• Not normally my thing, and I've had my fingers burned with 'film' this year already.
• I have very little background/baggage with this. I know who the principal characters are, but that's about it.
• Judi Dench is in this, and plays Judi Dench. As usual.
• Dominic Cooper, fresh from his role as Howard Stark in Captain America is in this, and plays Howard Stark again.
• If the playwright Arthur Miller actually went around as if he was acting his life quite badly, then Dougray Scott's on great form.
That being said:
Film of the year.
I'm entirely serious. My Week With Marilyn is funny, poignant, and, most importantly, completely engaging from the first frame to the last. I identified with, and cared for, all the characters. Maybe I was just in the right receptive mood, but as a 'film', I can't recommend this highly enough.
Not having any great exposure to the actual Marilyn Monroe, I'd say that Michelle Williams does an outstanding job of her portrayal. Fragile without being brittle, highly-strung without being demanding, completely fucked up without being unlikeable. What's more, for the first forty-five minutes, this isn't 'the Marilyn Monroe Show'. Her character's introduced gently, and not before we've had time to acclimatise to the other leads. Eddie Redmayne's portrayal of biographer Colin Clark is heavy on the naivety, but I'm assuming that's intended. And it still makes for an excellent penultimate scene between the two.
As a side note, I'll just say that Kenneth Brannagh as Olivier is absolutely fantastic, displaying the same characteristics as Marilyn, but which manifest themselves in different ways. With the possible snags of the cast members I mentioned in the preamble, this is superbly acted all round (and Dame Judi does come off as incredibly likeable, she's just "Judi Dench" now).
On top of the acting, we've got a beautiful camerawork, locations, score and pacing. This really is the most exquisite film I've seen in a long time. It also helps that running alongside the faltering love-story, this is a film about making films. Talk of red-lights, table-readings and rushes geek me right out.
If you think this might be remotely your thing, it's well worth the £8 to see it in the cinema; the setting's perfectly suited to the content.
Movie of the year? No. Film of the year? Without a doubt, yes.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Hello. Atrociously late in reviewing this one (but let's face it, it's not like my review was going to be your deciding factor in going to see this) for which I apologise profusely. Ramping up for the Christmas Season at Blackout Towers, and very little time on the internets. But I digress.
So. The fourth Twilight movie, and the third of which I've seen in the cinema. A good strategy seems to be Monday nights. It's not the weekend, it's not cheap-Tuesday or Orange Wednesday, so you actually get a fairly quiet crowd, as opposed to the sold-out auditorium of 14yr old girls who can't leave their phones alone for two hours*1 (which was what I was expecting).
Skip to the End… I'm not kidding, there is nothing (no.thing.) in the first hour of this movie that couldn't be summed up in a 3-to-5 minute montage. They get married, those two mopey arseholes square up to each other, they drive down to Rio, they get on a boat, they have the kind of sex-scene that gets more embarrassing to watch the older you are, they both fucking mope about for an hour, and then they realise Bella's pregnant and that's not a good thing (because it was always going to be, wasn't it? Mating a human with a non-human, and just blithely assuming that everything would go swimmingly). Apparently 'the honeymoon' covers a two period. I'll be honest, it felt much longer. Once they get back to Edward's gaff, the passage-of-time is similarly skewed (oh, they've been back for a month, but you could show that in five minutes), but at least we start getting meaningful interaction*2 from other members of the cast. Considering there's slightly less than usual of Bella fucking sighing around the house even though it still happens, the second hour is good. It almost makes up for the first one.
Soundtrack Overload: What the fuck is with the constant soundtracking? It's almost as if there was no score written for the film at all. The only time I want to hear that many songs-with-lyrics in a film is when I'm watching a fucking musical.
Subtitling of the wolves: Or lack thereof. I understand why we need the human voiceovers when the wolves are talking to each other in full dog-mode; to carry over the inflections that are limited when your animated wolves are… well, wolves. But I'll be honest, it just comes off as silly. Which is a shame, because I'm really liking the rest of the wolf-concept*3.
Slowly Slowly, Catchee Vampee: Home come Meyer's vampires can move faster-than-sight when it comes to packing bags in a hurry (no, seriously), but the minute they're being chased through heavy woodland by a 300-pound wolf, they fucking dawdle enough to be caught? Or were they just weighed down by the feeding they'd just done? And while I'm on there's a scene where Rosalie*4 comes into the room and walks past a mirror, and she's got a reflection. That shouldn't even be worth mentioning at this stage, but it still irks me:
Q: Do you need human blood to survive? A: Well, I can manage without it, although I do get a bit sulky.
Q: Do you burst into flames in day/sunlight? A: No. Cloudy days are fine, and in the sun I go a bit 'sparkly', I suppose.
Q: Do you have a reflection in a mirror? A: Yes. Yes, I do.
You're not a fucking vampire. You're a goth.
Summed Up: The first hour? Fucking awful. The second hour? I enjoyed it very much, although I can understand how other people might also think it's fucking awful. If you've liked any of the Twlight films, you'll like (some of) this. But let's be honest, you knew that anyway, didn't you?
Yeah, a four. Oh, it was alright. Eventually.
*1 I know it's a pet peeve on mine, but during the first hour of this, I was tempted to start texting people, if only to warn them away from the cinema… *2 Okay, as meaningful as you're going to get in a Twilight movie. I know, alright? *3 That said, full props to David Reed of Film Fandango Podcast when he pointed out that although they pull their shirts off before changing, their trousers just seem to turn into a dog. *4 Oh, look at me. Knowing the characters' names...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
I can't wait for this to hit the shops...
^^ Click for bigger, 800*1000px, 312kb, opens in new window.
(Not sure what inspired this, it was just rattling around in my head for a couple of weeks)
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Hmm. The Ides of March is a difficult one for me to review, as I have very little to compare it to. Political thrillers aren't usually my thing, and while I enjoyed this, it's done little to make me change my viewing habits.
It's a tale, as I suspect many are, about how politicians are not to to be trusted (no matter what flag they're flying), and as a result neither are the people that work for them. Or the press. Don't trust the press (but you knew that already). I think the thing I liked most about the film is the gradual reveal of the characterisation. In their own ways, the major players are all arseholes, and while they appear likeable (or at least bearable) at first, this isn't a story about how power/greed corrupts them - they were like that all along, you just weren't seeing it.
The 'political' politics is kept to a minimum (it's more of a setting than a theme) allowing some strong performances to come through to an international audience who aren't as au fait with the US system as its homegrown audience. With Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti on-board, you might expect it to get bogged down, but it's surprisingly boldly-paced, considering some of the subject matter. Gosling, Clooney and Wood are all on fine, fine form, too.
It's talky and it doesn't spoon-feed the audience that much (and I actually heard two people in the cinema audience give a "wha..?" when it ended the way it does) but if you're in the mood, this is a very engaging film.
For someone who doesn't do politics, I approve wholeheartedly.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Last year it was Back To The Future, this year Jurassic Park and Ghostbusters. If I can convince Cineworld to show Weird Science and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, their education of The Kids of Today will be complete...
So yeah; Ghostbusters! At the pictures! Awesome!
It's fantastic to see this in digital projection, and for the most part, the film's been cleaned up a treat. The puppets still look fantastic, and the stop-animation still looks really clunky in places (particularly when it's intercut with the puppets, like Vinz Clortho* at Louis Tully's party), but that only really adds to the charm, for me.
There are little details you don't really see on DVD, like the Stay Puft marshmallows on the kitchen worktop when the eggs start frying themselves, and the Stay Puft billboard on the side of the building later (it really is a horrendous product placement). Also worth mentioning that Bill Murray's performance somehow comes over differently in a cinema. It's somehow much more his film when you're seeing it that big, and a lot of his deadpan lines that passed me by during home viewings are prominently on display. The downside of this, of course, is that his performance then seems whackily over-acted for the remainder of the film.
It's also bizarre to see a film where the heroes are constantly walking around smoking, apparently without a trace of irony.
ANYWAY, no matter what observations I might make, old or new, this is one of the greatest films of all time.
Oh, and Weaver's pretty damn hot in this, isn't she? O_o
*How come Vinz Clortho gets a surname, but Zuul is just 'Zuul'?
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Immortals (3D) 14th November 2011. Location: Cinema
Immortals is a bit like a car crash involving 300 and The Hero's Journey. And like a car crash, no-one walks away unscathed.
It tries its hand at many things; slick bullet-time actioner, grand-scale epic, inspirational fantasy flick, bloody and brutal fight scenes, muscly men for the ladies, saucy ethereal chicks for the guys… it can't quite succeed at any of them. It does try, just not hard enough. The film's not as god-awful as many reviewers would have you believe, but you have seen this before, and done far more convincingly than this. The 3D's passable, if underused. The acting's workable, given the clunky generic script. The scenery is somehow very drab; a desaturated palette mixed with large, featureless landscapes makes it all seem like it's been autopainted in. Sadly, you can also apply this to the rest of the movie. It feels like it's capable of so much more, but no-one was really paying that much attention apart from the fight-scenes featuring the Greek gods. Now those are nicely done, but too few and far between to save the film.
There are a lot of names in here who should know better, but I guess a) everyone's got to earn a living, and b) you don't know it's a turkey until it comes steaming out of the oven.
If you want chicks, go watch Suckerpunch. If you want gods, go watch Clash of the Titans. If you want action, go watch Prince of Persia. This film tries to be a mix of the three, and it turns out like you'd expect that to.
I'll give it a three, but frankly that's generous. It's just not as fucking awful as Conan.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
A bit late, I know, but we've only just got it at our local flicks. Pffft. Oh, and Usual Rules Apply: I haven't read the book of this, so I wasn't comparing it to its literary predecessor.
Set against the early stages of the American Civil Rights movement, you might not necessarily expect a lot of the humour that's written into The Help, and there are several laugh-out-loud moments. In fact, you'd probably be psyched up for a fairly earnest and hard-hitting drama with a hefty moral message. Well, its morals are in the right place, as is its earnestness, but it never seems to really pack any weight behind its punches.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a laugh-a-minute, and it certainly doesn't skirt around the central issue of racial prejudice and inequality. But the big events in the movie (like the rioting in the town of Jackson, where the film is set) are skipped over swiftly, and many events are described or alluded to without being shown.
The downside of this is that when the uplifting moments of the film reach their crescendo, they feel slightly empty, just as the tragedies did.
The aspect of the film that affected me most, however, is knowing that the frankly jaw-dropping attitudes on display in the film are part of civilised humanity's very recent history. In that respect, it's beautifully written and acted, and deserves your attention.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised. Look what I found in the loft! Old school goodness on cassette tape!
Jet Set Windu is a computer game originally written for the ZX Spectrum home computer, and subsequentally ported onto the Amstrad and Commmodore computer systems. It was published in 1985 by UDC Digital, under license from LucasFilm Ltd, and used a modified Jet Set Willy game engine. The game is almost identical in concept and execution to Jet Set Willy, but it set in the Star Wars universe, utilizing characters and scenarios from the films.
And a closer look at that cover...
I know what I'm playing for the Winter months...
And because I love you all so much, here are the individual characters...
Update: Fixed the resolution issues on No Place Like Homestead. The old one's here.
Many thanks to Arantor for reminding me that people will notice ;)
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Although the trailer makes it look a little whacky, most of the performances in Brett Ratner's Tower Heist are fairly understated. Sure, Eddie Murphy does his wide-eyed-shrieky thing a bit, and it's hard not to be a little slapstick when you've got a Ferarri winched over the edge of a skyscraper while the Thanksgiving Day parade trundles beneath unaware, but considering the film is constantly amusing, it's got a muted tension to it.
I daresay some of that's down to the subject matter in the current financial climate, and each member of he audience wondering what they'd do if a rogue investor swindled them out of every penny they've saved. And to his credit, Alan Alda doesn't pantomime his villain up at all; he's slimy, sure, but only in the way you see regularly on news and current affairs programmes.
Hark at me, making this all serious!Tower Heist is a very entertaining film. It's fast-paced to start with, and then slows to a more manageable level, but it doesn't fail to engage at all. A borderline-farcical crescendo gives way to a satisfying ending without being too clichéd. Ben Stiller reins in his comic-exasperation, while Matthew Broderick and Téa Leoni quite happily take a back seat to Stiller and Murphy's antagonistic double-act.
It's better than I was expecting it to be. All in all, worth a gander.
Try not to think too hard about the maximum weight capacity of your average elevator, and you'll be fine.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
In Time is the third cinema-film I've seen this year that stars JustinTimberlake. That statistic would be worrying if it wasn't also the fifth that's starred Olivia Wilde…
A futuristic action-thriller where time is the currency of mankind, and Will Salas (Timberlake) is living day-to-day in the ghetto where most people wake up without enough on the clock to see them 'til the evening. Basic commodities cost precious minutes and life is a balancing act for those struggling through it. On the other side of this, and several time-zones away, society's elite have more time than they could ever want, and live in opulent disregard for the unfortunates. Crime is rife in the ghetto, but through a chance encounter with a philanthropist, Salas is set on a course to try and seize justice, and time, for all…
The Good: Timberlake's on fairly good form here, as is Olivia Wilde. The script, plot and pacing are all clear enough. Despite it seeming like an outlandish concept, it works quite well in context. None of the characters are completely believable, but given the scenario of the film, they're not going to be. Generally speaking, it's respectable performances all round.
The Bad:Yeah, it's a pretty heavy-handed metaphor for capitalism, and feels a little overdone in the first half-hour or so. I expected it to get quite preachy in the final act, about 'not wasting the time you have', but surprisingly they've eased off on that. As a result, though, the ending seems a little limp; and things more or less slot into place for the characters, one way or another, and it all seems a little easy. Another downside is that in this undisclosed future-Earth (set at least 100 years after our time, but probably more), humans are genetically modified to stop ageing at 25 when their 'clock' kicks in and they have to buy time to survive. So, you just cast a bunch of 25yr olds, right? Well, for the most part it works fairly well, but it doesn't explain how Timekeeper Leon (Cillian Murphy) looks about 40 (especially as Murphy's actually 35). On the flip side of this, when you have Vincent Kartheiser playing a 25yr old-looking man who's aged over 100, and he puts on the pomp and concern that befits his character, it feels a little like a sci-fi Bugsy Malone. It's not a biggie, but it doesn't quite add up. And lastly (I promise), there's a partially-revealed backstory about Will's father, that concerns Leon. Some details are discussed and more are hinted at, but we never get a complete picture. Cut for time?
The Ugly: Alex Pettyfer, trying to channel his best 'Ray Winstone' as a ruthless but well-spoken ghetto gangster. Sadly, he has neither the presence or the gravitas to do this. Frankly, it's a bit embarrassing.
All-in-All: Despite my moaning, there, it's very enjoyable. Although I feel they could have done more with it, given an extra half an hour and a more adventurous plot.
See if you liked:The Adjustment Bureau, Source Code.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Hmm. I can't really objectively review a film I've loved for the last 22 years (even though this was the first time I'd seen it in a cinema (even though I've been regularly watching it live for the last 15 years)).
Our nearest Cineworld screened this for Hallowe'en, so obviously Mrs Blackout and myself went along (it being our anniversary an'all). A sizeable chunk of the almost-sold-out crowd were dressed in character (not me; not my style, I'm afraid). Curiously, of the half-an-auditorium that stood up to do the timewarp, only about half of those actually knew the steps (which is an achievement when it's a song that describes the moves itself). There was also some hesitant audience participation in the form of the accepted heckling*1, but I think the night's crowd were more used to seeing the live-production where a lot more people are joining in, and it's more... well, interactive*2.
Hmm. I've made that sound a bit crap. It really wasn't. If you like tacky b-movies and musicals, Rocky Horror is an astounding movie, and a great time was had by all.
Look, it's not really that easy to explain. On several occasions, my BFF has asked me to explain what the fuss is about, and I can't really do it. The only way to know if you'll like The Rocky Horror Show is to watch it. It's sort of kill-or-cure; I don't know anyone who's ambivalent towards it.
A solid 6 because I love it to bits.
*1 I don't know how else to describe it. It's what the audience shout at the stage during the live productions. It's evolved over the years and is accepted/expected by the performers.
*2 You haven't enjoyed the theatre until you've seen David Bedella walk to the front of the stage and silently mouth 'SHUT THE FUCK UP!' to an audience member who was getting a little out of hand, even for a RH audience member.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
