We Are As Gods

Gentle Viewers

2007-04-27T09:37:00.000+01:00

Suffice to say, I haven't been around much, but I'm not lazy, I've just moved and forgot to tell you -ever so sorry- so if you've been looking for me, I am now here

Toodles

White Noise: The Light

2007-01-10T20:37:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
Not that it seemed like a very spoilery movie… I suppose there were a couple of instances.

Another trip to the cinema, in the lovely calm Welsh winter weather…. Anyway, once we had settled down in our lovely seats, progressively peeled off our wet jackets and watched the enjoyable trailer for Hot Fuzz –which looks awesome by the way- I was ready to see the first mainstream film of the year! Perhaps if I were a fan of horrorish films I would have liked White Noise: The Light more… I am trying to be more open-minded, I swear!

Abe Dale’s (Nathan Fillion) wife and son are murdered by Henry Caine (Craig Fairbrass) for an unexplained reason. Suffering from depression he tries to kill himself, but is brought back to life after having a near death experience (NDE) from this he is able to –in simple terms- see when a person is going to die soon, and being a nice guy, Abe goes and saves three people; but not without consequences.

Best part of the film –hands down, and no offence- was the statistic at the beginning, I do not remember the exact figures, but it was something along the lines of; every American will pass by 1.7 people that will later die that day! How crazy is that!!!

Ok, so for all intensive purposes, I went to see White Noise the Light, because Nathan Fillion is a good actor –plus really cool guy- the director Patrick Lussier, of whom I can’t say I was originally familiar with, was a good choice for the director- after editing so many prolific slasher/horror films, but it isn’t the director who I have a problem with in this film, it’s the screenwriter, Mr. Matt Venne; whose script was absolutely atrocious, I’m sorry but some lines just had me rolling my eyes, because some of the dialogue just felt particularly unnatural… not to mention the absurdness of what was going on.
One thing that did hold the film together however was the editing; which was very good, so much that I thought I should mention it.

On the side of this awful script the acting was almost as bad –the only saving graces of the whole film were Nathan Fillion and Katee Sackhoff (well until her eyes rolled into the back of her head, because I just cannot stand things like that, I couldn’t even stand it in Fahrenheit) out of the whole cast, these were the only two characters that I found slightly convincing; and saying that, Katee’s character was written as a right 40s-esque female character –sorry I must be watching too much Whedon-feministy programmes. Though regardless of the character she was written; she played the character rather well, and the same is said for Nathan; who, similar to Katee, also had some bad lines, but shone through in the role. Personally I cannot say the same for his wife and child who seemed to share no chemistry with him whatsoever –wasn’t believable to me anyhow- except the tiny exception with the home video, but even in that it didn’t seem wholly believable with the wife and child.
Now, Craig Fairbrass did have a nice role, and acted it out pretty well also, but I could not stand his accent; sticking a Londoner in with a bunch of Americans will always sound forced -but Craig’s accent just sounded terrible for some reason- especially when a certain guy did some work in Eastenders.
Otherwise the only thing I have to say about the acting was I was actually hoping for more action from Nathan, because he makes any stunts look like they are happening (watch the ‘Filmmakers Journey’ featurette on the Serenity DVD).

I wasn’t so hot for the special effects; and I felt them to all be a bit bleh, I suppose it was the cheesy way they looked that got me, it could have easily been done with a tunnel; and would have the possibility to look much cooler!

One other thing that I found amazing about the film was its concept; personally I hated the whole NDE angle, not to mention the awful Bible bits too. But what I loved was the idea of seeing that someone was going to die that day; what an amazing concept for a game!!! Sorry, if it’s just me, but I would love that in a game, it’d be sort of like Tru Calling and you’d be able to chose to save a person or not, but you’d need to find out how they are going to die etc… It’d be amazing!! The whole three days later thing has to go though! Definitely so…

Now, I’ll get started on the whole NDE angle; which I hated, everyone that talked about it didn’t sound convinced in the slightest way whatsoever; cept for the one line that Abe said about bringing all of the absolute crap of the film into one sentence, and it was a great line, because his friend’s reaction, which if you ask me was akin to mine.
I think the main problem with White Noise: The Light was it was trying to be a thriller, but also a horror film at the same time, for instance the mass legions of dead people were just inappropriate and unnecessary.

I seem to be saying the same wish of Silent Hill in regards to White Noise, but I felt that if the last 5-10 minutes could be cut off, it would have been a better film. I loved the fact that Abe was killed; because that doesn’t usually happen, but that doesn’t mean he should be helping beyond the grave, see in my version he was shot, he also shot Shelley, the vicious cycle ends. The End! Instead it came off as cheesy, I do not like cheese!

As irrelevant as it is, I liked that rather than call it White Noise 2, they called it White Noise: The Light… sort of like Thief Deadly Shadows, or something a bit more similar. Putting a 2 on the end of the film immediately warns me of it. If they called it Batman 2 it’d be shit… doesn’t count with Superman though…

But as far as horror films go, it’s a standard, with some good acting from a couple of the characters, and many jumps galore for those of a sensitive disposition, so I suppose some people would really get off on the film, I just couldn’t be swayed by its ideas and theories.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 5½ /10
Although it was attempting to be different, it could not escape the cheesy horror film that it was. I can easily recommend the film to fans of Nathan, because he is simply one of the few good things about it, that and the Captain Tightpants reference, which was cute.

2006 Review

2007-01-01T02:11:00.000Z

2006 Review

With the hubbub of university and such this year has been very busy, though strive I will to write up a review of the year, similar to last years’ recalling the highs and lows in the film scene (which includes television and video game, so maybe it is in fact a review of ‘Charlotte’s World’

High points of the year

After the fun I had last year in frequenting the cinema I must say I successfully took the tradition into the next year and I watched far more films in the cinema than I probably ever have in my life.. not to mention the over-gorging on television that I (investigated) in my opinion of Afterlife. Though the videogame front has become a little quiet of recent, no REAL amazing games have been released, so perhaps next year will be the year for some engaging intelligent games.

Now I can easily say that this year was not a very good year for films; full of sequels, prequels spin-offs and just utter crap, little was to be found –in my definition- that was any good.
Sure there were the massive releases of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 –big sarcastic whoop- but otherwise little else was pre-emptive. ‘Cept of course Superman Returns!!!! Which although came off a tad disappointing did indeed deliver superman-y goodness.
Granted that there were some real gems of ‘less mainstream’ films, Severance was a particular surprise success with some good-old british black comedy. Then of course there were a few (what I will guess 2005 films) good new films shown at the Cramphorn, one of the best being The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada with an great performance by Barry Pepper. Not to forget the delight that was Breakfast on Pluto –Neil Jordan’s films never cease to be interesting. Then of course there was the Proposition, Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, Howls Moving Castle (finally!!) and a few interesting films that I managed to see elsewhere; Hard Candy, Walk the Line, Lady in the Water, Munich, Right at your door and Stranger than Fiction. The MUCH anticipated Silent Hill film which was slightly disappointing, but had some good bits; hopefully the next one will be better. Then there was the nice adaptation of V for Vendetta and undoubtedly the best film of the year –in my opinion- The Prestige!
Other than the big films of next year – Sin City 2, Spiderman 3 and the Dark Knight (if it comes out next year)

Oops I gave away my film of the year… well, here the rest is then. Any comments, please post em!

The Prestige

Severance

Superman Returns

Three Burials of Melquiades

Breakfast on Pluto

V for Vendetta

Howls Moving Castle

The Proposition

Good Night, Good Luck

Hard Candy

This of course was based solely on films that I watched at the cinema, as always there were many films that I could not make it to see, the likes of Perfume, Children of Men, Pan’s Labyrinth and countless others.
So I apologise if you have seen these films, and thought them better than those in my top ten, please, do tell me about them.

Low points of the year

When there is some good in cinema, there is always the bad, and as usual its big studios trying to cash in on complete shit (sorry) Regardless to say I did enjoy quite a few films this year, but there will always be the plain awful! Now don’t get me wrong, I have never seen these films, nor do I wish to. I am basing it solely on how they look. Usually when I see a film I already know that there’s a chance that I should like it. If there is one thing I never do, it’s waste money, and I know how my mind works.. I can tell if I think a film will be crap, or if I will like it.
So here it is, for you to bicker and moan at me, my top ten… Oh-my-god-that-looks-like-shit of 2006

Stay Alive

Jackass no 2

Date Movie

Little Man

Scary Movie 4

Shes the Man

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift

When a Stranger Calls

Big Mommas House 3? Whatever!

Beerfest

Now unlike last year, I do actually have some say in the films I have put in this top-ten, it was with much enthusiasm that I placed Stay Alive in the No. 1 spot! I cannot stand films that deliberately try to be cool and cash in on video games –at least Christopher Gans was trying!

Television

I have been watching quite a lot of television series, with many getting me hooked.
So for all of those interested I recommend you these… though they aren’t anything too special, I did really like Afterlife though.

Torchwood
Afterlife
Vincent
Robin Hood
I’m with stupid

I also managed to watch quite a few good one-off two part-er sort of dramas, so if you are somehow able to get a hold of them, these ones were particularly good. Losing Gemma was pretty funny too, whereas Born Equal sort of left you feeling a little dead inside.

Born Equal
Losing Gemma
Bon Voyage
Longwood

I also took my spare time to going back and watching some good television shows that I own, well… I managed to get a hold of the complete Black Books finally! I couldn’t help watching Spaced, Buffy and Angel

Buffy
Angel
Black Books
Spaced
This life

I do not believe that there is much in the New Year in regards to television that I am really looking forward to; after all it is difficult to know exactly what is to be shown in the next year.
I suppose, I am looking forwards to the New series of Doctor Who, and of course getting to see series 3 of Lost when they decide to show it for terrestrial viewers.

Games

So perhaps there has not been as much movement in video games as there was last year in terms of releases… unless you live in America or Japan
But the release of the long awaited Nintendo Wii came with amazing fun, as well as a few good waves of 360 games. Not to mention, the cute and stylish DS Lite, as well as the inevitable pink range of consoles including the PSP, PS2 and DS Lite.
I will take the time to mention a few of the gaming highlights of the year.

The new Sam and Max episodic games seem to be pure nostalgia in the best of forms, playing Sam and Max brought back all those nice warm memories of an amazing period in video games.
This year also saw the amazing Shadow of the Colossus, a beautiful addition to the Broken Sword series, the spectacular Twilight Princess, (game of the year hands down) PSYCHONAUTS, (because I can still mention it) and Dead Rising –which was great fun, and had some great music-. The year was pretty good for the 360 actually, with the aforementioned title, not to mention Oblivion, Hitman Blood Money –cannot wait for the next instalment- Rainbow Six Vegas, Viva Piñata, Gears of War, Saints Row and countless other titles.

Similar to how I have with films, there are also a great number of games that I am anticipating. First of course the new game from Double Fine Productions is at the top of my list; and if it’s anything like Psychonauts… well, then I’m in love! (Especially if just as many promotional items get released on their store)
Not to mention games on the way such as Bioshock, Mass Effect and Burning Crusade to only name a few!

When you look back on a year, you always forget just how many people died, here are just a few of the people that we had to say goodbye to in 2006.

Peter Boyle
Joseph Barbara
Richard Fleischer
Steve Irwin
Jack Palance
Robert Altman
James Brown
Charlie Drake
Chris Penn

So, the old year is over, I hope that this new one brings much fun and excitement, especially from the few more conventions I will get to go to! (showmasters rule ^_^)
I’ll leave wishing you all a happy new year, and many great ones to come.

The Prestige

2006-12-09T11:18:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
Because with the Prestige you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it because you're not really looking. You don't really want to know the secret... You want to be fooled.

Unfortunately there is not an Odeon in sight around Newport; which leaves us with the City Cinema (delivering only the mainstream) and the Cineworld. Never being to a Cineworld in the past I must say that I was extremely surprised at the layout and style; being very, very different to the more traditional design of Odeon’s. Hell I used a toilet with Emma Thompson’s name on the door!

It was also strange to see adverts different to those always featured at the Odeon; not to mention two 360 adverts, one for Gears and the Cops and Robbers one. Though I must say Cineworld suck with trailers! (Which in my opinion are one of the main reasons for watching films at a cinema; more than two trailers should be obligatory)

Being a considerable fan of Christopher Nolan from Memento and his previous team-up with Bale (and Caine) in Batman Begins, I thought it would make sense to go and see The Prestige, primarily as Nolan is really one of the few directors making good distinctive films of recent, that and so far Bale has never ceased to astound me.

The story follows the rivalry of two magicians -Alfred Borden (Bale) and Robert Angier (Jackman)- and the effect obsession has on many different people, as the two attempt to better each other in the discovery of the ‘best’ trick.
Very obvious to the film, are its recurring themes, rivalry is inherent throughout, with the main characters Angier and Borden, as well as Tesla (Bowie) and Edison, this rivalry also feeds off the central theme of obsession, this theme is exemplified through the character Chung Ling Soo, who was so dedicated to magic that he need put up an act for his whole life; only so that it would remain believable (and if that isn’t a bit obsessive I don’t know what is) this strongly links to Borden. Angier’s obsession leads to his abandonment of his life, similar to Tesla’s life story, and although it may be argued the film has too many themes going, most of those present only add to the film’s story.

The film; with a well rounded cast, boasted a large amount of non-Americans –though strangely only on the male side- in the supporting cast; which I find very welcoming from Christopher Nolan’s films. With the likes of Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine, as well as Andy Serkis and David Bowie the film has nothing short of a most excellent cast, and although I am not that big a fan of the brunt of the actors, I am warming to Michael Caine, and Hugh Jackman’s character was interestingly self-destructive. The same can be said for Bale’s who once again took his character completely seriously as well as fully encompassing himself in the role. Borden was, to say the least very interesting towards the middle of the film; when you begin to understand why he is always so indifferent; stoic at one part, then utterly charming the next, Bale plays the part extraordinarily.
Just thought I would also mention David Bowie who gave a rather interesting performance as Nikola Tesla.

Although I am a little unsure of Bale’s accent (I don’t believe I’ve ever heard him do cockney before) the same can be said for Bowie and Serkis’ equally distinctive accents, but saying this, none were so distracting enough to remove overall focus from the film; so they were not bad, just a little strange to hear.
I suppose I should also mention Scarlett Johansson, who had a small role in the film, nothing amazing though.

I absolutely loved the setting of the film –though of course integral to the novel and overall story- but then most period films are very enjoyable to watch, because if they get the mise-en-scene and the dialogue correct, the film can be the most believable in the world, and for this you also get really involved with the characters, not to mention the story.

If there is one thing present in all of Nolan’s films it’s his trademark non-linear narrative, and The Prestige is in no way different to that of Memento or Insomnia (or I am guessing Following). This of course left me to get completely confused and almost disorientated with the film. Wherein the actual scheme of what was going on left me bewildered; viewing one of the characters reading a journal of the other character, who was in turn, reading the previous character’s journal (which I think also makes little sense how I have written it), what really got me was trying to differentiate between past and present… which isn’t very good. But my sister tells me she was fine following the film; so it was just me.
But a non-linear storyline can also be much fun; most of this is had when trying to unravel exactly what has happened, while watching the story unfold before your eyes, by showing us the end and taking us back to the beginning.

I felt that cleverly a lot of tension was built in the film following Borden in jail, as with such a film -where you are required to feel some form of sympathy for the characters- there is most definitely a large expectation that Borden will actually escape; after all he is a magician.
If there’s one thing the film is not short of, it’s good quotes, not to mention the last line –as quoted at the beginning of my review- which is nothing bar awe inducing, I also adored the repeated lines throughout the film. “Are you looking closely”, and my personal favourite “No one cares about the man in the box, the man who disappears”

Nolan’s loathing of special effects is a welcome opinion in my world of film, and The Prestige could have easily been full of special effects, thankfully those used were just Tesla’s lightning, and the double effect thing (to my belief). Basically everything present was required; there was no substituting special effects or action for story –yahoo!

When the film was over, I came out slightly confused, somehow I did not feel completely fulfilled, I suppose I felt that it was a tad anti-climatic, but the more I think about it; the film was not about revealing some big unexpected twist at the end, but allowing you to unravel the events, and comprehend what exactly has been going on.

The Prestige is a hard film to peg to a particular audience, similarly I cannot see everyone watching Memento, but the audience at our cinema was particularly varied, so it depends on the person I suppose. As long as you have an attention span, which does not crave action every five minutes, this should be the film for you, an engaging storyline and an amazing cast embodying fascinating characters; a good piece of cinema to rival a lot of the crap getting released at this time of year.

I could literally go on and on about the film, but I feel I’ve said enough

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7 ½ /10
Don’t get me wrong, The Prestige was a very strange breath of fresh air, but I couldn’t help the strange feeling about it once I left.

So now I simply await Nolan’s return in the Dark Knight!

A Name Written in Water (The Conclusion of afterlife)

2006-11-12T16:30:00.001Z

There will be spoilers herein, I mean come on! We are talking about possibly the final episode of afterlife ever!

Well the final episode came and went; and boy did it go with a (predictable but also) unexpected bang!
We all knew from finding out of Robert’s tumour in Lullaby that there was no way about it; he had to die, but strangely enough, no one really believed that it would actually happen.

I was particularly shocked to find that the beginning of the episode was exactly as to how I had imagined it in my head –which most certainly means too much drama- though I expect that with the specific subject matter it would have been impossible to deny the focus on Robert. Unfortunately that meant that the storyline of the night nurse was greatly underdeveloped; though granted, without the night nurse the episode would have probably been short of one fantastic scene with Lesley, as well as lacking the resolution that occurred close to the end.

As much as I hate Jude –sorry Anna, its not personal I swear!- she had a great deal of limelight in the episode, and her character seemed to have been healthily fleshed out compared to how she had been in the past. The same can be said for Barbara who –albeit like Jude acted extremely bitchy towards Alison- gave a great performance for the couple of minutes that she was on-screen.
It would be a crime to not mention Lesley’s heart-breaking performance, she was absolutely mesmerising throughout the whole episode! It’s difficult to mention Andrew Lincoln, who spent much of the duration lying down, but he did indeed give a heart-wrenching send off for his character, and as much as the episode left me feeling slightly numb, the acting makes it my second favourite episode, only to Mind the Bugs Bite –of course.

I am not entirely sure what to make of the final episode, as much as the series has had me completely enthralled, and feeling great sympathy towards the characters, I was unable to cry for them…
Which to me, makes absolutely no sense as I find myself unable to ‘get over’ the conclusion to the series, Lesley and Andrew’s acting was superb, the music amazing, and the script fantastic, but I couldn’t even shed a tear… perhaps I am broken.
Although I did not feel complete and utter –breakdown- sadness like some people… perhaps in situations where fans of the show cried, I was sitting there; my mouth agape… episode seven was really sad, but at the most I was just really shocked at all that was happening.

I must say it is a bit silly; looking on afterlife communities everyone appears to be denying Robert’s death, with the most plausible answer to the episode’s conclusion being that it was in fact a vision of Robert’s death, other possibilities including that Alison is also dead; which I must say I was under the belief that this may have been the case when I was watching it, but I prefer to be far more rational, Robert died! No way out of it.

I believe that it is safe to say I was no where near as distraught as some people; granted it bummed me out a bit and I was a little shocked that he did indeed die, but if there was one thing I was really horrified about, it was that we never got to hear what Robert had written on the manuscript for his book, I almost felt cheated when the credits rolled! Another part of the episode that I found particularly unsettling would have to be Alison’s rant at Robert, telling him that he must wake up so they can have more arguments; that just broke my heart… no tears though…

Regardless of the loss of crying on my part, I did find it a very sad finale of the series indeed. Robert was perhaps the one person to actually give a damn about Alison, and now with his departure she is pretty much alone, and if Mr Volk is going to leave it at that, then he is an awful, awful man!

I feel good that the series has come to an end, though I am not sure what to make of the prospect of a third series, I am just glad that I can now carry on leading my life normally; waiting for Saturdays to roll around was absolute torture, especially in anticipation for this particular episode.

This whole article/rant/entry whatever you wish to call it was pretty pointless, I just wanted to tell all you guys what I thought… Not that I have ever met anyone that watches the show let alone heard of it –though saying that I was in the British Heart Foundation charity shop in Newport and two old ladies were talking, and one of them was saying how they had watched afterlife the night before; which was cute ^_^

So, um… thank you everyone that made the show possible, it was one of the best supernatural-y programmes that I have ever seen on British Television, let alone ITV!

I am absolutely dying to watch it again; I should have taped it really, at any rate I wont get to see it again for a good couple of days, which is awful; because my television caused me to miss a couple of lines every now and again; especially when Robert had woken up; he was speaking so softly I couldn’t hear a thing. Regardless of that fact; I always seem to need to view afterlife a couple of times once I have seen it, its just that good!

afterlife

2006-11-11T19:20:00.000Z

Rarely do I get sucked into a television programme so much that I cannot wait for the next episode - but as I am sure my sister can tell you- with afterlife that was very much so the case. -to the point of annoyance with her I am sure.

A couple of years ago I would have scoffed at a show like afterlife –it’s one of those wannabe X-files type programmes that British broadcasters create to imitate the successes that America have revelled in. I faintly remember other attempts; Bugs, Sea of Souls, Spooks alongside countless others that I have not bothered to learn the names of.
But only up until recently have I really discovered the miracle that is television of the British variety! (I apologise for the numerous references to the X-Files)

The phrase British television for me would always conjure up the drivel that we get -the soap’s- Eastenders, Corination Street, Casualty, Emmerdale… the list just keeps going, but I believe that at the discovery of Doctor Who (or perhaps of allowing to open my mind a little more) something in me has changed. Through thoroughly reading the Radio Times I’ve watched amazing docu-dramas, discovered Jimmy McGovern, great one off pieces such as Longwood, drama series’ like Vincent, Torchwood, Robin Hood, I’m with Stupid (which I loved) and countless other amazing programmes.
This increase in viewing has also led me to discover tens of thousands of great British actors, writers and more. A few months ago, I did not really know the likes of Lesley Sharp, Andrew Lincoln, John Simm, Samantha Morten, Liam Cunningham, Mark Benton, Jason Hughes, Marc Warren, Paul Abbott and Jimmy McGovern to name a few; and it’s also peaked my interest in British cinema as well! Not to mention being able to stand Robert Carlyle (even if its only for his amazing performance in To Be a Somebody; I found a lot to love in Cracker)

So how did I begin watching such a show? Well actually before they started showing the second series on ITV they had begun to repeat the first series Sunday nights at 9pm. I was slightly interested in watching it from knowing of Lesley Sharp from the Second Coming; she’s one of those real British actors, the kind you would never really find from America.
Watching the first episode I was slightly hesitant; after all, the series is about a psychic medium who communicates with the dead. (Already my warning bells are going off to stay well away from the show) If there is one thing I can not really stand it is mediums, psychics all those kind of supernatural spiritual things; personally –no offence to mediums- they always feel so fake to me, and so I felt that this could only be more so magnified in a television series –similar to the awful show Most Haunted, I cannot stand things like that.
Once the show had finished my thoughts were very different from what I had expected. Sure it did seem a tad fake, but could I expect any less from a show about something I abhor. And then you have the Mulder/Scully angle with Robert and Alison, which also seemed to work rather well with Lesley and Andrew.
Of course subsequently ITV decided a repeat of afterlife did not pull in enough viewers, and opted to show Poirot instead, which I just as soon obliged to; though I was actually looking forward to seeing the rest of afterlife, and didn’t manage to until I rented the first series out.

The show pretty much lives off the relationship that Robert and Alison hold; without Robert’s rationalisations the show would seem far too out there for my tastes; there’s something about a person denying what is obviously going on around them that makes good entertainment… when Scully started to believe, the magic of the X-Files sort of dithered away.

Now, there is quite a lot of mixed opinion in regards to the overall acting quality afterlife gives. If it isn’t ‘Lesley doesn’t feel comfortable with the material’, it’s that ‘Andrew can not effectively embody Robert’.
Personally I felt that Lesley created a strange alluring person; with the most vital, dose of slightly crazy –which, may I add really picks up in the second season, episode 6 in particular- Alison is a great character, and if Lesley were not playing her, I am sure the series might have been crap.
In regards to Andrew I am unable to see any real problems with his performance... So I could go a miss with his overly emphatic hand gestures. But otherwise I do not understand what is wrong, sure he’s a little easy on the eyes, but I’m not very tolerable of a no-brained pretty faces –and I hope I stick to that too- after all if I wanted that, I could go and watch some WWE (oh sweet jesus those guys are awful!)
Alison and Robert were literally brought to life by Lesley and Andrew; they are believable characters, and really, can you ask for anything more?

The music and overall soundtrack for afterlife is fabulous; if its not the absolutely beautiful main theme, then it’s the ‘sadder’ theme; all strings and whatnot sounding absolutely beautiful, and if there is one thing that was done well to the highest extent in the whole series it was the music; composed by Edmund Butt.

So, ok I admit some of the programmes I have gotten into of recent are not amazing creations of unique genius; as entertaining as it was, Bon Voyage was simply a horror film, and as much as I keep watching Robin Hood I know that deep in my gut Maid Marian was more realistic…
But when a fairly good writer gets on board with a TV show, the actors merely compliment the process; and all the magic bursts from the scripts.
Good writers and convincing actors are what propel afterlife. With most episodes in both series’ written by creator Stephen Volk (something that very rarely happens in a television series and for that I commend him) you can usually tell when they are written by him; the dialogue is usually snappy, the tensions high, and a slightly spooky occurrence is taking place. The episodes written by others are in some senses weaker; but all close in on the same territory, though perhaps placing emphasis of the show in different areas.

Though in saying this, the change that afterlife has undergone through two series’ must be mentioned; whereas the first series was primarily based on the ghosts Alison must help to pass over (in particular to the running theme of Josh, Robert’s departed son) the second series was a lot more character central which personally I do not mind;( as long as a show has well written characters, I could watch them do anything. After all, nothing really frightens me, so a series just about a bunch of ghosts would turn me away, which is where afterlife makes a difference) granted some people do not like this particular aspect. But I never really watched the X-Files to see what new alien/monster is popping up; I watched it for the dynamic between Mulder and Scully.

I’m sure I’ve said this a thousand times over in my other rants/opinions of numerous media; if there is one thing I love, its humour, I’m never too good with overly serious, but neither can I do stupidly funny. I always prefer a bit of laughter to break the ice, and although afterlife gave more humour in perhaps uncomfortable situations, I loved it all the same. If the X-files had been deadly serious all the time it’d get boring, there would always be a snap of quick humour here and there, and afterlife does exactly that too.

One small comment as well is, if there is one thing that almost scares me every now and again in episodes of afterlife, its Alison’s clothes; granted I am not the most fashion-conscience person around, but some of what she wears is very… interesting to say the least, which granted is a good thing; it really shows her character!

As with a lot of television programmes I find numerous uncomfortable moments; segments in a show where you will sit there and think ‘oh god that is silly/embarrassing’ after all it happened in Doctor Who more than enough times, and the séance in the finale to the first series of afterlife did exactly that to me; but it didn’t stop me from enjoying it any less.
Afterlife as a show has received some good and bad press; I think it’s really you love it, or you hate it, all boils down to everybody’s taste.

Afterlife also did something that has not happened to me in bloody years; and that’s one episode in particular genuinely surprised me which as an awful person -I am always trying to figure out the narrative of a story- completely blew me away! I was focusing so much on the episode, but did not see it coming in the slightest way whatsoever! Which for me; makes the show that bit more amazing.

So now that’s over and done with; I’ll leave you with a bit of banter of my opinions of each episode, and I hope you enjoyed reading and that you will go out and watch afterlife, maybe tell me if you think I’m wrong on my opinions.

Series One
More than Meets the Eye – being a first episode; they never seem to be very good always introducing the characters and whatnot especially in dramas, though the story itself was good enough

Lower Than Bones – was a good insight to Alison and her actual abilities, though the conclusion was a little off; I probably would have preferred it with perhaps a different conclusion

Daniel One & Two - great episode! Taking Alison back to a psychiatric ward, some nice interactions, and a good conclusion

Misdirection - was nice in terms of an insight into characters, and the overall point of the episode was nice but a little silly; I actually felt the title misdirection would have suited the next episode far better. Though Mark Benton as a guest star was a definite plus!

Sleeping with the Dead - bit iffy in terms of Alison’s abilities, though the episode as itself was all-round decent.

7:59 Club - best episode in the season in terms of character development, we find out loads about Alison, and a bit more about Robert. As I’ve mentioned I did not really like the séance; it was nice to see Robert believe in Alison’s powers, but it didn’t make me believe them any more.

Series Two
Roadside Bouquets - amazing episode! Nuff said, though the time change between 7:59 and then was a little; ‘5 months later’ kinda thing (so cutting corners in a way), loved the episode though

The Ratman - another amazing episode, with a partially chilling ‘bad-guy’, and more delving into Alison’s past/character, though the resolution was a bit quick for my liking.

Lullaby - could have been something more; the side story with Robert was rather dominative, and I can’t say I felt much towards the couple with the child, but was first episode of the second series written by someone other than Volk, perhaps would have been more shocking to watch if I hadn’t of missed it when it was on TV; and watched it after seeing up to episode 6

Your Hand in Mine- again a bit of an iffy episode, though none-the-less an enjoyable episode, Liam Cunningham was a plus as well.

Mirrorball - a rather controversial episode it would seem from response on the net; full of some –close to- graphic sex, I must say it was also not my exact cup of tea. But it did have relevance; either way, an interesting episode, if you forget all the sex.

Mind the Bugs Don’t Bite; one of the best episodes ever! Not only does it make great use of flashbacks to tell us about Alison’s past –I really loved the tone of the flashbacks- as well as the events surrounding her mother, and the eventual passing of her. Hands down, amazing episode!

Things Forgotten - similarly to other episode’s that I felt a little detached with; it was not written by Volk, and the young boy’s story; if not a little predictable on my standards, was almost pushed to the background and seemed to come off as a little less important with a lot focus being put on Robert; for good reasons too, with a shocking ending; though it had to happen sooner or later. The inclusion of Claire Rushbrook as a stereotypically fake medium was great fun though!

A Name Written in Water - I wait in anticipation for it to be shown; the last in the current and perhaps whole of the series, and there are still 11 hours to go as I write this, but personally I cannot wait to see how Volk leaves us –especially after the ending of the first season.

Torchwood

2006-10-23T08:46:00.000+01:00

I thought that I would attempt to resume my blogging to coincide with the arrival of Torchwood -a spin-off of the recently revived Doctor Who- sort of like Russell T Davies’ Angel to his Buffy; that’s how it very much seemed to me anyway.

So, I thought I’d get a review in before the internet is swamped with them and here it is. I’ll say it now, I kept out as many spoilers as possible, and so you should not spoil your potential viewing experience if you read my opinions.

One quick bit I’ll get out of the way, relating to the many questions over the speculation of the show’s target audience; and many parents were asking over the internet if they should allow their children to watch it.
To clear things up, if I had children they would most definitely not be allowed to watch Torchwood; as I previously said, its like Angel. And if anyone is familiar with the two shows, you’ll know that Angel was the much darker, much more adult version of Buffy, and that is very much what Torchwood is, except with maybe a bit more sex, and a tad more blood when it is present, though I must make it known that these elements were not dominating the show.
I must say though, it is refreshing to see a science fiction programme that is adult in terms of sex, violence and language, not to mention a lot of the sexual overtones were not just heterosexual in nature; which is bound to turn some heads, but once again; it is refreshing.

With a show first starting out, I for one can never judge much on the first episode; especially when the creators have the arduous task of setting everything up and starting the ball rolling, which made a particular saving grace that the BBC chose to show two episodes rather than one.

The two stories were fairly straightforward… well I say that, and I became a little confused in the first episode, mainly due to its ‘twist’. Anyway, the first episode set off with our main character; much like Doctor Who’s Rose, Torchwood gives you Gwen Cooper as your emotional link to the show. The first episode basically informs the audience of who Torchwood are, what they do, as well as the main characters of the show, and it manages to do this effectively in about 20 minutes, -very efficient- while at the same time, setting up a series of mysterious murders; but these are put on the side for the main part of the episode. Long story short Torchwood gets an opening, and Gwen takes the job.

Episode two: Gwen’s first day on the job, so of course she messes up as quick as possible; setting a parasitic-gas-sex-alien thing free from a recently crashed meteorite. The episode focused on Gwen’s role in Torchwood as their link to humanity. (similar to in Angel how Cordelia always goes on about how Angel is so detached from the world, and need to get back into real life)
Now this episode in particular is where the show gets fairly adult, did I mention this parasite has pretty much sex on the brain, it successfully takes control of a young girl and pretty much goes and has sex with a bunch of people, killing them in the process (gave me the vibe of Lonely Hearts - coincidentally the second episode of Angel)

The first episode was basically an introductory episode, and the second episode was good -the whole alien wanting orgasmic energy was a little iffy- and if there is one thing the show did, was it had good actors that successfully carried the show; unlike some programmes that we get over here in England.
The first two episodes had rather interesting stories, most definitely showing that Torchwood is indeed much more adult than Doctor Who. (there were thankfully no farting aliens) On the topic of aliens, all those present looked rather good; special effects wise (I’m talking CGI and good old prosthetics here), especially the weevil; whose face was amazing!

With the dialogue in the show I must say I was a tad disappointed; expecting the amazing stuff I found in Doctor Who I came back a little empty handed, nothing was really bouncing out at me; but then I must also say that can be a good thing, (going off in a babble) waiting for Torchwood to start I switched on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen -on C4 at the time, and this is a film mind you- Mr Hyde had just been caught yada yada and he changed into Dr Jekyll and I just thought ‘Dr Jekyll at your service’ and right out he went and said it and literally blurted out “eurgh” and turned over. Sure it happens a lot, you can predict lines in films and television alike. But there’s something I find with a good writer and that is that you do not predict their lines, very much the case in Torchwood; writers like Russell almost create characters that are alive… not just hollow shells full of ‘writing clichés’ if I can call them that, so in actuality I really did like the dialogue in the show.

The music of the show was nice; fairly contained and its low mechanical tones kept in with the mood of the show particularly well, the same can be said for the intro; which is lovely and short. I must say though, that I am very bad with sound, although I have now been told in many of my lecturers pay close attention to sound, I always end up getting so caught up in anything I’m watching the sound becomes insignificant so, sorry Mr. composer.

The acting is always a big priority, not above the writing of course but either way, I must comment.
Torchwood is explicitly set in Cardiff and they aren’t making out its London, which is great fun because all the actors are actually Welsh; I love welsh accents, actually scratch that, I love any of the UK’s accents!
But yes I digress; unlike Afterlife (which I’ve been watching) which is made with actors from all around the UK I find that occasionally the guest stars can be a bit stale though Torchwood seems to have gotten a hold of the cream of Wales in my opinion. So I’ve gotten that little rant out the way; the guest stars were good, but what about the main characters.

Captain Jack Harkness one of the most fun characters to emerge from Doctor Who; he had everything…. and then he was ‘kicked’ off in the first season… but then given his own series.
I must say from watching Torchwood I miss the old Jack, understandable he is now far less trusting, and you can see the old Jack in there vaguely but he doesn’t seem as fun. What the show now needs; if you ask me is an episode to delve into each character, and by that I mean each member of Torchwood… though it probably won’t be doing that any time soon.
Gwen’s character seems fairly well rounded, and Eve (from being host to the Gelth in episode three of Doctor Who 2005) seems to be doing a fairly good job as cop-cum-torchwood operative, same can be said for Barrowman and the rest of the Torchwood gang.

Fun was definitely had; I was hoping for a few more laughs, -I love to laugh- I watched When the Wind Blows the other day; and although it was a terribly chilling and disturbing little animation I found some occasions where I could laugh out loud. I love that. Doctor Who gave me that every now and again, but Torchwood didn’t have anything laugh out loud funny, and saying that both ‘dark’ situations and humour fit very nicely into Angel which is what I loved about the show, so I can only hope to see more humour in Torchwood, not to say there was none evident in these first episodes; there was and some rather funny situations, but nothing overbearingly funny.

Now if you’re paying any attention to what I’ve written you’ll have noticed that I keep referring to Angel, now here is where you find out why. Littered throughout Torchwood were tens of thousands of high aerial shots of Cardiff at night, not to mention how everyone seemed to end up standing on roof tops looking rather reflective, now this just screamed Angel to me –granted none of them were progressive, but still I must have it known, and hence have mentioned it.

So what can I say; I enjoyed Torchwood, it kept me watching. There were thankfully no ‘Oh-my-god-I-must-roll-my-eyes’ moments, and the acting and writing were both pretty solid, I can only hope for the show to get better.
Reflecting on the show, I am actually glad that it is not as comical as Doctor Who was and that it is not as boring as –can’t ever get into it- Spooks. I find there’s something about action/adventure/serious science fiction that I can never get into when it comes from the UK.

Just a small rant; I adamantly refused to watch the ‘next week spoilers’, because it is effectively a spoiler! Why must they show them, if I watched the show and enjoyed it then I’ll tune in next week, but don’t spoil the episode for me. Next thing I know television programmes will start copying Battlestar which just gives you the whole episode at the beginning of the show, why do that!?
So I hope to see more; great looking aliens (though I think next week is a ghost story) and more Angel-esque stories.

Now it will probably turn out that I am the only person enjoying Torchwood or something; I’ve been following the BBC’s recent Robin Hood as well, and even though its not as amazing as some people thought it should be, I’ve found it entertaining… sometimes I feel that I can watch anything and still get something from it, though personally Torchwood seemed miles better than Robin Hood.

Torchwood is on Sundays on BBC3 -repeated a lot on that particular channel. And Wednesdays on BBC2

Small Hiatus

2006-09-15T10:30:00.000+01:00

I’m sorry my adorning fans, but due to the getting used to university life (when it begins) I will be having to put my reviews on a small hiatus… not that they aren’t already or anything, but starting from the end of my review of The General it might be a while until I write another… though don’t fret in line for reviewing goodness is the amazing Brief Encounter, Lady in the Water, Severance, Right at your Door, and the soon to be watched Black Dahlia… lets hope soon I will get a nice website up and running yeah?

If you think I should spend time on such a project, please share your views (

Lovingly yours

That weirdo that appears to be looking in through your window

The General

2006-09-01T16:15:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
But if you have not seen the General… then you haven’t lived my friend.

The General starring Buster Keaton; one of the absolute classic films of silent slapstick comedy, so of course when the opportunity arose to go and see it at my local independent cinema, I pretty much jumped at the chance.

Watching a silent film at the cinema was amazing, the screen was pretty much packed, with people of all ages, and what’s better is that everyone seemed to really enjoy themselves.
Although the rather annoying young girl on the row along from me couldn’t keep her attention on the film, and found it much more entertaining to watch the projectionist do his work –can’t stand people without the attention span for something; just makes my blood boil.

Directed by Buster Keaton and –one reason that I love both Keaton and Chaplin, was simply because they would always direct their own films. I’d like to see some actors do that! - Starring Buster Keaton (Johnny Gray), Marion Mack (Annabelle Lee), Charles Henry Smith (Mr. Lee) and Glen Cavender (Union Capt. Anderson).

The General takes place around the American civil war, and the film follows Johnny Gray (Keaton) as he -pretty much- saves the day with the help of his trusty locomotive ‘The General’. Now the way I’ve put that makes it sound something akin to Thomas the Tank Engine, so believe me when I say; this is one of the best comedies ever made!

The film is suitable for anyone; granted small children will have difficulty with the titles, but otherwise the film’s amazing physical humour will lighten anyone’s mood. The General is a film for anyone that loves film; and prefers something a little more sophisticated to the likes of today’s humour –this is kind light hearted comedy, not in your face, obnoxious and rude sex romps… but then I call The General sophisticated, and its just really good slapstick comedy at its finest.

Without a doubt the absolute star of the film is Buster Keaton; with his deadpan expression and his amazing physicality makes the film awesome, without him the film would be nothing and it is his physical presence alone that makes the film so fantabulous. Similarly I could never see anyone play Sam Lowry in Brazil, I could never see anyone else play the part of Johnny Gray besides Buster Keaton.
I also love Marion Mack in the film because she has that silent film actress look to her; also for all the humour on her part as well, for instance while she’s in the sack, and when she ‘does-everything-wrong’ with the train.

The screenplay and plot are pretty standard, and it is really hard to comment on factors such as lines in a silent film. But it is not the plot which is integral to the film –it is everything that happens along the way. Such as the scenes on the train, the big battle sequence and Johnny’s spying on the North, which all happen as a result on the basic theme of the civil war. One scene in particular I love that comes from this is particular skit in the recruitment office

I had high hopes that we would be lucky enough to have a live pianist playing for the film’s soundtrack; though I was being way too optimistic, but all the same it was still an amazing experience.

The film is amazing, I don’t think I can say it anymore than I have already, every scene is a guaranteed laugh as well as being extremely memorable and an absolute classic of silent cinema, up there with City Lights, Modern Times and The Kid in my books, which is saying a lot!
One scene I absolutely love –just remembered it- is when they are running extremely low on wood, and Johnny tells her to put everything in, and he makes sure she puts this minuscule piece of wood in the incinerator, and she then procures a broom out of nowhere and starts sweeping the train’s floor, ah the look on his face..

I don’t think it is possible to say that there are any bad points to The General, the acting is great for the time, as is the story (as far as some silent films go, except with Chaplin’s films of the same era), the humour is great and there are some scenes in particular that are prime examples of classic cinema.

A film so prolific I would most readily recommend it to anyone that enjoys films, or pretty much just wants a good laugh. So if you ever have the chance of watching it at a cinema, GO SEE IT!!!

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 10/10
An absolutely amazing experience, one I shall cherish for ages; not simply for the timeliness of it. But also for the highly amused uproar of most of the cinema patrons; each and every humorous act met with such laughter. Something that is definitely not comparable by audiences of today’s comedies.

Superman Returns

2006-08-20T19:13:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
If that is the case run off to the cinema and watch it; if its not showing at the cinema anymore then watch the original as an alternative.

Well, if you don’t know me, I am a big fan of comic characters, and Superman is one example (much like Batman) who near always makes great movie adaptations (mainly because they always tend to be directed by good folk, and starring half-decent actors) that and because I am smitten by their characters, namely to Batman for his dark overtones, and to Superman for the ever-lovable Clark Kent, who is the most important aspect of anything Superman, as far as I’m concerned Superman can fly around the world all he wants. But I go to see a Superman film for the Lois-Clark dynamic, because it’s always great fun to see the mild-mannered Clark Kent blither around like a fool.

One thing I was most definitely not pleased with –though, being oh so very British I did not complain- was the sound in our screen at the cinema was a bit buggered and led to some annoyance on my and my sister’s part, but this was no fault of the films, so I will not complain anymore than necessary.

Directed by Bryan Singer –who I of course know from directing the first two X-men films and the Usual Suspects- Starring Brandon Routh (Clark Kent/Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor) James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen) and Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent).

The film takes place after Superman II (this choice makes much sense later on) and Superman has been away from Earth for a very long time until –surprise, surprise- he returns. Though, during Superman’s absence Lex Luthor (Spacey) had since left jail and courted a rather old lady –for money and a big boat- in order to complete his ever growing quest for world supremacy. This time around he aims to accomplish this by creating a large land mass –with the aid of the crystals from Kal-el’s (superman) fortress of solitude- beside America and then renting the land to the highest bidder, similar to his plan in the original Superman film, similarly the film also features a ‘miss Teschmacher’ (character from original superman film) who realises Lex’s evil plan and ends up routing for Superman. After much action and Kryptonite usage Superman manages to save the day, and unfortunately discovers the worst thing that I say could have happened in a Superman film.

Superman Returns is a film intended for family watching –much like any of the others in the past- it doesn’t contain the slapstick humour of Superman 3 but it’s not quite as serious as Batman Begins. So it’s pretty much a film for the whole family, though personally I couldn’t see a child enjoying a superman film, but that’s simply my opinion. In my head I cannot imagine children enjoying anything other than ‘real’ children’s films.
That said some humour is dark (those scary dogs in particular), but the plot is nothing short of a normal superhero film.

The actors were good, Brandon Routh managed to create an imaginable Clark Kent –and maybe I will tell him that if I pluck up the courage at Gmex2 (scifi convention)- though less Cary Grant than Reeve’s portrayal, for which I was a little disappointed because you can’t not love Dr David Huxley (Bringing up Baby).
Though with this excellent Kent, I felt that Kevin Spacey’s Lex was somewhat too caring, perhaps if I put it into context it would make more sense. Gene Hackman’s Luthor did not care about anyone but himself, and left Miss Teschmacher to die, John Shea’s Lex was similar in nature. Though Spacey’s Luthor showed much emotion, and grew somewhat sad when some of his henchmen died. Now I realise this effectively gives makes him more than a one-dimensional bad guy, but it was for that reason that I liked Hackman in the role, he made a truly maniacal megalomaniac that you loved for being so egotistical and self centred.

Everything scripted; plot and dialogue all seemed very fitting of Superman; the plot was slightly clichéd and featured the usual ingredients, but little else could be expected. The dialogue of the film was great reminiscent of everything that is Superman, nice and witty. Though I must say I was a little disheartened when the phrase of ‘truth and justice’ was used, though it was devoid of ‘the American way’ which is basically Superman in six words… I don’t want a new Superman (sure a new Batman is a nice improvement) because one of his majesties is his forever plight in battling for the American way.
In speaking of the script I have chosen to ignore the horrible little addition of the small boy in the film, and unfortunately the film ends with Superman’s death in my book.

Of course the amazing John Williams’ Superman theme was ever-present and as good as always, otherwise the music had a suitable mood for the film; the composer John Ottoman, working on the X-men films previously with Bryan Singer.

Other than naming certain performances or certain parts of the film much of the film was amazing, I was a little sceptical of Kate Bosworth, but I found her as a rather sufficient Lois, and the same can be said of Routh and Spacey.
One thing I loved about the film was the beginning with the credits, CUTE!!! It was so ‘cute’ that they kept the same animation type style, making it feel like a Superman film within the first few minutes.
The other part I loved was that –although Lois is married- the Lois-Clark dynamic was still there (of course mainly in Clark), and the small scene where Richard (James Marsden) speculates whether Clark could be Superman was priceless.

The big surprise!!! Was the most awful thing that could have happened to Superman Returns, it is basically like giving him superdog as a side-kick. If you don’t want to spoil the surprise then don’t read this.
**
Giving superman a child is up there with my hatred of children having unlikely advantages over an adult and killing them, not to mention the complete confusion it creates; sure Superman and Lois had sex in the second Superman film, but then he wiped her memory… I mean, how immoral is that? Anyway, I believe this is the main reason most people had irks about Superman Returns, so I am comforted with the fact that it is not only me being all moaney.
**

The film itself was great, nothing short of my expectations, though I feel the end made the film a little weak, and on the verge of silliness. Superman Returns is definitely a good summer flick, though unfortunately competing with POTC means that there may in fact be little chance of a sequel due to poor box-office results, and just after I was warming to Routh as Superman.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
With the enormous amount of comic to film adaptations it begins to get a little embarrassing. But after the amazing feats that Batman Begins achieved I could not wait to see a return to the Superman franchise, even if it does have its faults. It did not fail to deliver.

Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest

2006-07-29T16:54:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
So don’t come running to me if you spoil the film!

Very unlike myself, I went to see a Disney film at the cinema; oh the actual terrible shock! I would have not chosen to go and see such a thing, except a group of friends were venturing out to do the very thing, so we tagged along and enjoyed the ride.

The cinema was absolutely packed, I love that whenever I go to the cinema simply with my sister there is always a very low attendance, but you add one other person to that group, suddenly the cinema always seems to be packed.

Directed by Gore Verbinski and Starring Johnny Depp (Jack Sparrow), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Jack Davenport (Norrington), Bill Nighy (Davy Jones) Jonathan Pryce (Governor Swann), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Kevin McNally (Gibbs), David Bailie (Cotton) and Stellan Skarsgard (Bootstrap Bill)

Well, the film –most obviously- takes place after the events of Pirates of the Caribbean (Whatever they may be, I for one have not seen the original) and follows the misadventures of Jack, Will and Elizabeth, with all pretty much similar screen time which was surprising to see. Ok, so the point of the film is that Captain Jack Sparrow made a very Faustian pact with Davy Jones, and now like all these deals, Jones wants his soul. But of course, he won’t let him have it, and this is when adventure ensues.

Well, being a Disney film, and based on a theme park ride, the film is very much intended for children, and granted there were some funny parts, the humour was all very obvious, nothing extremely clever, so yes. Very much a children’s film.

Well, in comment to the actors, the real selling point of the film is no doubt Johnny Depp, an actor who is now so recognised, hoards of young girls –and women- flock to his every film. Though it must be said that he creates such a character that can be remembered, it is almost impossible to say much else about the other actors.
It was a little strange to see so many British cameos, and I was rather estranged in seeing Mr Jonathan Pryce playing a role in the film, but regardless it must be said that hardly any of the other actors/actresses really compare to Depp’s performance, which I must say isn’t exactly his best one either.

The soundtrack was pretty cool, sounded similar to Monkey Island, and had me singing –Monkey Island- for a few days afterwards.

Good pirate films are few and far between, and one thing that I loved of Pirates of the Caribbean DMC was simply the pirate aspect. The film was full of beautiful costumes, fitting to the era, and the locations were gorgeous, (cant say that and not think of Little Britain) and as I do not see many period pieces, I must say that it was some of the best mise-en-scene for a film I have seen in a while.

For one, the film was quite long, and dragged a little, the other obvious downfall to the film was its extremely open-for-sequel-end which I abhor in films (unless its Batman Begins because they took that from the comics and it was awesome). Otherwise the film was ok, it’s not going up there on my ‘best films of 2006’ but it was ok. Like Fantastic Four last year, Pirates of the Caribbean was simply an enjoyable family film, not something I would usually chose to go see.

As I’ve already mentioned the film was entertaining, with a standard script and standard performances from the actors, not terribly engaging, but then, I did not expect such of the film.
Though if you have a hankering for light entertainment on a hot summers day, I can safely say that you will have some fun watching Pirates of the Caribbean 2; though I myself would chose to see Superman Returns if such the occasion arose.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6/10
I love to see people’s reactions to films, and children are particularly vocal in this aspect, so much that the child next to me, jumped enormously at some parts, laughed her head off on others, making the film much more enjoyable. Because I feel that if someone else is enjoying it, it makes the experience much more entertaining.
It would be very interesting –in my humble opinion- that instead with the third in the series, that they do not bring back Depp’s character, just to see everyone’s reaction, because there is no way they are going to keep their flagship out of it.

Hard Candy

2006-07-25T11:03:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there will be some spoilers in here for you! So if you do not wish to find out, or rather, work out the ‘twist’ I suggest you avert your eyes.

I went to see Hard Candy on a whim, I had heard that it was good and it was out of it, or the Lake House, feeling like watching a more intellectually challenging than the romantic remake, I decided upon Hard Candy, a film based on the hot-topic of chat room meetings.

Because you all love to hear the comings and goings on when I frequent the cinema, watching Hard Candy was particularly strange, as the staff had not turned the lights on in the screen, so it was difficult to find my seat and took me about twenty minutes until I could find it. The other patrons watching it were also out of the ordinary, not to be stereotypical at all, but they were pretty much all (although this was only 3) very old men, which I thought strange as old people don’t tend to frequent our ‘popular’ cinema, unless Johnny Cash is involved.

Directed by David Slade –who is up for directing 30 days of night, which will hopefully be interesting- Starring Patrick Wilson (Jeff Kohlver), Ellen Page (Hayley Stark), Sandra Oh (Judy Tokuda) and Jennifer Holmes (Janelle Rogers) making up a very small cast, which you really do not see these days, as the film is much more centrally character based than story.

I suppose the film’s synopsis was what drew me to the film –correct me if I’m wrong- but it’s the first film (tv seems to do it a lot) to touch on the subject of people meeting through internet chat rooms, and the idea of the male counterpart being in trouble made much speculation as to how the film could follow through.
So basically the film is about Hayley (14), who meets Jeff (23) over a chat room, and the two meet, she is very forward with him, and eventually it leads to him drugged and tied up in a chair, subjected to torture and the like, as she tries to have him confess that he (along with another person), murdered a young girl who had met a person over the internet.

Above all –and not surprisingly being a Lionsgate film- the film is extremely visceral, and very does little more than it says on the tin. With such subject matter the film could appeal to pretty much anyone, it’s a very hard film to peg to a particular audience, and while it is an eighteen; I am a little unsure why… from what I recall the film itself contained little in the way of violence, (the BBFC chops it down to ‘strong sadistic violence’) perhaps it is simply the situation, speculation and subject matter that gives it such strong a rating.

Now, with this film I can say that the main –and really only actual characters- characters played their parts flawlessly. Thankfully they cast Ellen Page (as Hayley); who despite being 18, looks very convincing as a 14-year-old (unlike some films that cast people in their twenties-thirties as teenagers.) I must say that –in my opinion- she played the role exactly as she should have, because I hated her like crazy, and I believe this was what they were trying to do. While all the time you are left sympathising with Jeff, who is all innocent and tortured and scared for his life due to the crazy 14-year-old. Then comes the twist –after the very long ‘torture’ sequence- and after watching the film for an hour-and-a-half you seem to understand what exactly is going on. The twist may be a shock, or you may have seen it coming. Personally I saw it coming in the back of my mind, but was kind of hoping otherwise.
Unlike I usually do, I wont disclose the twist because as simple as it is, it is also pretty effective.

The story was great, something new and not yet investigated before, albeit the idea of a 14-year-old getting the better of a 23-year-old is a little ‘out there’ it is also very believable in the context of the film. You’ve got a young girl who isn’t perfect, she keeps making mistakes, and he almost gets the better of her, but all the while through the clever writing makes for an extremely engrossing experience, Hayley’s dialogue really makes it seem like she is particularly enjoying herself, and Jeff’s whining and reasoning really makes you empathize with his situation and makes you want him to escape.

The best points in the film –as I believe I’ve probably already pointed out- were most definitely the acting from both Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page, who had me involved with their characters.
The other point of course is the current subject matter, thinking on the matter they could have taken the story any way possible, but the film itself was delivered greatly, the torture scene was one that shall be remembered for years to come (or it should be) though I must say I saw outcome of the torture from a mile off.
I did also particularly love it when everything started to go a little pear shaped for Hayley.

It really is true that when you try to remember something from some time ago you only remember the good points, and in writing this review it is very true. I can only remember fantastic parts of the film, and other than saying I hated Hayley’s character simply because I wanted to kill the girl there is little else I can complain about, even though my point should not be taken as a bad thing. David Slade wanted you to hate her, to want to kill her, because then you’re just as bad as Jeff.

The film was very much a new experience, filmed with a very gritty look and two actors before now I’d never heard of, a greatly enjoyable film, I suppose I can recommend it as pretty much a revenge film, nothing too clever, but not over the top ridiculous, maybe I could relate it on par to that of Oldboy or Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but then I suppose maybe that isn’t a correct judgement…

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10
Nice film, great acting, interesting subject matter, nice twists and turns along the way.

On another note, I have noticed a few regular people reading my blog, please don’t just lurk around in the shadows, comment on my blog, comments make me happy :D

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

2006-07-22T19:02:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O

Usually watching a film at our independent cinema is pre-meditated, and I know well enough about the film to know that I wish to see it. Though in the case of Three Burials, I had never heard of it in my life –other than small mention and a review on blogcritics- but, as always; I picked a winner, and Three Burials was an amazing film.

Directed by Mr Tommy Lee Jones –in his directorial debut (if you excuse some tv show)- Starring Tommy Lee Jones (Pete Perkins), Barry Pepper (Mike Norton), Julio Cedillo (Melquiades Estrada), Dwight Yoakam (Belmont), January Jones (Lou Ann Norton), Melissa Leo (Rachel) and Levon Helm as the Old man with the radio.

The title, rather self-explanatory is based around the three burials of Melquiades Estrada, as well as the events leading up to his death, while also showing developing the bond between him and Pete, and those whose actions led to his death.
The last ½ of the film was fixated on Pete’s quest (with the unwilling help of Mike) to give Melquiades his ‘dying wish’.

The film itself is a strange piece. Set in modern day Texas –as constantly reminded through technology- the film has a feel of the past, this mainly coming from the inherent values of the old west, based on friendship, loyalty and commitment on Pete’s behalf for his best friend.

I must say the acting in Three Burials was superb, this comment coming mainly from Barry Pepper and Tommy Lee Jones, who as the main characters gave terrific performances. Especially Pepper, whose character truly evolved throughout the film, he had you hating him, feeling sympathy and overall loving the guy.
Tommy Lee Jones who held a character that you could only respect, every action had meaning, and you could never hate him for any of his decisions, can’t go without saying that although all acting in the film was great, Pepper and Jones really outdid themselves.

Similar to the Australian outback in the Proposition, Three Burials had some beautiful Mexican landscapes. Another plus to the film was its characters; the film took the time to explore just about every character, giving every person some sort of very human, relatable qualities.
There were also certain points in the film that came to mind, when I couldn’t help but laugh; two scenes in particular I remember were that of when Pete had to get the ants off Melquiades, and of course when Mike saw the television programme on the television in the desert –that point I just cracked up, not entirely sure if this was intentional for a giggle, but I sure as hell found that bit particularly hilarious.

One thing I know I can say is towards the timeframe of the film, it felt rather confusing at first; differentiating before his death and after his death, and made the film a little hard for me to pick up at first.

The film, overall was a very rewarding experience; really picking up in the middle of the film it never once faltered afterwards, with good performances from Jones and Pepper, I would recommend the film to anyone wishing to see something enjoyable, but also different.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
To the strange title of the film I never expected what I received, though I what I did get was a thoroughly good film, and some nice characters.
The absolute feel of a western, but set in modern day.

Capote

2006-07-07T14:32:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
So you know… there is my warning, take heed if you must.

Now a long string of nice serious films came out last year, and Capote was one that I didn’t want to miss, though for some reason they did show Good Night and Good Luck upon release at our local Odeon.
Much like Catherine, I am most definitely not Philip Seymour Hoffman’s biggest fan. Though I must say he is a pretty darn good actor.

Directed by Bennett Miller –of whom I have never heard of- Starring of course Philip Seymour Hoffman (Truman Capote), Catherine Keener (Harper Lee), Chris Cooper (Alvin Dewey), Clifton Collins Jr. (Perry Smith), Mark Pellegrino (Dick Hickock) and Bob Balaban (William Shawn).

The film follows the period of time wherein Truman Capote -author of Breakfast at Tiffany’s- writes “In Cold Blood”; one of his most famous books. The film is more of an exploration of character than anything else.
The film was definitely not for those with a short patience, it is rather slow paced as an overall film even though it runs at only two hours.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was amazing, and if there is one thing he has proven in Capote; its his diversity of roles –whereas Catherine thought he only could act like a total arsehole- in Capote he proves that he can act as a complete arsehole that you also cannot bear to hate. It’s really Hoffman that drove the whole film, without him it would probably be nowhere as recognised. Also as always, it was funny to recognise a familiar face: Mark Pellegrino from the episode of the X-Files with Chad Donella.

The story was interesting, following Capote’s troubling decision from keeping the friend he had made -through research- (Perry Smith) alive through legal backing, and being in anticipation of his death so that he could finish his novel.

Strangely the music sounded familiarly composed, something like two composers melded together, it was weird, especially because I have never even heard of Mychael Danna (sorry Mychael), whole thing weirded me out –I’m usually good at recognising composers.

The film if anything, was engrossing, with such a large emphasis on Truman, and Truman alone. Otherwise little else calls to itself as alarmingly brilliant. The mystery of the murder is also an intriguing factor. Much like other films with similar subjects, Capote also invited you to feel compassion –of sorts- towards the rather gentle convict Perry Smith, who has a lovely surprising turnaround; one great part of the film.

Overall my comment to the film is that although it was a little different to what I had expected, it’s a slow paced drama possibly for those who enjoy good acting, a slight base on story and an exploration of the man; Truman Capote.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10
I was actually surprised that I managed to watch the film.. and after watching it I realised how different it was to what I thought it might be. I was defiantly not expected simply the delving into Truman Capote’s character rather than a story.
Also I must say that being the third film in a line of films taking audience at our little independent cinema.. My bum is not taking too kindly to the seating.

Doctor Who

2006-06-30T00:35:00.000+01:00

Those of you that know me, and read this -so about one- know that I tend to review films, games on occasion; but only when I feel up to it. So I felt that I would be unorthodox and review a television series… how strange.Anyway, as some of you may know that on Sunday 2nd July 2006 I am attending a convention, and present will be various film and comic related people. Now of course I want to meet as many of the guests as possible, and very hopefully get pictures of them with moo.
Now, with a large number of the guests affiliated with the recent Doctor Who series on television. I felt it most appropriate to watch at least the episodes pertaining to the guests. So, forth-with I obtained the whole of series one and most of series two.
Now I must say I would have otherwise had no intention to watch the programme. Undoubtedly due to Billie Piper’s appearance as a main supporting character, as well as my automatic adherence to the show. Though to quote Ransom it is pretty awesome, and most probably down to the same two words that he had stated; ‘Christopher Eccleston’

Unknown to myself; it is an actual fact that Doctor Who is the longest running science fiction drama in existence, though really I could care less about the old series’ full of cheap British set designs, and a very 70s-ish look I would never choose to look back upon the old series’. But if there is one thing television does well, it is improve. Now we’re talking humour, drama, character interaction, even believability through special effects. Though through all these changes I still try and distance myself as far as possible from most British television, simply because, in my opinion, we can do nothing more than comedy well -and even with comedy there are some real ifs. Though something very rare to find the UK produce is good science fiction, which is most probably the reason for my dislike of programmes such as Doctor Who.
Anyway, I very much digress, I should get on with this thing.

Doctor Who is based upon the surviving time lord, known only as ‘the doctor’ -played by Eccleston, who if perhaps was not chosen for the role, would have been the downfall of the show. He is really the complete opposing actor that you would give to the position of the doctor to. After all I only know him as that guy from 28 Days Later, and Shallow Grave. Or the guy that dies at the start of eXistenZ. Both roles not exactly shining as heroes, when I first heard that he would be assuming the role I thought it a bit strange and could never imagine him in such a television programme; as set in my mind Eccleston was a relatively serious actor... boy was I wrong
Now to my surprise the series began with the introduction of Rose; setting her as a rather important character, as well as identifying the doctor and giving a little bit of info along the way. Throughout the whole episode I was telling myself “thats Billie Piper, she can’t act” But I must say that by the end of the first episode I was actually ‘liking’ her character.

Now I think the main part of the show that surprised me was how little of it was actual science fiction. Now this is the reason I do not prefer to watch programmes like Star Trek and Stargate; because I find them boring, they’re all about the science, and space etc. Though I like shows such as Firefly and the X-files because it gets to a point where you are really rooting for the characters, and you begin to like them. Rather than focusing on the science in the episode, you have emotions, history, and dialogue that is funny to anyone joining in.
And as much as I dislike British television, it's always an extra bonus to be able to understand what people are talking about as well as understanding the jokes -as it is set in my country.

I must say though, one problem I did have with this series was in fact the special effects. Now I hear that they were spending out £1 million on each episode, which is quite a bloody lot! And I feel that for this, in terms of special effects there isn't really much to show. Creatures like the Slitheen just looked really silly when running about. I know many people have commended it on having amazing special effects, but if you ask me... on a show like Doctor Who -with most creatures- you should go animatronics all the way, simply because they are so much cooler, and that they are corporeal, I mean sure, some things cannot be handled without special effects, but other things can also be handled with animatronics. (Then again, they’re most probably more expensive... if anyone knows this to be true I would be interested in finding out)

When it got to the final episode I was rather put out that there would no longer be any Eccleston; with David Tennant already taken over the role. Especially as the newer series feels very different; Eccleston brought out a dark, but funny character, not afraid to insult though quite a loner, yet caring, and alongside his portrayal also came pretty much joint screen time with Billie Piper.
Now I prefer guys as much as the next girl, but it was a nice change to watch a show where the two main characters were actually equals; whereas now with the newer series, her role seems to be much smaller and insignificant somewhat of a downfall if you ask me.

Billie Piper... Billie Piper, Billie Piper, Billie Piper... it's hard not to imagine her outside of her ‘singing career’ especially acting. Though I must say I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in the role. Apart from the fact I didn’t think I could stand her... she was completlely bearable, and a hell of a lot better than the majority of female heroines. Billie Piper is pretty much a good representation of Britain –unlike some females they stick in television, and for that I like her exceedingly in the role, she plays it very human.
But with Billie Piper leaving, I feel that the show may not be itself. Of course it wasn’t really the same since Eccleston left. It just goes to show that the overall character development in the show is pretty spectacular, as otherwise I wouldn’t give a damn if a character left or not.

Now Christopher Eccleston came on with his outlandish behaviour, his ‘fantastic’s and most notably of all his strange face: the sort of face that science fiction should have, someone who has character.
Also if there is one thing I love, it's discovering ‘new’ actors, it's always so great to realise that someone has been there under my nose, and I had an inkling to who they were; but really knew nothing about them, and I’m pretty sure I can vouch this with most actors. That I am always very successful (in my opinion) that when I spy a good actor, that it always turns out that they are in fact a pretty darn good actor, and Christopher Eccleston has gone on to join that list.
Either way his portrayal brought with it, a sort of annoyance, but you also couldn't help but be on his side and laugh along the way, and from this I must say there were no actual annoying characters... sure some of the antagonists can be roll-your-eyes-increasingly... but antagonists are there to be stupid and annoying -at least, they always seem to be with myself.

The writing is pretty darn humorous I must say! With most episodes written by Russell T. Davies, who wrote Casanova -which was hilarious- and Queer as Folk, his dialogue is snappy, monologues not too long and all-round amazing writing, almost on par with Joss Whedon in my books!

The music of Doctor Who was also something rather surprising -not sure who the exact composer is- showing that it could be emotional, actiony and intense and all work really well with everything else going on. Whereas most British television just sticks the latest pop songs in the background.

Not since firefly has a science fiction show seemed so fun. Sure Doctor Who had it's moments when I think, ‘this is lame’ (Parts of ‘Bad Wolf’ in particular), or ‘this has to be meant for children’ (World War Three and toilet humour...), rolling my eyes etc.
But Doctor Who has proved to be a most exhilarating ride. Though from what I have already seen, I don't feel that the 10th doctor lives up to Eccleston’s weird eccentricity in the slightest. But then of course, it's all down to the writers. Which seem rather eccentric themselves.

I’m not too sure if its possible for myself to grade something like this… so at the very least, I’ll give it a Cptalbertwesker thumbs up : )

The Proposition

2006-06-09T19:11:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
Add line relating to the film, of what will happen if they have not seen the film

I would have seen the Proposition when it was showing at my local Odeon, though they were only showing it late at night for a week, so I missed my chance until our small cinema picked it up

Directed by John Hillcoat –Whom I have never heard of before; probably because he is Australian- Starring Guy Pearce (Charlie Burns), Ray Winstone (Captain Stanley), Emily Watson (Martha Stanley), Tom Budge (Samuel Stote), David Wenham (Eden Fletcher), John Hurt (Jellon Lamb), Richard Wilson (Mike Burns), Danny Huston (Arthur Burns)

The film pretty much followed both Captain Stanley (Winstone), and Charlie Burns (Pearce); of the burns gang as a resolution is sort after Captain Stanley offers Charlie a proposition that will save himself and his younger brother, Mike’s life; though giving him the remaining –and much more violent- members of the Burns gang.

One comment to Guy Pearce was just how famished he looked, after seeing him in Adventures of Priscilla which was made over ten years ago, he most definitely looks like a different person, still his performance as Charlie Burns was none-the-less decent as was Ray Winstone. Danny Huston also shone out along with Emily Watson and John Hurt. Pretty much a good ensemble cast.

The soundtrack was great, something every western deserves is a fitting soundtrack; and Nick Cave got it just right, with the great backdrop of 1800s Australia alongside breathtakingly extraordinary landscapes gives the film a lasting appeal.

One big reason for me liking a film like the Proposition, is it’s setting; now I am not much of a Western fan, but that is really due to the thousands of John Wayne films; which, sorry but I find sort of boring. There are some Westerns: Destry Rides Again, Once Upon A Time in the West, Paleface (if it counts) and also (if it counts) Serenity, and currently I am only just getting into the Western genre, but moreover Spaghetti westerns are usually the most enjoyable, because the violence and action that follows them makes good cinema, and the Proposition’s gritty setting is just the sort of film that appeals to myself.
As I have already slightly mentioned, one other great point of the film, were the deserted landscapes that encompassed the film, never before have I seen such beautiful desolate horizons and authentic stifling heat in a film.

I must admit that it was a little slow in some parts, though this was usually accompanying breathtaking views, which you really cannot complain about, one problem I did have; which may or may not have been down to our cinema, but similarly with Breakfast on Pluto, it was a little hard at times to understand what people were saying… or perhaps I am not good at deciphering the Irish accent.

Well… hmm it was a good film, ranking pretty high, some gorgeous landscapes and interesting characters, I suppose I would recommend it to fans of Westerns, for this film is something of a new route of westerns, I not being much of a hardcore fan thoroughly enjoyed it, and would recommend to all.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – Orthodox 7/10
A nicely slow-paced western, strangely also receiving bad press, similar to that of A History of Violence and the countless other films I seem to be reviewing.

The Da Vinci Code

2006-06-07T14:45:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
But then I’m pretty sure millions of you have read the book, and therefore have some idea of what the film is about.

Choosing to see the Da Vinci Code was no way intentional, but when Catherine won free tickets to go see it at our local cinema, I was not one to give up the chance.

Directed by Ron Howard –Of Splash, Willow, Cinderella Man and hosts of other films- Starring Tom Hanks (Robert Langdon), Audrey Tautou (Sophie Neveu), Ian McKellen (Sir Leigh Teabing), Jean Reno (Captain Fache), Paul Bettany (Silas), Alfred Molina (Bishop Aringarosa), Jurgen Prochnow (Andre Vernet) and Jean-Yves Berteloot (Remy Jean).

Well unlike the 60 million people that have bought copies of the book, I am not one of them, and so I write an unbiased view; the film mainly telling the story of Robert Langdon (Hanks) who is caught up in a conspiracy of the whereabouts of the Holy Grail; along the lines being offensive to Christian’s claiming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had a child together; this mystery/thriller takes the protagonists across Europe in a final resolution in pretty much the death of the main antagonists, while Robert and Sophie live happily ever after finding out the ‘truth’ that they were searching for.

Aside from the fact it seemed like a rather long film, it has to be said that it is a film for those with patience; no stereotyping here, but after it ended the amount of men complaining how boring it was, was unprecedented. While all of the women thought it was rather good, no problems with its length.

The obvious saving grace for the film was most definitely Ian McKellen’s performance, as the witty old Englishman, otherwise no other performances were shining out, which was surprising seeing as it had quite a few decent actors thrown in there.

The story seemed pretty much like a standard thriller, not exceptionally brilliant, but neither did it come off as awful. There is a lot of press on the film damning it as the worst film this year, but how can you say that with the Date Movie’s and Big Momma’s Houses out there?!

One thing I can say that I felt looked a tad cheesy were the effects showing ‘old’ London etc, and although I know a couple of critics loved these effects, I thought that they looked pretty much ridiculous, especially when Robert and Sophie was walking through them. The same can be said when Robert was working puzzles out, I just thought that it all looked too silly. Otherwise it seems pretty hard to remember what was bad or good of the film, and unfortunately I can only give it a low score and not explain myself, obviously the film did not shine out to myself as exceptional, or perhaps I would remember certain points.

Overall it was a decent thriller, similar to silent hill, it would seem that only the critics have given the film a bad time, whereas normal folk seemed to have liked it.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – Orthodox 6 ½ /10
Undoubtedly the best part of the film was watching the religious discussion had at the end; which was highly entertaining.

Silent Hill

2006-06-02T12:42:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
With such a film as Silent Hill I will most likely rip it apart and constantly compare it to the series, so if that is not want you wish to hear, then I am not forcing you to read, but perhaps you will be interested to see how I felt the film was.

Well obviously, like most other films I see there was a reason, and the reason for watching Silent Hill was simply because I am an extremely big fan of the video game series; that put forth intriguing plots and twisted ideas into a media that does not always get such great ideas.

Directed by Christopher Gans -of The Brotherhood of the Wolf, which I have yet to see; though it can be said that I have actually heard of him- Starring Radha Mitchell (Rose), Sean Bean (Christopher), Laurie Holden (Cybil), Deborah Kara Unger (Dahlia), Kim Coates (Officer Gucci), Tanya Allen (Anna; who reminded me quite a bit of Christina Hendricks), Alice Krige (Christabella) and Jodelle Ferlan (Sharon/Alessa; whom I found extremely annoying).

The film is basically a re-telling of the story that the prolific Silent Hill set out to tell - except with a load of changes along the way, leading to pretty much overall confusion, but leaving you with the satisfying feeling that you have witnessed the telling of a story of Silent Hill.

Someone that knows little of the franchise could probably see the film as pretty much a moderately successful horror film, the film's premise and middle are altogether a great cinema outing, though I believe past the story of Alessa the film falls on its knees..

As I have already mentioned; I could not stand that of Jodelle Ferlan (Sharon/Alessa) now, if you know me -I badger on about it time and time again- if there is one thing I cannot stand it is child actors; now there are exceptions, I did not mind Dakota Fanning in War of the Worlds, and you cannot possibly hate Drew Barrymore in E.T, or Natalie Portman in Leon. but Silent Hill is a horror film; and if there’s one thing horror films succeed it, it's creating -'stupid, I'm really evil'- children that I cannot help but roll my eyes at (be careful more ranting is in store). Now that all of that nonsense is out of the way, Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean and Laurie Holden were bearable, I could not stand Dahlia, but then I could never stand her in the game either; she always had a big case of overacting, and suffice to say I do not think there was much acting present that I could call outstanding.
Except of course -enter fan girlish pathethicness- that of Pyramid Head. Now I am extremely unsure if they were using a real actor, or if he was CG, but he was awesome; amazingly capturing the raw strength and atmosphere that he sufficiently deems in Silent Hill 2 (the videogame).

As for the screenplay, I'd have to say the film faired pretty well; other than the whole cult thing (which was really silly if you ask me) the film had a pleasant vibe of Silent Hill.
When it came to the soundtrack it was the one part of the film which could never fail; but then again, I was expecting full on Yamaoka, after all one of the most memorable parts of any Silent Hill game is its music. Though I must say I was a little put-down by what the film had to offer, only being given a few tracks thrown in every now and again; lyrical songs on the radios, and composed ones popping up at the most inappropriate of times, making it feel at times uncomfortable because it just didn't feel right. I suppose they should be given props for actually including some of the Silent Hill series' best tracks.

The film probably fairs well in this review because it’s based on the fictional town of Silent Hill; and anything and everything that they throw at me is held in high regard. The story seemed very different to that of the game, which was refreshing; though I would have much rather preferred a straight out original tale of Silent Hill. The acting was ok, the music was good, and the ending was... well... confusing. The film had some lovely set designs, and some nice CG going for it; the other side of Silent Hill looked magnificent and the endless supply of fans, mesh fences and rust was a warming sight; the strange cult members in their gasmasks were also a rather nice overall touch. There really isn't so much bad as there is good, which surprised me for a series that I feel so strongly about.

Ok, ok, now stop me if you've heard this before. But if there is one thing I cannot stand its child actors! I do not care if they are good actors or not, it is just that their portrayal or all-round characters always end up getting on my nerves... I think two films that summarise my hatred are Identity and Pet Cemetery wherein a child takes down an adult three times their size; it’s just ridiculous and stupid. (If you ask me)
Now I realise that Silent Hill needed Cheryl (or rather Sharon in this case) but I just couldn’t stand the girl -that whole stupid “I’m on fire” thing just seriously irritated me. Secondly on the same note, audience’s are going to be leaving Silent Hill thinking they have just seen some sort of Japanese orientated film, now of course on a few levels it is, but they made Sharon to look like a “ghost-girl” as my media class would say, which irritated me just as much as the fact that she was a small girl.
The only other problem I have with the film is the third act; completely unnecessary, I did not need to know about the cult or anything else, the film could have ended just fine at the telling of Alessa's tales of woe and I would have been satisfied, but instead they needed more of the ridiculous cult; with no mention of Samael, and all their stupid witch burning, but I shall not dwell, because ultimately Silent Hill is my least favourite of the series.

Although the critics have really attacked Silent Hill; strangely I have not heard any untoward comments of it. Specifically of people I know, loved the film... so it completely baffles me as to who will like the film. Though if you are a die-hard fans of the series, it can most definitely be enjoyed as more of a Silent Hill story, than a remake of the original, though I suppose if they had set it on Silent Hill 2 and butchered it, I would be up-in-arms, but then who is that really going to benefit?

Cptalbertwesker Rating - Orthodox 7/10
Although the film went off on a tangent after about an hour and a half it faired pretty well, and as a stand-alone film it was pretty good. I would be very pleased to hear any opinions non-players had of the film, or if you were simply able to get along with the film, regardless of the fact you were watching it with no prior knowledge to the series.
Nice little anecdote here; apparently the directions that Rose has to memorise are none other than, that’s right, the Konami Code!!!

Breakfast on Pluto

2006-04-30T21:58:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O

Breakfast on Pluto was seen as a celebration to the end of my art exam, it was sheer coincidence that a friend had watched it a week before it was showing at our small independent cinema, so there was no question towards our visitation.

The tiny screen was packed full of people –namely 50s plus, and yet they were watching the film blind without prior knowledge to the film… how do people do that?

Directed by Neil Jordon –who up to this point I have never heard of, though upon researching (as I always tend to do) he is a rather prolific Irish director, who also directed Interview with the Vampire among numerous other films- Starring Cillian Murphy (Patrick (Patricia) 'Kitten' Braden), Liam Neeson (Father Bernard), Ruth Negga (Charlie), Laurence Kinlan (Irwin), Stephen Rea (Bertie), Brendan Gleeson (John-Joe) and Gavin Friday (Billy Hatchet).

The film follows a busy time in Kitten’s (Murphy) life as he/she attempts to find his/her mother, the film is most definitely a road movie of sorts as Kitten’s journey take us across many colourful characters and scenarios. Oh and did I mention that Kitten is a transvestite in the form of a very feminine Cillian Murphy, whose lips make him look like he was born to play the part.

The film itself is strange, it starts a little corny with talking birds and such then mildly tracks Kitten growing up comedy-esque, then we follow Kitten around when life seems to get a lot more serious, as does the tone, with perhaps some distressing scenes of terrorism, all the while continually popping back to innocent fun. So it would really appeal to anyone; as road movies usually do. If you strip it down to the bare minimum, Breakfast on Pluto is a dramatic comedy set in 60s and 70s Ireland/London.

A comment to the actors, they were great! Knowing Cillian Murphy from extremely different roles I was flabbergasted at how greatly he portrayed Kitten, Murphy is definitely an actor with great potential and large diversity for films!
The supporting cast was also rather good, but then with Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson and Stephen Rea you couldn’t go wrong!

Being based on a book, sometimes effectiveness is lost in the translation, and such sometimes a film comes off as awful compared to the book. Though with Breakfast on Pluto I felt that the film could not get any better (and so I can imagine that it perhaps did justice), lines are delivered perfectly –usually by Murphy- and the film has a great quality, in that you will never know what will happen next.

I felt the soundtrack was awesome, some great tracks fit amazingly with the feel of the film, and without them the film would not have been the same, though it did seem a little loud compared to the film’s sound.

Well besides the good acting, and the great soundtrack there were many a humorous situations throughout the film. I think its safe to safe the best part of the film involved Cillian Murphy as secret agent, deep throat, great stuff!! As well as Kitten’s short lived period at school.

I honestly did not enjoy the robins, I realise the old ladies behind me did, but I didn’t, what else did I not like? It is sometimes a little hard to understand Irish persons, especially when they are extremely softly spoken as Cillian Murphy played this particular role. Though this was not a bad point to the film, it made it a little difficult to understand, especially when the whole cinema was cackling (yes, cackling!) with laughter on a line that I could not hear...

Overall the film was fun, it was probably the most fun film I’ve seen in a while, because it was pure dramatic comedy at its best, and the actors involved simply improved the experience. It’s a film that pretty much anyone could enjoy, and I recommend it to you all!

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7 ½/10
Breakfast on Pluto was an outstanding road movie with a great cast of actors and a rather strange story to boot, its one of those feel good movies, where everything turns out ok, though with many twists and turns on the way. I only rate it a half from an eight for the robins, which I disliked, but do not let them fool you that the film will remain just as that, trust me. It gets better.

V for Vendetta

2006-03-27T19:20:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O
So if you read my review and don’t want to see spoilers, do not be surprised if you explode etc.

Being the latest comic book adaptation film, V for Vendetta was the most obvious film that we could go see. (although I personally wanted to see The Proposition but our cinema is crap) so yes, being a comic-book based film there was really no question… unless it were based on a boring comic book, like She-Hulk or Electra. Although I must say that I was rather put off by Jonathan Ross’ review of the film, though I can safely say that I am glad I went against his better judgement.

Directed by James McTeigue – being his first film as a fully fledged director- Starring Natalie Portman (Evey Hammond), Hugo Weaving (V), Stephen Rea (Finch), Stephen Fry (Dietrich), John Hurt (Adam Sutler), Tim Pigott-smith (Creedy), Rupet Graves (Dominic) and Roger Allam (Lewis Prothero).

The film is based on Alan Moore’s ten issue limited series that appeared in the British comic Warrior, I will talk about the film as though it is based on the graphic novel, even though Moore severed the connection.
Based in the near future V for Vendetta follows V, a freedom fighter who is on a personal vendetta to get his revenge on those that have created such a dystopian society and ultimately destroying his life for reasons unknown, he attempts to reclaim the society that once was, the ‘land of do-as-you-please’ (I love that phrase).

From the original premise of the film (and the Wachowski brothers being involved) I would have labelled it as perhaps as a hard action flick, though I was pleasantly surprised that –in my opinion- there was little of what I would class as action per say. I suppose I would agree with Imdb.com it is an action/drama/sci-fi/thriller, personally I would recommend the film to anyone as it has a nice mix of genres and it complemented by a good story, though some might find it a little controversial… and not to moan but it seems that many Americans feel the film is awful simply because America is mentioned in passing as destroying itself and no longer being the super power that it is… I suppose being British makes the film more enjoyable for me, because for a change it’s a film based in an area that I can easily recognise and relate to. Although we do not all say bollocks as much.

With a lot of the cast being English I didn’t really understand the casting of Natalie Portman, I read into it and apparently both Scarlett Johansson and Bryce Dallas Howard were both up for the role of Evey, and if you ask me I think Bryce Dallas Howard might have done a better job… but she would have probably looked a little too mousey, so perhaps Portman was the better choice (I am not a fan of Johansson’s lips, and she looks way too innocent for my tastes).
Being a film set in London it was fun to see actors like Ben Miles (Coupling) and Stephen Fry (Blackadder I suppose), and although they did not have very large roles it was a nice touch to make the film that bit more British.
As for Hugo Weaving, I felt his casting –like Natalie Portman- was also rather strange, seeing as James Purefoy was originally up for the role –although apparently he didn’t like the idea of his face being in a mask through the whole movie, vain huh?- and he, like the rest of the cast being British fit rather nicely… but instead they chose an Australian actor? (I suppose that I am sometimes mistaken for Australian so it does make sense) and perhaps with the Wachowski brothers there was some sort of thing, him being used by them before. Although as for his acting I can say that I was rather surprised (not having seen many films containing him other than the obvious), as he was fully capable of bringing a costume to life, as well as apparently stirring a lot of fan girls just because of his voice (as you will find on most forums), though I felt that V seemed more impressive in the comics, not sure why.

With the screenplay written by the Wachowski brothers and being disowned by Alan Moore I did not think that the screenplay would be too fantastic, full of action and fighting and whatnot. Though I found that both the screenplay and the story was a lot better than I had expected, and after reading the original graphic novel that the film was based upon it is true that there are some obvious changes, but the film kept in spirit with the novel rather well if you ask me.

In comment to the music, after reading the comic I think ‘every time we say goodbye’ should have been included in the film. Though I felt ‘cry me a river’ went nicely anyway. On the subject of it I was rather surprised that V and Evey danced so much in the comic as opposed to the film (who I thought might have made it up).
The nice touch of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture, which I believe was also featured in the comic when he broadcasted a message across the radio, rather than blow up the old bailey, I felt in all the music was well used, and very fitting to the film.

It would seem that there is mixed opinion to the final fight scene of V, specifically towards the bullet-timesqueness of it, though I felt it looked rather good. I was particularly worried that the whole film would end up in bullet time but I was surprised that it was done rather well, and nowhere near as over the top as it could have been.
Much like Catherine has expressed on the film, I have also found myself a fan of the sort of dystopian environments that are not usually present in films, and for this I was grateful of a movie adaptation that stuck by pretty faithful to the comics, rather than completely change the setting (albeit the year).
As much as I seem to go on, and moan I did genuinely like the film, it appealed to me in the Phantom of the Opera sense, as well as its totalitarian atmosphere, its fun to have a film based around an insane terrorist of sorts based not in fact but fiction.

When I think of bad points (as I read the comics subsequently after watching the film) they are more of parts that I felt should have been included in the film from the comics, specifically that it was never actually mentioned that V had to of been sent to Larkhill for a reason, questioning the possibility of him being gay, or perhaps even Evey’s father. Some other parts I felt were rather good in the comics were times when V’s creativity and variety was expressed; through a magic trick including a rabbit, and that most of his tricks of illusion being that of dummies with tape recorders, that I found rather novel.
In terms of the adaptation from comic to film I felt it was accomplished rather nicely, and that the film is pretty much perfect as it is, especially seeing as adding anymore would have excelled the film to around two and a half hours, which is too long for the average cinema-goer to bear…

Overall it was a great film, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, and although it would seem that there are many mixed opinions on the film I would heartily recommend it to anyone that can withstand an action film containing some meaningful and eccentric dialogue.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
I was not used to so many people in the cinema at once, and especially the refurbished chairs. I believe that I can safely say that I enjoyed the film, and even more so after reading the graphic novel, which I felt was done justice. I know there are many mixed opinions about the film circulating, but being British I enjoyed a Hollywood film being based around a dystopian London.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

2006-03-02T23:21:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!

Aptly named by myself as a film I would like to see this year, there was no way about my watching it at the cinema... though I myself am a little unsure what led me to the decision of wanting to watch it.

Not really a surprise, –considering the subject matter of the film- but I could not help but notice, how alongside myself and my sister, the cinema had about 3 couples in their 40s-60s…

Directed by George Clooney –how you know the director- Starring David Straithairn (Edward R. Murrow), Robert Downey Jr. (Joe Wershba), Patricia Clarkson (Shirley Wershba), Ray Wise (Don Hollenbeck), Frank Langella (William ‘Bill’ Paley), Jeff Daniels (Sig Mickelson), and George Clooney (Fred Friendly)

The film takes place in the 1950s; the era of McCarthyism and paranoia, with the main focus of the story occurring in the CBS broadcasting building. The film is really about Edward Murrow, star of CBS’ See it Now, seemingly famous for his closing words good night and good luck. Although never stating him as a communist sympathiser throughout the film (without prior knowledge) it is clear that his intentions against senator McCarthy are obvious, simply put the film follows Murrow’s pursuit in letting television viewers know the McCarthy that the public had not seen, though as we can tell from the beginning of the film, his pursuit of justice leads to his dismissal.

The film, almost to the point of a documentary or biopic would not suit everyone; with its political tones and serious manner the film will only really appeal to those with a decent attention span, it has its points occasionally a laugh can be had, but not often. But if you’re looking for a good film among the Date Movie’s and Big Momma’s Houses out there, then this is the film for you.

I believe that it could be easily said that every actor that contributed to the film was excellent, Straithairn’s portray of Murrow was excellent, bringing a certain air of power to the screen. But I felt that the subplot of Don Hollenback (Wise) was by far the best supporting performance in the film, similar to Twin Peaks I feel that Ray Wise can make a character easily terrorised and sympathetic, this was the same in his sad portrayal of Hollenbeck.

The screenplay was awesome, not scared to perhaps confuse those that are not paying attention the film spoke its truth, nothing had seemed to be dummed down, so I was pleasantly happy.

The soundtrack was awesome, being set in the fifties the singing of Dianne Reeves helped to add a great level of realism, making the intervals in-between the ‘action’ every now and again all the more enjoyable.

Good Night, and Good Luck has got to be one of THE most beautiful films that I have seen in a while, and it is for sure that if it were not in black and white, such stunning lighting and cinematography would not be possible. It were as though each individual shot were meticulously planned (Robert Elswit also worked on all of PT Anderson’s films). Alongside the great visuals the film put forth a great message, said by Murrow; that television is not only for entertainment, but for education and the better for people.
It gave a feel to what the broadcasting business was like in the fifties, something that before now I would have surmised to be similar to today’s standards.

For a film based on the controversial deeds of television news broadcasters the film seemed to lack any ‘real’ drama, and I suppose that this was the only real downfall to the whole film.

Overall it was a good film, and didn’t take me too long to get involved, the use of actual footage of McCarthy and the film in black and white seamlessly brought the film together tightly. If anything I would highly recommend the film, though I felt for an hour and a half it was a tad short, perhaps a film for a more understanding audience, that seek to know how McCarthy’s ‘reign’ fell.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
A thoroughly interesting film that definitely does not insult your intelligence, full of absolutely wonderful cinematography and a superb cast of actors.

Walk the Line

2006-02-26T09:32:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
So look away or I’ll… do something untoward to y’all.

Well I had planned that we go see Walk the Line two weeks previous, but as it turned out the screening was too late and the film was too long, so we saw it this week instead, and contrary to what my older sister stood by –it looks crap- I found it to be a good film.

For one, I did not expect anyone else to be in the screen watching it with us, –as usual- I was even more surprised to find that the larger proportion of people taking up the seat were probably at the youngest 65+

Directed by James Mangold –from Copland and Identity- Starring Joaquin Phoenix (John R. Cash), Reese Witherspoon (June Carter), Ginnifer Goodwin (Vivian Cash), Robert Patrick (Ray Cash), Dallas Roberts (Sam Philips), Dan John Miller (Luther Perkins), Larry Bagby (Mashall Grant), and Shelby Lynne (Carrie Cash)

What can I say; the film follows the life of American singer Johnny Cash up until the year 1969. Growing up on a small farm with his family, an accident with a work saw leads to the death of his brother Jack. Speeding up to about 10+ years the film follows Cash as he joins the army and begins to write songs, we speed ahead in time again to where the focus of the film begins; the 60s a time of singing, drugs and women for Mr Cash. As well as divorce marriage and singing in a prison, whoa that was like six spoilers at once, someone put me out, ‘cos I’m on fire here…

Well judging from the films audience I would say it’s for fans of Johnny Cash, or at least people that know who he is. Although I would recommend it for a person that can stand country-esque rock music in a film about a drug addict that looses faith in pretty much everything with a bit of comedy and romance on the side, then watch away; I find that some people these days are very narrow-minded about the films that they watch. I can say that I myself am guilty of such sin, but it’s only because I will not stand to watch most teen horror and most teen comedy, but I’m pretty sure that I am not the only person out there.

Larry Bagby played Larry in Buffy, now that’s where I remembered him from!
I know that due to its release at the opportunistic time that both Phoenix and Witherspoon were both nominated for certain awards due to their portrayals, and I can’t say I blame the award-people… not that I knew June Carter and Johnny Cash personally. But I felt that they’re singing was almost identical to that of their targets, and it will probably revive Cash somewhat, if not here then in America.

Well with the screenplay being based on Cash’s autobiographies I did not actually know what the film was about, nor did I know Cash’s life history, so I can safely say that I did not know what would take place in the film. Though I can say that Gill Dennis who co-wrote the screenplay played Man with a Cigar in Eraserhead, such a small world!

I’ve got to say, this was probably the second film wherein an actor/actress impressed me through singing the songs themselves (the other film was Nicholas Cage singing Love me Tender in Wild at Heart… which was a little creepy in the film)

Well one point in particular that I liked about the film –strangely enough- was that the two Phoenix and Witherspoon really looked like they were involved in the film, for instance in the duets they sing together, they have a good chemistry which makes the film that more enjoyable.
Now I’ve already mentioned the fact that the actors went through vocal training and such, but they are excellent with singing, Cash’s voice is almost identical. Now with Phoenix it wasn’t too much of a surprise that he would do a good job. It was Reese-Legally Blond-Witherspoon that was the real surprise of the film, besides her own singing in the film her onstage performances were the highpoint of her character –off stage she just seemed to nag a bit.
Alongside these points, I must also say I love when a film based on what could be seen as a serious matter, can also turn around and be funny in point, so its not always ha-ha funny, but sweet funny, and its always nice when a film reaches this particular point.

Well as per usual I cannot think of many bad points to the film, although I was a little surprised that they ended it so soon in 1969, and unless someone makes another biopic following after, people will never know exactly what happened to Mr Cash and his re-discovery of god an-all..

Well for an overall comment I thought it was a good film, although I could probably only recommend it to open minded people (that will watch any film), or fans of Johnny Cash –my older sister would not touch the film due to its relation to him, whom she apparently detests.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
A nice film, but I did not like the group of four old ladies sat behind myself and my sister that needed to talk to each other about the film, but thankfully they did not spoil the film that much.

Final Destination 3

2006-02-23T18:00:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If you have not, then I will have to kill you in a very clever and inconceivable manner!

After enjoying the original Final Destination, and its chain of events that cause death to each character I felt that as it was the only decent film showing I should go and see it.

I was pleased to see that James Wong (X-files writer, and writer/director of the original Final Destination) had returned to direct the third film in the likely ongoing series.
Some anecdotes of my first viewing of a film during the school half terms: oh my god! For one the screen was almost packed, I had to sit next to some guy who felt the need to omit the word “Savage” every time he witnessed someone die, though this was no where near as bad as the group of four girls sitting at the back of the cinema, shouting as though it were funny during the adverts, only to be told by almost everyone in the screen to shush.

Directed by James Wong –Of the X-files :D – and starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Wendy), Ryan Merriman (Kevin), Kris Lemche (Ian), Alexz Johnson (Erin), Sam Easton (Frankie), Jesse Moss (Jason), Gina Holden (Carrie), Texas Battle (Lewis), Chelan Simmons (Ashley), and Crystal Lowe (Ashlynn)

The film follows a group of teenagers in a graduation class that visit a fair as a sort of last trip. A large group of them pile onto a rollercoaster, but Wendy (Winstead) is not so sure of the whole idea, finally giving in, she joins her friends as they slowly begin the motions that would lead to their death.
Much like the other films in the series, the film begins with a premonition and leads to a select few escaping death. While the rest of the film tracks the deaths of each individual, not as inventive as the two previous films, but all as entertaining.

The actors and feel of the movie made it clearly known that this was a film for teenagers, going back to its roots, Final Destination 3 follows high school students rather than normal aged people.
I would say that it is a film that would attract people my age, rather than that of an older crowd… though I say this and I saw two older couples (late 30-40) at my particular screening.

The actors were nowhere near exceptional; after all for such a movie was I to expect any better? The acting was sub par, and nobody really stood out, sorry actor people … Though I can say that Chelan Simmons and Crystal Lowe were good at playing stupid bimbo type ditzy ladies.

In comment to the screenplay it was much better than that of the second movie; with only slightly referring back to the original films making Final Destination 3 a lot easier to tolerate than its direct predecessor. The same can also be said in regards to the films dialogue and characters, I was pleasantly surprised that the characters were fairly innocent throughout, and the screenplay kept me guessing.

The soundtrack was like any other teen movie, though I felt the continual use of “Turn Around, Look at me” was rather funny, and I believe that my sister would agree.

One definite plus to the film was it was nothing like Final Destination 2; which as you may have guessed, I appalled. Even though the film could have been, it was not a revisit to the original films, they were mentioned in accordance and that was all...
I suppose another point that I love of the film is that it is a sequel (which usually suck and I wouldn’t see) but there was no doubt that I wouldn’t enjoy the film (thankfully this was the case).

Unlike the original film and the sequel I found that the causation of the deaths were rather bland, and easy to predict (with perhaps the exception of Frankie… you knew the car was gonna crash, didn’t see that fan coming :P), for this I did not enjoy the film so much, but it was pretty well done all the same.
There is something that I cannot quite put my finger on in terms of the film, perhaps I did not enjoy how it was all put together, especially with most of the characters being fairly obnoxious, and extremely materialistic. For instance everyone owns a Mac, no PCs, only Macs, second… ‘oh I forgot my iPod!’ dear god!! But nowhere near as bad as ‘man when I die, will you bring me something like a PSP to play on?’ Um… HELLO!?? Advertising people!!… for this I probably could not stand the film, I hate… no, I detest blatant advertising like ‘oh look at my fantastic …..’, its almost like in the Truman show when Meryl advertises household objects because they are actually on TV advertising.

Overall it was a good film, tons better than the second, but not as good as the original. Not intended for the squeamish; trust me the film is full of blood, decapitation etc. I would recommend it to fans of the horror/teen movie genre, no real difference in the film to that of its predecessors.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6/10
An ok film, but would have perhaps been more enjoyable if the cinema was devoid of annoying people

Munich

2006-02-11T12:55:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If you have not seen it, then I shall terrorise you (that’s real bad, sorry)

I hold a great amount of respect for Steven Spielberg, mainly because I cannot stand the hoards of people that seem to think he is an awful example of Hollywood. I mean really… all of his films are usually good and yet most stuck up film students will laugh at someone calling him their favourite director… its stupid that’s what it is.

I knew that I would be going to see Munich as soon as I had heard about it… Spielberg makes some good films, and I was not surprised that once again he had made another.

Directed by Steven Spielberg –of rather large fame- Starring Eric Bana (Avner), Daniel Craig (Steve), Ciaran Hinds (Carl), Mathieu Kassovitz (Robert), Hanns Zischler (Hans), Ayelet Zorer (Daphna) and Geoffrey Rush (Ephraim).

I found Munich to be rather strange with the tons of actors from many different countries and thought it a nice change from just Americans, I thought it was really ‘nice’ to have actors like Mattieu Kassovitz and Moritz Bleibtreu as well as Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and Geoffrey Rush on the side is really unusual for such a high profile film.
Anyway, about the film; its based on the 1972 Olympics, in which the whole Israeli team were taken hostage and killed. The film follows the assassinations of members of Black September, the group that organised the situation. This is all seen through the eyes of Avner (Bana) who leads the team of agents (Craig, Kassovitz, Hinds, and Zischler) to assassinate their targets.

I don’t believe I have any quick opinions of the film, it was interesting, I had attempted to watch Black Sunday once, but it failed to get my attention, whereas Munich had all the pizzazz of a regular Spielberg film, darting across countries, troubled characters, etc.
Judging from the ranges of ages that saw it at my cinema it attracted many people.

What can I say about the actors, everyone seemed pretty top-notch, I didn’t really like Daniel Craig, but that’s probably because he’s British and looks weird, but the performances given by all were pretty much appreciated by myself, though no one stood out as omigod amazing.

As far as I can remember the screenplay was pretty flawless, and thoughtful, little in the way of predictable dialogue, which was very much a plus in a film that could have gone in a completely different direction.

If anything I can say that John Williams’s style sounds really different, whereas in Star Wars and Superman sound very alike, I have recently felt that War of the Worlds, and Munich hardly sounded like him. Although there are composers out there that have stuck to their style throughout like Thomas Newman; you can always tell when he has composed a score, the same goes for Jon Brion.

I can’t say I have seen many ‘assassination’ movies, but of all the ones I have seen I must say I very much enjoyed Munich, I believe most of all I think the flashbacks to what happened to the Israelis were very well received by myself, giving much more character to these 11 hostages, for which the film didn’t appear to be showing much of. The other main bonus of the film was the hoards of great actors, which strangely enough Spielberg’s films are full of.

I cannot think of anything bad… I may just be thinking too highly of it, but at the moment, the film was pretty awesome, although a friend of mine complained that it was too slow, though I did not find this myself. Only bad thing I can think is that the film went too fast! Seeing as the end came rather abruptly.

Overall it was a pretty good film, quite a bit of violence (as a warning) and bombs exploding, so if you are sensitive to that sort of thing, I suppose you should not watch it, otherwise I suspect I would recommend it to anyone.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
It was a good film, first cinema experience that made me jump. Only aspects I didn’t care too much for was the old lady behind me that spoke rather loudly and the usher tore my tickets in half!! I had to tape them back together again!

Fun with Dick and Jane

2006-02-11T10:13:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If you haven’t seen it then I will…. Steal your eyes or something

Fun with Dick and Jane was, I suppose a spur of the moment choice, it was that or Jarhead/Brokeback Mountain (the other two choices ending too late) so yeah, we picked the less thought out comedy *yay* But um, anyway it was alright.

We were placed in the same screen as Cinderella Man (i.e. mahusive), and once again only a few people were watching the film. What a coincidence.

Directed by Dean Parisot –who has never directed anything that I can say that I have watched, other than episodes of television shows- Starring Jim Carrey (Dick Harper), Tea Leoni (Jane Harper), Alec Baldwin (Jack McCallister) and Richard Jenkins (Frank Boscombe).

When a family go bankrupt due to a large case of fraud in Dicks company; eventually leading to the decimation of the corporation, Dick and Jane (Carrey and Leoni) resort to stealing/bank robbing in order to regain the life that they once had. This of course results in many humorous scenarios, and ultimately allows Dick to get all the pension money lost of the employees from Jack McCallister who staged the whole fraud thing.

It was generally a family film, granted not my usual cup of tea. But it was made for all ages, appealing to old and young audiences due to Carrey’s physical humour, and the references to the collapses of these major corporations such as Enron and Worldcom.

In comment to the actors I have little to say, Tea Leoni was a nominal female support, like any in a film such as Fun with Dick and Jane. Jim Carrey of course was the half decent reason of the film, alongside Richard Jenkins (if you ask me) who I found rather strange. Alec Baldwin was just playing pretty much the same role I’ve seen him in recently.

Being a remake, and a family film it was easy to predict what would happen in the film, the spontaneous way that goals were achieved, or attempted on the other hand I felt were rather unpredictable. Otherwise it felt like a regular Sunday afternoon family film, nothing spectacular.

The film was probably not something that I would jump at the chance to see; sure it’s got Jim Carrey in it, and I am in the group that find him funny.. but otherwise the film doesn’t really have anything going for it, ‘cept a few laughs. The physical comedy involved when Dick is trying to take his gun out of his hoodie was rather funny.

The film seemed too… I don’t know, perhaps it was the screenplay or something, but I would rate it low against other family orientated Carrey films like Liar Liar or the Mask.

It’s a family film, although the younger audiences will not understand the businessy aspects of the film, they will probably find a lot of it funny..

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 5/10
A pretty low rating, but not a preferred genre of mine, only highlights of the film were some funny parts and Jim Carrey’s physical humour.

City of the Lost Children

2006-01-27T23:25:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
Or I will stab you in ze eye!

I bought City of the Lost Children a few years back after enjoying both Amelie and Delicatessen, due to the stupid no DVD release in the UK I had to import it. But I find it possibly one of Jeunet’s best contributions to a film for its fantastical proportion.

I was flabbergasted, flabbergasted!!! To find one soul on the imdb forums that claimed to believe that Jeunet and Caro’s stylings were similar to that of Tim Burton! :O I think not my dear friend! Look up someone like Gilliam and you will know that Burton’s imagination is very limited when looking at other directors.

Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro–directing Delicatessen together before Jeunet went off to do Amelie and A Very Long Engagement- Starring Ron Perlman (One), Daniel Emilfork (Krank), Judith Vittet (Miette), Dominique Pinon (les clones/scaphandrier), Jean-Claude Dreyfus (Marcello) and Genevieve Brunet/Odile Mallet (la Pieuvre)

Hmmm, well the story mainly follows One (Perlman); whose little brother has been taken by the Cyclops, who sell their children to Mademoiselle Bismuth who then takes them to a far away lighthouse, where a group attempt to steal their dreams, in an attempt to slow Krank’s ageing process. One forms a partnership with Miette (a young girl) who helps One to locate his brother. The film is hard to explain, but it very much reliant on chains of events, one particular scene is most obvious with this. But if you think about everything that happens in the film, everything is related.

Once again, like with The Seventh Seal, I find it hard to ‘sell’ foreign films –knowing few people that would be willing to watch a film with subtitles. But if you enjoyed Amelie then you should love City of the Lost Children. I suppose I can recommend it to lovers of elaborate fantasy films, and perhaps people that are willing to watch an enjoyable film dubbed *shudder*.

Besides starring many usuals of Jeunet and Caro, City of the Lost Children most notably stars Ron Perlman (who could not speak a word of French) who fits his usual role of the big strong guy; his character being relatively slow but kind, but he did a good job nonetheless. Perlman aside, the film boasts a large cast of strange and interesting characters, another favourite of mine being Mademoiselle Bismuth –the rather short woman- who just delivers one of the funniest lines (IMO) in the film. Other comments I suppose I could add, was that on Dominique Pinon, whereas in Delicatessen he is great, but six (is it?) clones of him is a little too much.

The screenplay is great, inside the film there are some completely absurd lines, as well as some very strange occurrences, and the film itself could be noted as surreal in many aspects. The story itself of course ends in happiness, with many (most probably un-expectant) twists and turns along the way.

Four words: “I’m allergic to steel” made the film for me, although you have to wait right up until the end to hear it, but my oh my is it worth the wait! Hilarious I tell you! Other reasons for which I love the film I feel are primarily based upon its roots as a film relying on a chain of events. The sole reason that I like the Final Destination films are for the same reason, it is always great fun to have something completely unexpected happen… just because a bird pooed on a car.

Bad points are always hard for myself to locate, I suppose, if its relevant enough I do not like the film for not getting a general release on DVD much like Svankmajer’s films *shakes fist* Otherwise I cannot think of a thing.

The film is great, and although I cannot say that I have watched many French films, it is one of my favourites, due to its fantastical manner, the same very reasons that films like Brazil, Baron Munchausen and Big Fish will always remain close to my heart.

Cptalbertwesker Rating –8/10
A greatly enjoyable fantasy film comparable in style and proportion to that of Terry Gilliam, with some strange interesting characters, it is only a shame that there is no official release of it in the UK.

The Seventh Seal

2006-01-27T20:20:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If you have not seen it, then I recommend you do; known as a masterpiece of cinema, it is indeed quite good.

As visits to the cinema lately have been slow I have decided to partake in the reviewing of films that I have watched at home.

I bought the seventh seal on a whim in an Ingmar Bergman collection in the MVC closing down sale; for £20 cheaper than it should have been I was not going to back away from the offer.

Directed by Ingmar Bergman –of Ingrid Bergman- Starring Max von Sydow (Antonius Block), Gunnar Bjornstrand (Jons, squire), Bengt Ekerot (Death), Nils Poppe (Jof) and Bibi Andersson (Mia, Jof’s wife).

If you do not know the film by name, then you may perhaps know it from the film that started the ‘play death at chess’ (or play death at other games: Bill and Ted) idea implemented into a film.
The Seventh Seal is a haunting film, which I suppose could best be described as very philosophical, questioning the existence of God and showing the level to which a person may attempt to escape death. The story follows Jons and Antonius Block riding back to their hometown after waging war in the crusades. Antonius is confronted by death, declaring his time up, wanting more time to understand life, he challenges Death to an on-going game of chess. Satisfied Jons and Antonius continue on their travels to find Sweden overrun with the plague. With my short description it may not sound that exciting, but granted it has its funny moments, as well as its sad moments.

Now of course with such as profound film there are drawbacks that would perhaps turn people away, starting off its black and white, and then of course the film is in its native language of Swedish, and do not get me started on watching foreign films dubbed because its just silly.

What can I say, if you ask me every actor was superb, I did think the devil witch girl was a little strange, but with characters like Jons, Plog, Antonius and Death you cannot get any better, I do not believe that I’ve been able to say that every character was enjoyable in a film before. But in this case it is very true.

With characters like Jons, the squire, lines were sometimes quite a handful, and with what was probably a direct translation from Swedish some lines sounded a little complicated and hard to follow, but the story itself was great, and shall be recognised as a great film for decades to come.

With such a great introduction to Ingmar Bergman’s work I cannot wait to see some of his other films. The characters were akin to that of Kurosawa’s, each character being endearing, and completely engrossing, their goals were clear, and there were quite a few laughs to be had regardless of it often being slated as boring. I must say the mention of the phrase ‘you can’t beat death’ just makes me remember what was probably the funniest thing I have ever seen with death (regardless of the serious context of the seventh seal)

Being as picky as I am I must say there were some cross fades that looked a little iffy, as well as a few other technical things. But otherwise the film was flawless, though I must say I did not like the song that Jof and his wife sung, truth be told, I found it a little annoying.

My overall comment has to be that this film is not for everyone, but if you feel like watching a pretty good film set in the middle ages questioning the existence of god, you can not go wrong! I suppose if you wanted to go so far, it’s a classic film, that Final Destination’s plot could be loosely based on, the fact being that Death always wins. No matter how skilfully we plan our moves or how determined we are to win, we can never beat Death.

Cptalbertwesker Rating –8/10
It took me a while to get a hold of the film and then watch it, but it was well worth the wait, and I was not disappointed with what has been hailed as one of the greatest films to be produced in Sweden.

Howl's Moving Castle

2006-01-22T09:30:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If this is the case, I will.. you know I cannot even think of what I will do. But I can say that the first film of the year was a good one!

Seeing Howl’s Moving Castle was spontaneous, doing some homework I found that they were showing it, and we (me and Catherine) knew we had to go see it; after the Odeon, decided that they wouldn’t show it.
Of course, the experience could have better, if I had not decided to… watch the Japanese version with subtitles.

Directed by Hayao Miyazaki–of much fame and renowned for his great films, depicting many walks of life, always idea for both children and adults- Starring Christian Bale (Howl), Emily Mortimer (Young Sophie), Jean Simmons (Old Sophie), Billy Crystal (Calcifer), Lauren Bacall (Witch of the Wastes) and Josh Hutcherson (Markl).

Howl’s moving castle is probably the third Miyazaki film that I have laid witness to, and all of the films that he is involved in are superb. There is some anime out there which is ok, but everything Studio Ghibli throws out is magical, it has the flare of a great animation. The moment you sit down and watch the first few minutes, you know that the film is going to take you on a fantastic story, be it sad, funny or haunting.
HMC is a little on the side of magical arts that I do not usually care for, but nonetheless I digress.
HMC follows Sophie, a simple hat maker from a small town that has never seen the sea before. One day she is saved by Howl from some soldiers that were harassing her, Howl flies her to safety but inevitably gets her wound up into even bigger danger. Becoming cursed by the Witch of the Waste to be the 90-year old woman that she sees herself to be, after being cursed she runs from her simple life to the wastes, until she takes up home in Howl’s moving castle. The film to me seemed to be an exploration of age, as well as the normal fairytale love story, with a happy end, alongside a bit of war and conflict added to created an all round top movie.

One thing that I love about films like Princess Mononoke and much the same with HMC is that it is an animation (meant for children) but adults can relate to the situations, and there is material in the violence and screenplay that makes it both a clever and disturbing movie if you are an adult, although I did find that many people in the cinema were laughing at parts most probably intended for children to enjoy.

In comment to the actors, I loved Jean Simmons as Sophie, it may have just been partly because I loved her character; but Jean Simmons gave the character this quality that I just fell in love with. The same also has to be with Lauren Bacall’s Witch of the Waste. This is another reason to why I love Ghibli films; you can fall in love with almost every character. As usual I cannot complain for the actors, as I would be complaining about their voices. Everyone was pretty good, although I felt that I preferred Markl’s voice in Japanese.

As for the story, I feel as though there was not really much of story. There were ideals; fighting the war, ageing, love etc but in all these separate ideas were formed together to make a great –albeit confusing- journey, rather than a story. But the screenplay itself was good; I pretty much felt that I was watching the same film, with the same dialogue. (This sometimes can not be said about translated dubs)
So.. why did I like the film? Firstly I love the style that Ghibli draw, it always looks like it belongs in a fairytale (not deformed like some anime, or too detailed like some animations), then there are always the lovable characters, (Calcifer, Witch of the waste, the weird dog, turnip man). The stories picked when creating a Ghibli movie are always top notch, the level of mysticism, and imagination that can be drawn out from one story is always used to itself potential, and stories and always complete, so that when the film is over you are satisfied with the result.

Well as for bad points, one shared opinion seems to be that of confusion. Many critics at the release of HMC said that it’s really a film for a child, because as an adult they did not understand anything that was happening, now with this I do not agree. But there was a degree of confusion that I felt with all of the curses floating around, especially that of Howl and Calcifer’s. Nothing else to say.

Overall is was some nice Miyazaki, perhaps not as focused on the war as much as his other films, and perhaps not as engrossing as Princess Mononoke, but some great memorable characters, and situations. A fun film that all the family can enjoy, although like most Miyazaki films it has its ‘scary’ animated parts, which if I were a kid, would scare me a little.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
Very strange to watch anime at the cinema, but great to see all the other people that would venture forth on a cold Monday night, to see a ‘cartoon’. Good o’ to the Civic theatre to upping their seats, although they could invest in a quieter projector.

2005 Review

2006-01-01T10:55:00.000Z

2005 Review

With a new year coming into play I feel it required that with all the reviews I have written, I should make some form of a review; recalling some of the high, and low points of the year in my own opinion, in regards to the film scene.
This year has been a particularly striving month for me, partaking in the cinema almost every week, up until a month ago.

High points of the year

I used to frequent the cinema about once every couple of months, if there was anything showing. But after this years experience, I can only hope that 2006 will prove just as fruitful of some great ‘different’ movies.
This year we had some “BIG” titles released, with the finale of the Star Wars saga, we all hoped for the best, and other than some nostalgic feelings, I got exactly what I should have expected. Other big name titles such as Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, a great new addition to the Batman series and a new Dead film, the year proved successful for big box office movies.
But it also shone for some less mainstream flicks, the likes of Downfall, Broken Flowers and Crash, lovingly fulfilled my need for material not created for ‘everyone’ and I must say I was pleasantly satisfied, and I do not believe I can say there are many films I am hoping for out of the New Year.
Until I hear what is coming that is… I wish to see Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, and if I set my mind to it, the list would probably be quite long.

So oh excellent Wesker, what do you rate as the best films of the year, we all so wish to hear. Well then here you are.
Please, if you feel comments should be made, I will gladly listen and contemplate, though I will probably not change my top ten.

Serenity

Sin City

Batman Begins

Downfall

Crash

War of the Worlds

The Island

Broken Flowers

Cinderella Man

Star Wars Episode III Return of the Sith

This is based on films that I have watched at the cinema. There were a host of other films that were released this year, which I sadly could not see, and was disappointed due to this. Else wise I would have gladly watched the likes of The Avaitor, Closer, A Very Long Engagement, Hotel Rwanda, The Jacket, Howl’s Moving Castle, Oliver Twist, The Constant Gardener and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. So sorry if you liked these films, and please do recommend me any others you thought were exceptionally good.

Low points of the year

Alongside the good, there’s always gotta be the bad, and in cinema, nothing is any different. With the films released that I enjoyed there was always the ones I would never touch, Son of the Mask, Herbie: Fully Loaded, Be Cool, Are we there yet? Four Brothers, Goal!, Madagascar. Now do not get me wrong, I have never seen these films, nor do I wish to. I am basing it solely on how they look. Usually when I see a film I already know that there’s a chance that I should like it. I do not like to waste my money, seeing something I will not enjoy, and I definitely do not believe in leaving the cinema while a film is showing.
So here it is, for you to bicker and moan at me, my top ten… did not wanna see them, in my opinion they look like they may suck, of 2005.

Doom

Goal!

Four Brothers

The Man

Be Cool

XXX2 State of Union

The pacifier

Herbie: Fully Loaded

The Dukes of Hazzard

Madagascar

I couldn’t really care less of the films I put in this list, and in fact I had to choose out of about 20 or 30 films. So moan and pout all you want, I ain’t gonna be touching these films unless I’m strapped to a chair forced to watch.

“Is that all for the year?” I hear you say… why no not at all. Besides watching films I do many other things, like playing video games and watching some television (oh the life I lead!) and I feel I must mention a few of the discoveries I have made this year, on great pieces of media.

I have been watching quite a lot of television series, with many getting me hooked.
So for all of those interested I recommend you;

Lost
Deadwood
Carnivale
Firefly
Tru Calling

I thought that they were all rather good. Also if any one has any recommendations, I am hoping to watch Prison Break, and was wanting to get ahold of some episode of Jeremiah. So if you know anything on around about this level, please tell me.

Video games!! This year has been busy four new consoles out! Those being the Xbox 360, Gameboy Micro (If it counts) the Nintendo DS, and Sony’s PSP. It has also been rather good in terms of some very intriguing games, namely the most excellent PSYCHONAUTS!!!! As well as some solid titles like Condemned, Call of Cthulhu, The Movies, Fahrenheit and some other jems.

The year, much like many has also said goodbye to many great people. So let me just say, may you all rest in peace.

Will Eisner                     (1917-2005)
Hunter S Thompson               (1937-2005)
Anne Bancroft                (1931-2005)
Richard Whiteley                (1943-2005)
Ronnie Barker                (1929-2005)
Eddie Guerrero                (1967-2005)
Richard Pryor                (1940-2005)
John Spencer                (1946-2005)
Vincent Schiavelli                (1948-2005)

One last note that I feel that I just have to mention. Not usually do I get to discuss films with people outside myself, or maybe Catherine, (Not including the excellent university interview I had) but while overhearing a conversation. A fellow sixth former, went and asked…
“Whose Robert De Niro…” I was speechless, anyway. I thought it was funny and had to be mentioned, apparently she didn’t realise who Brad Pitt was either.

So there you have it. My review of the year is done and dusted; I wish you all a happy new year, and many great ones to come.

Serenity

2005-12-29T17:18:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If need be, I will have to shoot you for not seeing it!

Serenity, Joss Whedon’s directorial debut in my film of the year! Although it must be known that with Serenity I may be a little fan-boyish, big fan of the series… and a big fan of the film. So here is comes the review you’ve all been waiting for, hopefully it will be my best one yet!

I must say that I did not actually know that Serenity was being made until earlier this year, neither did I care. I only really watched Firefly in the summer, so I am relatively new to the particular story, but I knew that when I really got into Firefly it was like Buffy and Angel (in particular) all over again. Rarely does a series usually entrap me to the point of needing to squeeze in the next episode etc. I am a sucker for what Whedon delivers; I know all too well that some people cannot stand it. But with his mix of humour, character development, and stories, they’re always winners to me.
… So anyway back to the story. I hadn’t even known there was a film in production until www.ctrlaltdel-online.com posted a link to the trailer, I watched it and thought, ‘meh’ I’ll probably watch it.. now I am flabbergasted, the film was exactly as I had hoped for, and one of the most enjoyable films that I believe I may have ever seen at the cinema.. strangely television is always more enjoyable..

So, directed by Joss Whedon- of who I am a big fan of; his episodes are always the best written and more often then not, the best! (Don’t complain, I’m a big fan girl!)- Starring Nathan Fillion (Malcolm Reynolds), Summer Glau (River), Sean Maher (Simon), Adam Baldwin (Jayne), Jewel Staite (Kaylee), Moreena Baccarin (Inara), Gina Torres (Zoe), Alan Tudyk (Wash), Ron Glass (Shepard Book) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Operative).

There was only really one avenue that Joss Whedon could travel when thinking of a film for his sleeper show: Firefly. With nine characters to the idea, only River was the most promising that a film could be made about (Or perhaps Shepard but its all too late now!) either way, besides changing a few things around, I believe it worked rather well, The dead people looked pretty good, I only hope that he will continue Firefly in some form or another.

In comment to the actors... The actors worked just as perfect on film as they did on television. Pretty much nobody in the cast has performed in a film where they were a main part. But everyone really nailed it on the head, Mal was just as funny as ever. Though I felt that Jayne was a bit left behind, usually he carried more funny lines. Unfortunately a host of the characters were pushed into the background, with little coming from Simon, Kaylee, Inara, Zoe, Wash and Shepard, the whole film seemed to be focused on Mal and River. Which I cannot complain about, but it was Wash and Shepard’s last chance to reveal their pasts.
What more can I say, Chiwetel was pretty good as the operative, I would have preferred another character like Jubal Early (Objects in Space) but he was sufficient; a bad guy with no sense of morals beside his own, ruthless and fighting the cause.

The screenplay was exactly as I expected, perhaps there were a few more jokes added into the script than I expected, but everything that ‘made’ Firefly was still there. The great characters still had their charm, the set design, and script. Amazing in my opinion.

In absolutely loving the series, the film was just heightened to excellence. I can list things all day for what I enjoyed, so I’ll simplify it.. the actors, what can I say, I am still in love with each and every one, and although it seemed a few of them were kept in the shadows, they were still included nonetheless. Although I can not help but wonder, if Joss Whedon does attempt to take Firefly any further what will its focus be??
The film was awesome, granted it had its lows (some very unexpected deaths) and I would have rather it been otherwise, but it was necessary; two characters that perhaps were needed to die. Perhaps this will possibly open new avenues of places to explore, if continued.

As for bad points… now when I say bad points, in terms of Serenity I am picking holes (which I love to do so much) Most of my problems were the changes from the series, which were very much understandable, but anyway…
The beginning, I was confused, I had absolutely no idea what was going on. It sorta turned around some of what had originally supposed to have taken place (Ariel). The film also seemed to focus more on the futuristic side of the idea, not much western could be seen, which was sorely missed by myself; with this also said there was little Chinese spoken. Whereas in the series people would be spouting it all the time… I suppose it was not to scare some people off.
I was also very disappointed in not seeing hide nor hair of the blue handed men!! Who were the some of the most sinister antagonists I had ever seen on television.

I feel I should do some ranting, because I feel strongly for the film, but I think I cannot because it was so long ago that I watched it… something along the lines of “Why Joss Why!!”… but then that would be childish, so I am deciding not to moan (too much) and keep calm and collected, this is, after all, a very serious review.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 10/10!!
Watching it late night on a Friday was a great experience, the cinema was pack with people and everyone seemed to enjoy it, even if the other person who went to see it with us thought that everyone should have died

Broken Flowers

2005-12-26T13:55:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If need be I will bore your eyes out for you

Broken Flowers, a film that I jumped at the chance to see; being very surprised that they would show such a film at our cinema. This was obvious as there was one person present at the screening besides us. But it was a fun film, but then it had to be starring Bill Murray.

So, directed by Jim Jarmusch- of whose films I have never seen, although I own Ghost Dog…- Starring Bill Murray (Don Johnston), Jeffrey Wright (Winston), Mark Webber (The Kid), and a host of women, that I will not name, because there were quite a few.

I thought that the film began rather well it had a nice pace about it, most probably symbolic with Murray’s age in the film; who has seemed to of picked up a sort of deadpan demeanour, something that I always love in comedies.
Murray’s character Don Johnston seems to care about little in life. Until one day a letter is delivered, that brings with it a seemingly life-changing event that he seems to care little about. The journey of the story is created by Don’s neighbour Winston (Wright) who sends Don off to find the woman that had given birth to a son that he never knew about. The film ends sort of at an open path. The event has nonetheless changed Don and his outlook, but it did not manage to bring the story to a close, which much like A History of Violence; people will not like the end.
I thought it was funny though…

In comment to the actors... it couldn’t get any better, the film features many actresses that I have not seen in films for years; Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Julie Delpy, Tilda Swinton, and Jessica Lange. But of course through all these women Bill Murray was the highpoint of the entire film, with most comedic actors going stale by Murray’s age I still think that he’s fantastic –everyone can be forgiven for some bad choices of course… Garfield??

The screenplay was excellent, very cleverly written screenplay with much humour and story within. Good good, and the story was pretty good also, though you sorta guessed where it was going...

I loved the uncomfortable silences throughout the film… the humour was great, loved the part with Lolita –that was hilarious. It was all-round the sort of comedy I wish was shown more at the cinema, not the horrible teen comedy that is dominant currently.

As for bad points- I did not like how the film focused on the pink letter at the beginning of the film, it felt like something Mr Morris would say you should do to show its importance.

Overall it was a great film! Possibly not for everyone, but it was excellent, the film looked as though he didn’t even use a set designer etc, looked all very normal… I suppose, but yeah great.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10

Not exactly the film that I expected, with no clear ending, but very enjoyable nonetheless.

Corpse Bride

2005-12-22T19:16:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If need be I gladly take your eyes for you

Corpse Bride; the third stop animation film with Tim Burton’s name stamped on it. To tell it straight, it wasn’t actually the film that I was hoping, or rather expecting for that matter. Much like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I must say that I was not that impressed.

Directed by Tim Burton- of whose work I believe is continually dropping in standard, -Pee Wee’s Big Adventure being one of my favourites- Starring Johnny Depp (Victor Van Dort), Helena Bonham Carter (Corpse Bride), Emily Watson (Victoria Everglot), and way too many people to mention, sorry but with such a film, there were way too many characters, so I have accounted for the three main roles.

Like I mention a thousand times in this review, I liked the story. The two young people, Victoria (Watson) and Victor (Depp) are arranged to be married; without previously meeting each other. With Victor not particularly good at ‘the whole marriage thing’ he freaks and runs from a rehearsal and mistakenly marries the corpse bride (Bonham Carter) who was killed by her original husband for her money.
As you can guess the two are unable to stay married, and as it turns out Victor is announced as running off with another woman. Wherein Barkis Bittern (Richard E. Grant) steps in and replaces Victor and attempts to marry Victoria believing that her family is rich. I will not spoil the whole film though… so watch it, its only 76mins long.

In comment to the actors... the voice acting was pretty good, being a big fan of video games I am used to awful voice acting. The voice acting was nice with a host of famousy people, both American and English its always great trying to recognise peoples voices. Gotta say though, my favourite person in the whole film had to be Victoria, simply because you can’t not like Emily Watson, she’s just so innocent (and she has been to me ever since Punch Drunk Love).

The screenplay was pretty standard Burton, some funny lines, and funny occurrences, alongside a nice story. Not much else to say, Burton can be good at telling a story.

I must say, that similar to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, there are only snippets of the film that I can say I actually enjoyed. First off, I liked the story itself (I heard it was based on some old story), and I enjoyed the scene in the pub. Other than the overall look of the film, nothing else surpassed me as great. I felt the animation was handled really well, with some nice cinematography and some pretty models the film looked nice, and perhaps if muted to a degree the film would have been a lot better.

As for bad points- Seeing as they wanted to make the film a musical; which I believe was not needed at all. This was because, in my opinion there was only one half decent song (in the weird underworld pub/bar thing with the dancing skeletons). But I felt that unlike the Nightmare Before Christmas –which is an enjoyable film- that every song was unnecessary, and I do not put it down to my hearing (because I have the ears of a rabbit), but I could not hear a word of what they were singing about, it was all just simply incomprehenable (made up word).
It also seemed a little long –and seeing as it was only 76mins long, which must be bad!

Overall it was an ok film, nowhere near the spectacle of the Nightmare Before Christmas but some nice stop animation; a good change from the overly-made CGI films produced. It’d be fun for maybe children, or die-hard Burton fans…

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6 /10

Like I mentioned it was not the film that I had expected. The crowds of people (about 3 besides us) were the only present at the screening towards the end of its run at our cinema. It was ok, but like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I am not anticipating its release.

Saw II

2005-12-21T18:38:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If need be I poke your eyes out for you!

Saw II, is apparently the second film in a set that is said will hold many other sequels… um yay.

At this point you are all thinking “Where is your Serenity review??!” well in answer to all your questioning. I am holding it off so I that I can write a darn good review on it! So don’t ‘spec to be seeing it until my review of Broken Flowers is on the table.

So, directed by some guy… Darren Lynn Bousman- who didn’t actually direct the original, strange huh?- Starring Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Mason), Shawnee Smith (Amanda),and I’m going to end it at Tobin Bell (Jigsaw), this mainly because all the other characters/actors were not really present for a particular reason. They were just there to die.

Saw II follows Eric Mason (Wahlberg) and his messed up life to the point to where his son is kidnapped to join in the games of Jigsaw; as he traps at least 10 (I think) people in a house. Informing them that they have been injected with a lethal nerve gas and will die eventually without help of the vaccines strewn throughout the house, but with the drive to survive in each person, one by one they die, either by the hand of another or through their own personal gain. The story is nothing special, though guessing the twist (because you know there had to be one) is always a bit of fun, though I am not the biggest fan of where they went with the twist.
Expect as much gore and more than the original! Fans of twisted violence, this may be your film… fans of good acting, story etc, perhaps not your cup of tea.

In comment to the actors... they were not too good at acting, I do not think I can actually comment… the plethora of characters were really nothing special, sort of what I expected in a way. Apart from Donnie Wahlberg- although even he just played angry cop- and Tobin Bell I can’t say that I actually ‘liked’ any of the actors.

The screenplay was to be expected from a gore induced flick, with some bad predictable lines, only a few shone through with the reflection that someone was thinking when they wrote it. The story is almost non-existent; just a chance to revolt people.

In not being a fan of most horror films I’m going to say that I enjoyed Saw II but only as a piece of entertainment, nothing more. I loved being able to cringe at points, for a movie to obviously get me so engrossed to cringe I applaud it. But the film itself is nothing ground breaking, it had similar strong points to Saw; being a FEW snappy lines, some strong main characters, though only two that I could stand. Whereas Saw had Danny Glover, I cannot say there was anyone present of his stature…

As for bad points- I must say that the original Saw contained far better actors, aside from having Cary Elwes as one of the main characters. Whereas in Saw II they felt the need to introduce about ten people who were all going to die anyway, so I didn’t care much for them. Another problem I found with the film was its twist, I didn’t like how they left it so open for a sequel I fear that its followers may become more than disastrous. Although the pointers to the end were pretty easy to guess, ‘cept the last one, which I thought was clever.
The sequel was also not as cryptic as the original, something I sorely missed.

Overall it was an ok film. It was only really good for the gore and wince inducing moments. There is not much strong acting to be found here, so Saw II is the movie you may rent for a night of scary movies, not as profound as Saw was, but at the same standard.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6 1/2/10
It was fun to see such a film at the cinema, although the gang of chavs terrorising our cinema was not the nicest experience in the world…

Downfall

2005-12-21T11:18:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!

Downfall, wow what can I say, my first foreign language film at a cinema. I must admit the subtitles weren’t too handy right at the bottom of the screen. But I have to say that Downfall is one of the best German films that I have ever seen (this is based on me not actually watching any German films other than Run Lola Run; which is pretty awesome as well… I really need to get hold of some Fritz Lang, my Werner Herzog collection is on the way though)
Just would like to say, that I am reviewing this simply as a film, not of its representation of Germany, Hitler, nor the lack of responsibility that it apparently takes.

So, directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel- who also directed Das Experiment (which I was going to buy, but purchased MPD Psycho instead)- Starring Bruno Ganz (Adolf Hitler), Alexandra Maria Lara (Traudl Junge), Corinna Harfouch (Magda Goebbels), Ulrich Matthes- who I thought was really scary looking (Joseph Goebbels) and Juliane Kohler as the always scary Eva Braun.

When I first heard of the film, I had assumed it was about Hitler in his last days, that’s it the end. But I was surprised to find it focused around a young Traudl Junge, who worked as Hitlers secretary during his downfall.
The film begins as a young Traudl Junge is chosen to be Hitler’s secretary. The film captures the tragic figure that Hitler towards the end of his days, believing that the Germans were always going to win the war, even so as his authority is eroded and everyone but himself will acknowledge the fact that they have lost.
As we follow Junge’s life in the heavily fortified underground bunker, we are laid witness to a host of characters, namely the Goebbels, who remain loyal to the Fuhrer to the end, and the very strange case that is Eva Braun.
We are taken to the end of the war, with only a few survivors of Hitlers ranks, running far and fast until only Junge and a young boy (Peter Kranz) ride off into the sunset on a bicycle, in the hopes of finding a ‘better Germany’.

In comment to the actors... in my opinion they were fantastic, Bruno Ganz played the most tragic and heartfelt Hitler I have ever laid witness to (taking into account the only representations of Hitler that I have seen were in Indiana Jones and if you count it; The Great Dictator). Now I’m not a scholar on Hitler, but I must say that I going to guess that he got it right down to the mark. As for Alexandra Maria Lara I must say that she looked a little more wide eyed than I would have liked, but she played the part rather well, although it was difficult to notice her seeing as Ganz stole the show. But there were also some nice performances shown in Speer (Heino Ferch), as well as the Goebbels and many of the other characters whose names I very regretfully cannot remember.

The screenplay was excellent, based around two books on Hitler’s downfall, and from Junge’s narration at the beginning of the film to the very last lines that she speaks are powerfully tragic and amazingly written, the whole film helped along by the screenplay, making it feel as though you were in Berlin at the time.

With such a tragic film its not too hard to guess that all of the great parts would be gut wrenchingly sad. So anyway, onto the good bits:
Firstly the scene where Mrs Goebbel ‘spares’ her children’s lives was awful, such a tragic moment, great as well if you ask me (have to see it for yourself). I only wish I could think of other great points… there was the great scene with Peter and a bunch of other small children firing on the allies. I thought that that was very good, especially when they all died… how morbid do I sound. The deaths and suicides of many others also made good scenes.
There were also some quite memorable spats between Hitler and his generals, having you feel great sympathy for this man who was trying everything that he could to attempt to win the war.

As for bad points.. I do not think I actually have any complaints of the film itself. The screening at my cinema was not too good, but the film was awesome, no whining here my friend (at least none that I can remember).

Overall it was an excellent film, perhaps not for all with its German subtitles.. I remember that my older sister was offered to join us, and she wanted to until she found it was German… a great film to watch if you want to see a lovely tragic piece of cinema, showing Hitler as a frail old man.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 9/10

Thankfully the matinee showed on the day we had off. And I must admit the experience was pretty awesome, after only paying £3 for the both of us, and sitting amongst hoards of older generations is pretty weird considering I don’t usually see older people in cinemas.
To tell it straight, we were the youngest people in the cinema, two guys looked a couple of years younger, then that was it, the rest of the cinema was packed with older people.

A History of Violence

2005-12-17T09:56:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If need be I will shoot your eyes for you!

A History of Violence, Mr Cronenberg’s newest film, renowned for many violent and graphical films, it would seem that A History of Violence was made more for the masses in some aspects. But that didn’t particularly mean that it appealed to them.

The film was actually particularly hard to get into seeing as the people who served us would not believe that we were eighteen, and we without ID, had to find someone that looked older to buy them for us.

So, directed by David Cronenberg- of which I have only seen Spider (which I thought was good)- Starring Viggo Mortensen (Tom Stall), Mario Bello (Eddie Stall), Ed Harris (Carl Fogarty), William Hurt (Richie Cusack) and Ashton Holmes (Jack Stall).

The film follows Tom Stall (Mortensen) the owner of a small diner, in a peaceful little town, with his loving family. Late one night two crooks harass the diner, and the quaint storeowner turns the tables, killing both men, not soon after he is hailed as a local hero. Tom, none too pleased of the attention, blows off the incident. But not son after a small group of mysterious men (led by Harris) visit the area and start harassing him. With the introduction of the mysterious characters Tom has to upset his once peaceful world again to confront his past, and protect his family.

In comment to the actors... I very much liked William Hurt’s character, funny and menacing, and the same goes for Ed Harris. As for Viggo Mortensen, I am not sure, truth be told, I’ve never really paid attention to him, so his acting just seemed on par with everyone else.

The screenplay was … it was good at times, but some lines were awful, all was very bearable for the film. I am rarely impressed by screenplays these days. But the story was ok, it was just delivered a little strangely.

I particularly liked the first shot, lasting well over five minutes it was a superb beginning, although a little easy to predict; either way it was good I liked that part. For my introduction to Mr Cronenberg’s film it wasn’t bad in my opinion, there was some pretty snazzy violence, and some nice comical touches.

As for bad points- I do agree with some that the end just came about, a little open..

Overall it is not the film for everyone, some may not like the films slow premise and be wary of its conclusion

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6 1/2/10
‘twas an ok film, and everyone seemed as clueless as each other about the ending…

Land of the Dead

2005-12-03T11:13:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
I will be fitting, and if need be I will consume your eyes for you

Land of the Dead, Romero’s fourth in the Dead series, I and Catherine had already planned to see the film after witnessing the pretty awesome looking trailer that we partook in, before seeing Red Eye.

So, directed by George Romero- of whose films I must say I have never actually seen- Starring Simon Baker (Riley), John Leguizamo (Cholo), Dennis Hopper (Kaufman), Asia Argento (Slack) Robert Joy (Charlie) and not forgetting Eugene Clark (Big Daddy).

I thought that the film began rather well, summing up the taking over of the dead, with some nice twitchiness on the credits, as well as some eating.
The film was, I must say I little different that I had expected, with the evolving intelligence I was not surprised (dumb zombies would not attract so well, which is why they are always upping the AI in Resident Evil), but it just seemed a little so-so.
It follows almost three stories; the good guys (Riley, Slack and Charlie), the bad guys (Kaufman) and the confused (Big Daddy and his posse). This I thought was rather strange of a zombie film; to creative zombies that were emotive.
To sell it short, the good guys escape, the bad guys die, and the confused lot are left to their own.

In comment to the actors... they were not too good at acting, I do not think I can actually comment… the zombies did pretty good zombies, but the actual characters were really nothing special, sort of what I expected in a way. Apart from the fact that they placed a daft character, that everyone has to feel some pang of pity for.

The screenplay was to be expected from a zombie flick. Some bad lines, and nothing special, but you go to be shocked by the effects, and makeup, I couldn’t care less of the screenplay in these terms.

In absolutely loving zombie video games but never watching a film based around the creatures, I must say I was thoroughly impressed, the devouring of people looked fantastic, the zombie’s makeup was also out of this world, they all looked so pathetic and endearing; the way zombies are meant to be.
Mwhahaha you jumped Catherine!! There are many jumpy points in the film, more often than none, they are false shocks, but they aren’t bad, fans of jumpy films, watch Land of the Dead!!

As for bad points- I cannot think of any besides the not so spectacular acting and the not so brilliant screenplay. I liked it for the pretty gore.

Overall it was a great film if you want to go to be entertained, it did seem to drag on a bit; possible because I needed the toilet… but if you want to be entertained I recommend it.. so the acting isn’t too great and everything is a little cliché, but in the spirit of things who cares!!

Cptalbertwesker Rating - 7/10
Was a great experience watching at the cinema, first real zombie film I’ve seen (28 Days Later does not count). Also rather fun when a couple of people behind us said ‘awww’ when Big Daddy lovingly picked up the gas pump.

Cinderella Man

2005-12-03T10:19:00.000Z

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If need be, I will gladly scratch your eyes for you! (doesn’t that just sound more violent that gouge)

Ron Howard. Wow, when was the last time I watched a movie released by him!!
Yeah um, it was out of Green Street, The Man and The Longest Yard, so I gladly chose the movie that wouldn’t hopefully suck; Cinderella Man.

I’m not personally a boxing fan, I mean I watch Rocky sometimes when it’s on. But I’m not a die-hard fan, but it turned out not too centred on the boxing.. so if you’re not a boxing fan, then you can watch away.

Directed by Ron Howard, of Splash, Willow and many other great 80s films, and starring Russell Crowe (Jim Braddock), Renee Zellweger (Mae Braddock), Paul Giamtti (Joe Gould) and Craig Bierko (Max Baer).

The film was nice, telling the story of boxer Jim Braddock; his fall from greatness during the depression, and his magical revival. It’s one of those films that are really made for the Oscars to suck up on, nothing too brilliant, but the stuff that they want to be shown giving Oscars to. We see James J. Braddock (Cinderella Man) fighting to keep his family survive. With old injuries kicking up, he is rendered unable to work, and after much discretion he returns to the ring; full of hope and spirit to keep his family living through the cold winter. After rocketing through the ranks he chooses to take on the heavyweight champion (Max Baer); renowned for killing two men in the ring.

In comment to the actors, Russell Crowe played the guy that’s been done tons of times before him, the big brute with a heart, his performance was heartfelt, but not as fantastic as performances I have seen in the past. As for Renee Zellweger, I cannot stand her; she was the usual doting wife, scared for her family and for her husband. I am unable to comment to well, because she’s too annoying… Craig Bierko was the usual dramatic bad guy, rich powerful and mean, what more can I say…
Paul Giamatti was the guy going for an Oscar, and I would be surprised if he doesn’t at least get nominated.

The screenplay was to be expected from such a dramatic film, some laughs, some sad moments… nothing awe inspiring.. but some good entertainment nonetheless. The characters written were a little standard, would have expected more from the film, at least the actors saved it.

I don’t really have much to say about the film. It was better than I thought it would be… I suppose when you go to see a dramatic boxing film, you should at least expect to be entertained, and that I indeed was. I must say it was entertaining to see a grown man eat like a dog out of a bowl, and it was nice to see a film about a family, actually showing that the parents loved their children, most of the time it isn’t as obvious as it should be.

Thinking back to watching the film a good month ago, good points keep popping into my head, I can never remember the bad unless its awful. So I’ll have to say the film is near flawless, except for Renee Zellwegger, so I give you a seven.

Overall it was a family film, the kinda thing that they’d show at Christmas on a chilly night. It was a lot more profound that Red Eye in the awe inspiring sense. But then they make these sort of films to make people believe that they can do something meaningful with their lives. A nice drama, containing all the usual elements, accompanied by some nice performances by some of the cast.

Cptalbertwesker Rating - 7/10
Shown on one of the biggest cinema screens that I have ever seen, with only about five or six people watching it, how ironic.

Red Eye

2005-11-22T18:41:00.000Z

Ahhh!! I have been inundated with reviews that I must do!!! So I apologise if any are short, I lost my notes.

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you!
If need be, I will gladly gouge your eyes for you!

Redeye was a very spur of the moment film to watch. Nothing too spectacular was showing the same week, so it came down to a new thriller from a former master of horror; Wes Craven.

So, directed by Wes Craven- of whose films have been slowly deteriorating- Starring Rachel McAdams (Lisa Reisert), Cilian Murphy (Jack Rippner), Brian Cox (Joe Reisert), Jayma Mays (Cynthia) and not forgetting Angela Paton (Nice Lady).

The film began with a good start, with some nice scenes between Jack and Lisa, wherein they go onto the verge of intimidatingly (made up me own word) stalkerish (two in one review). The film really picks up when the two board the airplane, this contained some of the best parts of the film; heroine devises a plan, and it goes wrong. As much as this is repeated it never stops being more than a little funny when the heroines’ plans go awry.

One particular comment that can most definitely be said is that the film is so obviously Wes Craven; the unstoppable antagonists, clumsy heroes and loads of tense action and millions of false shocks when needed. Which as always, is the most exciting part of Craven’s films, trying to pick out when a shock will be false or not?

In comment to the actors, Rachel McAdams didn’t do anything for me. She was the usual horror heroine, and faintly reminded me of Jennifer Gardner (the lips), but no, I didn’t think she was anything special. Murphy on the other hand was a great antagonist; but then as he showed in Batman, he is good at this role. But it wasn’t just the main leads that gave some good performances; I loved the touch of Cynthia and her panicky antics alongside that of Angela Paton’s Nice Lady; because the nice ladies are always so funny for me, completely oblivious to everything, and so nice!

The screenplay was to be expected from a slasher/thriller from Wes Craven, predictable lines and the usual intimidating words, nothing too special here.

I don’t really have much to say about the film. It was better than I thought it would be… I suppose when you go to see a Wes Craven film, you should at least expect to be entertained, and that I indeed was.

As for bad points- I could say that the film did sort of fall after she escaped Jack on the plane. It turned into that part in Scream where he is chasing her up the stairs. This part of the film was definitely not as entertaining as it began. The antagonist died too quickly and too easily; when the heroine should have died, because she was so obviously asking for it!

Overall it was a film you’d perhaps go see to be entertained, not particularly life changing, or profoundly deep, its just some harmless fun-filled entertainment. A nice thriller with some teen slasher elements, with some nice performances by some of the cast.

Cptalbertwesker Rating - 7/10
Was a great experience watching at the cinema, screaming girls is always a joy.

The Island

2005-10-05T19:24:00.000+01:00

It is extremely hard to explain the Island without giving away spoilers. So if you don’t want to know the twist, or you haven’t worked out what it is, please read on.

For a film that’s two and a half hours long I do not have much to say… either I was really tired when I watched it, or perhaps it didn’t take to it, whichever it was, I don’t remember much of the film.

Directed by Michael Bay- of which also directed Armageddon and The Rock –and starring Ewan McGregor (Lincoln), Scarlett Johansson (Jordon), Djimon Hounsou (Albert Laurent), Sean Bean (Merrick) and Steve Buscemi (McCord).

The film starts by showing Lincoln Six Echo’s dreams, much like Final Fantasy Spirits Within, and we can tell that there is something up with them. We are then presented with the large facility, where the survivors of the pollution that plagued the earth; killing almost everyone. Thousands of people live and work in this facility rather similar to THX1138. Close contact is forbidden, and the women are kept separate from the men. One of the best parts of the story in my opinion, is that every person in the facility has the mind of a small child. Through explaining the story I will have to give the twist away… so do not look it you do not want the film spoilt. Lincoln Six Echo and Jordon Two Delta escape the facility when they find that their facility is just a sham, and that it is just a ‘breeding ground’ for clones that are grown to aid their real life counterparts through organ harvesting.
Aided by McCord the two escape the grasp of Laurent who is sworn by Merrick (The owner of the facility) to retrieve them. Eventually they find the ‘real’ Lincoln -but the idea of the film is the amount of desperation that humans have to survive longer this is enforced as he tries to give Lincoln Six Echo back to Merrick. But during the capture the real Tom Lincoln is shot (I feel it would have succeeded a lot better if the clone was shot) He masquerades as the real Lincoln as he and Jordon venture back to the facility to aid all the others in a large scale escape. Everyone lives happily ever after.

I must say that I had figured the ‘twist’ from the word go, on a completely different note I must mention the obvious advertising by Microsoft. But then there was a LOT of product placement in The Island.

A few comments on the actors; Ewan McGregor gave an average performance, although the weird twinkle and his smile gave a re-enforcement for his role, he seemed to act pretty much like a child in the film, and I felt that he pulled it off rather well. I am not so sure if I can say the same for Scarlett Johansson, but then she wasn’t the main focus of the film, so I was unable to tell.
Sean Bean seemed a little out of place for me, I’m also starting to get the idea that he only really acts the same part in all of his films; regardless if he is good or bad character. Although I digress that I have not seen him in many films. Steve Buscemi played his usual strange character, who although played a ‘good guy’ still managed to come off quite seedy. Michael Clark Duncan’s scene rushing through the hospital was pretty memorable, as well as a few of the others at the facility, making the film all the more enjoyable.

Onto the screenplay, I think that the plot of the film was rather good. It’s a reality that apparently scientists have questioned as an alternative to extend our lives; I’ve got to say because of this, it’s the most realistic science fiction I have seen for a while, the only unrealistic parts fall into the category of completely unbelievable action. Otherwise it’s your average science fiction story, not much complicated dialogue or remarkable lines, but some funniness does ensue seeing as the main characters have the brains of adolescents.

I don’t really have much to say about the film. I expected to see a crappy science fiction film full of action; I was pleasantly surprised that it was not as crappy as I initially would have guessed.

As for bad points- The end was incredibly disappointing for me, it reminded me of that of THX1138, where it just ends with them out in the open desert, hoping to get a future, I was hoping for something not so cheesy.

Overall it was a pretty good science fiction film, perhaps if it had contained less action then it would have made a better science fiction film, but nonetheless I enjoyed the plot and the solid cast.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 7/10
The fact that I do not remember much of the film is not very good. But The Island was a refreshing science fiction film comparable to THX1138.

Bewitched

2005-10-01T11:20:00.000+01:00

Do I need to tell those of you that are sensitive that there may be spoilers…

Now, I’m not the foremost expert on romantic comedy; for me, they are just a bit of fun once in a while. So forgive me if the review may be a little below standards… This is the first time I have ever actually graced the cinema to watch a romantic comedy.
On that note, I must say that it is the one of the only films this year so far, wherein the cinema packed itself in about 5 minutes, rather than the usual five or six people who attend the normal films I go and see.

Directed by Nora Ephron who brought us Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally and You’ve Got Mail, and starring Nicole Kidman (Isabel Bigelow/Samantha), Will Ferrell (Jack Wyatt/ Darrin), Shirley MacLaine (Iris Smythson/Endora) and Michael Caine (Nigel Bigelow) to name the biggest parts.

Being a big fan of Bewitched as a child I was hoping for a nostalgic revival to the great show. Unfortunately all I got was a nice little romantic comedy (although I must say my attitude of this did change). The film follows both Jack Wyatt (Ferrell) and Isabel Bigelow (Kidman). Wyatt, a failing actor feels his comeback can be had in the form of a remake of the once hit show Bewitched. Afraid that he could get shadowed by a big name female; he looks for an unknown, in doing this he accidentally finds a real witch (Isabel). Predictable antics ensue, and eventually they ‘find’ each other, living happily ever after, much like Darrin and Samantha.

It would seem that I am revisiting my old tendencies again, through watching another film that was neither serious nor magnificent. Which I am very much getting used to. I can only hope some more profound films are released soon.

Nicole Kidman was acting out of the usual performances I am used to seeing. Although I have only watched her in Batman Forever and Moulin Rouge, I have little to say on the matter. But she played Samantha pretty well, at times she almost seemed identical to her. As for Will Ferrell, I have only ever seen him from the Cowbell skit on SNL. But it was probably Ferrell that saved the film for me; simply do to a few humorous scenes involving him.
Michael Caine was in the same sort of role I felt he played in Miss Congeniality, definitely not up to the standards he gave in Batman Begins. The only other actor I feel I must mention was Steve Carell who appeared as Uncle Arthur; whom I never remember seeing in Bewitched. But suffice to say his character was so annoying and completely over the top!!

The screenplay; was written by Nora Ephron and her sister Delia Ephron; who as I mentioned wrote the screenplays for hosts of other romantic comedies, so they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately this also meant it was a rather clichéd romantic comedy. Everything was to be expected, both lines and events.

I’ll mention the music as well. But as usual I did not really notice much, except for the sudden insertion of R.E.M.’s Everybody Hurts. Which I felt did not really ‘go’ but like I always keep complaining, it’s in films like these where songs are just inserted over the top, rather than it all be composed music.

So what were the good parts of the film? As a whole, it was a good romantic comedy, until it hits a certain point. The best parts of the film were probably the more humorous sections. I seem to remember Wyatt licking a shoe or a handbag, I am unsure. The scene at the dinner table was rather funny along with Wyatt’s obsession. I did also like the occasional nod to Bewitched; changing the title animations, complaining because they changed Darrin and nobody noticed, and generally remembering episodes of the series while watching the film. But they should have kept it at just that.

So those were the good bits… what was bad? The film seemed to go downhill with the introduction of Aunt Clara, and everything began to feel a little disjointed, the film became Bewitched, which is not what I wanted to happen after all that had took place earlier in the film. This also included the use of Uncle Arthur, so that before these introductions the film felt better as a romantic comedy about the stars of a Bewitched series, rather than actually taking from Bewitched itself.
I also felt that the magic was a little over done… but I loved that they included the two neighbours at the end.

Overall I can say that it was an enjoyable film. Keeping some of the same sort of elements from Bewitched, references to characters and some hilarious sequences. Bewitched proved a better film than I would have presumed. I can only hope I Dream of Jeanie will be comparable with the standards.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 6/10
We were supposed to be watching The Island, but we got the showing times, muddled, so we watched Bewitched instead, I wouldn’t have usually, but I grew up watching bewitched. It was ok I suppose, it was funny at times. Nice little Romantic Comedy.

Crash

2005-09-29T07:08:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O If you haven’t seen it I suggest you run to the hills! Before the zombies get to us!!! … *whispers* they want your eyes.

Hmm Crash… Never having actually seen Million Dollar Baby; even after all the reviews, my reason for going to see Crash was not linked to any particular actor/director/screenwriter, I believe I just wanted to see a film, and Crash was the best rated. I was with high hopes of seeing a more than average film; which had not been the trend recently.

Crash; the film of a thousand production companies… No really, there were tons of them, and if you ask me they were repeating the same ones over and over.
Strangely, if you ask me, Crash, was in no way related to that of David Cronenberg’s Crash, but it does makes me wonder how they were able to keep the same name, anyway onto the review.

Directed by Paul Haggis, and starring Sandra Bullock (Jean Cabot), Don Cheadle (Det. Graham Waters), Brendan Fraser (DA Rick Cabot), Michael Pena (Daniel), Ryan Phillippe (Officer Hanson), Matt Dillon (Officer Ryan), Ludacris (Anthony) Jennifer Esposito (Ria) Loretta Devine (Shaniqua), Thandie Newton (Christine), and Larenz Tate (Peter Waters) to name only a few.

A film such as Crash is always hard to explain in a few words. To perhaps help, it’s like Six Degrees of Separation. Wherein each character is somehow related through an action or decision that another character made, related to that point, I did read one review in my local newspaper which wrongly slated it comparable to Love actually, simply for its multitude of characters linked together, actually calling this a reason to stay away from the film.
Getting back to the story of the film, it focuses on fourteen very different people; each one having their own views on racism, all being of different races themselves, they all live in Los Angeles, and in 36 hours, they all collide.

It was definitely a change from the films I have been watching recently, it lacked the loud obnoxiousness of both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the Fantastic Four, which was extremely welcome. I myself was surprised that my cinema was even showing a film that might not appeal to the masses.

Onto the actors, as I may have mentioned already in this review, the two performances that shined out to me were that of Matt Dillon, Michael Pena and perhaps Sandra Bullock; you’ve always gotta love the obnoxious person that turns around and realises how stupid they are. I don’t really have much else to say, these three took some of the best parts of the film and stole the show.

The screenplay; was written by Paul Haggis; who as I mentioned before wrote the screenplay for Million Dollar Baby and I felt that this was the best screenplay I had heard so far this year. The lines were wonderful; I scarcely remember predicting lines, rolling my eyes or anything that I usually do while watching a badly written film. But then this is also partially because of the brilliant acting performances given.

So what were the good parts of the film? First off, it is definitely not a film that you will laugh all the way through, there are some humorous parts (although you tend to be forced to ask yourself, “Because I laughed at that, does that make me incredibly racist…”), but not many, most of the time you will either be shocked or moved. It’s a horrible film for manipulating the audience, but it is extremely effective through that, and the best sad film I’ve seen in a while. Some of the better parts of the film I would have to say would be with Daniel (Pena) and his daughter, as well as a few of the scenes with Officer Ryan (Dillon) these scenes were by far the most superior in my eyes, most touching as well.

So those were the good bits… what was bad? As horrible as I sound, I already mentioned that I do not like child actors (although the little girl was not bad), I also do not like it when musicians are in films, Ludacris was not so bad in Crash, though nonetheless it irritates me. Other than my own pickiness I found the film to be superb in every shape and form.

Overall I can say that I thought of it as a great film. With some superb acting, and a tight script which is at once realistic, moving, shocking, sad and amusing, and one film that I can say that I have really enjoyed.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 8/10
Although some feel it is a load of garbage I felt that Crash is one of the best films of the year. As far as serious drama’s go, it’s the best one I’ve seen in a while.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

2005-09-22T20:02:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! If you haven’t I suggest you gouge out your eyes… please don’t gouge out your eyes… just look away.

Hmm Charlie and the Chocolate Factory… another turn out from Tim Burton who is considered a god among men nowadays, let me say that his newest film left me less than satisfied.

Having considered myself a fan of Burton for years since Beetlejuice and Pee Wee’s Big Adventure I was hoping for another good film. I myself liking Big Fish; his last film, although like you may have guessed, I did not think his newest accomplishment lived up to its hype.

Directed by Tim Burton, and starring Johnny Depp (Willy Wonka), Freddie Highmore (Charlie Bucket), David Kelly (Grandpa Joe), Helena Bonham Carter (Mrs. Bucket), Missi Pyle (Mrs. Beauregarder) and Christopher Lee (Dr Wonka) to name only a few.

I myself have never read the book by Roald Dahl, but suffice to say that didn’t mean that I didn’t know the story. For those of you that don’t know it, Willy Wonka (Depp) decides that he will distribute 5 golden tickets around the world, so that five children may visit his chocolate factory. One by one the tickets are found by four different children. The story follows Charlie Bucket (Highmore) a poor child that lives in a crooked house and how he surprising gets the last golden ticket. The rest of the film should be about the tour around the factory, ultimately ending with Charlie becoming the heir to the factory. But not in Burton’s version, he decided he would include a new angle by bringing Wonka’s father into the picture; Dr. Wonka (Lee)

Strangely similar to the Fantastic Four; Charlie and the Chocolate Factory seemed like some sort of MTV kids movie than anything else. With some loud, unintelligible Oompa-Loompa songs (which I could hardly ever hear the lyrics to), and bright Burtonesque colours, its probably a great film for the youths of today. Unfortunately I thought that he was taking it a little too far. Or perhaps I just don’t think like a child anymore. Though I suppose fortunately Depp invented some weird quirky role that was funny at times, but I’ve gotta say he looked way too much like a girl with that hair… other than that no one really struck a chord…

But then I should probably comment on them… What can I say, I’m not a fan of child actors, I believe I’ve mentioned this before somewhere, but I cannot stand them, none of the children’s roles really astounded me. I can however comment on Christopher Lee and Missi Pyle. I namely bring those two up, because Christopher Lee is legendary; getting on a bit, but he is still a great actor, although his part was seriously not needed. I must also comment on Missi Pyle, unfortunately not constructively, but she freaks me out, ever since I saw her in Big Fish I thought that she belonged in a David Lynch film, simply for how odd she looks.

There was two great guest appearances by Mark Heap and Kevin Eldon; both from the twisted comedy series JAM, their appearances both unexpected and extremely weird as the two men walking dogs outside the factory, look out for them.

Onto the screenplay; written by John August; who also wrote the screenplay for Big Fish, very much similar it was a funny film. The lines weren’t horrible. But they were not fantastic either, that’s all I have to say.

So what were the good parts of the film? First off the introduction to the factory was hilarious. The Doll’s singing and dancing while their eyes were melting and burning out of their very sockets was excellent, pure dark humoured Burton I suppose. Much like this part, the other enjoyable sections of the film were amusing bits, such as the strange conversation about cannibals, and the hilarious flag museum scene.

So those were the good bits… what was bad? Mainly I felt the added storyline of parents was definitely not necessary, as well as near to the end of the film where we saw the children walking out of the factory all disfigured etc.
As with the end of the film, I must say I liked the 1970s version more. The cruel and mean visage that Wilder put on was great, and I was hoping for the same feature in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but was sadly disappointed.

Overall I’m not sure what to say about that... it had its funny moments... but kinda irritating, a film, it could definitely have been better. I preferred the original 70s film.

Cptalbertwesker Rating – 5/10
I felt that the film was too over hyped, Burton has become too overrated nowadays.

Fantastic Four

2005-07-30T19:56:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O Hide your vision if not!

The Fantastic Four was not a film that I myself would have volunteered to see at the cinema. It’s the sort of comic film that could never really seem to be doable.

But apparently they completed a film, and it is comic based.. and seeing as I’m a fan of The Thing I sorta had to go see it.

Directed by some guy called Tim Story- of whom I’ve never heard of- Starring Ioan Gruffudd (Reed), Jessica Alba (Susan), Chris Evans (Johnny), Michael Chiklis (Ben) and Julian McMahon. (Victor)

The film begins by following the comics rather closely, showing the Fan 4’s lives and the event that changes them all. While they are off discovering what they have become Victor Von Doom (McMahon) plots to get Reed Richards (Gruffudd) back for ruining his life. The good guys win, Von Doom is shipped back to his country (Latveria) Only for him to be still alive.. like we didn’t see that coming :P

It seemed like an MTV kids action movie than anything else. With loud obnoxious music, snowboarding and motocross its probably a great film for the youths of today. Unfortunately I am not so interested in all of that. Though Fortunately for me Michael Chiklis did a great job with The Thing, and seeing as he’s my favourite of the four, I couldn’t really care about the others :P.

But I should probably comment on them :/ What can I say… Chris Evans was suited for his role, he seemed to act pretty much like Johnny –a spoilt brat, as well as the spats between Ben and Johnny which were more than frequent in the comics.
As for Ioan Gruffudd I do not think he was right for the part, and the same goes for Jessica Alba. They both felt way out…
The same goes for Julian McMahon, Dr Doom was a poor example of one of coolest villains created in the Marvel Universe. They butchered him, he had his moments, but most of the time he seemed like your usual clichéd bad guy.

But Michael Chiklis is by far different to all those present. His performance as The Thing was excellent. Reminiscent of comics, he played his character perfectly and convincingly as the ever loving blue eyed thing. But as I said, he was the only real good part of the film.

Onto the screenplay MARK FROST?! What? For those you of you that don’t know who he is.. he wrote Twin Peaks with David Lynch. Along with Michael France they both wrote the screenplay of what could be expected of such a film, not what I would expect of Mark Frost though.

I don’t really have much to say about the film. It was better than I thought it would be… hell, it could have been miles worse, thank god they kept The Thing of real materials, rather than a CG monstrosity. So what was good about it?
Well as I keep saying, The Thing was the best part of the film (he’s one of my favourite comic superheroes) I liked how they kept to the comics and everything.

As for bad points- I could say the acting from the other cast members were not excellent. The CGI for Reed was not the best, it had one shinning moment, then looked kinda crappy the rest of the time. But then it was needed, else Mr Fantastic would be unable to stretch..

Overall it was a film you’d perhaps go see to be entertained, not particularly life changing, or profoundly deep, its just some harmless fun-filled entertainment. A family movie, with a great performance by Michael Chiklis, other than himself, an all round ok, but nothing special cast.

Cptalbertwesker Rating - 5/10
Was actually better than I expected, pretty close to the comics. Merits half marks.

Batman Begins

2005-07-15T19:57:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O

Batman Begins, the fifth instalment in the Batman series: a series that had proclaimed itself dead to me when George Clooney stepped up to the role under the direction of Joel Schumacher. Full of nippled costumes and awful dialogue I did not know what to think when Batman Begins -the film to follow the monstrosity that was Batman & Robin- was released. So I vowed never to see it.

But with nothing to do, it couldn’t hurt to see it, after all being directed by Christopher Nolan, who had made an interesting film of Memento,
and much like every other Batman film it boasted a star studded cast. I was more than pleased with the performances that they all gave.

To name a few, the cast was made of Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman. Not to mention Rutger Hauer, Cillian Murphy, Katie Holmes and Tom Wilkinson.

So what’s the film about? The film follows Bruce (Bale) from when he left Gotham after his parents were killed. Somewhere along the line of finding himself he is arrested, and eventually found by Ducard (Neeson), promising that if he becomes a member of a ninja cult then he will be free to go, as long as he follows under their rule. He is taught their ways, manages to escape and travels back to Gotham, to get back what was once his -as well as have a stab eradicating the troubles in Gotham. He begins with Falcone; the local mob boss. This is very much how it was played out in the comics. Once Batman managed to get Falcone the weirdoes in masks came out. So once he’s dealt with Falcone he’s got an even bigger foe to sort out.
In this case it's the scarecrow.

Watching the trailers for the film I was afraid that Batman Begins was going to be a mishmash of karate/kung fu fighting with a big car known as the Batmobile. But I was surprisingly wrong about that. The ‘Batmobile’ was not as bad as I had first thought. Congratulations are also in order for Mr Nolan to stick to using actual stunts rather than CGI with the Batmobile. Which made a huge jump across a long gap all the more amazing.
As for his suit, it was ok, I guess you could say it was more suited for the film. Although I do prefer the yellow bat symbol myself.

From mentioning the star studded cast, one has to worry, in cases such as this, most of the actors present would not usually be used to their potential. This was not the case in Batman.
First off you have Christian Bale; who can play both Bruce Wayne and Batman superbly. Most actors that portray Batman can either play a good Bruce or a good Batman. He had some great lines as the suave Bruce, which reminded me of the comics. And I thought he did a good Batman, although he seemed to shout a little.

Michael Caine was not someone I would envision as Alfred; especially after Michael Gough playing the character for years, I could not imagine someone else taking his place. But Caine filled the void rather well; he was witty, charming and above all actually felt like Alfred. I just can’t stand him though.

Murphy’s Scarecrow was the point of the film that made it darker than any other Batman film previous, his fear gas, along with the CGI that accompanied it made everything spectacular. And seeing as it was a 12A I was dumbfounded. Batman may not of contained the amounts of blood that War of the Worlds had, but the Scarecrow had a quality that I believe would scare any small child. Hell he looked like the chainsaw-wielding-bag headed-monster-zombie from Resident Evil 4
I can’t say that Liam Neeson’s character was anything special; nothing like his better roles. Must say he wasn’t too noticeable.

Gary Oldman played a great Commissioner Gordon, but then Oldman always seems a pretty solid actor. Even though when I look at his resume, I have not seen him in that many films. He and characters acted by Morgan Freeman, Tom Wilkinson and Rutger Hauer all helped propel the movie forwards. Although poor Rutger Hauer was unrecognisable by my sister.

The downfall of the film was the choice of Katie Holmes as the heroine.
In the past Batman was given such beauties as Kim Basinger, Nicole Kidman and Michelle Pfeiffer. Holmes looked too young for her role. She was supposed to be the District Attorney! No offence Miss Holmes, you look about 18.

What made this Batman film extraordinarily different from all the others was its focus. The original 1989 Batman was not hailed for Keaton’s role as Batman or Bruce. It was Nicholson’s force as a great actor that the film will be remembered for.
Never before has the audience been shown so much of Batman and so little of the villains.

The greatest achievement of Batman Begins was to actually take from some of the best Batman stories around. Sure you can nitpick it, but it will not stop the film from feeling like Batman. He’s darker than ever and part of that is created by Gotham’s atmosphere.
Gotham certainly is not Burton’s extravagant imaging of it. Far from it in fact. Gotham looks more suited for a film like Blade Runner. Because of this slight change it makes the film grittier than any before.

I’ve praised the film enough, so what are its problems?
Let me just state I’m a nitpicker.
It was a pretty long film, at about 3 hours long it's not the longest film out there, but because of its length I got home pretty late. That also means the chances of me watching it a lot when it is released on DVD will be pretty slim, because I’m a nut when it comes to time management.
The Fight sequences were too fast paced, with a cut every few seconds it was too hard to tell what was happening in most fights.
A couple of my problems were also with the incident of his parents’ death. Simply that they had gone to the theatre to see Die Fledermaus rather than Zorro; to stick with tradition. Although it did fit context.
Second, focus on the pearls. No matter what Batman comic you read that focuses on their death you always focus on the pearls. Pearls symbolise innocence. The innocence is gone when they drop to the ground in pieces. I believe they even focused on it with some of the other Batman films.

On the plus of being a bit of a Batman fan I must say the screenplay took from some of the best comics out there. Most noticeably Loeb’s The Long Halloween and Dark Victory and although David Goyer denied it. Some of it is comparable to Frank Miller’s Year One. (The bat signaller on his shoes, and the end)

Overall I have to say it was a great film, an even better Batman film! With a great villain, and some great actors, it was one of the best films of the summer I have seen.

Cptalbertwesker Rating 8/10 Great film, bit long but well worth the watch. Especially if you’re a fan of Batman.

Can’t wait to see who they cast for the Joker!! I can only hope that the next film will be just as good as this was.

War of the Worlds

2005-07-07T18:33:00.000+01:00

War of the Worlds, a spur of the moment film when watched, please take the time to read my views.
If you have not yet seen the film, there may be some spoilers in here for you! :O Run for the hills!

Well it was a Tuesday, which meant a very long school day. And I thought, ‘Hell, lets go to the cinema’ Which doesn’t happen much. We only really went for the fact that Tuesday’s are Student Days at the Odeon, meaning that tickets are half price at only £3.50 each.

The choice was out of Batman Begins and War of the Worlds. It was a tough choice, but I chose that we (me and kitty) would watch War of the Worlds.
Although we watched Batman Begins the following week anyway.

War of the Worlds, another blockbuster churned out by the mogul that is Steven Spielberg. Starring only Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Justin Chatwin and Tim Robbins.

Directed by Steven Spielberg; whom has had much experience with alien movies, but never before have I seen such a good disaster movie (probably because I tend not to watch them).
The film follows Ray Ferrier; a dock worker, divorced with two children, who he has been given the responsibility to look after at the time the aliens strike. Of course nobody gets along well. The film spans across many states and environments for the ultimate goal of reaching Boston; where the children’s mother and stepfather are staying. Throughout this journey we are witness to a haunting train, the remains of a plane crash, a boat disaster and lots of running, hiding and shouting.

A typical action movie. Except for one difference.
I enjoyed it.

My main anxiety for the film was its enormous usage of CGI for the creation of the aliens. I am not always the fan of CGI especially when it is issued for no reason. But in War of the Worlds the CGI effects were utilised extraordinarily, helping to convey the frightening devastation that the tripods unleashed unto the protagonist’s world.

A note on Tom Cruise in the film. I am not his biggest fan, I must admit whenever I see him in a movie I always need to comment on how short he is compared to regular actors. But hell, he was really one of the only actors in the film alongside with Robbins. No one else really struck me with an amazing performance.
Another bit I picked up on was how Tom Cruise looked really old. I came to the conclusion while watching that perhaps it was just to convey his desperation in the events, how tired he really was. Well you couldn’t really have some shiny clean actor bursting through the film, looking as though nothing had happened...
But I felt he gave a good performance. Perhaps it’s not up there with some of his better characters, but he was convincing - a man on the edge, at the end of his wits. With a screaming child at his side...

Dakota Fanning... the screaming little girl. Surprisingly I did not find her too annoying, I usually would. I hate children in films. But then without them, it would just be a bunch of adults. Justin Chatwin didn’t really strike me with a great performance; I do not really remember much of him while I write this. The only fact I do remember his character was the blatant advertising of the Apple iPod... eww I’m biased against their cause.

Tim Robbins was the only other real ‘good’ actor besides Cruise. He gave a first-rate performance as a crazed guy. I thought his character was really sinister though, half expecting him to try and kill them all.
The only other memorable character was the female friend of Ray, her death was rather shocking, and not expected by myself. Especially for a film where everyone lives happily ever after. (She was the one that couldn’t make it onto the ferry).

Off acting I will now focus on the screenplay. Of which I do not remember predicting any lines; which for a large budget film is usually unheard of. Especially with a screenwriter like David Koepp, who has written many a large budget screenplay before.
Sure not everything was the best, but I do remember some rather funny lines, and occurrences:

Two for you, two for Robbie, two for me... One for the house
(That was funny, but not supposed to be :P)

What is this?
Hommus
Hommus?
Yeah, from the Health food place, I kept a menu last time we were here.
(Stares at her)
… Well you said order.
Yeah… food.

What is it? Is it terrorists?
These came from some place else.
What do you mean… like… Europe?
No, Robbie, not like Europe!

I’m allergic to peanut butter.
Since when?
Birth.

Most of them are only funny in context, but I remember laughing a little now and then when I saw the film.

A note on the score by John Williams... that was John Williams? I do not even remember hearing any music whatsoever. I could not distinguish John Williams in the film at all. His work is usually so easy to recognise.
As for diegetic sound, the tripods made the experience of going to the cinema solid. The terrifying screeches let off by the tripods sailed all around the 10 people seated at the particular screen. The sound effects were magical, the best part of the film.

The film itself having been rated PG was going pretty easy on it. If I were a small child I would have been terrified to see such a film. With innocent civilians being disintegrated left and right, alongside others being spewn all over the place.
Although the violence was all in context, it’s not as though a cinema goer could copy the events and kill someone in the same fashion.

So what was good about the film?
The eerie quality that highways gave were perfect for the film. Hundreds of deserted cars along a stretch of road really gave a feel of isolation, another event that helped with this was most definitely the airplane crash; the strangest part of the film, alongside with the flaming train.
The introduction of the tripods was spectacular, destruction left and right so heartlessly that I loved it.
I liked the story of the loser father, some of the dialogue along with the acting was top notch. An all round enjoyable film.

Although every film has its bad points. Mine were mainly with parts of the story.
Why did Spielberg decide they would be under the ground? I suppose if they hadn’t of been it would have been another Independence Day. But still I thought it was unnecessary.
It would seem some of the film was centred for compassion for your fellow man. If that were the case then why did no one care about the first man to be sucked inside the tripod from the cage? Why did the army officer give Tom Cruise the thingy of grenades and not the other poor guy? No one else seemed to care a thought for him.
My only other gripe: Boston.
If there were as many tripods after Ray as there was everywhere else, then why did Boston look immaculate? How did all these people survive? Ray had been around different parts of the country; many of with were deserted because of the terrible devastation. Of course in talking of Boston, this all leads to the ending... of which words cannot express.

With such a great film I feel the ending dampened the whole thing. I would have rather it had a sad ending, than one so happy.
But seeing as this particularly bad end was to a pretty great film, it does not come off too bad.

Overall a pretty decent film. The first to rekindle my interest in contemporary cinema, and began me on the road of watching a new film every Tuesday.
It had some good acting, some fun dialogue, and some great special effects. The kind of film I would go to the cinema to see, simply for the experience given by the sound.

Cptalbertwesker Rating 7/10 A great premise but a bad end, definitely a good start to the summer films.

Sin City

2005-06-21T06:31:00.000+01:00

Film of the year (for now) hands down. Now read my opinions... if they matter that is.

Spoileroonies may be present. So please avert your eyes!!!

Sin City, a movie that I did not realise was in the works until some time previous to its release. At least 3 years since I had read the graphic novels I did not initially give much thought into the idea of the film. That is until searching around one night I came across a piece of greatness directed by a filmmaker named David Brocca, a member of Pitchfilms, who had created Rats: A Sin City Yarn, not long ago I had read the short ‘Rats’ in one of the Sin City novels, and I had thought it was great. Then to my surprise someone had made a short film of it. Standing at only 3 minutes long, the short itself only ran a couple of pages. But the great length to detail that was made in the film was astounding. It looked straight outta the comic. Shots were framed exactly as they were in the comic, and it was worded exactly to the book.
After I had seen it I immediately praised David Brocca for his work, and he shortly thereafter sent me a copy of it on DVD that he had made; this I of course now keep very safe, and will cherish forever. Unfortunately it will not play on my computer specifically, for reasons unknown.

Anyway, Rats had tripled my hopes for Sin City when it came out and I couldn’t wait to see it at the cinema.
Fortunately it was being shown on a Thursday, and since I was on study leave, it was a perfect chance to go see the film, before its initial release on the Friday. Although I must say that I was a little dishearten by the amount of people in the theatre, there must have been only 15 or so people seated, but I must say I believe that everyone there had enjoyed it.

Starring a host of people, the important players being Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, Jessica Alba and Clive Owen, of course along with a load of people I do not remember the names of.
Directed by Robert Rodriguez along with Frank Miller who supervised it, Oh my god!! Don’t forget the guest direction of oh yes!!! Quentin Tarintino... geez, really it's not that big a goddamn deal, and yet I swear everyone is like, “Quentin Tarintino, really? I must go see this film, I have no idea what it is about, but who cares if I heard the name Quentin Tarintino!” And that almost every review I have read relates the film to Pulp Fiction’s time frame etc, which it is exactly like a Tarintino movie.... he didn’t create the story... Frank bloody Miller did!!! Seriously if you looked up the word overrated in the dictionary it would say that Quentin Tarintino and Donnie Darko are synonyms of the word. Anyway, now that’s over with I can get on with the review :P

The film follows three different characters, joining three of the series of graphic novels into one, although That Yellow Bastard is splintered into two pieces. To start we follow the beginning of the aforementioned title. Which follows John Hartigan (Willis); a sixty something cop, not too far from retirement in the attempt to rescue a little girl; Nancy Callahan (Alba) from being murdered and raped by the sadist Roark (Nick Stahl) son of the senator, and nephew of Cardinal Roark (Rutger Hauer) From the word go, the stories portray the worst of humanity, an underlying plot of lies and deceit, beginning with the affliction of John’s former partner (Michael Madsen) who in fact has been ensuring that Roark gets his girls, with no hassle from the police. This is followed by much violence, and the beginning of much decapitation of peni (is that the plural :P)
After John is left as what could only been seen as dead, the story cuts to that of Marv.

There’s a nice description of Marv in the film said by Dwight (Owen) . Marv (Rourke) is introduced fairly quickly as a brute of a man, causing destruction left and right while he escapes from the police, on suspicion that he murdered a hooker named Goldie, whom he believed he had fallen in love with. He exacts his revenge, with many humorous scenes, and I believe here I must mention one thing;

The film’s portrayal of the church. Now I had never realised it when I read the graphic novels... I was young. You see the Cardinal proclaiming how he and Kevin ate Goldie, along with Marv going gun crazy with the vicar in the confession box, who was also a little crooked, and I thought, ‘geez! guess maybe Miller doesn’t like the church too much’ But then in Sin City, there do not tend to be many innocents left... or maybe he’s just showing how crooked they can really be, I do not speak with much experience, living in a small village with a little church...

As I mentioned with the story of Marv came some humorous scenes, unfortunately I can only remember two at the moment. One of my personal favourites was when he was interrogating another informant by the process of dragging his face across the road, while in a moving car. At this short scene Marv says something like;

“ I don't know about you, but I'm havin' a ball. ”

I thought that part was great, very funny...not too sure of the audiences’ reaction. Although I do remember one guy laughing his head off at the execution scene. Where Marv was not zapped quite enough ensuing him to ask the line

“Is that the best you can do, you pansies!”

In the process of exacting revenge of those that killed Goldie, Marv comes across Kevin (Elijah Wood) who, playing a rather untypecast character pulls it off pretty smoothly.. Making a disturbing character, with his child-like smile of his.

The third story follows Dwight (Owen) which I felt seemed to be the longest of them all; perhaps this is because I always felt it was a rather long read. But it informs the audience of how in Sin City things are not always as they seem. Now I remembered when watching the film, the shock that Jackie (Del Toro) was a cop was a real twist, something I never suspected. Believe it or not the same thing happened when I watched it at the cinema. Now I love this story full of the twists and turns. I thought as usual that Benicio Del Toro pulled off a great dangerous, crazy cop guy... who although to me looked a lot different from the comic. The story also carried with it, what proved to be the funniest part of the whole film. I am of course speaking of the moment when a message is passed on to Manute (Michael Clark Duncan) through a message on an arrow, pierced through a one of his guys. This scene got uproars of laughter in the cinema, and it made me laugh when I originally read it... something that isn’t common place when reading something for me anyway.

But of course I mustn’t forget to mention this is the story containing what you’ve all been waiting for! Quentin Tarintino’s director spot, ‘Oh Brother!’

The fourth, or second part of story two then follows, wrapping up the following 8 years Hartigan spent in jail, and follows him saving Nancy... again. This story contains yet another great bit, which I had originally loved in the comic. He feeds Nancy what she wants to hear, everything will be alright, I’ll get our revenge. When he knows there’s no chance of anything. So he kills himself.

"An old man dies. A young girl lives. A fair trade. I love you, Nancy."

And of course, I the nit-picker hate the fact they changed the position Hartigan shoots himself, because it looks ridiculous. Other than that, a nice end to the story. Just how it had been in the comic, no happy ending, no fairy tale resolution.

My favourite part of the film hands down was the two shorts involving the hitman; now in the graphic novels, he did appear a couple of times, but I loved both sequences that they had used with him, regardless of the fact that they had used Josh Hartnett, who I thought was just your run of the mill mediocre actor nowadays, he executed the part pretty well. For me the whole of the little scene embodies the spirit of Sin City, the seediness and low down drudgery it involves, the line;

“The silencer makes a whisper of a gunshot. I hold her close until she’s gone. I’ll never know what she was running from. I’ll cash her check in the morning”

Once again, with little words, I cannot explain why I love the scene so much.
This reminds me to mention how much I also liked the music composed for the film; with it all being rather parallel to the action, I believe it was suited beautifully. The score could have gone down a completely different avenue -of rock and metal music- thank god it didn’t.

Another point that I immediately realised while watching the film was how tame it was compared to the original graphic novels... in the graphic novels, everyone tended to be naked at some part... not that I was hoping for that, but it was something that struck me, making the film very different.

Upon watching the film, the immediate aspect to pick up on is the closeness. Now of course, this wouldn’t be if Frank Miller hadn’t been a direct consultant on the film, it would be nothing like it is. Of course when I came back home from watching the film I immediately consulted the graphic novels, finding that it was almost word for word, some shots looking exactly the same as the panels in the comics.

Another point I found funny, when watching it at the cinema, is that you, as an audience, never know when it ended. There were some moments where the screen would fade to black, and stay in the transition for a pretty long time. When the end had finally come around -which I had realised due to the bookend type ending- the audience had to wait for the music and credits to roll before they could be absolutely sure.

It’s strange I find myself continuously comparing films to video games now... now I have to figure out if that says something about the quality of video games, or the quality of films... But regardless throughout the film I did not realise it would make me want to play Max Payne so much in my life. Throughout reading the comics, I never felt the relation with the narration over Sin City. But then I’m only comparing them on the basis of a voice-over... I will not go too deep so as to confuse myself.

I found that the acting in the film was far greater than that of ROTS (Which I have most recently watched). Although I must say I was focused far greater on the dialogue, so I did not really look for bad acting, once again the story far too engrossing I failed to pick up on bad acting unless it was sticking out like a sore thumb (ROTS)

The chiaroscuro *pronounced with awful fake Italian accent* present in the film was marvellous, something that you could think would only be possible if it were drew onto paper.
Overall I must say that the screen adaptation of Sin City is the best new film I have seen this year, and perhaps the best comic-book film I have ever seen. Never has a film so visually stunning, with large usage of green-screen techniques ever made a blip in my radar. This is the kind of film that makes me believe in cinema once again. Perhaps even going so far as to cool my hatred of special effects.

Cptalbertwesker rating 9/10 Best film of the year so-far, can’t wait to hope that the sequels will be as good. I apologise for such a long review... in my defense it was a good film.

Notorious

2005-06-20T09:42:00.000+01:00

Be expectant of reviews left and right, I've found a lot of spare time... I wonder if anyone is reading this... there may be some spoilers, some people have different views on the word.

Notorious, a film I remember watching during a holiday period. Shown in the morning like good old films always are I tuned in and watched it, and found it to be a great film. So like every film I like I bought it a couple of months ago, and finally managed to watch my DVD.
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains in the main roles. It involves a secret Nazi plan which had something to do with storing Uranium in wine bottles. But the subplot for the film is not important. The important factor of the film is that is has:

The Best ending for a film ever!!

(Of course I am not considering any other films when I say this) But it has what I believe to be the best open ended film ever, with a great last line.

“Alex, will you come in, please? I wish to talk to you.” – it’s good when you see it in context.

Like every Hitchcock film Notorious has the great witty humor. Some of the best talent at the time. And a pretty good DVD transfer. It only differs from that of some of his other films, as there is little action, but I would class the film as more of a suspense film so… its not North by Northwest

I keep this review short, because I know what I like about the film, and that’s its end and its great lines. Watching Claude Rains makes me want to watch Casablanca, and watching Cary Grant in it, really reminded me of some kind of Thunderbird, or perhaps Captain Scarlet.. I’m not sure which, he kept moving his eyes, freaked me out :P.

My favourite line from the film;

“This fog gets me?” “That's your hair in your eyes”

Cptalbertwesker Rating 8/10 - hey at least it isn’t German... only I will get this joke... unless Catherine has the off chance of remembering an incident involving the film.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

2005-06-18T17:55:00.000+01:00

Oh Yes, the thing you've all been waiting for my friends!!!

Once again I must remind you, I am reviewing the film, so there will probably be many spoilers within.

I write this review in the most convenient place, my conservatory, which as the fridge thermometer reads is over 30 degrees Celsius (the highest it reads), so the review may not be my best, also considering that I am wanting to review about another 5 or 6 films, which I saw a week ago at the very least.

We all know the story to Star Wars; or at least I hope we do.
Needless to say I’m a big fan, with a modest collection of the figures, the idea for a fan film in the works, as well as my interest in SWG peaking once again. I had built ‘high’ hopes for the last film to be able to contend with the likes of the old trilogy, as I believe did everyone else.

Starring Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen and Ian McDiarmid as well as various other actors, all of course appearing previously in the last two films, I could not see the film getting much better though. With George Lucas’ fascination with special effects I am always a little pissed at, I mean animatronics are a hell of a lot better looking than stupid CGI, anyway I’m getting off track.

The film follows the final days of Anakin Skywalker, showing his transformation to Darth Vader, and as long as you have seen the original trilogy there was little surprise to be had with the newest and final instalment of the historic saga. It was merely filling in a few important gaps. So on with my opinion of the film...

So the film starts with a chase through space; following Obi Wan and Anakin dodging left and right to rescue the precious Chancellor Palpatine. The chase contains much cold, emotionless dialogue being thrown back and forth between the two.

The whole scene disheartened me to the premise of the film as it all seemed very mechanical, with much over usage of CGI, although upon arrival inside the ship they were destined to, it did seem to get better with some humorous antics of R2-D2, who must have forgotten how useful he was later on in life during the old trilogy. And some battle droids, which some would argue are too emotive for droids, but hey, it's a fictional film, no one complains about the Aqualish or the Sullstans being unbelievable.

This all leads to one of the first kills on Anakin’s tally, the decapitation of Darth Tyranus (Christopher Lee) which was much unexpected; although in Episode IV you see a removed limb, so the violence isn’t really that bad.
They escape, lots of jumping, running, flying away, crashing into the landing zone etc, ACTION ACTION ACTION. They land at Coruscant, Anakin and Padme have words. She’s pregnant!! Loads of emotion is used in this scene.... I am joking of course... not to mention throughout the whole film Natalie Portman looked a little funny to me, not ha-ha funny.

Now the details of the middle of the film are a little scant. I do however remember lightsaber battles taking waay too long. Much to the joy of the guy sitting next to me (very annoying) when Yoda got his lightsaber out he felt the need to clap...
I thought Kashyyyk was done nicely, looked exactly like Battlefront, although not too much like the Kashyyyk that KOTOR presented me. Although this did not stop that all the while the whole film made me want to play KOTOR, so there was obviously some element in the film which reminded me of the brilliant game.

Now, now Ian McDiarmid… one person who I also knows agrees with this opinion, is he was overacting a little too much... or maybe it was that he was the only person really acting he seemed a little over the top. He executed all of his lines a little too slowly, and made too many growling-like noises when battling Yoda and Mace Windu.
Although I did like the involvement of the mention of previous Sith lords, as mentioned by Emperor Palpatine or Darth Sidious...

The introduction of General Grevious was new to me. I had not seen any of the Clone Wars, bar an episode that I was sent. It was never shown on Terrestrial TV so I never had to the chance to.
Off topic, I had heard the part was to be given to Gary Oldman, but he decided not to, for reasons I do not remember. But I liked the character none-the-less, although he was a little hard to understand. And thinking about it right now, he probably would have looked a hell of a lot scarier/overwhelming if he were made using animatronics, rather that CGI.

I know that much has been said about the political undertones present in ROTS, but they’ve always been there in the Star Wars films, it's nothing new, hell the line that Padme says of ‘who is the real enemy, how do we know if we are not oppressors’ (I don’t remember the exact lines) That is something I always think in my head when watching a film, or playing a game. The idea of the majesty when one person believes they are acting out for the just cause, when that is the exact opposite that the opposition feel about them. I seem to be blabbing, must be this heat.

I must say my favourite part of the film overall was the eradication of the Jedi, as morbid as the sentence sounds, I found it the best because it is something I would expect of Star Wars, especially from what I saw in KOTOR, the oppression the Empire brought down, as well as the racial tendencies of the Republic. I loved every minute of the execution of the Jedi, but as you can probably see for reasons unexplained. I am unable to express it in words myself.

As you probably guess from most of this review I hold much vehemence towards the overuse of CGI in the film, I wouldn't’ get so annoyed with it, but George Lucas had shown in the three older films that he could create a good looking universe full of strange looking aliens and spacecraft, and he never did this using top of the range CGI, meh.
I also must show my displeasure for the rather unimpressive dialogue and acting. Every word the actors uttered seemed too flat and empty; there was hardly ever any expression in Hayden’s voice. I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the conversations because they seemed too unbelievable that what they were saying they actually meant in context with the film.

The music was as always top notch, a good bit of John Williams always makes the story seem better, especially with the use of Binary Sunset at the end of the film (someone please correct me if I have gotten the name incorrect) I must say even with the cheesiness of the end it was great, bittersweet and felt like the end of something.

So I must say although there was much against the film it was still a Star Wars film, which I can unfortunately say I cannot give too much bad word against. Considering that it was much better than Episodes 1 & 2 with a nice end and some nice bits in between....

Cptalbertwesker Rating 6-1/2/10*
*I’d give it a 7 but the acting is really bad :( Considering that my average score for a film is 8, 6 is not as bad as it seems.

So what awaits the fans now, with not much prospect should we hang on to the good old films?
According to George Lucas he was done with Star Wars after ROTS, but now he speaks of Television series; and possibly more films, that is of course once he’s done with Indiana Jones IV *sigh*

Unless there are some good actors, comparable to Harrison Ford, who are willing to sign up to a Hollywood movie, there is little hope for another great star wars film.

The Straight Story

2005-05-13T12:16:00.000+01:00

Not sure how to write reviews on Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway, I decided instead I would watch Straight Story, one of Lynch's simpler films, much like The Elephant Man it is based on a true story. So it's always a little hard to know where the truth ends and the fiction begins, but I'll try and write a nice review for what I felt was a great film.

I'm not sure if spoilers are possible for such a film, but there may be spoilers herein.

Well to start with none of the actors were too familiar to me, never hearing of Richard Farnsworth, I had only ever heard of Sissy Spacek for playing Carrie, and Harry Dean Stanton, whom I had somehow remembered from Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas; playing the very small part of a judge :P ... But now that I remember I also saw Everett McGill who is older than mum :O ( no offence intended by this remark, I just thought him to be about 20 years younger :P then again, 1990 was 15 years ago :D )he never looked that old in Twin Peaks, so when I saw him in this I was surprised at how old he looked.

Anyway, on with the film. First off such a story sounded a little strange when put next to David Lynch, especially alongside Disney :o But then he did also direct Elephant Man, although that did have an almost surreal subject :/

For a short summary on the story, it is based around one Alvin Straight (Farnsworth); whose health is slowly deteriorating finds that the brother, Lyle (Stanton) whom he has not spoken to in 10 years has had a rather bad stroke. Beginning to go both blind and lame, and without a drivers license he decides that he will drive to his brother who lives in Wisconsin from Iowa on a lawn mower.

So the thing I ask myself is how will this be noticeable as Lynch's film and not some run of the mill film.. well it can :P For starters the Straight Story shows oddball characters in a small town(s). Most noticeable of these was the woman that ran over deer, that bit was so weird it made me laugh ^^ there were the strange almost random conversations, the misconception of a party between Rosie (Spacek) which made me laugh, I feel weird saying it was cute, but I do not really know how else to explain my liking of that scene.

Ok before I just start spouting more 'bits' that I liked in the film, I should explain why it was in fact good. It wasn't fast-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-action, I mention this all the time with such films, but it did not rely on sex or violence to sell the story, so maybe it didn’t do too good in the box office for this reason, but not everyone is attracted by violence and sex, some people are looking for a story, which this film has.
A very down to earth story, which I took personally as a story on the dangers of the loss of communication between siblings. As said in the film;

“There's no one knows your life better than a brother that's near your age. He knows who you are and what you are better than anyone on earth”

A awful truth when siblings tear away from each other for frivolous reasons, being a twin myself, and not apparently being very close to my ‘other half’ I realise this dangers, and I always like it when I feel that it some distant way, I can connect myself with a film. I remember also doing this with Philadelphia, thinking, wow when I die no one is going to care :P it was awful.

Some aspects that I can name for not liking were mainly the volume of Lynch's films.

The Straight Story, although very different in context to Lynch’s other films, proved just as good. Leading me to give it;

Cptalbertwesker rating 8/10*

*I say it is a great film, and it was. Although I tend not to rate over 8 for a film unless it changed my life or something ^^

Vanilla Sky

2005-05-11T06:12:00.000+01:00

Well last night I randomly watched Vanilla Sky as it was just lying around on my computer... *cough* desk doing nothing heh... :P
And um... on with the reviewness... Spoileroonies may be present..

Well to start, I wasn't going to watch Vanilla Sky, but the subtitles on my computer were not working so The Seventh Seal was out of the question :/ unless I had suddenly learnt Swedish... Which I don't believe I have...

Anyway so I popped it on, and it was an ok film, it really reinforced the fact that Cameron Diaz could soo play Maria if they ever made a film adaptation of Silent Hill 2, she had this crazy aspect about her in the film, which I believe she could pull off, the weirdo seductive pyschosis of the Mary/Maria subject.
Anyway.. Um the film, yeah.. about half way through watching it I looked it up on imdb, like ya do. Pleasantly surprised to find that it was, yes, ANOTHER REMAKE!!! of a film not made 10+ years ago but 4 YEARS AGO, 4!!

I'm not real sure why I um... got it now, maybe I wanted to point at Tom Cruise and say "Ha! Your almost as short as me!" hehe thats real funny ^^

Anyway, I'm not too sure how to write a 'review' on this, pretty much because I haven't seen Abre los Ojos the film that it remade... is that a word :/ Anyway so I'll try my best...
Tom Cruise's acting can sometimes be a little over the top, either that or the roles I've seen him in he always plays an over the top character :P which now that I think about it, that sounds about right :P But then I guess he tries to play over the top characters so you forget about his height ^^.

I remember a few points in the film that made me laugh, there was a few random bits put in too, those were funny ^^ and I thought the bit at the start was ok, until David (Cruise) got out of the car and began running, that spoiled it for me, don't ask me why, I'm weird like that.

I thought it was... not cute, but not funny, can't think of the word. When Kurt Russel's character Dr McCabe realised that he wasn't real :P

So the story was a little weird, but very easy to understand. I suppose its like Donnie Darko in a way, because I'm sure some people would believe it is a masterpiece at confusion :/ not really. It's dealing with the sub-conscious and confusing the protagonist David into believing that some certain memories actually happened. It's not rocket-science figuring the story out, they may have dumbed it down for a Hollywood remake though, but I wouldn't know as I said before, I need to watch the original to give a constructive criticism.

Anyway, nice story, I woulda liked to see what their interpretation of the future is, but they left it open-ended like in Notorious, which gave it a nice touch...
... So what else did I like? I liked the car-crash, I may sound a little morbid but I love to see car-crashes in films/television programmes, I'm not like "Oh yeah!! Smash up a car woo!!" but more of I like sudden car-crashes, when they're more of "Whoa didn't see that coming", although I probably do see it coming :P I mean the crash in Vanilla Sky was inevitable, it was going to happen, but a crash of such stature... is that the correct word? It's not like in an action film where the protagonist then jumps out the car and goes on to fight evil. After the crash it was silent, I could see a person running to the scene in the background, not a crowd of people. I do not know if any of that paragraph made sense, but I think its best I start another one.

Well as for the 'twist' at the end, I wouldn't really call it a twist, because I kinda saw it coming, not the fact that he was dead, I didn't see that, but the fact that is was all sort of a dream :P hehe just like my story ^^. As for the other actors I don't like Timothy Spall because he's too English for my liking :P kinda poor excuse, although he was okish in that film about vampires which something to do with crocodiles in the title :/ um... thar ye go The Wisdom of Crocodiles strangely enough I really remember seeing that on TV :P I think I'd just finished watching another film, perhaps that was The Talented Mr Ripley, and then I was going to watch Invasion of the Body Snatchers which was on at the same time but I ended up watching The Wisdom of Crocodiles wow, this part sure has gone off topic ^^, I though the tech support guy was a little creepy, always gotta have a creepy guy in a film, but he was more of the guy that always sits in the corner, and the protagonist is always wary of him, wondering who he is, and why he is there. Can't say much for Penelope Cruz, first time I think I've seen her in a film :P or at least I believe it is. Therefore I have no opinion on her, or her character, thought the arms dealer bit was a nice touch though :)

Pretty good overall film, not excellent, not poor, so I give it a;

Cptalbertwesker Rating - 6/10

So I think thats all I can write, I've been up since 5:40 and now it's 7:14 I should be ready for school but I'm too devoted to my avid fans out there :P so I hope all you nobody, enjoys my ranting opinions.

The Village

2005-05-09T19:11:00.000+01:00

Okie... this was like a review I wrote for a site, in the hopes they would pop it on the net for all to see. But to no avail the site never got up and I believe the person that was going to create it, is not anymore :/
Anyway on with the writing thing...

First off, I must say I do not like films made ‘now-a-days’ rather than films made in the forties and fifties - I grew up with these films. So it is not too often that a film is released now which I actually like. I can find almost every film enjoyable to watch, but I will not ‘like’ them. But M. Night’s works are something not that I look forward to. But something that I expect to be better than most films. To tell the truth, it took me at least 2 years to actually watch the Sixth Sense, I got Unbreakable when it was released on DVD, why I am not sure.

But I always liked it. I purchased Signs rather randomly... so as you can see I don’t wait in anticipation for his films to be released, but “The Village” was different. Now I can say before I saw the film I watched a preview of it on Film 2004 (?) and that I had actually guessed what the ‘twist’ to the story was. But I am not attracted to films so that I may be surprised by a twist. “The Village” was billed as being a horror film. Something else that I tend not to take notice of. But I watched a trailer and was intrigued. I liked the idea of a film based around a community a people, this is reinforced, because the cast is not a bunch of overly beautified people, everyone looks ‘normal’, the main character Ivy is a tomboy, thereby she is not shown as over-the-top glamorous, which I believe makes the characters a hell of a lot more believable.

People have compared Shyamalan to Hitchcock and it is in a way, more so than his other films. He relies heavily on sound and that which you don't see, also from a twist in the story that is unexpected; when you are led to believe you know who the story is about, but then it drastically changes to another character.

The actors I did not know too well. Bryce Dallas Howard was good as a blind girl. Adrian Brody was interesting as a mentally retarded person, but I found him too annoying. Joaquin Phoenix was a little confusing as a person who simply does not speak, but then I could relate to that. I liked how she would not speak of her colour; usually a film would go on and explain it, like the antagonist explaining to their archenemy how they are going to execute their plan. The naivety of the characters was something I also liked, most characters in films are very brash and extremely optimistic, I do not like that, it tends to make characters ever more unbelievable. Another very important point, which I despise many films for not doing is that it does not rely on action or sex to tell the story.

Now I don't really know what I think of the twist. The reason that I liked about the film was how I felt attached to it, more so than most films, so much that during an important part of the film I actually held hate against a character because he ruined what was a nice uneventful movie. As for the actors/actresses I can say that I felt that a few of the characters were a little confusing, simply because there was not much depth to other characters... so everyone but the main characters are a little one dimensional.

‘Those which we do not speak of’, look pretty cool to me, reminded me kinda of really big rats, and that they would look menacing to me, but then I would suppose Ivy could not see them, and the mind does exaggerate ideas, then perhaps making them a lot more intimidating.

I like the scenes with Lucius and Ivy. Melts my heart... helps to build the tension of if he will come to her rescue. Of course he would, because it’s a film. It was probably the fact that he touched her (which does have significance), and that it looks like she is doubting he will come. It is a test of his love.

There were some lines I liked especially “Sometimes we don't do things we want to do so that others won't know we want to do them” I found it funny how Lucius found it such a mouthful, but everything the statement says is true. As well as that I loved the conversation before the footrace, about ‘cheating’ reminds me of something I would say.

Alright, so those were the parts that I liked, now for what I did not like, although there is not much in the way of negative comments I must say that slow motion was used a couple of times, I really did not like this, as it didn’t feel right. Another bad point I did notice was the editing, I do not think that this was very good, but with me as long as you have a nice story; which this film has, I do not really care about the editing.
Well that was my opinion of what I believe is a good film, I hope that perhaps you will agree with me.

Cptalbertwesker rating - 8/10

Elephant eurgh (Supposed to be a sound of disgust :P)

2005-05-09T18:55:00.000+01:00

I warn there may be spoilers herein, but I warned you

Ok, contrary to what I sometimes say, I do enjoy to watch new films as well as old. Especially when films come highly recommended. But when I read some good things about Elephant, a movie based on the idea of a sort of columbine shooting in a school; it sounded good, and especially after wining best director and film from Cannes. And I'm always a fan of independent movies as sometimes they end up to be great.... SOMETIMES.

Unlike many people, I didn't think the movie was too slow, hell it was only 80 minutes long. I didn't get bored of the long drawn out focuses on people simply walking around the school. I must say I did like how they all sort of showed what everyone was doing at the same time. But other than that, I did not like too much more. So ok, the acting was terrible, it was as bad as my acting. But I enjoy Plan 9, despite the bad acting. Bad acting is something I can deal with; if it's not horribly terrible that is.

So yeah the brunt of the film was simply following a few different students around a school. Showing one of the things I did not like about the film, the characters had no depth whatsoever, I did not think oh, they're a really nice person... I didn't even think about them. Sure I felt pity when the kid went to the toilets to get the spitwaddy things off of him. But that was most compassion that I took out of the film.

From there on in the film went down hill for me.. so a couple of kids who believe they are oppressed or something in school, decide to buy some guns while they enjoy watching a programme about Nazis and Hitler... oh my how original, and then we see them play a rather dull looking video game where they just walk around and shoot people... oh and wait, why don't they be gay as well!

Ok so we see them go into the school, and this is where my idea of bad character development comes into play... they simply go around and kill some kids... showing absolutely no remorse or anxiety towards what they are doing, even when it goes wrong... which I think is rather unbelievable... because I mean if I was planning to gun down my school, I would want all of my plan to be precise and work correctly.

Anyway back to the character development... they go around shooting these students, whom we know nothing about... sure that could be reflecting the same state of mind that these two killers are in... but really, if you want the audience's sympathy then you show some student who does nothing but good in the world, and then you show one of them killing said kid with no thought put into it, showing how they don't think to reflect on anyone they kill... so maybe this is explored a little with Michelle... I believe that was her name, because she was a shy person, relatively the same as one of them which carried out the killings. I mean she wouldn't have done anything.

And I must admit I liked the anti-climax of Benny, I don't believe he was reflecting a side of teenagers though, hell if I made the film, that is one bit which I believe is excellent, because anti-climaxs are always great to use.

CptAlbertWesker rating - 3/10

So um, I'm gonna shut up now, because I've lost my place in what I was saying, although I could rant on all day how bad I thought the film was but I would waffle on again and again... so um, please someone give their opinion on why they like it or something, because I would like to know your views.
Also please bear in mind I will be posting quite a few soon, my Elephant review is an old one, but I believe strongly in it :p

A New Leaf

2005-05-09T16:10:00.000+01:00

With the hand in of my art exam preparatory work I have decided I will now try and devote more time to watching, and 'reviewing' films.