Yes indeed film fans, we are back again with another magical movie moment, a tantalising Tuesday trip, down the movie motorway, the film freeway, the............
......you get the idea.
This week, it's back to romantic comedy, with the 2009 offering;
Bride Wars
Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway go head to head in this bridal comedy. Childhood friends Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) have dreamed of June weddings at the Plaza since they were kids, and now their fantasy is finally within reach.
Both women are engaged to be married and they've booked their dates at the famed Manhattan landmark, the Plaza Hotel.
However, an error in the office of their wedding planner, the famous Marion St. Claire (Candice Bergen), causes their weddings to be scheduled on the same day, and neither woman will budge.
Harsh words escalate into sabotage and each woman craftily plots the demise of the other's wedding until events reach a screeching, squealing pitch on a sunny June day.
Yes this is a delightful fluffy romp through the; "best friends, become worst enemies scenario". Don't worry it all comes good in the end, you know it always does.
So the plot was thin, but not unlikeable. The acting was all fine and dandy. With the beautiful Anne Hathaway! She's gorgeous, but really needs to put a few pounds on.
In short, Bride Wars; romantic comedy, chick flick, get the girls round, get a box of chocolates, a bottle of Lambrini, and maybe a tissue or two, for the occasional tear and the little lovey-dovey, fluffy moments. You won't fall out of your seat laughing, but there will be fun on the way.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
The Notebook - 21st June 2011
OK then, how do you start a review of a film like "The Notebook"?
It's tagline states that it is; "the most romantic movie since Titanic".
Do we like romantic movies? Yes, yes we do and we certainly liked this one.
However, I can't describe too much of the film, for fear of giving too much of the plot away, but here goes.
The film counterpoints between a current storyline and an historical one.
James Garner plays a character, stuck in a nursing home, relaying a story from a notebook (hint to the title of the film), to an elderly lady resident.
The story, as told by Duke (James Garner), tells of a poor and passionate young man; Noah (Ryan Gosling) falling in love with a rich young woman; Allie (Rachel McAdams). Noah gives Allie a sense of freedom, however their Summer love affair ends as they are separated by their social differences.
So the film flicks between the modern storytelling (from the notebook), to the historic action, how this plays out and the juxtaposition between the two era's is a beautifully acted and extremely poignant. Going into too much detail will detract from what really is a fascinating and gripping love story.
It's certainly one for you, if you love a good weepie!
Rachel McAdams is an absolute dream as the young Allie (there's a clue!) and Ryan Gosling portrays Noah with immense gravitas and spirit.
This film was a total unknown quantity, but it was well worth watching. At the end there are a few twists and turns. A bit of a "will they, won't they" moment and right at the end, get the tissues ready!
Fantastic!
Next week, we must try something a bit more macho!
It's tagline states that it is; "the most romantic movie since Titanic".
Do we like romantic movies? Yes, yes we do and we certainly liked this one.
However, I can't describe too much of the film, for fear of giving too much of the plot away, but here goes.
The film counterpoints between a current storyline and an historical one.
James Garner plays a character, stuck in a nursing home, relaying a story from a notebook (hint to the title of the film), to an elderly lady resident.
The story, as told by Duke (James Garner), tells of a poor and passionate young man; Noah (Ryan Gosling) falling in love with a rich young woman; Allie (Rachel McAdams). Noah gives Allie a sense of freedom, however their Summer love affair ends as they are separated by their social differences.
So the film flicks between the modern storytelling (from the notebook), to the historic action, how this plays out and the juxtaposition between the two era's is a beautifully acted and extremely poignant. Going into too much detail will detract from what really is a fascinating and gripping love story.
It's certainly one for you, if you love a good weepie!
Rachel McAdams is an absolute dream as the young Allie (there's a clue!) and Ryan Gosling portrays Noah with immense gravitas and spirit.
This film was a total unknown quantity, but it was well worth watching. At the end there are a few twists and turns. A bit of a "will they, won't they" moment and right at the end, get the tissues ready!
Fantastic!
Next week, we must try something a bit more macho!
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Run, Fatboy, Run - 14th June 2011
So we get back to the RomCom, Feelgood Comedy genre tonight, with the 2007 film;
Run, Fatboy, Run
Starring and written by, the guy who seems to do no wrong in British cinema at the moment; Simon Pegg.
Run, Fatboy, Run follows the antics of Dennis Doyle, (played by Pegg), who at the start of the film, jilts his then pregnant fiance (Libby played superbly by the gorgeous Thandie Newton) at the altar.
This then sets the scene for Dennis, he's a bit of a loser, lazy, untidy, unfit, overweight and never sees anything through to completion.
5 years on, nothing has changed, Dennis is still lazy, but has managed to maintain ties to Libby, through the visits to see his and Libby's Son; Jake on regular occasions.
Enter Hank Azaria, playing a suave, confident American financier working in London, called Whit. He sets out to woo Libby in front of Dennis. Dennis see's this as an affront to himself and a challenge to secure, at least some affection, from Libby.
As a result of some lying, boasting and general "I'm better than you are" action, Dennis ends up entering into the same Marathon race as Whit.
The whys and where-fors of how this happens, I'll leave down to you and your viewing, we don't want to spoil it.
However, it is as with all feelgood movies, formulaic. Which is a good thing! You know where you stand. There's a good guy, a bad guy and a gorgeous girl. Then there's the hangers-on, scattered around for comedic effect.
I should point out at this point, Dylan Moran is superb as Gordon, as is Harish Patel as Mr. Goshdashtidar.
The jokes are sometimes obvious, but dependable. The action is well shot (thanks to Director, David Swimmer) and the story is as it should be, the gormless villain turns into "our hero"!
Some other gems to look out for are cameos from David Walliams and Floella Benjamin. Simon Day is also really great as the East London gangster type.
Following hot on the heels of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, this is another great Simon Pegg movie, although there is no Nick Frost in this one.
Give it go. It's a good film.
Run, Fatboy, Run
Starring and written by, the guy who seems to do no wrong in British cinema at the moment; Simon Pegg.
Run, Fatboy, Run follows the antics of Dennis Doyle, (played by Pegg), who at the start of the film, jilts his then pregnant fiance (Libby played superbly by the gorgeous Thandie Newton) at the altar.
This then sets the scene for Dennis, he's a bit of a loser, lazy, untidy, unfit, overweight and never sees anything through to completion.
5 years on, nothing has changed, Dennis is still lazy, but has managed to maintain ties to Libby, through the visits to see his and Libby's Son; Jake on regular occasions.
Enter Hank Azaria, playing a suave, confident American financier working in London, called Whit. He sets out to woo Libby in front of Dennis. Dennis see's this as an affront to himself and a challenge to secure, at least some affection, from Libby.
As a result of some lying, boasting and general "I'm better than you are" action, Dennis ends up entering into the same Marathon race as Whit.
The whys and where-fors of how this happens, I'll leave down to you and your viewing, we don't want to spoil it.
However, it is as with all feelgood movies, formulaic. Which is a good thing! You know where you stand. There's a good guy, a bad guy and a gorgeous girl. Then there's the hangers-on, scattered around for comedic effect.
I should point out at this point, Dylan Moran is superb as Gordon, as is Harish Patel as Mr. Goshdashtidar.
The jokes are sometimes obvious, but dependable. The action is well shot (thanks to Director, David Swimmer) and the story is as it should be, the gormless villain turns into "our hero"!
Some other gems to look out for are cameos from David Walliams and Floella Benjamin. Simon Day is also really great as the East London gangster type.
Following hot on the heels of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, this is another great Simon Pegg movie, although there is no Nick Frost in this one.
Give it go. It's a good film.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Face/Off - 7th June 2011
Continuing the thriller style action movies, (we had Munich last week), tonight we had the delights of the 1997 movie;
Face/Off
Well, it was an action packed thriller, with plenty of blood, guts, bullets, fire, explosions and unlikely goings on.
It was also bloody good!
The premise of the movie is that super FBI Agent Sean Archer, played ably by John Travolta, is out to revenge the accidental killing of his Son, by the super villain, Castor Troy, played superbly by Nicolas Cage.
Archer finally gets his man in the first part of the film and we think that justice is done. Not so.
A large bomb, set by Troy and his brother Pollux (Alessandro Nivola), is set to blow downtown LA sky high. Castor Troy is dead (or is he....?) and Pollux isn't talking. None of the Troy gang members know anything. So, the only thing left to do is..............
OK, this is where the films trips off into the realms of pseudo fantasy and surrealism. Apprently, Castor Troy has been kept alive on life support and pioneering Doctors working for the FBI can carry out face transplants. So what better way to find out the location and nature of the bomb, than to turn Agent Archer into Castor Troy, by transplanting their faces!!
Yes, it is a little far-fetched. It was far-fetched in 1997 and it's still alittle far-fetched 14 years later! Matters not, go with it.
So, Agent Sean Archer now looks and sounds (oh yes, they can do the voice as well!!), like Castor Troy. Castor Troy is face less on life support in a hospital bed. Sean Archer's face is in a bowl of water, keeping fresh!
Sean Archer, now looking like Castor Troy, is shipped off to a high security prison, to meet up with Pollux Troy, to find about about the bomb. The prison knows nothing of the face change.
Next bizarre twist comes when the comatose body of Castor Troy wakes up! Not only does he wake up, he works out he is faceless and where the face of Sean Archer is and then gets his gang to kidnap the surgeon, who carried out the original transplant, to carry out a second one, thus making Castor Troy; Sean Archer!
Confused?
No, you'll be fine.
Not only does Castor Troy now look like Sean Archer, he kills the surgeon and all the FBI agents who were aware of the top secret face transplant programme!
That's what happens in the first half of the film. What follows is how they battle it out, to regain each others identity and for a super cop, who looks like a super villain, to capture a super villain, who likes a super cop!
The latter part of the film is an horrendous bloody battle with bullets and blood flying everywhere!
We enjoyed it. The bizarre premise of a face transplant, does bring rise to a wonderful juxtaposition between good and evil, cop against villain, but in different guises.
Travolta is great, Cage, who I'm not a big fan of, was actually really rather good. However, the film is one of those that you either love or hate, it's a typical Marmite movie.
If you haven't seen it, give it a try.
If you have seen it and didn't like it, see what we have next week!
Face/Off
Well, it was an action packed thriller, with plenty of blood, guts, bullets, fire, explosions and unlikely goings on.
It was also bloody good!
The premise of the movie is that super FBI Agent Sean Archer, played ably by John Travolta, is out to revenge the accidental killing of his Son, by the super villain, Castor Troy, played superbly by Nicolas Cage.
Archer finally gets his man in the first part of the film and we think that justice is done. Not so.
A large bomb, set by Troy and his brother Pollux (Alessandro Nivola), is set to blow downtown LA sky high. Castor Troy is dead (or is he....?) and Pollux isn't talking. None of the Troy gang members know anything. So, the only thing left to do is..............
OK, this is where the films trips off into the realms of pseudo fantasy and surrealism. Apprently, Castor Troy has been kept alive on life support and pioneering Doctors working for the FBI can carry out face transplants. So what better way to find out the location and nature of the bomb, than to turn Agent Archer into Castor Troy, by transplanting their faces!!
Yes, it is a little far-fetched. It was far-fetched in 1997 and it's still alittle far-fetched 14 years later! Matters not, go with it.
So, Agent Sean Archer now looks and sounds (oh yes, they can do the voice as well!!), like Castor Troy. Castor Troy is face less on life support in a hospital bed. Sean Archer's face is in a bowl of water, keeping fresh!
Sean Archer, now looking like Castor Troy, is shipped off to a high security prison, to meet up with Pollux Troy, to find about about the bomb. The prison knows nothing of the face change.
Next bizarre twist comes when the comatose body of Castor Troy wakes up! Not only does he wake up, he works out he is faceless and where the face of Sean Archer is and then gets his gang to kidnap the surgeon, who carried out the original transplant, to carry out a second one, thus making Castor Troy; Sean Archer!
Confused?
No, you'll be fine.
Not only does Castor Troy now look like Sean Archer, he kills the surgeon and all the FBI agents who were aware of the top secret face transplant programme!
That's what happens in the first half of the film. What follows is how they battle it out, to regain each others identity and for a super cop, who looks like a super villain, to capture a super villain, who likes a super cop!
The latter part of the film is an horrendous bloody battle with bullets and blood flying everywhere!
We enjoyed it. The bizarre premise of a face transplant, does bring rise to a wonderful juxtaposition between good and evil, cop against villain, but in different guises.
Travolta is great, Cage, who I'm not a big fan of, was actually really rather good. However, the film is one of those that you either love or hate, it's a typical Marmite movie.
If you haven't seen it, give it a try.
If you have seen it and didn't like it, see what we have next week!
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Munich - 31st May 2011
So this weeks film takes us on a turgid, moralistic journey through the terrorism fuelled months following the Olympic games attack of 1972 in;
Munich
Firstly, this is a long film (157 minutes). It is also not an easy film to watch, due to the subject matter and the complexities of the political relationships. However, it is an important film, as it shows with passion and gravitas, the story surrounding the terrorist attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. And the bloody aftermath.
There is little point in filling in the details of the situation that the film deals with, these are known facts. If you don't know them, look them up prior to watching, it will make for a more fulfilling film.
To summarise the plot; a terrorist faction calling themselves Black September, attack and take hostage some of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games. The film tackles the aftermath, showing the journey taken by the five men chosen to eliminate the ones responsible for that fateful day.
What follows is a bloody battle between the assassins and the targets that they are instructed to kill. However, it is never that easy and there are others out to get the assassins.
Eric Bana plays the lead character Avner and a great lead actor he is too. Other notable appearances are Daniel Craig (pre Bond) and Geoffrey Rush, now more renowned for The Kings Speech.
It may take more than one viewing to gain the complete impact of this fictional film (based on real events). It is deep, disturbing, filled with hate and anguish and despair. It is difficult to take sides, there are no real good guys and bad guys in this, how can you decide based on the facts? Do we condone the violence? Do we accept the retribution?
As I say, it's a moralistic maze, that individual viewers will find different routes from. It is a hard film, a true film, a difficult film, you decide if it's a good film.
Munich
Firstly, this is a long film (157 minutes). It is also not an easy film to watch, due to the subject matter and the complexities of the political relationships. However, it is an important film, as it shows with passion and gravitas, the story surrounding the terrorist attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. And the bloody aftermath.
There is little point in filling in the details of the situation that the film deals with, these are known facts. If you don't know them, look them up prior to watching, it will make for a more fulfilling film.
To summarise the plot; a terrorist faction calling themselves Black September, attack and take hostage some of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games. The film tackles the aftermath, showing the journey taken by the five men chosen to eliminate the ones responsible for that fateful day.
What follows is a bloody battle between the assassins and the targets that they are instructed to kill. However, it is never that easy and there are others out to get the assassins.
Eric Bana plays the lead character Avner and a great lead actor he is too. Other notable appearances are Daniel Craig (pre Bond) and Geoffrey Rush, now more renowned for The Kings Speech.
It may take more than one viewing to gain the complete impact of this fictional film (based on real events). It is deep, disturbing, filled with hate and anguish and despair. It is difficult to take sides, there are no real good guys and bad guys in this, how can you decide based on the facts? Do we condone the violence? Do we accept the retribution?
As I say, it's a moralistic maze, that individual viewers will find different routes from. It is a hard film, a true film, a difficult film, you decide if it's a good film.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
The Lovely Bones - 24th May 2011
Tonight's film was;
The Lovely Bones
This 2009 film, from the director; Peter Jackson, is an adaptation of the 2002 novel by American writer Alice Sebold.
It is the story of a 14-year-old girl from suburban Pennsylvania; Susie Salmon ("as in the fish"), played superbly by Saoirse Ronan, who is murdered by her neighbour.
The neighbour; George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) is a quiet, creepy, sinnister character, who plots the murder of Susie. This fact is not hidden, so the film is not a murder mystery. Moreover, it is Susie telling her story from her "in-between place", before going to heaven, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed, all the while attempting to get someone to find her lost body.
It's a dark, creepy film, the story keeping you gripped, while Susie narrates the action whilst on her journey from her earthly existence to heaven.
This journey gives the film makers a free rein to provide some tremendous surrealistic moments and impressive CGI effects.
Stand out performances are definitely Tucci as the creepy murderer. Saoirse Ronan also provides fantastic entertainment as Susie. Susie parents, played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are also very impressive.
A special note too for Susan Sarandon who plays Susie's Grandmother, a fairly minor part in the story, but superbly acted.
So many people say that the book is better than the film, well the book must be extremely good then! Must read it some day.
The Lovely Bones
This 2009 film, from the director; Peter Jackson, is an adaptation of the 2002 novel by American writer Alice Sebold.
It is the story of a 14-year-old girl from suburban Pennsylvania; Susie Salmon ("as in the fish"), played superbly by Saoirse Ronan, who is murdered by her neighbour.
The neighbour; George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) is a quiet, creepy, sinnister character, who plots the murder of Susie. This fact is not hidden, so the film is not a murder mystery. Moreover, it is Susie telling her story from her "in-between place", before going to heaven, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed, all the while attempting to get someone to find her lost body.
It's a dark, creepy film, the story keeping you gripped, while Susie narrates the action whilst on her journey from her earthly existence to heaven.
This journey gives the film makers a free rein to provide some tremendous surrealistic moments and impressive CGI effects.
Stand out performances are definitely Tucci as the creepy murderer. Saoirse Ronan also provides fantastic entertainment as Susie. Susie parents, played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are also very impressive.
A special note too for Susan Sarandon who plays Susie's Grandmother, a fairly minor part in the story, but superbly acted.
So many people say that the book is better than the film, well the book must be extremely good then! Must read it some day.
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Withnail & I - 17th May 2011
Tonights sojourn into the cellarful of celebrated celluloid, produces the cult classic;
Withnail & I
The problem with knowing that a film is hailed as a cult classic, means that you should really like it, if only to be cool, hip and trendy. The problem with that is; what happens if you're not so sure? Do you look uncool, because you don't "get it", or do you feign enjoyment to fit in?
Thus we have the dilemna with Withnail & I. Do we denounce the cult classic status or do we say it was great?
I shall sit firmly on the fence. I can quite clearly see that this could be an enjoyable film, that has students quoting lines ad infinitum. "We seem to have come on holiday by mistake".
However, it sits in a genre alongside This Is Spinal Tap. Classic films that have a cult status thrust upon them, because they are of their time. If Withnail & I were to be produced today, it would probably fail.
Bruce Robinsons' semi-autobiographical story, depicts the end of the 1960's, with two struggling actors sharing a squalid life, who then decide to get away from it all and escape to the country, on a booze filled adventure.
That is pretty much the storyline.
The thing that saves the film for me are the acting skills of Richard E Grant, Paul McGann and Ralph Brown. They absolutley nail their respective characters.
Grant plays the constant drunk; Withnail ("I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze").
McGann plays Marwood, the "& I" character. ("My thumbs have gone weird").
And Ralph Brown is superb as Danny the drug dealing dropout. ("Find your neutral space. You got a rush. It'll pass. Be seated").
So, in summation there are some funny parts, even laugh out loud moments. However, based on first viewing, it doesn't make the cult classic status in my book, but who knows, on a second viewing it might just get there. The only question remains is; will we want to watch it again?
As a footnote, on the DVD is a special feature called Withnail & Us. This is very good and goes someway to explain why the film is so admired, by so many.
Withnail & I
The problem with knowing that a film is hailed as a cult classic, means that you should really like it, if only to be cool, hip and trendy. The problem with that is; what happens if you're not so sure? Do you look uncool, because you don't "get it", or do you feign enjoyment to fit in?
Thus we have the dilemna with Withnail & I. Do we denounce the cult classic status or do we say it was great?
I shall sit firmly on the fence. I can quite clearly see that this could be an enjoyable film, that has students quoting lines ad infinitum. "We seem to have come on holiday by mistake".
However, it sits in a genre alongside This Is Spinal Tap. Classic films that have a cult status thrust upon them, because they are of their time. If Withnail & I were to be produced today, it would probably fail.
Bruce Robinsons' semi-autobiographical story, depicts the end of the 1960's, with two struggling actors sharing a squalid life, who then decide to get away from it all and escape to the country, on a booze filled adventure.
That is pretty much the storyline.
The thing that saves the film for me are the acting skills of Richard E Grant, Paul McGann and Ralph Brown. They absolutley nail their respective characters.
Grant plays the constant drunk; Withnail ("I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze").
McGann plays Marwood, the "& I" character. ("My thumbs have gone weird").
And Ralph Brown is superb as Danny the drug dealing dropout. ("Find your neutral space. You got a rush. It'll pass. Be seated").
So, in summation there are some funny parts, even laugh out loud moments. However, based on first viewing, it doesn't make the cult classic status in my book, but who knows, on a second viewing it might just get there. The only question remains is; will we want to watch it again?
As a footnote, on the DVD is a special feature called Withnail & Us. This is very good and goes someway to explain why the film is so admired, by so many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)