Film reviews in about 500 words

Smokey and the Bandit

2012-04-19T17:07:00.001+01:00

The basics

Smokey and the Bandit is an American film which came out in 1977. This was Hal Needham’s directorial debut with a film that he wrote himself, at this point in time he was one of the highest paid stuntman and stunt coordinators. This film is about cars, trucks, CB radios, sticking it to authoritarian figures, romance and just some good old boys doing what they do best.

What is this film about?

Once upon a time there was a trucking legend called Bo Darville, aka The Bandit. He is soon confronted by a father and son tycoon team, big and little Enos who have a challenge for him and $80,000 if he does it. They are having a party and they need some beer, about 400 cases of Coors should do it and they need him to go get it. To do this he will have to get the beer from Texarkana, Texas and bring it back to Atlanta, Georgia in 28 hours and that’s not even the main problem. The main problem is that it is illegal to transport beer east of Texas. With his partner Cledus, The Snowman; in the truck and Bandit in a Trans Am (car) being the run blocker, distracting the cops or Smokey’s they set off and get those 18 wheels a rolling.

My views on it

Back in the 60’s and 70’s a new genre started to form as it started to branch away from its parent genre ‘action’ and this new genre was the car film. Great action films started to come out around this time that started to use more popular cars and throw in a few good chase scenes as well. In most of these films the car itself became just as big and famous as the actors using it. For example we have the Ford Mustang in Bullitt (1968), the Dodge Challenger in Vanishing Point (1971) and who could forget Mini Coopers in The Italian Job (1969). So it seemed that the car film was only going to be a subgenre to action but not for long, because then came Smokey and The Bandit. Smokey and The Bandit was one of the first major car films to come out that wasn’t an action movie, it was a comedy, and due to this it severed the link the car film had to action and for once made it stand on its own two feet. This is one of the reasons this film is great as it was one of the pioneers to fully cement this genre.

Due to this film being a comedy and not an action it brought a new fresh look at the classic ‘chase scene’ itself. Because it wasn’t an action film the chase scenes (which there is plenty of) did lose some of their thrill. They were less dramatic and less intense then their predecessors but for what it lost it gained a lot more. What it gained was the element of fun and this was great. It made me smile every time Bandit distracted the cops, tried to hide or when he did a jump. If this film was an action film, due to the sheer amount of driving in it, it would have got monotonous; it would have been one long action scene that would just get dull. As it’s a comedy you get the thrill of the chase, the element of comedy that came with it, the witty dialogue between the characters, mainly Bandit and Snowman and just enough room to throw in some romance as well.

Another one of the great things about this film is this introduction into the world of CB radio. The community in this film is based around CB radio as Bandit and Snowman receive help from anyone who can get them on the radio waves. This sense of community in this film is very interesting and because of this and the slang they use in it, it gives you a really good feel for the time, place and plot in which this film is set.

All in all I like this film but it does have its flaws. The plot is thin; the aspect of the challenge that is set at the beginning of the film (doing it in 28 hours) is lost very quickly and if you don’t like cars then don’t even bother as this film is about 90% driving. But for me this film is a humble slice of Americana, full of simple pleasures and Burt Reynolds. So what more could you want from just a car film.

Favourite Quote

Buford T. Justice: [to his son] There's no way, *no* way that you came from *my* loins. Soon as I get home, first thing I'm gonna do is punch yo mamma in da mouth!

Rating 3.5/5

The Time Traveller's Wife

2012-04-08T15:57:00.005+01:00

The basics

The Time Traveller's Wife is the Award winning debut novel of American author Audrey Niffenegger, which was published in 2003. It was soon made it to a film in 2009 and was directed by Robert Schwentke. This film is about love, time travel, fate and in a strange way grooming.

What is this film about?

This film opens with a young boy (Henry) and his mum singing along in the car together as they drive through a snowy night. Suddenly the car is about to crash, and the little boy freaks out and ends up traveling back in time. He quickly reappears back in his own time where he is met by his older self, which explains to the boy that his mother has just died and that he is a time traveller. We follow the older Henry back to his time where he soon bumps in to a women he has never seen before, but she knows him very well. She manages to get him to have dinner with her, where she explains that she is in love with him, as she has known him all her life, also that she knows that he is a time traveller. She explains that this is all because a older version of him used to visit her a lot when she was growing up.

My views on it

One of the most interesting things about this film and what makes it different to most romance films, is in fact the element of time travel. Saying that this is the part of the film where it is heavily flawed. I will explain, in the film Henry claims that he cannot change what happened to this mum when he goes in to the past, he cannot save her. This presents to the audience the idea that he has no effect on the past, he is just simply a spectator of times gone by. But the film also presents the idea that he can change the past as well. As the older henry meets his future wife (Claire) several times when she growing up and this is what makes her fall for him and look for him when she is older. So because of this he does have an effect on the past. But yet there is more evidence that he doesn’t effect the past at all. When he does go back in time he starts off naked as his clothes can’t travel with him, so he has to break in to places and steal clothes and money just to get by. If he did effect the past this would have a butterfly effect and would alter future, even if just by a little but when he comes back to the present it is exactly how he left it. This goes to show that the time travel in this film is completely broken as it contradicts its self at every turn.

Another problem with the time travel is that she first meets him when she was younger and because of this she looks for him when she is older. Due to them meeting when they are older this is why he ends up going back to meet her when she is younger. This is broken as well as he never would have meet her in the past if she didn’t meet him when she was older and this would not have happen if he didn’t meet her when she was little.

Beside theses clear problems this film has, it is about this infinite loop that theses lovers are stuck in and that it will never change. It comes clear that their love story has been played out numerous times and that it is set to just repeat itself over and over again. So this story is based around this fate that has been created for them. Due to this it loses some of its romance for me. Because of this fate the character lose their free will, their choices are not really their own, their already prewritten. Without this element chaos and free will, the romance is cheapen. For me the great thing about love story’s is the ‘will they, wont they’ situation, the the magic of the off chance of them meeting, the fear of them breaking up and the joy of them getting back together. Without this situation, without this unpredictability that these could or could not happen the story just loses its thrill and the romance is less magical because of it.

I know I have ripped in to this film a lot but it has a few good things about it. The acting was good, the time travel element is an interesting take on the romance genre even if it didn’t really work and there are some heartfelt moments in this film which are great, my favourite is when he meets his daughter for the first time. So this film does have its good parts it’s just when you start to analyse it the cracks start to show.

Favourite Quote

Clare Abshire: No. I didn't mean that. I just wanted to try it, to say it, to assert my own sense of free will, but my free will wants you.

Rating 2/5

The Hunger Games

2012-03-31T01:52:00.005+01:00

The basics

The Hunger Games is a bestselling book by American author Suzanne Collins and is the first in the ‘The Hunger Games trilogy’. The book came out in 2008 and was made in to a film in 2012, which was Directed by Gary Ross. This film is about oppression, survival, punishment, love and the entertainment industry.

What is this film about?

After a great rebellion in nation of Panem, the government devised away to instill fear in to the public, keep them oppressed, to punish them for the crimes of the past and to make a good TV show out of it too. What they created was the hunger games. The hunger game is where they pick one boy and one girl (aged 12 to 18) from each of the 12 districts to come to the capital and be forced to fight to the death in there outside arena, where there can only be one winner. We join this world in the impoverished district 12 as it starts to get ready for the 74th annual Hunger Games and we start to follow are heroine Katniss Everdeen, as she has just volunteered for these brutal games to spare her younger sister.

My views on it

From the start of this film it sets out to be very good I must admit, the camera work is great, the mise-en-scene good, the acting is very well and so on. So what I am trying to say it ticks all the boxes. But the best thing for me is how they present the unlucky ones who are involved in the game. As soon as they are picked from random they enter this new world and gain celebrity status. They are soon eating the best food, given make overs and are appearing on TV talk shows. Each of them also try to gain as much popularity as they can due to the fact it will be beneficial for them and help them get sponsors. This for me brings a new depth into the game, it’s becomes not just about who is the strongest or who’s is the fastest but who is the most popular and who can put on the best show for the public as well. This also gives a good reflection on celebrity culture nowadays, how people with no talent can be on reality TV shows like Big Brother and how being popular can sometimes be more helpful in shows like the X Factor then talent itself.

Like I have said this film has a lot going for it and I could keep going on and big it up more but where’s the fun in that, it has some big flaws too and these start to come about when the game itself begins. For a film that is based around a game where 24 teenagers have to kill each other, the violence and the action is very poor. This is all due to the film being made to be a 12A, so it can get a bigger audience. Because of this the film isn’t able to deliver on one of its key elements and this goes on to effect other things as well. Due to the action being weak it makes the game a lot less dramatic and less intense then it should be. It ruins the atmosphere and this once interesting and clever film starts to become a bit childish.

One of the other major problems is that we don’t get to know the other teenagers (beside the two from district 12) in the games that much. We only meet about half of them and the half we do see we don’t get to know that well. Due to this, there deaths in the game become almost redundant, as you don’t have enough time to connect with them, it’s hard to care if they live or die really. Also it does not set up very well, if we did take an interest there characters, how we should feel about their deaths. The film doses try to set up one of the teenagers as a villain and one as being sweet and nice but there characters are so weak it doesn’t work. So we only take an interest in the two main teenagers from district 12 and the rest are just plainly boring cannon fodder to keep the story moving.

So for me this is a film of two half, the first half is great but as soon as the game begins its starts to go downhill and fast. But I would have to say I did still enjoy it and I will be there in the cinema for when the next one is released.

Favourite Quote

Haymitch Abernathy: Look at you! You just killed... a place mat!

Rating 3/5

The Vow

2012-03-06T23:17:00.000+00:00

The basics

The Vow is an American film which came out in 2012. Michael Sucsy directed this film which was based on the true life story and book, The Vow by Kim and Krickitt Carpenter. This film is a drama/romance with a bit of comedy and it is about love, memory loss and moments that can change you’re live.

What is this film about?

A newlywed couple unfortunately gets in to a serious accident as there car is hit from behind by a truck. The husband, Leo, receives a few minor injuries but nothing to serious. His wife, Paige, on the other hand ends up in a coma. When she wakes she doesn’t recognise Leo and we discover that she has lost a few year of her memory and now Leo has work to win back the heart off his own wife.

My views on it

The first problem I have with this film was there before I even sat down to watch it. Just from watching the ad of it on TV, I found out what this film was about and that it was based on a true story. Due to this I already knew how this film was going to pan out and how it was going to end and I was right. This film is heavily predictable and even when you are watching it you can see every twist that is going to happen plenty of time before it dose. But I can’t keep on about this; due to the nature of the film it was always going to be this way. So this problem isn’t something that we could find someone to point a finger at and say this is your fault, it was inevitable, still annoying though.

It doesn’t take too long before you realise that this film is set in modern day, mainly because Paige asks who the president is? And Leo says Barack Obama. Because of this it is easy to see that this film is set in a different time from the real event (which happens in 1993 just so you know). Due to this I start to think about how much of this film is actually based on the true story? And because of this I could no longer really trust the film, all the time thinking did that actually happen? Does he really do that? And doe that person even exist? The key selling point about this film is that it was meant to have happened and from watching it you can’t trust what did happen and what didn’t, beside the basic facts. After about five minutes on Google I found out that the film is a lot more fabricated then I originally guessed. So it just goes to show that it is based on a true story but very loosely and for me this film loses a lot of its integrity because of this.

My last problem with this film is that it is very forgettable (and yes I see the irony in saying that). After leaving the cinema I tried to think of the main characters names and I could not remember any of them. So what I am trying to say this film does not make an impact on you, it doesn’t leave you thinking or even make for lasting conversation. So don’t expect this film to stick with you for long after you have watched it.

I have ripped in to this film a lot in this review but I have to say it isn’t that bad. The acting is good, it kept my interest all the way through and I did have a good laugh a few times as well. So if you’re one of those film geeks that looks a bit too much in to things (like me) then best give this one a miss but for anyone else it’s a pleasant little film with some humour and I would say why not, give it a watch.

Favourite Quote

Leo: Life's all about moments, of impact and how they changes our lives forever. But what if one day you could no longer remember any of them?

Rating 2/5

Capitalism: A Love Story

2012-02-08T20:35:00.002+00:00

The basics

Capitalism: A Love Story is an American documentary which was made in 2009. It is the latest in a long line of documentaries made by one of America's best-known and most controversial documentarians Michael Moore. This film is about Capitalism, America, greed, corruption, corporations and the effect they have had on the everyday lives of Americans.

What is this film about?

In this film we follow Michael Moore as he talks to the Americans that have suffered the negative effects of capitalism. We get to see people who have unfairly lost their jobs, people being evicted from their homes and people who are worth more to their company’s dead than alive. He also goes to find out why this is happening by delving in to America’s modern history, by heading up to the political steps of Washington and to the financial hub of America, Wall Street.

My views on it

On the twenty year anniversary of Michael Moore’s first film, Roger & Me (1989), he is back with another documentary that likes to, yet again; take a few good old digs at the country he calls home.

Just so I can get this out of the way early on, I must say I did enjoy watching this film. It was really well put together, it had some good humour in places, I do enjoy Michael Moore’s hybrid style of documentary making between expository and performative, I learnt a few things and I am glad to have it as part of my DVD collection. But that’s doesn’t mean that this film is perfect, no not at all. I do admit when I was watching this film it was great. It held my interest, got me a bit angry at the things the film wanted me to get angry at and all in all I had a good time. It was only after watching this film when I started to mull it over in my head that I started to pick up on a few issues I had with it.

One of my issue I had with it was the irony of the film itself. This film is all about flinging mug at capitalism and how it has ruined the lives of so many Americans but by creating a film about this issue, Michael Moore himself has made a lot of money from it. Michael Moore’s current net worth is said to be about fifty million, so this goes to show that for somebody who hates capitalism, he is bloody good at it.

Another issue is that the film is 99% based around American capitalism, with only two very small mentions about Japan and German at the start and the end of the film. Now before I watch this film I knew it was going to be mainly about America but with a title like ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’ I was a little disappointed that it only focused on America. Capitalism is an economic system which is used throughout most of the world, here is a short list of some countries that uses capitalism as well

Canada
Mexico
Ireland
UK
France
Portugal
Spain
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
Cyprus
Austria
Czech Republic
Poland
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Australia
India
New Zealand

And many, many more. So by this almost denial to recognise that America is not the only place in the world with capitalism, the film becomes more about America then capitalism itself. So for me the film dose lose some of its integrity because of this.

In his line of work I would not say it is his best but it is still a good film. As a piece of documentary film making I would not class this as a must see but I would say I don’t think you will be disappoint with this film either. Michael Moore is a quality film maker and this is evident in this movie, as it is in most of his films. All in all this film comes down to one simple question, do you like Michael Moore films? If yes you will love it if no you may have to give it a miss and if you haven’t see one before I would say watch Bowling for Columbine.

Favourite Quote

Michael Moore: ‘I refuse to live in a country like this, and I'm not leaving.’

Rating 3.5/5

Sharktopus

2012-01-25T23:33:00.001+00:00

The basics

Sharktopus is an American movie with came out in 2010 and was a made for TV film by the Syfy channel. Sharktopus is a horror, science fiction, monster movie which is mostly set Puerto Vallarta in Mexico. The film was directed by Declan O'Brien, written by Mike MacLean and stars Eric Roberts. This film is about sea, sun, military genetic engineering, a father and daughter relationship and wonderfully bad CGI.

What is this film about?

The film starts off with a pretty good montage of Santa Monica, California and then we get introduced to two random blond beach babes (aka BBB) as they discuss the important issues at hand, to swim or to text? One of the BBB’s decides to go for a swim where the other doses not due to her profound augment ‘in the ocean, there’s fish out there’. As one of the BBB’s is taking a dip, a shark (and yes just a shark at the moment) starts to take an interest in her. Soon she is swimming for her life, until big jaws, I mean sharktopus grabs the shark and her life is saved.

After this we find out that sharktopus is a military project called ‘S 11’ and was created by a group called Blue Water. It was made as the navy’s next super weapon. In an attempt to impress a Commander they send S 11 to try and stay close to a civilian boat but not to harm it. As you would expect it goes wrong. The boat propellers damages the device with controls it and due to this S 11 is now free to do whatever it wants, and S 11 wants to kill. Now Blue Water has to hunt down this super weapon which is 50% shark, 50% octopus and 100% deadly.

My views on it

In the wonderful world of B movies, they have brought us some amazing things of the years. Such as a 50 foot woman, a giant blobs, aliens that snatch are bodies and in 2010 a half shark, half octopus creature.

In 2009 there was a B movie which was called Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus. Due to its popularity it was not long before people wanted to jump on the band wagon and capitalise and this new found fame for sharks and octopuses. So the good people at the syfy Channel got there foot in the door and created this film which only need half of the CGI budget. When I first heard about this film I was not expecting anything more than a good giggle, some amazingly bad CGI and a bazar creature. I must say it brought all that and more. Now I am not saying this is a great film but for what it is, I loved it

When it comes to bad, B movie horrors, this film, for me tick all the boxes. It only takes 3 minutes and 25 seconds until you get to see sharktopus, so right from the start there is action and an awesome sea monster. With a film like this, which only survives on action and an awesome sea monster it is good to get it in early before the audience start to pay any attention to the plot hole in the story line or the bad writing. Also with this film there is great sense of honesty with it. There is a whole scene in which they basically says that this a bad film and I loved that. In this scene, two random characters have heard a report about sharktopus and class it as a hoax, in which they joke it could be somebody making a film. One of the characters says they would watch it and the other ridicules them by saying ‘that’s because you’re easily amused. I’ve seen you mesmerised watching a frozen burrito rotate in the microwave oven’. So for me it seems like the people who created this are saying ‘we know this film is bad and it was rushed and we are sorry, but look there’s a shark with tentacles what can walk on land, isn’t that awesome’. And because of this I can forgive it flaws and its mistakes and I can just enjoy the film.

In this film there are a few gems which I did expect as well. A few of the death scenes are done well and made me laugh. I found Eric Robert performance to be good, the directing and editing was alright and you can tell he had fun with it, like split screen styles of framing they used every now and then.

All in all if you are looking for a fun B movie horror this is your film, if you like low budget monster movies this is your film or if you need something to headline your next bad movie night then Sharktopus is your film.

Favourite Quote

Captain Jack: ‘I repeat sharktopus wants our virgins.’

Rating 3/5

Forged

2012-01-12T19:20:00.002+00:00

The basics

Forged is an American film which was made in 2010. Forged is an action, drama which was filmed and set (well it never says in the film that it is set here but it never did not say as well) in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The film was directed by William Wedig and he also writes the film with the star of it Manny Perez. This film is about unattainable forgiveness, fatherhood and revenge.

What is this film about?

The film starts with are protagonist, Chuco getting out of prison, as he has just done eight and a half year for the manslaughter of his wife. As soon as he is out of the walls, he is picked up by his old gang and taken back in to their arms. They treat him with a display of a man being beaten and then shot to test his loyalty and because he pass’s, he then gets booze and pretty girl to shag in the stalls of a bar’s toilets. Then he is given is first assignment, to drive some car to some place. Little did he know that it was a drug drop off. With 50 grand in his pocket from the deal and being pissed at his gang for sending him on a job, when he has just got out of prison and only one strike away from being in there for life. He decides not to go back start away but to go get some apple pie. By an off chance his homeless teenage son walks in, who witnessed the murder of his mother and mutters the words ‘You killed my mother. Now I kill you.’

My views on it

When I got ask to review this film I was thinking ‘Great an indie, low budget, American film. That’s right up my street.’ Boy was I wrong. When it comes to the idea of independent cinema, I must admit I do look at it with rose tinted glasses. There is a small part of me that automatically thinks that because it is not a mainstream and not made for the masses that it is already going to be good. But it’s nice to have a reality check now and then (and by that I mean this film) to remind me that independent cinema can me just awful as well.

In this film there seems to be a lot of plot hole, things that just don’t sense and just lazy or bad writing. For example, in this film the main character is Latino. Now like a normal person I was thinking there must be a reason why the main character is Latino if they have set the film in Pennsylvania, where there population is only just over 5 present Latino or Hispanic (yes I researched that). And the answer is no. there is no reason at all in the film why this character is Latino. They don’t even reference the fact that he is Latino as well. All they did is at they gave him a Latino name and that’s it. The main character might as well been from Kazakhstan and called Eugene for how much it matter to the film.

The film is meant to be about Chuco redeeming himself and making this bond with his son. But from the start you see him watch a man die, get drunk, shag a random women in a bar’s toilets and rob 50 grand of his gang which he made in a drug drop off. And the only reason he try’s anything with his son because he seems to have money at the time and because he bumped in to him in a restaurant. So because of this I don’t like Chuco and his actions don’t seem that genuine and this makes a flaw in the whole concept of the film. So it’s not really an ex-thug and his son, finding a way to forget the past and trying forge a relationship together. Its more still a thug and his gay for pay, homeless son being together because the father feels guilty and the son goes with him because he has money and wants him dead.

And there many more reason why this film is bad …..

· Terrible dialog

· Really bad and very simplistic editing. This is what happens when you let the director edit the film as well.

· And beside one or two of the actors the rest of the performances were very poor.

So all in all I would not recommend this film. On paper the concept seems thought-provoking and deep, it’s just a shame that this film is riddled flaws and bad writing which ruin it.

Favourite Quote

Guy (Actor Dan Teachout): Why do you think they let him out so early? He cut a deal.

Rating 1/5

The Kid with a Bike (ordinal title: Le Gamin au vélo)

2011-11-11T22:37:00.001+00:00

The basics

‘The Kid with a Bike’ is a Belgium film that came out in 2011. It is a realistic drama that is set in Seraing, Belgium. (French spoken part of Belgium) and was written and directed by the Dardenne brothers (Jean-Pierre and Luc). This film is about rejection, parental figures, choices in life and the paths that we take when we make them.

What is this film about?

The film starts with the main character, Cyril a boy of only 11, repeatedly try to call his father’s on the phone from the children’s home where he is only meant to be staying temporary. Everyone there is trying to explain to him that his father has left but in disbelief of this, he plans on escaping and running back to his father’s old apartment to see him and to get his bike. After a few attempts he manages to escape and get to his father’s old apartment block. As the children’s home workers find Cyril, and try to take him back, in his last attempt to stay there he holds on to a random woman with all he’s got, but eventually they break him free from her. To prove to Cyril the horrible truth they let him take a look around at his father’s apartment, only to find it empty.

Later on back at the children’s home, Cyril gets a visitor and it’s the lady (Samantha) that he held in the apartments. She has come to drop something off for him, his bike which she brought off somebody who claims he brought it from Cyril’s dad. Still in disbelief that his father is would do something like that he presumes that it must have been stolen. Due to this act of kindness Cyril asks Samantha if he can stay with her on weekends and she says yes.

My views on it

In all parts of this film (story, characters, editing etc.) there is something I like to call a beautiful roughness to it which makes the experience of this film feel more real and because of this it connects with the audience on a deeper level. For example the reason why Samantha fosters Cyril on the weekends is not explained. In most films this motivation would have been explained because they would want something to justify it, they would want A, to clarify B, so that everything is explained, Luc Dardenne comments on this in an interview ‘We were adamant that the audience would never find out why Samantha is drawn to Cyril. […] We didn’t want the past to explain the present.’. So there are things in this film that are not explained, the editing is not really seamless, the camera is a bit shaky, but this creates that beautiful roughness. Due to this beautiful roughness it goes against most cinema norms (mainly Hollywood) and it almost stops feeling like you are watching a film and it becomes more of a gate way into these people’s lives. When you start viewing it like that the characters become more real to you and you can really connect with them. Because of this connection you have with the characters and the highs and lows they go through, this makes a film that really pulls at you heartstrings and for a drama that’s a good thing.

The acting in this film I must say is amazing. Cécile De France who plays Samantha is perfect for the roll and pulls it off ‘to the tee’ but the star of the film has to be Thomas Doret who plays Cyril. His acting quality surpasses his years and his portrayal of a kid going through this situation could not have been done better. It almost seems like the Dardenne brothers found a kid going through this and just put a camera in front of him without him noticing.

I would recommend this film as it is moving, powerful and an emotional roller-coaster where you do not just watch it, you experience it. You can definitely see why this won Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes.

Favourite Quote

Guy Catoul (Cyril’s father): ‘Don’t try to see me again’

Rating 4/5 stars

Midnight in Paris

2011-11-08T16:10:00.003+00:00

The basics

Midnight in Paris is an American film which came out in 2011. It is a romantic comedy which is set in Paris and was written and directed by Woody Allen. This film is about romance, art, writing, wanting to be born in a different time, Paris, and time travel.

What is this film about?

This film starts off with a wonderful montage of all the iconic places in Paris. In this montage we see Paris in the sun, the rain and at night and this set up one of the main questions of the film to the audience, what setting do you think Paris is at its most beautiful?

We get introduce to are protagonist (Gil) as he proclaims his love for this city and his wish to have been in Paris in the 1920’s with all the famous writers, artist and to be in the rain. Gil is an American who has spent his literature career writing for Hollywood movies but now wants to see if he is good enough to write his first novel. On a trip to Paris with his fiancée (Inez) and her parents, one night after some wine tasting Inez goes dancing with some of her friends and Gil takes a night walk around Paris to clear his head. After getting lost and sitting on some steps a bell chimes that it is midnight and Gil is picked up by an old fashioned car by people dressed from the 1920’s.

My views on it

American comedy at the moment seems to fall in to only three categories crude humour like ‘The Hangover 1 and 2’ , randomness like ‘Family Guy’ or popular culture references like ‘South Park’. So when I watched this film it was great to see humour that did not have to be crude, random or just a references to be funny. There are references in this film but it’s all to 1920’s artist and writers, not just whatever just happened in the news. So Culture references are used, so you can say that this element of modern American comedy is presented but since they are mainly used when the film is set in 1920’s Paris you are not really able to class this as being popular. The comedy in this film is very witty, subtle and clever and for a film that came out in 2011 this is very refreshing to see.

Two of the main things I like about this film are how clever and charming it is. For example Gil finds himself talking to Salvador Dalí, Man Ray and Luis Buñuel in a bar and he starts to talk about how he is from the future. They just seem to think its normal and Gil reply’s ‘Yes, but you're a surrealist! I'm a normal guy!’. Jokes like that make this film so clever and if you understand them they are really funny but if not, the film is so charming that it can get away with. I must say I know a bit about artist’s and writer’s in the 1920’s so I did get most of it, but there where a good few things that went over my head but I did not mine at all. If you look at the character Paul, he talks about art and history and he get it wrong every now and then. For me this reflects that we are not meant to know about everything we see in this film as it does not punish us for not knowing. Besides as you watch you start to learn more about this time and the artist anyways.

One of the most surprise things I enjoyed about this film is actually Owen Wilson for his acting. For the role of Gil I think that Owen Wilson was the perfect cast, as they needed a charming, classic romantic almost cliché American writer and he is great at this role.

Favourite Quote

Ernest Hemingway: If it's bad, I'll hate it. If it's good, then I'll be envious and hate it even more. You don't want the opinion of another writer.

Rating 4/5 stars

Contagion

2011-11-04T16:54:00.003+00:00

The basics

Contagion is an American film that came out in 2011. It was directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by Scott Z. Burns and came with a star studded cast including Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and more. This film is about outbreaks, fear, people’s lives, journalism and people just not washing their hands.

What is this film about?

The film starts on day two of the outbreak as we see Beth Emhoff, a business woman on a layover at Chicago airport as she has just came from Hong Kong and going to Minnesota. She seems to have flu like symptoms as she talks to her Chicago lover on her Phone as she waits for her flight. Next we get a slightly patronising montage scene with good long close ups of ill people all across the world touching things just so we know as an audience member that ill people still touch things and this is how a disease maybe spread.

After this we go to Minnesota and we see the disease spread as Beth’s son (Clark) gets pull out of school for being a bit ill like his mum. Then the family takes a turn for the worst as Beth start to have seizure and when she gets to the hospital she unfortunately dies, even though you would not be able to tell this by her husband’s (Mitch) reaction. It seems more like he just got told his car had been clamped not that his wife died. After this Mitch’s step son (Clark) dies and yet again Mitch’s reaction seems off, as he is a bit angry, but more like he just dropped his laptop, not that his step son just died. From here the infection spreads.

My views on it

Well at the start, besides some bad acting and being a bit patronising it had a lot of promise. The almost documentary style of filming was interesting and engaging at first as we follow people lives and how the disease spread. Also with the main protagonist (Beth) at the start of the film dying as well as her son it showed that this film was willing to be edgy and taboo. Sadly after this the film stops being good.

Due to the style of which the film was made (editing, cinamtography, ect), it started to grate on me after a while, it seemed like it did not know what it wanted to be. Part of it wanted to be a normal film and the other half wanted to be a documentary and this gets really annoying as the film drags on. As they tried to integrate these styles it did not seem to work. An example of this is when they are looking through some CCTV footage at a casino, they portray that they can see only what the cameras see, but the footage we see is a stylized version; as we see it like we are there in the casino and not the cameras on the celling. They should have just shown us the CCTV footage as it would have been and not make a stylized version of it for us; as that breaks the reality that the documentary style try’s to create.

After the beginning, the level of interest that this film sets up starts to decreases very quickly. This is because nothing interesting really happens and nothing is made to be dramatic. The pace of the film becomes very slow and as nothing is made to look really dramatic and it becomes monotone, just riding along on the same level of just ‘kind of interesting’. And that is what the film just become, just kind of interesting. Because it sticks to this one level for the rest of the film its gets really dull and it drags out. The film is only 1 hour and 46 minutes but it felt about 2 hours and a half. Even my friend John said after the film ‘that film was long, over 2 hours’.

As I am getting over my limit in the review I am just going to list a few over issues that I did not like, quickly for you.

*The film jumped from character to character all the time so you could not make a connection with them really.

*Acting was bad

*The disease itself was dull

*No twist

*The Ending was insulting and not needed

Favourite Quote

Alan Krumwiede: It's a bad day to be a rhesus monkey.

Rating 1.5/5 stars

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

2011-10-27T16:12:00.001+01:00

The Basics

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is an American film which came out in 2004. It was directed by Adam McKay and written by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay. It also stars Will Ferrell in the lead role as Ron Burgundy himself. This film is a comedy which is about the local news, a male dominated world, street gangs, feminism, quotes and good looking hair.

What is this film about?

In the 70’s there is one local news team in San Diego that is miles above the rest and this is the KVWN-TV Channel 4 Evening News team and there lead anchor is none other than Ron Burgundy. After being given the status of highest-rated news program in San Diego again, they go back to the same party they do every year to celebrate. This time there is something different. There Ron meets a beautiful, blonde woman who has no idea who he is and does not fall for his charm. The next day we find out that the woman at the party is Veronica Corningstone, the new ambitious newswoman at the station.

Will her ambition change this male dominated world and as the men see her as fair game, will any of them woo her?

My views on it

Every time I use to think about this film I was able to pull out all the best quotes from it and look back on it with happy memories. If you have watched this film then I bet you have quoted it in your everyday life; from saying to a girl ‘I want to be on you’, when you wanted to descried your feeling towards lighting features ‘I love lamp’ or just when you want to talk about figures ’60 % of the time, it works every time ‘.

When I watched this film again recently I am a little sad to say that it didn’t reach up to the expectations that I had of it in my memory. Yes all the funny quotes where there and I did giggle at them but that was about it. In my recent viewing of this film I was trying to look for something deeper than just the jokes but there isn’t anything really. Yea you can say that there is the theme of the "second-wave" of the Women's Movement that happened between the 1960’s to the 1990’s in this film with Veronica trying to become a success in this man’s world. But in this film it seems like this theme is there more so they can make sexist comments then have a strong insight or opinion on this political movement .so when you look past the clever quotes and funny situations there isn’t much to this film, but is it enough? Mmmmmm……. Yea. I think so. This film isn’t going to leave you thinking or change your view on anything but as a comedy it fulfils its number one objective, it makes you laugh. The comedy in this film is great and after the film you will still be laughing at the quotes that are rolling around your head and you will be singing afternoon delight as well.

As for the characters they are a reflection of the film itself, there isn’t much to them but they are well acted and funny. The film did have a great comedy cast with Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd and more and this did add a lot to the film.

So if you want to see some great comedy performed by a good cast and that’s about it then this is the film for you but if you wanted to watch something with any kind of depth then best look somewhere else.

Favourite Quote

Ron Burgundy: Oh Audrey - I look like hell! I got bags under my eyes. What's that? Well if you were a man, I'd punch you. Punch you right in the mouth. That's bush. Bush league. YOU HEAR ME? AUDREY! LOOK AT ME! I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Alright?

Rating 3/5

Watership Down

2011-08-14T00:05:00.000+01:00

The basics

Watership Down is a British film which was made in 1978. It was first a novel by Richard Adams and was published in 1972. It was directed by Martin Rosen and it is about tyranny, freedom, bravery, death and violence.

What is this film about?

At the beginning we get to meet two rabbits, Hazel and Fiver. Fiver starts to have visions of a soon coming doom to their warren and they go to tell their chief. The chief barely pays attention to what they have to say and dismisses their advice to move all the rabbits to somewhere else. Because of this Hazel and Fiver and a few more rabbits run away together to find a new home.

My views on it

Do you remember when you were about seven and you sat down to watch a cartoon film about rabbits (rated U), then after the film you cried and then you had nightmares for about two weeks? If you do it was this film, Watership Down.

Coming across this film again (now in my twenties) I was interested to see my adult view on one of the most horrifying films in any kids childhood. In three simple words ……….. I loved it. Now I am able to appreciate this film on so many levels but I can still see why this film would be terrifying to a young audience. In most cartoons there is this feeling of hyperreality, for example in Roadrunner you can watch Wile E. Coyote blow himself up or fall of a cliff numerous amounts of times and still laugh because it funny and you know he will be fine in the next clip. Watership Down does not really have this feeling of hyperreality, it all feels very realistic and when two of its main themes are death and violence it’s not hard to see why this film could be scary for a child. As an adult the sense of reality in this film is great, knowing that the consequences for the characters are real it makes you care for them more and it makes it more dramatic when it happens. Also because the theme of death is about as subtle as a brick to the face, it gives most of the film a wonderfully haunting feel as you watch.

Also there is underlying meanings that you can pick up. One that most people seem to talk about is its view on totalitarian regime, mainly looking at Nazism (looking at the Efrafa warren and General Woundwort). This meaning wasn’t put in by the writer ‘Well, I don't think there's any pro or anti-society in Watership Down, it's simply a tale. […] It's only a made-up story, it's in no sense an allegory or parable or any kind of political myth.’ (Adams. R, 2008). He just wanted to write a story about bunnies, with knowing that it just makes me like it more. But art is up for interpretation and if you wish to read into the political themes then go for it.

The animation in this film itself is another thing I really enjoyed about it. It is a bit too old to have had CGI and it didn’t have the budget of Disney but what they have done I think is great. The artwork in this film seems hand draw and painted and you can tell a lot of effort went into it. It is almost like watching a painting and there is something charming about that.

I would really recommend this film, especially to the people who seen it when they were young so they can watch it again and this time enjoy it. Just don’t show it to your kids.

Favourite Quote

Narrator: All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and when they catch you, they will kill you... but first they must catch you.

Rating 4/5

300

2011-07-18T13:34:00.001+01:00

The basics

300 is an American film that was made in 2006. 300 was originally a five issue series of comic books which was written in 1998 by Frank miller. The film was directed by Zack Snyder and is about war, glory, honour, betrayal and military tactics.

What is this film about?

In 480 BC the Persians have raised the biggest army the world has ever seen and they are on their way to take over Greece. In rejecting submission the King of Sparta Leonidas visits the Ephors (priests) to obtain their favour before sending the Spartan army in battle. After Ephors consults the oracle he claims that Sparta’s army should not go to war as it would interrupt the sacred Carneian festival. Because of this Leonidas goes for a loop hole and he claims that he is not going to war he is just going for a walk up to the hot gates (where the Persians are) with 300 bodyguards at this side. Bring on the legendary battle of Thermopylae.

My views on it

I remember being sat in the cinema watching this film and I was thinking ‘these battle scenes are awesome’. Now thats was a few good years ago and since then I have gone through college and I have gone through university. I have become more intelligent, my knowledge on cinema has grown dramatically, my views on films has changed a lot and when I watch this film recently I was thinking ‘these battle scenes are awesome’. In the last few years I have changed a lot but my opinion on the fights in this film have not, it’s just the rest of the film I don’t like.

Back when I first watched this film I didn’t care for the Spartan Queen’s side of the story. You know, the side of the story that has her in, with the traitor and the council and all that stuff. All I care about was the action. Nowadays my view on the action is the same but now instead of just not caring about the queen’s side of the story, I am annoyed by it. Because the Queen’s story in this film is nowhere near as visually pleasing as the Kings story, also it is not on the same level of intensity, excitement or interest as the King’s story, it flops. Due to this it make the film feel very unbalanced and this is what really annoys me. It almost feels like the queens story in this film was only there to fill up time and I would say after watching this film once if you wanted to watch it again you could get the same level of entertainment from it by just watching the Kings side of the story and fast-forwarding through the Queen’s side and save yourself a few minutes.

Also before I sat down to write this review I did some research on the film and its context (like I do with all my blogs). Within minutes I had found out more about this battle then I did from the film and I found myself reading up on this battle for a long time and then I started to wonder ‘why isn’t this in the film?’. I know that this film came from a series of comic books so that they could not fit it all in to 117 minutes, but I would have loved to have learnt more about the history of this war in this film. This is something that this film lacks and instead of getting this we get the boring Queen story line that no one will ever remember this film for.

All in all I would recommend this film. This film has some of the best use of green screen I have ever seen so far, the battle are amazing, you will not even remember the Queen’s side of the story after you have watched it and you will be shouting ‘this is Sparta!’ in no time.

Favourite Quote

King Leonidas: This is Sparta!

Rating 3/5 (or you could say 300 out of 500. Woo for bad puns)

Akira

2011-07-12T22:46:00.001+01:00

The basics

Akira is a Japanese Anime which came out in 1988. The manga was written by Katsuhiro Ohtomo and he also went on to write the screen play with Izô Hashimoto and direct it as well. This film is, well……… about a lot of things really, too many to write down.

What is this film about?

In 1988 an unexplained explosion happens and vaporizes Tokyo and world war 3 kicks off and then we jump forward 31 years to 2019. Now in Neo-Tokyo we meet Kaneda and Tetsuo, two teenagers in a motorcycle gang (Kaneda is the leader) off for a night of fighting a rival gang called the clowns. In this Tetsuo gets badly hurt crashing his bike so as not to hit a small blue child that looks old and when the army stops them they take Tetsuo with them for the top secret Akira project and that’s just the start of the film.

My views on it

Before the time where Animes were about children that could summon creatures for battle’s or just for fun (Pokémon, Digimon, Yo-gi-oh, Beyblade, Cardcaptor Sakura etc.). Or teenagers feeling uncomfortable near each other and it being almost pornography (Ecchi anima like Love Hina and B Gata H Kei AKA B-Cup Slut), and before Studio Ghibli could really make a name for themselves there was Akira.

Back in 1982 the original manga for Akira was only meant to be 200 pages long but due to popular demand in the end Akira went to more than 2000 pages and was a 6 issue epic manga. It wasn’t too long before this came out on the big screen and became a ground-breaking Anime and a cult classic. Now I could go and talk about interesting facts about this film, or how awesome it is, or go in depth in to the story or any of the themes that this film has or what effect it had on anime itself or a number of things which makes this film a classic and not just in Anime but in cinema. I could do any of these things but that’s already been done so many times so I going to tell you some of the things I didn’t like about Akira.

Due to the fact that Akira was such a big manga it was impossible fit all the details from the manga in to the film. Now you can say this with any film that has come from a book but some do it better than others. In Akira because they had to try and fit in all the story line in to a two hour film, I feel that the characterization was let down a lot. Most of the characters had no back story to them and they seemed very two-dimensional, the only characters we mainly got to know were Kaneda and Tetsuo and that wasn’t really much. Also the relationships between characters was thin, yet again the only one we go to know a bit was Kaneda and Tetsuo’s relationship. Due to this I didn’t care for a lot of the characters, for example because the film only scratched the surface of Tetsuo and Kaori’s (his girlfriend) relationship, when she died I couldn’t of cared less.

Another thing I didn’t like was when Kaneda and Tetsuo where having one of their fights later on in the film I always was thinking ‘Tetsuo can stop tanks, take out an army and pretty much total Neo-Tokyo but a teenager with a laser gun can give him a hard time, mmmmmm that’s not right’. I know that Kaneda is a tough character and that it is probably their friendship that holds Tetsuo back but still in the context of Tetsuo’s power, state of mind and the fact he is losing control of himself you would think that Kaneda would not be a threat on any level to Tetsuo.

Also if someone was to ask me ‘would you recommend this film?’ I would say ‘no’. Hear me out for this now, beside what I have said I do really like this film and it is a classic but the people who would love this film have already seen it and the people who wouldn’t, haven’t. This isn’t the kinda film that people randomly pick up at blockbuster. The people who would watch it are film buffs and anime freaks and they have seen it all ready and this is why it called a cult classic.

Favourite Quote

Kaneda: He's not your friend, he's ours! If somebody's gonna kill him, it should be us!

Rating 4/5

La Horde

2011-07-04T00:00:00.000+01:00

The basics

La Horde is a French zombie film that came out in 2009. This one was their first feature film that Yannick Dahan and Benjamin Rocher had directed and had written as well, also including two other writers Arnaud Bordas and Stéphane Moïssakis. This film is about Revenge, being badass, zombies and working together against a common enemy.

What is this film about?

At the start there is a funeral for a dead cop who was killed by a gangster, from this a group of cops set out on a revenge mission which leads them to a very run down tower of flats. They make their way to the top floor but end up being captured by the gangsters. Soon enough the dead begin to rise and the cops and the gangsters have to work together to try and get out of the tower alive.

My views on it

When I come across French cinema, I don’t know why but my mind always starts to think about films such as À bout de soufflé (Breathless) and Jules et Jim (Jules and Jim). You know the kind, French new wave cinema from the 60’s that’s black and white, has jump cut editing, filmed by a hand-held camera, are really pretentious and are only watched by film students or critics. With this in mind I must say La Horde is a bit different than them (some sarcasm for you there).

As I watched this it seemed like the story line was only there so they could class this as a film and not just as a bunch of awesome zombie fight scene’s throw in together one after the other. I could just picture the writers creating the story line like this ………….

(Four writers sitting around a table drinking coffee)

Writer 1: ok we all know how all the fight scenes are going down right?

All Writers: yes.

Writer 1: and we all agree that it’s going to be set in a tower of flats?

All Writers: yes.

Writer 1: soo…….. How do we get a lot of badass people to the top of a tower of flats?

Writer 2: At the top of the flats can be a gangster hide out, full of gangsters.

Writer 1: awesome that’s going in. And?

Writer 3: cops could come to get them.

Writer 1: There not badass enough.

(Writer 4 drinks some of his coffee)

Writer 2: Badass cops on a revenge mission.

Writer 1: Great, just how do we justify zombies?

Writer 3: Random, unexplained judgement day thing happens and zombies just turn up.

Writer 1: Mmmmm... I don’t like it. (Pause) I love it. Let’s start filming.

Writer 4: Can we throw in a crazy old guy with an axe?

Writer 1: Yes, why not. Let’s do this thing.

End scene

If you haven’t guessed yet the story isn’t the reason why you would watch this film. It is riddled with plot holes and it just there as a formality. The reason why you should watch this film is it gives you what you want to see, Gangsters working with badass cops VS a zombie horde. When I first watched this I didn’t care that the story only took five minutes to write, or that before the cops went in to the gangster’s room there was no blood anywhere and when they left there was blood on every wall in the whole building (which is strange as there was only a hand full of zombie on the top floors). There is many things wrong with this film but when you get to see a gangster blow a zombies head off with a shotgun or a female cop beat a zombie to the ground with her bare hands then drop a fridge on it, all you can think is ‘how awesome was that !’.

At the end of the day this isn’t a masterpiece of French cinema like À bout de soufflé or Jules et Jim, and it’s not going to be talked about in 50 years’ time like they are, but I would say if you’re a zombie fan, give this a watch It will not disappoint.

Some words of advice as well if you are a new comer to the world of foreign cinema or have never seen a foreign film before, this would be a good starter film. It’s easy to follow, there’s not much dialogue and there’s loads of action.

Favourite Quote

Jimenez: Tonight we came for a blood bath

Rating 2/5 (but if you are a zombie fan like me 4/5)

The Hangover Part II

2011-06-25T19:03:00.000+01:00

The basics

The Hangover part II, which came out in 2011, is the sequel of the American comedy The Hangover which came in 2009. In this film the wolf pack is back and set for another night out that they will never forget and a night that they will remember nothing of.

The film brings back all the favourite cast from the first one (including a cameo from Mike Tyson) and is directed by the same director Todd Phillips. Like the first one this film is a comedy about a bachelor party, friendship, investigation, hangovers and having to deal with Alan (aka Zach Galifianakis or more commonly known as ‘that guy from The Hangover’)

What is this film about?

Well if you haven’t guessed already this film is basically the same as the first one but with a few minor changes. The film starts off with a phone conversation with Phil claiming ‘It happened again’ (because it has) then it shoots back to the beginning to show us story leading up to the phone call. This time around it is Stu who is getting married (like I said minor change) and he is planning to do his nuptials in Thailand.

Due to what has happen in the past Stu’s bachelor party is ……………………….. A brunch at a IHOP before they leave America. Once in Thailand, a few days before the wedding, Stu gets convinced to have just one sealed bottle of beer on the beach around a camp fire with his friends and his soon to be wife’s little brother Teddy. They enjoy their one sealed beer and have a few marshmallows to roast over the camp fire.

Next thing we know they wake up in a dirty little room, Phil is hung-over, Alan has a shaven head, Stu has a Tyson like face tattoo, there is a monkey wearing people clothes, Doug is safely back at the hotel which is good. But where is Teddy? This leads to the adventure of the wolf pack, retracing their steps around Bangkok trying to find Teddy as they have no clue of what they did that night.

My views on it

The big question is not whether I liked this film, it is more did I like the first one and the answer is mmmmmmm yes, yes I did. This film has the same story line, cast and director as the first one but what did we really expect of this film. The film is called The Hangover Part II, how much variation from the original story line could they do. Most people do seem to put down this film a lot for being the same as the first one and I do a bit because it does seem a bit lazy but this is not what this film is about. This film is a laugh out loud comedy which you are meant to sit back just enjoy for its stupidity and its crude sense of humour. If you looking for a film that’s a thinker, is original and intelligent then this is not for you as this film was never trying to be nothing more than just a good laugh, which it is.

All in all I would say that this film is not better than the first one but, it is not off it by far. In this film the humour dose seem to be cruder then the first one especially when it comes to the bit about the lady boy’s (its set in Bangkok you knew this was going to happen). This is one of the reasons why I prefer the first one as the first one is just as funny if not funnier and it doesn’t go that crude.

So I can say I enjoyed this film almost as much I enjoyed the first one and if the rumours are right I will be enjoying The Hangover Part III in 2014.

Favourite Quote

Stu [Part of the lyrics to" Alan town"]: I got fucked in the ass... / By a girl with a dick.

Rating 3/5

DR. Horrible’s Sing Along-Blog

2011-06-06T15:56:00.004+01:00

The basics

DR. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog is an American short film (or TV mini-series) which was created in 2008. During the writer strike in 2007, Joss Whedon set out to direct and write this 3 part musical which he co-writ with his brothers Zack and Jed and Jed’s Fiancé Maurissa Tancharoen. At first DR. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog was only meant to be shown on the internet but from there on it has been shown in a few public places like Comic-Con in Sian Diego and is available on DVD. This film is a comedy musical about super-villains and super-heroes, love, career ambition, revenge and the balance DR. Horrible has to find between them.

What is this film about?

The film starts off with our unlikely hero (the villain) DR. Horrible (Neil Patrick Harris) doing his own video blog where he is just replying to the emails that he has received. Soon on in the film we find out, through the medium of song DR Horrible’s two goals in life. One is to be let in to the prestigious Evil League of Evil which is led by the legendary thoroughbred of sin, Bad Horse and the second is to pick up the courage to talk to the cute girl in the Laundromat who he has a crush on.

In this we get to see DR. Horrible struggle to balance both of these dreams at the same time. As he get repeatedly beaten up by his nemesis Captain Hammer (who is a cheesy super-hero and a jerk) and during one of this heist to get so Wonderflonium for his Freeze-Ray he accidently introduces his dream girl, Penny to Captain Hammer and they start dating as well. Will it ever work out for our loveable DR. Horrible?

My views on it

For a film, well TV mini-series if you want to be pedantic that is only 42 minutes long, written during the writers’ strike and was only meant to be shown on the internet its very good and lovable. This is a great little rom-com musical that will just make you smile all the way through it. Now I am not saying this film is fantastic, it does have its flaws but you have to take it for what it is and it was released as nothing more than just an internet video, not a blockbuster film, an internet video.

The main surprise about this film is that the songs and the singing in it are actually good. You will find yourself as the title suggests singing along to the songs as the story unfolds and singing them still after it has finished. Also who knew that Neil Patrick Harris could sing?

This film is defiantly heading to become a cult classic which will be enjoyed for many years, and may I suggest makes a great film for when you have got a hangover.

Favourite Quote

Captain Hammer:
It may not feel too classy
Begging just to eat
But you know who does that?
Lassie. And she always gets a treat

Rating 4/5 stars

Human Centipede (first sequences)

2011-05-30T20:46:00.002+01:00

The Basics

Human Centipede (first sequences) is a Netherlands film which was made in 2009. Tom Six is the mind that is behind this film as he directed, produced and writer. So all in all he gets all the blame for this film. This film is about a mad scientist, horror, concepts, god complex and why Americans should never travel across Europe, didn’t they learn anything from Hostel and Hostel: Part II.

What is this film about?

Well the film starts off like most new wave American B movie where instead of the young Americans being lost on a dark road in American or at a very dodgy looking camp site there on their holiday traveling across Europe. Because as we all know there isn’t any killers left in America so their teenagers have to come to Europe to be killed.

We meet our two travels, Jenny and Lindsay, just two girls having a good time in Germany who plan to go out to a club one night. So they get ready, get in their rental car and drive off to the club and if you’re like me you already start to question ‘why are they taking a car if they’re going to get drunk in a club?’. I like to think one of them was going to be the designated driver. As they drive, their car gets a flat tire in the middle of some dark woods in the middle of nowhere. Now i have never been to Germany but if I was them and I think most people would do the same, if I was going to a club I don’t think I would take the road that goes through the woods as club are mainly in places with other buildings like city’s. As the girls run around the woods looking for help they come across a house where they are let in by an older man who seems a bit strange. I don’t think I need to say but those two girls end up being drugged and tired up in the basement /laboratory. After this the old man called Dr Heiter goes out and gets another victim to match the two girl’s flesh type and the rest of the film you can gather from the title really.

My views on it

I first came to hear of this film by word and mouth but not much and then I came across South Park’s parody of this film called humanentipad. From watching this I had to see the film. Form the start I accepted that it was going to be a low budget film that was based completely around one concept and that people only watch it for novelty reasons. So I am trying to say I didn’t have high exceptions for it. And even with all this I still thought that this was a rubbish film.

As you sit and watch this film you will notices plot hole after plot hole like why doesn’t the doctor who can speak German and English put one of the English specking girls at the front and not the Japanese guy? How does the Human Centipede get up and down the stairs? And the film is very medically inaccurate.

But the main problem I have with this film is that the concept of the human centipede is very poorly done. You wait about 50 minutes to see what you hope will be gross, messed up surgery that’s complex and in a very dark way is genius and this wired freaky abomination that is not three people but a being in itself. But no its just 3 people in a line, stitch together by mouth to ass which is just dull and as we get to see the human centipede for the next 40 minute the idea of it just becomes mundane . So the only real hope this film had was to be a gross and to have shock value and it doesn’t even have that.

Favourite Quote

Jenny: [speaking on a hotel phone] Hi. Yes, um, I was wondering if I could get driving directions to a nightclub called Bunker. Yes, Bunker. How exactly would I get there ?

Rating 1/5 stars

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

2011-04-04T01:08:00.003+01:00

The basics

‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day’ is the sequel to the ‘The Terminator’ and is an American film made in 1991. It was directed by James Cameron and Written by James Cameron and William Wisher Jr. this film is about humanity, the fear of future, technology, action, chase scenes, guns and family. It also has good bit of humour in there as well.

What is this film about?

At the beginning of this film we get to see what happens on judgment day and what the world turns into as the wars wages on between humanity and the machines .The first line in this film is narrated by Sarah Connor over this grim outlook of the future. This line does the job for me in this part and because I don’t think I could say it any better than Sarah Connor I will let her fill in this part for me. Take it away Sarah……

Sarah Connor: [narrating] 3 billion human lives ended on August 29th, 1997. The survivors of the nuclear fire called the war Judgment Day. They lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines. The computer which controlled the machines, Skynet, sent two Terminators back through time. Their mission: to destroy the leader of the human resistance, John Connor, my son. The first Terminator was programmed to strike at me in the year 1984, before John was born. It failed. The second was set to strike at John himself when he was still a child. As before, the resistance was able to send a lone warrior, a protector for John. It was just a question of which one of them would reach him first.

My views on it

After I watch this film I tried to think why I love it so much. Is it for the action? No. don’t get me wrong the action scenes in this film are epic and there is a lot of them which is good but you can get the same amount of action in ‘xXx 2: The Next Level’ (no as good action as ‘Terminator 2’ I may add) and does this make that a good film? Not at all.

The thing I love about this film has to be the humour behind it. The humour comes from the relationship that the Terminator (aka T-800/Arnold Schwarzenegger) has with John Connor. In this the Terminator has to look after john and at the same time do whatever he says. As the story goes on John try to teach the Terminator humanity and how to act normal but this is coming from a young teenager whose life is pretty messed up. For example early on in the film one of John’s instructions to the Terminator is to not kill. So when they come across a guard that hasn’t done anything wrong besides stopping getting through a gate, instead of killing this innocent man he chooses to shot him in both of his legs. He then turns to John and says ‘He'll live’ as if he done the right thing. Another example is later on in the film John try’s to teach him how to talk normally and in this case by using bad early 90’s slang.

All in all this an awesome film and I can’t think of a better action film that came out of the 90’s.

Favourite Quote

The Terminator: Chill out, dickwad.

Rating 5/5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2011-03-29T13:05:00.001+01:00

The basics

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a bestselling book by Swedish author Stieg Larsson. He unfortunately died in 2004 before this book and the rest in this series (The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest) were published in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The film, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was made in 2009 and is a Crime/noir about investigation, death, rape, hacking and conspiracies.

What is this film about?

The film starts with a court case against one of the main characters Mikael Blomkvist, a middle aged journalist, who’s been writing an article involving damaging allegations against a billionaire. Mikael lost the case and he was given a prison sentence for 3 months which starts in 6 months. Also we get to meet private investigator Lisbeth Salander (the girl that has the dragon tattoo and is our other main character). She is a skinny, gothic, 20 odd year old woman who, from first sight, you can tell she has a very colourful history. She has been set the task to investigate Mikael and she does this by hacking in to his documents and in her personal opinion he is innocent and this triggers a personal interest in him.

In the 6 months of freedom that Mikael has he gets hired by ageing business man to try and solve the mystery of his missing niece that happened over 40 years ago. He was chosen for this due to his skills as a reporter and the fact that this girl was his babysitter for a time as well. As this goes on Lisbeth is following his progress through his documents whilst also taking care of her own problems with her new forceful guardian and his grip on her finances. As Mikael gets stuck on a clue he receives a very easy to trace email that solves this piece of the puzzle for him. I wonder who that could have been from?

My views on it

This film is a new age noir that will keep you guessing at every turn. The structure, story and the characters are fantastically well written in a film that seems to involve every dark theme you can think of.

One of my favourite things about this film is that it really explores and takes to a new level the stereotypical character of the femme-fatal. Femme-fatal is a character mostly found in class noir films; a woman who is strong, dark, and sexy and manipulates men in to doing what she wants. Lisbeth is the new, grown up, bad ass version of this character that doesn’t rely on her charm or men’s stupidity to get her what she wants. She gets by with her intelligence, strength and her messed up history that somehow allows her to be darker and less caring.

The only problem with this film is that as the film goes on you start to get more interest in Lisbeth then the story line itself. Because of this the resolution to the main story line isn’t as fulfilling as it should be. The later parts seem to be more of an intro to the next film rather than a conclusion to this one.

Favourite Quote

Lisbeth Salander: [tattooing Bjurman] ‘I've never done this before. Hold still, or it'll get messy.’

Rating 4/5

Touching the Void

2011-03-24T21:16:00.000+00:00

The basics

Touching the Voiding is a bestselling book which came out in 1988 and was made in to a film in 2003. This film is a reconstructive documentary about mountain climbing, decision making, life and Death, giving it your all and doing it in a very British way.

What is this film about?

This is a true story about two British mounting climbers, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates who try to clime the west face of Siula Grande in the Peruvian Andes, a mountain that nobody has been able to finish. The film starts with a fourth wall breaking interview where we get to meet the real Joe and Simon and they describe their reasons for why they do what they do and that is 'cause it's fun.’ Fair enough. As the film goes on we get to see the actors start on this epic challenge as the real people give us a guided narration of what is going on through the interview.

The journey up the mountain is pretty uneventful but it over quickly and at this time in the film you are still just enjoying the awesome cinematography and mise en scene to really care about how they did something well . When they make it to the top and start their decline this is when the film really kicks in. As they start to make their way down the mountain, they face problem after problem. An eerie feeling begins to take over as these problems seem to be foreshadowing something. You feel as though at any moment, something is going to go horribly wrong and it does. One of the climbers (Joe Simpson) breaks his leg and no one can blame you if in this scene you get a bit squeamish, as this is a very cringe worthy moment. After this Simon has the plan to get him down by making him slide down the side of the mountain on a rope, what can possibly go wrong?

My views on it

From the beginning you can instantly see how well this film is made. The cinematography is beautiful as we are given the visual delights of close up shots of the equipment which pays so much attention to detail, also epic long shots of the fantastic scenery and everything in between.

The story in this film makes you constantly question, is this really a true story? As the story goes from bad to worse, and to even worse still. It seems hard to believe that this could happen, but this is part of the fun. You know a story is good when right at the beginning of the film you see an interview of the two climbers 20 years on from the event which the film keeps cutting back to every now and then, but there is still half of you that thinks that they are going to die. This film is intense, dramatic, unbelievable, funny and griping with every second and the best part is it’s all true.

Favourite Quote

‘I was thinking, "Bloody hell, I'm gonna die to Boney M".’

Rating – 4/5

Human Traffic

2011-03-21T02:39:00.003+00:00

The basics

Human Traffic is a British film that was made in 1999. It is about youth culture in 90’s Britain, clubs, drugs, friendship and living for the weekend.

What is this film about?

The film stars John Simm who you would most likely know from the fantastic T.V series ‘Life on Mars’ and Danny Dyer from loads of terrible films (but in this one he is not that bad). The film starts out with a “fourth wall” breaking introduction to the group of misfit characters that you will grow to love over the 95 minutes of this film. A group of friends that the only thing that they seem to have in common is that they are all as messed up as each other.

We get to see what there mundane 9 to 5 life is like which is nothing too great. Going from a shop assistant, university student, working a fast food joint to just being jobless. But this is not the point we care about and they don’t either, it’s the weekend that’s important.

It’s Friday night and the group are going in to town, following them from a pub, to club, to house party, to the come down, to Sunday lunch and finally back in the pub on Sunday daytime. During this film we get to follow what they think, flagging up there paranoia’s, theirs views on Britain, sex, drugs, friendship and for a small part Star wars too.

My views on it

If you have never taken drugs before, by the end of this film you will be jonesing for a fix. Even if this film dose show the darker side to drugs with Paranoia, not being able to get it up, come downs, losing a grip on reality and a with a hint to mental illness, somehow it still looks like a good idea. After this film is the only time that you will think to yourself ‘mmmm I wish I was back in the 90’s, had a crap job and was going out to a club on the weekend to drop some E, smoke a joint, and take a line.’

The film itself feels like a bit of a drug trip as well, as it keeps braking out of reality to show how robotic work can be or to teach us a lesson in spliffology. And it is this mixture of randomness with the plotline that makes you feel the highs and lows as if you have been dropping pills with the character in the film. And I’ve got to say that I love the classic Hollywood ending done in a British way (but I am not going to say what it is).

This is a clever and stylised comedy that is about how to blow off steam on the weekend after the boring, mechanical weekday. This shows the awesome side to drugs and the negatives they have as well.

Favourite Quote

Koop - ‘when the come down's out-way the good times, you know the party's over ‘

Rating 3/5 stars