’28 Days Later’ is a film that one would label a ‘zombie film’ if forced to describe the general pretence at short notice, but Danny Boyle’s 2002 horror flick is much more unique than just that.
To begin with the story of ’28 Days Later’, it does something remarkable. It takes the generic zombie movie that has been made a hundred times over since Romero’s ‘Night of the Living Dead’ (1968), and gives that same story a whole new level. Far from being a run-of-the-mill, heroes-hacking-up-monsters gore fest, 28 Days presents us with the most personal level of drama seen in a zombie film. We see the country falling a part because of ‘the infection’, and we see the consequences for the nation as a whole, but in this movie we are almost put through the entire ordeal ourselves, such is the audience’s intimacy with the main characters. Furthermore, it uses a tried and tested scenario to give us a focused tale of morality. The clear main theme of the film is survival and humanity, and where to draw the line between them. To begin with, the ‘infected’ (not actually zombies and so never named as such) represent survival – they are basically humans who have lost their humanity and thus become animals. They don’t love or envy, they just hunt and eat and sleep and survive. The remaining humans represent humanity, and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for others. This is something that Selena (Naomie Harris) in particular gains along the way. In the second ‘act’, the infected appear with less frequency, and the characters that represent the survival instinct are suddenly the military men that at first were thought to be salvation. With his friends in danger, Jim (Cillian Murphy), the beacon of humanity, has to come to the rescue. The irony is that by the end of the film, it is the ‘human’ that is running around shirtless, gouging people’s eyes out with his thumbs. However, this humanity is shown as mankind’s redeeming feature through the happy ending and the promise of survival anyway.
The narrative of the film is peculiar. Lacking a distinct beginning, middle and end, it instead seems to consist of two, maybe three ‘acts’: the inner-city, the road, and the military residence. This may be because the story of the film spans any number of days, though more likely it was a conscious decision by the writer (Alex Garland) to stretch out the time of the narrative and make the audience feel like they really are living through the time we are seeing on screen. It may not be to the liking of some, but I think it works perfectly fine.
By far the most noteworthy aspect of the film is the use of sound, whether it be the soundtrack or the effects. Boyle’s direction is superb when it comes to what we’re hearing. Right from the start we have an assault on our eardrums that gives us an immediate insight into the danger that is going to be present throughout the film, and this is followed up by complete silence as Jim discovers that the city is deserted. Now, this is perhaps the most famous part of the movie, where Murphy’s character is wandering the streets completely alone. I don’t know how they did it, but it’s fantastic. The silence and the tension seems to build up throughout this sequence, allowing us to parallel Jim’s rising panic and this kind of device so early on is an excellent way to draw an audience in and have them positioned with that one main character. After all, it is not Jim alone in the city, but Jim and ourselves alone in the city. We get the sense that whatever happens to him will happen to us. The other scene in which sound is put to such incredible use is the ‘tunnel scene’, in which the protagonists find themselves underground in the dark of a tunnel, and forced to change a flat tire before they’re overrun by the infected. This is also a well-known scene. I myself had seen it several times before watching the film today, and yet every time it manages to get my heart racing, such is the quality of the direction, the mounting desperation conveyed through the acting, the speedy cuts and slowly rising noise. Fantastic stuff.
The music in the film is a mixture of classical, original soundtrack and modern tunes, which are artfully combined in a way that, contrary to sounding tacky and uneasy, blends with a sort of irony. To give an example, we have the main characters driving through the countryside past mounds of tattered corpses, to an orchestrated, somewhat heavenly piece. The irony of it is almost funny, but works to great effect.
Lighting is something that is used in a mostly typical fashion for a horror film: day time=safety, night time=danger. It’s an old device, but it works just fine. One of the reasons this film was so successful is the fact that the makers where inventive enough to be unique, but not too inventive to try and reinvent the wheel. After all, why fix it if it isn’t broken? The other notable aspect of the lighting also covers the setting. The city sees shades of grey and black, almost like a giant, empty prison. As we progress into the countryside and the doubt of the characters begins to lift, we see more and more colour penetrating the screen.
To comment on the acting, most of the talent give solid performances. While I wasn’t keen on Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of Jim from the outset, as he seemed somewhat bland, he also seemed to express himself more as the story went on, ending of course in the crescendo of emotion that is the climax. The emotional journey that Selena goes on is believable, but feels as though it was somewhat behind the scenes. Perhaps we could have seen less of the countryside and more of the characters as they progressed through it. The only performance that was really disappointing was that delivered by Megan Burns, who played the young girl Hannah. Alright, we’ll let her off seeing as she’s just a youngster, but let’s just say I was glad she didn’t have that many lines.
To conclude, Danny Boyle’s 2002 horror-thriller is revolutionary, taking the ‘zombie film’ in a whole new direction until it is almost beyond recognition. Also there is a certain amount of action, gore and dismemberment, many teenage scream-fest fans will be disappointed to find that this particular piece of cinema is much more a fascinating social commentary than a bucket of blood.
My rating:
* * * *
(4/5 Stars)
-J. Boulton
Monday, 14 March 2011
Friday, 11 February 2011
News: 'X-Men: First Class' (2011)
It seems like it's all go with the superhero movies these days, and I promise to cut down on them in the future, but I couldn't resist notifying you guys of this one.
The first trailer for 'X-Men: First Class' has hit the 'tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4_ra9VneUc&feature=feedu
In case you didn't know, this is the prequel picture to the original X-Men trilogy, and will show a younger Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr as they work together to train young mutants in their powers, before the divide occurs between them.
Now, we have a chequered history with the X-Men franchise when it comes to film. 'X-Men' (2000) was great, because it gave us a really satisfying rendition of the classic comic book story that many people loved, and brought it to a wider audience. It was even one of the first real superhero flicks to hit the screens, at least in modern times, and did a big part in starting off the craze. It did well at the box office, too, grossing $157,299,717 in the USA alone. Maybe that was the main reason for the sequel, 'X-Men 2' or 'X - 2' (2003). This was also a good picture. I don't know if I liked it as much as the first, which was a nice, rounded off story, but this one was also nicely balanced and well told. It also had Nightcrawler, one of my favourite characters from the comics. It was all good. We were cruising along quite nicely.
And then 'X-Men: The Last Stand' (2006) came along.
And it all went to defacation.
You can ask anyone who has had the displeasure to see the third film in the trilogy, and the 90% that have brains of their own will tell you that it was just horrible, because it was. The director of the first two films, Bryan Singer, had stepped back from the series (to instead direct the averagey 'Superman Returns')and left it in the less-than-capable hands of Brett Ratner. Never trust a man called with a name like Brett. 'Nuff said.
There was a nice little gap in the flow of X-Movies after that, as if to give the population of the world a chance to recover and sleep off the effects of the movie before, and then we were presented with an offering of spin-off picture 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' (2009). It did little to rekindle my faith in the movie franchise, to be honest. It had some nice action scenes, and story-wise there wasn't too much to complain about, but they infamously slaughtered the character of Deadpool, making him a simple monster, which broke the hearts of the many fans he had from his own comic book series. In those, he was a wise-cracking merc, more than a little mentally unstable, with a penchant for breaking the forth wall, and he is, to this day, probably the funniest comic book character to me. So in 'Origins', when they made him a mute killing creature with adamantium blades coming out of his arms ("What is this I don't even"), I know I wasn't alone in being highly dissapointed.
So now, a couple of years on, it seems like they're trying again. This time they're once more going back to before the original trilogy, and no, this film won't include Wolverine in any way (not too much of a bad thing, in my opinion. He's got his own spin-off film now, after all...). The trailer looks interesting, and I like the casting of James McAvoy as a young Charlie X himself, and we'll have to wait and see for Michael Fassbender as Erik Lensherr. As a heads up, we're also going to be seeing Mystique, Emma Frost, Beast (again), Sebastian Shaw, Havok, and Banshee. And some Nazi Soldiers. These aren't such common names to the audience members who don't know the comic prior to the films, but maybe this could be taken as a good sign: maybe this film is an attempt to redeem the confidence of the comic book fan in the X-Men films. Either way, it'll be nice to see some less well-known characters being exposed to the viewing public. The question becomes then, do we have enough faith to give the franchise one more chance? Well, I think I've got it in me to give them one more chance. But don't let me down, will you, Marvel?
'X-Men: First Class' is set to hit cinemas June 2nd 2011.
- J. Boulton
The first trailer for 'X-Men: First Class' has hit the 'tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4_ra9VneUc&feature=feedu
In case you didn't know, this is the prequel picture to the original X-Men trilogy, and will show a younger Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr as they work together to train young mutants in their powers, before the divide occurs between them.
Now, we have a chequered history with the X-Men franchise when it comes to film. 'X-Men' (2000) was great, because it gave us a really satisfying rendition of the classic comic book story that many people loved, and brought it to a wider audience. It was even one of the first real superhero flicks to hit the screens, at least in modern times, and did a big part in starting off the craze. It did well at the box office, too, grossing $157,299,717 in the USA alone. Maybe that was the main reason for the sequel, 'X-Men 2' or 'X - 2' (2003). This was also a good picture. I don't know if I liked it as much as the first, which was a nice, rounded off story, but this one was also nicely balanced and well told. It also had Nightcrawler, one of my favourite characters from the comics. It was all good. We were cruising along quite nicely.
And then 'X-Men: The Last Stand' (2006) came along.
And it all went to defacation.
You can ask anyone who has had the displeasure to see the third film in the trilogy, and the 90% that have brains of their own will tell you that it was just horrible, because it was. The director of the first two films, Bryan Singer, had stepped back from the series (to instead direct the averagey 'Superman Returns')and left it in the less-than-capable hands of Brett Ratner. Never trust a man called with a name like Brett. 'Nuff said.
There was a nice little gap in the flow of X-Movies after that, as if to give the population of the world a chance to recover and sleep off the effects of the movie before, and then we were presented with an offering of spin-off picture 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' (2009). It did little to rekindle my faith in the movie franchise, to be honest. It had some nice action scenes, and story-wise there wasn't too much to complain about, but they infamously slaughtered the character of Deadpool, making him a simple monster, which broke the hearts of the many fans he had from his own comic book series. In those, he was a wise-cracking merc, more than a little mentally unstable, with a penchant for breaking the forth wall, and he is, to this day, probably the funniest comic book character to me. So in 'Origins', when they made him a mute killing creature with adamantium blades coming out of his arms ("What is this I don't even"), I know I wasn't alone in being highly dissapointed.
So now, a couple of years on, it seems like they're trying again. This time they're once more going back to before the original trilogy, and no, this film won't include Wolverine in any way (not too much of a bad thing, in my opinion. He's got his own spin-off film now, after all...). The trailer looks interesting, and I like the casting of James McAvoy as a young Charlie X himself, and we'll have to wait and see for Michael Fassbender as Erik Lensherr. As a heads up, we're also going to be seeing Mystique, Emma Frost, Beast (again), Sebastian Shaw, Havok, and Banshee. And some Nazi Soldiers. These aren't such common names to the audience members who don't know the comic prior to the films, but maybe this could be taken as a good sign: maybe this film is an attempt to redeem the confidence of the comic book fan in the X-Men films. Either way, it'll be nice to see some less well-known characters being exposed to the viewing public. The question becomes then, do we have enough faith to give the franchise one more chance? Well, I think I've got it in me to give them one more chance. But don't let me down, will you, Marvel?
'X-Men: First Class' is set to hit cinemas June 2nd 2011.
- J. Boulton
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Opinion: My Top Five Films of All Time
Oh yes, it's a prestigous list. Film-makers would like to get Oscars and Golden Globes, but this is the award that's really playing in the back of their minds. It's taken my a lot of time and consideration to pick out just five of the hundreds of films that I've seen in my admittedly short life so far, but I am satisfied with the final list.
So here it is, from #5 to #1, and some comments on why.
Choice #5:
'The Nightmare Before Christmas' (1993)
Directed by Tim Burton
Written by Tim Burton, Michael McDowell, Caroline Thompson
Starring Danny Elfman, Chris Sarandon, Catherine O'Hara
I bet you didn't expect a christmas film to pop up on my top five, did you? Well as a rule I'm not the biggest fan of christmas films, and absolutely not outside of December. Nightmare, however, is the one exception to this rule. I could watch this film at any time of year and still love it to pieces. Tim Burton is one of my favourite directors; I've yet to see a film by him that I haven't adored, and so I knew I had to have one of them on the list. The trouble came in choosing which, and after much deliberation, I settled on the first Burton film I had seen, and the film which kindled my fandom for his auteur style and unmistakably unique flare. I can't say enough about Burton's films. Anyone who has seen one will instantly recognise another just because of how much of his artistic creativity goes into them. Whether he turns to live-action or stop-motion, the result is consistent. Nightmare, particularly, is extremely good fun. It's got that hallmark Burton darkness, but with a humour and a heart that makes it great for the whole family to watch, and that's something you don't often find. The songs are indefinitely catchy, the characters are whimsical and memorable, and the story is both genius and heartwarming, and that's all before we even get into the excellence of the stop-motion animation the film showcases. The movie took three years to complete, and is now as old as me, and I know for certain that this is a film that will continue to be cherished by Burton followers, film-fans alike and everyone else.
Choice #4:
'The Dark Knight' (2008)
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Written by Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer, Bob Kane
Starring Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger
We all remember the huge fuss that was made of this particular number when it hit the big screens only three years ago, and in my final year of secondary school, 'The Dark Knight' brought my friends and I much joy in the form of endless parody and analysis. Rightly so, of course. This was the movie that brought depth to a comic book story that hadn't been seen before. Set in the dark and gritty Gotham that the Nolans had crafted in the first film, the sequel allowed them to focus more on the characters, the action and the thrills. The action sequences, both complex and massive, are brilliant. Who can forget the flipping of that gigantic truck right over onto its back in the high street? It's true that most of the publicity that swarmed over the film was due to Heath Ledger; both because of his gut-churning performance as Batman's greatest nemesis, and his untimely death. The question that was shortly being asked by many was if either the film or the character would have been nearly as successful if the actor hadn't died. Undeniably, it supplied a certain media buzz to the proceedings, but the movie-fans among us can see past this, and what we see is a movie that brought something new to the table when comic book movies were being turned out by the month. It was a dream Hollywood blockbuster, but it also raised some interesting points. It seems to me that so many people became intoxicated by the character that Ledger played because, through the Joker's actions and the unforgettable portrayal of them through him, we saw something that, deep down, every one of us has. That will, that drive toward chaos both terrifies us, apalls us and thrills us constantly. The Joker and his arch-enemy are two very distinct halves of human nature, and 'The Dark Knight' is so absorbing in its narrative and its atmosphere that we sit there as an audience and we have to wonder whose side we're really on.
Choice #3:
'Inception' (2010)
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Written by Christopher Nolan
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page
The most recently made movie on my list reveals itself, and it's another gem from Chistopher Nolan! He's managed to work his magic once again, and so soon after Knight was such a massive success. Even without one of the lead actors passing away, this film also generated a great hype among the cinema-going masses. Was it the high-budget special effects? They certainly played their part, I guarantee, but it's the story that makes it so that this film has to be seen to be believed. The concept behind 'Inception' is a stroke of brilliance. If you've seen it you'll know and, whether it confused you or not, you have to agree. It delved into a subject that affects everyone, every night of our lives, and yet it's a subject that we almost completely ignore. 'Inception' blew the possiblities wide open, and captured our imaginations in the way that, I suppose, the medium of film used to when they were first being made. I won't even try to explain the premise of the film here, as I could never do it justice, but, as with all of the films in this list, if you haven't seen it then I urge you to do so. You owe it to yourself. 'Inception's story is fantastic, but the acting that drives it is just as solid, and gives real emotional impact to something that could potentially have turned into a filmic science experiment. The action scenes are mind-blowing, the mise-en-scene is spot on. The direction from a micro perspective is sound, and the atmosphere created by the film is one of tense mystery, all while keeping adrenalin pumping throughout. 'Inception' definitely lived up to the hype, and while I regret not seeing it in the cinema while it was out, I know the DVD will see much use before I'm through with it.
Choice #2:
'Pulp Fiction' (1994)
Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Written by Quentin Tarantino, Roger Avery
Starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis
I was only introduced to the pleasures of the Tarantino style of film last year. I have my film class to thank for that. Upon seeing the first few scenes of 'Pulp Fiction', I was instantly captivated, and devoured every detail of the film as it rolled after that. Even after it ended, I could have watched hours more of the same. I think what made it so special for me wasn't the groundbreaking narrative structure, though this added to the finished film in a great way, but just the way the scenes played out. Was it something in the dialogue? The way what the characters were saying seemed totally spontaneous? Even with such familiar faces as Travolta, Jackson and Willis, it was all too easy to forget I was watching a film with actors as opposed to a telling of true events with real people. Considering the ammount of violence and blood that Tarantino is always being hounded about, this could be seen as something dangerous, but I respectfully disagree. I found myself personally completely absorbed by the story of the film, and the entire thing was pulled off in such a stylish, sleek way that I couldn't take my eyes of the screen. Everything from the infamous dance sequence, to the close calls that Jules and Vicent face, and even 'that scene' (which, upon my mentioning, everyone still seems repulsed by), I loved every second. Each of the many characters is so well developed and superbly portrayed that, yes, I'd say they could each have a movie in which they were the main character. So what happens when you put all of these great personalities together? You get one kick-ass movie. Something else that I love about it is the way every one of the stories works out just how I'd like them to. Certainly not just because they have a 'happy ending' - far from it, and whether or not it's just a coincidence, but the way each of the segments ended left me contented and ready to move on to the next one. Finally, to make a note on the 'Tarantino humour' that has come to be known in the film business as cinematic marmite, I absolutely loved it. I was in fits of giggles at the dark, edgy dialogue all the way through, and that part where Travolta's gun fires on its own and blows the guy's head all over the inside of the car just sealed my eternal love and appreciation for the film.
Choice #1:
'Phone Booth' (2002)
Directed by Joel Schumacher
Written by Larry Cohen
Starring Colin Farrell, Keifer Sutherland, Forest Whitaker
'Never heard of it'. I get that a lot, and it's true that 2002's 'Phone Booth' isn't one of the most well-known or critically aclaimed films out there. And for the life of me I have no idea why. In case you haven't heard of it, 'Phone Booth' sees a sleezy publicist by the name of Stu Sheppard (Farrell) held at gunpoint in a phone booth for the entire length of the film until he admits to the morally criminal way in which he admits his life. Does it sound dull? It's not. With countless thrills, twists and turns and heart-stopping performances as the drama escalates, this is one movie that I think everyone should see. With the exception of the opening scene, the entire film plays out within a single location, and I believe this is a concept that paved the way for films that are only now sprouting up that play on the same 'claustrophobic horror' theme. 'Devil', for one, and Danny Boyle's new picture '127 Hours'. Films like these owe a lot to 'Phone Booth'. The direction in this film is just brilliant, even going to far as to make up for the crap-in-a-DVD-case they called Batman Forever. And trust me, making up for that film was no easy task. Performance-wise, the film pivots on the dialogue between Farrell and Sutherland's characters, being the victim and the caller, respectively, and although much of the film is literally the two of them exchanging words on a phone, the absolute integrity of their portrayals is enough to keep your attention firmly glued to the story. You really care for Stu, and as a result you feel more and more trapped as his emotions of panic and anger slowly rise throughout the film. At the same time, behind the sadistic snickering of the caller is a man that we love to hate. He is so perfectly written and so brilliantly executed that you'll be hearing that voice long after the credits have rolled. And far from being your average thriller-flick, 'Phone Booth' has real levels to it. After all, it isn't a stranger behind that sniper rifle, it's you and me. How many times have you watched a news report about a corrupt politician or petty criminal and wanted to make them see the errors of their ways? The caller is a personification of the public opinion against wrong-doers, and that's one of the reasons the film is so compelling to watch. At the same time, even as Stu's sins are revelaed, we feel more and more attuned to him and his struggle, and in that climactic scene of combined repentence and confession, Farrell really manages to pull at our hearts even as we judge him with our heads. Far from getting more bored with the premise every time I see this film, I seem to love it more and more each time, and I must have seen it at least ten times now (I'm at dialogue-reciting level). 'Phone Booth', while criminally unknown, has it all. Concept, direction, atmosphere, story, performance and more. If you only see one movie on this top-five list, let it be this one.
And there you have it. You may not agree. You may believe that my choices are wildly outrageous and, yes, you may send hate mail. But they are MY choices, and MY honest opinion. I look forward to my list changing in the future, and when it happens, I'll be sure to let you know.
- J. Boulton
So here it is, from #5 to #1, and some comments on why.
Choice #5:
'The Nightmare Before Christmas' (1993)
Directed by Tim Burton
Written by Tim Burton, Michael McDowell, Caroline Thompson
Starring Danny Elfman, Chris Sarandon, Catherine O'Hara
I bet you didn't expect a christmas film to pop up on my top five, did you? Well as a rule I'm not the biggest fan of christmas films, and absolutely not outside of December. Nightmare, however, is the one exception to this rule. I could watch this film at any time of year and still love it to pieces. Tim Burton is one of my favourite directors; I've yet to see a film by him that I haven't adored, and so I knew I had to have one of them on the list. The trouble came in choosing which, and after much deliberation, I settled on the first Burton film I had seen, and the film which kindled my fandom for his auteur style and unmistakably unique flare. I can't say enough about Burton's films. Anyone who has seen one will instantly recognise another just because of how much of his artistic creativity goes into them. Whether he turns to live-action or stop-motion, the result is consistent. Nightmare, particularly, is extremely good fun. It's got that hallmark Burton darkness, but with a humour and a heart that makes it great for the whole family to watch, and that's something you don't often find. The songs are indefinitely catchy, the characters are whimsical and memorable, and the story is both genius and heartwarming, and that's all before we even get into the excellence of the stop-motion animation the film showcases. The movie took three years to complete, and is now as old as me, and I know for certain that this is a film that will continue to be cherished by Burton followers, film-fans alike and everyone else.
Choice #4:
'The Dark Knight' (2008)
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Written by Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer, Bob Kane
Starring Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger
We all remember the huge fuss that was made of this particular number when it hit the big screens only three years ago, and in my final year of secondary school, 'The Dark Knight' brought my friends and I much joy in the form of endless parody and analysis. Rightly so, of course. This was the movie that brought depth to a comic book story that hadn't been seen before. Set in the dark and gritty Gotham that the Nolans had crafted in the first film, the sequel allowed them to focus more on the characters, the action and the thrills. The action sequences, both complex and massive, are brilliant. Who can forget the flipping of that gigantic truck right over onto its back in the high street? It's true that most of the publicity that swarmed over the film was due to Heath Ledger; both because of his gut-churning performance as Batman's greatest nemesis, and his untimely death. The question that was shortly being asked by many was if either the film or the character would have been nearly as successful if the actor hadn't died. Undeniably, it supplied a certain media buzz to the proceedings, but the movie-fans among us can see past this, and what we see is a movie that brought something new to the table when comic book movies were being turned out by the month. It was a dream Hollywood blockbuster, but it also raised some interesting points. It seems to me that so many people became intoxicated by the character that Ledger played because, through the Joker's actions and the unforgettable portrayal of them through him, we saw something that, deep down, every one of us has. That will, that drive toward chaos both terrifies us, apalls us and thrills us constantly. The Joker and his arch-enemy are two very distinct halves of human nature, and 'The Dark Knight' is so absorbing in its narrative and its atmosphere that we sit there as an audience and we have to wonder whose side we're really on.
Choice #3:
'Inception' (2010)
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Written by Christopher Nolan
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page
The most recently made movie on my list reveals itself, and it's another gem from Chistopher Nolan! He's managed to work his magic once again, and so soon after Knight was such a massive success. Even without one of the lead actors passing away, this film also generated a great hype among the cinema-going masses. Was it the high-budget special effects? They certainly played their part, I guarantee, but it's the story that makes it so that this film has to be seen to be believed. The concept behind 'Inception' is a stroke of brilliance. If you've seen it you'll know and, whether it confused you or not, you have to agree. It delved into a subject that affects everyone, every night of our lives, and yet it's a subject that we almost completely ignore. 'Inception' blew the possiblities wide open, and captured our imaginations in the way that, I suppose, the medium of film used to when they were first being made. I won't even try to explain the premise of the film here, as I could never do it justice, but, as with all of the films in this list, if you haven't seen it then I urge you to do so. You owe it to yourself. 'Inception's story is fantastic, but the acting that drives it is just as solid, and gives real emotional impact to something that could potentially have turned into a filmic science experiment. The action scenes are mind-blowing, the mise-en-scene is spot on. The direction from a micro perspective is sound, and the atmosphere created by the film is one of tense mystery, all while keeping adrenalin pumping throughout. 'Inception' definitely lived up to the hype, and while I regret not seeing it in the cinema while it was out, I know the DVD will see much use before I'm through with it.
Choice #2:
'Pulp Fiction' (1994)
Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Written by Quentin Tarantino, Roger Avery
Starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis
I was only introduced to the pleasures of the Tarantino style of film last year. I have my film class to thank for that. Upon seeing the first few scenes of 'Pulp Fiction', I was instantly captivated, and devoured every detail of the film as it rolled after that. Even after it ended, I could have watched hours more of the same. I think what made it so special for me wasn't the groundbreaking narrative structure, though this added to the finished film in a great way, but just the way the scenes played out. Was it something in the dialogue? The way what the characters were saying seemed totally spontaneous? Even with such familiar faces as Travolta, Jackson and Willis, it was all too easy to forget I was watching a film with actors as opposed to a telling of true events with real people. Considering the ammount of violence and blood that Tarantino is always being hounded about, this could be seen as something dangerous, but I respectfully disagree. I found myself personally completely absorbed by the story of the film, and the entire thing was pulled off in such a stylish, sleek way that I couldn't take my eyes of the screen. Everything from the infamous dance sequence, to the close calls that Jules and Vicent face, and even 'that scene' (which, upon my mentioning, everyone still seems repulsed by), I loved every second. Each of the many characters is so well developed and superbly portrayed that, yes, I'd say they could each have a movie in which they were the main character. So what happens when you put all of these great personalities together? You get one kick-ass movie. Something else that I love about it is the way every one of the stories works out just how I'd like them to. Certainly not just because they have a 'happy ending' - far from it, and whether or not it's just a coincidence, but the way each of the segments ended left me contented and ready to move on to the next one. Finally, to make a note on the 'Tarantino humour' that has come to be known in the film business as cinematic marmite, I absolutely loved it. I was in fits of giggles at the dark, edgy dialogue all the way through, and that part where Travolta's gun fires on its own and blows the guy's head all over the inside of the car just sealed my eternal love and appreciation for the film.
Choice #1:
'Phone Booth' (2002)
Directed by Joel Schumacher
Written by Larry Cohen
Starring Colin Farrell, Keifer Sutherland, Forest Whitaker
'Never heard of it'. I get that a lot, and it's true that 2002's 'Phone Booth' isn't one of the most well-known or critically aclaimed films out there. And for the life of me I have no idea why. In case you haven't heard of it, 'Phone Booth' sees a sleezy publicist by the name of Stu Sheppard (Farrell) held at gunpoint in a phone booth for the entire length of the film until he admits to the morally criminal way in which he admits his life. Does it sound dull? It's not. With countless thrills, twists and turns and heart-stopping performances as the drama escalates, this is one movie that I think everyone should see. With the exception of the opening scene, the entire film plays out within a single location, and I believe this is a concept that paved the way for films that are only now sprouting up that play on the same 'claustrophobic horror' theme. 'Devil', for one, and Danny Boyle's new picture '127 Hours'. Films like these owe a lot to 'Phone Booth'. The direction in this film is just brilliant, even going to far as to make up for the crap-in-a-DVD-case they called Batman Forever. And trust me, making up for that film was no easy task. Performance-wise, the film pivots on the dialogue between Farrell and Sutherland's characters, being the victim and the caller, respectively, and although much of the film is literally the two of them exchanging words on a phone, the absolute integrity of their portrayals is enough to keep your attention firmly glued to the story. You really care for Stu, and as a result you feel more and more trapped as his emotions of panic and anger slowly rise throughout the film. At the same time, behind the sadistic snickering of the caller is a man that we love to hate. He is so perfectly written and so brilliantly executed that you'll be hearing that voice long after the credits have rolled. And far from being your average thriller-flick, 'Phone Booth' has real levels to it. After all, it isn't a stranger behind that sniper rifle, it's you and me. How many times have you watched a news report about a corrupt politician or petty criminal and wanted to make them see the errors of their ways? The caller is a personification of the public opinion against wrong-doers, and that's one of the reasons the film is so compelling to watch. At the same time, even as Stu's sins are revelaed, we feel more and more attuned to him and his struggle, and in that climactic scene of combined repentence and confession, Farrell really manages to pull at our hearts even as we judge him with our heads. Far from getting more bored with the premise every time I see this film, I seem to love it more and more each time, and I must have seen it at least ten times now (I'm at dialogue-reciting level). 'Phone Booth', while criminally unknown, has it all. Concept, direction, atmosphere, story, performance and more. If you only see one movie on this top-five list, let it be this one.
And there you have it. You may not agree. You may believe that my choices are wildly outrageous and, yes, you may send hate mail. But they are MY choices, and MY honest opinion. I look forward to my list changing in the future, and when it happens, I'll be sure to let you know.
- J. Boulton
Monday, 17 January 2011
Film Review: O (2001)
Another review I did for college. This time it was for English, as the particular film was a modernisation of Shakespeare's classic tragedy 'Othello'. But did it live up to the words left by the Bard? Or did it fall tragically short itself? Read on to find my unreliable opinion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and the award for most cost-effective film title goes to… ‘O’! This is the 2001 film directed by Tim Blake Nelson and starring Mekhi Phifer, Josh Hartnett and Julia Stiles. ‘O’ is an attempt of a modern-day reinvention of Shakespeare’s classic play ‘Othello’ (see what they did there?), replacing the settings of Venice and Cyprus with that of a high school basketball court. ‘Basketball?!’ I hear you cry, and yes, the general pretence is enough to raise a few questioning eyebrows, but as always I was determined to go into the viewing with as few preconceptions about what I was about to see as possible.
The first thing that I was quick to take note of was the aforementioned use of a basketball game to quickly establish the characters and their relationships which is, of course, the heart of a tragedy. The original characters of Othello, Iago and Cassio were military based, and although in the play we never see them in a combat situation, I got the impression that the basketball game was a translation of a battle scene that could have happened in the play, in which ‘Odin’ and ‘Michael Cassio’ (hold on a second, why didn’t Cassio get renamed? They could have called him Michelle!) take precedence over ‘Hugo’ (don’t worry, the names of the characters are just about the worst thing in the film) in the tactical aspect of the game. This is a good way of creating the tension between Hugo and the others from the outset, though it might have been a little obvious, treading on the subtlety that forms Iago’s character in the play. In the play, we don’t see why Iago does what he does, we only hear his reasons from his own mouth, so we are left in doubt as to whether they are even true. In O, we can see for ourselves that his motives are backed up by fact, which somehow takes away from how evil the character is.
From a language perspective, I was glad to hear Hugo using swears very frequently early on in the play whilst addressing Roderigo – sorry, ‘Roger’ – and thought, ‘Oh good! That’s a clever way to bring one of the language aspects of the play into the 21st century!’. In the play, Iago’s language is quite coarse by Shakespearian standards, so by throwing in swearing for the updated version of Iago, I figured that would be a good way to translate that aspect of his character over. I even dared to hope that maybe, just maybe, Odin would begin to use swearing more and more toward the end of the play to show Hugo’s influence over him! But no. Of course not. In the next scene, we see Odin (Phifer) taboo-ing his head off in the principal’s office. What a missed opportunity to do something clever with the language of the film. Not to mention, it takes away from the heroic wisdom and holier-than-thou attitude that Othello starts off with in the play.
But that’s okay, I’m willing to look past this little difference… and then we see Odin beating up Roger (Eldon Henson) in the schoolyard. This little scene was the first one to have me shaking my head in dismay. If I could grab director Tim Blake Nelson by the lapels and shake him, I would have done so, yelling in his face that the violence of Othello’s character should be conserved, without question, till the end scenes of the play. What were they thinking?! Did the makers of this film not understand the play? Did they not read it? The whole point of the story is the character’s descent from being a noble hero into a villainous murderer! What are they doing, starting off with him beating up a chubby kid?!
Okay, let me calm down for a second. Let’s look at a positive point of the film, try and forget the scene we just witnessed… well, the setting translates surprisingly well from Venice/Cyprus to an American High School. We have all the required opportunities for character interaction, we have the authoritative figures that rule over the place, just as figures such as Brobantio and Gratiano ruled over even Othello in the play. Not to mention, a side-effect of the High School atmosphere is the ‘he said, she said’ gossipy sense, which goes well with the nature of the events of the play, which can be brought down to ‘I heard she was cheating on him with him’. However, the point of the original play packing up and moving to Cyprus so early on is to remove the authority figures, allowing for the chaos to begin. The setting didn’t change in the film, so we didn’t get that sense of isolation from the outside world that gave the play an edge of unpredictability.
Getting back to the plot, we find that the religious aspect of the play has been cut out and replaced with drugs, which is a fair enough switch to make. With the massive difference in religious belief between now and then, it makes sense to remove that. The drugs, as well as being a metaphor for Hugo’s ‘poisoning’ of Odin, seem to me to represent the ‘dark side’ of modern life. Hugo begins the movie taking them, and quickly drags Odin down to his level, and this is acknowledged by his giving him the drugs. The drugs usage, as a side note, also explains what Odin was doing with all of Roger’s money, something that went relatively unexplained in the play.
A major theme of Othello was the racism, and this was something they also tried to get into O. However, the difficulty with this came from the fact that we no longer use the same words. I could see that they were trying to replace the word ‘moor’ with the word ‘nigger’, but they simply don’t mean the same thing. ‘Moor’ wasn’t always used in a derogative manner, and ‘nigger’ can never be a positive term. It was because of this fact that when Desi (Stiles) (another brilliant name change) used the word ‘nigger’ it was damaging to the relationship between her and Othello in an irreparable way, at least for me as someone who has read and understood the original play. The racism is there, as I worded my note on the matter, but it is in all the wrong places.
The music used in the film was a point of some confusion to me. I couldn’t be sure if the hip-hop/gangsta rap tone of the soundtrack was just there to make it ‘seem modern’, or if it was trying to put forth a point about Odin’s heritage, as the musical genre developed from black backgrounds. Alternatively, it could just be that they thought that was what kids listened to in High Schools, and/or it just went well with the basketball games. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as the music element wasn’t something the play had, and so they could hardly translate it wrong.
I found that at least one admirable aspect of the film was the way the conversations were executed. Particularly in one scene between Odin and Hugo (Hartnett), I could trace all the ups and downs of the latter’s manipulations of the former, just the same as they were in the play. Even though the language used is different in every possible way, what is being said can be seen through this barrier, which is something nice to notice for those of us who have read the play. Staying on the topic of the character’s interactions with one another, I wasn’t sure about what they did with Hugo and Roger’s relationship. In the play, Iago manipulates Roderigo by using his charm and snake-like wit to convince him into perpetrating the acts that he does, whereas in the film he seemed to be a lot more forceful with him, which, more than anything, lessened the manipulative part of Iago’s character that we all love so much.
An interesting scene that was added into the film and was absent from the play was the ‘proposal’ between Odin and Desi (still can’t take the name seriously, I’m sorry. As an interesting side-note, Rain Phoenix, who plays Emily, is the only actress who has a more ridiculous name than her character). This ‘fake marriage’ was obviously added in to strengthen the bond between the two characters, as otherwise we wouldn’t have gotten the full impact of the deterioration of their relationship. Seeing a High School relationship falling apart is nothing compared to watching a marriage tear itself to shreds, and this is something that writer Brad Kaaya must have picked up on and tried to fix using this scene.
I think the biggest disappointment of the film was the character of Hugo, and this is not totally the fault of Hartnett (although his lingering-and-droning portrayal of the character was hardly convincing as a person that everyone in the play could trust). The motives that drove Iago in the play were, as I mentioned before, a lot less solid and more left to interpretation, and the fact that Hugo just wants his Daddy’s attention most definitely detracts from his villainy. The plan that he forms and performs in the play with such surgical accuracy and snake-like prowess seemed hasty and fell apart in the film.
To conclude, ‘O’ is most definitely not the worst film that I have reviewed (see ‘Dracula’ (1992)), and it does what it says on the box in following with a reasonable dedication the original story set out by the Bard. For someone who hasn’t read or seen the play, it is still a movie that can be watched and enjoyed, and there is enough in it and in the performances given to offer an audience a solid cinema experience. However, Shakespeare is a magic made of two halves: the intricacies and depth of the incredible stories he wove, and the beauty of the pinnacle of the English language in which he wrote them. Because of this, no matter how well the story half is translated, no modern adaptation can ever be more than half as good as the original play. Add in the general downfalls of the film, and the movie, in my opinion, amounts to no more than
My Rating:
* * *
(3/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and the award for most cost-effective film title goes to… ‘O’! This is the 2001 film directed by Tim Blake Nelson and starring Mekhi Phifer, Josh Hartnett and Julia Stiles. ‘O’ is an attempt of a modern-day reinvention of Shakespeare’s classic play ‘Othello’ (see what they did there?), replacing the settings of Venice and Cyprus with that of a high school basketball court. ‘Basketball?!’ I hear you cry, and yes, the general pretence is enough to raise a few questioning eyebrows, but as always I was determined to go into the viewing with as few preconceptions about what I was about to see as possible.
The first thing that I was quick to take note of was the aforementioned use of a basketball game to quickly establish the characters and their relationships which is, of course, the heart of a tragedy. The original characters of Othello, Iago and Cassio were military based, and although in the play we never see them in a combat situation, I got the impression that the basketball game was a translation of a battle scene that could have happened in the play, in which ‘Odin’ and ‘Michael Cassio’ (hold on a second, why didn’t Cassio get renamed? They could have called him Michelle!) take precedence over ‘Hugo’ (don’t worry, the names of the characters are just about the worst thing in the film) in the tactical aspect of the game. This is a good way of creating the tension between Hugo and the others from the outset, though it might have been a little obvious, treading on the subtlety that forms Iago’s character in the play. In the play, we don’t see why Iago does what he does, we only hear his reasons from his own mouth, so we are left in doubt as to whether they are even true. In O, we can see for ourselves that his motives are backed up by fact, which somehow takes away from how evil the character is.
From a language perspective, I was glad to hear Hugo using swears very frequently early on in the play whilst addressing Roderigo – sorry, ‘Roger’ – and thought, ‘Oh good! That’s a clever way to bring one of the language aspects of the play into the 21st century!’. In the play, Iago’s language is quite coarse by Shakespearian standards, so by throwing in swearing for the updated version of Iago, I figured that would be a good way to translate that aspect of his character over. I even dared to hope that maybe, just maybe, Odin would begin to use swearing more and more toward the end of the play to show Hugo’s influence over him! But no. Of course not. In the next scene, we see Odin (Phifer) taboo-ing his head off in the principal’s office. What a missed opportunity to do something clever with the language of the film. Not to mention, it takes away from the heroic wisdom and holier-than-thou attitude that Othello starts off with in the play.
But that’s okay, I’m willing to look past this little difference… and then we see Odin beating up Roger (Eldon Henson) in the schoolyard. This little scene was the first one to have me shaking my head in dismay. If I could grab director Tim Blake Nelson by the lapels and shake him, I would have done so, yelling in his face that the violence of Othello’s character should be conserved, without question, till the end scenes of the play. What were they thinking?! Did the makers of this film not understand the play? Did they not read it? The whole point of the story is the character’s descent from being a noble hero into a villainous murderer! What are they doing, starting off with him beating up a chubby kid?!
Okay, let me calm down for a second. Let’s look at a positive point of the film, try and forget the scene we just witnessed… well, the setting translates surprisingly well from Venice/Cyprus to an American High School. We have all the required opportunities for character interaction, we have the authoritative figures that rule over the place, just as figures such as Brobantio and Gratiano ruled over even Othello in the play. Not to mention, a side-effect of the High School atmosphere is the ‘he said, she said’ gossipy sense, which goes well with the nature of the events of the play, which can be brought down to ‘I heard she was cheating on him with him’. However, the point of the original play packing up and moving to Cyprus so early on is to remove the authority figures, allowing for the chaos to begin. The setting didn’t change in the film, so we didn’t get that sense of isolation from the outside world that gave the play an edge of unpredictability.
Getting back to the plot, we find that the religious aspect of the play has been cut out and replaced with drugs, which is a fair enough switch to make. With the massive difference in religious belief between now and then, it makes sense to remove that. The drugs, as well as being a metaphor for Hugo’s ‘poisoning’ of Odin, seem to me to represent the ‘dark side’ of modern life. Hugo begins the movie taking them, and quickly drags Odin down to his level, and this is acknowledged by his giving him the drugs. The drugs usage, as a side note, also explains what Odin was doing with all of Roger’s money, something that went relatively unexplained in the play.
A major theme of Othello was the racism, and this was something they also tried to get into O. However, the difficulty with this came from the fact that we no longer use the same words. I could see that they were trying to replace the word ‘moor’ with the word ‘nigger’, but they simply don’t mean the same thing. ‘Moor’ wasn’t always used in a derogative manner, and ‘nigger’ can never be a positive term. It was because of this fact that when Desi (Stiles) (another brilliant name change) used the word ‘nigger’ it was damaging to the relationship between her and Othello in an irreparable way, at least for me as someone who has read and understood the original play. The racism is there, as I worded my note on the matter, but it is in all the wrong places.
The music used in the film was a point of some confusion to me. I couldn’t be sure if the hip-hop/gangsta rap tone of the soundtrack was just there to make it ‘seem modern’, or if it was trying to put forth a point about Odin’s heritage, as the musical genre developed from black backgrounds. Alternatively, it could just be that they thought that was what kids listened to in High Schools, and/or it just went well with the basketball games. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as the music element wasn’t something the play had, and so they could hardly translate it wrong.
I found that at least one admirable aspect of the film was the way the conversations were executed. Particularly in one scene between Odin and Hugo (Hartnett), I could trace all the ups and downs of the latter’s manipulations of the former, just the same as they were in the play. Even though the language used is different in every possible way, what is being said can be seen through this barrier, which is something nice to notice for those of us who have read the play. Staying on the topic of the character’s interactions with one another, I wasn’t sure about what they did with Hugo and Roger’s relationship. In the play, Iago manipulates Roderigo by using his charm and snake-like wit to convince him into perpetrating the acts that he does, whereas in the film he seemed to be a lot more forceful with him, which, more than anything, lessened the manipulative part of Iago’s character that we all love so much.
An interesting scene that was added into the film and was absent from the play was the ‘proposal’ between Odin and Desi (still can’t take the name seriously, I’m sorry. As an interesting side-note, Rain Phoenix, who plays Emily, is the only actress who has a more ridiculous name than her character). This ‘fake marriage’ was obviously added in to strengthen the bond between the two characters, as otherwise we wouldn’t have gotten the full impact of the deterioration of their relationship. Seeing a High School relationship falling apart is nothing compared to watching a marriage tear itself to shreds, and this is something that writer Brad Kaaya must have picked up on and tried to fix using this scene.
I think the biggest disappointment of the film was the character of Hugo, and this is not totally the fault of Hartnett (although his lingering-and-droning portrayal of the character was hardly convincing as a person that everyone in the play could trust). The motives that drove Iago in the play were, as I mentioned before, a lot less solid and more left to interpretation, and the fact that Hugo just wants his Daddy’s attention most definitely detracts from his villainy. The plan that he forms and performs in the play with such surgical accuracy and snake-like prowess seemed hasty and fell apart in the film.
To conclude, ‘O’ is most definitely not the worst film that I have reviewed (see ‘Dracula’ (1992)), and it does what it says on the box in following with a reasonable dedication the original story set out by the Bard. For someone who hasn’t read or seen the play, it is still a movie that can be watched and enjoyed, and there is enough in it and in the performances given to offer an audience a solid cinema experience. However, Shakespeare is a magic made of two halves: the intricacies and depth of the incredible stories he wove, and the beauty of the pinnacle of the English language in which he wrote them. Because of this, no matter how well the story half is translated, no modern adaptation can ever be more than half as good as the original play. Add in the general downfalls of the film, and the movie, in my opinion, amounts to no more than
My Rating:
* * *
(3/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
Friday, 7 January 2011
News: 'Thor' (2011), 'The Avengers' (2012)
I decided to post a quick post to talk about 'Thor', which is the superhero movie based on the Marvel comic book character, and which has recently seen the release of a trailer.
Personally, although I do know quite a bit about superheroes and about comic books, I'm not familiar with the story of Thor, and if I'm not then the chances are that most of the public aren't either. This means Marvel Studios are taking a bit of a risk here. They can release 'Spider-Man' in 2002 and rest assured that millions of people will pay to go and see it, since the character is such a household name. If I talked about my family about 'Thor' they'd say 'What's a Thor when it's at home?'. Still, I take it that Marvel is relying on the fans for this one, and riding on the success of the blockbuster hits like 'Iron Man' and its sequel. The trailer is suitably epic in tone, with enough explosions and fighting to keep the action junkies among us satisfied, though this does seem to be the focus point for the piece. As it's not as well known as some stories, I personally would have taken the time to explain the concept of the story in a little more detail, and focus less on Thor running around and yelling at things.
'Thor' is expected in the UK on 29th of April 2011, and I probably won't end up seeing it at the pictures.
On a related though premature note, I've been looking at the information we have about the much-anticipated Avengers movie that is currently in pre-production. If you haven't heard about this, it's another Marvel movie based off the team of heroes known as the Avengers. The interesting thing about this movie adaption is that they're bringing together cast members from the individual films. We've got Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man, and Chris Hemsworth who is playing Thor. We've also got the Hulk in here, but it seems that in the space between 'The Incredible Hulk' (2008) and 'The Avengers', Bruce Banner has experienced a bizarre metamorphasis from Edward Norton into Mark Ruffalo. For any comic book fans out there, the movie will also feature Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, and, wait, am I reading this right? Chris Evans as Captain America? Chris Evans?! Are the casting directors actually high?!
You know what, I'm not even going to bother questioning this, but I'll be sat with a sceptical anticipation during the opening credits of this movie when it eventually hits cinemas sometime in 2012.
- J. Boulton
Personally, although I do know quite a bit about superheroes and about comic books, I'm not familiar with the story of Thor, and if I'm not then the chances are that most of the public aren't either. This means Marvel Studios are taking a bit of a risk here. They can release 'Spider-Man' in 2002 and rest assured that millions of people will pay to go and see it, since the character is such a household name. If I talked about my family about 'Thor' they'd say 'What's a Thor when it's at home?'. Still, I take it that Marvel is relying on the fans for this one, and riding on the success of the blockbuster hits like 'Iron Man' and its sequel. The trailer is suitably epic in tone, with enough explosions and fighting to keep the action junkies among us satisfied, though this does seem to be the focus point for the piece. As it's not as well known as some stories, I personally would have taken the time to explain the concept of the story in a little more detail, and focus less on Thor running around and yelling at things.
'Thor' is expected in the UK on 29th of April 2011, and I probably won't end up seeing it at the pictures.
On a related though premature note, I've been looking at the information we have about the much-anticipated Avengers movie that is currently in pre-production. If you haven't heard about this, it's another Marvel movie based off the team of heroes known as the Avengers. The interesting thing about this movie adaption is that they're bringing together cast members from the individual films. We've got Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man, and Chris Hemsworth who is playing Thor. We've also got the Hulk in here, but it seems that in the space between 'The Incredible Hulk' (2008) and 'The Avengers', Bruce Banner has experienced a bizarre metamorphasis from Edward Norton into Mark Ruffalo. For any comic book fans out there, the movie will also feature Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, and, wait, am I reading this right? Chris Evans as Captain America? Chris Evans?! Are the casting directors actually high?!
You know what, I'm not even going to bother questioning this, but I'll be sat with a sceptical anticipation during the opening credits of this movie when it eventually hits cinemas sometime in 2012.
- J. Boulton
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Other: My Cinema Trips of 2010
At the beginning of what is now last year, it was suggested to me that I keep all the stubs of tickets of places I went to throughout the year. I decided it was worth doing and so ended up keeping the reminders of theatre and cinema tickets all the way through. Now that I have a blog, I figured 'what better place to post about it?'. Omitting the theatre, as this is a film-based blog, here are the tickets I have in the little plastic wallet pinned to my noticeboard:
Date: 25/01/2010
Film: 'Avatar' [3D]
My rating: * * * * * (3D) * * * (2D)
Comment: Was it worth all the hype? Maybe. It was certainly a 3D experience unlike anything we'd seen before. It was long and the plot was reasonably generic, but the visuals alone deserve a five-star rating.
Date: 17/02/2010
Film: 'The Wolfman'
My rating: * *
Comment: All it needed to drop it to one-star was Keanu Reeves in the starring role. Cheap, frankly rubish movie was at least good for a laugh with friends. But not much else.
Date: 02/04/2010
Film: 'Clash of the Titans' [3D]
My rating: * * * * (3D) * * * (2D)
Comment: Another case of the 3D element playing the role of saving grace. The visuals were stunning and the story was action-packed enough to serve as a remarkable experience, but the plot was questionable and with some less-than-top-notch acting.
Date: 04/04/2010
Film: 'Kick-Ass'
My rating: * * *
Comment: I didn't really enjoy the film as much as other people I've heard from, but I appreciate what it was trying to do. It had some nice action scenes, and for that and the concept it recieves a three-star rating from me.
Date: 23/10/2010
Film: 'Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole' [3D]
My rating: * * * * (3D) * * * (2D)
Comment: My sister's request to see it served as another chance for me to sample the 3D gimmick of the year. The story was predictable but once more the visuals were absolutely stunning, and music from Owl City boosted it substantially.
Date: 19/11/2010
Film: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1'
My rating: * * * *
Comment: Love the Harry Potter films, even (to a lesser extent) the early ones, and they're only getting better. A very satisfying adaption of half of the final book, and I eagerly look forward to the final part.
So there it is. I know, there aren't as many as you would expect from a film fanatic. Maybe I should make my resolution to go to the cinema more often. That said, with all the films that I've seen this year on DVD (the Lord of the Rings films, for example) and in film classes (Pulp Fiction, now one of my all-time favourite films, for example) the total 'new films' comes to a much higher count.
I would have posted this on New Year's day, only I was away visiting relatives.
Anyway, a happy New Year from me to any readers out there. I hope you have a productive and more importantly film-filled 2011. I intend to.
- J. Boulton
Date: 25/01/2010
Film: 'Avatar' [3D]
My rating: * * * * * (3D) * * * (2D)
Comment: Was it worth all the hype? Maybe. It was certainly a 3D experience unlike anything we'd seen before. It was long and the plot was reasonably generic, but the visuals alone deserve a five-star rating.
Date: 17/02/2010
Film: 'The Wolfman'
My rating: * *
Comment: All it needed to drop it to one-star was Keanu Reeves in the starring role. Cheap, frankly rubish movie was at least good for a laugh with friends. But not much else.
Date: 02/04/2010
Film: 'Clash of the Titans' [3D]
My rating: * * * * (3D) * * * (2D)
Comment: Another case of the 3D element playing the role of saving grace. The visuals were stunning and the story was action-packed enough to serve as a remarkable experience, but the plot was questionable and with some less-than-top-notch acting.
Date: 04/04/2010
Film: 'Kick-Ass'
My rating: * * *
Comment: I didn't really enjoy the film as much as other people I've heard from, but I appreciate what it was trying to do. It had some nice action scenes, and for that and the concept it recieves a three-star rating from me.
Date: 23/10/2010
Film: 'Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole' [3D]
My rating: * * * * (3D) * * * (2D)
Comment: My sister's request to see it served as another chance for me to sample the 3D gimmick of the year. The story was predictable but once more the visuals were absolutely stunning, and music from Owl City boosted it substantially.
Date: 19/11/2010
Film: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1'
My rating: * * * *
Comment: Love the Harry Potter films, even (to a lesser extent) the early ones, and they're only getting better. A very satisfying adaption of half of the final book, and I eagerly look forward to the final part.
So there it is. I know, there aren't as many as you would expect from a film fanatic. Maybe I should make my resolution to go to the cinema more often. That said, with all the films that I've seen this year on DVD (the Lord of the Rings films, for example) and in film classes (Pulp Fiction, now one of my all-time favourite films, for example) the total 'new films' comes to a much higher count.
I would have posted this on New Year's day, only I was away visiting relatives.
Anyway, a happy New Year from me to any readers out there. I hope you have a productive and more importantly film-filled 2011. I intend to.
- J. Boulton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)