I was recommended The Cell by one of my friends, and she firmly promised me that Jennifer Lopez's acting ability didn't ruin it one bit. So, I decided to give it a go..
The opening scenes of someone riding through a desert was perhaps the oddest way to start a film about murderers. It certainly wasn't what I had prepared myself for, and the only redeeming feature it seems was the flute music in the background - brilliantly played and composed yet didn't seem to match the visual. Jennifer Lopez is then introduced, wearing some sort of wedding dress which only seemed to add to my confusion about the plot of this film. But, trying to be open minded, I carried on watching and just went with it. This scene ended and we switched to the facility they were using to do this weird 'mind transfer' thing, and at about 8 minutes in, I realised I still had no idea what was going on. Nothing had been explained properly - was this set in the future? How did this machine work? I didn't feel connected with the characters or storyline at all at this point, leaving a slight taste of bewilderment.
We then moved on to the main part of the film - the murderer. We saw a process of how the women were tortured and we saw a body being recovered, and pretty much almost instantly, I forgot about Jennifer Lopez. The film seems to have taken a CSI-type feel to it, and switched genre completely. Although from reading reviews and watching the trailer I kind of knew the story, I was still completely confused about what was going on, as we went from airy, wedding-dress-wearing, desert woman to four cops sitting around a table talking about a murder. It really made absolutely no sense.
The best part of this film was Vince Vaughn, and he was definitely the only person I could really connect to. He had a consistent character and we found out about his background thus enabling us to establish him as a person rather than just another actor in the film. Next to J-Lo, his acting ability shone through, overall a good performance from him. When the two random genres collided and we entered into the mind of the killer, you expect it to get good. But rather than why he committed the murders, the writers obviously just wanted to go for the gruesome factor more than anything else. Yes, we see memories from his past and why he is so messed up, but no we don't see a reason or how he targets his victims. The only way they are able to enter his mind is because he, conveniently, has a poorly explained mental problem which means he can't wake up again. It's no wonder this film only won awards to do with costume, make up, and stunts, which were actually quite good. The one scene where J-Lo is in the murderers mind and falls about 55 feet (a stunt double by the name of Jill, well done Jill!) really stood out as something spectacular.
Although this film has been shoddily put together and seems to just be sci-fi forced together with thriller, Vince Vaughn and the music made this film bearable. I gave it 6 stars out of 10 on iMDB, and there is no way that I'll be watching the sequel. I wouldn't really recommend this but give it a go if you want!
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Saturday, 18 May 2013
Review 9: The Great Gatsby
Being an avid F. Scott Fitzgerald fan, I was desperate to see the film version of The Great Gatsby, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan. And so of course, I went on the second night of opening, but was I disappointed?
Having already heard about the change of beginning, I already had low hopes for this film. The start is sloppy, having Nick as an alcoholic in an institution is a lazy idea since, and i quote, he has 'only ever been drunk twice in his life'. He even says that in the movie, and yet he's an alcoholic? The whole book is told in retrospective narrative, which I think they conveyed well in the movie, although they missed out most of Jordan's focaliser. The real surprise was Tobey Maguire. They way he was so detached from the other characters was completely perfect for the role of Nick, and he was exactly how I imagined him in the book. I enjoyed the setting, West Egg and East Egg were perfectly done, and the houses fitted exactly. Gatsby's parties weren't really how I pictured them, but the director had obviously decided to have them as key features and so put most of the money into them. Overall they did show the flamboyance of Gatsby, and the introduction of him was done well. Leonardo DiCaprio did a fantastic job, although his accent was a bit odd. They must have added a lot of 'old sport's to the script, as he definitely didn't say it that much in the book.
One thing that annoyed me was how they missed out so many brilliant lines. My favourite: 'I was privy to the secret griefs of wild, unknown men' was missed, as was the line about breakfast to Gatsby at the end, which signified Nick's final goodbye to him. There were a few things that could have been corrected so easily, as in the book, Wilson uses a shotgun, not a revolver.
As characters go, Nick and Gastby were great. Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) was absolutely perfect, really grasping Tom's essence. Wolfsheim was fabulous, George was good although he was supposed to be really skinny. Now Carey Mulligan. Although she did the sad parts well, Daisy was always supposed to be a bit more.. manipulative. She had Gatsby and Tom in the palm of her hands in the book, and the line 'her voice is full of money' (also missed out, might I add) represented how she just wanted people because of their riches. Myrtle, Isla Fisher, was also a bit of a disappointment, as she was supposed to 'carry her flesh sensuously, like no other woman can', a line again missed out. She was a good housewife, but she wasn't a Myrtle. Elizabeth Debicki was overall a good Jordan, but pretty much most of her cleverly sarcastic lines had been missed out so I felt she wasn't able to show us what she could do. She also needed to be slightly more tom-boyish, being a golf player.
They missed out a scene in New York and another scene with Klipspringer, and the entire funeral scene at the end, which I quite missed as we got to know Gatsby's father. Owl Eyes, a key character in the book, used to tell the truth about society, also only featured once, not really creating an impact at all. This made me sad, because he was supposed to crash a car earlier in the book, but it to not be his fault which foreshadows the later car incident. His line 'the books, they're all real' was also missed.
As you can probably tell, I know Gatsby inside out, and because of this, it completely clouded my judgement on the film. If I hadn't read and studied the book, I probably would have enjoyed it a whole lot more. Overall I'd give this film 7 stars out of 10 on iMDB, as I know they tried their best, but it's impossible to measure up to the greatness that is F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Having already heard about the change of beginning, I already had low hopes for this film. The start is sloppy, having Nick as an alcoholic in an institution is a lazy idea since, and i quote, he has 'only ever been drunk twice in his life'. He even says that in the movie, and yet he's an alcoholic? The whole book is told in retrospective narrative, which I think they conveyed well in the movie, although they missed out most of Jordan's focaliser. The real surprise was Tobey Maguire. They way he was so detached from the other characters was completely perfect for the role of Nick, and he was exactly how I imagined him in the book. I enjoyed the setting, West Egg and East Egg were perfectly done, and the houses fitted exactly. Gatsby's parties weren't really how I pictured them, but the director had obviously decided to have them as key features and so put most of the money into them. Overall they did show the flamboyance of Gatsby, and the introduction of him was done well. Leonardo DiCaprio did a fantastic job, although his accent was a bit odd. They must have added a lot of 'old sport's to the script, as he definitely didn't say it that much in the book.
One thing that annoyed me was how they missed out so many brilliant lines. My favourite: 'I was privy to the secret griefs of wild, unknown men' was missed, as was the line about breakfast to Gatsby at the end, which signified Nick's final goodbye to him. There were a few things that could have been corrected so easily, as in the book, Wilson uses a shotgun, not a revolver.
As characters go, Nick and Gastby were great. Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) was absolutely perfect, really grasping Tom's essence. Wolfsheim was fabulous, George was good although he was supposed to be really skinny. Now Carey Mulligan. Although she did the sad parts well, Daisy was always supposed to be a bit more.. manipulative. She had Gatsby and Tom in the palm of her hands in the book, and the line 'her voice is full of money' (also missed out, might I add) represented how she just wanted people because of their riches. Myrtle, Isla Fisher, was also a bit of a disappointment, as she was supposed to 'carry her flesh sensuously, like no other woman can', a line again missed out. She was a good housewife, but she wasn't a Myrtle. Elizabeth Debicki was overall a good Jordan, but pretty much most of her cleverly sarcastic lines had been missed out so I felt she wasn't able to show us what she could do. She also needed to be slightly more tom-boyish, being a golf player.
They missed out a scene in New York and another scene with Klipspringer, and the entire funeral scene at the end, which I quite missed as we got to know Gatsby's father. Owl Eyes, a key character in the book, used to tell the truth about society, also only featured once, not really creating an impact at all. This made me sad, because he was supposed to crash a car earlier in the book, but it to not be his fault which foreshadows the later car incident. His line 'the books, they're all real' was also missed.
As you can probably tell, I know Gatsby inside out, and because of this, it completely clouded my judgement on the film. If I hadn't read and studied the book, I probably would have enjoyed it a whole lot more. Overall I'd give this film 7 stars out of 10 on iMDB, as I know they tried their best, but it's impossible to measure up to the greatness that is F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Sunday, 28 April 2013
Review 8: In Time
Right so I was originally sceptical about the acting quality of Justin Timberlake, yet something about the trailer told me he would be good in In Time.
The beginning is good, swiftly getting us into the story. The day to day routine that Will Salas goes through is used to show how different your life would be if time was a currency. The use of the time on their hands is quite a good way to induce tension because your heart stops when you think someone's time is going to run out, literally. It also gets you thinking about what you'd do with time if you had to spend and save it. Justin Timberlake is brilliant as Will, as he is able to show his poor background through his later richer character, and uses it to help others as well as himself.
Cillian Murphy does a fantastic job with his character, and the costume set for him really produces an impact. He has changed his voice to be calmer and more steady, which seems to really create an impact. Amanda Seyfried also does a good job, and doesn't take over the storyline by being whiny like many female lead roles. Her view on life in this film really allows us to like and connect with her.
The settings really are fantastic, and ye 'time zones' really show a contrast between the rich and poor living. The futuristic look really works with the storyline There are significant messages in this film which highlight how selfish some people are in the real world, and really shows the power of money and time.
The use of two 'villains' is really effective because it makes the story a lot more hectic, and although we know it's not real, it really does make it slightly more realistic. Alex Pettyfer does a good job of playing the suave Fortis, and he's great at reacting to the other characters.
This film is short, meaning it doesn't go on too long, making it an overall enjoyable viewing experience. I gave this film 8 stars out of 10 on iMDB, and I would recommend it to any people who just want a not too intense, good storyline. Definitely not a sci-fi though.
The beginning is good, swiftly getting us into the story. The day to day routine that Will Salas goes through is used to show how different your life would be if time was a currency. The use of the time on their hands is quite a good way to induce tension because your heart stops when you think someone's time is going to run out, literally. It also gets you thinking about what you'd do with time if you had to spend and save it. Justin Timberlake is brilliant as Will, as he is able to show his poor background through his later richer character, and uses it to help others as well as himself.
Cillian Murphy does a fantastic job with his character, and the costume set for him really produces an impact. He has changed his voice to be calmer and more steady, which seems to really create an impact. Amanda Seyfried also does a good job, and doesn't take over the storyline by being whiny like many female lead roles. Her view on life in this film really allows us to like and connect with her.
The settings really are fantastic, and ye 'time zones' really show a contrast between the rich and poor living. The futuristic look really works with the storyline There are significant messages in this film which highlight how selfish some people are in the real world, and really shows the power of money and time.
The use of two 'villains' is really effective because it makes the story a lot more hectic, and although we know it's not real, it really does make it slightly more realistic. Alex Pettyfer does a good job of playing the suave Fortis, and he's great at reacting to the other characters.
This film is short, meaning it doesn't go on too long, making it an overall enjoyable viewing experience. I gave this film 8 stars out of 10 on iMDB, and I would recommend it to any people who just want a not too intense, good storyline. Definitely not a sci-fi though.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Review 7: Oz the Great and Powerful
Right! Oz the Great and Poweful is a film that I've been dying to see ever since I heard about it, being a fan of Wicked and The Wizard of Oz. Oh, and James Franco of course!
I must say, although the storyline was simple and easy to understand, for a Disney film, it was actually quite enthralling. Although it was set in 1905, the attitudes of Oz and his assistant (Zach Braff) were surprisingly modern. The way they spoke and presented themselves added a seemingly new age essence to the characters, and I couldn't tell if it was done on purpose or not. The setting really captured the audience at first sight, and the clever use of relating the audience members of Oz's show to later characters was quite effective.
James Franco did a spectacular job, conveying his character of the arrogant yet good hearted 'wizard' with the right intensity and flair. And the costume, oh my, the costume. I commend whoever was costume director, because by golly they were good. Everything fitted the characters perfectly and captured the heart of what the story was about, and yet again added a modern twist. I particularly liked Mila Kunis' burgundy hat and jacket, as it was feminine yet cool and collected at the same time. Kunis did a great job as Theodora and I definitely preferred her as being the good witch over the bad witch. Talking of good witches, I also have to mention Michelle Williams as Glinda, as I think she did an absolutely brilliant job. She was spot on with the kindness and was exactly how Glinda should be.
The only thing I have to say I got confused about was the name of the china world. On the sign it said 'Chinatown' and automatically you think of Chinese people, and only later did I get that it was referring to actual china as in the crockery. I think it would have been slightly better if it was named something else, but that was probably to do with the book rather than the writers.
Although there are many continuity errors according the book, this story was directed brilliantly and will capture the hearts of many children in the world. I gave it 8 stars out of 10 on iMDB and it was a great cinema experience.
I must say, although the storyline was simple and easy to understand, for a Disney film, it was actually quite enthralling. Although it was set in 1905, the attitudes of Oz and his assistant (Zach Braff) were surprisingly modern. The way they spoke and presented themselves added a seemingly new age essence to the characters, and I couldn't tell if it was done on purpose or not. The setting really captured the audience at first sight, and the clever use of relating the audience members of Oz's show to later characters was quite effective.
James Franco did a spectacular job, conveying his character of the arrogant yet good hearted 'wizard' with the right intensity and flair. And the costume, oh my, the costume. I commend whoever was costume director, because by golly they were good. Everything fitted the characters perfectly and captured the heart of what the story was about, and yet again added a modern twist. I particularly liked Mila Kunis' burgundy hat and jacket, as it was feminine yet cool and collected at the same time. Kunis did a great job as Theodora and I definitely preferred her as being the good witch over the bad witch. Talking of good witches, I also have to mention Michelle Williams as Glinda, as I think she did an absolutely brilliant job. She was spot on with the kindness and was exactly how Glinda should be.
The only thing I have to say I got confused about was the name of the china world. On the sign it said 'Chinatown' and automatically you think of Chinese people, and only later did I get that it was referring to actual china as in the crockery. I think it would have been slightly better if it was named something else, but that was probably to do with the book rather than the writers.
Although there are many continuity errors according the book, this story was directed brilliantly and will capture the hearts of many children in the world. I gave it 8 stars out of 10 on iMDB and it was a great cinema experience.
Saturday, 6 April 2013
Review 6: Vertigo
As promised, here is my review of Alfred Hitchcock's 'Vertigo'.
Going into this film I have to say, I expected a lot more of a horror type atmosphere, but it was generally a lot more laid back than I thought (after the initial death at the start, of course). At the beginning, I found the character of Scottie (James Stewart), to be not very likeable. It may be because of his piercing blue eyes, which made him seem quite cold, but in the end actually contributed quite well to his character. I connected to him more as I went through the film because I was able to learn about him and his life.
I really liked the character of Madeleine, because Kim Novak played her extremely well. I'm quite surprised I've never heard of her, because she's so beautiful and actually quite talented. I connected with her character immediately, and she manages to balance her normal self and her 'hypnotised' side really well together, pulling off a very convincing performance. She is the character that stands out the most and I'm definitely considering watching some of her other films.
I have to say, I wasn't completely satisfied with this film, as some parts just didn't make sense to me. The character of Midge didn't seem to have any purpose whatsoever, and I didn't really understand their relationship. He's not dating her, but he has a key to her house? Despite this, I did enjoy the use of the settings, as they were really emphasised in the plot as having some significance, and they worked well with the story.
I particularly enjoyed the storyline because it was quite individual, like nowadays everything seems to be quite similar unless it's a thriller or indie film. If you enjoy an enticing story with twists everywhere, this is definitely for you. I gave it 6 stars out of 10 on iMDB because although it was good, it wasn't anything particularly special.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Review 5: Twelve Monkeys
Hello again folks, and welcome to the fifth entry of haveyouseenitall.com. Notice the brand new banner and enjoy the progress this blog is making!
So, I read a post about the ten best time travel films of all time, and upon reading it, I saw a film called Twelve Monkeys. Naturally, I was attracted to it because of Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and the mention of a mental institution.
This film is well pieced together, visually captivating and has a brilliant storyline (credited from La Jetee, of course). We start off in Bruce Willis' dream, of a woman running towards a man. This is not explained to us, straight away hooking the audience. This is repeated throughout the film, creating a recurring theme, allowing us to link back with other parts of the storyline, and also making us desperate to find out what's going on. One of my favourite parts has to be when we are first introduced to Brad Pitt. His mannerisms are absolutely fantastic, and the use of the cartoon television noises behind him really emphasised his madness. He was completely captivating, no wonder he won countless awards for 'Best Actor in Supporting Role' for this film. The continuing mannerisms made him stand out above all others, and even (dare I say it?) above Bruce Willis, although he did impress me with some of his scenes. He was able to show how different his world was to the others around him, which is a skill that not many actors have. Madeleine Stowe also put in a good appearance, playing the role of psychiatrist turned runaway with ease.
Another aspect of the film that stood out for me was the French inspired background music, obviously taken from La Jetee. It really worked with the different scenes and was integrated well in order to create emphasis and tension within the storyline. Terry Gwilliam directed this film brilliantly, and integrated the future and past fluently. Despite this, if you're one of those people who didn't get 'Inception' or 'Avatar', this may not be the film for you.
Overall, my IMDb rating for this film was 9 stars out of 10, as I really enjoyed the direction and feel to it. It's definitely one to watch again and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys really good films. I was also inspired to watch Alfred Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', as one of the scenes is shown in this film. Look out for that review coming your way soon!
So, I read a post about the ten best time travel films of all time, and upon reading it, I saw a film called Twelve Monkeys. Naturally, I was attracted to it because of Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and the mention of a mental institution.
This film is well pieced together, visually captivating and has a brilliant storyline (credited from La Jetee, of course). We start off in Bruce Willis' dream, of a woman running towards a man. This is not explained to us, straight away hooking the audience. This is repeated throughout the film, creating a recurring theme, allowing us to link back with other parts of the storyline, and also making us desperate to find out what's going on. One of my favourite parts has to be when we are first introduced to Brad Pitt. His mannerisms are absolutely fantastic, and the use of the cartoon television noises behind him really emphasised his madness. He was completely captivating, no wonder he won countless awards for 'Best Actor in Supporting Role' for this film. The continuing mannerisms made him stand out above all others, and even (dare I say it?) above Bruce Willis, although he did impress me with some of his scenes. He was able to show how different his world was to the others around him, which is a skill that not many actors have. Madeleine Stowe also put in a good appearance, playing the role of psychiatrist turned runaway with ease.
Another aspect of the film that stood out for me was the French inspired background music, obviously taken from La Jetee. It really worked with the different scenes and was integrated well in order to create emphasis and tension within the storyline. Terry Gwilliam directed this film brilliantly, and integrated the future and past fluently. Despite this, if you're one of those people who didn't get 'Inception' or 'Avatar', this may not be the film for you.
Overall, my IMDb rating for this film was 9 stars out of 10, as I really enjoyed the direction and feel to it. It's definitely one to watch again and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys really good films. I was also inspired to watch Alfred Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', as one of the scenes is shown in this film. Look out for that review coming your way soon!
Friday, 22 March 2013
Review 4: Stage Door
Now I know not everyone goes for the whole black and white film thing, but if you're a film nut and you appreciate the pure talent of Ginger Rogers and Katharine Hepburn, Stage Door is definitely for you.
The quick-witted one liners between the girls provide endless amounts of hilarity and fun, and the pure brilliance of the writing really shows up the shoddy films of today. You connect with the characters, you enjoy spending time with them and getting to know them, and when one is suddenly killed off, you mourn because you had no idea it was going to happen. The unpredictability of it allowed me to get sucked in and watch without any distractions, as I didn't want to miss a single minute. As it's a 1930s film, you have the generic 'lets just show the actor's face' camera angles that have normally been overdone (mentioning no names, Young at Heart), but you don't seem to register them as much, purely because the scenes are so active. At times it was manic, like the beginning where Jean is arguing with another girl and the housekeeper picks up the phone and talks at the same time, but all in all, it was thoroughly enjoyable. Gregory La Cava did a fantastic job directing it all and I can definitely see myself watching more films directed by him.
I enjoyed Ginger Roger's character of Jean because she was, as some would say, sassy. She wasn't afraid to speak her mind and yet not in the annoying way. The casting was spot on, and her ability to bounce off other actors is truly fantastic. Although the writers did a truly excellent job, she made the lines come alive. In fact, all the actors did. I would especially like to mention Eve Arden (who you'll all know as the Principal in Grease and Grease 2!) as she does a particularly brilliant job, and I guess other people felt the same way at the time since it was the part that gained her success in her acting career.
Although Katherine Hepburn does a fabulous job, her character wasn't really likeable so I didn't really feel able to connect as well as with Jean, but nonetheless she fitted the character perfectly and pulled off a suave debonair performance.
My IMDb rating was 10 stars out of 10 since I enjoyed it so much! I will definitely be watching more Ginger Rogers films in the future!
The quick-witted one liners between the girls provide endless amounts of hilarity and fun, and the pure brilliance of the writing really shows up the shoddy films of today. You connect with the characters, you enjoy spending time with them and getting to know them, and when one is suddenly killed off, you mourn because you had no idea it was going to happen. The unpredictability of it allowed me to get sucked in and watch without any distractions, as I didn't want to miss a single minute. As it's a 1930s film, you have the generic 'lets just show the actor's face' camera angles that have normally been overdone (mentioning no names, Young at Heart), but you don't seem to register them as much, purely because the scenes are so active. At times it was manic, like the beginning where Jean is arguing with another girl and the housekeeper picks up the phone and talks at the same time, but all in all, it was thoroughly enjoyable. Gregory La Cava did a fantastic job directing it all and I can definitely see myself watching more films directed by him.
I enjoyed Ginger Roger's character of Jean because she was, as some would say, sassy. She wasn't afraid to speak her mind and yet not in the annoying way. The casting was spot on, and her ability to bounce off other actors is truly fantastic. Although the writers did a truly excellent job, she made the lines come alive. In fact, all the actors did. I would especially like to mention Eve Arden (who you'll all know as the Principal in Grease and Grease 2!) as she does a particularly brilliant job, and I guess other people felt the same way at the time since it was the part that gained her success in her acting career.
Although Katherine Hepburn does a fabulous job, her character wasn't really likeable so I didn't really feel able to connect as well as with Jean, but nonetheless she fitted the character perfectly and pulled off a suave debonair performance.
My IMDb rating was 10 stars out of 10 since I enjoyed it so much! I will definitely be watching more Ginger Rogers films in the future!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)