Obviously the nitty-gritty of medieval execution could not be shown on the silver screen in 1995, but I thought the director (again, Mel Gibson) did a good job of portraying this. However, when asked if he wanted to swear allegiance to the King and be forgiven, Wallace through the pain yells "Freedom" and is beheaded. I don't know about you, but if I had been hanged until near death, then stretched, and finally had my bowels cut out and burned in front of my face, I wouldn't be able to speak, let alone shout.
The film then cuts to the Battle of Bannockburn, several years later, where Robert the Bruce is about to accept the English rule. Instead he leads the army, with the memory of Wallace fresh in their minds, in a charge towards the English. It was this battle that won the Scottish people the "Freedom" that Wallace so desired, and so I think it would have been a good idea to show some of it. However, by this point the film had been running for nearly three hours and did revolve around Wallace rather than the Scottish wars.
Overall, I loved Braveheart. The acting was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, and the story was fantastic. I can bear a few historical inaccuracies for the benefit of a good film, and granted they are not major inaccuracies, but if a film is to be a historical epic then it should be as close to historical as possible. Nonetheless, I would recommend Braveheart to everyone.
The first bit of the film was fantastic. It focuses on the young William Wallace, whose portrayed by James Robinson was absolutely brilliant. The actor was really convincing in the role and was not as transparent as some childhood actors. However, after leaving the village following the death of his father and brother at the hands of the English, Wallace returns several years later. When he returns, the fantastic child actor has been replaced with Mel Gibson. Overall I thought Mel Gibson was particularly good in the role of Wallace, but the only thing that got me about it was his accent. Which in a film about people from Scotland is quite important. Maybe his weak Scottish accent was a reflection on the fact that his character had been educated but Mel Gibson's accent was not great. But then again, fair play to him for maintaining the accent throughout the film, and indeed for learning it in the first place.
I thought the developing romance between William and Murron was lovely, and they seemed like a very happy couple until the English come to town and try to rape her. Wallace's defense of his wife is brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, and when he goes to meet her only to find she's not there, the audience, seeing her about to be tied to a stake, is genuinely pained to see him in the wrong place. What happens next is really quite refreshing. Unlike many films, the girl is in imminent danger of being killed by someone and the hero of the film does not ride in at the last minute, cut her free, kill everyone and ride off into the sunset (or rain, depending on whereabouts in Scotland you are). When she dies, we are given Wallace's motivation to take Scotland for the Scottish.
For dramatic effect, which I completely understand, the details of Murron's (or Marion as she is historically known) death have been embellished. The reaction from Wallace shows me, a third year psychology student at university, that he may be slightly unhinged. Obviously, following the murder of your wife, you would be pretty cut up, but he gathers a small 'army' and murders the sheriff of the town. There are various points in the film when I think Wallace goes too far, and this is just the start.
However, this simple act of revenge starts a whole campaign of 'freedom' for Wallace as he gathers more and more Scots to fight against the English. The Battle of Stirling is brilliantly portrayed in the film. During filming for this scene, the horse that Mel Gibson was riding was behaving so badly that the scene was only just put together. However, it is this scene that contains the most famous quote from the film. While the majority of the army gathered is dissenting about fighting the much larger English army, Wallace gives the empassioned speech which spurs his countrymen on to do battle. The cry of "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" sent a shiver down my spine, as only the best actors and scriptwriters can do.
However, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which this scene is based on, panned out very differently. It is historically believed that Wallace must have had some sort of military experience or understanding in order to defeat the English army, but the film makes you believe that it is the passion for the cause and the pure desire of the army that does this. This is probably the case, and I can overlook this little historical discrepancy, but there is a much larger one to be noticed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge focused on, as the name suggests, a bridge. The Scots trapped the English army on the bridge at Stirling and massacred them as they were cut off from the rest of their troops. The film however, presents it as a man-to-man battle in an open field, with pure passion winning over military tactics.
While some historical detail must be lost for dramatic effect, I think it's a shame that people aren't more aware of cases in which historical details have been lost. With the greatest respect, the Wars of the Scottish Independence aren't particularly widely taught in schools around the UK, let alone around the world, and so many people's knowledge of this period of history is based mainly around this film.
It is at this point that the King, Edward the Longshanks (who was a bit nasty by all accounts) decides that negotiation might be a good idea. He reasons that he himself cannot go to negotiate because he is the King, and would be in danger. He also reasons that sending his 'weakling' son would only spur the Scots on to fight more, and so he sends his daughter-in-law, the daughter of the French king, hoping she'd be killed and the French would join in the battle against the Scots. In that day and age a woman would never have been entrusted to negotiate with men about the conclusion of a rebellion, regardless of whether or not the King wanted to drum up French support. It is far more likely that the King would have sent either the French ambassador or a member of his court with French connections. Naturally, Isabella falls hopelessly in love with the long haired, bloodstained, unwashed Wallace (for some reason) and proceeds to warn him about Longshanks' impending attack.
This leads to another big battle, in which Wallace and his army is joined by the army's of two of the main claims to the Scottish throne. However, these Scottish nobles have been paid off by the King, promised lands and money, if they withdraw their armies, leaving Wallace isolated, and many of his army are killed. The Battle of Falkirk saw Wallace endure heavy casualties but in the end withdraw to a point at which the English could not follow. However, in the film, Wallace is shot with an arrow before pursuing the King as he rides away with his guard. Wallace is then confronted by Robert the Bruce, another key figure in the Scottish battles for independence. The implication of the film is that Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace. However, historically this never happened. This was quite a big problem for me, because by this point I had become so wrapped up in the film that I was feeling quite disdainful towards Robert the Bruce for the rest of the film. The Bruce, riddled by guilt presumably, helps Wallace escape. Wallace then viciously kills the two noblemen who betrayed him and continues his fight against the English on a lower scale.
He is then captured as he goes to meet with Robert the Bruce, who intends to pledge troops to him. It is Robert's father who engineers this betrayal and leads to Wallace being tried and found guilty for high treason. He is sentenced to death. Wallace's death is refreshingly accurate to the history for the most part. He is dragged through London town before being hanged, and has his insides drawn out. Obviously the nitty-gritty of medieval execution could not be shown on the silver screen in 1995, but I thought the director (again, Mel Gibson) did a good job of portraying this. However, when asked if he wanted to swear allegiance to the King and be forgiven, Wallace through the pain yells "Freedom" and is beheaded. I don't know about you, but if I had been hanged until near death, then stretched, and finally had my bowels cut out and burned in front of my face, I wouldn't be able to speak, let alone shout.
The film then cuts to the Battle of Bannockburn, several years later, where Robert the Bruce is about to accept the English rule. Instead he leads the army, with the memory of Wallace fresh in their minds, in a charge towards the English. It was this battle that won the Scottish people the "Freedom" that Wallace so desired, and so I think it would have been a good idea to show some of it. However, by this point the film had been running for nearly three hours and did revolve around Wallace rather than the Scottish wars.
Overall, I loved Braveheart. The acting was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, and the story was fantastic. I can bear a few historical inaccuracies for the benefit of a good film, and granted they are not major inaccuracies, but if a film is to be a historical epic then it should be as close to historical as possible. Nonetheless, I would recommend Braveheart to everyone.
Saturday 17 November 2012
Skyfall - a Bond film for the modern era
May contain spoilers!
I love James Bond. Can I be absolutely clear on that right at the start. I absolutely love the suave and sophisticated Sean Connery, the emotion in the last scene of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Roger Moore's one liners, Timothy Dalton's....well, the less said about that the better really. Pierce Brosnan was my childhood Bond, and Goldeneye was a refreshing change of Bond film. But from there it went downhill for me. The budgets of the films were too large and just spent on making things explode. Casino Royale was a fantastic change, just as Goldeneye, but Quantum of Solace was, in my opinion, truly appalling. I thought it was the worst Bond film of the lot and so my hopes were not especially high as I tried to find the right number of seats in a darkened cinema before Skyfall started.
By the looks of the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw) I was in for a treat, but still I was skeptical. The first scene however put all my misgivings to bed. For once, MI6 wasn't chasing the bad guys in a car which was the top model of the time. Granted the little yellow Citroen in 'For Your Eyes Only' wasn't exactly cutting edge, but it served a purpose. The car that Eve was driving at the beginning of Skyfall was evidently struggling to keep up with the action of Bond chasing the bad guy, Patrice, over the rooftops of Turkey. And so was I. Imagine my utter surprise when Eve misses the shot, hitting Bond who falls to his presumed death.
Here is the first flaw I found with the film. I might have missed something, but Bond was shot and fell from a considerable height, unconscious, into water. I have no idea how he survived. Obviously you can't kill off the main character in the opening scene, but unless Aragorn's horse, who must have qualities similar to phoenix tears, came to the rescue, I fail to see how he could have survived. Never mind though.
The attack on MI6 also showed a change from previous Bond films. Before now, MI6 have been impenetrable in the Bond world, and to have them attacked by a villain was refreshing. Refreshing appears to be my favourite word in this post.
When Bond was sent to Shanghai I thought the film took a slight downturn. It may have been the comfortable seats, or the fact that I had a long day at uni before, but I found myself needing something to keep me awake before the Komodo Dragon put in an appearance. But by that point I was anticipating the arrival of Raoul Silva. I loved Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, and similarly in Skyfall he did not disappoint with his fantastic acting, delightfully sinister character and improvisation with the role. I thought the sexual undertones of the conversation between him and Bond were fantastic. Also, the character history of Silva was compelling. A former agent who, instead of wanting to dominate the world either through women, the media or nuclear weapons, just wanted to get back at M.
When we first met Q I became convinced that Skyfall was a film made in 2012, rather than trying to rekindle the explosive action of 1999. Instead of being a gadget genius, Q was a programmer. In today's society the people who can do the most damage are those who can control computers, and this was a nice shift in the Bond ideology. I also appreciated the revelation that Silva's plan had been years in the making right down to the launching of a London Underground train at Bond through an explosion in the ceiling, which presumably had been set for a while.
The next lull in the film could not have been more exciting. Bond and M visiting Scotland to lure Silva out was not dull, but it merely set up the climax. The mention of Bond's lineage was also interesting, as no previous Bond film has ever mentioned his parentage. Another factor marking this film aside was that when Silva and his henchmen arrived and we saw them coming across the marshland towards the house I was genuinely worried about how Bond, assisted by two OAPs, would be able to survive. There was no massive fight between the archetypal good guy and bad guy, but the dominance of Silva in the initial battle was also quite refreshing. I thought it was interesting how, in my eyes, Bond only bettered him at the end of the film, and never took him on face-to-face. I must confess, I let out a little cry of despair when the Aston Martin from Goldfinger was destroyed. I loved that car.
M's death (I did warn you about the spoilers) was again a total break from previous Bond films. The last Bond film in which I was surprised about someone dying was On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Women come and go in Bond's life, but for the last few years, Judi Dench's character has been a constant presence. The emotion that Daniel Craig showed when she died was a rare show of any sensitivity from a character who was written by Ian Fleming as a ruthless assassin. In the modern era, who can help but shed a tear when the woman who has been a constant presence in your life, almost a mother to you, dies and there's nothing you could have done about it?
This brought it around nicely for the franchise to be set up where Dr No picks up, chronologically speaking. Ralph Fiennes is one of my favourite actors ever, and I think he'll make a fantastic M. Also, the addition of Eve (Moneypenny) as his secretary was brilliant.
So, all in all, I was rather blown away by Skyfall. It was a welcome break from stuff exploding, Bond taking on ten henchmen and not being scratched by the bullets flying around him. It dragged Bond from the bland, boring and forgettable elements of Quantum of Solace, right into the modern era, with its computers and all which that entails.
Other James Bond Reviews:
Sean Connery (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/sean-connery-as-james-bond.html)
Roger Moore (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-moore-as-james-bond.html)
I love James Bond. Can I be absolutely clear on that right at the start. I absolutely love the suave and sophisticated Sean Connery, the emotion in the last scene of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Roger Moore's one liners, Timothy Dalton's....well, the less said about that the better really. Pierce Brosnan was my childhood Bond, and Goldeneye was a refreshing change of Bond film. But from there it went downhill for me. The budgets of the films were too large and just spent on making things explode. Casino Royale was a fantastic change, just as Goldeneye, but Quantum of Solace was, in my opinion, truly appalling. I thought it was the worst Bond film of the lot and so my hopes were not especially high as I tried to find the right number of seats in a darkened cinema before Skyfall started.
By the looks of the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kw1UVovByw) I was in for a treat, but still I was skeptical. The first scene however put all my misgivings to bed. For once, MI6 wasn't chasing the bad guys in a car which was the top model of the time. Granted the little yellow Citroen in 'For Your Eyes Only' wasn't exactly cutting edge, but it served a purpose. The car that Eve was driving at the beginning of Skyfall was evidently struggling to keep up with the action of Bond chasing the bad guy, Patrice, over the rooftops of Turkey. And so was I. Imagine my utter surprise when Eve misses the shot, hitting Bond who falls to his presumed death.
Here is the first flaw I found with the film. I might have missed something, but Bond was shot and fell from a considerable height, unconscious, into water. I have no idea how he survived. Obviously you can't kill off the main character in the opening scene, but unless Aragorn's horse, who must have qualities similar to phoenix tears, came to the rescue, I fail to see how he could have survived. Never mind though.
The attack on MI6 also showed a change from previous Bond films. Before now, MI6 have been impenetrable in the Bond world, and to have them attacked by a villain was refreshing. Refreshing appears to be my favourite word in this post.
When Bond was sent to Shanghai I thought the film took a slight downturn. It may have been the comfortable seats, or the fact that I had a long day at uni before, but I found myself needing something to keep me awake before the Komodo Dragon put in an appearance. But by that point I was anticipating the arrival of Raoul Silva. I loved Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, and similarly in Skyfall he did not disappoint with his fantastic acting, delightfully sinister character and improvisation with the role. I thought the sexual undertones of the conversation between him and Bond were fantastic. Also, the character history of Silva was compelling. A former agent who, instead of wanting to dominate the world either through women, the media or nuclear weapons, just wanted to get back at M.
When we first met Q I became convinced that Skyfall was a film made in 2012, rather than trying to rekindle the explosive action of 1999. Instead of being a gadget genius, Q was a programmer. In today's society the people who can do the most damage are those who can control computers, and this was a nice shift in the Bond ideology. I also appreciated the revelation that Silva's plan had been years in the making right down to the launching of a London Underground train at Bond through an explosion in the ceiling, which presumably had been set for a while.
The next lull in the film could not have been more exciting. Bond and M visiting Scotland to lure Silva out was not dull, but it merely set up the climax. The mention of Bond's lineage was also interesting, as no previous Bond film has ever mentioned his parentage. Another factor marking this film aside was that when Silva and his henchmen arrived and we saw them coming across the marshland towards the house I was genuinely worried about how Bond, assisted by two OAPs, would be able to survive. There was no massive fight between the archetypal good guy and bad guy, but the dominance of Silva in the initial battle was also quite refreshing. I thought it was interesting how, in my eyes, Bond only bettered him at the end of the film, and never took him on face-to-face. I must confess, I let out a little cry of despair when the Aston Martin from Goldfinger was destroyed. I loved that car.
M's death (I did warn you about the spoilers) was again a total break from previous Bond films. The last Bond film in which I was surprised about someone dying was On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Women come and go in Bond's life, but for the last few years, Judi Dench's character has been a constant presence. The emotion that Daniel Craig showed when she died was a rare show of any sensitivity from a character who was written by Ian Fleming as a ruthless assassin. In the modern era, who can help but shed a tear when the woman who has been a constant presence in your life, almost a mother to you, dies and there's nothing you could have done about it?
This brought it around nicely for the franchise to be set up where Dr No picks up, chronologically speaking. Ralph Fiennes is one of my favourite actors ever, and I think he'll make a fantastic M. Also, the addition of Eve (Moneypenny) as his secretary was brilliant.
So, all in all, I was rather blown away by Skyfall. It was a welcome break from stuff exploding, Bond taking on ten henchmen and not being scratched by the bullets flying around him. It dragged Bond from the bland, boring and forgettable elements of Quantum of Solace, right into the modern era, with its computers and all which that entails.
Other James Bond Reviews:
Sean Connery (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/sean-connery-as-james-bond.html)
Roger Moore (http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-moore-as-james-bond.html)
Introduction
I have been thinking about starting a blog for a while. A couple of people I know write them, and it seems like a good way to get my thoughts out to world, humble as they are.
I love football, and Formula 1, but there are so many football blogs out there, and the best Formula 1 blogs are just a little bit too technical for me. So I thought I'd write one about my next passion, watching movies.
Basically, every time I watch a new movie, I'll give it a review here. I don't expect anyone to read my musings in particular, and I'm fully aware that I'll probably never have 100 people reading this, but nevermind. I'll probably also end up working through my back-catalogue as well because I don't get to see as many new movies as I'd like these days.
Here we go then. Making blog history. One film at a time.
I love football, and Formula 1, but there are so many football blogs out there, and the best Formula 1 blogs are just a little bit too technical for me. So I thought I'd write one about my next passion, watching movies.
Basically, every time I watch a new movie, I'll give it a review here. I don't expect anyone to read my musings in particular, and I'm fully aware that I'll probably never have 100 people reading this, but nevermind. I'll probably also end up working through my back-catalogue as well because I don't get to see as many new movies as I'd like these days.
Here we go then. Making blog history. One film at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)