Flight

At the 85^th Academy Awards at the start of the year, Flight was nominated for a couple of awards namely Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay. I hadn’t heard too much about it except for an appearance by Denzel Washington on The Graham Norton Show but I thought the trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlFMZ5D8FNc) looked quite good so I gave it a watch. Directed by Robert Zemeckis (who also directed Back to the Future, Cast Away, Forrest Gump and Who Framed Roger Rabbit), it definitely promised a lot.

The film is about Captain William ‘Whip’ Whitaker (Denzel Washington) who is a pilot and on one flight the plane becomes a critical danger and starts to crash. Whitaker successfully crash lands the plane, minimising the casualties. He is lauded as a hero, but the problem is that he is an alcoholic. He is in denial about this for the majority of the film and is brought before a hearing that might result in a prison sentence if he is found to be guilty.

Denzel Washington is absolutely stunning in this as Captain Whitaker and was nominated for the Best Actor award, losing out to Daniel Day-Lewis. Washington’s portrayal of alcoholism is sensational and, although I don’t have any experience of it, I thought he was pretty spot on with some of the mannerisms he showed. Washington makes his character spectacularly engaging to the point that the audience is concerned about him. Towards the end of the film, with his hearing approaching, Whitaker is put in a hotel room and not allowed any alcohol. However he inadvertently finds the minibar in the unlocked room next door. He finds some alcohol and then appears to leave it alone, before taking and drinking it. I felt such a sinking feeling when he did this, and found myself to be far more responsive to his actions than I thought I would be. For Washington to create a character this engaging is to his credit and he definitely deserves the Best Actor nomination.

The rest of the cast is fairly impressive too, but are completely outshone by Washington. I particularly liked Don Cheadle as Hugh Lang, Whitaker’s attorney who seems to start as a dislikable character but turns out to be a guy who only has his client’s best interests at heart. Harling Mays was a character of nearly endless amusement for me, and I particularly liked how he seemed to balance out the seriousness of the film. However it was the character of Nicole (Kelly Reilly) who I found to be most entertaining from the rest of the cast. Her character also struggles with addiction, and finds it to be particularly damaging. She takes solace and seeks the company of Whitaker but soon realises that his addiction problem is far worse and is slowly destroying the both of them. She too is a character to engage with, and that’s one of the best things about this film.

However I think Flight is perhaps missing an emotional level that would take it from being a nominee for Best Original Screenplay to a contender for Best Picture. As it is, it is a good film that you can get into quite easily, but there’s nothing to hold your attention. I watched it with my family, and by about halfway through my Dad and brother had both got bored and left. I feel that if there was more emotional attachment to Whitaker then the audience might leave the film more affected by the outcome. It wasn’t that I wasn’t connected to the character, but I just didn’t feel the film left any particular impact on me after I had finished it. The best films are the ones that you remember for long after you’ve watched them, and the ones that you continue to enjoy again and again. I don’t think I’d watch Flight again to be honest.

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy it, but I thought it was probably the sort of film that some would enjoy and some would find boring (as evidenced perfectly by my family). Denzel Washington is very good and manages to captivate you with his character. However despite the alcoholism and destructive effect of addictions displayed here it is missing something that would make it incredible.  

Up

Since when did animated films become so emotionally engaging?! I got bored one afternoon and decided that because the weather was rubbish I might as well find something to watch. I had heard an awful lot about Up but never seen it, and most of the reports I had said that it was very good. I decided to give it a go and found myself in the middle of an emotional rollercoaster for the first ten minutes.

The film tells of Carl Fredriksen, an old man who flies his house to South America to fulfil a dream he and his late wife had of exploring when they were children. He does this by using thousands of helium balloons. However he inadvertently picks up a small child, Russell, on the way. Russell is an eager-to-help boy scout who wants to help Mr Fredriksen in whatever way he possibly can. When they arrive in South America they come across a weird bird and a talking dog. They also find Charles Muntz who was an explorer famous in Carl’s youth and uncover a plot against the bird, named Kevin.

I usually find it quite difficult to review animated films because there is relatively little to say beyond that the story and animation was good. Up is really no exception, and so I think this review will be much shorter than usual. Indeed the animation is very impressive and definitely makes this one of the better animated films I have seen. However, if I had to muster one criticism it would be that the human characters seem a bit too geometric. Carl’s face appears to be modelled entirely on a square, and Russell seems to be a couple of circles that has been squashed and put on top of each other. This isn’t a major criticism though and it doesn’t spoil my enjoyment of the film at all.

The best thing about Up is how engaging it is. The first scene involving Carl and his wife is tragically sad and is the perfect scene to captivate the audience. Personally I couldn’t stop watching after the first scene. Carl is a typical old man in an animated film – grumpy and set in his ways. However through his time with Russell and the animals he changes and becomes more understanding. My personal highlight of the film was the fight between the two old men. This had me in stitches, and I imagine it would be exactly the same if a younger child was watching. Russell is also very entertaining and provides an ideal figure for a younger audience to identify with.

I particularly enjoyed the idea of using dogs as other characters. The talking dogs were very amusing, particularly Alpha and Doug. I liked the idea of having them communicate through a machine rather than having them actually talk, and this seems to add a sense of realism to the film. Obviously when I say realism I do not actually mean that it is realistic, but the communication relay made it much less obscure.

Up is the sort of film that can appeal to both adults and children. I really enjoyed and I think children will enjoy it too. As a child you can enjoy the storyline and the laugh at the jokes and what-not. As an adult you cannot help but become engaged with the characters and the story. Without a doubt this is one of the best family films made in recent years and I think all the family can enjoy it, from grandparent to grandchild.

Thor

Thor is another film from the good people at Marvel and was released in preparation for The Avengers. Unsurprisingly, given that it is the first film in the Thor franchise, it introduces the character of Thor and gives us an idea of his purpose in the franchise, as well as giving us a bit of a teaser for The Avengers after the credits.

Thor is part of the Asgard people, an incredibly powerful race who are demi-Gods. His father is king and he is next in line for the throne. However, after an ill-advised trip to the home of the enemy, the Frost Giants, he risks bringing war to his people after many years of peace. He is subsequently banished to Earth where he tries to return in order to help defeat his brother who has plotted with the Frost Giants to kill the King.

Chris Hemsworth takes the hammer in hand in this film. For those of you who haven’t seen the film, or don’t get the reference, this means that he plays Thor. He does very well vocally, adopting a ‘Lord of the Rings-esque’ voice for his character that creates a sense of great power around him. Additionally he is very enjoyable to watch when Thor first arrives on Earth. These scenes are very well written and it is quite something that the writers haven’t made them too corny. The middle section of the film contains much of the humour that is characteristic of the Avengers’ prequels. Chris Hemsworth is very enjoyable to watch on screen and brings the character of Thor to life perfectly. He is very well cast in the role and I look forward to seeing more of him in the sequel to be released next year I think.

Natalie Portman also stars as the human lead, Jane Foster, who is investigating atmospheric disturbances and inadvertently comes across Thor. After hitting him with her van a couple of times she begins to help him and naturally falls in love with him. Natalie Portman doesn’t excel in this film, but she isn’t terrible. It’s an average performance in all honesty. Average doesn’t mean bad though, and I quite liked watching the relationship between Jane and Thor emerge. Although as ever, it was quite predictable, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the end of the film left the two apart from each other. Instead of a triumphant return scene at the end, when Thor is left cut off from Earth, it stays that way.

As with every Marvel film of late, the supporting cast is equally entertaining as the leading cast. Tom Hiddleston does very well as Loki, Thor’s brother who emerges as the chief villain of this film. He has quite a good look for a villain and is the character who evolves the most throughout the film. He starts off on an even keel to Thor and then through a series of events he becomes twisted and conspires with the Frost Giants. Kat Dennings is quite enjoyable to watch too. Obviously building on her experience of comedy work she plays quite a dry humourous character, not dissimilar to her role in 2 Broke Girls. I think she has a lot of potential and found her to be very amusing in Thor. Finally, Anthony Hopkins. It gets to a stage in an actor’s career where they have proved themselves as an incredible actor and start to be offered roles of ‘great king’ and stuff. Thor is a great example of this for Anthony Hopkins. He carries off the role of Odin very well, and seems to have an air of ‘Great King’ about him. It’s definitely not one of the best roles but he is quite good to watch nonetheless.

Finally I want to talk about the visual effects. All of the Marvel films of late can be characterised by amazing visual effects and Thor is no different. Most notable is the creation of Asgarth which is absolutely marvellous. Equally, the effects for the battle scenes are brilliant and really add to the impact of the film. Marvel studios can pride itself on the scale of the visual effects within their films and the Marvel franchise is resultantly, and deservedly one of the highest grossing franchises ever.

Overall, if you enjoy the other Marvel films such as Iron Man, The Avengers, Hulk and Captain America then you should love Thor too. It is very entertaining and engaging, and provides a bit more excitement and background to The Avengers. However, if you are not a fan of the comic book hero then it is probably one to avoid. I think you might quite like this film if you are interested in Norse mythology though because of the portrayal of several Norse Gods. A very good film all in all.

The Bourne Supremacy

I quite enjoyed The Bourne Identity when I first watched it, and so I decided that buying the next two films would be a worthwhile investment. Having now watched The Bourne Supremacy I can say that it was a good buy. It follows on from The Bourne Identity, and yet feels like a much more modern and gritty film, which is to its benefit.

Following the death of Marie (the girl who helped Bourne in the first film), Jason Bourne seeks revenge and tries to follow a trail from his past which leads him to the death of a diplomat and his wife in Berlin. In much the same way as The Bourne Identity, the plot unfolds in a very engaging way and has intricate little twists and turns to keep you interested. With a couple of exciting car chases thrown into the mix as well, The Bourne Supremacy is a very entertaining action movie.

However you do have to keep your eyes trained to the screen. The first time I saw The Bourne Supremacy, I made the mistake of trying to dip in and out of it. This didn’t really go very well for me. There’s quite a lot going on and so I would advise making sure that you know what is going on most of the time. There are several plots within the main plot and quite a few characters to keep track of, so it is quite advantageous to know who is who and what is going on.

Matt Damon reprises his role as Jason Bourne from the first film, and is every bit as well cast as before. The character of Bourne appears to perfectly suit Matt Damon and he does as well in this film as he did in the previous film. While I don’t think Jason Bourne will ever be as iconic as, say, James Bond, Matt Damon’s performance in both The Bourne Identity and Supremacy have ensured that the Bourne films are a modern action favourite.

While Matt Damon is very impressive in The Bourne Supremacy, the supporting cast is fairly anonymous. This makes it rather difficult to follow who is who and it is quite easy to get lost. Despite being rather critical of her in my review of Identity, it was good to see Franka Potente back as Marie, albeit briefly. A couple more flashbacks would have made it easier for me to remember who Ward Abbott (Brian Cox), but this was not a major problem. I did like Karl Urban as Kirill and was quite surprised to learn when researching this post that he played Eomer in The Lord of the Rings. In The Bourne Supremacy he is quite a background villain, and is as memorable as the secondary villain in many of the James Bond films. However, he is very good in his role and the character he plays is a fitting target for Bourne’s revenge. I particularly liked Joan Allen as Pamela Landy and thought that she was quite dislikable early on as she played the typical American intelligence officer who is seeking her target. However, throughout the film she becomes slightly more likable for me. By the end of the film I was quite sympathetic with her, and looked forward to the next installment to see how her relationship with Bourne played out.

There’s not much that marks out The Bourne Supremacy as an incredible film. It is a suitable follow up to The Bourne Identity and nicely sets up The Bourne Ultimatum. It is a modern action film that fits the mould perfectly. It isn’t necessary to have seen the first film in order to understand the second, but it can’t hurt to get a bit of background can it? Overall, it is probably one to watch, but I don’t think it is essential.

Rat Race

Rat Race is an example of a very purile, silly comedy film. And yet I find it absolutely brilliant. It’s a film about a group of people who are told that there is $2 million sitting in a bag in New Mexico and the first person to reach the locker from Las Vegas will keep it all. Naturally, hilarious scenarios unfold on screen which will be guaranteed to make you laugh at least once.

With a cast that many people will recognise, Rat Race is a very good example of how enjoyable a comedy film can be. Starring Rowan Atkinson, Breckin Meyer, Whoopi Goldberg, Seth Green, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jon Lovitz and John Cleese, Rat Race has a cast that many people will be able to enjoy. The scenarios that the actors get involved with are so unpredictable that you just don’t see them coming. From Cuba Gooding Jr. trying to take a taxi to New Mexico and ending up driving full of Lucille Ball  enthusiasts, to Jon Lovitz gatecrashing a Veterans meeting in Hitler’s car and Whoopi Goldberg breaking the land-speed record with her estranged daughter, there is so much unpredictability that the comedy flows brilliantly.

The nature of the film is such that each character’s fate is presented in an order, so you are shown what is happening to each character one after the other. Because there are so many characters, by the time you see each one again you realise that it has been a while since you last saw them, and almost laugh at the introduction of them again. Rat Race manages to deal with the problems around this very well though. You never feel like there are too many characters, and (although there probably are too many characters), the way the film brings them all in is perfect.

Rowan Atkinson, who I feel is one of the greatest British comedic actors ever, is absolutely side-splitting here, and despite having seen the film countless times I always find myself laughing the most at his parts. What makes it even better is his comedy Italian accent. He has obviously exaggerated it for comedic effect, and it does come across as very funny. Also, there are so many of Rowan Atkinson’s lines that are repeatable that the film will leave a couple of quotes in your memory bank.

All the other actors are pretty funny too, especially Jon Lovitz, but I found Seth Green and Vince Vieluf to be fairly annoying. I’m not the biggest fan of Seth Green as an actor and have never seen Vieluf in anything before or after this. Their storyline is fairly amusing, but Green’s character is inherently selfish throughout the film (right up until the end) and this makes me go off him a bit and feel that maybe he deserves his nightmare journey to New Mexico.

The whole film has a bit of a ‘well you just couldn’t make that up’ atmosphere to it, and this is why it is so funny. The scenarios that happen seem perfectly plausible on screen but when you step back and think about it they are utterly ridiculous. Obviously in a comedy film, plausible ridiculousness is what is aimed for, and Rat race achieves this very well. I cannot work out though whether I am biased towards Rat Race because of how much I enjoyed it the first time I watched it.

If I had one criticism of the film then it would be that some of the actors do not actually play a character wholly different from most of the characters they otherwise play. Breckin Meyer plays the nice guy who never takes a risk, Seth Green plays the moody teenager-esque bloke, John Cleese is the eccentric hotel owner (now which hugely successful British sitcom does that remind you of?) and Rowan Atkinson, although funny, is funny in the same way he normally is. In terms of the cast, it is impressive but not astounding.

However, despite this I am fairly confident that Rat Race will have you laughing at least once. If you are not made of stone then you should find yourself giggling along to the hilarious scenes unfolding in front of you. I rate Rat Race very highly and thoroughly recommend that you give it a watch. 

Godzilla

I’ve always been curious about Godzilla and films with large monsters in them. Sometimes they can be absolutely brilliant, with some incredible special effects and some entertaining scenes. However, equally they can be disappointing and laughable. I started watching Godzilla with fairly low expectations so that I wouldn’t be disappointed, and it turned out to be very good.

It’s a film taking from a hugely successful Japanese idea of a gigantic ‘king of the monsters’. The 1998 film makes it much more Americanised and intends to appeal to a wider audience. After a nuclear incident, a biological mutation happens and a reptile begins to change dramatically. The gigantic creature decides to come to America to lay its eggs and starts to destroy Manhattan. Obviously the Americans aren’t too happy about this and attempt to stop the creature. Dr. Niko Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick) is asked to assist with this, and eventually finds the eggs in Madison Square Gardens, blowing it up and destroying them all (or has he?)

In all honesty, the film isn’t stunning, and except for the visual effects, there was very little that stood out as incredible. However, it is quite enjoyable, quite entertaining, and very easy to dip in and out of. The effects on Godzilla are absolutely stunning, but for me I was comparing it quite a lot to Jurassic Park, which was made 5 years before and is possibly better for effects. Sometimes the effects are a bit comic and this doesn’t help the film’s standing. Aside from the effects, there is very little that makes me want to watch it again. The scenes with Godzilla in are spectacular and so much fun to watch, but beyond that, there’s not much going on.

Matthew Broderick is quite bland and plain at Dr. Niko Tatopoulos. As the main character and hero of this movie you’d expect him to be a bit more likable or a bit more heroic. Instead, to me he comes across as a bit unaware. He is obviously fascinated by the creature, but very little makes me care about his outcome. Whereas in other films of this sort there is a fear or concern over the safety of the character, I did not get this at all with Matthew Broderick. Equally, I found myself not really interested in what happened to his old partner Audrey (Maria Pitillo). Normally in these types of films there is a sub-story with the hero and a woman, and Godzilla is no exception, but I didn’t really engage with this one too well.

As a source of comedy, Hank Azaria does very well in Godzilla. He is funny in a fairly slapstick way, but really shines in the scenes that he is in. He brings a degree of comedy to the film that is in line with the general air of the movie. He is not too comedic, and yet is not too dry either. Another one who does very well for me is Jean Reno, who plays the leader of the French team sent to help destroy Godzilla. Reno has a fairly mysterious air about him, and as an actor, this can be quite handy. It makes the audience unclear whether his characters are sinister or good, and in Godzilla, this really works well.

Ultimately, it is quite hard to do a film like Godzilla well, but the 1998 version does its best. With a remake set for release in 2014, there is a lot of expectation on its shoulders, given the relative failings of the 1998 film. I don’t think it is a bad film by any means, but I don’t think it does the Godzilla ‘legend’ any favours. By making it more Americanised I think the filmmakers harmed the franchise and although the acting isn’t great, the special effects create a brilliant monster. I found myself enjoying Godzilla, and so it’s probably worth a watch.

The Mask of Zorro

I seem to find myself writing an awful lot of reviews lately for films that I saw in my childhood and absolutely loved. In keeping with this trend I recently watched The Mask of Zorro, the 1998 adventure film starring Anthony Hopkins, Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones. When I first saw this film I really, really enjoyed it and when it came up at a party recently I discovered that I wasn’t the only one.

It tells about a man who fights for the people of California under the name ‘Zorro’. However, the governor of California is hunting for Zorro. His soldiers kill Diego De La Vega’s wife and Rafael Monteiro takes his daughter for his own. The film then skips forward twenty years and follows De La Vega’s attempts to get his revenge, with the assistance of Alejandro Murrieta who is trying to avenge the death of his brother at the hands of Captain Love. In reality it is a typical adventure movie, but with swordfighting and a good old fashioned revenge plot the child in my absolutely loved it when I first saw it.

The acting isn’t particularly impressive, but it is very engaging. As a child I found the passion with which Antonio Banderas conveys in this role very entertaining and definitely helped me engage with his character much more. Considering Zorro is a Spanish ‘character’, Banderas is perfectly cast in this role. His dedication to this film is such that he performed all his own stunts except one. Presumably he was equally dedicated with his swordsmanship and this is to his great credit. His desire for authenticity shines through in this film and makes many of the action scenes more impressive because one feels that it is Banderas on the screen – mainly because it is.

Anthony Hopkins has been in some absolutely stunning roles, and while Zorro is an enjoyable film, in terms of the acting, Hopkins is decidedly neutral. When you compare this film to some of his other roles, he pales in comparison. However, it is quite enjoyable to watch him on his quest for revenge, and in the majority of the film, Hopkins helps you to feel genuinely sorry for his character. Obviously in most films with an obvious hero you want him to prevail, but Anthony Hopkins makes Zorro much more connected to the people he fought for, but also shows how utterly devoted he was/is to his wife and daughter. When Elena asks him to do something for her, he immediately does, and Hopkins way of conveying this produces a connection with the audience.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is also very enjoyable to watch. Her character, Elena, the daughter of Diego De La Vega, is passionate, strong-willed and fiercely loyal to the man she believes to be her father. Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn’t light up the screen, but she provides a very engaging and entertaining character who is perfectly suited to Alejandro in terms of passion. The scene where he and she are fighting in the stable is a particular highlight for many different reasons. She doesn’t put a foot wrong in this role, but isn’t stunning either. Ultimately, she provides a good performance for the heroine of this movie.

Neither of the two villains particularly excel, but there is something about Matt Letscher as Captain Love that is very sinister. He is a constant threat throughout the film, and is the perfect opponent for the younger Zorro. I remember as a kid being quite scared of Captain Love, and so Letscher does very well to convey this.

Finally, I think that the whole film is enjoyable just because it is atypical action adventure revenge film. There are two different revenge plots going on at once and this keeps you entertained. Also, there is a sub-plot which Zorro has to try and stop. With some moments of comedy and an incredibly likable ‘hero’ in Zorro (no matter who is behind the mask), this film is very entertaining. It might be the case though that if you haven’t watched it as a child you may not like it as much as I do, so beware of that before you watch it. I recommend that you do though. 

The Queen

I had heard quite a lot about The Queen and it had quite a reputation behind it, so I decided that it would be a good idea to watch it. It’s a film which considers the British Royal Family’s dealing with the public after the death of Princess Diana. Now I was too young to remember exactly what happened with the death of Diana and so this film was very useful to me as a bit of an explanation.

Upon the breaking news of the death of Princess Diana, the Royal Family did not expect the response that was seen by the public. The Queen and her family wanted to deal with the news in a very private manner and did not consider it to be a royal death. However, the public opinion, largely channelled by Prime Minister Tony Blair, was that a more widespread expression of grief should be seen. The film also provides a bit of an insight into the workings of the labour government under Blair, but this takes a backseat relative to the focus on the Royals. In the year that The Departed won the Academy Award for Best Picture, The Queen definitely deserves its nomination and might have been a close contender.

Helen Mirren stars as The Queen and is absolutely wonderful to watch. She fully deserves the award for Best Actress and for me is the perfect actress to play Elizabeth II. Not only does she fully look the part in this film, which is of course a credit to the makeup department, but she sounds perfect as well. She has obviously dedicated herself fully to this role, and the result is an absolutely flawless and fantastic portrayal of The Queen. Generally I think she presents the monarchy in a positive light in this film, and although a certain degree of stubbornness is seen in the character, the audience is allowed to understand her reasons behind her actions. Also, she is portrayed as a genuinely caring mother and grandmother, which is really nice considering how private the Royal family is.

Michael Sheen portrays the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in this film and is as enjoyable to watch as ever. He had played Blair before The Queen and does so again after, but does very well at replicating the mannerisms of the man. His ‘all-smiles’ approach to this role perfectly captures the character, and he comes across as a very believable Blair. He does very well at conveying the difficulty that a modern Prime Minister can have with the Royal Family. There are a number of times when Blair’s modern ideals do not ring true with the Queen’s old fashioned way of doing things, and when this happens I found myself feeling a bit wary at where the scene was going. This level of awkwardness is perfectly captured by Sheen. Michael Sheen is fast on his way to becoming one of my favourite actors, just for how likable he is on-screen (and off-screen I’m sure).

The supporting cast is also very enjoyable to watch, particularly the other members of the Royal Family. Whereas Helen Mirren attempts to portray the Royals positively, the other actors highlight exactly how old fashioned and traditional the monarchy really is. For me, Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh (played by James Cromwell), is the polar opposite of the Queen in this sense. Where she is prepared to consider and understand the public’s love and appreciation of Diana eventually, Phillip seems to have no understanding of why they should break tradition for Diana. This obstinance is brilliantly conveyed by Cromwell who deserves credit for his performance. Equally enjoyable is the old fashioned views held by the Queen Mother (Sylvia Syms). I particularly enjoyed the scene where she was outraged by the decision to use her funeral plans as the template for Diana’s. Although she doesn't have a particularly big part in the film, she definitely adds to the presentation of the royals.

Alex Jennings plays Prince Charles very well, but if I had one criticism of him it is that his accent isn't completely perfect. I think that it is actually relatively inconsistent at various points, and if it wasn't for the fact that he was introduced as the Prince of Wales, some might struggle to understand who he is. Although, that said, Charles’ accent is particularly difficult to imitate and I’m sure Jennings gave this role his best shot. Finally, I found Helen McCrory as Cherie Blair to be particularly annoying in this film. It might just be because I find Cherie Blair particularly annoying and McCrory does a good job of conveying this, but I thought the character seemed to be a bit vindictive about the whole scenario.

Overall, The Queen is a thoroughly enjoyable and very entertaining take on the events surrounding the death of Princess Diana. As films of this sort go, it is definitely one of the better ones. Complete with a very proficient supporting cast and a couple of exceptional performances from Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen, The Queen is definitely a film to watch if you get the opportunity.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Having read the book of the same name by Douglas Adams, I was curious about the film of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. My flatmate has said that the film doesn't match up to the book at all and I would agree with this. My last post was about The Da Vinci Code and I talk about how difficult it is to adapt a book into a film that genuinely matches up. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is another example of this.

It’s definitely not a bad film though. The book is very funny and keeps you captivated page by page. I think the focus with the film was to produce a visualisation of everything for the audience. In this respect the film does very well. I particularly liked Alan Rickman as Marvin the depressed robot. Alan Rickman has a voice that particularly lends itself towards the slightly depressed character. His manner in playing the character is absolutely spectacular and is completely how I imagined the character when reading the book.

Also, for me, Martin Freeman is perfectly cast in the role of Arthur Dent. It might just have been the fact that I knew it was Freeman who plays Dent when reading the book, but I could imagine him being completely comfortable as Arthur. His unique manner of acting lends him very favourably to this character. Martin Freeman has a way of delivering comedic lines which many people find entertaining and it is displayed very clearly in this film.

The other cast is very good too. I enjoyed Zooey Deschanel as Trillian. It’s is quite hard to tell the difference between an actor’s unique manner and them playing the same character in a lot of films. I thought there was nothing about Zooey Deschanel’s character that marked the performance out from anything else she’s done. I did like Mos Def as Ford, and there was a brilliant eccentricity about him in this film that perfectly captured the essence of Ford. I’m not sure what I made of Sam Rockwell as Zaphod though. It might just be because he played the character differently to how I imagined him, but I wasn’t convinced. He managed the zany character very well, but there was nothing that screamed ‘President of the Galaxy’ to me.

For me, it is the small parts that very successful actors and actresses have in this film that marks out how successful the book was. With Bill Nighy, Warwick Davis, Helen Mirren, Stephen Fry and John Malkovich all playing a role in the film it was obviously a big enough project to attract the big names. However, it was lacking something for me. While graphics are impressive for 2005 I felt a bit disappointed that the film added an extra scene at the end which wasn’t included in the book. I never like it when a film does this because the intention of the film is to adapt the book and by adding an extra scene at the end interprets the book in a way that the author may not have intended. It can also completely change the impact of the film. It is a shame that The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy does this, but ultimately I can get over it.

It’s never easy to adapt a book into a film, and especially with a science-fiction book there will always be people who don’t like it for one reason or another. Personally, although there’s no real problems with the acting or anything like that, I just don’t like that an extra scene was added. It doesn’t live up to the book at all and so I would read the book before you think about seeing the film. In all honesty, having read the book, I would avoid the film. 

The Da Vinci Code

When I read The Da Vinci Code I was immediately gripped by how fantastic it was. The book was absolutely impossible to put down and so I was naturally a bit sceptical about whether the film could live up to the success of the book. I don’t think it does, but it is a very faithful adaptation which I feel was made to capitalise on the success of the book rather than anything else.

For those of you who haven’t read the book and don’t know the story, firstly you really should. Secondly, the film is about a professor called Robert Langdon who is accused of murdering the curator of the Musee du Louvre. He becomes embroiled in a quest to find the Holy Grail with a woman called Sophie Neveu which takes a fair few twists and turns on the way. It is a thrilling story from beginning to end, but as with many films that build on the success of a novel, it doesn’t even come close to being as entertaining as Dan Brown’s book. As a film it is fairly average, but because it is building on something so successful it seems to be much better.

It stars Tom Hanks who is, as ever, wonderful to watch. He has such a fantastic on-screen presence and a tremendous ability to ‘become’ every character that he plays. For me, now that I have seen the film, I cannot picture anyone else as Langdon, and when I read The Lost Symbol relatively recently, it was Hanks who I was visualising in my mind. However, his acting performance isn’t incredible. It is not a particularly taxing role I shouldn’t imagine, and beyond reading the book a couple of times there is not much that is required beforehand with regard to dedication to the role. I really like Tom Hanks, but this isn’t one of his better roles. That doesn’t mean that it is one of his worst though.

In my opinion, the star of the show was Paul Brittany who played the monk Silas. In the book he is a very scary character and poses quite an intimidating threat throughout. It was always going to be difficult to translate this on to the screen. I have recently seen a fair few films with Paul Bettany in and so I was quite surprised to learn that it was he who played Silas in The Da Vinci Code. I just completely didn’t recognise him and he played his character very well. While he wasn’t as imposing as in the book, there are very few genuinely haunting performances. Silas is, I feel, intended as a haunting character and this is difficult enough to convey in words let alone on screen.

There are a number of other stars in supporting roles. Ian McKellen is perfect in the role of the English gentleman Leigh Teabing and provides a good voice to convey much of the grail legend to Langdon, Neveu and the audience. The actress who plays Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou – better known for her role in Amelie) doesn’t particularly stand out, but like I said, it is quite difficult to excel in such an adapted role. Alfred Molina does very well as the leader of Opus Dei, but he too suffers from the same hangover from the book as most of the other cast. Ultimately, this film only serves to provide a visualisation of the book in my opinion. There is nothing about it which makes it stand out from any other film.

I did like the way that the symbolism was portrayed in the film as it makes up such a major part of the book. All four of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon books feature the symbolism in popular culture as a major theme and this contributes to the astounding success of the series. As a result, there must have been a lot of pressure on the film to deliver this in a convincing and realistic way. Director Ron Howard does this very well and stays true to the vast majority of the meaning in the book.

Ultimately, this is a very hard film to make because of the obvious comparisons to the book. Personally, I don’t think it is a bad film at all, but it does suffer from the inevitable comparisons to the book. The casting is (mostly) spot on, and the presentation of the story is brilliant, but because of how incredible the book was, the film tends to suffer. If you wanted to watch the film then I cannot advise you strongly enough to read the book first. I guarantee it will keep you entertained for so long, but if you watch the film first then a lot of the twists and turns of the novel will be lost because of how well they are written. 

Other films starring Tom Hanks:

Saving Private Ryan - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/saving-private-ryan.html

Forrest Gump - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/forest-gump.html

Another film starring Paul Bettany:
A Beautiful Mind - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-beautiful-mind.html

Other films starring Ian McKellen:

The Lord of the Rings (Part 1) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-1.html

(Part 2) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-2.html

(Part 3) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-3.html

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey.html

The Iron Lady

I quite like the odd political film here and there, and so I was quietly looking forward to watching The Iron Lady. I thought, given that it is about Margaret Thatcher it will probably be a rousing controversial look at her time in office. Instead it focused much more on her decline and basically consisted of her letting go of the memory of her late husband. It’s quite a sad film, but one that keeps you interested with a glance back at her political life and some dazzling acting.

In the form of a series of flashbacks we are shown Thatcher’s life from the start to the end of her political career. From the first scene of the film, the title ‘The Iron Lady’ is put firmly to the test. She goes down to the shop to buy some milk and is not recognised by anyone. Throughout the film we see a completely different side to Thatcher where she is much more vulnerable and dependent on others for help. The past and the present is blurred for Thatcher, and she continually talks to her late husband, Denis, whom is present for much of the film.

Meryl Streep stars as Thatcher and is frankly phenomenal. Now it’s not hard to play an old woman who is struggling with Alzheimer’s, letting go of her past and adapting to her new life. However, Meryl Streep does such a fantastic job of becoming Thatcher. Right down to her accent, everything about Streep’s performance screams of the diligence and ability that marks her out as one of the best actresses of our time. Thatcher’s accent and tone are both very difficult to perfect, and yet Meryl Streep does so to great effect. Given the controversial nature of the first female Prime Minister, I’m sure there will be a number of films made about her, and I’m sure that Streep’s performance will be the benchmark for the actresses who take the role. Despite not being British, she excels in the role and in many ways, completely becomes the character that she is portraying. This is as much a credit to the makeup team as it is to her, and both thoroughly deserve the Academy Awards they won for this.

There is a wealth of supporting cast who deserve a mention. Jim Broadbent completely excels as the older Denis Thatcher. There seems to be something about Broadbent playing a slightly eccentric character, and he does so here to great effect. Equally enjoyable were Alexandra Roach and Harry Lloyd who played the younger Margaret and Denis. These two do brilliantly to convey the relatively care-free attitude of the two young politicians. Olivia Colman is also excellent as Carol Thatcher. This performance is another credit to both the actress and the makeup department. Now I haven’t seen much of Carol Thatcher, and I really don’t know that much about her, but I think Colman does an excellent job of playing both Thatcher’s daughter and the primary caregiver of someone with dementia. There are also a number of actors who comprise Thatcher’s government such as Anthony Head and Nicholas Farrell, however they don’t shine as much as the other cast.

However, despite the cast being fantastic, the film has met with much criticism. Thatcher’s two children have criticised the way the film depicts Thatcher. In many ways this is true, but ultimately there is a tendency for modern films to take a prominent figure who suffered from an illness and explore the illness around their character rather than the other way round. I would have liked The Iron Lady to be more of a biopic which presented the immensely influential yet controversial figure of Thatcher in the context of her political prominence. Instead, Thatcher has descended into neutrality and the filmmakers make her character largely uncontroversial and unlikely to divide the opinions of many. I think that instead of presenting a film about an old woman who can’t let go of her husband’s memory, I would have enjoyed an analysis of Thatcher’s time in office much more.

However, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy The Iron Lady because I did. It was a good film and I found it very easy to watch. It is also very uncontroversial and is unlikely to provoke strong feelings about Thatcher. However, I think this is to the slight detriment of the film. While a neutral film is more likely to appeal to the masses in that it won’t immediately dissuade either side of the Thatcher opinion polls. The neutrality of the film could be intended to reflect Thatcher’s life when she was out of the public eye. Anyway, you don’t need to be politically aware to enjoy this film. I would recommend it if you are interested in Thatcher, and if nothing else, just for Meryl Streep’s performance.

The Avengers

I was buzzing to see The Avengers when it was released last year, but I think I had quite a bit of work to do at the time and never got round to seeing it. When it was released on DVD I kept trying to find a price that was cheap enough that I could justify it. When I eventually bought it (for £5 in Sainsbury’s) I decided to keep it for the day after my exams finished, just as a little treat. Now that they have finished I have finally seen it, and I loved it.

I am a massive fan of superhero films, and love most of the Marvel characters. Recently, Iron Man has been a big favourite, and I was very excited to see how some of the other characters turned out. I was however a little bit tentative. Normally when a film has a large number of main characters they start to detract from the film a little bit. If this happens then what could have been a phenomenon turns into a bitter disappointment (remember Spiderman 3?). The Avengers deals with this problem very well. There are 7 characters featured on the majority of the promotional posters, and the film balances them out equally. There are a couple of stories going on with each character, but these are all given an appropriate amount of screen time, and instead of the film being all about one character, there is no character who plays an obviously major role to the detriment of another.

The plot is a fairly straightforward ‘bad guy wants to destroy the world as we know it’ sort of thing, but it is made to be original and so it works. Complete with an extraterrestrial threat to the freedom of humanity and an unusual source of power that the bad guy has obviously stolen to help his plot to subjugate the Earth, The Avengers has a fresh feel to it, despite the plot being a little bit old.

Now there are obviously too many main characters for me to talk about all of them in depth. Suffice to say that they are all excellent. Those actors whose characters have already had a film have not changed their style in the slightest. For example Robert Downey Jr. is every bit the same Tony Stark that previously appeared in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. Chris Evans makes Captain America a little bit different in this, but I suppose that he was frozen after the Second World War and so the world he wakes up in will be completely different to him. The Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) is different compared to the one in the previous film, but that is only to be expected given that this is a different actor. Chris Hemsworth does very well as Thor as well. This was my first experience of Thor and I thought that his character was very enjoyable to watch. The interesting responsibility that he feels as a result of his adopted brother being the one to wreak the damage is an interesting twist and plays out very well on screen. Jeremy Renner is absolutely wonderful as Hawkeye and given that he has nothing to build on with this character. His is a character whose story plays out during the film, with twists and turns along the way. I wasn’t sure whether he was good or bad for a bit, and Renner does very well when he falls on both sides of this fence. Scarlett Johansson is fantastic as Black Widow and never feels like anything less than one of the group. Her character is one that could be quite easily forgotten about but both she and the writers do very well to make her an equal member of the team. Finally, Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury does a magnificent job of being the glue between all the characters. Before this film he had appeared in a number of the ‘prequels’ without a major role. However, here his part is much bigger and his character becomes one of the few things tying the group together. He is, as ever, magnificent to watch in action.

Another aspect of The Avengers that I really enjoyed was the special effects. With many ‘blockbuster’ films today there is a slight tendency for directors to spend most of the budget on special effects that really don’t add anything to the film. Equally, as Michael Bay shows us, sometimes special effects can actually damage a film more than enhance it. With The Avengers, Joss Whedon does a fantastic job of getting the balance just right. The special effects are not overpowering and completely work in the context of the film, rather than being there to grab the attention of the people finding clips for the trailer. The weird alien ship monster things (if you’ve seen the film you will know what I mean) are fantastically well designed, and the effects around each of the superheroes are fantastic – particularly the way that Bruce Banner changes into The Hulk. The effects for this film are so impressive that it was nominated for an Academy Award, understandably losing out the Life of Pi. It is a very impressive example of how special effects can be used well in modern action films.

If you don’t like superhero films then you should not watch The Avengers. Also, I wouldn’t advise it until you’ve seen at least one of the prequel films because otherwise you might find yourself a bit lost about who all the characters are. However, if you do decide to watch it, then you will find yourself enjoying a fantastic film that keeps you entertained pretty much from the first minute to the last. Also, after the film ends, watch out because there are two post-credit scenes. Definitely one for the action superhero fan to enjoy. 

Platoon

Platoon is one of those films that I always meant to watch but never seemed to get around to. It is one of the best films about the Vietnam War, which considering how many Vietnam films there are is high praise. It tells the story of one soldier who volunteers for service and follows his development and experience of the war. The film is based upon the director’s experiences in Vietnam and is an absolutely amazing watch.

Charlie Sheen stars as the protagonist, Chris Taylor, who drops out of college and volunteers for Vietnam. To the other men in his unit, he is a complete outsider and doesn’t belong in Vietnam with the other hardened soldiers. However, after time he comes to be accepted and forms a close relationship with the group. Charlie Sheen manages to do a fantastic job in this film. It was (I think) his first major role and puts in an incredible performance. At the start of the film he appears as an innocent young man who is out of sync with the lifestyle of a combat trooper. However, by the end of the film his experiences have noticeably changed him. It is the extent to which this is noticeable that makes his performance so impressive. By the end of the film, he too is a hardened soldier, hence the tagline of the film: ‘The first casualty of war is innocence’.

Given that the film is based on Oliver Stone’s (director and writer) Vietnam experiences, the impact of this film is very powerful. I didn’t know that it was based on truth when I watched it, but when I discovered this, it completely changed my perspective on the film. It goes from a war film showing the effects of Vietnam on a young man to a film documenting how Stone feels the war impacted him. To say that this is profound is understating it a bit. Some of the scenes in the film (like the one where the soldiers reach the village) are very shocking, and reinforces the idea that you cannot know exactly what it was like unless you were actually there.

Aside from Charlie Sheen, the others actors who make up the platoon really complete the film. Tom Berenger is immensely sinister and dislikable as Sergeant Barnes. There is a sense of mystery around his character, in much the same was as there is around Tom Hanks in Saving PrivateRyan, but in Platoon there is a much more grave element to this. His character isn't meant to be disliked though, or at least I don’t think so. There is no doubt that he commits some atrocities in the film, but maybe Stone is conveying a strong message about the impact Vietnam has on people. The scar on his face alone shows the impact the war has on him, and when Charlie Sheen gets cut as well the parallels between the two men are stronger. Many people see Barnes as the villain, but he is made the way he is by the war going on around him. Similarly, Chris Taylor changes throughout the film due to the war going on around him. Either way, Berenger does a fantastic job of conveying the director’s message.

Sergeant Elias is played very well by Willem Dafoe, and is a relative force of good in the film. He seems to be keeping things very much in the ‘good’ camp, and after his death (the classic scene in the movie) things start to get a bit more out of control. In many ways it is his death that is the catalyst for this, as the suspicions start to creep in among the soldiers. In stark contrast to Elias is the character of Bunny (Kevin Dillon) who comes across as simply psychotic. He loves what he is doing in Vietnam and in one very disturbing scene, smashing a Vietnamese man’s head open with his gun before remarking that he’d never seen one pop like that. Bunny seems to represent everything twisted and bad about Vietnam, whereas Elias shows more of the compassion and good intention that Chris starts the film with. There’s a tip of the hat for Forest Whitaker, John C. McGinley and Johnny Depp who also appear in this film.

When you think about the acting, the symbolism, the subject matter and what it was based upon, it is really no surprise that Platoon won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It completely deserves this award, and Stone deserves the Best Director Award. I’m surprised that Charlie Sheen wasn't nominated for the Best Actor award, but both Dafoe and Berenger were up for Best Supporting Actor, again, deservingly. The film is incredibly well made, and really does grip you. Although it is a bit slow in parts, this is intended to reflect the nature of the war, and Stone, building on his own experiences, conveys this magnificently.

If you have an interest in Vietnam or in war films then Platoon should definitely be on your list. If not then I think it is the kind of film that is important to see, just because of the subject matter. You might not enjoy the whole thing, but its importance cannot be understated. I really enjoyed Platoon because it made me think, and thoroughly recommend it. 

Another film dealing with the Vietnam War, but in a more light-hearted way is:

Forrest Gump - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/forest-gump.html

The Intouchables

The Intouchables was recommended to me by a friend who said that I should review it for my blog. I think it’s fair to say that I took my time with watching it, and now that I have seen it, I wish I hadn't taken so long to get round to it. It is a fantastically touching, uplifting film that will draw you in without you realising it and leave you wanting even more from the story.

The Intouchables is a French biopic film about a quadriplegic named Philippe who hires a young man, Driss, to help him with his care. The first part of the film unfolds as a typical scenario in which neither character are comfortable with each other. Driss particularly struggles with the jobs that he needs to do for Philippe. However, by the end of the film the two are firm friends, introducing each other to various aspects of their very different worlds and they both change as a result of their friendship.

Now not being particularly ‘in the know’ about French cinema I had no idea who either of the leading actors were, and I think this really helped with my enjoyment of the film. By far and away, the best thing about The Intouchables is the chemistry between Francois Cluzet (Philippe) and Omar Sy (Driss). Both men do fantastically well to convey their characters as both best friends and individuals who don’t get on because they are from two different worlds. Although they are both spectacular together, their individual performances are very enjoyable too. Francois Cluzet does very well in a role which has the potential to be done either very well or very badly. His portrayal of a quadriplegic is brilliant and completely convincing. His performance makes up a central part of the film and it definitely would not be the same without him.

However, in my opinion, the show is stolen by Omar Sy who is an absolutely joy to watch as Driss. Having not seen Sy in anything before this I found him to be a thoroughly entertaining actor. His portrayal of both sides of his character is perfect. His is the kind of performance that you know is the result of some exceptional dedication from Sy. He is able to convey an enjoyment to the audience that brings them into the film. He certainly made me want to see more of the relationship between Driss and Philippe, and the feeling of not wanting it the film to end perfectly parallels what is going on in the movie.

I really loved this film for a number of reasons, the first being how it invites you in and captivates your attention without you really realising it. However, instead of being one of those film that is brilliant because of one stand out acting performance, or because of its deep and important message, it is brilliant because you enjoy it so much. This is primarily due to the relationship between Driss and Philippe, which is the focal point of the whole movie. It is not only this relationship that completes the film, but the fact that both characters grow and develop before your eyes. At first the incongruence between the world of Philippe and the world of Driss makes the film a bit awkward, and before it becomes so enjoyable it is quite funny. One particular scene that demonstrates this is where Driss is dealing with a neighbour who is always parking in front of Philippe’s garage.

Just a quick note about the subtitles, normally I cannot stand watching a film with the subtitles on because they distract me too much from the actual film. However with The Intouchables I found myself absolutely loving the film, subtitles and all. Because the relationship between the characters is so entertaining, an understanding of French is not crucial to your enjoyment of the film and the subtitles don’t really detract from the film.

I am going to follow of from the recommendation of my friend and strongly suggest that you watch The Intouchables too. It has been a while since I have seen a film that improved my mood so much. It is wonderfully uplifting and joyful in parts. Even better, it is the kind of film that very few people seem to have seen, and in that respect it is a bit of a hidden gem. I can’t imagine that you won’t enjoy it because of how fantastically engaging it is. Not one to miss at all.

The World's End

The World’s End is the third film in Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright’s ‘ice cream and blood’ series. There has been an awful lot of expectation for this film, largely because Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were both so successful. I was looking forward to seeing it and yet when I came out of the cinema I felt a little bit disappointed. It wasn't as good as Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, and I didn't seem to enjoy it as much.

If you haven’t seen the trailer, The World’s End is about five friends who, one night in their teen years, attempted a pub crawl known as the golden mile. Years later they return to Newton Haven to complete the golden mile, but things are not quite as they seem. Everything seems to be the same, and yet completely different. They soon discover that the villagers have been taken and replaced by ‘robots’. The five guys try to complete the golden mile without arousing suspicion, but they soon come across an alien network intending to ‘civilise’ humankind for the benefit of the universe.

Now I did enjoy the film, but not as much as they other two. It was a funny film which made me laugh out loud several times, and this was genuine laughter too. The comedy was original in that it wasn’t entirely recycled from the previous films. I thought that this was important because otherwise The World’s End would just be an extension of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. However, it followed a very different template. I hope this makes sense, but Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz both seem to have a prescribed pattern where certain jokes are repeated for comedic effect. The World’s End doesn’t feel like a film of the same mould. However, this isn’t a bad thing as it makes it much more unique. The laughs aren’t manufactured either and feel perfectly natural in the context of the film

I particularly liked the message behind the film. Edgar Wright is quoted as saying that he wanted to focus on the “Wetherspooning” effect with the “strange homogenous branding that becomes like a virus” (http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2013-07/17/edgar-wright-interview-the-worlds-end). Much like all of the pubs seen in the film are essentially the same, the humans are being slowly replaced with a branded identical copy of each other.

Simon Pegg is spectacular in this film, which seems to go unnoticed because his character is really dislikable. His mannerisms and commitment to his character is perfect. Nick Frost is also, and unsurprisingly, brilliantly funny as the teetotal Andy. I thought The World’s End was particularly entertaining in that Pegg and Frost seem to have swapped roles somewhat. Whereas Frost was the silly one and Pegg was the more serious one, in The World’s End Frost plays the serious character who is unwilling to get involved with childish scenarios. This reversal of their chemistry works perfectly throughout the film, which is as much a credit to each actor’s skill as it is to the scriptwriting.

The supporting cast is equally fantastic and complete the ‘friendship’ theme which has characterised all three of the ‘ice cream and blood’ films. Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan and Paddy Considine all work perfectly in their roles, and none of them ever feel like they’re playing second fiddle to Frost and Pegg. Each of them is there as their own character and are an equal part of the cast. Rosamund Pike is also very amusing as Sam Chamberlain, and the scenes with her in are particularly amusing. There are a number of cameo appearances which are also very entertaining, such as Mark Heap, whose manner is a source of laughter in every role he plays.

Overall I think The World’s End is a very good film. It will suffer a little bit though from being part of the same series as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. I didn't find it as entertaining as the other two, but still entertaining. I enjoyed watching it and genuinely laughed a few times. The plot was particularly interesting and felt relatively fresh and while some parts felt a little bit forced and manufactured, it was an entertaining and enjoyable watch. It’s not a bad film and if you enjoy comedies then you will like The World’s End. Complete with a message about trying to relive the past, Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright have produced a fitting finale for the ‘ice cream and blood’ trilogy. 

You may also like:

Other films by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg:

Shaun of the Dead - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/shaun-of-dead.html

Hot Fuzz - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hot-fuzz.html

Other films starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost:

Paul - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/paul.html

Hot Fuzz

Hot Fuzz is the second film in the Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright ‘ice cream and blood’ trilogy, and follows much the same pattern as Shaun of the Dead except there is a totally different storyline. In Hot Fuzz, Nicholas Angel is a dedicated and hard working police officer who is sent to the countryside village of Sandford. Here two different worlds collide and Angel uncovers a village-wide murderous rampage all motivated by a desire to win the Village of the Year Award.

It sounds pretty funny already doesn't it? It is quite difficult to know whether or not to describe it as a sequel. It has many of the same running jokes as were in Shaun of the Dead, such as crossing gardens by jumping over fences and the ‘do you want anything from the shop’ line. However the completely different storyline makes it more of a second collaboration than a sequel. With several of the same actors and actresses from Shaun of the Dead making a re-appearance in various roles, this is definitely a very similar film to Shaun of the Dead. However, it is good because it avoids following the same pattern too exactly. While there are obvious similarities, they are incorporated into the film rather than being relied upon.

So once again Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are hilarious in their role as best friends. Simon Pegg is the hardworking Nicholas Angel who finds the policing methods used in the countryside completely foreign to him. Nick Frost is the young police officer in Sandford who tries to help Nicholas switch off once in a while. Their onscreen chemistry is as perfect as it was in Shaun of the Dead and as I mentioned in the last post, this can only be aided by the fact that they are so close offscreen.

However, for me this film isn’t as focused on Pegg and Frost in the same way that Shaun of the Dead was. Hot Fuzz focuses more on the supporting cast who play a bigger role than previously. Jim Broadbent plays Inspector Frank Butterman, who is leading the murderous rampage in Sandford. As ever, he is thoroughly enjoyable in this role, and delivers his more comedic lines with a serious and deadpan manner which makes them much more amusing. There are a number of other actors and actresses who play the residents of Sandford who you swear you have seen before somewhere. The most notable of these is Anne Reid, who has appeared in quite a lot of television series. I was astounded to find out that Simon Skinner was played by Timothy Dalton, who I just did not recognise from his James Bond days. I haven’t seen much else that he has been in since Bond, and so was pleasantly surprised to see him in the cast. I also loved Olivia Colman in this film. She is such a versatile actress and seems capable of adapting her style to perfectly suit the role she is in.

As with Shaun of the Dead, a lot of the quality of Hot Fuzz can be found in the writing and direction, which Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright excel at for a film of this type. Instead of a Hollywood blockbuster which tries to seep laughs out of the audience, Hot Fuzz (and Shaun of the Dead) feel like two films that are simply the work of Pegg and Wright enjoying themselves with a series of actors and actresses.

Hot Fuzz is much more gruesome than Shaun of the Dead in many ways, and although there are some pretty grim scenes in Shaun of the Dead, you sort of expect it because it is a Zombie film. With Hot Fuzz, the blood is more spread out, and comes in much higher quantities. The scene where the segment of the church roof falls onto Tim Messenger is the most gruesome of the film, and yet the script writing for the film makes this potentially disturbing scene into a good laugh for the audience.

In much the same way as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz seems to engage the audience. You find yourself entirely captivated by the story you are presented with and cannot help but enjoy yourself as you watch it. It is a film in a very similar mould to Shaun of the Dead, but it stands as an individual film as well because it is quite different. It is no less funny than Shaun of the Dead though, and if you liked Shaun of the Dead and haven’t seen Hot Fuzz then I strongly suggest that you do before you see The World’s End.

You may also like:

Shaun of the Dead - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/shaun-of-dead.html

Paul - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/paul.html

Shaun of the Dead

As British comedy films go, it doesn't get much better than Shaun of the Dead, the first in the ‘ice cream and blood’ trilogy from Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright. It is a typical zombie movie, where the hero (Shaun, played by Pegg) and his friends (including Nick Frost) are some of the only survivors when a mysterious zombie plague affects most of the city. Naturally they have to find a way to survive and in doing so, entertains the audience in a number of ways.

With jokes and lines running throughout Shaun of the Dead it is still funny after a few watches. It got to a point where each time I watched it, I picked up on something new. However, now I can practically recite it so I think the novelty has worn off. It is fantastically written and each actor/actress delivers their part with a perfect level of comedy.

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost really broke through with this film (I think). At the very least this was the first point that I became aware of them. As a partnership they are fantastic and bounce off each other exceptionally well. The best part of their friendship on screen is that you can tell how close they are off screen. In the three major films that they have starred in together (the other two being Hot Fuzz and Paul), they are best friends as well, and for me it is this friendship that brings the whole film together. Both actors deliver an immensely comedic performance in Shaun of the Dead and they both manage to portray the best friendship perfectly, with all its little idiosyncrasies and quirks. Most of all they are believable as best friends (largely because they are I reckon).

The supporting cast is also very entertaining and there are a number of stars in the cast. Bill Nighy is every bit as deadpan as ever in his role as Shaun’s ‘father’ and works very well with Penelope Wilton. One of my favourite scenes of the whole movie is where Shaun is talking to his mother about the difficult relationship he had with Phillip as a child, and both Pegg and Wilton deliver perfect comedic timing in this scene, which makes it quite amusing (to me at least). Peter Serafinowicz appears as Pete, the flatmate of Shaun and Ed, and despite his role being relatively small, he does very well.

Kate Ashfield plays Shaun’s long-suffering girlfriend Liz, and works wonderfully with Simon Pegg to convey the difficulties of their relationship. She also works brilliantly with Lucy Davis and Dylan Moran to create a little friendship group. It’s just occurred to me that one of the main reasons why Shaun of the Dead is a very enjoyable film is because the characters are relatively relatable. Shaun is stuck in a job that he hates and his life has grown stale. His girlfriend hates this and decides to change things by leaving him. Throw in a zombie epidemic and the whole thing becomes much more entertaining. Dylan Moran works perfectly and delivers such a unique performance that he became one of my favourite comedic actors. I loved Black Books and find him so funny in every role he’s in. In Shaun of the Dead his dry and sarcastic attitude makes him one of the funnier characters of the film.

Overall I think Shaun of the Dead is a unique idea. Obviously the zombie genre is not unique or original, but Shaun of the Dead takes a typical zombie film and reshapes it to the style of Pegg and Wright. This works perfectly, and with a fantastic cast who link very well together the whole film becomes very entertaining and immensely engaging. I love watching Shaun of the Dead and it makes me laugh every time I do so. The success of Shaun of the Dead has resulted in two ‘sequels’ being made, with Hot Fuzz being equally successful and The World’s End which has just been released.

If you haven’t seen Shaun of the Dead yet then you really must see it as soon as possible. It is an exceptionally funny film and will be guaranteed to entertain you in one way or another. It’s an original British comedy film with a very amusing cast which shines in this film.

You may also like:

Paul - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/paul.html

Shutter Island

When I first saw Shutter Island it absolutely blew me away. It was a film that I knew nothing about and I picked it up relatively cheap on the recommendation of a woman who I did not know. It was a complete unknown. However, skipping forward two and a half years and it is one of my favourite films. It is the film that cemented Leonardo Di Caprio as one of my favourite actors, and to this day whenever I watch it I pick up new things about the story.

Basically it’s about a guy called Teddy Daniels who is sent to investigate an escaped patient at a hospital for the criminally insane. Alongside his partner Chuck, he investigates her disappearance in the eerily creepy hospital. However, things start to get a little bit mysterious and scary. Added to Teddy’s flashbacks to his experiences in the war and his hallucinations of his dead wife, the audience is soon aware that something isn’t right. By the time the twist came around there was no way I saw it coming, and even at the end there is an ambiguity which leaves me pondering the outcome for hours after I see it.

Like Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed before it, Shutter Island is another collaboration between Martin Scorsese and Leonardo Di Caprio. Of all the Di Caprio-Scorsese films I have seen (three out of five) this one is the one I enjoyed the most. While it is not Scorsese’s best film in terms of direction and impact and what not, I found it so fantastically enjoyable that I rank it up there with some of his best work (much to the dismay of many Scorsese purists I’m sure).

Leonardo Di Caprio is fantastic in the film. He plays a character who starts out angry, and by the end of the film, what with everything that has gone on, is positively fuming. If you haven’t seen the film before then skip over the next couple of sentences because there will be spoilers. Ready? Good. His acting is so convincing that even when Dr Cawley and Chuck were telling him the truth about his identity, I was fairly convinced that it was part of the plot to trap him there. This is a credit both to Di Caprio’s involvement in his character, and to the writers for making the story so absorbing. I have nothing but praise for Di Caprio in this film and, although it is not one of the best acting performances ever, it comes in a film that is so engaging and enjoyable that it is hard not to like his character, and feel for him at the end of the film.

Ben Kingsley is riveting as the enigmatic Dr Cawley. Throughout the film, largely due to the emerging plot around Ashecliffe, the audience is unsure whether he is trustworthy or not. Ben Kingsley, in the nicest possible way of course, has an appearance that breeds a certain ambiguity about his character. At the end of the film though (spoilers) he is revealed as an inherently caring man who always wants what is best for his patients. Although there is evidence of this throughout, it only becomes apparent when the audience is made aware of the twist.

Shutter Island is based on a book by the same name. The film does follow the book relatively closely. However, the ending of the film and the book are relatively different. While there are some parts of the book that the film would be unable to include (for obvious reasons of time) the film adds one line in at the end (“is it better to die as a good man or to live as a monster?”). This is the line which makes the ending so much of a mindblower. However, it isn’t in the book and creates a more pointed sense of ambiguity. The inclusion of this line points much more towards one direction of the sane-insane ending. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing though, and I fully trust Scorsese’s judgement on this one. Ultimately, he has directed more candidate films for the ‘best of all time’ than I have.

When you watch the film for a second time, with knowledge of how it is going to play out, it becomes much better as you are able to appreciate every little bit of information that points you in the direction of the conclusion. From the initial reactions of the guards when Teddy and Chuck arrive through to the fear that the patients have of the marshalls, the exchange between the Warden (Ted Levine) and Teddy, and the nature of Dr Naehring’s (Max von Sydow) conversations with Teddy. Everything becomes apparent the second time and this is why I enjoy the film so much, even now when I have seen it more times than I can remember. I pick up new bits of information every time I watch it, and it is a film with many different layers to it. That probably sounds weird, but it is a film with every last bit of Scorsese’s subtext as his other masterpieces. There is ambiguity over the positioning of the lighthouse and the angles from which it is viewed, as well as the flashbacks Teddy has.

Ultimately, Shutter Island is one of those films that you have to make your own mind up about. Personally, (spoilers) I think that he is sane but realises that he is too dangerous to risk relapsing again and sacrifices himself. I cannot recommend that you watch Shutter Island strongly enough, just so you can make your own mind up about what is going on. It is a fantastic film, very enjoyable, and captures your attention without difficulty. Unmissable in my opinion. 

Other films starring Leonardo Di Caprio
Django Unchained - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/django-unchained.htmlThe Great Gatsby - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-great-gatsby.html

Other films directed by Martin Scorsese
Casino - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/casino_28.htmlRaging Bull - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/raging-bull.html

Other Scorsese-Di Caprio films
The Departed - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-departed.html
The Aviator - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-aviator.html

The Emperor's New Groove

The first time I watched The Emperor’s New Groove I was a kid and I absolutely adored it. As a fairly hyperactive child (I think my Mum would say very hyperactive) I used to act out the movie. When I re-watched it again recently I found that me getting older had not dampened how much I enjoyed the film. In a similar way to The Mummy, the films that you see in your childhood and adore stick with you, and you always seem to hold a small candle for them.

The plot, unsurprisingly, isn't complex. There is an Emperor who is quite self-absorbed. His ‘evil’ advisor Yzma is jealous of his power and plots to take it for herself after he fires her. With the help of her assistant Kronk she poisons Kuzco, but accidently turns him into a llama. Kuzco winds up in the home of a man whose village he plans to destroy to make way for his birthday present to himself. The man tries to help Kuzco get back to the palace and on the way Kuzco changes as a person and agrees to build his summer house somewhere else. It’s a fairly standard story of changing people through time but directed at kids.

Beyond telling you how much I liked it, and describing the plot, it’s difficult to know where to take this review now. The characters are not deep, profound or particularly interesting. The only change in any of them throughout the film is Kuzco’s personality. The animation is fairly average, and there’s not much, good or bad, to say about it. The characters are voiced fairly well. David Spade (8 Simple Rules, Rules of Engagement) voiced the Emperor, and does so very well. The interesting voice is Patrick Warburton. He voices Kronk, and has a very distinctive voice. When I started watching Family Guy I could not place the voice of Joe, until I realised that it was the same guy!

Anyway, I've decided to focus on the comedic side to the film. As with most animated children’s films there is a comedic element to the story. On the journey back to the palace Kuzco and Pacha get into a number of scrapes which provided great amusement to my childhood self, and reminiscent memories to my (only slightly) more mature self. The film is quite quotable and I’m fairly sure that my girlfriend (who has been watching more and more films with me lately) was utterly sick of me talking along to the characters as the memorable lines came out. The scene at the end of the film where Kuzco and Pacha are escaping from Yzma and trying to turn Kuzco back to a human is quite funny.

It’s difficult to identify exactly what I like most about The Emperor’s New Groove. It is definitely the kind of film that you can relax to, but I feel that if you haven’t seen it before then you will hate it. When I watched The Rock, I didn't see why my flatmates had hyped it up so much, but then I figured that they had seen it when they were younger, and so the memory of enjoying it once sticks with them. It’s the same with me and The Mummy, which one of my flatmates doesn't seem to enjoy as much as I do. I guess it is also the same with The Emperor’s New Groove. If you have kids and they are younger than eight I think they will love this film. However, if you are looking for a new film to watch one evening then I would avoid this. It is the memory of seeing it before that makes me enjoy it so much.

The Aviator

The Aviator is a biopic about the aviation magnate and Hollywood director Howard Hughes. With Leonardo Di Caprio in the title role, Martin Scorsese directing it, and a supporting cast including Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Kate Beckinsale and John C. Reilly, I was really looking forward to watching it.

Howard Hughes starts out as a director, and produces a few very successful films. Early on we see that he is completely devoted to this, and has a really need to get every aspect of his production as perfect as possible. This manifests later as profound obsessive compulsive disorder, but the early signs are there once you watch it back. After a very successful directing career he marries a woman (Cate Blanchett), but his successful lifestyle soon begins to causes their marriage problems. Hughes starts to focus on aviation and buys a large share of an airline company. Breaking a number of airspeed records, and experiencing a number of horrific crashes, Howard Hughes soon becomes a massive influence on aviation but then the cracks start to appear. His life becomes thrust into the public eye more and he becomes paranoid and compulsive. He is then investigated by the Senate and manages to defend himself successfully. However at the end of the film his compulsions become worse and the film end with him repeated ‘the way of the future’ over and over.

Scorsese is an absolute genius in my opinion, and has directed some of my favourite ever films. While The Aviator does not quite make the list, it is a very good film, and is fantastically made. For example, all the aeroplane scenes were shot using scale models because of the criticism that Pearl Harbor received for using CGI. This makes the film more of a spectacle, and makes it seem a lot more realistic. Scorsese’s impressive attention to detail shines through as well. For example, he made Cate Blanchett watch all the film that her character Katharine Hepburn had starred in up to the point of filming so that she could perfect her mannerisms. Not being particularly knowledgeable about Hepburn’s films, I can’t say whether or not Blanchett does a good job, but the level of devotion to perfection that Scorsese has (and indeed that Hughes had), is a hallmark of the best directors.

Di Caprio is wonderful to watch as the main character Howard Hughes. I really like him as an actor, and as a person, and think that The Aviator marks another example of his impressive skills. His perfection of the obsessive compulsive mannerisms of Hughes is brilliant, and while I don’t know how true to Hughes they are, he is very convincing when he displays them. Di Caprio conveys the fill range of emotions that Hughes experiences in the film with immense precision. When he is directing the films there is a sense of tension when something hasn’t gone perfectly, and when Hell’s Angels premiere’s the anxiety Di Caprio shows in anticipation of the audience’s reaction permeated through the screen (although that might just be me getting weird). He seems completely comfortable in the cockpit of an aeroplane, and Di Caprio’s ability to turn this joy and elation into sheer panic so convincingly completes the tension of the crash scenes. Since 2002, Di Caprio has appeared in all but one of Scorsese’s films and, given time, this could become as iconic a pairing as De Niro and Scorsese. Di Caprio’s acting stock is definitely on the increase, and The Aviator is just one example of why.

Although, it is not a film that is completely made by Di Caprio, and the supporting cast add an awful lot to the impact of the film. Cate Blanchett is fantastic as Hughes’ first wife, and manages her accent perfectly throughout the film. Her relationship with Hughes is intriguing. Although they may grow apart, when she comes to visit him in his isolation there is a sense that the chemistry is still there. Alec Baldwin plays Hughes’ main rival Juan Trippe, the chairman of Pan Am airways. His determination to impede the progress of the protagonist makes him a dislikable character in the film, and this is only compounded by the influence he has over the politicians. No-one seems to want to help Hughes succeed except those who he employs. Even then Hughes is suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Alec Baldwin comes to represent the people plotting against Hughes and the eventual defeat of the Senate investigation is one of the best moments of the film. A quick mention must also go to John C. Reilly. When I reviewed Carnage I think I mentioned how strange it was not to see him in a comedy role, and once again in The Aviator it felt a bit odd. However, he does very well and seems to be forging himself a more serious acting career. All the evidence so far suggests that this can only be a good thing.

The Aviator is not a high powered, joy-filled, rollercoaster of a film. It does have its ups and its downs in terms of keeping the audience’s interest. However, as with any biopic, it is an opportunity to find out a little bit more about something new, and if you get into it, it is thoroughly enjoyable. It is very long (just short of three hours), but if you have the patience to sit down and engage with it, I think it will be well worth your time.

Other films starring Leonardo Di Caprio

Django Unchained - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/django-unchained.html

The Great Gatsby - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-great-gatsby.html

Other films directed by Martin Scorsese

Casino - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/casino_28.html

Raging Bull - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/raging-bull.html

Another Scorsese-Di Caprio film

The Departed - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-departed.html